On the figure 1 below is the position of the magnet and disk, where the asymmetry was the greatest. About the dimensions, the ceramic disc magnets there are 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick. The iron nut there is in the neutral position.
When moving the iron nut to the 6 o'clock position and then releasing the disk, the nut moved fast to the neutral position. But when the nut was in any position in the opposite direction from the neutral position (the negative side), it stayed in place in every position and didn't move.
When trying to measure it with a thin rubber band, the maximum force on the positive side was somewhere around 0.01 N, on the negative side the maximum force was likely not more than 0.005 N, in fact the force was too weak for my rubber band to measure anything.
I think that even my 1 N range spring scales that i ordered, are not capable of measuring so weak forces. A precise force gauge is capable of that. One can clearly feel these forces by hand, yet they are too weak to measure.
The theory and evidence why such asymmetry supposed to provide energy, is in this thread https://overunity.com/18288/power-from-repelling-magnets/ .
Like, compare this experiment to the field lines of a magnet on the figure 2 (shown by iron filings). You see that what this experiment seems to show, somewhat corresponds to the usual asymmetry of the magnetic field near the pole of a magnet.
When a magnetic field exists in the domain of another magnetic field:
Asymmetry always exists.
Because there is not an equal and opposite field on the opposite pole of the field.
One side of the field warps in response to the dominant field.
The opposite pole responds oppositely
Asymmetric
The only time the field is symmetrical is when it is undisturbed.
We create symmetry with out architecture
Orientation of magnets and coils, etc.
Anything outside of this, symmetry is broken and all theory goes out the window.
Yes i couldn't measure the forces with my spring scales. Because forces are too small.
I have this idea now, if anyone wants to hear. Move a pole of a smaller narrow magnet, some 45 degrees linearly pass the big magnet. I tried it by hand, i would say that the forces should be measurable, and by hand the attraction feels greater before passing the magnet, than after passing the magnet. Moving by hand proves nothing though.
I found that all that is necessary, is the small magnet to move by a slippery surface, such as plastic. Because of the forces, nothing else is necessary, and on that surface the forces are only on one line, i tried that too. So all that is necessary is to attach some thread to the lower end of the small magnet, attach the hook of the spring scales to it, and move the magnet by moving the spring scales, stopping after every small distance.
I further thought, when the video is captured from above, no scale is necessary for distance measurement, because distances can later be measured from the video. Also as i said, it's better to add an additional paper disk around the hook rod of the spring scales near the end, then all the measurements can be seen from the same view of the camera.
I though one way to do it, is a transparent plastic box, though not inevitably necessary. Then the big magnet can be attached inside the box to its side, and the small magnet is moved on the lid of the box. Just one way that came to mind, not necessarily the only one, but there is not necessarily a need for a bench, because the forces are all on one line, this simplifies it.
Just what came to my mind, not necessarily the best. But doing that is too difficult.
Below is the photo of my spring scales. These have 1 Newton range. These spring scales did cost $2.80 from ebay, they are very precise and work well.
I am looking forward to your video.
Just a simple drawing, to give some idea how this experiment supposed to happen. Not much to draw, but drawing always makes it more clear. The principle is to move around the small magnet on the surface, with scales. The best surface is something very slippery, such as glass. But plastic will do, i tried it, holding everything by hand. I will likely not do this experiment, because it is very difficult.
By asymmetry again i mean non-Coulomb asymmetry, or non-Coulomb irregularity.
Hello ayeaye,
I have a couple of questions about your experiment. First question is where did you get magnets with the poles on the end of the magnet? Almost all the magnets I have found have the poles on the larger faces of the magnets and not on the ends. Have you actually used a compass or other device to verify the poles are like you have drawn them? And my last question is why do you say the experiment is too difficult to perform? It seems pretty simple to me. You can get some glue to hold the stationary magnet and piece of glass or plastic in place and then perform the test with your new scales. I use the all purpose adhesive from ACE hardware. It is waterproof and remains s little flexible after drying. I use it because I have found that with a strong twisting force I can separate the parts I have glued together. This allows me to reuse my magnets or other parts if I want. I was using a stronger more permanent glue but then destroyed several magnets when I tried to reuse them for other projects.
Respectfully,
Carroll
PS: Thank you for moving your discussion to your own thread!
I don't get this?
Floyd Sweet made kW from magnets, and you are still struggling with basics?
For how many years?
It is really joy to read those posts!
Maybe the next year will be more fertile?
Who knows , maybe , if there will be still time?
Happy New Eve!
Quote from: WhatIsIt on December 31, 2019, 07:51:51 AM
Floyd Sweet made kW from magnets, and you are still struggling with basics?
What you don't get is, none of these claims may be true. But ok then, let Floyd Sweet tell what principles he used, and let's replicate them by experiment. He doesn't tell, it cannot be replicated to get any overunity, well, that's the problem. The difference is, here scientific research and experiments matter, not claims.
Quote from: citfta on December 31, 2019, 07:35:21 AM
First question is where did you get magnets with the poles on the end of the magnet? Almost all the magnets I have found have the poles on the larger faces of the magnets and not on the ends.
To be honest, i don't have magnets with poles on the ends. Except one that is, the one taken from an old hard drive. I have magnets with poles on their larger faces. But, by piling a number of them one on the other, i get a bigger magnet with poles on the ends. See the first photo in this thread, there are disc magnets, 5 mm thick and 25 mm in diameter, with poles on their larger faces. Several such disc magnets are one on the other, and this forms a big magnet, as you see there. I have also small rectangular magnets with poles on their larger faces, a few one on the other enables to make a small magnet, with poles on the ends.
> And my last question is why do you say the experiment is too difficult to perform?
What should i use there, a plastic box? I have a plastic box, but it's not empty, there are things inside it, so i have to move them somewhere else. And so many other things.
So far i have used a mounting tape only, to attach everything, And it has been enough. I like it because it can be completely removed later, with no traces left. This is more difficult with a glue.
> Thank you for moving your discussion to your own thread!
I did not, this discussion is only about one experiment.
Ok. the video of the experiment is up, this is it https://archive.org/details/asymmsurf , make it fullscreen. Below is the photo of my "device". Yes it was difficult, it was a mess.
The big magnet was made of 8 ceramic disc magnets 5 mm thick and 25 mm in diameter, positioned at an angle like on the drawing above. The small magnet was made of 2 ceramic disc magnets 5 mm thick and 10 mm in diameter.
The video is rather raw. What one can see though, when moving to the right from the neutral position by the drawing above, the force was 1.7 Newtons, and it moved by that force some 3 millimeters, then the force rapidly decreased, energy 5.1 mJ. When moving in the opposite direction from the neutral position, to the left by the drawing above, the force was 1 Newton, and it looks like that it barely moved 2 millimeters, before the force rapidly decreased, thus energy 2 mJ.
By the force rapidly decreasing i mean, i never moved the scales fast, but always very slowly. But when the force decreases a lot, the spring of the scales makes the magnet to move fast.
This experiment was rather messy, it was the first one. But hopefully it shows the difficulties with such experiments, and how to make them better.
Happy New Year everyone!
i had to improvise a lot.
The alternative is a disk with a bigger ball bearing or a linear bench. As i also said, it would be good to use two big magnet "stators", like at the opposite sides, so the forces perpendicular to the movement then compensate each other, much less friction and stress to the bearings. Certainly more difficult to implement. But moving on the surface works as it appears, friction is not too great.
I used a box in which they sell some things in the grocery store, and while a more slippery surface like glass would sure be better, i have no complaints about the box. I used spring scales with the 5 Newton range, i bought 3 of them, 1 Newton range, 5 Newton range, and 25 Newton range, the 25 Newton range one has not yet arrived. And it appears that i did well getting scales with different ranges.
Putting this big cylinder magnet under an angle is a problem. Glue is one way, or one may make a construct out of cardboard, to hold it in place. I improvised with some cardboard from matchboxes, and it worked, though sure not a pretty solution.
The biggest problem as it appeared, the small magnet, when it moves away, tilts towards the pole of the big magnet, and falls over. This can be solved by attaching the small magnet to some plastic or anything flat beneath, that prevents it from falling over. Then attach thread to that "sledge" beneath. While somewhat increasing friction, likely not too much. I have not tried it, but it should work.
The scale is likely necessary on the lid of the box, either drawn or printed, then just glued there. Because while it's not a problem to see the distance moved from the video, try to move the magnet like by 1 mm, and hold it in place there, rather difficult when measuring just by eye. And near the big magnet, very small distances matter, like maybe it should be moved by 1/4 mm.
At that, moving so precisely, is difficult to do by hand, though may be possible. Another solution is to attach the spring scales to something with adjustable distance, like by a screw. But that's difficult and requires an additional mechanical construct. What concerns precision though, it would improve it a lot.
The proper way is to start to measure away from the neutral position, and then slowly moving towards the neutral position. Why, because the spring of the spring scales is under tension, and when the force decreases a lot, the spring pulls more than necessary, making the magnet to move rapidly. I did it the wrong way, one learns when doing.
A problem is certainly that the spring scales are long, and it is difficult to put the magnet and the scales both in the same view, so that the precision is great enough. I moved the camera around, from spring scales to the magnet and back, this is not a good solution, as you may see from the video of my experiment. I said, put a paper disk around the hook rod of the spring scales more towards the end, but then found that the spring scales are all glued together, and cannot really be opened without breaking them. It may be possible to saw the end of the tube off, and then to glue back again, though that isn't so easy to do. It is certainly possible to make a mark on the hook rod. The position on the scales can then be seen only with a proper camera angle, but the position of the mark can also be measured from the video.
So here i described several problems with these experiments. It was mostly about how to increase the precision of these experiments. For others who may try to do these experiments. To think, it's the simplest when one person does it all, the easiest solution because no others then have to do anything. The way to express it is, we wait and see with interest what you can do. Does one person have to do everything, or how much is enough for one person to do? Especially with these things not rewarding at all, like this overunity research. And not a right way either, as it is anyway necessary for several people to replicate the experiment, for it to be valid.
All the ideas how to improve these experiments, are welcome. Anyone willing to replicate the experiment, is more welcome.
Prize for these who measure overunity for the first time, anyone? Should be shared between all these who made it possible.
Have you gathered yet any data to share?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 02, 2020, 10:30:43 AM
Have you gathered yet any data to share?
Only what i said above, and what can be seen from the video. Mostly that the maximum measured force when moving in one direction was 1.7 Newtons, and the maximum measured force when moving in the opposite direction was 1 Newton. Both times moving from the neutral position. But the experiment was not yet well done.
PS I attached a piece of tape to the hook rod of the spring scales, hope that it can be seen even in these bad lighting conditions. These are the 5 Newton range spring scales.
What concerns friction, i should explain here, as i see it. When the spring scales stand still at some point, then the force is the real force minus friction. When we move the spring scales against the force from that point, then we see the real force. So friction at that point is that force minus the force when the scales stand still.
In spite when we move the scales against the force, we see the real force and can also calculate the energy when moved by that force, a part of that energy goes to friction, and is thus useless. Thus, when the magnet enters the field with some speed, it will not get enough energy when going through the positive part (up to the neutral point), to go through the negative part and still have some energy left. Because a part of the energy goes to friction. So it will not accelerate, its speed when exiting the field of the big magnet is not greater than its speed when entering the field.
In spite of that though, if we calculate overunity by forces that include friction, there is that overunity, just more energy goes to friction than this overunity provides. I think this can be calculated from the measured forces. We can likely also calculate the friction at any measured point, see how great it is, and how much it has to be decreased, for there to be acceleration.
