this is my idea...and you can see video in my youtube chanel : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csWqd_zchro
Hi Julio,
I answer your post here too, although you posted the same setup in another thread: https://overunity.com/17417/skinner-1939-gravity-machine-centrifugal-force-tests-and-hope/msg526777/#msg526777 (https://overunity.com/17417/skinner-1939-gravity-machine-centrifugal-force-tests-and-hope/msg526777/#msg526777)
And you have got some responses there, this thread you started would be better to discuss.
So the point is that your setup looks 'promising' because the usual sticky spot such magnetic gates have is greatly reduced by gravity (gravitational force stored in a spring).
As Norman said in the other thread: go for it i.e. build it.
Gyula
Hello I think that spring and weight can be dropped as well
the top magnet needs to be replaced by a switched aircore coil.
Need some external power for start up but once it gets on speed... remove.
Even the simple reed switch will work but a uchip and hall sensor that adjust pulse width will improve efficiency many fold.
Hi Turbo,
It is an interesting simplification you are suggesting. I guess you mean replacing the top magnet with an air core coil I indicated with a green arrow and you did not mean replacing the magnet with the coil I encircled in green, right?
Please clarify, sorry for this dumb question...
My problem is that a coil and permanent magnet interaction always involves Lenz law and there can be no gain there, unless I miss something you really mean but have not mentioned.
Anyway, thanks for your addition, it reminds me of another interesting idea showed by someone many years ago in Stefan Hartmann's earlier yahoo mail group on free energy, see 2nd attachment. Unfortunately, I am not aware of a successful replication of his idea.
Thanks, Gyula
Hello without iron core.
The aircore will not have any sticky point so there is no need to bridge the gap.(at all)
It only needs to be powered to start the thing.
Will start slowly and store kinetic energy and if that gate is good, speed up.
Hi Turbo,
Well, "without iron core": this I understood. What needs further understanding is how the stored kinetic energy can be 'profitable' versus the pulsed input energy to the coil? I know you did not state anything 'profitable' but Julio's setup has the same chance, without any further input energy once it has started its spinning by a small input.
Hello there is no 'profitable' in those permanent magnet setups, i am sorry to read that you still believe in that.
If you light up a light bulb and show it to a primordial human they will think that you are a God.
Give them the light bulb, and they will spend the rest of their live trying to make it glow.
They do not know that you had a battery that supplied the necessary energy to heat up the filament.
The same is true for magnets.
In the case of magnetic fields, and this is important, the energy gain you and all others are so very interested in, is very small.
I can not say you all, but certainly most of the people are working on the wrong end of the spectrum.
What i mean by that it that most people are using the strongest magnets they can get their hands on combined with iron cored coils, with tremendous sticky spots, which completely nullify that feeble amount of the energy you so badly try to extract.
Consider it a tiny drop on a full bucket, it needs to be able to run freely, any resistance it encounters will make it vanish.
This means air cores and speed, and no sticky spots, any iron in it's vicinity will make it stop.
I hope you realize that the air core pulse width decreases with speed.
While induction increases with speed.
Of course there will be resistance when you try to load it so the loading mechanism has to have a specific timing degree as well, let's just say balanced loading..
But that's of no importance when you just leave that part out to start with.
I can even go further and say that you can swap the magnets for equally sized pieces of iron as long as you use the exact same construction of the gate.
That means you can omit the magnets entirely, does that answer your question about 'profitable' ?
Of course in that case it would become harder to load it, induction wise, and so it would be hard to create a feedback loop that makes the field of the aircore coil stronger on every cycle...
But that illustrates nicely that it's not really about those magnets, but focus more on (elektro)magnetic attraction.
Hi Turbo,
On the word "profitable" I meant any extra energy available from your proposed setup beyond the input neccessary for a continuous operation. If the extra energy is just enough for sustaining a continuous operation of the rotor, that is already a gain in itself, a self-running situation.
From your yesterday posts I see your proposed setup also needs an initial input for speeding the rotor up, then it would remain self sustaining and the start-up input could be removed. Fine.
