See the Attached PDF below
EDIT
This PDF has been edited (due to errors) as the ODT file in the
subsequent post.
Please disregard this pdf version of the file
The Twist drive explinations in an Open Office file format (odt) attachment.
Willy, It has been 6 months since your post, and you say you have it on your bench. Did you ever close the loop?
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on May 05, 2023, 04:07:04 AM
Willy, It has been 6 months since your post, and you say you have it on your bench. Did you ever close the loop?
Hi Tarsier
I have read pretty much all of your posts.
For the most part, buoyancy ideas are simple enough to quickly figure out if
they work or not.
This device is simple enough as well, given of course, that the deeper levels of
why anything does anything, are not known by, any of us. :)
Any thing can be faked in a video these days. Unfortunately they are not proof.
That's just the way it is. :(
1. Either a strong magnet falling through a copper pipe weighs as much
while doing so, as it does when stationary upon a weight scales, or it does not.
2. Either the same can be true of a magnet and a wire coil or it can not.
3. Either the bottle weights and fall distances are as demonstrated in the many videos
or they are not.
4. Either the device can be cascaded or it can not.
Is there anything else I cannot do for you? :)
EDIT See the again attached file "the twist drive proof h.odt) below.
Hi Ramset
To watch the video without adds:
1. Clear Cookies from dailymotion
2. Add addblock to a browser in the addons (If you prefer, use a different browser for your addblock, ie Firefox. Also good for youtube vids.)
3. Close and reopen your browser
4. Open https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a
5. Do not click "I understand"(accept cookies), instead click maximize video and play.
QuoteI have read pretty much all of your posts.
For the most part, buoyancy ideas are simple enough to quickly figure out if
they work or not.
This device is simple enough as well, given of course, that the deeper levels of
why anything does anything, are not known by, any of us. :)
Hi Willy
I have a few posts here. Most of my posts are on BesslerWheel.com. I feel I have a deep understanding of what could be OU. I have attached a basic JPG showing the basic premise of your build to help summarize it. Please correct me if any of the details are wrong.
Your testing is very good, and mostly thorough. I understand your view that your device is OU, but I have some reservations at the moment. We both understand there is some preload. What needs to happen for your unit to be OU is total PE gained over one cycle. It could be possible that your device can achieve this, and I hope it can.
My initial thoughts: To show a gain in PE, all you have to do on your output is lift your 115G(or lighter), At the top of the cycle, reduce the "RO" weight by an amount, maybe 20-50g or so, and see how far it will rotate back down, or if it can fully reset. The amount of weight you remove is the PE lifted.....A successful gain in PE over a complete cycle will be OU in my book.
Do you believe this would be a valid test?
First..
Please if you will, give some scrutiny as ...
1. Either a strong magnet falling through a copper pipe WEIGHS as much
while doing so, as it WEIGHS when stationary upon a weight scales, or it does not.
Second
Please resize graphics smaller before posting / edit the last post.
Average force upon the SLiding unit over the initial 4.5 units of distance
during reset (opening the SL gap) varies some amount.
A greater input will be required there when the SL approach to RO has
been nearer. A very small amount of closer makes a big difference because
The magnetic forces grow stronger rapid / sooner the closer distance between is.
EDIT Hence the differences is some of the measurement set's weight objects.
The actual force must be measured in increments / integrated over that small distance.
On average in these measurements
"WHEN that work as <60g x 4.5 distance units (<270 work units) is done
to, OR DIRECTLY UPON SL
that work is equal to the work which initially closed the gap.
These two actions are equal and opposite."
EDIT / ADDED
"that work is equal to the work which initially closed the gap. "
Rather
that work is equal to the energy that was present as magnetic attraction
during the self closing of the gap. That gap from 4.5 until 0 distance units,
is self closing during the input phase.
I store the energy of that self closing as the very slight stretching of a
3/16 inch long length of rubber band during the very end of the SL input
stroke. That rubber band energy, then allows reset, when no weight object
is present upon the SLiding unit.
The rubber band is an innovation, and not demonstrated or discussed
per say in any of the materials presented.
MORE EDIT.
This then requires the Sl weight to remain in place until the the SL gap is
fully closed. Ideally, the rubber band stretch and the last 4.5 to 0 units of
SLiding weight distance of travel, balance / cancel.
