I am currently constructing two Butch Lafonte repel balanced machines that will give over 500% energy out by using one to release the repel force between two magnets. Butch Lafonte originally made a scissors version with 2 attracting magnets on one end and 2 repelling magnets on the other end. When I saw that about 12 years ago I knew it had some real potential. So I right away made a rotary version and then a linear version but could not unbalance them to achieve any useful energy. Then I thought to combine them so one will release the permanent magnetic power in the other. I am currently working on the close tolerance to make them work well. But meanwhile you can see the 3 versions that I made in the attached photo.
The weather is too hot in my garage to work very long so it will take a week or more to work
10-15 mins at a time. Butch seems to have disappeared but you can see some the the
Lafonte group videos/annimations here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygf5xoyWIsI&feature=related (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygf5xoyWIsI&feature=related)
If anyone knows were Butch is let me know, I sure would like to contact him.
He will love my enhancements. They are way past the sticky spot.
I have always said that if you can take a small force to release a larger force then it will be OU.
Norman
same problem here in NE USA with the heat 15 20 minutes in the shop then sit inside infront of the fan...taking forever to get stuff done feels way hotter than 100 degrees out there !
I had some contacts for Butch years back
will try to find the...also didn't forum member Dusty work with Butch? think I had a contact there too?
thanks for sharing !!I hope Butch is still around...may take a day or so to find what I have ,computer was fried a while back
keep cool
Chet K
Thanks Ramset. My email for Butch no longer works but I called his cell ph
and left a message. He lives in Alabama.
He could came up with more ideas but never much on measurement.
I have been fooled by the feel of my hand many times. I like weights
instead of measurement devices. In one case 1 weight dropped 1/4 inch
and the same weight was lifted maybe 1/2 inch or more. It was all in plain view,
nothing to dispute.
Butch's absence could mean he found something and went quiet.
Norman
Thanks Norman
I'm glad to see that some one is continuing with / adding to the La Fonte concepts.
My work with the Lafonte cascaded has failed after 3 embodiments due to imprecision.
But I was able to demonstrate with a manual fixed setup that the stacking of magnets
from a cascaded device does turn the repel on and off at the other end of that rotor.
see the video at: https://youtu.be/lBQ38F_WbUs
So the concept is valid but not adequately embodied. I ordered some better bearings
to reduce the tolerance. So far I have had to make my own bearings out of long rods
for stability but that takes time.
Stay tuned. Norman
My work will be delayed. I had aq heart attack Mon.but recovering well.
Norman
Hi Norman,
I keep my fingers crossed for your health and wish you full recovery.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula. It was totally unexpected out from nowhere and within 15 min
called 911 and got to the hospital in 1/2 hr for 1 stent in 1 blocked artery.
Norman
Get well soon.
floor
I have recovered enough to piddle around a little more but I'm waiting for parts which should arrive Wed. Then I should be able to do the final assembly and test power in vs power out.
If that goes well I will then cascade to a bigger machine to get enough power multiplied to
feed back to the smaller machine and keep the cycle running except it will take some serious
clockmanship to accomplish that. Along the way I have improved my construction precision skills.
I was able to walk 3/4 mi. 2 times yesterday.
And the temp has cooled down enough to work in the garage without getting heated up
in 10 mins.
Norman
I doubt that your design amplifies power. Why, because after it turns 180 degrees, the attraction force stops it, so also the force to start the motion seems to be quite great.
Saying that, i think it's true that any asymmetric field can do continuous work, and magnetic field is an asymmetric field because it has two poles. This means that there should be a trajectory how one magnet goes through the magnetic field of another magnet, and gets propulsion. This drawing shows such trajectory in a straight line https://ia800903.us.archive.org/22/items/Flcm4/pmmbp12.jpg but there are other possible trajectories, maybe 3D, that may be more efficient, that depends on the shape of the magnetic fields. The other question is how to make a magnet to move exactly on such trajectory.
My this experiment seems to show overunity https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 that though doesn't exceed the friction. But the problem is that it was done by hand, which of course anyone can repeat, but it is not really measuring it. This experiment thus should be replicated using pressure sensitive resistors or such, to measure forces, and a trigger, like a vertical stopper that doesn't depend on the hand motion horizontally. The importance is though that it seems to show overunity, and there is also a theoretical reason why there should be overunity in such design, so this is a reasonable subject for research.
Thank you for your attention, if it was anyhow useful for anybody.
ayeaye thanks for your reply. I'll be brief because I have recovered enough to work a little and my parts have arrived to complete my machine. I have said for a long time that if a small force can release a larger force then we will have OU. This machine is my 3rd example of OU. It is based on using 2 Lafonte machines to turn off and on the permanent magnetic forces. Most people don't believe this is even possible but it works.
My first measurement gave 1 unit of work in and 4 units out. I should have this measured by Wed.
I am very weak and can do very little at a time.
I was careful to give the details to my children in case anything happens to me so barring
the men in b???k you will soon know how to do it.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on August 12, 2019, 10:39:39 AM
I have said for a long time that if a small force can release a larger force then we will have OU.
Right but, i think one should first theoretically show that in some design a small force really releases a larger force, and not just another force. I proposed a theoretical foundation for that and it did stand all criticism for 6 years, so why not think your design theoretically through based on that? As i see, there is only one theoretical reason that can cause overunity in permanent magnets, and maybe not only in permanent magnets, so by that all overunity in permanent magnets should be explained by this.
Many thanks for all your efforts at that, i just want that your efforts will have a result significant for research. Even if you first fail to get overunity the way you think.
I'm enjoying the dialogue. My 2nd OU device was the Lafonte slider and here is what you saw.
1. weight dropped x distance.
2. 2 weights were lifted that same x distance. Very very clear.
That is the way I measure things. Only the brain dead could not see the obvious. An I will
do it the same way this time.
Here is the principle that is alway in play.
1. set it up - the appratus must be moved/cocked/set to make power.
2. power is made/used/ or stored.
3. reset for repeat by moving something back into position of step 1.
So step 1 is a small force, step 2 is a larger force, and step 3 is a small force.
Norman
Norman
I looked at the lafonte things, didn't convince me though anyhow. One device that was shown, yes sure the force to separate two magnets may well be 5 times less than the force with which they attract. When to move two much bigger repulsing magnets against each other, and steel bars towards the magnets, which also need an additional force to later separate them from the magnets. So not 5 times less force at all, if not greater force. All in all it looked to me as a bad idea. No theoretical reason given why this thing as a whole should provide overunity, no calculations or anything that the total energy to separate will be less than the energy gained when attracting. Making it even less convincing.
I have recovered enough to continue my construction in short spurts. I got the rotors mounted and a stator and find it very tricky to match the attract and repel forces so that movement
is balanced and requires very little effort. I will continue to tweak fine tune it.
I have made about 10 of these Lafonte things and one of the scissors devices I could never
get balanced.
I know magnets vary even in the same batch.
I may have to develop a threaded adjuster to get it right.
Remember I first saw the possibility in Lafonte's ideas 12 years ago and
have made much progress in a month and a half with a very busy schedule
and a heart attack in the middle too.
The sadist part is no one sees the potential in this enough to even assemble a simple
20 minute Lafonte device. As you might guess I have no place in my life for professional
sports squandered time and money.
Norman
Ok, i don't understand this Lafonte very well but i think think that neither do others. So what i figure so far. Two magnets are attracted, it needs a greater force to separate them. Then we approach one pole of a bigger magnet to these two magnets from the side. Then sure more interaction goes to interacting with the bigger magnet, and the force to separate two magnets is less. I tried it and my fingers are quite sensitive, i can say the force was 2 times less maybe, not 5 times less as Lafonte says, but i don't exclude that in some configuration it may be 5 times less.
That the bigger magnet approaching and moving away needs no force, i doubt it, the magnetic fields are not ideal and all is never exactly how it theoretically should be. This effect then is also due to magnetic fields being asymmetric, that is having two poles. Show that there is overunity, measure it, this is important, even if it doesn't overcome all the possible friction there, which i think will most likely be the case, nevertheless it's important. Don't try to make continuously moving device, measure whether there is overunity in that effect or not.
So how is it, this?
N -> <- S
NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
<- N S ->
NNNNNNNNNNNNNN
The matter is, very few people here are really capable of research. if you make some thing fully working, then they replicate yes, but it needs research to get there, so there is no use of it. And these few who are, mostly don't do any research, because they cannot afford the time. And there are a large number of possible things to do, so the possibility that two people do the same thing, is almost zero. Thus, in spite a lot of interest, this forum cannot much help the overunity research.
I would just say about that one, maybe it works, maybe it works better, but it is much more difficult to measure, than my design. What concerns mine, one should just add a pressure sensitive resistor and a simple trigger, and that's all that is necessary. If one likes that design, fine but, much more work. To make it such that it can be measured and not dependent on the movement of hand. I don't know of course all the possible variations of Lafonte, maybe some are easier to measure, but overall the design seems to be more complicated, three magnets interacting instead of two, and movements in two directions instead of all on one line. But ok, do it if you prefer, measure it, though more complicated and needs some calculation.
Did you already get pressure sensitive resistors, or anything such? What a thing, changing the distance between magnets in an adjustable way? Quite a bit to do, but if you work with nuts and bolts, different from pieces of mounting tape as i did, then it may be possible, pressure and force can be measured at different distances, and work calculated as one may figure.
One good thing to know though, there may be more than one possibilities for overunity with permanent magnets, maybe. Before i knew only my solution, i don't know anything else that has any measured overunity either, even when done by hand. Would be great if this would be the second of course.
@ Norman6538
Glad your all right and back at it.
floor
This experiment can be done without anything at all, one just needs magnets and force sensing resistors (pressure sensitive resistors), something like these https://www.ebay.com/itm/Resistive-Film-Pressure-Sensor-Flexible-Force-Sensitive-Resistor-for-Robot/362699404305?hash=item547291b411:m:mwYkv3D5OqYdTTZXeo6MeeQ . Energy is force multiplied by a distance. A sum of small distances and forces at these distances, is a good enough approximation. Force sensitive resistors should be calibrated, like using a known weight with an area equal to the area of the magnet, see what resistance corresponds to that
I tried to find a video of measuring magnets with force sensing resistors, i couldn't find any, many videos about how to use force sensing resistors. So when doing only that, that's something not talked about, and easy to make a video about something there are no other videos about. Something new to go into, and at that it's rather simple.
This is a video about force sensing resistors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTO3U-0Njtw . One really needs only a multimeter, but it's not linear. I don't really know, never tried these things, which ones to use, how accurate they are, etc, Just telling all i know. It were a joy to work with these things, if i could afford the time, i see with regret the wonderful things that i'm missing.
My recovery has had some setbacks but I expect to make progress during the next week.
I have to move up to a small bicycle wheel to get the precision needed to get an accurate measurement.
My full health diagnosis is not complete yet but I expect that to come this week after
more tests.
Norman
I'm quasi functioning again in less than low gear but I have all the parts made and ready to mount and adjust/weak. I have a break all day tomorrow so expect to have a report tomorrow if my health does not fall apart. I have better adjustability but the repel is very tricky to get right on.