My problem with this is that (and no offense intended) what you say sounds like "Baro Münchausen lifting himself up by his own hair" while the setup from Julio with the weight and spring does not sound like that for me.
Because then the setup would need to produce a little bit more energy than what would be needed to defeat air drag, coil loss, rectifier loss, uchip feed etc, just from the rotor's own kinetic energy (after the speed-up).
I understand that an increasing rotor speed involves a decreasing air core pulse and an increasing induction. I also understand what you mean by "the loading mechanism has to have a specific timing degree".
Well, it is very strange for me when you say the magnets can be swapped by equally sized iron pieces in the exact same construction of the gate... In this case how can you maintain the initial input energy that was needed for speeding up the rotor ?
I know you did not say energy is created but how would you make the air cored coil's field stronger on every cycle with having iron pieces instead of the rotor magnets?
Any further info you would kindly share would be appreciated. (I will not run to a patent office... do not care about such).
Thanks, Gyula
No the iron pieces can not be used to create the feedback loop.
I think you mis read that part.
If you want a simple demonstration about that free movement, take a piece of cloth wire and suspend some strong neodymium magnet in the air free to move.
You will see it will align itself to the earth's magnetic field.
Give it a spin and see what happens.
You will feel it cutting the lines of flux, you will see a point of resistance, and when you flip it over that, a point of release.
Imagine canceling out the point where it finds that most resistance by a small pulse on the air core.
I have had 'self spinners' by using cube magnets they spin until the resistance of the wound up cotton wire becomes too much.
It's not hard to try this im sure most of you guy's have a few magnets and some cotton wire laying around.
Hi Turbo,
Well, I did not write the iron pieces can be used to create the feedback loop, rather I asked two questions in connection with your mention of replacing the permanent magnets with iron pieces.
Gyula
The design is not new and has been around for quite some time, but ignored, because magnet<>magnet setups are the most reactive.
Quote from: gyulasun on November 07, 2018, 03:43:47 PM
Hi Turbo,
Well, I did not write the iron pieces can be used to create the feedback loop, rather I asked two questions in connection with your mention of replacing the permanent magnets with iron pieces.
Gyula
I said that only to show that the
magnets could be eliminated entirely and the thing would still rotate without any magnets.
That by itself should show you that the magnetic field is not the magnet, remove the permanent magnet, the thing still rotates, obviously it shows that the magnetic field is a property of space itself !
I have been trying to get this across for many years but it never registers with anybody..
The magnets are only a lens that concentrate what is already present everywhere.
In simple terms:
1. Increasing Phase ---> magnet or iron is being attracted into the (elektro)magnetic field, the closer it gets, the more field lines are concentrated, or bundled.
2. Decreasing Phase ---> magnet or metal moves away from the field.
If magnet<>magnet is used this is the inescapable sticky spot.
But not in the case of the air core, because you can simply switch that off
or even reverse it and the rotor will continue to spin towards it's next cycle without resistive sticky spot.
The experiment with the free moving magnets is important.
It can open your mind and it is very easy to do.
The minimal resistance setup enables you to see and discover more.
hi Turbo
You say you could replace all the magnets with iron pieces and still have rotation?
You will still need at least one magnet to create attraction of the iron , at the start the first piece is the farthest away and
as the wheel rotates each piece gets progressively closer, the last piece will be the closest, so stop the wheel.That's where you need to pulse an attractive force to pull the wheel through and begin again.But now you need so form of supply input.artv
Quote from: shylo on November 08, 2018, 03:58:09 AM
hi Turbo
You say you could replace all the magnets with iron pieces and still have rotation?
You will still need at least one magnet to create attraction of the iron , at the start the first piece is the farthest away and
as the wheel rotates each piece gets progressively closer, the last piece will be the closest, so stop the wheel.That's where you need to pulse an attractive force to pull the wheel through and begin again.But now you need so form of supply input.artv
No magnets, no sticky spot.
That it the whole point i was making.
The iron is attracted to the field surrounding the air core coil, no magnets involved.
