This topic is for presentations of
the methods of measuring
and
the measurements taken of
the work needed to shear two permanent magnets in attraction from one another
as compared to
the work needed to pull those same two magnet directly apart from one another.
floor
At all readers
Please read this (one page) @
https://overunity.com/18496/un-hassled-exploration/msg545850/#msg545850
floor
@ All readers
I'm setting up for measurements. It will probably be a number of days
before I have any thing to show.
I will be using wafer / ceramic magnets cut down from 1 7/8 inches
length to 7/8 of an inch length.
3/8 thickness by 7/8 by 7/8 (square face) wafer magnets.
Magnetic poles are on the broad faces.
floor
Please see the attached Jpg drawing below.
I will measure a few variations in the magnet position
by the time I am done.
Suggestions are welcomed.
floor
More details of this particular experiment set (shear work compared to direct pull work).
Attached JPGs below
Thanks
floor
Here is someone else's Old project. ( pdf file format )
EDIT The " Kedron_EDEN_Project.PDF " attached below
I don't at this point, say their "findings" are either valid or not valid.
best
wishes
floor
I cut up two magnets yesterday (out doors).
You can have my magnets when you pry them from my cold wet hands !
Not the smoothest / best quality of cuts, but they should do well enough.
See picture below.
WHY any diference?
For 1 thing .....
free people, free energy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM2z60kDdZo
First measurement set, no calculations.
7/8 x 7/8 inch by 3/8 inch thick.
Magnetic poles are on the broad faces.
The polar faces of the two magnets, begin as facing and aligned one over the other.
There is a 3 /32 inch gap between the two polar faces of the magnets.
The magnets are slid apart by adding force in10 gram increments.
Each degree is equal to 0.27930 of a mm travel on the sliding magnet.
1. 30 g --- 3 deg
2. 40 g --- 4 deg
3. 50 g --- 5 deg
4. 60 g --- 7.75 deg
5. 70 g --- 8 deg
6. 80 g --- 9 deg
7. 90 g --- 12 deg
8. 100 g --- 12 deg
9. 110 g --- 13 deg
10. 120 g --- 15.5 deg
11. 130 g --- 17.75 deg
12. 140 g --- 21 deg
13. 150 g --- 23.75 deg
14. 160 g --- 32 deg
15. 170 g --- 49 deg
16. 160 g --- 49 deg
17. 150 g --- 62.75 deg
18. 130 g --- 66 deg
19. 120 g --- 70 deg
20. 110 g --- 73 deg
21. 100 g --- 77 deg
22. 90 g --- 78.5 deg
23. 80 g --- 81 deg
24. 70 g --- 2.5 deg
25. 60 g --- 85 deg
26. 50 g --- 87 deg
27. 40 g --- 90.5 deg
28. 30 g --- 93.5 deg
29. 20 g --- 95.5 deg
30. 10 g --- 100 deg
31. 5 g --- 107 deg
Jpg attached below
regards
floor
I'm set up for the next measurement set, but not today.
floor
Finished it out any way.
No calculations done.
Interaction as in above jpg
7/8 x 7/8 inch by 3/8 inch thick.
Magnetic poles are on the broad faces.
The polar faces of the two magnets, begin as facing and aligned one in front of the other.
There is a 3 /32 inch gap between the two polar faces of the magnets.
The magnets are pulled directly apart by adding force in 15 to 20 gram increments.
Each degree is equal to 0.27930 of a mm travel on the sliding magnet.
1. 385 g --- 0 deg balanced
2. 370 g --- 2 deg
3. 345 g --- 2.5 deg
4. 325 g --- 3 deg
5. 305 g --- 6 deg
6. 285 g --- 7.25 deg
7. 265 g --- 8.25 deg
8. 245 g --- 9.75 deg
9. 225 g --- 12.5 deg
10. 205 g --- 14.5 deg
11. 185 g --- 17.5 deg
12. 165 g --- 19.25 deg
13. 145 g --- 23.25 deg
14. 125 g --- 27.5 deg
15. 105 g --- 32.5 deg
16. 85 g --- 38 deg
17. 65 g --- 47 deg
18. 45 g --- 62 deg
19. 25 g --- 80 deg
20. 15 g --- 95 deg
7/8 x 7/8 inch by 3/8 inch thick.