Another EDIT / added clarification
That rubber band is relaxed except for during the 0 to 4.5 units of distance.
I'm using a thread tied to the rubber band and a thumb tack at each end.
I edited the image. Sorry, I thought if it fit on the page it was good. I am not completely used to this forum.
Quote1. Either a strong magnet falling through a copper pipe WEIGHS as much
while doing so, as it WEIGHS when stationary upon a weight scales, or it does not.
I do not know the answer to this one. I suspect the magnet applies its weight proportionately to the copper pipe which weighs heavier, but won't weigh the total amount of the magnet + Copper pipe.
Quote
"WHEN that work as <60g x 4.5 distance units (<270 work units) is done
to, OR DIRECTLY UPON SL
that work is equal to the work which initially closed the gap.
These two actions are equal and opposite."
I think you are saying the reduction in weight on the RO direcly affects the distance the SL will move? That is OK, I get that and I understand the magnetic forces are stronger the closer the two magnets get and in what orientation the RO... I think it could still be possible to operate within the limits of that at the smaller distance and achieve a total gain in PE in a complete cycle.
Thanks for hanging in there.
I amended this post yet more / several times.
@
https://overunity.com/19272/more-clairifaction-of-floors-twist-drive/msg577377/#msg577377
This device has huge potential.
And
an equal potential for its difficulty in terms of seeing / grasping the actions with clarity.
Wow, you are really doing this very well... I think. :)
Important Note
The documents..
"The Twist Drive proof g.pdf"
and
"The "Twist Drive proof h.odt"
are not identical
Please reference the h.odt version.
The PDF file has a particular error which was corrected in the h.odt version.
sorry for the inconvenience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0svs-uGx8s&t=107s
Starting at 1.10 - experiment to determine weight of a tube with magnet falling through.
Excellent, Novus
Although I still recomend that people see this for their self, by direct experiment.
One claim of the topic, down.
The answer is that the falling magnet
can,
exert its own weight as a force
and
produce an electric current simultaneously.
However, this in itself does not give excess energy.
part 2. Can this also occur as a magnet within a wire coil ?
It is apparent, that at least to some degree a wire coil will
produce an electric current under the conditions described.
Therefore, part 2 of the first claim is satisfied.
It is apparent that a coil and magnet design, device or interaction
which optimizes efficiency of that electric output is desirable.
I have given various designs for optimization, some consideration.
Design variations cannot become, need to not become, the subject
of the discussion at this time.
Anyone, PLEASE do this in another topic if you wish,
BUT NOT HERE AT THIS TIME.
1. Assuming, but just for the sake of the discussion presently,
that the twist drive's greater than 2:1 "output" to "input"
is a reality.
EDIT
2. Given that this occurs only as a part of a cycle.
Cyclically the process is reversed and the output event then becomes the input event.
When the process is reversed, the input has a greater than a 2:1 ratio
in relationship to, the out put.
There is NO net gain in energy in a full cycling.
This kind of magnet interaction does not violate conservation.
3. A second claim of the twist drive's operation is satisfied.
Willy, I have set you now as the moderator for this board.
Regards, Stefan.
Thank you Ramset and hartiberlin...
Only two claims remian to be resolved for the Twist drive device
and method.
1. Either the bottle weights and fall distances are as demonstrated in the many videos
or they are not.
2. Either the device can be cascaded or it can not.
Hi W.
I ordered some magnets for a replication last night.
I don't think you need to cascade your device.
A lighter weight lifts a heavier weight does not immediately mean OU. We need usable energy output on top of the reset.
Agree
ADDED
I hope you ordered ceramic magnets, ones that are practically identical
to those described in videos and other descriptions.
The use of neodymium magnets will cause a fail.
Those require special adaptations of the device.
I hope you (please) will not improvise changes or what might perhaps appear to
improvements to the magnets or their interactions.
Replication must be replication.
Added more
All that is needed is the magnet interactions to be replicated at this time
Even the very slightest amount of electrical output would be O.U.
Energy Conservation itself says this is so.
Partial quote
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on May 05, 2023, 10:18:56 PM
I think you are saying the reduction in weight on the RO direcly affects the distance the SL will move? That is OK, I get that and I understand the magnetic forces are stronger the closer the two magnets get and in what orientation the RO... I think it could still be possible to operate within the limits of that at the smaller distance and achieve a total gain in PE in a complete cycle.