The measurements also likely enable to see with what magnets, etc, the energy gain is greater, and thus hopefully find a solution for a continuously rotating device. This is though not relevant for the theoretical research, what is relevant for the theoretical research is overunity when disregarding friction. After all we do research, no one is likely interested in making any practically working device.
No, it was not quite right.
When the scales stand still, then the measured force fs is the force to the magnet f, minus the force of friction ff. Because when the scales don't move, then the force of friction works against the force to the magnet.
fs = f - ff
When the scales move with a constant speed, and it doesn't matter with what speed, then the measured force fm is the force to the magnet plus the force of friction. Because when the scales move, the force of friction works against the pulling force of the scales.
fm = f + ff
Thus, when measuring the force starting from some point both when the scales stand still and when the scales move, the force to the magnet is
f = (fs + fm) / 2
And the force of friction is
ff = f - fs
These things are important to know every time we are dealing with friction.
Ayeaye,
I hope you don't mind if I make a couple of suggestions. You need to establish what the frictional drag is. You need to do a set up with your scales and the movable magnet well away from the other magnet. The next thing you need to consider is that there are two kinds of friction. There is static friction also called stiction. You can measure that by slowly increasing the pull of the scales until the movable magnet just starts to move. In other words you want to measure how much force it takes to get the movable magnet moving. Once the magnet starts to actually move the frictional forces drop considerably if the surface is pretty slick. Once the magnet is moving you can then read your scale to see what the sliding friction actually is.
Then after you have recorded those values you can go back and redo your experiment with the fixed magnet in place. And then you can more accurately calculate the actual forces involved.
Respectfully,
Carroll
On slippery dry surfaces the static friction shouldn't be much greater than the friction when moving, but what the difference is, this can be measured too, by putting some weight on the moving surface with no magnets.
I measured friction when moving my coffee mug on the table, that's glass on plastic. It started to move with 0.35 Newtons, and continued to move with 0.35 Newtons. I moved it slowly. I found no static friction greater than friction when moving.
What is likely true though is that when the surface is covered by some liquid, such as oil in ball bearings, then the friction likely decreases when the movement starts, because the moving object kind of glides on the liquid. The static friction is also greater when the surface is anyhow sticky.
I'm waiting for opinions, is it ok to do the experiment in that way, or should it be done in another way.
A new and improved video of the experiment is now up https://archive.org/details/asymmsurf2 . I have yet to do the calculations.
It appeared that a greater distance away from the neutral position, the other pole of the small magnet starts to attract to the other pole of the big magnet. It stands like in the air. Nothing can be done to improve that. I wanted to use things like iron nut that doesn't have two poles, but forces were too small.
I'm sorry, it's not the best quality, better if camera were in the fixed position, etc. But one goes with what one has. Replicate this experiment and do it better.
How am i going to get the measurements? I will measure the number of pixels horizontally with gimp, between the magnet and some mark, on screenshots. Gimp shows x and y in pixels, of the cursor position. Knowing that the diameter of the magnet is 10 mm. I also consider the angle of view when getting the measurements of the spring scales. Not the best but, for the first time it's good enough.
The result was not what i expected, it appears that the magnet gets more energy at the left side, but with this linear movement it may be so, and it corresponds to how the magnets were tilted in my other experiment. Something like field lines that go to the other pole, bend away faster, and thus the force at the right side decreases much faster, one can clearly see that in the video.
That confirms my this experiment https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 in a measured way.
The following was measured from the video. At both sides the movement is considered so long, that at the end of it there was no measurable force to the magnet.
At the right side the magnet moved 3.57 mm with the force 0.8 N, and 2.29 mm with the force 1.0 N, thus energy at the right side was 5.15 mJ.
At the left side the magnet moved 17.43 mm with the force 0.6 N, and 6.71 mm with the force 0.4 N, thus energy at the right side was 13.14 mJ.
The force when moving was 1.2 N at the right side, and 0.8 N at the left side. Considering that the force when moving was constant, then the forces considering friction were the following.
At the right side, first 3.57 mm -- ( 0.8 + 1.2 ) / 2 = 1 N, friction 0.2 N, 3.57 mJ, next 2.29 mm -- ( 1 + 1.2 ) / 2 = 1.1 N, friction 0.1 N, 2.52 mJ .
At the left side, first 17.43 mm -- ( 0.6 + 0.8 ) / 2 = 0.7 N, friction 0.1 N, 12.20 mJ, next 6.71 mm -- ( 0.4 + 0.8 ) / 2 = 0.6 N, friction 0.2 N, 4.03 mJ .
Thus the energy at the right side was 6.09 mJ, and the energy at the left side was 16.23 mJ, 10.14 mJ more.
By these calculations, only 4 mJ goes to friction during all movement through the field, 6 mJ should be left. Thus the magnet should go through all the field when starting from the left, and gain speed. Yet, when releasing the magnet from the beginning of the field at left, it stops at the neutral position. I have not tried to make it to go through with an initial speed.
What i would like the most, is someone to replicate this experiment, many thanks.
Think of a balloon
When you push in one side the other bulges out
Press it against water one side gets flat the other
gets bigger.
Pull on a piece and the other side goes inwards.
the ends change shape too.
If you have a viewer that is larger than your magnet
you can see the entire field and how it changes shape.
You can also make a "tray" out of thin sheet of clear plastic
And sprinkle filings on top, thinly so you can see below
Then play with the field.
They are never truly symmetrical.
One side is always stronger by a tiny bit
Even with factory magnets that are "identical".
Higher priced ones can get close but never perfect.
anything we do to one side changes the other.
There's always the same 'total field strength'.
Except in one of two discrete instances:
In one case an attracting field of sufficient strength
can dominate the magnetism of the original magnet
and temporarily "nullify" it. Or in other words, the
field strength temporarily approaches 0.
In the opposite case a repelling field can overpower
the magnetism and "flip it" instantaneously propagating
a field exponentially greater than the two fields combined.
By exploiting either of these discrete cases
(usually with the aid of a 3rd approaching field)
Magnetic switches can be constructed for any number of
purposes.
In case 1: switching "off" one magnet allows the dominant
field to occupy the same space, for a duration, then the other
magnet can return to its' original state.
A mechanically driven magnetic motor can be constructed.
Turning mechanical oscillations into rotational force.
In case 2: "flipping" the fields can drive a rotational force of
mind perplexing power for it's size.
And was used to power a Magnetic Jet Engine at Lockheed
Based on patent 4151431
To understand it, see also patents: 5402021 , and 4877983
https://youtu.be/o6F9I5OiSTE (https://youtu.be/o6F9I5OiSTE)
I would say that this experiment showed the gain of energy clearly. But of course it is only confirmed when replicated.
The precision of the spring scales was 0.1 N, so this can be considered the error of the results. This may make a lot of difference though, like when the friction was 0.3 N instead of 0.2 N, then it is much more likely that all the gained energy went to friction. But even with that error, the results showed clearly a gain of energy.
I attached the plastic box to the table with four pieces of mounting tape, so it did stay in place when moving the magnet. That way it is easy to remove the box from the table, without leaving any traces at all, and the box can be attached to the table again, with the same pads. The other way is to put something heavy inside the box, or at both sides of the box, that may do, but may not be the most elegant solution.
One doesn't necessarily have to have spring scales, the experiment can also be done using a rubber band, this may be proper for these forces. The rubber band has to be calibrated, that is measured what is its length with zero force, and what is its length with some known weight, like by weighing something brought from the store, with the known weight. Then the length of the rubber band can also be measured from the video, the same as distances. Rubber band and any spring is surprisingly accurate, as hooke's law applies to all of them.
The big magnet also may be something else, like it may work with the neodymium magnet from an old hard drive, attaching that to an angled position would be even easier. May be enough to attach it to some box under an angle, like maybe a cassette box or even some cigarette box, that then is attached into the big box, should not be difficult to do. Instead of the small magnet, one could maybe try some magnetized iron object, maybe the forces would be great enough to measure. I don't know, i have not tried all that, so i cannot possibly say for certain what would work. But i showed in principle how to do that.
Advice for these who may want to replicate this or similar experiments better. Put the camera in the fixed position, so that the movement of the magnet will be completely horizontal on the video. It helps to put a millimeter scale on the box, but it even helps to put some marks there, like marking the neutral position. It would be much better when a paper disc can be attached to the hook rod of the scales, then on the scale it will be the same at any angle. This may require altering the scales though, the way that is difficult. Or to use a higher precision so that both the magnet and the entire scales can be in the same view, with high enough precision to read the scale. Such precision is possible, but my camera is not capable of that. Hope that it may help.
Measuring distances with gimp is not that complicated. What i did, i watched the video, stopped it, then took screenshot of it with gimp. Then made the zoom of the image 100%. Gimp shows the location of the pointer at the lower left corner, x and y in pixels. I put the pointer to the last point of the distance measured, and then to the first point, then subtracted the latter from the former. No need to save anything, just exit from the image and it's ready to take next screenshot.
The same functionality should be available in other graphics editors. I don't know about paint.net in windows, but pinta has it when adding rulers with the view menu, it shows the x and y coordinates of the pointer on the rulers. Pinta supposed to be similar to paint.net, but it's open source and can be used in linux, it also works in windows, and it can take screenshots too. Just use pinta or paint.net, these are simple graphics editors, or some other graphics editor, many of them have such functionality.
I just used the fact that the diameter of my small magnet was exactly 10 mm, it was two ceramic disc magnets one on the other, both 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick. The big magnet below the lid was 8 ceramic disc magnets one one the other, 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, tilted 45 degrees, to say that again. But it may be good to stick some markings on the lid of the box, with a known size, or such, to make the distance measuring easier.
It is still not entirely clear "what" you are trying to measure.
Is it the difference in strength between the N or S pole?
and how are you equating this to energy?
For how long of a distance is this force applied?
And how much time does it take to do this?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 06, 2020, 02:14:08 PM
It is still not entirely clear "what" you are trying to measure.
The energy, at the both sides of the neutral point. And i measured that is is greater at one side (left side) than the other side. Thus asymmetry.
Neutral point is the only point where the magnet stays in one place. When moving from left to right, before the neutral point there is a force in the direction of movement, and after the neutral point there is a force against the direction of movement.
> Is it the difference in strength between the N or S pole?
No, it has nothing to do with it. The other pole of the big magnet is far away and doesn't influence significantly at all. Because the big magnet is at the 45 degrees angle.
> and how are you equating this to energy?
Energy at the both sides is the distances moved away from the neutral point, multiplied by the force during that movement, sum of these.
> For how long of a distance is this force applied?
Distances at both sides were measured up to the length when there was no more a measurable force.
> And how much time does it take to do this?
Time is not relevant to these calculations. Or what do you mean, how much time it took to do the experiment? A few hours preparing everything, plus what you see in the video.
Distances moved, and for each distance the force to the magnet. A distance multiplied by that force is energy. Calculate energy for all distances moved, and sum all these energies, this is energy at one side.
Ok, that drawing again, it didn't look so nice previous time. The small magnet there is at the neutral position. Left and right from the neutral position on that drawing, is what i mean by left and right. I found by measurements that energy is greater at the left side. 13.14 mJ at the left side and 5.15 mJ at the right side (without friction).
almost 3 to 1!
How do you cycle it?
Let it move from left to right?
Quote from: telecom on January 06, 2020, 07:18:42 PM
Let it move from left to right?
Yes, but there is friction. I calculated friction too, above.
What I mean is, Force is only Force.
Force over distance is work.
This time it takes for that amount of work to be done
derives the energy.
Force/distance/http://www.theochem.ru.nl/~pwormer/Knowino/knowino.org/wiki/Joule_(unit).html (http://www.theochem.ru.nl/~pwormer/Knowino/knowino.org/wiki/Joule_(unit).html)
Having only force, you have no energy.