Magnetic poles are on the broad faces.
The polar faces of the two magnets, begin as facing and aligned one over the other.
There is a 3 /32 inch gap between the two polar faces of the magnets.
The magnets are slid apart by adding force in10 gram increments.
Each degree is equal to 0.27930 of a mm travel on the sliding magnet.
1. 30 g --- 3 deg
2. 40 g --- 4 deg 35 x 1 = 35
3. 50 g --- 5 deg 45 x 1 = 45
4. 60 g --- 7.75 deg 55 x 2.75 = 151.25
5. 70 g --- 8 deg 65 x 0.25 = 16.25
6. 80 g --- 9 deg 75 x 1 = 75
7. 90 g --- 12 deg 85 x 3 = 255
8. 100 g --- 12 deg 0................... = 0
9. 110 g --- 13 deg 100 x 1 = 100
10. 120 g --- 15.5 deg 65 x 2.5 = 162.5
11. 130 g --- 17.75 deg 125 x 2.25 = 281.25
12. 140 g --- 21 deg 135 x 3.25 = 438.75
13. 150 g --- 23.75 deg 145 x 2.75 = 398.75
14. 160 g --- 32 deg 155 x 8.25 = 1278.75
15. 170 g --- 49 deg 165 x 17 = 2805
16. 160 g --- 49 deg 0................... = 0
17. 150 g --- 62.75 deg 160 x 13.75 = 2200
18. 130 g --- 66 deg 140 x 3.25 = 455
19. 120 g --- 70 deg 125 x 4 = 500
20. 110 g --- 73 deg 115 x 3 = 345
21. 100 g --- 77 deg 105 x 4 = 420
22. 90 g --- 78.5 deg 95 x 1.5 = 143.5
23. 80 g --- 81 deg 85 x 2.5 = 212
24. 70 g --- 82.5 deg 75 x 1.5 = 112.5
25. 60 g --- 85 deg 65 x 2.5 = 162.5
26. 50 g --- 87 deg 55 x 2 = 110
27. 40 g --- 90.5 deg 90 x 3.5 = 315
28. 30 g --- 93.5 deg 35 x 3 = 105
29. 20 g --- 95.5 deg 25 x 2 = 50
30. 10 g --- 100 deg 15 x 4.5 = 67.5
31. 5 g --- 107 deg 7.5 x 7 = 52.5
---------------------------------------
11293 or 11286 with no fractions
.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
7/8 x 7/8 inch by 3/8 inch thick.
Magnetic poles are on the broad faces.
The polar faces of the two magnets, begin as facing and one in front of the other.
There is a 3 /32 inch gap between the two polar faces of the magnets.
The magnets are pulled directly apart by adding force in 15 to 20 gram increments.
Each degree is equal to 0.27930 of a mm travel on the sliding magnet.
1. 385 g --- 0 deg balanced
2. 370 g --- 2 deg 377.5 x 2 = 755
3. 345 g --- 2.5 deg 357.5 x 0.5 = 178.75
4. 325 g --- 3 deg 335 x 0.5 = 167.5
5. 305 g --- 6 deg 315 x 3 = 945
6. 285 g --- 7.25 deg 295 x 1.25 = 368.75
7. 265 g --- 8.25 deg 275 x 1.5 = 412.5
8. 245 g --- 9.75 deg 255 x 1.5 = 382.5
9. 225 g --- 12.5 deg 235 x 2.75 = 646.25
10. 205 g --- 14.5 deg 215 x 2 = 430
11. 185 g --- 17.5 deg 195 x 3 = 585
12. 165 g --- 19.25 deg 175 x 1.75 = 306.25
13. 145 g --- 23.25 deg 155 x 4 = 620
14. 125 g --- 27.5 deg 135 x 4.25 = 673.75
15. 105 g --- 32.5 deg 115 x 5 = 575
16. 85 g --- 38 deg 95 x 5.5 = 522.5
17. 65 g --- 47 deg 75 x 9 = 675
18. 45 g --- 62 deg 55 x 15 = 825
19. 25 g --- 80 deg 35 x 18 = 630
20. 15 g --- 95 deg 20 x 15 = 300
----------------
9998.75
11293
- 9998
-------
1295
Some one might want to check the math.