I think you are starting to understand how difficult it is to describe these magnet
interactions.
Its not like one can just say ..,
for example...
(the leverage present there) because a lever trades force and distance.
While in these interactions,
from the SLiding unit side, less force and less distance are traded
for more force and greater distance on the ROtating unit side.
What does one call this ? It's not leverage. Over leverage ?
and
Its not OVER UNITY, due to the fact that during the full cycling, any energy gain
is balanced out /canceled. What is one to do ? Create new vocabulary I suppose ?
Like perhaps "quasi over unity".
The same applies from the RO side of the interactions.
Its not leverage and its not UNDER UNITY.
I find I must refer to input as 'input' and output as 'output'.
Here is where it gets really tripped out.
During the reset (ROtating magnet is pulled toward parallel to the SLiding magnet)
It wont reset ! Because the action from the RO side is under unity ! No, Not so. Its
what, quasi under unity, right / ok ?
OK...
So, one intervenes. One has stored a little energy on the SL side as rubber band
stretch.
Now check this out.
While the RO magnet is at 90 deg. off from the SL magnet,
That rubber band's contraction is being applied, in what is a quasi over unity manner,
but now, as SL gap OPENING. It contributes a quasi over unity toward the RO's, quasi
under unity. Less distance and force traded for more distance and more force.
Initiating RO returning to its far from 90 deg. position.
Very cool though
EDIT for less potentially offensive material
QuoteA lighter weight lifts a heavier weight does not immediately mean OU. We need usable energy output on top of the reset.
This is where I was mistaken before. For the machine to be unity, the input = output, in your case we lift 105g x 22 units to operate through the cycle. So above on the output we need to lift and leave that equivalent. Any more is OU, any less is less than unity.
Quote
I hope you ordered ceramic magnets, ones that are practically identical
to those described in videos and other descriptions.
The use of neodymium magnets will cause a fail.
Those require special adaptations of the device.
I hope you (please) will not improvise changes or what might perhaps appear to
improvements to the magnets or their interactions.
Why aren't Neo magnets suitable? I ordered Neo 35s. If they won't work I can always order ceramics. My build will not be as substantial as yours. My goal is to first achieve an equivalent (or close to) action and results as seen in your video.
If I can get to that point, my next goal is to increase efficiency by using eccentric pulleys and then attempt to either lift and leave PE on the output side or investigate resetting the system with a smaller weight.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on May 07, 2023, 03:03:27 PM
This is where I was mistaken before. For the machine to be unity, the input = output, in your case we lift 105g x 22 units to operate through the cycle. So above on the output we need to lift and leave that equivalent. Any more is OU, any less is less than unity.
Your statement above is too ambiguous I cannot respond, except that, for the
moment I believe that it is incorrect.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on May 07, 2023, 03:03:27 PM
Why aren't Neo magnets suitable? I ordered Neo 35s.
There are multiple reasons. The one that matters most here, is that a REPLICATION is
what is needed. Not another design nor a modification nor an innovation.
If you don't want to do a replication that is ok by me.
In which case, you should start a new topic for that "new design" on the main board
or something.
The twist drive interactions and results, although they might seem so, are
not particularly exceptional. They are not over unity in and of their selves.
Using a strong magnet falling through the closed circuit wire coil as the 'output' / reset
yields more energy. Other wise as stated, the twist drive (full cycling) gives
unity only.
A strong magnet falling through the closed circuit wire coil can, at best, yield only that
which was required to initially lift it.
That's the deal.
But a strong magnet falling through a closed circuit coil does not lose is own weight, curious as that is.
It can therefore reset the twist drive even though its fall is producing electric energy
in that coil.
The twist drive, can in return, lift that falling through a later closed circuit coil, magnet, to a height
which is greater ( for the amount of energy expended via the twist drive input), than if
that falling magnet were just simply, lifted.
But only so, because the complete cycling of the twist dive includes this seemingly
(but not actually) over unity within that cycle.
EDITS
Files attached below again.
QuoteThe fact is, very many who have viewed this topic, but also, are knowledgeable in this field,
understand that the twist drive / falling magnet combination, is more energy out than in.