Having force over a distance (and I promise you, wether or not
your scales show you, the force is not constant over that distance)
gives you work.
But you don't know how much energy it took to do that work unless
you know how much time the force was applied over that distance.
Thus, I still remain confused about how you are seeing "energy".
Also, as I tried to relay in my previous posts, one side of the field affects
the other. Your "neutral point" is an effect of both the S and N poles.
Change the size or location of your metal nut and watch how the angle/distance changes
for your experiment.
I can make the 'fabled' monopolar magnet. And they do not work like we expect.
They are the same as any other magnet, just having only one pole.
The mono field takes on the same shape and attributes as the dipole.
Push on one and it distorts the other.
The total field remains the same always.
The actual unit of a Newton is a time based quantity.
Those spring scales are calibrated on 1 Kg*m /s/s
You are measuring a static force like weight. Not an
acceleration force like gravity. Which is what the Newton is.
The force has to be applied for a distance over a time.
This is energy.
In this tutorial (mostly showing how to 0 your scale):
the user is allowing gravitational acceleration to provide
the time derivative force.
Magnetic fields exist outside of the time domain.
Time is only considered when an object is moving through
the field. A static force causes the scale to work like a weight
scale. Showing you kg/m. Not Kg/m/s/s.
Also, don't calibrate it vertically unless you are measuring vertical
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 06, 2020, 09:24:17 PM
What I mean is, Force is only Force.
Force over distance is work.
I said that i measured both forces and distances, and from that calculated energy. See how i did my calculations above.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 06, 2020, 09:24:17 PM
What I mean is, Force is only Force.
Force over distance is work.
This time it takes for that amount of work to be done
derives the energy.
Force/distance/http://www.theochem.ru.nl/~pwormer/Knowino/knowino.org/wiki/Joule_(unit).html (http://www.theochem.ru.nl/~pwormer/Knowino/knowino.org/wiki/Joule_(unit).html)
Having only force, you have no energy.
Having force over a distance (and I promise you, wether or not
your scales show you, the force is not constant over that distance)
gives you work.
But you don't know how much energy it took to do that work unless
you know how much time the force was applied over that distance.
....
Hi sm0ky2,
From your linked article:
"One joule equals the work done (or energy expended) by a force of one newton (N) acting over a distance of one meter (m)."
Work = Energy = Force * distance. It is time independent. The same force applied over the same distance is the same work which is the same energy whether it takes one second or one hour or one year to occur.
Regards,
bi
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 06, 2020, 09:41:20 PM
The force has to be applied for a distance over a time.
This is energy.
Hi, this is actually power.
Energy=work is force x distance
Is it possible to hang an object from a device of permanent magnets alone so that it does not touch anything? Like in the video about magnetic levitation, where the aluminum ring hung. The video was here recently in the old 1970s. But there the professor used electromagnet Is it possible without electricity?
I have not succeeded yet.
Quote from: kolbacict on January 07, 2020, 06:49:51 AM
Is it possible to hang an object from a device of permanent magnets alone so that it does not touch anything?
Yes, see the photo below, of what i made, the end of the pencil stands in the air. It is a kind of fragile though, not sure that it's good for a magnet motor.
Quote from: telecom on January 06, 2020, 11:08:32 PM
Hi, this is actually power.
Energy=work is force x distance
You are correct, what I was saying was not meant to be taken as
an equation or formula, but merely to point to the factors involved.
To be more clear and concise::
A Newton is a time derived quantity. Kilogrammeters per second per second.
Multiplying a Newton x Distance gives:
Kg(m^2)/s/s = joules
Without knowing the time in this experiment,
the "force scales" cannot derive a Newton.
This is why gravity is used in most uses of these things
that require an actual energy quotient.
Yes you can measure a force, but only as a timeless quantity.
You have to measure the time and make a calculation.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 07, 2020, 11:29:17 AM
A Newton is a time derived quantity. Kilogrammeters per second per second.
The m / s ^ 2 is an acceleration, not time. Newton is a force necessary to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m / s ^ 2 . kg is a unit of mass, but in the Earth's gravity, a force to 1 kg is approximately 9.8 N, because of the Earth's gravity acceleration 9.8 m / s ^2 , 1 N is thus 1 kg / 9.8 .
And this is just because of how Newton is defined, the Earth's gravity causes an object to accelerate at 9.8 m / s ^ 2 , when there are no obstacles to it's movement. But Earth's gravity can also cause other effects, it causes force, that depends on the mass of the object.
The acceleration in the definition of Newton is only because a force causes acceleration, it is defined in that way, a force can also cause other effects.
A Newton meter, such as spring scales, has nothing to do with time. It measures force, and when used to measure weight, it measures force caused by Earth's gravity.
And the other end rests on the plate?
Quote from: kolbacict on January 07, 2020, 12:12:37 PM
And the other end rests on the plate?
It did rest on my finger. I just didn't care to make another end, but i think it's possible. These four magnets form like a cavity in which the magnet can rest, it contains the magnet in all directions.
Sm0ky2,
But i think i understand what do you mean.
1 Newton indeed gives an object a power to accelerate 1 m / s ^ 2 . Thus
1 N = 1 N * 1 m / 1 s => m / s = 1 => m = s . Meter equals to second, weird yes?
Newton should be defined as power necessary to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m / s ^ 2 ? In spite of that, force remains what it is, and spring scales measure force. All the measurements and calculations are correct, the question is only what force means.
Power is necessary for acceleration, thus, when we can show that an object accelerates, that is it's speed increases, when going through all the field, then that's all we need to show. This means a gain of energy, no need then to measure any forces and distances moved, to show a gain of energy.
This i think may be one thing how they hide the fact that field, such as a gravitational field, really provides power, that gives energy to the objects. It is that the gravitational field is spherical, and no more power is given when an object falls to the ground. A field can give continuous power when it's not symmetric. They may try to hide that field provides power, and that we have to spend energy, to get the same amount of energy back, is really due to symmetry of the gravitational field, and not because of conservation of energy, as they want to say.
Start from measurements. There is likely no other way to make a continuously working device, if ever possible. Better don't try to make it and hope that it succeeds, the possibility for that is like a possibility to find a needle in the haystack. A rather senseless activity.
Sm0ky2,
This is the way force is defined, and it is indeed such power. That when we move by 1 meter, with the force 1 Newton in 1 second, then the acceleration is 1 m / s ^ 2. There are thus two ways to measure energy, by meters moved with a certain force, or by how much the speed increased. Because these two ways are equivalent, one can only measure distance and force to calculate energy, and doesn't have to measure time or speed. Because by definition it is known, how much the speed of the object increases, when moving that distance, with that force.
PS I asked for replication of my experiment. My experiment is repeatable by very simple means, almost anyone can do that, all information for repeating the experiment is provided. And my experiment includes measurements that show everything that happens there. In these conditions a hoaxter doesn't ask for replication. Please see the difference.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 07, 2020, 12:12:21 PM
The m / s ^ 2 is an acceleration, not time. Newton is a force necessary to accelerate 1 kg at 1 m / s ^ 2 . kg is a unit of mass, but in the Earth's gravity, a force to 1 kg is approximately 9.8 N, because of the Earth's gravity acceleration 9.8 m / s ^2 , 1 N is thus 1 kg / 9.8 .
You're halfway there. (still keep dropping your per sec per sec)
You don't have a 1KG weight on a 9.8 meter long scale
What the scale does is provide an equivalent force via the spring.
By a division of 10 at increments of the scale.
If calibrate the scale as in the video
Then hang a 0.1kg weight it should hit close to 1N
And this would give you an accurate measurement at that location.
(you can observe gravitational variance with your scale)
Lain on it's side, you are not measuring an acceleration force.
You are measuring a timeless force at a location within the magnetic field.
If you plot this over distance and time you can derive the energy involved.
What is the difference between this force and say have the spring measure
a rubber band?
A measurement at an instant is just that. A measurement over time or at
time-based increments, gives you acceleration.
How much "energy" does it take to levitate a magnet above another magnet?
if it's not moving, there's no energy at all. just a force countering the weight.
I can only say the same thing in so many ways....
and I do so hoping at least one will hit the target.
Like the reason we don't get Newton's heavier every second we sit on the ground.
Because we are not accelerating. There is a static force on us. A timeless quantity
we call weight. This is what you are measuring.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 07, 2020, 09:36:18 PM
Lain on it's side, you are not measuring an acceleration force.
Yes i do, all that is necessary to measure energy, is force and distance. Because it is known how much it accelerates, by moving that distance with that force.
Ok, i can show you. force = mass * acceleration => acceleration = force / mass , such as mass of the moving magnet. acceleration = distance / time ^ 2 => time = sqrt (distance / acceleration) , speed = acceleration * time , thus when we know force, distance and mass, we can calculate the increase of speed.
Divide it, take the root, take the derivation (time?)
Integrate it back again.
Time does not go away. Because it was the foundation.
Sure you can calculate a force over distance.
But without time you have no energy quotient.
Without time there is no Velocity, no Acceleration.
Moving something a distance is not an energy.
It is how long it takes you to move it.
Period.
1kg*meter for instance
you move yours in one second
I'll move mine in half a second
Which one is more energy?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 08, 2020, 03:19:26 AM
1kg*meter for instance
you move yours in one second
I'll move mine in half a second
Which one is more energy?
These are the same energy. High school physics.
So,
If I pull with 1Kg of force for 1 meter in half a second
This is the same acceleration as if I pull it in 1 second?
No, it is not. It is twice as fast.
In the half sec pull the acceleration is twice as fast.
It is accelerating 1kg @ 2m/s/s for 1m
Vs the 1 sec pull that accelerates 1kg @ 1m/s/s for 1m
You cannot have energy without time.
Convert it any way you want to.
Time is always in the equation.
If you negate time (as with a magnetic force) you have only
a timeless quantity: similar to weight.
Weight is not the energy imparted on you by gravity.
This only happens when you fall.
Your weight is only a force/pressure, not an acceleration force. Which is why it is in Lbs or Kg.
Connect your N meter spring scale to a normal weight scale
and move it to the reading your magnet gives you.
Now you have an accurate value of what you are measuring.
A pressure/force, in Lbs., timeless.
(Force measured in this way is not really force, also a spaceless dimension, so pressure is not the right term either)
Gravity has an inherent time constant.
Magnetism does not. Magnetic acceleration is mass dependent
and also depends on changes in the field, and direction of motion.
This time constraint must be measured or calculated to determine the acceleration.
Without acceleration you only have a constant pressure applied to the object.
it is the "weight" placed on that object by the magnetic field.
To imply an energy quotient to a force, there must be acceleration.
movement.
Distance over a time.
At no point can you just choose to ignore time.
Even in versions of the equation where time is not seen,
it is embedded into the variables. (such as acceleration)
Start with the energy value, and work the equation backwards
derive the time mathematically.
If there is movement, there is velocity. Distance / time
Change in velocity from no movement to movement over time
is acceleration. distance / time / time
Now take a 1Kg hunk of metal and move it 1 meter in 1 second
and watch your scales.
E=mc^2
E=mass x acceleration
E= mass x velocity x velocity [E=mass x distance/time x distance/time]
E= mass x distance / time / time
E does not = mass.
E does not = weight.
Magnetic fields are measured by strength. Not by energy.
The force is derived from the strength of the two interacting fields.
In your case these are the magnetic field and the secondary field induced
in the nut.
Movement of the nut changes the potential energy of the system.
Because the secondary field changes location within the magnetic field.