Norman
I made a very interesting discovery today. I could not physically align and zero balance the magnets and I suspected that the repel spin had something to do with it. When the attracting magnets on the left would pull the rotor but not align physically then when I pushed the left past the alignment point it found a magnetic balance spot where it took little to move in either direction. Then when I pushed it past that sweet spot the repel took over and kicked the rotor on clockwise. That spin is why my pendulum only works when the magnetic polarity is correct.
That will affect all of my research - back to the drawing board.
Norman
I think you are trying to go too complex. Trying to make it continuously rotating, you just cannot chop it through. I also made my experiment with a full circle of magnets later. In theory it was supposed to continuously have overunity, but really, the poles tilted in unknown ways, all became very complex and impossible to control, and all was against the wanted effect. And complex, the difference was only having a whole circle of magnets, very simple configuration, but very complex things happening.
This is why i say, trying to make it to continuously rotate is not an easy solution to the problem, and thus not the right thing to do. I said, try to do measurements instead, in the simplest configuration, measure whether there is overunity. Measure the simplest Lafonte effect. Very important, as much as i know, no one has done it yet. Get the force sensitive resistors as i referred to, measure the force at every distance, at two different distances from the bigger magnet. Then do the calculations, calculating the energy for both is very easy, high school physics, once you have these measurements. Mostly try how to measure force with force sensitive resistors, they are really pressure sensitive resistors. I think they would be precise enough, they are cheap so should be tried first, or more advanced pressure sensors should be used.
It is a problem, too many want an easy solution, showing it constantly rotating is great of course, and no need for measurements and calculations. But this always ends with, trying one way, then another way, then another, no result, and a lot of work, may be not for each case separately, but all together a lot of work. Instead of doing the research, methodically, starting from the simplest, measure, calculate. In spite that it sounds a nuisance and too much work, it is really much less work, that certainly has a result, positive or negative, but at least one can see for certain how the things are.
Get a multimeter, costs $4 something, ways to get it free, it measures resistance. Get a few alligator wires, cheap also. Get pressure sensors like resistors.
Thanks ayeaye, If you look at my work in the past it is always crude and basic and simple. I am not trying rotation - Yes it is a rotor but I am only trying to measure the power in and out using the rotor with weights lifted and dropped.
I am thinking through this. One way is to go 3D in a way similar to Floor.
Leedskalnin said that either the N or S pole pushes more iron fileings up than the other.
And remember we still do know really know what magnetic fields are. We use them and know their characteristics but do not really know what they are.
Norman
Just start from measuring the simplest thing, the simplest Lafonte effect. But measure the energies completely, in joules.
What magnets are. Likely they are just dipoles, that is atoms. Electrons rotating the same direction, they attract, opposite directions, they repulse, like the Ampere law. Read my other threads here, even about how induction works. That all that really exist, are the electrostatic forces, magnetism is a dynamic effect.
Why they have overunity, well why don't the electrons fall to the nucleus, in spite they do work?
Go a bit ahead, get a multimeter, i say multimeter is fun.
I'm still running in 1st gear but I finished another version than has an axle off center so it self attracts and it measures 400%. But I think the best will be the linear version and I started it today and expect to finish in 2 days if I have enough strength.
Norman
In the past few days I have made major discoveries and now get 600% out.. with 2 vertical aproaching - not rotor/stator Lafonte's but the repel is stronger than the attract so the repel mag sare not aligned to make them weaker....and its very sensitive to adjust and even then the forces are not symmetrical because approaching and leaving switch between attract and repel.
Who - da - ever thunk it?
Now I need to scale it up and feed output back to the input.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on September 08, 2019, 09:10:42 PM
Who - da - ever thunk it?
Can you anyhow show that it is 600%, or how much it is? This is the only thing that matters now.
ayeaye - I can but I'm more interested in scaling up. Remember I use weight down vs weight up x distance so that measurement cannot be disputed.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on September 09, 2019, 07:50:31 AM
ayeaye - I can but I'm more interested in scaling up. Remember I use weight down vs weight up x distance so that measurement cannot be disputed.
Scaling up is not important at this stage. It is first important that the measurements are correct and this is often the most difficult task. Show the measurements, make a video that shows the measurements. Whether it can be disputed or not, will be found out after you do that. People will estimate by your evidence, how much overunity there is, whether there is any and what is the efficiency then, and how much, if any, is dependent on the hand movement. Measurement is not an easy task, but it is the most important.
Please understand, likely many are interested, if there may be overunity, it is very interesting to find out.
If it doesn't work, please show also, Lafonte doesn't work, important to know.
I'm making progress but not as fast as I would like. The problem is when two magnets that are close together approach each other from one side they flip from attract to repel before they attract and visa versa for repelling magnets. So I am back to the linear setup which is not easy to make. The magnets have to stay equal distance from the controlling device or it will get stuck.
I sure have learned a lot since July.
Norman
Yes, do the simplest, and then it's still complex. Whenever more than two magnets interact, like Lafonte, always unexpected things happen. I should say that Lafonte is right now above my theory. I can say that there should be overunity due to asymmetry (two poles) in the magnetic fields. I can show how this can result in overunity in case of two magnets (see above). But how it plays out in case of more than two magnets, that's a more difficult question.
I'm all interested though. Only one should here wait and wait and wait again, always.
Nothing? Try to measure something, anything... And measurements can be static, you don't have to balance anything, just measure the force at different fixed positions... Force multiplied by distance is energy. Maybe force can be measured by weights, the weight that causes magnets to separate, etc, i have never thought about that.
Ayeaye,
I posted a video on Floor's magnet, motion and measurement thread showing real measurements. What have YOU done with that information? Probably nothing. If you want a bunch of measurements done then BUILD something and take all the measurements you want. I am so tired of the non-builders making demands of the few of us that are actually doing something. WE don't owe YOU anything. I am sure when Norman feels more like it he will get back to building.
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on October 01, 2019, 01:59:40 PM
I posted a video on Floor's magnet, motion and measurement thread showing real measurements.
Where is your video? Do you mean the thread "Magnets, motion and measurement" in mechanic? I did read that thread, though maybe not thoroughly enough, didn't yet find your video, but i will look for it. Did you see my video?
I'm sorry but, i don't force anyone to do anything. Just posted my two cents in hope that it may help. Don't start a conflict please, i know how it starts and why. Assuming you are a good guy, i do, i know some here are not. When the things are complex, everyone has their doctrine how they deal with it. And they contradict each other and cause conflict. Try to avoid that please. What i say, everyone is free to disagree with, the same about what anyone else says. Please try to work together, instead of creating any unnecessary divisions, please.
What concerns me doing things, i have done things, you see them here. How much i should do for it to be enough? I did but i cannot afford time for that right now, i'm sure this is true about several others, please please don't accuse them. The same may happen one day to these who do experiments now. They cannot afford the time to do experiments, yet they can afford to say what they know or what they think. I think that's fine.
All i'm about, i'm about research. I'm very interested in research.
And many thanks to Norman for what he did. Good that people know the things. These threads though, people read them who are interested in similar things, thus theory should be talked there, for people to see. Furthermore, this thread was posted in the theory subforum, not in the devices subforum, so the more there can be talk about theory and general things, not only about particular experiments.
Hey, be friends. Thank you.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 01, 2019, 04:02:26 PM
Where is your video? Do you mean the thread "Magnets, motion and measurement" in mechanic? I did read that thread, though maybe not thoroughly enough, didn't yet find your video, but i will look for it.
....
It is two pages back in that thread: https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg538952/#msg538952
Useful video and I appreciate it, thanks Carroll and also Norman for sharing. Hopefully Norman has been recovering nicely.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on October 01, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
It is two pages back in that thread: https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg538952/#msg538952
So it's that video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68ChN24x_HU&feature=youtu.be
Absolutely great video, Citta ! I have not analyzed it very thoroughly, but i think that's it, you did it :)
You certainly don't owe me nothing, but talking about my video that i mentioned, see my this drawing https://ia800903.us.archive.org/22/items/Flcm4/pmmbp12.jpg . This shows how the asymmetry of the magnetic field (two poles) can enable overunity. In theory any asymmetric field can do continuous work, this is one way how a magnetic field can do it. I'm sure that the effect that you showed is based on the same asymmetry. I have not thoroughly analyzed your case, but i showed the theoretical reason in the simplest case, involving only two magnets.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 01, 2019, 05:38:43 PM
Absolutely great video, Citta ! I have not analyzed it very thoroughly, but i think that's it, you did it :)
citfta*
norman6538 or anyone who can afford it, would you please replicate the ctfta experiment, or do a similar experiment. It looks credible and very well done. But replication is formally necessary and as important, if not more important than the original experiment.
This excellent linear movement by ball bearings, i'm not a metal worker and i cannot do that. This is why i suggested to use pressure sensitive resistors. I said if a good enough dynamic movement cannot be made, it may be possible to make it static. Then measure forces at static positions using pressure sensitive resistors. Or scales like ctfta did, by measuring the force necessary to make a magnet to move. In that case it needs the magnet to slightly move, may though be possible to do that reliably.
Below is the drawing of the citfta experiment, made with dia. The shield magnet is slided in between the two magnets perpendicular to the surface of the drawing. Theoretically that should also need no force, in the reality it may need some. It looks like that it should work, that would be great, hope it's not yet another waste of the time,
With the magnets that i have i tried, seemed to be some two times difference, but it is difficult to decide that when the magnets are not fixed in place.
I'm making slow progress because I have 2 unresolved medical problems and now my wife needs surgery too. I made about 20 different versions combining 1. my work 2. Lafonte balancing, 3. some Floor ideas too. They must be robust/strong and precise or it will not perform. I'm looking ahead to harvesting the power out. If things don't fall apart here at home I expect performance numbers midweek next week. But that will not be power fed back in.
Please be patient, you will like what you see.
Norman
Norman, it may not be for you the right time to do these things. Things are exciting but, only these can do these things who can afford the time. I think you better wait when your problems pass, then there will be time.
http://www.geocities.ws/k_pullo/
Probably of interest ! If not : delete it !
Quote from: lancaIV on October 09, 2019, 12:11:41 PM
http://www.geocities.ws/k_pullo/
Probably of interest ! If not : delete it !
This seems to be similar to my theory, see my drawing https://ia800903.us.archive.org/22/items/Flcm4/pmmbp12.jpg and the experiment i did https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 that seemed to show overunity, only it was done by hand and the peak force also felt by hand. So anyone can repeat it to see for oneself, but properly it should be replicated with triggering independent of the hand movement, and the force measured by a pressure sensitive resistor. The overunity there were, if true, was not great enough though to overcome friction.
My general idea is, that an asymmetric field may do continuous work. Magnetic field is asymmetric field because it has two poles. However, like if we model it with a Gilbert or Coulumb model, the sum of energy when modeling my experiment will most likely be zero. But the matter is, the real magnetic fields differ from the Gilbert model, maybe in that the field lines between the two poles are more parallel to the axis between the poles. And such field likely is asymmetric enough to do continuous work.