When you lift the 105g x 22units, you physically input that relative energy into the system. What is the output?:+ 115x40 (up) - 115x40(down) = 0 *
Perhaps I asked the wrong question or don't understand properly.... You need the 115g weight on the output to reset the input with the 105g removed?
It seems to me (if that is the case) that your video shows more energy in than out.
Rephrasing a question so that it is very clear to the questioner, ones self,
will quite often results in seeing the answer for ones self.
Understanding these interactions is really a difficult thing, in my opinion.
Probably it has to be done in steps, also my opinion.
A starting point is here.
Knowing which of these is true, clearly, fully without a doubt.
1. Either a strong magnet falling through a copper pipe WEIGHS as much
while doing so, as it WEIGHS when stationary upon a weight scales, or it does not.
Do you know which is true ?
I recommend / think it best, to perform the test for one's self.
Other wise click on this video link posted by user "Novus".
https://overunity.com/19272/more-clairifaction-of-floors-twist-drive/msg577399/#msg577399
Smoky2
Ok
more clarification needs to be given from my side.
The point of, the magnet in water / magnet in coil illustration.
Magnet in Tube.jpg
The extraction of energy from the falling of the magnet by mechanical means
such as its raising of the water level in the illustration, would directly decrease
any work, the weight of that magnet could have performed in resetting the twist drive.
That weight as indicated upon the weight scale while the weight object is submerged
would be more appropriately / correctly referred to as the apparent weight.
... ... ... ...
True or untrue ?
Given that the 22 grams in the illustration is the weight required upon the ROtating
side of a twist drive for its operation.
Fact, when submerged in water. the force exerted upon the weight scales and which is called weight in the discussion, is less than needed to reset that twist drive.
Fact, when instead the 22 gram magnet is falling through a copper tube (shorted
copper wire coil), the force exerted upon the weight scales and which is called weight in
the discussion, is sufficient to reset that twist drive.
Tarsier_79
Quote from: Willy on May 09, 2023, 08:24:48 AM
Understanding these interactions is really a difficult thing, in my opinion.
Probably it has to be done in steps, also my opinion.
A starting point is here.
Knowing which of these is true, clearly, fully without a doubt.
1. Either a strong magnet falling through a copper pipe WEIGHS as much
while doing so, as it WEIGHS when stationary upon a weight scales, or it does not.
Do you know which is true ?
I recommend / think it best, to perform the test for one's self.
Other wise click on this video link posted by user "Novus".
https://overunity.com/19272/more-clairifaction-of-floors-twist-drive/msg577399/#msg577399
The fact is, very many who have viewed this topic, but also, are knowledgeable in this field,
understand that the twist drive / falling magnet combination, is more energy out than in.
I believe that is where we differ in opinion. At the moment, that hasn't been proven.
The magnet has to give back at least the energy you put into it by lifting the small weight to input the energy, as that is the amount lost per cycle (at least in the configuration you show on youtube). I personally don't hold much faith in your magnetic/ coil addition to your device.
As an electronics Tech, I have an understanding of coil generators, and they cost relative to the power drawn from them. However, I hope you have some success with your tests.
My replication will be a replication of the magnetic twist principle, not of your device exactly. I like to work with grass-roots/ base principles. I will not bother you with it in this thread.
Quote from: Tarsier_79 on May 10, 2023, 03:43:17 AM
I believe that is where we differ in opinion. At the moment, that hasn't been proven.
No problem.
further quote
"The magnet has to give back at least the energy you put into it by lifting the small weight to input the energy, as that is the amount lost per cycle (at least in the configuration you show on youtube). I personally don't hold much faith in your magnetic/ coil addition to your device.
As an electronics Tech, I have an understanding of coil generators, and they cost relative to the power drawn from them. However, I hope you have some success with your tests.
My replication will be a replication of the magnetic twist principle, not of your device exactly. I like to work with grass-roots/ base principles. I will not bother you with it in this thread."
end of that quote
Given the best of efficiencies for any type of electric generator, a cascading of twist drive devices would be needed before the generator came into play in order to acquire a useful amount of electricity.