The field interaction equations handle the strength of the fields and give a
time-based acceleration force between them. If one field is fixed in space,
the force is applied to the movable field.
This is an acceleration: distance /time / time.
Which can be used to derive the final velocity after time x.
If you know the strength of the fields you can determine both
the potential energy change in the system caused by your motion
and the change in kinetic energy when you release the tension.
Knowing only the pressure at one location, and not having the other information
you cannot even calculate the energy.
The reading on your scale in the way you are trying to use it
is giving you a timeless value.
Plot individual points, and the scale readings
across a distance, with a set time interval of the motion.
Record the scales and play it back frame by frame for 1 second.
(however many frames per second your camera allows)
Fill in the equations and compare this to what you previously posted ^^^
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 08, 2020, 08:49:36 AM
So,
If I pull with 1Kg of force for 1 meter in half a second
This is the same acceleration as if I pull it in 1 second?
No, but it is the same energy. If with the same force it moves twice as fast, then there is likely much less mass.
> E=mass x acceleration
No, force = mass x acceleration , not energy.
The experiment itself proclaims that the forces are not the same at every distance.
Change in distance results in a change in the force of the field interactions.
There is a different acceleration at every distance (when one or more fields are not fixed).
If there is no motion, there is no energy.
You DO have a set value of energy stored in the spring.
But to know what this is, you need to know the field strength of the interacting magnets.
and the mass of the objects being moved
(we can ignore the mass and motion of the spring for simplicity, since it moves itself to equilibrium)
The potential energy stored in the spring comes from YOU.
You placed that "energy" into the scales when you performed the experiment.
This is the energy it took your hand to pull the spring to that distance.
The field holding the spring at that reading is motionless at that point.
And is not accelerating.
The change in energy held in the spring occurred WHILE it was moving.
I will compound this further by stating you have no idea how much "extra energy"
your hand put into the spring above what was required to cause the motion.
You can't "feel" your hand's rate of acceleration.
You know there is an amount of potential energy stored in the spring
And you know that this can be equated to the same value of gravitational force required to
cause the same reading in a vertical plane.
So a comparison of the scales at a set measurement gives you a mass x gravity
And in this manner you know that 1N is 1N when it is stored in the spring.
For the purpose of the experiment you can glue the mass to the table.
and pull your springs to match the same reading.
You know there is 1N stored in the spring, but you may have used 2N to do that.
You don't know because you did not measure the acceleration.
You only measured the final force reading on the scales.
Ok, whatever, do your own calculations based on the video of the experiment, if you like. The video just shows what happens when you pull that magnet. But don't do that wrong. You know about science surprisingly lot, but please learn some elementary things about physics. Just take some time for that. I clearly showed where you were wrong. Please don't understand it wrongly, it doesn't make me happy to show that i'm smarter. But it will make me glad if you don't misunderstand.
See there, work W = F * s , and it is energy, measured in the units of energy, F is force, s is distance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics) .
Well, this is what I have. But without a mechanical support at one point it does not work.
Or a spinning top. :)
https://youtu.be/ya1r--aSYiY (https://youtu.be/ya1r--aSYiY)
Follow the link in the first sentence of your own link
This will tell you what Force is.
Newton's second law states that the motion is unhindered.
This is key to understanding what force is.
When motion IS hindered the result is pressure, stress, strain
on the physical materials. The variables necessary to determine
the energy involved are not available in your experiment.
There is no acceleration when there is no relative movement.
The instantaneous value read on your scale applies to that point in the field.
There is an acceleration potential, but that is hindered in the experiment.
Try to follow:
At distance X you measure 1N.
This a force applied to your scale by the field strength AT that point.
at distance X^2, the field strength is 1/4 of its' original value.
In the space between X <-> X^2 the force changes with distance from X.
The actual Force on the magnet F = (change in) (m * B)
Where m is the magnet moment of the magnet, and B is the field strength
at the location measured. Here you see the changing potential energy at every point between
the two points within the field. These energies can be then summed to get your total.
In this manner you can measure the true energy, irrespective of time.
(up to a degree of accuracy defined by your increments of measure)
As potential (not kinetic) energy.
I will attempt to give you another way of measuring so that your scales can work for your experiment.
Suspend the scales by the tension on the nut/hook
and a string that is wrapped on a pulley connected to a ~0.98Kg weight.
This will calibrate your opposition force.
Zero the scale by holding the hook in place and allowing the weight to set the 1N value.
Now you have the force of gravity applying constant resistance to the magnetic field.
Take several measurements from the starting point to the ending point.
Then plot the change in potential energy over distance by the change in force at each point.
Here you do not need a clock, because you are measuring a change in potential energy. (timeless)
Your field has an integral force. The acceleration is different between every chosen pair of points.
(assuming the value of distance changes between them)
as it accelerates through the field the value of acceleration changes with distance.
When you measure the "pull" on a spring, you are only measuring one location.
Irrespective of time. There can be no energy at only this point.
The energy is in the potential between two points.
Technically speaking, gravity also changes with distance from the earth,
But we can consider it to be "constant" at our human altitudes for the purpose of this experiment.
Quote from: kolbacict on January 08, 2020, 11:05:06 AM
Well, this is what I have. But without a mechanical support at one point it does not work.
Try to make the axis shorter or move the stationary magnets more left and right. Then the axis should sit in the cavity, and maybe you can get rid of the support. Even with support though, the friction of it is very low.
Quote from: kolbacict on January 08, 2020, 11:05:06 AM
Well, this is what I have. But without a mechanical support at one point it does not work.
Or a spinning top. :)
https://youtu.be/ya1r--aSYiY (https://youtu.be/ya1r--aSYiY)
To make it work without a support:
Place two more ring magnets outside of each end
to do the opposite of what the first sets do.
This will stabilize the rotor on the outside and keep it
from flying off.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 08, 2020, 09:03:36 AM
No, but it is the same energy. If with the same force it moves twice as fast, then there is likely much less mass.
> E=mass x acceleration
No, force = mass x acceleration , not energy.
sorry i get flustered when I type too fast.
My brain took the derivative and just wrote that down....
That should read something more like mass x the final velocity after acceleration
the point is, Time is accounted for by the equation.
Without the time integral, the closest we can get is to measure the potential between an
infinite number of points across the distance. And use a sub-equivalent conversion of
PE to KE. and there are many reasons we will never achieve the "ideal situation" of
converting 100% of the energy by experiment to agree with our theory.
It is close enough for us to use, but is not a true representation of the energy.
Magnetic fields don't have time.
Every representation of time is due to masses and field strengths which are not known.
(you could weigh your nut but you don't know the inductance, the magnetic moment after
it is magnetized, or the strength of the two combined fields.)
I should also point out that there is a quantity of energy used to induce a magnetic field
in the nut. And the energy required to do this changes also with distance.
If you apply Maxwell's equations you find that this change in energy is the cause of your
assymetry. And total field energy has never changed, except by the quantity you placed into it
while positioning the nut.
This small magnet weighs 3 g, if you ever want to know. But for these calculations there is no need to know the weight, neither time.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 06, 2020, 06:03:37 PM
Distances moved, and for each distance the force to the magnet. A distance multiplied by that force is energy. Calculate energy for all distances moved, and sum all these energies, this is energy at one side.
Ok, that drawing again, it didn't look so nice previous time. The small magnet there is at the neutral position. Left and right from the neutral position on that drawing, is what i mean by left and right. I found by measurements that energy is greater at the left side. 13.14 mJ at the left side and 5.15 mJ at the right side (without friction).
Just to clarify, on your diagram, a smaller magnet is a magnet or a nut?
Can you plz provide approximate dimensions of your setup?
Thanks.
Quote from: telecom on January 08, 2020, 11:01:30 PM
Just to clarify, on your diagram, a smaller magnet is a magnet or a nut?
Can you plz provide approximate dimensions of your setup?
Thanks.
Sure. The setup is as on the drawing below.
The small magnet is two ceramic disc magnets 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on the other, on a small piece of thin cardboard.
The big magnet below is 8 ceramic disc magnets 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on the other.
Solid disks or ring magnets?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 08, 2020, 11:22:08 PM
Solid disks or ring magnets?
Disc magnets, that is solid, not rings.
Quote
To make it work without a support:
Place two more ring magnets outside of each end
to do the opposite of what the first sets do.
This will stabilize the rotor on the outside and keep it
from flying off.
We tried it before, now I have tried it again. It does not hold, it sticks.It has been manufactured for two years
.Jumps off and attracts.Only a gyroscope or use electricity.
Quote from: kolbacict on January 09, 2020, 07:19:31 AM
We tried it before, now I have tried it again. It does not hold, it sticks.It has been manufactured for two years
May be difficult in that way. Two bearings as on my photo above, each made of 4 magnets, may be more stable.
Measurements of the strengths of the magnets used in the experiment. This is not important and the strengths of the ceramic magnets can be easily found by their dimensions, but if anyone wants to know.
The force of separation between the small magnet and a small disc magnet was 2.3 N. The force of separation between two small disc magnets was 1.8 N.
The force of separation between the big magnet and a small disc magnet was 1.6 N. The force of separation between the big magnet and the small magnet was 2.6 N. At that the small disc magnets always attracted to the edge of the big disc magnets.
The force of separation between two big disc magnets was 5.0 N.
Again, the small disc magnets were ceramic magnets 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, and the big disc magnets were ceramic magnets 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick. If this may help.
Quote from: kolbacict on January 09, 2020, 07:19:31 AM
We tried it before, now I have tried it again. It does not hold, it sticks.It has been manufactured for two years
.Jumps off and attracts.Only a gyroscope or use electricity.
It is real finicky and placement/distances of the magnets are not
going to be perfectly symmetrical.
Also, the way you spin it can cause it to jump off if not careful.
I'm not sure what use it has other than a toy. I haven't found a way
to attach a drive shaft without the 1-ended support.
The force on the shaft or belt pulley destroys it.
Perhaps a two-belt system where the magnetic repulsion gives the belts tension?
(shrug)
Back to this angled magnet thing:
Solid disks makes this a lot easier: (only one field)
To the left of the interaction point magnetic density increases
as you approach the pole. (Peak is at the corner very close to your point)
To the right, magnetic density decreases as the field expands
(a secondary lower peak at ~ 1/4 length of the magnet)
Then it approaches 0 at the meridian.
This will occur in two forms with your stack, one for each magnet, and
a larger (less dense) field of the whole stack.
Density at the poles increases with more magnets in the stack.
The combined field of the stack (at your point of interaction) will behave
similar to a single magnet (solid cylinder or disk)
At the peak: (which is just inside the corners on the flat pole face)
you will have the greatest magnetic density.
The vectored force will try to align the other pole such that the density
is equal on all sides (self centering effect)
At this location, the force will change direction and oppose any change in location
this is easiest observed with magnetic attraction, but can also be observed in repulsion
when you apply a pressure to force the magnet to this point. (inverse)
If you map the field lines with filings or a magnetic viewer you get a visible representation
of the field density gradient. In short, there are more lines to the left of your point
and less lines to the right (per distance/volume increment)
Turning the larger magnet slightly more vertical will cause the centering effect to be more
prominent.
The actual vector of the forces will come in one or two forms.
Depending on the particular method of creating the magnet.
Magnets made by the first method will center in the middle of the pole.
Magnets made by the second method (inductive) will center in a ring
around the pole center. (the location depends on the active state of the magnet/variant)
Magnets that are made by the thermal process
(and thermo-inductive)
will align more 'true'. The Curie temperature relaxes
the flux and allows more atom clusters to align.
Magnets formed by cold induction or by another magnet
will only have partial alignment, and display active state
characteristics. Fluctuations will occur in different locations
within the magnetic material dependent upon its' active state.