There are 2 more motions to measure....
107 degrees worth of travel and 95 degrees worth of travel...
100 / 107 = 0.9345794392523364485981308411215
0.9345794392523364485981308411215 x 95 = 88.785046728971962616822429906542
95 degrees of travel is
88.8 % of the travel of 107 degrees of travel .... .... .... .... ....
100 / 11293 = 0.00885504294695829274771982644116
0.00885504294695829274771982644116 x 9998 = 88.53
9998 is 88.53 % of 11293 .... .... .... .... ....
No O.U. in this layout, doesn't prove that different magnet dimensions
or using neodymium magnets would not come out to O.U..
But it doesn't look good to me, at this point.
floor
Again...
there are two more actions to measure.
This process is not complete.
Note I had previously diagrammed the input and output, backward.
But the work totals / measurements will still tell the differences, either way.
THIS DIAGRAM (BELOW) AGAIN, SHOWS THE ACTION BACKWARD
continuing...
The shearing work measurements...
27.
28.
29. 20 g --- 95.5 deg 25 x 2 = 50
30. 10 g --- 100 deg 15 x 4.5 = 67.5
31. 5 g --- 107 deg 7.5 x 7 = 52.5
total = 11293
Had we stopped our measurements at 95 degrees in both of the measurement sets
instead of continuing on to 107 degrees in the one set...
the ratio would have been 11173 (sliding) to 9998 (direct pull)
because 11293 - 120 = 11173
at 100 degrees there are 67.5 units of work + the 52.5 units of work at 107 degrees
(67.5 +52.5 = 120)
and
11173 - 9998 = 1175 (still greater than zero).
See ?
We are not done yet !
floor
Force times displacement equals energy (in the form of mechanical work).
A mass of 102 grams, exerts approximately 1 newton of force (down) in earth's standard gravity
(as weight).
If we lift that 102 gram mass 1 meter, we do approximately 1 joule of work upon it, as that lifting.
Force times displacement equals work. 1 newton times 1 meter equals 1 joule of work.
But the force present in magnet interactions changes at differing distances.
So then, how does one calculate the energy present in magnet interactions ?
So..
The travel of a magnet (A) due to magnetic forces can be of a shorter
length than some other magnet's (magnet B's) travel due to magnetic
force and yet ...
if the average force along the travel of magnet (A) is greater
than the average force along the travel of magnet (B), there can
be more energy present in the action of that magnet (A) than is
present in the action of magnet(B).
There is more potential to do mechanical work in the sliding magnet action
(presented / measured) than is present in the direct (face to face) action.
Next, we see if it can be looped as a net gain in work from magnets ?
Here it is...
the other two measurement sets...
less than 5 grams force, over the course of the one travel
and
negative five grams force, over the course of the other travel.
done...
back to the other magnet device...
@ https://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg556715/#msg556715
Disappointment again here, no spiny thingy !
Just cyclical work from magnets with a net energy gain ?
later ...
Always remember that ..
While time might fly like an arrow,
fruit flies like a banana.
Not done.
Still here.
Why ?
Back face / far field interaction...
video below
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7f0md2
OK to start at 6 min 05 seconds
Should use cube or bar magnets as recommended in the "EDEN project" PDF,
@ https://slideplayer.com/slide/3989835/
rather than wafer shaped ones...
and / or use a longer out put stroke
floor
Please Keep in mind that...
there are numerous ways in which I am not following the parameters
met in the Kedron Eden project PDF.
@
https://slideplayer.com/slide/3989835/
So, we cannot consider this present endeavor as a replication nor as an invalidation
of that other project.
Note..
One of the reasons that this method interests me, is that it functions
in attraction modes.
This means that even when using ceramic magnets, one might get a long life
expectancy from the magnets.
Utilizing a longer out put stroke would decrease the input needed
to move from position two to position three and also increase the
output in moving from position three to position four.