However given that any device operates at unity, when all outputs are considered
(includes that which is normally considered as wasted energy) before addition
of the magnet and coil combination. i.e. the twist drives in the videos operate only
at unity. Then, even the magnet and coil addition as illustrated (terribly inefficient as it is)
brings the operation to over unity.
Good luck with your build.
Some things to consider (a list) for builders, compiled from my own experiences
and the insights / ideas shared here, by users Ramset and CITFTA (2 days ago).
What ever type of magnets you use, some of those considerations
might be useful.
@
https://overunity.com/19468/twist-drive-builds/msg577580/#msg577580
Additional information and insights were given by user LankaIV
@
https://overunity.com/18880/magnetic-force-and-electric-force-alignment/msg577433/#msg577433
AND BY
by user smoky2
@
https://overunity.com/18497/floor-sweepings-dust-bin/msg577574/#msg577574
Thanks again
Using off the shelf magnets
I can get a greater than 2 to 1 work out, to work in ratio during part of the
cycle. The NET energy gain is zero in a full cycle. This> 2 to 1 out put can be
cascaded by using multiples of the device.
I think the odds are pretty bad that I just happened upon the optimal
magnet shape. Some other geometry of the magnet shapes is bound to
give yet better results. Likely Some other interaction can as well.
The shape of the interacting magnets.
I used off the shelf magnets.
Ceramic type. I am uncertain of the grade.
Rectangular wafer shaped.
1 7/8 by 7/8 by 3/8 inch thick.
Magnetic poles on the broad faces.
Other characteristics of the twist drive.
The input and the output of the device occur simultaneously.
The twist drive has more momentum present within it, during its operating than
the energy input accounts for.
The rising and falling of a rack gear if used as the weight object on the rotational
side of the device, could transfer kinetic energy into a flywheel during the 'output'
and 'input' phases of the device's cycling (both). This would of course, slow the cycling
of the twist drive itself.
ADDED
Even though the twist dive is a physical device, there are aspects to
the interactions / its operation which are to some degree
ANALOGOUS
with aspects / characteristics present within electronics / other electromagnetic
interactions.
Some of which are
reluctance
reactance
magnetic field in relation to capacitive field.
impedance matching / mismatch
OR
The output occurs after the input has been completed
Generally, I describe the twist drive output as occurring as, after the input
part of the cycle. Also generally I designate the output as 'output' because,
without the use of one kind or another, of adaptation method, there is no
output available from the twist drives operation.
From Wikipedia
" arrangement in which a worm meshes with a worm wheel. The two elements
are also called the worm screw and worm gear. The terminology is often
confused by imprecise use of the term worm gear to refer to the worm, the worm
wheel, or the worm drive as a unit. "
If you have ever examined a "worm drive unit", in hand, you may have noticed
that it requires less force to turn the worm WHEEL shaft, if you simultaneously apply
a force to turn the worm SCREW shaft (in the correct direction).
The same applies also, when force is applied to the worm screw shaft while
simultaneously applying force to the worm wheel shaft.
This has to do with the directions of the application of forces (direction aspect of the force vector), leverage and friction
between the various components within the worm drive unit.
This remains true in either direction of rotation of the input shafts.
The total ENERGY required to turn the shafts can be less when force is applied to
both shafts simultaneously than if force is applied to one shaft only.
The twist drive unit, has characteristics which are in ways similar.
One of the reasons why, many mechanical devices utilize continuously rotating
parts is to reduce the amount of energy which would other wise be expended
to cause repetitive accelerations against inertia. i.e. This is what happens in
reciprocating motions.
Quasi over unity: more energy out than in, during a portion of a complete cycle,
but no net gain, as the result of the complete cycle.
Thus far I have not devised any method by which to produce a quasi over unity,
wherein, all moving components continuously rotate. No self runners either.
Those are not actually nor particularly the goals of my explorations.
The twist drive, (any physical device would) wastes energy by repetitive accelerations.
The faster the speeds reached are during its operation, the greater is the amount of energy
it wastes in repetitively causing accelerations.
A greater energy expenditure is required in order to accelerate any given mass to a
greater speed, than is required to accelerate that same mass to some lesser speed.
The amount of time it takes for any given mass to accelerate to a any particular
speed does not change the amount of energy required in order for that mass to
reach that speed. All that matters is the amount of the mass and the final speed that it
reaches.