Interacting with these fluctuations can change the active state
and this change the physical location of the fluctuations within the
material. (This effect was exploited by John Searl)
Many magnets that have been cut or broken can also acquire
active state characteristics.
Many ring magnets are formed as cylinders, then sliced.
These magnets, when you put a round magnet outside it and
roll it around: will acquire fluctuation points on its' surface.
These points will change location when you roll the other magnet
around the ring.
In your stack you can expect to find the most fluctuation points near
the 1/4 distance from either pole (peaks).
Their location around the circumference will be variant.
You can observe the field density with your viewer before and after
interaction and see how the lines change physical location and the
fluctuations change spots.
By rotating the stack (keeping angle the same) your viewer can show
you the points at the pole peak as well. Though not as prominent, you
can still see "more lines" in some locations than others leading out of the
pole circumference. Your scale most likely will not show you much change
in force when you spin the stack of lower magnets, but a sensitive compass
or magnometer will.
Assuming a consistent force for experiment:
(ie: don't move the lower stack between tests)
Maintaining the angle of approach - moving towards or away
from the stack will give you different measurements at different
points. Record the distances and measurements.
This way you can determine a "force gradient" over distance.
Not just change in force between point A and point B.
But changes in force at points A1, A2, A3, etc. leading to B.
Take a change in force from say A1 to A2:
The difference between them is your change in Energy.
(caused by the motion)
The + or - sign of this change will be the direction of motion.
+ energy towards the magnet, - energy away from it.
(from our perspective)
The magnitude of the changes can be added up to get a
total change in Energy between A and B.
This change is a proportional conversion of PE to KE or
vice versa.
The energy input or output is the cause or result of this change.
(in your test this is you physically moving the magnet within the field)
Just out of curiosity:
The force measured between magnets:::
Was this the 'break away' force?
Meaning the reading on the scale when
the magnets are stuck together then forced
apart?
Or is this the maximum "pull force" when they
are brought to (not quite) touching?
It's not going to affect the calculations much,
because a fairly accurate proportionality can be
established by your numbers. We don't necessarily need to know the
magnitudes involves.
As long as the measurements were taken at the same distance
You can safely assume the proportionality to be consistent at
any distance. (margin of error being less than that of our equipment)
The actual magnitudes of the field, while not known, in most cases, will
maintain the same proportions.
How true this is in theory and practice is material dependent for permanent magnets.
But for the most part your numbers are valid enough to set up a gradient scale.
Then compare to your springs for verification.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 09:04:41 AM
Was this the 'break away' force?
It is the minimal force by which the magnets attracted pole to pole, separate. To measure it, i put a thin cardboard ribbon (one cut from the cardboard matchbox) around the magnet, with holes in it, to attach the scales hook. Then i put the magnet on the pole of another magnet. Then i pulled with scales, as long as the magnet separated from the other magnet. It is that this separation force is very exact, because whenever that force is reached, the force rapidly decreases, and the spring of the scales pulls the magnet completely off the other magnet. I learned to do that in a plastic bag, so the magnets will not fly away.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 09:00:25 AM
moving towards or away
from the stack will give you different measurements at different
points. Record the distances and measurements.
Yes in my video i did exactly that. That is, all that is necessary is to move the magnet by small increments, then every time stop the scales. The distance moved and the scales reading can then be seen from the video. Then i calculated energy for all such small movements, by multiplying the force by the distance, and summed up all the energies, getting the energy at one side.
Another thing is, it is equally important to measure forces when the scales stand still, and when the scales move. Because in both cases, the friction force is to the opposite directions. I did that too, but could only properly measure the force when moving, when moving though all the measurable distance. I did the calculations too, considering the friction, and calculated friction, though with the accuracy the friction could been up to two times more.
To know the change in energy of your magnet system you measure
all of the changes in energy from point A to point B.
It doesn't matter if you are forcing the magnets apart
or holding them back from pulling together.
At the instant of measurement:
There is no change in Energy.
The change happens from the motion.
You can know how much energy it was if you have the variables
Like if you know the acceleration and the difference in PE
You know how much energy went into the field interaction and how much
went into the spring. (it's about half)
If you know the changes in PE at every infinite point between them (sample rate)
Then you know the same thing. (in this manner time falls out of the equation)
But a change in PE between only two points is indeterminate.
Just like if we broke down the change between any 2 points in our
infinite sample rate. The change, although very small between those points,
is not determinant without knowing the rate of change.
This is the actual acceleration placed on the smaller magnet by the larger one.
Taking more samples over a distance narrows down the total sum of change in PE.
This sum adds up to the sum of changes in KE.
Which is exactly the sum of change in forces in the spring.
(minus heat, stress/strain, and any internal friction inside the clear tube)
And the total (+/- sum) change in both energies is the change in energy of your system.
I don't want to make you read this whole lesson
but the first section pretty much gives a summary
of the problem.
Which is why I originally asked
"what your were trying to measure".
http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/courses/109/lectures/SpringScales2.pdf (http://www.brynmawr.edu/physics/courses/109/lectures/SpringScales2.pdf)
Measuring acceleration is done while they are moving.
Which requires a time-based perspective.
Measuring (magnetic weight?) happens when they are still.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 08:29:40 AM
In short, there are more lines to the left of your point
and less lines to the right (per distance/volume increment)
I'm glad that you agree.
I can see from iron filings, that there are also somewhat less field lines at the side, but that's all i see, there may be more to look.
I really tried to measure the asymmetry at the top of the pole, where are less field lines at the center. But with my iron ut, the forces were not great enough to measure.
To still measure overunity, i decided to measure it linearly with a small magnet, with the big magnet tilted 45 degrees. Which i did. The result confirmed my other experiment, where magnets were also tilted in that way. This is a different asymmetry than the one that i wanted to measure before. Yet it is about the same, the density of the field around the pole varies, and is not completely spherical. In that case, due to how the field lines go to the other pole.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 09:38:13 AM
Measuring (magnetic weight?) happens when they are still.
Yes by that, i measured "magnetic weights" and distances. But i also measured the force during movement, by moving through all the field. In order to measure friction.
What concerns measurement, this experiment is too difficult to do, by separately measuring the force and distance, at all a number of points. Thus the solution is to just move the scales by small increments, away from the neutral point, and stop the scales for a moment every time. Which i did. The forces and distances can then be measured from the video.
It would be desirable to measure forces when moving, from more points too. But the problem, it takes time until the spring of the scales would stretch enough to get force equal to the measured force. Thus i could only properly measure during the movement, when moving through all the field.
I'm not so great experimenter, i'm more like a theoretical thinker like you. Doing things by my own hands is not my desire. I'm sure that some others can make it much more beautiful. But i had to do the experiment, because no one had done that before.
I named the experiment asymmsurf, meaning asymmetry on the surface. Because the small magnet was on the surface of a lid of the box. But it also sounds like surfing the asymmetry of the magnetic field. Which sounds good.
That's why I was suggesting using a constant force
Such as a counterweight of known weight (measured
on the scale in N)
And using the force from gravity on the weight to move
the magnet. We know that gravity is constant.
And we can determine the leverage of the pulley.
So the measurement will be solely the changes in
magnetic acceleration.
Not any variance in the pull of your hand.
Also you can mark the pulley, and have a 2nd time reference.
by dividing the rotation rate by the circumference.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 11:20:20 AM
That's why I was suggesting using a constant force
Such as a counterweight of known weight (measured
on the scale in N)
Then how do you measure, and what do you measure? And how you then calculate the energy?
Quote from: ayeaye on January 10, 2020, 11:34:16 AM
Then how do you measure, and what do you measure? And how you then calculate the energy?
You calibrate the weight to known readings in accordance
to your scales.
For instance, if you zero the scales, then hang a weight that
reads 1N, (vertical). Then place them horizontally
and take the same reading on the string tied to the back
While attaching the hook to an immobile object holding the hook still.
and when your magnets (when scale is horizontal, with counterweight)
also pull the scale to 1N, you have equilibrium between both forces.
At this point, you know there are 2N of force between the magnets.
1N towards the magnet and 1N pulling away (spring)
This is your 0.
[edit: this may not read "1N" after you add the pulley, so use the
'leveraged' value]
The difference between this point and a 0 reading is total 2N.
Allowing them now to move:
One force will get stronger and the other weaker, reflecting on your reading.
Restricting the pulley 1 rotation (or a whole number increment) you know the distance.
Or you can measure the physical distance of where the magnet moves to/from.
A change in the "weight" is roughly 1/2 of the change of the PE.
Converted to KE by the motion.
If you record the rpm you can use the acceleration equation as confirmation.
The springs have a form of "moment of inertia"
I think this is what you are considering "friction"?
It's difficult to measure this by hand-pulling
By using gravity and a set weight on the pulley
there is a constant acceleration placed on the spring.
now you can watch the readings with more accuracy.
and see the change in acceleration.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 10, 2020, 11:58:14 AM
For instance, if you zero the scales, then hang a weight that
reads 1N, (vertical). Then place them horizontally
and take the same reading on the string tied to the back
Great, and who will ever do that. When even my experiment, that is the most simple, no one ever replicates. Overunity research is in such a poor condition, no one ever measures anything.
In addition, all want self-runner. This is like a guarantee that no sef-runner will ever be made, because without measuring, it's like finding a needle in a haystack, practically completely impossible.
We, some people here, feel ourselves uneasy, because the things are not good.
What i would recommend, is to use electronic force gauge, instead of spring scales, because this spring inertia is a real problem. These cost a lot. Maybe some can make ones own, using a pressure sensitive resistor and arduino.
Even then, how to do that. Like you move one millimeter in a fraction of a second. How can one even see the reading, in so short time, Saving the maximum force, or even measuring history with readings and times, trying to use that together with the movement from the video, who ćan say.
But nevertheless the experiments can be done with spring scales. I used a spring scales with 5 N range, to say it again, these did cost $2.46 with shipping, from ebay.
Sm0ky2, can you draw a diagram of how you want your experiment?
What concerns the mu metal shielding, in this linear case, the measurements show that the attraction energy is less at the side of the big magnet, than at the pole of the big magnet. Thus, in this case, the shielding should be put to the side of the big magnet.
This, btw, is somewhat similar to what Naudin said. The attraction is more at the pole, than at the side. So the experiment in a way confirms what Naudin said. But, it is also possible to like, approach from the side, and leave at the top, the way that the attraction is greater at the side. It depends on the trajectory by which we move, what it appears to be. The experiment was about linear movement, movement on a straight line, with the magnet tilted 45 degrees.
Also, the attraction force was not really greater at the pole, but the force decreased more rapidly at the side. Thus, the energy of attraction was greater at the pole, than at the side. Is this the same as saying that attraction is greater at the pole, than at the side, this is a matter of interpretation. Naudin was also rather poorly translated, so it was difficult to understand what he really meant.
What concerns the shielding, it also does other things, like it also takes a part of the pole inside it. So i cannot say that there is any way to apply shielding, to increase asymmetry in that case.
What can be said for certain though, is that such things should be tried and measured separately before trying to make the final device. Because like trying to make a permanent magnet motor, and only then to find that the solution was wrong, is much too wasteful. Thus the importance of these experiments.
The friction is not constant, but it is greater, the greater is the component of the force down, one should understand that. The experiment however showed that the maximum friction at the left side was less than the maximum friction at the right side. The friction was in a way proportional to the measured horizontal force, and the force was less at the left side. Thus that the difference in friction made it to appear that the energy was more at the left side than at the right side, was certainly not true.
