Hello,
Here is my contribution to the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ6vUS7AvbA
The Yu Oscillating Generator combine with Howard Johnson magnetic track used as an actuator.
The key is not to move in a full rotation but oscillate instead. Here is the video explaining the basics.
You have a counter weighted levered pendulum with a torque circumference.
On top of the lever you have an actuator. I used a H.J. magnetic track as one method.
The lever cannot stop in the middle of the track, but will be forced out. Afterwards a servo will redirect the drive magnetic pole facing into the track.
Pendulum -- Any kinetic and potential energy lost due to any form of resistance. Will be re-entered into the Yu Oscillating Generator “YOG†through the actuator.
My journey of the overunity model has lead to other models with great benefits too.
The device can produce renewable energy on land with wind, on top of ocean waves and even underwater.
Best Regards.
Howard G. Yu
YuEnergy-dot-comm
Here is a simple drawing.
Hi WattBuilder.
It is nice to make novel devices but I must say if it doesn't work in the deepest darkest regions of space it won't help the world with its energy problems in the distant long run.
as of right now photovoltaic systems are becoming highly advanced and are becoming less expensive dramatically.
more advanced research is being pumped into a very lucrative and hopeful technology that will solve a lot of problems on Earth especially with future cells that trap light in quantum wells and recycles its own photo frequencies up to 99.999% efficiency. with light trap systems it is possible to capture more usable light in a much smaller area and even store excess light for when the sun don't shine.
these systems would work even with body heat and would work at night.
more investing in photovoltaic companies will lower the cost of solar cells and drive the prices down to very affordable levels and increase research.
invest, invest, invest!
Jerry ;)
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 14, 2009, 03:19:15 AM
Hello,
Here is my contribution to the world.
...
I'm afraid the world will be disappointed.
What let you think that the energy your system could provide will be more than this one consumed by the actuators?
The actuators just change the magnetic potential of the moving magnets in the external field, in order to reverse their motion at each cycle. Thus they have to do work, the same energy that could be recover. And in fact, due to losses, it will be less.
Hi Jerry,
Solar energy sure does have a bright future. “no pun intendedâ€
A fresh push in renewable energy has been long awaited here in the U.S.
With President Obama and Secretary Chu, pumping money into the renewable energy economy. I think we will sure see a lot more technology coming out.
Just recently, I came across a start up company in Michigan. Where they just got grant funding to build a device that would be able to generate electricity without the moving parts of a wind turbine. They claim it can harvest electricity at twice the rate per square meter of a photovoltaic solar panel. They call it Aerovoltaic technology. No blades, no turbine and no noise.
It just goes to show that renewable energy has a viable future just when people thought wind energy has matured.
Howard
Hi Exnihiloest,
Work is okay…. As long as it produces more energy out then in.
Remember that the YOG has a lever as part of its design. It is lifting a counter weight in it’s lower pendulum. Then weight will swing back down.
You would get a mechanical gain depending on your lever’s ratio.
The force of the lower half is greater then the force of the actuator.
The magnetic ramp/track will drive the lever top thru back and fourth. Making up for any pendulum loss.
I hope that was explain clearly.
I think Bessler's Wheel is an over rated clock mechanism. nobody can get it to work but my clock works just fine. lol
sorry. I had to.
Jerry ;)
Hi Jim,
I haven’t thought much on the drinking bird, but it’s interesting on how it works with temperature.
I try to keep an open mind on different actuators until tested. But I would like to point out some of the advantages of the magnetic ramp used on the YOG.
1. The ramp can control the amount of driving force on the lever by using stronger magnets. (example: 5lbs of force)
2. The ramp length will control the distance of the lever travel. (example: swing from a 10 o’clock to a 2 o’clock position )
3. The ramp magnets does most of the work without electricity. (example: it will maintain 5lbs of force swing from a 10 o’clock to a 2 o’clock position )
On the video that you posted you can see that I replaced the turbine with another method. During my earlier testing I wasn’t able to get my hands on a low drag turbine. The common ones just had too much resistance turning due the iron core design. So what I did was use the basics of an ironless core Axial Flux Permanent Magnet Generator. If you look at the lower half of the YOG, you will see a half circle. I used the circumference as a dual rotor. The wooden frame was used as a stator holding the coils between the rotors. By doing this I greatly reduce the resistance and drag for the pendulum to swing. Also using Litz wire helped even more by getting rid of the eddy currents.