Then furthermore, the overunity, if any, may be caused by the fact that the electrons in a dipole don't fall to the nucleus, even when they do work. I also showed the reason why this energy supposed to come from the zero point energy. This electrons orbiting the nucleus is also what makes the magnetic field asymmetric, that is having two poles. And this applies everywhere where the magnetic dipoles are involved, in permanent magnets, solid state devices, and even mechanical devices, as the magnetic interaction between atoms causes elasticity.
That said, overunity may not be anything special. When we drop an object, the gravitational field does work, where this energy comes from? Then it may also come from zero point energy, and when we lift the object, we work against the field and the energy goes back to zero point energy. So it may not be about overunity, just a way how to get continuous work, and this requires an asymmetric field.
Though regardless how the overunity may occur in permanent magnets, it is likely always caused by the fact that the magnetic field is asymmetric (has two poles). Another effect that this Lafonte, citfta, etc, show, it that it is theoretically possible for a pole of another magnet to move between two poles perpendicularly to the axis between the poles, without encountering any force at all. This is also due to the fact that the magnetic field is asymmetric, and has two poles. And that said last is true even in the Gilbert or Coulumb model. Unfortunately though, as it appeared in measurements in the citfta experiment, for some reason in practice it is very difficult to approach this theoretical zero force even nearly.
Probably this inventor and artist shows and discuss " fuel free magnetic device"-s :
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9918
Quote from: lancaIV on October 09, 2019, 01:15:03 PM
Probably this inventor and artist shows and discuss " fuel free magnetic device"-s :
https://patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=9918
I'm highly skeptical of magnet motors, they are mostly a hoax, if not all of them, just a waste of time. This simulation done with femm though, and what i mentioned, this is a real research. And i want everyone to realize that we are in it together, we really research the same thing, the same phenomenon.
Notice that there are not so many people in this forum. I have been in this forum for years, and who always reply, are still the same a few dozen people. We talk to each other, And this is what this forum is about.
Scrolling the left side down : "Statistics"
83501 " ( inscribed)members " ( I am here 4 x member LancaI, II, III, IV; not abuse. !)
mostly : 2006 "103".
today : "44"
A relatively small active forum ! ( + " passive" guests)
-----------------------------
About sceptics : Brown Uni and " formula" ! ? Geral or only specific valid. ?
Only permanent magnet motor : inertia. ? ~ inrush voltage/ current problem from electro-magnetic motors
"hoax" : simple prototype as function/ demonstration model
input/output, maget force lifetime et cet. as discussion theme
coupled to generator : fixed or variable speed ? the motor and the generator. !?
Is there overunity inside that permanent magnet motor, or is there not? No, this is not an interesting question, i'm interested in researching overunity.
I'm still dizzy at times but worse off because my wife might have cancer so its Dr. after Dr. and test after test.
I have made a little progress but the results are not good. The main reason is that the set and reset requires about 1 inch of movement but the "further weaker" aspect of magnets gives me only about 1/4 inch which starts off at "further weaker". I use a variable lever so that even at
"further weaker" work is done and more work is done as it gets "closer stronger".
I have 2 paired end to end so that the cycle is.
1. move and set the first device for power out
2. back off to unset and simultaneously set the paired device.
3. back off the paired device and simultaneously set the first device.
Norman
Maybe get these scales. The fish scales are $5. There are similar more accurate scales, these are called "force gauge", and they are $50 and up. These are used in laboratory experiments, and properly these should be used. The fish scales help a lot and may be enough, but consider the following.
Say the measurements would show overunity. What they will then talk about, is the accuracy of the scales. Like these fish scales, their accuracy is likely not more than one ounce. This means that when it shows 5 ounces, it may be 4.5 ounces or 5.5 ounces. Better to test the actual accuracy, the data sheet usually gives some number that the instrument is not useful at all, for all such things, so they have no responsibility.
Now the error calculation requires that it should be calculated with all the worst values, and then all the best values, then the difference between them is the error. Like when we calculate the difference of energies, then the error is two times more, that is sure +/- 1 ounce. With that it may sometimes be practically impossible to determine whether the result was correct or not. While the low precision scales can be useful, it's better to have a high precision "force gauge", to avoid an unnecessary work.
I will explain, like a - b, this is the smallest when a is minimum and b is maximum. And the opposite, maximum when a is maximum and b is minimum. Thus it varies two times as much as a and b separately, the error in a - b is thus two times greater, than the error in a or b.
These permanent magnet overunity experiments, it would be better if they could be done by the simplest means, so anyone can replicate. Permanent magnets itself after all don't cost much. But because overunity is so demanding goal, it is really about a maximum efficiency, then one rather needs a high grade equipment. As unfortunate as it may be.
PS I estimated that when citfta could reduce the force of shifting the shield magnet to 2 ounces, then he may have overunity. To achieve that would likely be very difficult though, as he already uses linear movement on ball bearings. It looks like though that in spite the movement is on ball bearings, it takes quite a force to move a magnet there, even if no forces affect it. Like moving towards the shield magnet may not have any force at all, it is at least 3 ounces, as if it always requires 3 ounces to move a magnet there. I don't know. But even if he can reduce the shifting to 2 ounces, his scales would likely have not enough precision to show the overunity, as the final calculations error with the scales he used would likely be +/-1 ounce, not better. Unless he perhaps tests the scales and shows that they have a higher precision, that these scales very unlikely have.
I have been able to piddle around in between Dr. appointments and went back to the Lafonte device with an off center axle and the attracting magnets on the shorter end so they are closer and will attract. Which they do until the repel gets lined up. Then when the 2 arms are lined up the axle can be shifted to the center where equal forces will allow the 2 arms to be separated where power from attraction can be harvested again. The problem was I first made it as a rotor and due to the magnetic field rotations the 2 arms will never line up so I went to the scissors device where they will lineup and have an equal force. The trick will be where does the power come from to shift the axle. A solenoid would to that very well but it would have to connect to both axles and then release the former pivot. So it becomes a leverage shifting device with magnets. And what we are accomplishing is effectively turning the attraction on and off to do useful work.
Then by cascading that to 2 larger devices it should be possible to get 10-20 times the power out.
Norman
To be honest, i don't understand what you made.
The problem, can you measure? As i don't know how it works, i cannot figure out how to measure.
The problem, the citfta device, with the shield magnet and linear movement, while simple, it is likely very difficult to make. The linear movement on ball bearings, kind of metal work? And at that, it seems to me that the citfta's device doesn't even have a movement fully on ball bearings, there seem to be like two ball bearings, and the other sides are without ball bearings... And it seems that in spite of ball bearings, the friction is quite high there.
So maybe a rotary device would be better, and it may be possible to measure it too. just measure force after every small distances, even if it rotates. Cannot figure out how though, without knowing the device.
One more thing, you were not quite right. It is true that an iron shield attracts to the position, and it is like output. But the problem is, it has to be pulled out, when it is between two magnets, and this is twice as much of energy. The shield magnet in theory needs no force when shifting in and out, in theory it should completely work. In practice though, only measurements can show.
Quote from: ayeaye on October 17, 2019, 10:37:06 AM
The problem, the citfta device, with the shield magnet and linear movement, while simple, it is likely very difficult to make. Anyone with some patience and normal hand tools could make what I have made. The linear movement on ball bearings, kind of metal work? A hacksaw, a hand drill, some drill bits and a couple of files are all you need to do the metal work. And at that, it seems to me that the citfta's device doesn't even have a movement fully on ball bearings, there seem to be like two ball bearings, and the other sides are without ball bearings... There are 6 bearings supporting each piece of aluminum angle. And it seems that in spite of ball bearings, the friction is quite high there. Wrong again! The friction is very low as you can tell from carefully watching the video.
"Wrong again! The friction is very low as you can tell from carefully watching the video."
From carefully watching the video, i see that the force was 3 to 4 ounces when moving the magnet towards the shield magnet, while there shouldn't be any force at all. And there was 7 ounces of force when shifting the shield magnet. Ok, maybe because the shield magnet touched the other magnets, but even without it there was still 5 ounces of force. I don't see this as a very low friction, but of course i cannot know what it all may be caused by, i didn't do the experiment. I just say what seems to me after carefully watching the video, and i watched it very carefully. What concerns ball bearings, on the left arm i saw only two ball bearings, and i cannot figure where the others can be. I cannot be sure though, as i cannot see inside your device.
And better don't move towards the right magnet when measuring the output forces, this is wrong. Because then you add the friction force to the output force, measuring considerably more output energy than there actually is.
Attached is a photo of the off center axle (at the nut) in the attracted position. As you can see it is easily made of tongue depressor sticks and hot glue. If you pull the attraction magnet on the left down it will jump right up because it is closer than the repel on the right due to the leverage advantage of the off center axle. The center axle is just to the right of the nut. I put this together last night in an hr. and got photos and a video. If you are a "bencher" you can to it too.
I'm sorry about the large photo, I shrunk it to 1/3 and it still got too big.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on October 17, 2019, 11:49:41 AM
Attached is a photo of the off center axle (at the nut) in the attracted position.
No i cannot tell horns or tails, sorry. You should attach a drawing or video showing how it works.
I, well, i'm into mounting tape in the experiments, and scissors, never cutting wood or whatever. Though i agree that it's doable.
Citfta, i really think that your experiment was great, for the first time a magnet device was measured. And it should work in theory too, that's the greatest. It was not the best at first, but it was a big step ahead, very important. Maybe with some improvements you can actually do it, really measure overunity. I think friction energy should be measured separately, then deleted from the output energy, which i think can only be measured static.
Honestly, if i would have to make it, i would make it cardboard tubes inside cardboard tubes, rectangular, and fixed with mounting tape. And measure only static forces. At first i would try to make it like this...
And maybe it's better to have ball bearings on both sides of the shield magnet, then it is supported on both sides, and doesn't bend that much. Just what i can figure.
It is not that i certainly don't understand the Lafonte device that Norman made. I guess that both pairs of magnets there attract each other. Then when we shift the axis a bit, it snaps easily to the opposite position. If i guess rightly. But the matter is that it is more difficult to understand what the overunity there may be caused by. Maybe it's because the force sidewise is greater than between opposing poles or something, something again maybe caused by the asymmetry of the magnetic field, it differing from the Coulomb model Also it is rather difficult to measure, first the force of shifting, and then the force of snapping. And both can happen at the same time. Maybe it can be approximated so that only one happens at a time. If i understood rightly, please correct me if i were wrong.
If there is overunity in that device, even when disregarding friction. and if it is caused by the asymmetry of the magnetic field that i talked about, then it may show that kind of asymmetry even better than anything else. I don't know how well i can show this, on the drawing below, a field somewhere near a pole in the Coulomb model, and in asymmetric field, just to give some idea.
Norman, it is difficult to measure. With so small magnets you should get force gauge. And you should measure what is friction. There shouldn't be any force, but i cannot be sure, properly friction should be measured under that force, like hanging weights to it.
ayeaye,
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=3900890&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en
scrolling down to :
"It is known that the force.... "
axial repulsive force : tangential repulsive force
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
Yes, many may have noticed it, but have not named it what it is, asymmetry of the field. If there is such, it is because atoms are not spherical either, they are electrons orbiting a nucleus. Maybe they attract side wise better, i don't know why, electron can see electron in another atom less when sidewise, maybe. The moving electrons do work, and don't lose energy.