The friction force is at the opposite directions when the scales stand still, and when the scales move. The real force at a point is thus the average of the forces measured in these two ways. In my calculation i also calculated the real forces, assuming that the friction at one side was constant, because i couldn't measure with scales moving, at all measured points. This is a good enough approximation. And still by these calculations, the energy was more at the left side, and less at the right side.
What may be possible, is to try to measure moving force from every point to the end of the field. Maybe this would enable to estimate the moving force at more than one point. But the inertia of the spring makes that also difficult. I was only able to measure the moving force by one movement, at both sides.
Please see that i went it through, did all the experiment for the first time, measured the energy gain. Thus also seeing all the problems that there are in doing such experiments. There was nothing, and now there is something, even if not perfect, this is a huge difference, and very difficult to achieve. Columbus egg.
One more idea came to my mind. I don't say that it works, but something to try, and it may work. Considering how this experiment is done. There is a box, and the small magnet is on the lid of the box.
The force gauges are expensive. But there are electronic scales, that are very precise, and quite cheap. Of course they assume an equal distribution of weight, and an exactly perpendicular force.
Attach a hard disc, and a rod on it, to the electronic scale. So that the scale is put 90 degrees, and the rod reaches the small magnet. Then don't pull, but push. I don't know all the details, but when carefully done, this may actually enable to measure forces.
Another idea, that someone else, somewhere else told. Now that works by pulling. Attach a string to the magnet, over a pulley, and attach to the end of it a known weight. Then put that weight on the scales. Somehow make the length of the string adjustable. Then the scales will show the weight of the known weight, minus the force to the small magnet.
This will more likely work, but is somewhat more difficult to make. But people have tried, when putting an electronic scale to stand on its edge, it shows some force. This depends on the construction of the scales, some may not. But that with a weight and a pulley always works.
Also, just pulley, and a very exactly adjusted weight. Weight is the force. And the position of the magnet is exactly where the force to it is that great. This requires some good set of weights. And doesn't enable to measure force when moving, which the previous method may somewhat do, when moving the scales down some way.
As i see it. When using only a pulley and a weight to measure the force. When there is no friction, there is only one force to measure. And the magnet is always at the position where there is such force.
When there is friction, there are two forces to measure at any position of the magnet, instead of one. One is the minimum weight with which the weight still doesn't move up. This corresponds to the standing force. The other is the maximum weight with which the weight still doesn't move down. This corresponds to the moving force.
The real force is the average of these two forces. The friction can be calculated too, which in this case is the static friction, if the static friction is greater. The friction force is a half of the difference between these two forces. The friction in that case is also the friction of both the magnet and the pulley. Except when the friction of the pulley is very small, and can be disregarded.
What concerns the static friction, in that case what we always deal with, is static friction. To find the moving friction, if necessary, the ratio between the static friction and the moving friction should be measured. There is likely no greater static friction in case of dry slippery surfaces. But static friction is greater, like when there are ball bearings in the pulley.
Hope that this may help.
Floor,
"you will find that it requires more work to separate
two magnets in attraction form one another, when they are slid side ways, than the work done when they
are pulled directly apart"
I don't know, there are many trajectories, i measured only the one, where the big (standing) magnet was tilted 45 degrees, and there the energy was greater at the side of the pole. And the movement was linear. It may be very different when we approach from some direction, then turn 90 degrees, and leave. Though it may be very difficult to make a mechanical device that will provide such movement.
There is NO TIME ELEMENT in a calculation of mechanical work.
One may derive the work done as in the work done to cause acceleration.
The unit of measurement, Newton of force, is itself derived from / based upon, mass and acceleration.
And acceleration of course has a time component within it.
because at least
In theory this is a more fundamental and precise method to derive the unit of force (The Newton) from
mass and acceleration. F= ma
In actual practice it is almost never done done this way.
...........................
A 101.971 gram mass (roughly 102 grams) exerts as weigh about 1 Newton of force (down) in standard gravity
The lifting of (or the falling of) a 101.971 gram mass, 1 meter in standard gravity is = 1 joule of work done as that lifting or falling.
Lifting 101.971 grams 1 meter against standard gravity in 1 second of time is = 1 Watt of power expended.
..........................
A 1 kilogram of mass exerts 9.80665 Newtons of force (down) in standard gravity (roughly 10 Newtons)
The lifting of (or the falling of) a 9.80665 gram mass, 1 meter in standard gravity is = 9.80665 Joules or about 10 joules of work done as that lifting or falling.
...........................
The speed of the lifting and the speed of the falling do not change the amount of energy or the work done AS THAT LIFTING OR FALLING.
The work done / energy expended, to cause acceleration is not taken into consideration in a calculation of the work done as lifting or of the work done as falling.
If one were accelerating a mass horizontally (no gravity involved) on can arrive at the work done through the formula Kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x velocity squared.
This is a different matter, and best to leave acceleration out of the. at this time.
...........................
@ EyeEye
Are you going to set and do a presentation of the work done in separating magnet at different angles and so on ?
I think it would be really grate to see some experiments which are confirmations of some of the other research Ive
seen on the internet.
Lifting 1 kilogram 1 meter against standard gravity in 1 second of time is = 9.80665 Watts (roughly 10 Watts) of power expended.
.............................
1 Joule of energy transferred or work done, in 1 second of time is one watt of power expended.
10 Joules of energy transferred or work done, in 1 second of time is 10 watts of power expended.
..............................
best wishes
floor
PS
Looking at these 2 graphs (attached below) one can see how / why there could be a difference in the two actions.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 04, 2020, 09:49:15 PM
The video https://archive.org/details/asymmsurf2
The result was not what i expected, it appears that the magnet gets more energy at the left side, but with this linear movement it may be so, and it corresponds to how the magnets were tilted in my other experiment. Something like field lines that go to the other pole, bend away faster, and thus the force at the right side decreases much faster, one can clearly see that in the video.
That confirms my this experiment https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 in a measured way.
The following was measured from the video. The angles by which the spring scales were tilted, were considered. At both sides the movement was considered so long, that at the end of it there was no measurable force to the magnet.
At the right side the magnet moved 3.57 mm with the force 0.8 N, and 2.29 mm with the force 1.0 N, thus energy at the right side was 5.15 mJ.
At the left side the magnet moved 17.43 mm with the force 0.6 N, and 6.71 mm with the force 0.4 N, thus energy at the left side was 13.14 mJ.
The force when moving was 1.2 N at the right side, and 0.8 N at the left side. Considering that the force when moving was constant, then the forces considering friction were the following.
At the right side, first 3.57 mm -- ( 0.8 + 1.2 ) / 2 = 1 N, friction 0.2 N, 3.57 mJ, next 2.29 mm -- ( 1 + 1.2 ) / 2 = 1.1 N, friction 0.1 N, 2.52 mJ.
At the left side, first 17.43 mm -- ( 0.6 + 0.8 ) / 2 = 0.7 N, friction 0.1 N, 12.20 mJ, next 6.71 mm -- ( 0.4 + 0.8 ) / 2 = 0.6 N, friction 0.2 N, 4.03 mJ.
Thus the energy at the right side was 6.09 mJ, and the energy at the left side was 16.23 mJ, 10.14 mJ more.
By these calculations, only 4 mJ goes to friction during all movement through the field, 6 mJ should be left. Thus the magnet should go through all the field when starting from the left, and gain speed. Yet, when releasing the magnet from the beginning of the field at left, it stops at the neutral position. I have not tried to make it to go through with an initial speed.
What i would like the most, is someone to replicate this experiment, many thanks.
Floor, i don't do fancy presentations. My experiment was described above, plus all the rest of the data in this thread.
The force of separation between the small magnet and a small disc magnet was 2.3 N. The force of separation between two small disc magnets was 1.8 N.
The force of separation between the big magnet and a small disc magnet was 1.6 N. The force of separation between the big magnet and the small magnet was 2.6 N. At that the small disc magnets always attracted to the edge of the big disc magnets.
The force of separation between two big disc magnets was 5.0 N.
The small magnet was two ceramic disc magnets 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on another, and the big magnet was 8 ceramic disc magnets 25 mm in diameter and 5 mm thick, one on another.
These ceramic disc magnets are pretty standard, and easy to get. I got them from supermagnete, i don't even know where else to get ceramic magnets. In ebay, there are many neodymium magnets, but not that many ceramic magnets i think.
Trying to draw the results of my experiment with Bezier lines, it was like that below. Notice that the area at the left side of the y axis is greater than the area at the right side, this area is the energy.
I've tried something similar with the rectangular magnets I got on hand.
I haven't done any measurements yet, but I've noticed, that on the way out the top magnet is being repelled with a big force,
while on the way in, this magnet is being attracted to the stack.
I will try getting some kind of a fish scale in Walmart, and do the measurements.
Quote from: telecom on January 21, 2020, 01:22:40 PM
I've tried something similar with the rectangular magnets I got on hand.
I haven't done any measurements yet, but I've noticed, that on the way out the top magnet is being repelled with a big force,
while on the way in, this magnet is being attracted to the stack.
I don't quite understand what do you mean. I tried to measure all horizontal force both at the left and right side. But in he end at the both sides, the north pole of the small magnet started to repel from the north pole of the big magnet or something, the small magnet was like in the air, with no measurable horizontal force. Moving further away, the forces went too small. I could not measure any more forces than i did, i could not find no more measurable horizontal forces.
Yes, exactly, small magnet is being repelled, but it has not only vertical,
but a horizontal vector as well, IMHO. Horizontal vector is in the same direction
as was the attraction on the left side. I will try doing measurements once
get some kind of a fish scale.
Quote from: telecom on January 21, 2020, 04:14:55 PM
Yes, exactly, small magnet is being repelled, but it has not only vertical,
but a horizontal vector as well, IMHO.
Yes, at some distance there certainly is some horizontal vector of that. But i tried to measure that horizontal component every way i could, i couldn't find any measurable force. One way is to put some surface on the small magnet, as it is repelled, and no longer stays on the surface below, to be able to measure that horizontal component. There is certainly some horizontal force in that case, but it may not be strong enough, so that the spring scales can measure.
Telecom, good if you would replicate, very important. Fish scales, spring scales, but maybe even the best is weight over a pulley. Somewhat difficult to make though, i think i did it in the simplest way.
I will order digital scale on Amazon.
Like those:
https://www.amazon.ca/AMPPHY-Electronic-Portable-Hanging-Luggage
Meanwhile was playing with different angles of the large magnet.
I've noticed that small magnet produces quite a lot of vertical force
on the way out.
It can be added to the output through some kind of a mechanical leverage,
I think.
I have an idea to connect two of these setups back to back, in such a way,
that while one attracts from the left, another from the right.
If the left one has more power, we should see it pulling more.
What do you think?
Quote from: telecom on January 22, 2020, 05:53:47 PM
I have an idea to connect two of these setups back to back, in such a way,
that while one attracts from the left, another from the right.
If the left one has more power, we should see it pulling more.
What do you think?
Force? See my graph above. The all matter is, force appears to be less at the left side, and more at the right side. Yet at the left side this force goes to much longer distance than at the right side, and as the result the energy at the left side is greater than at the right side. The energy is the area under the curve, it is force multiplied by distance, or sum of these for several small distances.
There, a single thing that really may show the most, is how far the force goes at the left side, and at the right side.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 22, 2020, 06:15:33 PM
Force? See my graph above. The all matter is, force appears to be less at the left side, and more at the right side. Yet at the left side this force goes to much longer distance than at the right side, and as the result the energy at the left side is greater than at the right side. The energy is the area under the curve, it is force multiplied by distance, or sum of these for several small distances.
There, a single thing that really may show the most, is how far the force goes at the left side, and at the right side.
Exactly,
so initially right side will win, and then the left side, if to follow your drawing,
IMHO.