It is desirable to get more energy per unit of time (power) from any energy source.
The mass and resistance to acceleration of the magnets and other parts within a twist
drive impose limitations upon the speed of its operation.
Presently...
I am looking at / looking for / looking toward, understanding the twist drive's internal
events as if they were wave forms and how there might be analogies to the Holcum Energy
System / other devices.
There are models of amplitude of and width of wave forms present here.
1. of five parts...
On one side of the interface between the two magnet's is the sliding magnet.
On the other side of the interface between the two magnets is the rotating magnet.
2. of five parts
Dual and opposing twist drives as a complex of wave forms.
3. of five parts
Cascaded twist drives as a complex of wave forms.
4. of five parts
Dual and opposing, cascaded twist drives as a complex of wave forms.
5. of five parts
Magnet falling through coil, or, flywheel acceleration.
Replacing the role that gravity plays on the ROtating side of the twist drive, with
a second twist drive that opposes a first twist drive.
Each one's 'output' resets the other twist drive. Simultaneously they each, in turn
push the electricity generating magnet through a coil ( at a right angle to gravity).
Cascaded twist drives. One drives two, two drive four, four drive eight and so on.
The cascade is reset by an opposing set of cascaded twist drives. At the juncture of
the two sets, the electricity generating magnet is pushed through a coil ( at a right
angle to gravity).
The last several posts here, by willy (yours truly), LankaIV, and CITFTA
have been moved to
https://overunity.com/18497/floor-sweepings-dust-bin/msg577939/#msg577939
To maintain continuity in this topic.
willy
There are in some permanent magnet interaction out comes which are
much like unto the actions of a mechanical lever.
Examples...
A lesser force is applied over a longer distance of travel upon the long end of a
lever which is traded for a greater force being present over a shorter distance of travel
by the short end of the lever.
OR
in reverse
A greater force is applied over a shorter distance of travel upon the short end of a
lever which is traded for a lesser force being present over a longer distance of travel
by the long end of the lever.
Either way and before considerations of loses, these interaction balance to
a zero net gain in energy.
BUT
There are numerous and various permanent magnet interactions for which
THERE ARE NO
similar nor analogous actions which can be accomplished by means of a mechanical
lever.
The Twist Drive magnet interactions, as described in this topic result in
1. A lesser force is applied over a lesser distance of travel upon a first side of the magnet
interactions, which is traded for a greater force being present over a greater distance
of travel upon a second side of the magnet interactions.
and then
in reverse
2. A greater force is applied over a greater distance of travel upon the second side of the
magnet interactions, which is traded for a lesser force being present over a lesser distance
of travel upon the first side of the magnet interactions.
These two parts of a complete cycling of the device result in a NO net gain in energy and
NO net loss in energy (before considerations of losses by friction and so on).
REPEAT, THERE ARE NO
similar nor analogous actions which can
be accomplished by means of a mechanical lever.
Although this Twist Drive kind of interaction results in NO over unity in and of itself,
the Twist Drive interactions do
RESULT IN AN OVER UNITY OUTCOME
when combined with a next process of permanent magnet interactions.
revised as "Twist Drive Proof k" pdf and odt files attached.
best wishes
Here are the 6 JPGs of the rubber band installation on the Twist Drive
as given as an addenedum in the last pages of "The Twist Drive proof k" files.
While a mechanical lever alone does not simulate this interaction
something like a pneumatic or hydraulic system may
Minor addition to "The Twist Drive proof" odt and pdf files
Labled as "The Twist Drive proof L"
This link was added to those files (weight of a magnet falling through a
electrically conductive pipe)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0svs-uGx8s&t=107s
The attached The Twist Drive proof M tame .odt and The Twist Drive proof M tame .PDF
files are revised for greater clairity.
In this video TDnewUndeniable https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a
the third video in the "The Twist Drive proof" files, (at 3 minutes and 50 seconds),
I ERRONEOUSLY spoke of an increase in efficiency by the utilization of an eccentric
pulley in the RO pulley position.
The utilization of an eccentric pulley would correctly be applied
only to the SL pulley. It does not apply to the RO pulley.
The attached The Twist Drive proof o tame.odt and The Twist Drive proof o tame.PDF
files are again revisions for greater clairity.