Does anyone know if anyone has tested anything like this? Please use your imagination here to see some ignorance on the linkage aspect. Maybe some linear bearings or some thing. In a pure magnet-linkage setup I think it is best to use weights for testing a concept. It’s pretty hard to refute weights and height for input and output. Pretty simple math that even I can understand. The orange changed to green when I saved to a different format.
How do you reset it from the second picture back to the first ?
The stick point on these types of mechanisms is unbelievably prohibitive. One concept that I worked on that used a similar idea which is wheel based around a center crankshaft and metal plates around half the wheel with the other half starting a quarter offset on the opposite side. The wheel works fantastic until reaching the point of breakaway from the plate. The other half of the wheel is halfway through the stroke and not enough to break the sticking point. I think I have a solution but haven't had the money to continue that build(not asking for any either) Here's where I'm going. I think with all these concept types, they have the potential to work and the solution I believe is that you must have multiple stages where enough stages are in mid movement to break the sticking point. So like with my wheel concept the sticking point is only on a few degrees of the 360. I should be able to add several more wheels at different degrees that are partway through the stroke which add enough force to break the stick point and that so at any one given required breaking of a sticking point the others are in some portion of the stroke. The same ideology will be required to make your devise work imo. hope that helps, I'm not an engineer so my description might suck. Just ask if it didn't make sense and I will explain more.
Quote from: hartiberlin on February 16, 2009, 11:33:06 PM
How do you reset it from the second picture back to the first ?
it is not made to be a self runner.
just to see if there is more out then in
so you answer is manuelly
Quote from: Tempest on February 17, 2009, 06:05:38 AM
it is not made to be a self runner.
just to see if there is more out then in
so you answer is manuelly
I'm really not sure of the reason now? For a non "self runner" One time movement... you get more out than in with a magnet's force drawn to metal. Why not approach a self running concept?
Quote from: Hugo Chavez on February 17, 2009, 07:44:07 AM
you get more out than in with a magnet's force drawn to metal. Why not approach a self running concept?
Does it?
If it as been tested then does anyone know how much it can lift vs. how much is needed to move the piece of metal?
If it does move more then it takes to move the metal then it should be easy to make it self run. Use air cylinders to compress air. Use an air cylinder to move the metal plate. You would have to use a tank to store the air and you would have to pre-pressurize to tank to make the metal piece move. Then just watch the air pressure gauge.
Quote from: Tempest on February 17, 2009, 05:45:46 PM
Does it?
If it as been tested then does anyone know how much it can lift vs. how much is needed to move the piece of metal?
If it does move more then it takes to move the metal then it should be easy to make it self run. Use air cylinders to compress air. Use an air cylinder to move the metal plate. You would have to use a tank to store the air and you would have to pre-pressurize to tank to make the metal piece move. Then just watch the air pressure gauge.
It's not easy. the energy to move the magnet away from the metal is going to bring you back to zero. That's what the whole game is about, finding a way around what is technically stated as impossible. check out my first post, I believe it's the only possible solution to a self running concept that uses metal plates and magnets. The same idea could possibly be incorperated into your design although I like the wheel idea better for its simplicity and the fact that the larger you make the diameter the more wheels can be added to break sticking points.
Question still not answered. Anyone else?
Quote from: Tempest on February 18, 2009, 05:25:23 PM
Question still not answered. Anyone else?
Sure, I'll bite.
It looks like you are claiming that, in the one-shot situation, you will get more work out (weights times heights) than you put in by pulling on the horizontal string.
Fine. One shot. But in that one shot, you are forgetting to compute the work you put into the system setting it up--which is stored as magnetic and gravitational PE and returned as KE, lifting your weights, when you "fire" the system by pulling horizontally.
No overall gain, no free energy proof-of-concept. Sorry.
As to someone having performed the experiment, it seems very similar to some things I've seen on the LaFonte Group threads. No FE there either, in spite of recent claims.