But I don't insist on this setup.
Quote from: telecom on January 22, 2020, 06:24:20 PM
Exactly,
so initially right side will win, and then the left side, if to follow your drawing,
Yes. It is thought so that, it accelerates at the left side, so much that it goes through the right side, the way that the speed is still increased when it leaves the field. What my other experiment also seems to show, only there it's the opposite, the straight magnet is standing, and the tilted magnets move.
I ordered scales from the Ali Express.
Tried Amazon, but no matter what I did, they wanted me to buy
staff for $35 before shipping, so I had to cancel.
Instead, paid for a faster delivery from Ali.
Quote from: telecom on January 23, 2020, 05:42:02 PM
I ordered scales from the Ali Express.
So it's these scales from ebay as i understand, $6.26 https://www.ebay.com/p/9024597154?iid=323934323417&rt=nc . The precision supposed to be 5 g, that is approximately 0.05 N. If so, it's precise enough for the purpose, what remains to see is how precise it really is in practice.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 23, 2020, 11:19:32 PM
So it's these scales from ebay as i understand, $6.26 https://www.ebay.com/p/9024597154?iid=323934323417&rt=nc . The precision supposed to be 5 g, that is approximately 0.05 N. If so, it's precise enough for the purpose, what remains to see is how precise it really is in practice.
Probably mechanical accumulator of energy, such as flywheel,
will be needed to utilize the difference in energy on two sides.
Or another type of the accumulator, such as spring.
It's a kind of tricky to put the big magnet under an angle there, so that also the angle can be adjusted. Considering using cardboard. On the figure below, the height is adjusted by layers of cardboard. I use mounting tape to attach everything, that makes it somehow adjustable, though not that easy either. In my experiment, i used matchboxes and cardboard from matchboxes, in a rather improvised way. There may be easier ways, like a rectangular magnet may be directly glued to box, another question is how to change its angle then, just remove the glue and glue again? I just showed a kind of way how i did it, i don't say that it's necessarily the best.
Not measurable force that is, you can sure feel the force by hand, but the scales show nothing, don't even visibly move. I have seen it several times, hand is not good enough to determine the strength of the force.
This lid of the box and cardboard beneath the small magnet, were really very thin, couldn't draw them as thin as they were.
To measure all forces, i don't know. Cardboard both beneath and above the small magnet maybe. Then some thin transparent plastic something, on the lid, at some height. A thread comes from the small magnet, and it moves beneath it. So that when the vertical force goes up instead of down, then it moves on that plastic above. Maybe it works somehow like that. Maybe put it there only temporarily, only to measure the forces when the force goes up, maybe even not necessary to measure them more. Sure a bit more to do, and think how. Possible of course to put some surface on it temporarily, and hold it by hand. Just what i can figure.
You may start to make this test device even when the scales have not yet arrived, a bit to tinker, though not that much.
I placed everything on a side, rather than vertical.
Also used an aluminum channel to guide a smaller magnet.
My camera stopped working, will try fixing and sending a shot.
Great.
You can get cameras from ebay or ali express, for $2, something. I have these cameras, so i never have a problem that i have no camera. But then, these cameras are not very good. Also the camera that i used for my video was not very good.
One thing that shows overunity, is acceleration. That is, if there is initially no force to the magnet, and it goes through all the field getting speed, then the field can do continuous work. If friction is low enough. The only way it can be seen, is when the magnet enters the field with a certain speed, and its speed is increased when it exits the field. Because, when initially there is no force, then nothing other than speed can make the magnet to enter the field.
I saw how one released a magnet in the trigate, it accelerated, and this supposed to show that trigate has overunity. That was the most disgusting cheat. If you put a magnet in the field of another magnet so that it repels, and release it, then it accelerates. It showed only that and nothing more. The necessary condition for overunity in that case, is no initial force.
To say that again, i used matchboxes in my experiment, to put a big magnet under an angle vertically. The key is that there has to be three points of support, in such a way that when trying to move the upper corner of the magnet horizontally, there is enough resistance in both directions.
Quote from: ayeaye on January 28, 2020, 10:28:31 AM
Great.
You can get cameras from ebay or ali express, for $2, something. I have these cameras, so i never have a problem that i have no camera. But then, these cameras are not very good. Also the camera that i used for my video was not very good.
So far I haven't gotten the scale, even though was supposed getting them within a week. May be it has to do with a flu scare? Still waiting.
This is my third attempt to post, basically starting testing the setup, they block images
Quote from: telecom on February 27, 2020, 01:30:32 PM
This is my third attempt to post, basically starting testing the setup, they block images
have you got MSpaint on your machine
If so load it, save the 'what ever it is' in your pictures or dowload file then load it into ms paint
check it for size then save it to where ever you want to back into picyures ect
but before you save it change its format *.png file. easy
raymondo
Quote from: telecom on February 27, 2020, 01:30:32 PM
they block images
I don't know what is the problem, maybe someone here can help, like sm0ky2, i'm not impartial, like email images to someone, and one will post them here.
I use gimp, also inkscape and dia for drawings, one may use paint.net or pinta, and the accepted formats here are yes png and jpg. There are also some image posting sites like postimage, but the problem with these is that the images may not stay there for long, here they stay as long as the forum exists. Other than that, archive.org would be better i think for all images and videos.
this is the setup
the forces in kg x distance in cm are like that
from the left:
0 - .16
1 - 0.06
2 - 0.08
3 - 0.08
4 - 0
5 - 0
from the right:
0 - 0.08
1 - 0.10
2 - 0.12
3 - 0
4 - 0
5 - 0
Next week will try doing more measurements.
Can someone analyze the data?
At the end of the ravel to the right there is a very strong perpendicular force pushing the magnet away from the setup
Quote from: telecom on February 27, 2020, 03:36:00 PM
the forces in kg x distance in cm are like that
from the left:
0 - .16
1 - 0.06
2 - 0.08
3 - 0.08
4 - 0
5 - 0
from the right:
0 - 0.08
1 - 0.10
2 - 0.12
3 - 0
4 - 0
5 - 0
Looks nice.
By fast calculation it is 0.38 kg * cm at left and 0.3 kg * cm at right (just add all numbers at left and at right side), better to convert it to Newton * mm or milli Joules.
This confirms my results.
More energy at the left side than at the right side. Also there is a significant force a longer distance at the left side than at the right side. Though the difference of energy is less.
I notice that your small moving magnet is rather wide, i used a much narrower small magnet. I'm not sure whether it's true, but how i see it by now, any irregularity of the field there may be, a wide moving magnet may make it all more even, something. If you have only one kind of magnets, these with poles on the wider sides, if you have them too many, and if they are ceramic magnets, maybe split some to half in the middle, sorry to recommend that... What i can say by now.
Should not be difficult to replicate the way Telecom did it. Like if you have an aluminum or a plastic ruler, make it stand 90 degrees on the side, should not be too difficult for these who have done things with their hands.
Maybe i was not clear enough about friction.
When an object moves by whatever force, the force of friction is always against the force that makes the object to move. That is, on dry slippery smooth surfaces when the object stands, the friction force is equal to the summary force to the object, until that summary force increases the maximum friction force. Then the object starts to move, and the friction force remains the same. When talking about the friction force below here, we mean that maximum friction force at the particular location. Friction force is an electromagnetic force between molecules or atoms of two surfaces against each other.
Thus, when we put the magnet somewhere and measure the force, the measured force is likely the real force to the magnet minus friction. Because the force to be measured, requires a slight movement towards the measured force, even if the movement is very slight. For any such movement, the force to the magnet must overcome the friction force. And the friction force does not disappear when the movement ends and the magnet stands still.
At any point, we can measure two forces. One is just before the magnet starts to move in the direction where we pull, this is the real force plus friction. The other is just before the magnet starts to move in the direction opposite to where we pull. This is the real force minus friction. Because for any movement to happen, the difference between the force to the magnet and the pulling force, must be greater than the friction force.
The real force is the average of these two forces. And the friction force is difference between these two forces, divided by two.
Also as i said before, adding the energies does not increase the error. This is because the scales don't always err to one side. The error is thus the difference between the greatest energy (of the energies added) calculated with the measured force plus the error of the scales, and the same energy calculated with the measured force minus the error of the scales.
Approximately, to convert kg to Newtons, multiply with 9.8, to convert kg * cm to milli Joules, multiply with 98. Like you had 37 milli Joules at the left side, and 29 milli Joules at the right side.
Quote from: ayeaye on February 29, 2020, 06:56:39 AM
I notice that your small moving magnet is rather wide, i used a much narrower small magnet. I'm not sure whether it's true, but how i see it by now, any irregularity of the field there may be, a wide moving magnet may make it all more even, something. If you have only one kind of magnets, these with poles on the wider sides, if you have them too many, and if they are ceramic magnets, maybe split some to half in the middle, sorry to recommend that... What i can say by now.
Good point, the easiest probably would be just getting a small magnet somewhere. I will work on it.
done some more measurements w the same setup:
this time my friend was holding a plastic ruler on top to prevent it from jumping out.
left:
.24, 0.6, .30,.20
right:
.36, .08, .10, 0
reading taken each centimeter
Then I placed stack of the magnets horizontal, out of curiocity
The readings Re like that:
left:
.20, .16, .14, .32, .10
right:
.20, .08, .32, .16, 0
at the end of right travel there is a very strong vertical attraction force, will try measuring as well. which equals .30 kg
and at the end of the left travel there is a very big repelling force more than .4
all the readings are in kg
Yes right, there is asymmetry then too.
There shouldn't be in the Coulomb model, that is by the Coulomb model, the energy at both sides of the pole must be always equal. So it is certainly a non-Coulomb irregularity.
"and at the end of the left travel there is a very big repelling force more than .4"
Yes, may be interaction with the other end of the big magnet. The magnet being under an angle should avoid that, like i had no measurable repelling force at the left side.
"Approximately, to convert kg to Newtons, multiply by 9.8, to convert kg * cm to milli Joules, multiply by 98. Like you had 37 milli Joules at the left side, and 29 milli Joules at the right side."
So where do we go from here?
I wonder if these vertical forces can be utilized as well, since they are quite big.
Dunno. Try to measure all forces. If you can put the moving magnet to the other side of the aluminum bar and the big magnet at the right distance from it, then you can also measure forces when the vertical force is up and not down. I tried to measure these too, but other than the forces at the left and right that i measured, i couldn't find any other horizontal measurable forces, that is not any strong enough to be measured.
Also, try to measure friction at all points, by measuring force just before the magnet starts to move in the direction pulled, and the force just before the magnet starts to move in the opposite direction. It is a bit tricky, and with spring scales i couldn't do that very well, with electronic scales it may be easier. Then you can calculate the real force and friction at any point. The friction forces appeared to be not that great, and shouldn't change the general result, but as a matter of accuracy they should be measured.
The most important is to measure overunity beyond any doubt. That has a great theoretical importance.
Other than that, trying to find ways how to increase the energy gain, and maybe trying to achieve acceleration. That is magnet entering the field with speed and no initial force, and exiting the field with increased speed. That is going through all the field, with gaining speed. When that happens, then that alone is enough to show overunity.
"I wonder if these vertical forces can be utilized as well, since they are quite big."
Mechanically it may be difficult. But say when the forces are enough to make a disk to rotate. Then a small axial movement of the big magnet can be utilized in an electromagnetic way, to get energy, without decreasing the energy that causes rotation.
Quote from: ayeaye on March 03, 2020, 06:16:47 PM
Dunno. Try to measure all forces. If you can put the moving magnet to the other side of the aluminum bar and the big magnet at the right distance from it, then you can also measure forces when the vertical force is up and not down. I tried to measure these too, but other than the forces at the left and right that i measured, i couldn't find any other horizontal measurable forces, that is not any strong enough to be measured.