The point I’m getting at with the turbine is that any overunity device will have to leave room in their design for the load.
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 15, 2009, 05:26:20 AM
Hi Exnihiloest,
Work is okay…. As long as it produces more energy out then in.
Remember that the YOG has a lever as part of its design. It is lifting a counter weight in it’s lower pendulum. Then weight will swing back down.
You would get a mechanical gain depending on your lever’s ratio.
The force of the lower half is greater then the force of the actuator.
The magnetic ramp/track will drive the lever top thru back and fourth. Making up for any pendulum loss.
I hope that was explain clearly.
It explains nothing about the work. Force is not work. Work is force times displacement, it is conserved by a lever.
No calculus, no experiment: it is a profession of faith.
exnihiloest
Sounds like you made up your mind.
Also reading some of your post. It looks like your going around bashing other people’s hard work.
So I’ll play along with you……. What part of my device troubles you?
Oh and by the way save the smoke screen talk.
I never said force is work.
Are you sure you have an understanding of how my device works?
Sorry to be a party pooper but this whole project is a non-starter. The whole mechanism is a lever, and everyone should understand that a lever is not a source of energy. The Howard Johnson magnet array is simply not going to work. Howard Johnson is a man who managed to pass away and leave a folklore myth associated with his work. Nothing he ever did was verified, and it's simply impossible to arrange magnets to produce energy. Some people will be familiar with the Mylow case.
So rotating a magnet at the end of a lever to try to get energy from an array of magnets that can't give you any energy is a non-starter.
I am not sure what the author means by a "turbine" but my definition of a turbine wouldn't work in any kind of a setup like this either.
Seriously, the sound advice is to forget this and move on. If you refuse, then I suggest that you give yourself one more year to produce a tangible result, and if you can't, move on.
MileHigh
Quote from: P-Motion on September 16, 2009, 09:29:41 AM
Or simply put, have you thought of using wind power to increase the efficiency of your oscillating device ?
Hi Jim,
Yes, actually I have a Wind YOG model. The Wind YOG uses a sail as an actuator. The fundamentals of it, works like an Oscillating Wing. It uses basic aerodynamics pitching the sail, swinging it side to side.
I will have a video of it in action hopefully soon. I’m currently working on the permits with the city right now.
Check out my website YuEnergy-dot-comm I have a Humanitarian Disaster Relief YOG Model too.
Howard
Quote from: MileHigh on September 16, 2009, 07:20:29 PM
The whole mechanism is a lever, and everyone should understand that a lever is not a source of energy.
Hi MileHigh
Well respectfully, it sounds like you don’t understand it and even further off then the other guy (exnihiloest).
I’m not claiming the lever is a source of energy. I mean really are you serious ?
Also the whole mechanism is not a lever. You don’t see the Pendulum ?
Quote from: MileHigh on September 16, 2009, 07:20:29 PM
The Howard Johnson magnet array is simply not going to work. Howard Johnson is a man who managed to pass away and leave a folklore myth associated with his work. Nothing he ever did was verified, and it's simply impossible to arrange magnets to produce energy.
I believe Howard Johnson’s work does have some merit. His work on magnetic vortexes is very fascinating. And that train demonstration going thru a gate seems very real to me.
The YOG does not need to move in a full rotation, it needs an actuator. I have noted in the first post that the HJ tract is
one method.
In one aspect the YOG needs a magnetic ramp to drive a lever over a range. If you think about it, any non powered magnetic ramp will due as long as it allows acceleration and low resistance coming in and out of the ramp.