You can definitely just use one stationary magnet and one piece of metal going around the wheel instead of a bunch of magnets going around the wheel.
When the wheel drops down to avoid the sticky spot, you also disrupt the oscillation between the weight and the spring, so the wheel actually wants to slow down. However, the "V-gate" supplies the same amount of drive energy. This means if the system was frictionless, it would spin forever, but you cannot take enery out of it.
It's like holding an imbalanced wheel by hand, and spin it, it will viberate and stop relatively soon without the same abount of input energy. However, if the same imbalanced wheel was fixed firmly, it would have spun freely for a long time without input energy.
No matter what I say about your idea, I would suggest to build it. Only then you will KNOW how it works :-)
Vidar
Hi Vidar,
The thing I agree with you is that the setup should be built to see how it behaves.
During the tests the weight should be changed to find the best match to the spring force at a certain RPM. You do not want to use too heavy weight or too mild spring and / or the other way round. Also, the RPM of the wheel should also be choosen not to let the spring being fully pressed when the weight just passes at the 6 o'clock position.
And as I see this (and assuming the setup would at least self run under a no load condition), the useful shaft torque (the output) would be within a relatively narrow range (and I do not mean this a drawback). Maximum shaft torque would be mainly defined by the magnets strength used in the V gate.
Gyula
Quote from: Turbo on November 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM...
In simple terms:
1. Increasing Phase ---> magnet or iron is being attracted into the (elektro)magnetic field, the closer it gets, the more field lines are concentrated, or bundled.
2. Decreasing Phase ---> magnet or metal moves away from the field.
If magnet<>magnet is used this is the inescapable sticky spot.
But not in the case of the air core, because you can simply switch that off or even reverse it and the rotor will continue to spin towards it's next cycle without resistive sticky spot.
...
In other simple terms :
1. Increasing phase ---> the magnet or iron is attracted into the (electro)magnetic field, so the variation of flux through the coil implies a counter-EMF (Lenz's law) with the consequence that the generator must supply energy.
2. Decreasing phase ---> the magnet or metal moves away from the field. To switch-off current in the coil allows the continuation of the movement without the sticky point, right.
Congratulations, you have reinvented the electric commutated motor.
Quote
It can open your mind and it is very easy to do.
Sure. No body was aware of this great invention, the first achievements of which were manufactured in the 19th century and today improved and buyable on amazon.
;D ;D ;D ::)
See here is a real fallacy from your mind.
Nowhere is my explanation a commutator to be found yet your brain has added one in the search of a reference.
Because that is how your brain works, when it sees something, it starts to search the database of all the things that it has seen before, and will return the closes match, which in this case is: the electric commutated motor.
This way you will never find something new.
Funny thing is that just one line later it goes about keeping an open mind, well you just failed miserably at that !!
One assertion:
Quote from: Turbo on November 20, 2018, 02:10:43 AM
Nowhere is my explanation a commutator to be found yet your brain has added one in the search of a reference.
and its contrary:
Quote from: Turbo on November 07, 2018, 08:34:21 PM
you can simply switch that off or even reverse it and the rotor will continue to spin towards it's next cycle without resistive sticky spot.
To switch off or reverse current implies a switch or commutator, mechanical or electronic. Quote from: Turbo on November 20, 2018, 02:10:43 AM
See here is a real fallacy from your mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
It's just so sad man.
Even if someone would show you a self runner and explain to you how it operates.
You would still explain it away because of your mental references that tell you its this or that and it can't work because of this and that and its sad to see people stuck.
But it is what it is you will never escape it I can yell you that much.
Yes if fly6 was shown an overtunity device he would pull up Wikipedia to show everyone why it can not work hahahahaha
Quote from: Turbo on November 20, 2018, 05:01:40 PM
It's just so sad man.
Even if someone would show you a self runner and explain to you how it operates.
You would still explain it away because of your mental references that tell you its this or that and it can't work because of this and that and its sad to see people stuck.
But it is what it is you will never escape it I can yell you that much.