Also, try to measure friction at all points, by measuring force just before the magnet starts to move in the direction pulled, and the force just before the magnet starts to move in the opposite direction. It is a bit tricky, and with spring scales i couldn't do that very well, with electronic scales it may be easier. Then you can calculate the real force and friction at any point. The friction forces appeared to be not that great, and shouldn't change the general result, but as a matter of accuracy they should be measured.
The most important is to measure overunity beyond any doubt. That has a great theoretical importance.
Other than that, trying to find ways how to increase the energy gain, and maybe trying to achieve acceleration. That is magnet entering the field with speed and no initial force, and exiting the field with increased speed. That is going through all the field, with gaining speed. When that happens, then that alone is enough to show overunity.
"I wonder if these vertical forces can be utilized as well, since they are quite big."
Mechanically it may be difficult. But say when the forces are enough to make a disk to rotate. Then a small axial movement of the big magnet can be utilized in an electromagnetic way, to get energy, without decreasing the energy that causes rotation.
Yes will try playing some more with this setup.
The disc idea may work, since we can try using rotational momentum of the vertical forces.
More about friction. Yes there is static friction and dynamic friction. Maximum static friction is us * N and dynamic friction is uk * N , where N is the force perpendicular to the surface, and us and uk are coefficients of maximum static friction and dynamic friction. Dynamic friction doesn't depend on speed. The Coulomb model of friction.
Maximum static friction may be greater than dynamic friction, though on dry surfaces there may not be much difference. But regardless, we only need to know the maximum static friction.
Maximum static friction is the friction at the moment when the object starts to move towards the sum of the horizontal forces to it.
We have two forces to the magnet, the attraction of the big magnet, and the pulling force of the scales, these forces are opposite to each other. When the attraction force is great enough, the magnet moves towards the neutral position, and when the pulling force is great enough, the magnet moves in the opposite direction.
The maximum static friction is against the sum of these forces, so the summary force to the object is always less by the maximum static friction, when the object starts to move.
Therefore, the force we measure is less by the maximum static friction when the magnet starts to move towards the neutral position, and greater by the maximum static friction when the magnet starts to move in the direction pulled. Thus when we measure these two forces, the real force is the average of these two forces, and the maximum static friction is the difference of these two forces divided by two.
The scales measures the force against. In the first case it is the real force to the magnet minus friction, and in the second case it is the real force to the magnet plus friction. Because in these two cases the friction is to the opposite directions. In the first case against the real force to the magnet, and in the second case in the same direction as the real force to the magnet.
When we know the maximum static friction at a certain point, and we know the perpendicular force at that point, we can calculate the static friction coefficient us, and knowing that and the friction at any point, we can calculate the perpendicular force at any point.
Just some basic things necessary to know.
Drawing showing friction. I don't want to flood Telecom showing his work but important to know some trivial things.
As i think. When moving the magnet from the neutral position to a certain point and stopping there, the measured force is the real force to the magnet plus friction (maximum static friction), like when moving the magnet against the force. When stopping the magnet, it moves slightly forward from the point. Then in spite that it doesn't move, the measured force and the friction remains the same, as the forces don't change any more, because they are balanced.
The same i think when moving the magnet towards the neutral position to a certain point, and stopping at that point, the measured force is the real force minus friction (maximum static friction), as when moving towards the force to the magnet. For the same reason as above, the forces are balanced and don't change any more.
I have not tried that, i just figure that it should be so.
Using scales seems to be the best solution. One can use pulleys and weights yes, but it is rather difficult to make the pulleys, also it's rather inconvenient. The Telecom's scale is pretty good, completely enough for the task. Disk supposed to be for continuous working in that case, but better to use measurements, to get enough overunity first, if one believes that continuous rotation is possible. I feel it may be possible with a very strong stator magnet and very good bearings, though i'm not sure, not that good, but still a continuous rotation.
This experiment is also the simplest example of a more general method of finding overunity in many kinds of magnet setups. What is called neutral point in this experiment, is more generally the state of minimal energy potential.
The setup always moves towards that state, and in that state it is stable, with no movement. There are two paths to the state of minimal energy potential from outside of the fields, and the energy of moving by both paths is measured. When the energy of moving by one path is greater than the energy of moving by another path, then there is overunity.
That below was copied from my post in another thread.
Coulomb model for magnets is the model proposed by Coulomb, where all poles have a perfectly spherical field, with inverse square law always applying, even when poles are close to each other. For such model, every pole is considered to be a point, which is usually the center of the pole area. Consider like magnets with poles on large flat sides, think how much the field of a pole by that model there differs from the real field of the pole.
There is no overunity in the Coulomb model and in any design that in principle can be explained by the Coulomb model. (Such as V-gate, etc, many designs by Lafonte.) No matter how many magnets there are, how are they positioned, and how they move or rotate. Because the energy of a pole entering a spherical field up to a certain point by any path, is always equal to the energy of going outside of the field from that point by any other path, as every spherical field is completely symmetric. This is true for every two poles of the setup in the Coulomb model, and thus for the whole setup.
The difference of the field of a pole from the Coulomb model, provides a certain asymmetry of the field. How this asymmetry can cause a gain of energy, can be estimated by knowing the shape of the field. Like, when there is a pole with more field lines on one side than the other, then obviously one gains energy when entering the field with a pole of another magnet, at the side where are more field lines, and exiting the field at the side where are less field lines.
This asymmetry can be called a non-Coulomb irregularity, because in the Coulomb model of the same magnet there is no such asymmetry, and thus there is a difference from the Coulomb model. In spite this is not a very sophisticated approach, it nevertheless enables to estimate the possible overunity in a setup, and makes the research and experimenting much more methodical, instead of just randomly trying and seeing whether there maybe is overunity, like searching a needle in the haystack.
Deleted
At that i didn't say that field irregularity is the only difference from the Coulomb model for magnets. There can be other differences, like inducing eddy currents, etc, that also are not in the Coulomb model. I only expressed my view that there cannot be overunity in the Coulomb model, and thus it is necessary to see what in the design differs from the Coulomb model, which of these differences can cause overunity, and how.
When the friction is equal to or greater than the force, then all one can measure in that way is force plus friction, by moving against the force. It would not be possible then to measure the force minus friction, as it then never moves in the opposite direction. To measure friction minus force in that case, one should pull with the scales in the opposite direction.
hello ayeaye,
I do not know,probably you soon received by my side these concepts ,but I do repeat the publishing :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19970821&CC=DE&NR=19605730A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19970821&CC=DE&NR=19605730A1&KC=A1)
longitudinal
to rotational
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19851003&CC=DE&NR=3435068A1&KC=A1 (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19851003&CC=DE&NR=3435068A1&KC=A1)
as "pure magnetic force" solutions
for electro-magnetic use,the above principles :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=william+putt&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/searchResults?submitted=true&locale=en_EP&DB=EPODOC&ST=advanced&TI=&AB=&PN=&AP=&PR=&PD=&PA=william+putt&IN=&CPC=&IC=&Submit=Search)
Could be a help !
If not,pardon-me the disturb !
Sincerely
OCWL
Look why do you need a spinning bunch of magnets to generate electricity ?
you don't electrons are already spinning.
Your living in a programmed world that's out of date, who the hell wants a spinning giro in there pocket
when it could be self powered by a small plastic box you could screw up in the palm of your hand.
David
LancaIV, sorry, this is about research, the basic research, not making any permanent magnet motors.
DavidWolff, the magnetic forces are the simplest forces. Yes they are caused by electrons spinning, around the nucleus of an atom. Pretty much weird about that spinning.
Okay,#125 was my reaction cause !
So it is to mark that you do not write about "magnet" as industrial product but related natural bonding and attracting forces ,beginning with solely elementary table atoms in mole weight !
This is chemistry branch ! Le Chatelier/v.Braun Theory !
To applied electro-magneto chemistry via PVDF : DE3627532 Peter Ferger,german inventor
Piezo-/Pyro-ceramic is your actual re-/search base ,I think so ! Could clearly be wrong,my assumption !
Sincerely
OCWL
Well, electrons orbiting the nucleus, this causes the force known as the magnetic force. It's like the Ampere's law, if electrons in two atoms orbit in the same direction, then the atoms attract, when they orbit in the opposite directions, then the atoms repulse.
Now the field that this causes, is asymmetric, that is not completely spherical around the poles. And this has the most profound consequences, what it really means. Some may want to just throw away this small fact, as unimportant. But who doesn't, sees the profound importance of it.
Your explanation "plastical in 4d" I have to think in ping-pong =table tennis and the first TV-monitor game in the 70', the first video game.In the Ampere defind as two lines and you reduce to two atoms.
How,when the droper fails in his attemption for hunting luck,his weapon called bumerang acts ?
Why ?
Sincerely
OCWL
Yes, consider when these lines are circles.
These two lines by condition : a. straight b. with turns, to a. each one with swirls,these defined as Biot-Savart law,the quantum magnetic force called Ampere-turns !
You want now the conditioning from the 2 atoms,they orbitals,ccw or cw ,....?
It is an Art,to write "be that Change(unconditionized)" and another "panta rei : c'est moi ! ;) "
Sincerely
OCWL
http://freeenergy2000.tripod.com/harwood5.jpg Deutschland,and more
As much as i remember, we talked with Magnetman about things very relevant to his magnet motor, many years ago. We talked about many things and wrote many ideas. I don't remember, maybe it was my idea, or it somehow came out of the conversation. But when asking a question, what if we put a 45 degrees magnet near a ring magnet.
I thought, when there is overunity with a 45 degrees magnet and a small magnet, and it works with a row of small magnets. Then, magnet is composed of dipoles, that are like many small magnets. So when there is more force in one direction than the other, with a small magnet, then is that true also like with a large top surface of a ring magnet? I couldn't say then, that it cannot work.
Magnetman decided to patent his work, so we get no more information from him, including the possible measurements or experiments that he did. But if he really found that it works with a ring magnet, that's certainly interesting. And something to find out by experiments and measuring.
He used one ring magnet on another, like a frictionless bearing, to decrease friction. I think what if to use large 45 degrees magnets instead, and a rotating ring magnet that is on bearings. Because the 45 degrees magnets can be stationary and not move, so they can be heavy, the rotating ring magnet can be light.
So we increase force instead of decreasing friction, maybe this gives the same. What about this 45 degrees magnets moving up and down, decreasing unevenness of the field or such. Maybe this is a kind of fine tune, when the force is not great, maybe when the force is greater, it works without it. I don't know. Just my thought, may be right or entirely incorrect. Anyway, the way to find out is experimenting.
It is geometric not magnetic, the solution is there:
https://overunity.com/18470/mechanical-device-uses-geometry/
you use magnetic field like shapes and sure you have an energy, but you can have the same with electrostatic. At 80° the efficiency is 2. The limit of energy recovered is only the force you can have from one object to another. If you can put 10000N (the device is 1 m of size in my calculations), the energy recovered is 170 J and the energy needed is 80 J. That for around 10 cm in translation.
It is possible to use the mechanical device only where the efficiency is greater for a limited angle, with a high speed of rotation the power will increase easily. The efficiency is function of the angle of the rack relatively to the horizontal.
The problem of measures: the efficiency is better closer to 90° BUT the energy needed/recover is lower, so near 90° you need to apply a great force to have a significant energy, generally it is difficult to have it in reality without put an energy, and move a big force will introduce losses.
The mechanical device is easy to build and the force is only limited by the resistance of the material (limit of breaking).