That Naudin work goes way back to '98 and he is impeccable. But when nothing more after years then I have to ask why and this is what I think. Force is not work. It has a distance component and that is probably what is missing to make it look usable. That is exactly where I am stuck.
I am working on a metal window that opens and closes to turn on and off a magnetic force and I was trying to balance that like Lafonte's scissors and like 2 weights on a rope and pulley that will stay anywhere you put them just like the Lafonte linear device I posted a picture of. The balancing has failed so I'll just work with 1 window and maybe an attraction force compensator. The problem I have is the non linear force as the metal is attracted to the magnets.
I am still dizzy when I turn around but heart wise I'm OK. BUT my wife has cancer and needs surgery to remove the mass and then whatever is required. We are hopeful that it will be OK because the surgeon has done over 700 of these surgeries. If you can pray for Marian's healing and no infection after the surgery on the 30th and 31st We would appreciate it.
So I will be "magnetically weak" for a few weeks if things go well.
Norman
K, i wish your things go well.
Why, i think because the things are not understood. That it is about asymmetry of the field, and this asymmetry must be increased, to have better results.
The other thing is friction, there may be overunity, and experiments and even simulations show that, but it cannot overcome friction. Properly friction has to be measured, and the energy of friction subtracted from the energies. Then it may show overunity. That the energy goes to friction doesn't mean no overunity, though no use of it.
There may be asymmetry in the field, but normally it's likely not great, only a slight asymmetry, providing only a very small overunity. But there being any at all, has a tremendous importance theoretically.
We should understand what we deal with, this is the only way to find solutions to go further. The experiments now are to get that understanding.
I think that some researchers do really good work. Like Lafonte saying that there is 6 times overunity. He may be right, in some case there really may be, though in most cases maybe not. What he omits saying though, is that he likely always disregards friction.
We can actually see that asymmetry, we can see that there are slightly less field lines coming out of a pole in the direction from S pole to N pole, than in the other directions. I cannot attach a picture here, because all these pictures are by who knows whom copyrighted, but see like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy6H0mr3KXw . There we see the asymmetry we deal with, it is quite slight, yet clearly visible. Iron filings are small pieces of iron extracted, when a piece of iron such as a nail, is filed. It is rather delicate to use them so that they show the magnetic field well enough, showing the difference of field density, is likely especially difficult.
Now some suggest that this asymmetry can be increased, by adding shielding on the poles or such, i have not tried that and never thoroughly thought whether it really increases asymmetry.
Ok, i got one image from Wikimedia Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magnet0873.png , so i can attach a part of it here. I don't know how well the asymmetry is seen from there, some other images show it better.
I think that i now understand how my this experiment https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 really worked. I remember that i had to tilt the magnets. As you can see on the drawing below, there can be possible a straight line by which a north pole of another magnet can go through the field, getting propulsion. Because the positive attraction there is greater than the negative attraction, due to the asymmetry of the magnetic field mentioned before.
This drawing doesn't show an actual magnetic field, it was drawn just to give an idea. The correct angle, etc, depends on the actual shape of the field.
Properly, this thread should be called power from attracting magnets, as the experiments here only use attraction, but when using repulsion it should be the same, only opposite.
This also seems to work based on the same asymmetry. As we see, when we know what it is about, then we see that different experiments really show the same effect.
Ok, some are still not able to see, so below i drew a red box around the area where are less field lines.
An asymmetric field has overunity and can do continuous work. Now one can come up with whatever arguments that it cannot, but a simple logic says otherwise. Say that there is a 1 square foot area on earth, where gravity is 10 times less. Then we sure can move an object there, lift it up, then move out of that area, let it fall, and get much more energy than we put in, ready to move it to the area with low gravity again. Does anyone argue against?
Now how is a magnet any different? When there is an area at the pole where force is less, as seen above, then cannot we move a pole of another magnet there so it attracts, move it away, and then again towards the pole where the force is greater, getting more energy than we put in, and ready to move the pole to the area with less force again. Does anyone argue that it is not possible, when the field at the pole is asymmetric?
This asymmetry seems to be also in the Gauss equation for magnetic field. I have not tried myself, but i have seen simulation results using FEMM, that show an area with less force at the pole, just like that above. The Gauss equation for electrostatic forces has a spherical symmetry near the charge, built in, the Gauss equation for magnetic field doesn't. If it did, it couldn't likely model the real magnetic field, where such asymmetry is present, so it had to be made the way it is, That the field lines must always go loops, this doesn't really make sense, nothing moves in loops there, and may be just an artificial doctrine that enables to model fields that differ from the Coulomb model. That said, the field lines form loops of course, assuming that there really are field lines inside the magnet, where they go back to another pole. The same with the Coulomb model, except that there is no requirement for all field lines to go to the other pole in a loop without going to infinity.
Either the field itself is asymmetric, or we can make it asymmetric by a static shield, in either case the field is asymmetric. Like if we could shield that 1 square foot area on earth so that the gravity there is 10 times less, we can use it to do continuous work in the same way. Likely not possible for gravity, but may be possible for a magnetic field.
ayeaye,
do you believe the iron filings, showing the lines, have poles?
I don't think they do.
Were taught that iron will take on poles, I think that is a fundamental flaw.
Domain alignment is true ,but flipping them is without work.
artv
Quote from: shylo on November 01, 2019, 05:21:22 PM
do you believe the iron filings, showing the lines, have poles?
I think they have poles, i think they are temporarily magnetized.
It is just that, when spreading iron filings evenly, and maybe a bit shaking after that, there will be less field lines where the force is less. Many images show that, so this eliminates a kind of hand error.
A pole of another magnet, i said. When there is only attraction, it can likely be even not a magnet, but also some iron object, such as an end of an iron nail or screw.
I tried it, the drawing of my experiment above. using 8 disc magnets some 25 mm in diameter, one on another, and on top of it two layers of mu metal, taken from an old hard drive. i moved a head of a large screw pass it, like on the drawing, but parallel to the magnet. Yes weirdly with mu metal shielding, it worked the best, when i moved it parallel.
There seemed to be some clear propulsion, i felt no negative attraction. Not a great force, yet it was clearly felt.
The screw attracted quite a lot to the mu metal from above, though it supposed to shield. When moving in parallel, no attraction was noticeable though.
That way when using magnet as a stator, there can be a full circle of screws on the disk. Then there will not be the problem of tilting the poles with a full circle, that i encountered with full circle of magnets.
Quote from: ayeaye on November 02, 2019, 05:59:38 AM
I tried it, the drawing of my experiment above. using 8 disc magnets some 25 mm in diameter, one on another, and on top of it two layers of mu metal, taken from an old hard drive. i moved a head of a large screw pass it, like on the drawing, but parallel to the magnet. Yes weirdly with mu metal shielding, it worked the best, when i moved it parallel.
There seemed to be some clear propulsion, i felt no negative attraction. Not a great force, yet it was clearly felt.
The screw attracted quite a lot to the mu-metal from above, though it supposed to shield. When moving in parallel, no attraction was noticeable though.
That way when using a magnet as a stator, there can be a full circle of screws on the disk. Then there will not be the problem of tilting the poles with a full circle, that I encountered with a full circle of magnets.
Have you ever salvaged Mu-metal from an old scope tube?
It has no magnetic quality to static magnets once cut or worked on, producers of that material have to heat treat it or it's useless.
I have not processed my mu metal anyhow, i use it as it is, and when i tried it with smaller magnets, it seems to work. How to heat treat it to restore its properties after cutting? Mu metal seems to be like a soft iron what concerns cutting and such.
To measure forces, one may use this dynamometer or Newton meter, $2.80, 1 N, should be enough for small magnets. https://www.ebay.com/itm/Newton-Meter-Force-Meter-Spring-Dynamometer-Spring-Dual-Scaled-Balance-1N-25N/383050856492?hash=item592f9c382c:m:m11m1P8VDNANPV-qUbiI0SQ That's like fish scales, hanging scales, but much cheaper. This supposed to have a precision 0.01 N, that's precise enough. Don't know how precise it really is, but it's certainly more precise than fish scales, and at least at first likely precise enough. Certainly much much better than not measuring forces at all.
I bought both 1N and 25N dynamometers, these https://www.ebay.com/itm/1N-25N-Newton-Meter-Force-Meter-Spring-Dynamometer-Spring-Dual-Scaled-Balance/362700884452?hash=item5472a849e4:m:m11m1P8VDNANPV-qUbiI0SQ , should arrive on January 1. I think this is enough to measure all kind of forces. I will tell you more about them when they arrive, i don't think it would be a great harm though to buy them now. I have seen that a spring Newton meter is very accurate.
In Amazon one can find these when searching for "spring scale". I think they should be called "Newton meter".
I don't know, the mu metal on that drawing, what mu metal supposed to do, is that it takes field lines inside itself. They likely go out from the edge, there they are not reduced but, as the edge is quite narrow, the vertical vector component of the negative attraction there should become quite short (because it is bent by the shield to be perpendicular to the direction of movement). An iron shielding supposed to do the same, and maybe it would be sufficient, but the iron shielding has to be thicker, and this would make the vertical component of the negative attraction longer.
Perhaps the screw has to be on a disk, providing only an approximation of a linear movement, may be enough. I have used computer fans with a cd (dvd) disk on it. Hard drives have very good ball bearings, but some say that they don't tolerate much horizontal forces.
I got a mu metal from an old hard drive. The magnet there also fits to the experiment, it has poles on both ends, and mu metal then has to be on it perpendicularly, it's a bit awkward, but may work. The mu metal there is in two flat pieces. I had to bend it a bit, to get it out, i don't know whether that decreased its properties. But it seems to shield well with small magnets. Otherwise, i didn't process it, just put it as it is, on the pole of the magnet.
Like the screw there, first it is attracted positively, positive attraction is in the direction where it supposed to move. Then there is negative attraction, opposite to that direction. The overunity in that is the energy of positive attraction (positive energy), minus the energy of negative attraction (negative energy). Friction should be measured separately. Then for theoretical overunity calculation, the friction energy of the positive phase (the distance moved under positive attraction) should be added to the positive energy, and the friction energy of the negative phase (negative phase friction) should be subtracted from the negative energy. Then the negative energy so calculated, should be subtracted from the positive energy so calculated.
Well the friction, this of course is more complicated. Maybe it can be assumed that like in the case of a computer fan, the radial forces don't increase friction sufficiently. Otherwise, the force attracting the stator magnet towards the disk, should be somehow measured, like maybe turning the stator magnet 90 degrees, and measuring force to the screw. Then knowing that force, we may take the simplest case. Turn the disk vertical, and hang something with that weight to it. Measure force moving a certain distance, this multiplied by the distance is all energy, and by how much it lifted the weight, is the energy in addition to friction, subtract that from all energy, and from that calculate the friction force. Something, i cannot say exactly how to do everything, as it depends on the particular case, may be simpler, may be not.