For this reason and....
if / when, the magnets used were to be of cube shape, as in the Eden
project PDF, it looks like a net gain is possible here.
OK...
we got it ...
JPG below
best wishes
floor
Maybe 69% more energy as mechanical work out, than the mechanical work
which was input.....
EDIT 12/08/21
10358 input
11293 output
935 difference
935 is x % of 10358 ?
100 / 10358 = 0.00965
0.00965 x 10358 = 9.026839 % O.U.
10358 (input) is 91.72 % of 11293 (output)
There is a patent for this. How to build an engine. But I have to look for it. Even with a curve construction it would have to go.
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1-J39lbzwAhXqMewKHV-yBn4QFjAAegQIAhAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com%2Fdd%2F92%2F2c%2Ff6a7092faa7487%2FUS20110198958A1.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2KvfIa-YIw7M-0818borhd
https://slideplayer.com/slide/3989835/
greeting
Lota
@ Lota
Kenneth C. Kozeka / the EDEN project PDF
Are already liked to earlier in this topic
@
https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg553381/#msg553381
Thanks for the additional link to that project / PDF.
and
Also thanks for the link to the patent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
The magnet actions / motions, I measured are similar to those shown in the patent.
That device is a continuous motion device.
The gear and shaft linkages in the patent drawing, indicate that the magnets must
all be moving , when any one of them is moving.
... ... ... ... ... ... .. .. .. .. .... ...
The interactions I have described are such that, an action begins, that action completes,
a next action begins, that next action completes and so on. All motion comes completely
to a stop, then a / the next motion begins.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
however...
One might also slow an action down so much so (very near to the end of its motion) that it
serves practically the same purpose as does arresting completely that motion.
It seem as though Kozeka's method is intended to accomplish this by means of variable
gearing or pulleys. This is described else where in the patent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Other wise....
yes, they are both about lateral and direct magnet attractions.
I'm pretty satisfied with this test.
I going to leave this topic available for others to post in / for me to get feed back in,
for a time.
Eventually I will lock it, so that it remains short and sweet / complete.
best wishes
floor
P.S.
Looking forward to getting back to that other build.
note..
I find only a U.S application for a patent not a
patent its self.
floor
Classifications
H02K53/00 Alleged dynamo-electric perpetua mobilia
... ... ... ... ...
Note....
This means it was automatically denied a patent.
... ... ... ... ... ... ..
Status
Abandoned
But this is what the input to output came out to in my
quasi replication of the design.
JPG below
for a quick jump back, a few pages...
https://overunity.com/18551/magnet-shear-to-direct-pull-work-ratio/msg557293/#msg557293
floor
This magnet interaction set is O.U.
http://www.borderlands.de/Links/Kedron_EDEN_Project.pdf
NOW LOOKING
Looking for replications of this set of magnet interaction (measurements).
BY
Any O.U. member WELL KNOWN BY ME.
REQUIRED
1. must use "identical" magnets to those used by me.
2. must demonstrate that the sensitivity of the measurement equipment used
is < = 5 grams + -
3. must use 20 gram weight increments or smaller, and / or 1 mm displacement increments.
4. must take and log each measured increment of each interaction, 5 times.
5. must present those logs on O.U. forum
6. must video document the equipment, methods and accuracy (can be brief if thorough
and convincing).
7. no other requirements.
Best wishes
floor
These are not "my requirements"....
These are / this is ..
what it takes in order to actually have a reasonable degree of
certainty that the magnets and these interactions result in a net
amount of work out.
Do you / does humanity "deserve" free energy ?
You bet !. Just as much so, as we deserve the sun and the rain
and the stars above !
8.279 % more mechanical work output , than is input.
EDIT 12/08/21
10358 input
11293 output
935 difference
935 is x % of 10358 ?
100 / 10358 = 0.00965437343116431743579841668276
0.00965 x 935 = 9.02275 % O.U.
floor
Hello
I had tested this before. Seems to work. But not finished yet.
Greeting
Lota
should run as an animation???
Quote from: lota on December 01, 2021, 01:31:18 AM
Hello
I had tested this before. Seems to work. But not finished yet.
Greeting
Lota
should run as an animation???