Well, you should build your own runner and show it to us, instead of producing childish images without schematics, punctuated by pretentious remarks like "it can open the mind", when they are only basic conventional things whose functioning has been understood by everyone for a long time, as well as the uselessness regarding energy.
"it can open the mind"! ::) ;D, the mind of a donkey, perhaps.
You should is a command.
You do not command people you command dogs.
I am not your dog.
In stead you could build one of them.
Could is different from should.
I have gotten feedback from the people that tried.
They will take it further.
I don't count on you.
You are just a keyboard troll.
Quote from: Turbo on November 23, 2018, 07:17:05 PM
You should is a command.
...
Only in your fallacious interpretations as inconsistent as those you shown in physics.
It's conditional, a polite advice.
Quote from: gyulasun on November 18, 2018, 06:31:25 PM
Hi Vidar,
The thing I agree with you is that the setup should be built to see how it behaves.
During the tests the weight should be changed to find the best match to the spring force at a certain RPM. You do not want to use too heavy weight or too mild spring and / or the other way round. Also, the RPM of the wheel should also be choosen not to let the spring being fully pressed when the weight just passes at the 6 o'clock position.
And as I see this (and assuming the setup would at least self run under a no load condition), the useful shaft torque (the output) would be within a relatively narrow range (and I do not mean this a drawback). Maximum shaft torque would be mainly defined by the magnets strength used in the V gate.
Gyula
You say "narrow range", which means this setup works best at a given resonance. The narrower the range, the higher Q-factor. However, any load to such a system will reduce the Q-factor, and therefor restrict the "willingness" of resonance. So the system will stop sooner.
That said, any resonance system suffers from loss. Even if the external load is zero, you have internal loss that will restrict resonance, so it will stop anyway.
Further, if you need a spring and a weight to assist a V-gate, note that none of these systems, nor a resonance system og a V-gate system works separately. So my question to you is; how can two non workable systems work when you combine them?
Because the resonance system cannot assist the V-gate, and the V-gate cannot assist the resonance system.
Well, that's my thoughts :-)
Vidar
Hej Vidar,
You sound clinging to the words 'narrow range' I mentioned and from this you eventually conclude this setup is non workable and will stop.
And you introduce the word resonance for this setup and of course you are free to call the periodic up and down movement of the spring as a resonance but the working principle does not need such resonance, it is just a consequence of the rotating weight when it is coming down from the top towards the bottom and compresses the spring, and this displaces the wheel from the V gate's sticky point. The spring then gives back the stored energy by lifting up the wheel to its normal position again.
It is ok that the V gate and the weight + spring are lossy and stop when they are built separately. But when you combine them as shown by the inventor, you need to build the setup to draw valid conclusions.
So I disagree with your thoughts. :-)
Gyula
A spring, a weight, a narrow range. These three sounds like a resonance circuit to me, but that's me :-)
It should be easy to build though. Learning by experience is priceless education. I guess it takes less time to build it, than argue that it will work. Do you have plans to build a test model, btw? If I can help, please ask.
Vidar
Hej Vidar,
Well, what you say is valid backwards too: it takes less time to build this setup than argue that it will not work.
It is the task for the inventor to build and test his ideas, I shared my views on his setup as you or others here did too.
Thanks for offering help, by the way, I may consider it, will see.
Gyula
I think I will build this. 3D printed parts is easy, and as a spring, some length of stiff plastic will do - like leaf springs.
Then attach a weight that moves the wheel down and away from the sticky spot.
However, I think the sticky spot will occur earlier. And when you pull away the magnets, you will drag the stator field with it and also weaken the "efficiency".
Instead of a bouncing wheel, you can arch the V-track-end inwards a bit (towards the center of the wheel) to achieve the same increased spacing you want from the bounce method. It will probably work just as good, but with less engineering and complexity.
Vidar
Quote from: gyulasun on November 26, 2018, 02:13:20 PM
Hej Vidar,
Well, what you say is valid backwards too: it takes less time to build this setup than argue that it will not work.
It is the task for the inventor to build and test his ideas, I shared my views on his setup as you or others here did too.
Thanks for offering help, by the way, I may consider it, will see.
Gyula