I think it can be assumed that the friction force is present even when measuring forces statically. Like when the friction is very high, the force we measure is zero, because all force goes to friction. Please correct me if you think it's different.
I don't know about that thing more, how well it works. I just wrote everything i know, so may be useful for someone. I'm unlikely to do experiments. Most important is that asymmetry of the magnetic field, this seems to be quite certain. And important is to know that there may be overunity, even if it cannot overcome friction.
Why am I failing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwNxfs5ocE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwNxfs5ocE)
Quote from: kolbacict on November 05, 2019, 01:42:01 PM
Why am I failing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwNxfs5ocE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuwNxfs5ocE)
I explained you, V-gate has no overunity. It is basically just magnets coming closer, and it ends when they don't come more closer and start from the beginning. For continuous overunity one has to use the asymmetry of the field, as also described above. Rather learn that.
V-gate doesn't use the asymmetry of the field, and this means that the output energy cannot be greater than the input energy. No matter what mechanism to use to gather energy, and then use it again, to move from the end to the beginning again, it just cannot work.
No one says anything. Can we conclude from that that all disagree yes ;) I must admit, i wonder why people here are not interested, but i myself am not interested. Like i don't so much want to do experiments, because i know they likely cannot provide overunity greater than friction. Also, i think that several experiments already show overunity in permanent magnets that is not greater than friction, based on the asymmetry mentioned above. Thus it is like even confirmed by several experiments. So what's the use, i cannot even surprise anyone. And when i am not interested, then why should i expect that others are interested, rather selfish, isn't it?
Now one may think, doing these experiments and all of a sudden it starts to continuously rotate. Certainly not, all that using this effect in experiments can bring, is overunity that cannot overcome friction, don't expect more. Most importantly we should understand these things. Then we may find a way to achieve continuous rotation, this i think is possible when very well understanding what happens. I have seen such devices, like metal balls going through the field of the magnets with a well adjusted trajectories, they did rotate continuously, though were a very complicated devices. But based on what i know now, i can say that they maybe were not hoaxes. And their authors never said how they worked, kept it in secret, all the advantage seemed to be to surprise other people. And indeed one cannot hope more even when making such device, my concern is increasing the knowledge that the humanity has. Even then there may be no practical use of that continuous rotation.
One thought, an iron object like a screw on that drawing. What if to try an iron cylinder instead, as all this should apply to every atom in the metal. I'm not sure about that, and i don't know the reason why it maybe cannot work.
About the mu metal, i had to talk about it, as static shielding is one way to get asymmetry. I don't know much about it though. It looks like that the mu metal brings inside itself not only the field lines that go away from the magnet, but also some that go towards the other pole. Thus when moving on that vertical line, it like weakens the whole pole, not only the field lines that go away from the magnet. Because the field lines that go both directions are bent to 90 degrees to that line.
So i'm not sure whether mu metal provides more asymmetry at all, than the asymmetry that the magnet already has. Don't expect any miracle when using mu metal either.
What concerns my this experiment https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 it is a bit simpler than i said earlier, it just has to be measured that the forces near the peak at both directions are equal. One needs a big mug or something to attach the Newton meter (spring scales) to, and then just a thread tied to the Newton meter's hook, or make ones own hook that is proper shape. Then just lift the hook with the thread vertically, in that way it is made sure that no speed is given to the disk by hand movement, in either directions.
The image below comes from the public domain image of spring scales, from the Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Weeghaak.JPG that can be used to measure forces of magnets.
QuoteI have seen such devices, like metal balls going through the field of the magnets with a well adjusted trajectories, they did rotate continuously, though were a very complicated devices.
Finsrud device?
Quote from: kolbacict on November 08, 2019, 09:36:23 AM
Finsrud device?
I saw some devices called Finsrud device, in youtube. I don't know whether they are the same, may be some roughly made worthless replicas. The one i saw, and i don't remember how it was called, was similar to that. But it looked like much more complicated. The trajectory by which the iron balls go through the magnetic fields, determine how well the asymmetry is used. Well what i see, before the ball comes, the magnet lowers, so the ball enters from the edge of the magnet, where the field is stronger. Then when the ball leaves, the magnet rises, and the field at the center of the magnet is lower. All i can figure, and i cannot be sure that any of these things work at all, but again, i think because of the asymmetry of the field a continuously rotating device may be possible. Anyway, what is necessary to make any continuously rotating device, if ever possible, is understanding these things more.
The best trajectory is likely, from side in, and then straight up. That the Lafonte scissors device that Norman made, seems to show the best. This trajectory is difficult to implement in any device. When using an iron object like a nut, not a magnet, the best may be a small disk, that rotates so that the object enters from the side, and then moves up.
A big mug, well, i don't know how precisely the distance of a mug can be adjusted. Then there can be a bolt, with a nut on it, something. Turning that bolt changes the length of a string, allowing to change the distance more precisely. Just something that i figure, may not be the best, such things require to figure out things sometimes, and be creative.
I used to use only a mounting tape, to attach everything, it can be easily removed, and things changed. Like one can attach a hook to the edge of a disk, with a mounting tape, to fold it twofold around the end of the wire, perhaps with the end of the wire bent, then stick that to the disk, it stays well in that way, i have tried it.
http://vitanar.narod.ru/dumy_o_motore/dumy_o_motore.html (http://vitanar.narod.ru/dumy_o_motore/dumy_o_motore.html)
Quote from: kolbacict on November 09, 2019, 05:19:53 AM
http://vitanar.narod.ru/dumy_o_motore/dumy_o_motore.html (http://vitanar.narod.ru/dumy_o_motore/dumy_o_motore.html)
It looks like that the Finsrud device is described wrongly there, or the author doesn't understand it. Lowering the magnet when it is attracting, takes energy, there cannot be overunity in that case. Except when the magnet is moved towards the area with a lower magnetic field at the pole. Without asymmetry of the field such device can no way work, whether it works at all, i don't know.
An iron ball is good in that it has low friction. One may try a rotating iron ball instead of a disk, though i'm not sure how good it is. One disadvantage is that i have no idea how to extract energy from a moving iron ball. With a disk that has a magnet on it it's simple, just put a coil near it.
An improved image of the spring scales, again this image is public domain. Spring scales are accurate because they are always linear by the Hooke's law.
Nothing else, and what else, as no one is interested. When an overunity greater than friction, and also continuous rotation, cannot be achieved, then likely no one is interested. And i don't know whether a continuous rotation can be achieved, all i know is that the way to achieve that, is to research these things thoroughly. Because continuous rotation if possible, likely requires an exact choosing of parts and solutions. That someone tries and accidentally achieves that, this is highly unlikely, for that one should know exactly what one is doing. That's all i can say, whether continuous rotation is possible or not i cannot say.
No voices against either. Where are all the vigilant scientists who always enforce the first law of thermodynamics, all seem to be silent, none has anything to say. I don't know whether thermodynamics works at zero point, but when something comes from the zero point, then it should be considered an unknown source, because not much is known about zero point, thus overunity.
Hi ayeaye,
QuoteNo voices against either. Where are all the vigilant scientists who always enforce the first law of thermodynamics, all seem to be silent, none has anything to say.
please don't encourage them, maybe the checks have stopped rolling in to pay them, or the tides are turning towards the light of truth.
peace love light :)
I'm sorry, maybe i was not accurate. As i understand, when doing static measurements, that is when we don't move the object during the measurement, to get the real force, friction should always be added to the measured force. And friction is of course greater, when the radial force to the bearing is greater.
I tried a small disk with the computer fan ball bearings, a nut on the disk, and 8 of the 25 x 5 mm ceramic disc magnets one on another. When the magnet was at a certain angle, and at a certain distance, i saw that the attraction was somewhat greater in one direction than in the other direction. The speed with which it attracted was greater. The magnet had to be at some distance, there was no noticeable difference of forces when the magnet was near the disk. It didn't make the disk to rotate of course, couldn't overcome friction, and maybe also inertia. I felt that the forces there were likely great enough, so that they can be measured. That's all i can do, as i still have no spring scales and nothing to measure the forces.
That's why I'm trying to build a magnetically floating rotor.
A very difficult task,without any input.
I still have more idea's, I just wish I had more time and resources.
I believe it is possible, no bearings, and reduced Lenz, Lenz free is impossible. IMO
Lenz is just another form of friction.
artv
Ayeaye
The field 'wants' to be spherical, round magnets help but
any magnet will round out at some distance away
And when we interact at rotating, round, angles
magnetic force can most certainly be unidirectional
The particular angle of interaction will vary with radiuses
But it is essentially the magnetic equivalent of a gravitational 'slingshot'
The field is bi-polar, so we consider only a portion of 1/2 of the radius for the maneuver
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 12, 2019, 03:21:37 AM
The field 'wants' to be spherical, round magnets help but
any magnet will round out at some distance away
Yes but when you are near it, then it is asymmetric, and this causes overunity.
I want to measure the energies of positive and negative attraction, i will when i get the spring scales, and can afford the time. Several experiments though likely already show overunity due to asymmetry of the field. None of which can overcome friction, but for me it has a theoretical importance. And whatever may be the case, we have to make this first step first.
Quoteas i still have no spring scales and nothing to measure the forces.
Isn't it made of plank and spring?
Quote from: kolbacict on November 12, 2019, 06:56:30 AM
Isn't it made of plank and spring?
It is in fact made only of spring, and whatever on which one can write the scale. Can also be a rubber band instead of a spring, the Hooke's law applies all the same. But i don't have a spring either, and even if i had, i want to use a standard one, because of all the doubts there can be when i use one made by myself.
The simplest is like that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwCwwKLa0GE but the problem with that is that the rubber band goes against the board, that should never happen during the measurement. So more ingenuity should be used to improve it.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 12, 2019, 03:21:37 AM
But it is essentially the magnetic equivalent of a gravitational 'slingshot'
No. The gravitational slingshot uses the speed of the planet, to accelerate. If we approach a planet in the direction of its movement, then it accelerates us by attraction. Then if we change our direction shortly before passing the planet, then we avoid most of the negative attraction, because the planet moves further from us, and its attraction decreases. The gravitational slingshot uses the speed of the body, not an asymmetry of the field, the gravitational field can be symmetric.
Quote from: ayeaye on November 12, 2019, 08:08:18 AM
No. The gravitational slingshot uses the speed of the planet, to accelerate. If we approach a planet in the direction of its movement, then it accelerates us by attraction. Then if we change our direction shortly before passing the planet, then we avoid most of the negative attraction, because the planet moves further from us, and its attraction decreases. The gravitational slingshot uses the speed of the body, not an asymmetry of the field, the gravitational field can be symmetric.
The movement of the planet is irrelevant, as only the relative motion between us and the planet matters. It is in fact, impossible to distinguish wether it is us or the planet in motion.
It is the relative motion and gravitational attraction that relates to our quest.
If we encounter the field and begin attracting (or repulsion), then exit the field at an accelerated rate,
The attraction imparts energy into the moving magnetic mass.