Did you or are you testing or measuring, real world magnet interactions ?
Running as an animation seems moot at this time except that measurements
of the work done, as the four actions are verified.
Thanks very much, for your input and time.
best wishes
Hello
I built that. But you have to put two or three together. I want to build it with the 3D Printer. Then you see more.
Greeting
Lota
@ Lota
Did you take any measurements of the mechanical work done as inputs and
out puts ?
floor
Hello
no. I only did a trial setup.
Greeting
Lota
@Lota
OK / Thanks...
With only around 8.3% EDIT 12/08/21 that is 9.02275 % O.U., friction losses need
to be kept low.
But
a flywheel could carry the output energy past the input energy in a
single unit ?
best wishes
floor
P.S. I moved the link to the video you posted to ...
https://overunity.com/18876/o-u-magnet-force-shielding-2-and-so-on/msg561932/#msg561932
Edit / addendum 1/3/2022
These measurement sets were not done with my usual
degree of rigor.
also
I think the entire procedure should be redone with neo. magnets
of a cube shape.
Edit / addendum 1/6/2022
Earlier on in this presentation I though I could shortcut (I was fatigued) and
pull out an average force over the displacements by just picking the value in
the mid range of the forces on the charts. Big mistake. A later, following through
with the complete calcs. revealed that the final output is much smaller than I had
originally presented. Bummer. My blunder, my apologies.
I still think the entire procedure should be redone with neo. magnets
of a cube shape.
"It is intuitive that magnetism holds secrets!" - Ramset
floor
1.3 Watts in 3.4 Watts out! OU COP of 2.42!
@ Synchro 1
thanks.
@ all readers please see the Synchro 1 / previous post .
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It is well documented...
although perhaps not all that well know, that the work available is not
equal in all the various and possible directions of motion, between any given
two magnets.
If one of the magnets within a device can escape or nearly escape the field of
attraction along a vector in which there is less force per distance, than is
available within some other vector in which that magnet re approaches,
then you have a net gain in mechanical work.
The magnet must be re positioned while it is outside of or nearly outside of the
attracting field and / or, along a direction which is at a right angle to the direction
of the attracting force.
That this can result in a net gain in work done by magnets, needs to be well
documented. I don't think my own examination here, can serve as a proof
which should invalidate the design. Only that in the variation which I
presented, results are at best marginal.
best wishes
floor
Floor,
Thanks for the great data here.. I will be reviewing it many many times as I dig into this..
I am going to do some real world tests with these concepts. I have printed my first test pieces.. These tests I will do will be measuring input strengths, then seeing if the force is amplified through the use of sliding magnets.
My data may not be as calibrated or scientific as yours, but hopefully they will add something useful.
The first test will be like a vertical see-saw. (I am sure there is a better name).. An actuator will slide to attract and repel magnets mounted on one side of the bearing mounted see-saw. I will measure the strength force of the actuator, alone- then compare it to the opposite end of the see-saw after the magnetic works happen.
Would it be acceptable to post results in this same thread?
Thanks again
@ Thanks
Permission to come aboard granted.
Please start a new topic here in the "Floors MMM-2 builders board"
instead.
also
Name it as you like. Please read the "Un hassled exploration" topic
before you decide to start your topic.
Please read
https://overunity.com/18496/un-hassled-exploration/msg545850/#msg545850
P.S.
A clarification of the "rules" of engagement is here @
https://overunity.com/18496/un-hassled-exploration/msg545851/#msg545851
" This is still the O.U. forum.
MMM-2 (Magnets Motion and Measurement incarnation 2)
I invite and encourage other builders - users who have frequented floor's topics at the O.U. forum to start or move their own threads here as they wish.
I'm offering (to a limited number, 5 of those users) post deletion, at their discretion, no questions asked, your call not mine, on TOPICS THEY START under the "Floors MMM-2 builders board".
In other words, you say please delete post XYZ, and I say, it's done. I ask no questions nor take any responsibility for your choice. Also absolutely NO deletions by me unless requested by the person that started that topic. "
They are not as harsh as they might appear in the first draft.
@ all readers, don't start a topic here with out my permission.