This can be achieved using fixed arc-vectors
Field symmetry doesn't need to be considered, because the interaction takes place entirely on one side of the meridian.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 12, 2019, 07:36:14 PM
Field symmetry doesn't need to be considered, because the interaction takes place entirely on one side of the meridian.
Yes, not in case of the gravitational slingshot, this is how it differs.
I want all to get used to the terms "positive attraction" and "negative attraction", these are the only forces talked in this thread. Again, this thread should be named "Power from attracting magnets".
Kolbacict, to measure force, you can just like put a rubber band between two paperclips, and then measure the length of the rubber band under the force. May be inconvenient and maybe not very accurate, but can do. You need some known weights to calculate the length into newtons, like if you have some scales, measure some volume of water or such. But you only need a rubber band and two paperclips. Remember the Hooke's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooke's_law .
Scales may be a useful tool if you want to measure force between two repelling magnets.
I am not certain what, if anything, it will help you discern in relation to "all magnets".
The more precise your measurement, the clearer the data becomes.
No two magnets are the same.
Even when they are precision specification engineered industrial magnets.
We can make them really close, but they are never the same.
Not only that, many of them are never even symmetrical.
N or S repulsion will show variance, and N-S attraction will vary when you flip them.
You can make your own magnetic repulsion scales by putting the magnet in a clear tube next to a ruler
Fishing scales are cheap, or you can get a precision spring scale at a cookware store for not too much
Quote from: ayeaye on November 12, 2019, 07:43:44 PM
I want all to get used to the terms "positive attraction" and "negative attraction", these are the only forces talked in this thread. Again, this thread should be named "Power from attracting magnets".
The thread gets named by the person starting the thread. And THIS thread is about repelling magnets. If you want to start a thread with a title about attracting magnets then start YOUR OWN thread. It is very rude to suggest the title should be changed to something else because you want the thread to be about something other than what the original poster intended.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on November 13, 2019, 06:48:56 AM
The thread gets named by the person starting the thread. And THIS thread is about repelling magnets. If you want to start a thread with a title about attracting magnets then start YOUR OWN thread. It is very rude to suggest the title should be changed to something else because you want the thread to be about something other than what the original poster intended.
I'm really sorry but, don't Norman's Lafonte scissors that he last made, use attracting magnets? And Norman started the thread, so it's for him to decide.
I don't think that threads can be renamed, but threads go where they go. Unless Norman decides otherwise, everyone is free to talk attracting magnets in this thread.
What is rude is to come in, and restrict peoples freedom, what they can and cannot talk. By someone who didn't start this thread, and has no right to decide what can or cannot be talked in this thread.
I did NOT say we shouldn't talk about attracting magnets or anything else for that matter. I think it is rude to keep insisting the name of the thread is wrong when you didn't start the thread.
Quote from: citfta on November 13, 2019, 01:24:14 PM
I think it is rude to keep insisting the name of the thread is wrong when you didn't start the thread.
I did *not* say that the name of the thread is wrong, this is what i didn't say. I really only wanted to say that this thread now appears to be only about attracting magnets, that's all that i wanted to say. And not because it's wrong, but because of where it went.
Improved my spring scales image again, now the background is transparent. This image is public domain.
We can harness the power of magnetism using either force.
Repulsion / Attraction are basically inverted
Invert your arc-path and use the other side of the magnet
Attraction arc is towards the field
Repulsion the arc is away from the field
In the attraction sense, it most resembles the gravitational assist
you arc around the field, accelerating, and leave with a higher velocity.
In the repulsion sense, the interaction takes place at the peak of the arc
as you approach the magnet, and are accelerated away along the 2nd 1/2 of the arc
It's all about the angles and relative motion
And when you get it, you won't worry about the negligible friction
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 13, 2019, 11:51:20 PM
you arc around the field, accelerating, and leave with a higher velocity
You approach the magnet (by a pole of another magnet or by an iron object) where the attraction is greater, you accelerate, then you leave where the attraction is less, decelerate, but the acceleration is greater than the deceleration, so you leave with a higher velocity. And this requires asymmetry of the field, it is impossible with a symmetric field, as then the deceleration is always equal to acceleration, when the magnet doesn't move that is.
Friction matters, one can gain speed, but for continuous rotation this speed has to be enough to approach the magnet again, due to friction the movement mostly stops right after leaving the field of the magnet.
And how to saw off a corner of a rectangular magnet? To make it asymmetrical? Neodymium magnet is fragile, it will crumble. You tried?
Quote from: kolbacict on November 14, 2019, 02:39:19 AM
And how to saw off a corner of a rectangular magnet? To make it asymmetrical? Neodymium magnet is fragile, it will crumble. You tried?
This will not make it more asymmetric i think. This asymmetry i think comes from the properties of the atoms, it is the same with any shape.
Quote from: lancaIV on October 25, 2019, 07:06:50 AM
http://translationportal.epo.org/emtp/translate/?ACTION=description-retrieval&COUNTRY=DE&ENGINE=google&FORMAT=docdb&KIND=A1&LOCALE=en_EP&NUMBER=3900890&OPS=ops.epo.org/3.2&SRCLANG=de&TRGLANG=en
scrolling down to :
"It is known that the force.... "
"It is known that the force exerted by two interacting magnets is much less when the magnets are displaced laterally relative to one another instead of being torn off."
It is not clear from that translation what Naudin really meant, but it looks like that the opposite is true. As there are evidently less field lines above the pole, then the forces and energy of approaching laterally should be greater than the forces and energy of approaching axially. Experiments also seem to show that.
Sorry for the late reply, but i did read again the Naudin article, and considered that to be important.
Ok, no one has nothing to say? Norman is not back either. My spring scales have not yet arrived. When they do, then i can do the experiment, and then i may create a new thread.
The experiment that i'm going to do, is basically on the figure below. I'm going to measure the forces, and the distances moved. The disk is a core of a computer fan, with an iron nut on it.
This is a very interesting experiment.
Just want to note that digital scales are probably more precise than the mechanical ones.
Ayeaye,
I think you are taking this situation too logically.
Shouldn't worry so much about 'field symmetry'
The field will warp and change to your approach
You want to enter in at an angle where the
boundary condition is minimal. This is not quite max acc.
The exit is sooner than you imagine as well.
It is during the transition of the arc where the approach is closest
that the moving magnet gains its' momentum.
It is an 'acute' arc, the angle of which can only be determined once the
magnetic factors are known or through experimentation.
When both magnets are moving there are advantages
Kolbacict see, the rubber band below was 132 mm long with 200 g weight, i measured it by weighing the pate that i bought. In stores they sometimes have very precise electronic scales, and these are free to use. If only the store doesn't alter the scales to get some benefit, which is unlikely. With the package only the length was 77 mm, and the package weighed almost nothing. Just so that the two sides of the rubber band are almost parallel for the minimum length. It was so with my rubber band, not necessarily with yours. The measured length was all the length of the rubber band, from end to end. Now do some calculations, and apply the Hooke's law, the force in newtons is (measured_length - 77) / 28.042 .
I started the experiment above, of measuring getting energy from asymmetry of the magnetic field. Unfortunately the forces are too weak (0.01 N and less) to be measured by any means that i can afford, measuring them requires a precise electronic force gauge. The information about that experiment is in that thread https://overunity.com/18363/getting-energy-from-asymmetry-of-the-magnetic-field-experiment/new/#new ,
Decrease distance =F^2
Get closer until you reach the magnitude of your instruments
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 21, 2019, 01:57:00 AM
Get closer until you reach the magnitude of your instruments
It doesn't work. It depends on the field lines, there is no position closer for the disk where is still enough asymmetry.
How to say that, for the disk of that size, there is no position closer to the magnet, where is enough asymmetry. Or at least i couldn't find any. It all depends on the shape of the magnetic field, that is the field lines. To get the disk closer to the magnet and still have enough asymmetry, one may need a smaller disk. But i don't know what it supposed to be.
I used the core of a computer fan, a rather small computer fan. I just took a computer fan and cut off everything from it, except the core. I don't know how to have an even smaller disk. The problem with the computer fan is also that it has a very small ball bearing. Thus the radial forces increase the friction a lot. If the disk were even smaller, the bearing could stuck completely. Maybe there should even be a non-magnetic bearing.
As likely most still read this thread, i say also here. First i could clearly feel the forces with my hand, in spite that they were mostly less than one gram. Second, from any position at the positive side, starting from the 6 o'clock position, it always moved fast to the neutral position. But at any position at the negative side, it did stay in place and didn't move. This indicates less forces at the negative side and less energy when moving through it. This is also how i found the position of the disk with the most asymmetry.
The force of friction should be added to both the positive and negative forces. The problem is that we don't know what the friction under a certain force is, and it is difficult to measure, though by some means it should still be possible. But i think we can safely consider that when the force is less, the radial force is also proportionally less, and thus the friction is less. So in calculation when the positive energy is greater than the negative energy not considering the friction, then it would also be greater when considering friction.
If you ask what the scale there is on the disk, this is just to measure the position of the disk and the distances moved. I drew it using a ruler, so that the units on the line where the center of the nut is, are millimeters. There supposed to be an object next to the disk to show what the position is, what object it should be, frankly i have not yet figured out.
you won't figure it out,
your perception of the lines of force are incomplete.
I believe they expand in all directions, infinitely.
and it goes in all directions, not N S.
artv
Ayeaye mentioned the long distance and that is exactly what I have found to be the biggest reason for efficiency less than 200%-300% because distance is a factor of the work out equation. While offline I made a list of my attempts and why they failed and distance was most frequent.
My wife had a long and successful surgery but I'm still dizzy and have to go to bed for several hours to get going some days but through all of this I have never fallen and some parts of the day are functional enough to get something small done like move the grass.
I have plans to resume my work any day unless we are able to travel for Thanksgiving for 6 days with family. I will use a variable lever/compensator to balance/compensate for the non linear attraction of the metal to repelling magnets to also compensate for the longer distance that the metal has to travel like Floor's machine.
I have felt for some time that a combination of the right things will made OU happen. The Finsrud device is an example of that with the ball and magnet and pendulum and gravity pushing the magnet down and kicking the pendulum.
I drool when I see Floor's precision device.
Peace to all. Life is not the same after you have been through serious medical trials.
Norman
Quote from: shylo on November 23, 2019, 06:33:05 PM
your perception of the lines of force are incomplete.
I believe they expand in all directions, infinitely.
and it goes in all directions, not N S.
Yes sure they do. But there are less field lines where the field is less, and iron filings also show that, they gather more to the areas where is more force. And field lines show the direction of the force in any particular area.
Welcome back Norman, good to hear that your wife's surgery was successful.
I believe the "lines" you perceive are a result of the iron.
Finer particles will show "more lines", though the proportionate
distribution will be maintained.
It is a factor of the field strength and the permeabilityxmass of the particles
It gives us a visual representation of the field shape and strength
But the lines are arbitrary, and don't really exist in the space as we "see" them.
Personally, I use a laminated "viewer".
That gives more of a 3-d image of what the field is.
[magnetite taken from sand, ground in a mortar & pestal, mixed with lightweight
mineral oil and placed between laminate sheets, color can be added]
I think I understand what you are looking for, though your attempts to measure it
seem futile.
any given magnet will "pull" stronger than it repels. Though for it to repel or pull it needs
a counterpart, so measuring that is just as futile.
When you look for asymmetrical field "lines",
Pay more attention to the boundaries, or the outer extremity of the "effective" field.
^^ is correct in that the field continues into infinity.
However, there is a distance where that doesn't matter to us big humans.
That's the edges of the field, as we are concerned with moving anything with it.
The number of lines in-between is just your imagination, it's the number of lines
the field is able to make out of your iron, that is all.
Smaller iron it can make more "lines", bigger iron, less
Quote from: sm0ky2 on November 24, 2019, 12:39:36 AM
I think I understand what you are looking for, though your attempts to measure it
seem futile.
Certainly not, it is perfectly measurable.
My spring scales have not arrived yet. Sure spring scales are not very precise, but i would try, maybe i can somehow measure.
I was not very sure whether the force when shifting the shield magnet in the Citfta's experiment was only friction, and thus whether there was overunity when disregarding friction.
Why, because first i'm not really sure what happened there. I don't think that one field shields another, field may change its shape, ok but. As i couldn't see what was the force when shifting the field magnet towards the fixed magnet, so whether there was a difference of force when moving the shield magnet in and moving it out.
Which means that i cannot exclude the possibility that the difference between positive and negative forces was just because of an ordinary shielding. In case of an ordinary shield, maybe twice as much force is necessary when moving shield out, because it is moved next to one magnet, but it is moved out from between two magnets. Also the left magnet attracted to the shield magnet, this also indicates that perhaps partly the shield magnet worked as an ordinary shield. When the effect was because of an ordinary shield, it was not overunity even when disregarding friction.
Sorry, not conclusive there, a better measurement may help to show what was the case. And when the middle magnet really acted as a shield magnet, then i were very interested what the shape of the fields were, and how such shielding really happened.
Ok, what about that (figure below)? The object moving may be any iron object. The trajectory may also be a curve, such as a larger disk. Just in principle.
The mu metal changes the field of the pole so that most of the force is to the side, thus more or less horizontal on the figure below. When moving in a line like below, there is positive attraction all the time, until passing the mu metal. After passing the mu metal, there should not be much negative attraction.
I tried it, and indeed i felt very little negative attraction after passing the mu metal, much less than the positive attraction. Again 8 of these 25 mm disk magnets one on another, and two pieces of mu metal that i have one on another, taken from an old hard drive.
Just an idea, maybe i didn't consider something, it is not that i say that this is how it should work. But what i want to say is that the asymmetry that the mu metal provides is different, thus it should also be used in a different way.
ayeaye,
I kind of get the idea you may not have a lot of money to spend on your research. But I do have a suggestion to help you. Find a computer repair shop and ask them for any hard drives they are planning to throw away. You should be able to get several. Take them apart and you can get plenty of Mu-Metal. Each hard drive has two pieces of Mu-Metal with very strong neo magnets on them. You can most of the time remove the magnet with a hammer and chisel. I took 3 of them apart yesterday. I did have one magnet that refused to separate from the Mu-Metal but the others came loose with a couple of hits from the hammer on the chisel.
I can also tell you that you are correct, the Mu-Metal will shield the magnetic forces. Whether you can make a device like you have drawn actually work, I don't know, but it appears it might work.
Quote from: citfta on November 27, 2019, 07:32:11 AM
I can also tell you that you are correct, the Mu-Metal will shield the magnetic forces. Whether you can make a device like you have drawn actually work, I don't know, but it appears it might work.
Thank you.
What many don't perhaps know, is that mu metal, as well as any other shielding such as iron, doesn't really erase the field. What it does is that it takes the field lines inside itself. Like in that case, most of the the field lines that come out of the pole, go into the mu metal, and come out from the edge of the mu metal.
Mu metal works because of the delicate crystal structure in it. It is thus sensitive to shock and vibration, as this may damage that crystal structure. Restoring it requires heating in a gas, which most are likely not able to do. I got my mu metal from a hard drive using pliers. This means that i bent the mu metal a little, i don't know did it damage the mu metal, all i know is that i tested it, and it shields.
It needs to be tested how much the processing damages the mu metal. Such as cutting or filing. Mu metal is otherwise as easy to process as a soft iron, but this sensitivity to processing is a problem. I didn't process my mu metal any way, just used it the shape it is.
I know someone who indeed had a computer repair shop once, and now he has many old hard drives, but he is far away. The mu metal is glued to the magnet in the hard drive. He said that he takes the mu metal out of the hard drive using a sharp blade, thus not beating or bending it. I don't know how he is able to do that though.
I imagine your friend put the sharp blade at the edge of the magnet where it contacts the Mu-Metal. Then a sharp tap with a small hammer or other object will pop the magnet loose. That is basically what I am doing with a small sharp chisel.
Also check your private messages. I sent you a message about another subject.
Well what i want, is to establish beyond doubt that there is overunity when disregarding friction. Then we know, the only thing that prevents continuous rotation, is friction. And when its all measured, then we can find ways to solve it, either by decreasing friction, or increasing energy gain.
In the past, may well be that the results with overunity that couldn't overcome friction, were rejected. This i think was a mistake.
Friction is not theoretically part of the process, it is not theoretically inevitable. When there is overunity, there is overunity, friction only prevents getting benefit of it.
This other drawing here too, with two shielded magnets. The shielding can also be iron, how it is worse is that the edge is wider, and thus there may be more negative attraction. But depending on configuration, i don't know whether it's always true.
What can be an iron shielding, a hammer head? With a proper size and shape hammer maybe. Ah, this reminds me. The core laminations of an old transformer. These can also be easily cut.
The drawing was not the best, so i now refactored it with Inkscape, below. I don't know the exact angle and position, it just shows the principle, it should be tweaked. The principle is that the edges of the mu metals attract, until they overlap each other, then they don't attract any more significantly. Thus one should see a clear acceleration.
Ok, does anyone try to find any theoretical problems with it? I see that there is negative attraction, because a shield attracts to another shield even when overlapped. But this must be much less than the force by which the shields attract from the sides, as this attraction is not shielded at all. In addition because the fixed magnet is tilted, its shield will be further away when the moving magnet moves on. This is the whole principle of shielding. And all that matters is more difference between the positive and negative attraction.
Ok, maybe i should explain too, what is on the drawing, as it may not be clear for everyone. The left magnet there is moving. It moves on a fixed trajectory in the direction of the arrow, like a train moves on the rails. This may be linear, or it may also be like on a large disk, so the movement is close to linear. When moving on the fixed track, all that matters are the components of the forces that are parallel to that track. That is every force is seen as two components, one parallel to the track, either in the direction of the arrow (positive direction), or in the direction opposing it (negative direction). The other component is at the 90 degrees angle from it, in case of a disk the "radial force", that does not affect the movement of the moving magnet at all. The right magnet is fixed in place, and doesn't move, it may be called a "stator".
My another thought is, when using a disk, it may be better to have two stators both working in a complete synchronicity. More than two stators likely doesn't give anything, bout further reducing the radial forces, but this is likely less important. Why, because when the attraction happens at the same time at the opposite sides, then the forces compensate each other, and there is less radial force to the bearing.
Any thoughts about the theory by anyone?
From my experience, my theory is similar to that of Howard Johnson
the shield doesn't just "shield", it diverts the magnetism through the metal.
This comes at the cost of field strength, but we'll set that to the side for now.
What also happens is compression.
It is this compression that operates like a set spring
imagine, that the momentum of the approaching magnet
pushes the button of a mechanical ink pen and retracts it
This causes the field to release the magnetic tension (or build up more) until the interacting
field moves out of range.
What must be understood is the difference between field symmetry and magnetic conservation.
An asymmetrical field is symmetrical in its' asymmetry. or inversely proportionate to the compression.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 03, 2019, 12:52:34 AM
From my experience, my theory is similar to that of Howard Johnson
the shield doesn't just "shield", it diverts the magnetism through the metal.
Yes the shield doesn't block, it likely does that below. There the field lines that without shield did go up, now go to the side.
Exactly.
There will be found some small field effect outside, but imperceptible to most
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 03, 2019, 06:36:32 PM
There will be found some small field effect outside, but imperceptible to most
Yes there are things that we know, but i don't exclude that there can also be things that we don't know. Because we don't know that much about fields and quantum. All the purpose of the research is to find out how it is.
Of course we badly need better and more precise instruments. No hope to measure all these subtle things otherwise, and find out all that happens. We cannot even measure the forces of the shield, how pathetic is that.
My spring scales have not yet arrived. They have 1 newton range, one division is approximately one gram, means that it should be at least possible to measure with the precision 1/4 gram, which may be for some purpose enough.
How the electronic scales and force gauges are made, they use a pressure sensitive resistor, it is that such resistor also reacts to bending a surface. The rest is a non-linear transform by microcontroller, translating the resistance into force. Possible to make such thing, and it's not expensive, but it's a whole separate task.
A compass is your friend
Not necessarily the kind used for navigation
But a magnetic needle, on a low friction surface
With varying degrees of freedom.
On a string, on a cork in a dish of oil, there are many
methods of making highly sensitive magnetic detectors.
but always keep in mind the offset caused by the earth field
I cannot measure the strength of the force with compass.
Quote from: norman6538 on November 23, 2019, 07:45:42 PM
I have felt for some time that a combination of the right things will made OU happen.
I agree, and my personal belief is this requires the utilization of both forces. that would be attraction and repulsion. As stated by a few on this forum, and others, repelling magnetic fields can act as a compression stage. Magnetic attraction is similar to the expansion stage. I like your concept, and then construction some pages ago with the offset on your scissor device. If you place the device horizontal does it perform the same way?
Keep up the good work.
- Corton
Quote from: ayeaye on December 13, 2019, 02:23:05 AM
I cannot measure the strength of the force with compass.
You can measure deflection
Which is proportional to field strength at a given distance
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 14, 2019, 06:16:29 PM
You can measure deflection
Which is proportional to field strength at a given distance
I don't quite understand what do you mean. I need to measure a force on the disk, in the direction of rotation. Rotation can only be in one direction, or in the opposite direction.
My spring scales have not yet arrived, do they need two months to arrive from china?
The strength of a magnetic field decreases with the square of the distance
If distance is the same, it requires a certain amount of force to deflect the needle
the degree of deflection is directly proportionate to the force, at that distance.
It is an arbitrary proportion, like the rubberband.
Unless you know the moment of inertia of the needle on the substrate.
If your goal is to measure the difference between one side of the field vs the other
This is the best and most accurate tool for the job.
With the disk set-up,
You are working with the leverage of the radius from the fulcrum (bearing)
this is not the same as the linear force.
You will get a measurement, but what are you measuring?
You can also make a vertical set-up, where-in the force measured is a function of
the time derivative of gravity. (stationary gravitational force) E= MGH
It doesn't have to be direct vertical repulsion
You can use the lift or pull force of a known mass on a string
either wrapped around a shaft or using a pulley, or eye-ring
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 15, 2019, 12:12:54 AM
With the disk set-up,
You are working with the leverage of the radius from the fulcrum (bearing)
this is not the same as the linear force.
You will get a measurement, but what are you measuring?
I'm going to measure the tangent force at the distance from the center of the disk equal to the distance of the center of the nut, or another iron object on the disk, from the center of the disk. As it is a tangent force, it may be in practice considered that it is the same as a linear force.
I'm also going to measure the distance from one place the force was measured, to another, in millimeters. How can i measure the distance in millimeters, in spite it is not linear? Again, it's the distance in millimeters moved on the circle, where is the center of the nut, or another iron object.
My spring scales arrived. This one is 1 Newton, can measure very weak forces. It did cost $2.85 from ebay. I also got another, 5 Newtons, i really wanted 10 Newtons or greater, but these were the cheapest ones i could get.
What have you learned since your scales arrived?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 22, 2019, 10:58:19 PM
What have you learned since your scales arrived?
The force is not measurable with these scales, in spite these are a very sensitive scales. There is nothing i can do, i cannot see any movement on the scale at all. I feel with fingers, there is force, i can say when it's weaker or stronger, there clearly is force, but too weak to be measured with these scales.
I don't know what to do, a huge magnet and a big nut, then the force is most likely measurable with such scales. But i don't have such huge magnet.
One thing, the hook of these scales is made of a non-magnetic material. I don't know what it is, but it is not attracted by magnet. I thought that i have to make an additional hook from a copper wire or something, but no need, one can put the hook directly inside that nut.
I found that a matchbox put there with the corner, can be used to show the angular position. Not the best, and sure a better solution can be found, but will do.
Another thing that i thought, maybe to put an additional paper disc inside the scales, near the hook side, that will show the reading. That way it is easier to capture the experiment by camera, only the end of the scales have to be in the visible area. And it can be done with the precision that the measurements can be seen, without moving the camera. Then just make a video of moving the disk like millimeter or two millimeters at a time, stopping each time. This video will show all measurements, nothing more would be necessary.
One slight problem with these scales. When they are horizontal, the red plastic disc (around the hook rod that shows the reading) goes slightly against the tube. Very slightly, and it likely doesn't change the measurements, even when small. But it shouldn't be, for it to be perfect, the disc should be either made smaller, or replaced by a smaller disc.
How it is feasible to do the experiment, this is all important.
Ayeaye make your own scales. I like variable levers which can be very sensitive. Take a dowel and put a hole through it for an axle then drill a hold in the side so that you can insert an arm like a popsicle stick or wooden coffee stirrer (which can also be glued to the end of the dowel). then you can make several holes in the arm for various leverages. And you can hang various weights off those holes. Then mount the axle in a pivot and wrap a string around the dowel and attach it to the device being measured or a weight and attach the opposite to the other end. I have a photo but can't post it now. ask for the photo if you don't understand how to use this sensitive device. What happens is the leverage changes as the arm rotates and there is a balance point where it will just sit there. or either extreme will dominate. With your super brain you should have no questions nor need a photo.
Happy and Healthy New Year everybody,
Norman - not so healthy
Quote from: norman6538 on December 25, 2019, 08:21:37 PM
Ayeaye make your own scales.
I know it is possible to make one's own scales, but it's too difficult, for so small forces.
It is important to measure these forces, one can make devices no matter how many, where one can feel the forces by one's hand, but what does it give? Who doubt in them, remain skeptical, when there is no measurement. A measurement showing gain of energy even when disregarding friction, is thus so important.
Again, in your Lafonte scissors both pairs of magnets attract, did i understand correctly? Assuming that it is so.
If so, it shows the same effect. Separating two magnets when moving by axis takes less energy, than approaching from the side gives. So what is necessary is to measure energy in both cases, maybe it's possible, and maybe the forces there are strong enough to be measurable. What is necessary for such measurements, a small linear bench?
Happy New Year you too, and health.
Below is a better photo of my spring scales, made with a digital camera. Better than i could make with the webcam, in the lighting conditions. What is important is that only having the scales enables me to post the image of it here, as all the images available are in a way or another copyrighted, and cannot be posted here. So this enables you to see a photo of real spring scales, with a 1 Newton range.
Have you measured your force?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on December 26, 2019, 12:37:05 AM
Have you measured your force?
No, i said i tried. But the force is so small that i don't even see the disc in the spring scales move. In spice that i can clearly feel the force by my hand.
Ayeaye said "Again, in your Lafonte scissors both pairs of magnets attract, did i understand correctly? Assuming that it is so." - false assumption. get off the keyboard and make one and then you will learn something. One attracts and the other repels but always at the same distance so they are always balanced just like the scissors. But I prefer the linear ones because they are easier to adjust and there is not angle changes.
Norman
Quote from: norman6538 on December 26, 2019, 06:55:15 AM
false assumption
Thank you, i needed to know that. Thus one pair of magnets in the Lafonte scissors attracts, and the other repels. So this is like balancing forces. Both opening and closing the scissors needs very little force. But when it is only balanced forces, then there likely is not much output energy.
My health has recovered enough to continue my work started here. I am trying to
exploit the power between 2 repelling magnets when they push apart by first
inserting metal to make them attract onboth sides and then when the metal is removed they
will separate and release the power for our use. My work is always rapid
prototype and crude but here is a peek at what I accomplished. The third
photo shows the entire setup. The first photo shows the variable lever setup.
The second photo shows the basic device setup that has 2 repelling magnets with
metal between them. A bell crank with connecting rods makes them open and
close equally together. Then off to the right not seen but in the second photo
is a variable lever with a RadioShack magnet (weight only) to counter balance the
attraction forces of the magnets to metal. Then adding a 3/16 nut is enough
to make the arm drop 1.25 inches. That pulls the metal away so that the
repelling magnets separate to lift the output variable lever. Then not seen
behind is another variable lever attached to those magnets which lifts 6 of
the same magnets 1/2 inch. Which means that using
(1 nut x 1.25 in travel is a unit of work) 1 unit lifts 6 magnets 1/2 inch.
Thus 1.25 units in / 6 x .5 = 3 giving a ratio of 240% work out vs in.
I have achieved this with 2 other permanent magnet devices but its not
enough to reset and repeat to make continuous motion. BUT IT IS OVER UNITY.
I will try to refine this to do better because the variable levers are not
precisely configed. I used what was lying around from past projects. They need
to be sized for the mechanical travel distance to match about 1/4 the
circumference of the circle. The film canister in the input is too big and
needs to be down sized and the output might be too small. If you hook 2 equal
variable levers to each other they will balance no matter where they are
positioned just like 2 equal weights on a pulley and string.
I use adjustable stops on the left to keep the metal from dragging
on the magnets and requiring more work in.
The last photo shows the output variable lever with 5 nuts like the 1 input nut.
And the yardstick has 2 sets of markings - blue is the distance lifted for
the output and masking tape is the nut dropped distance markings
I hope this will encourage you to do your own work to get power from permanent
magnets.
If I had a fraction of the money spent this weekend on "the game" I would have
a self runner.
The leverage on the variable lever changes as the arm moves from horizontal where
its max leverage occurs. The leverage is not the radius of the arm but the
distance of the weight to the axle. At horizontal leverage is maxed but at 85
degrees either up or down the leverage is very little and thus is intended to
approximate the magnet closer stronger, further weaker characteristic.
Norman
Since my heart/breathing/circulation has improved so much I am on a roll again. I realized that my film tube had too much travel and not enough angle change in the movement so I made a smaller one which gives more angle/leverage change and I am working on multiple weights at various leverages to match the closer stronger magnetic attraction characteristic. So in this photo you can see the beginning of this and what it means. There are 3 different weights at 3 different leverages. The arm/weights are balanced at this point but as the arm goes down to horizontal the 2 weights on the left are not necessary so I will "sit them on a floor" so that they are not a penalty when going back up.
see photo for the idea. I will use strings to hold the weights which will "sit them on a floor".
So when the forces are balanced out just adding a small weight will make the arm drop and removing it will allow it to go back up to repeat the cycle.
My real purpose in all of this is to demonstrate that not all energy is conserved in all cases. So in this concept a balance is made between magnetic forces, gravity (could be springs), and variable leverage such that we release the magnetic repel power with a smaller force.
Norman
I'm sorry to say that my bellcrank is too sloppy and looses a lot of work out and I don't know how to make a better one.
So I picked up on Floor's twist drive and quickly cobbled two somethings together today that is more promising than my power from repelling magnets.
You can see it here. https://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg543093/#msg543093
Hope you find it interesting. Floor has done a great job on his research and sharing it with all of us.
Norman
I am on version 6 of Floor's twist drive and I made a variable lever with 3 different dowel diameters to be able to refine the power to set and reset the device and this is what I measured today.
1. The device is self setting. ie meaning take my had off and it goes from unset to set and twist and lift a small washer 12.5 cm.
2. to then unset and unlock from the twisted attraction it takes the same washer 2 cm of drop.
3. so that clearly gives 10 extra units of work for the switching necessary to make it self run.
The extra work is more than there.
Next I will begin my clock work to make it switch from lifting to resetting mode making it a self runner with extra power out too.
Norman
I use a given weight that drops 1 cm and via "Floor's Twist Drive" lifts 4 of the same weights 7 cm. which I call 28 units of work out. That would be 2,800% OU. It takes 6 units to make this repeat itself - 1 to set and lift and 5 to reset to repeat step 1.
But if there were some error in my numbers and even 500% were achieved then cascading this again and again would reach several thousand units over the input.
I will have someone I trust to verify the numbers soon.
Norman
Today I have changed some things and derived 4,000% efficiency by dropping a weight 1 cm which moves a magnet closer to a twistable magnet which then lifts 20 of the same weights 2 cm giving a 1:40 ration.
Attached is a concept drawing without all the leverage details. I am now working on automatic switching to make it switch from that excess work and run by itself.
I WANT TO THANK FLOOR AGAIN FOR SHARING ALL OF HIS WORK THAT MADE THIS POSSIBLE.
Norman
See more details on my Floor replication here.
https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg543369/#msg543369 (https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg543369/#msg543369)
Norman
Magnets are different because the molecules in magnets are arranged so that their electrons spin in the same direction. This arrangement and movement creates a magnetic force that flows out from a north-seeking pole and from a south-seeking pole. This magnetic force creates a magnetic field around a magnet.
Have you ever held two magnets close to each other? They don't act like most objects. If you try to push the two north poles or two south poles together, they repel each other. But if you put a north pole and a south pole together, the magnets will stick together because the north and south poles attract each other. Just like protons and electrons—opposites attract in magnets.
Thanks Norman
The "floor principle" The Twist Drive
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6wfk0d
Floor posted this topic today but I cannot reply to messages so I post here.
His uploads are always .bin but they are pdfs...
This is the grammyburst id for Butch Lafonte stuff I have referred to many times but I never tried a gap which would allow a complete turn on and off and an escape over a gap with the Flynn parallel path stuff that would give a complete turn on and off...... Lafonte and Flynn combined with this gap Looks very promising. .....
Norman
@ Norman6538
The Lafonte topic is now unlocked. If you want to present
any of your Lafonte work there, go for it, its appreciated.
floor