You may want to take a look at some of the videos on YouTube.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 16, 2009, 07:20:29 PM
So rotating a magnet at the end of a lever to try to get energy from an array of magnets that can't give you any energy is a non-starter.
The drive magnet only rotate 180 degrees and then stops until forced out the other end. This is the only electricity the YOG uses, as Input.
The ramp’s magnetic array is pushing it through.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 16, 2009, 07:20:29 PM
Seriously, the sound advice is to forget this and move on. If you refuse, then I suggest that you give yourself one more year to produce a tangible result, and if you can't, move on.
You know some may view that statement as a threat :'( Just kidding, your not a party pooper just try not to scare off the girls in the party. ::)
Howard
Howard,
No threat, I just don't want you to expend 3000 hours of your time over the next 18 months without any good results. If you think the magnet array is the key, then your whole giant oscillating pendulum-lever assembly is just an energy-neutral "carrier." You would be better off using a model train track on a big desk like in the Howard Johnson clip. What you see in that clip is nothing more than magnetic potential energy being converted into kinetic energy. It's all about the position where you place the car on the track. It's your hands that are supplying the energy that eventually becomes the moving car on the track and nothing else. The magnets are as dead as doornails, all the energy comes from where YOU placed the car. If you could see that then it could be a done deal.
MileHigh
http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/29990/Dr__Steven_Greer_The_Promise_of_New_Energy/
Quote from: MileHigh on September 17, 2009, 12:27:59 AM
If you think the magnet array is the key, then your whole giant oscillating pendulum-lever assembly is just an energy-neutral "carrier."
I’m not sure what you meant by an energy-neutral “carrier†?
If you mean that the YOG is just carrying energy neutrally over, for example transfer from point “A†to point “Bâ€.
Then that’s not too bad either
What I’m getting at is permanent magnets under normal conditions lose 1% of its energy strength every year. So the magnets will eventually out live my life span.
In the “carrier†point of view, the YOG becomes a magnet energy extractor. Harvesting energy from the magnets to carry over to the output of the YOG.
In that case the YOG allows magnets to become a Super Battery, point "A".
Then if true, the YOG has merit and becomes the first magnet energy extractor in history.
Surprisingly I had a lot of fun typing that.
Quote from: MileHigh on September 17, 2009, 12:27:59 AM
What you see in that clip is nothing more than magnetic potential energy being converted into kinetic energy. It's all about the position where you place the car on the track. It's your hands that are supplying the energy that eventually becomes the moving car on the track and nothing else. The magnets are as dead as doornails, all the energy comes from where YOU placed the car. If you could see that then it could be a done deal.
Let see if I got that right.
So all the energy comes from my hands that will eventually becomes the moving car on the track.
Now lets compare that to the YOG.
· My hands are replaced with the lever.
· The track is the magnetic ramp array.
· The car becomes the drive magnet on top of the lever
So what puts the drive magnet into the ramp array so that it can take off?
Answer is gravity from the counter balance pushing the drive magnet into the array.
Do you see my point of view ?
[/quote]
Howard:
An "energy-neutral carrier" - the whole device is a pendulum that can oscillate back and forth. You can store some energy in a swinging pendulum but the pendulum is not a source of energy itself. The energy in a pendulum goes back and forth between kinetic energy (movement) and potential energy (height).
"The YOG becomes a magnet energy extractor" - that's why I suggest that you try to prove this first on your desk. It would be simpler and easier. Thousands have tried before you to no avail.
QuoteLet see if I got that right.
So all the energy comes from my hands that will eventually becomes the moving car on the track.
Now lets compare that to the YOG.
· My hands are replaced with the lever.
· The track is the magnetic ramp array.
· The car becomes the drive magnet on top of the lever
So what puts the drive magnet into the ramp array so that it can take off?
Answer is gravity from the counter balance pushing the drive magnet into the array.
Do you see my point of view ?
No, because it is really your muscle power supplying the energy and that's not in your analogy. Pushing the car into place is like compressing an invisible spring. That's a very very accurate way of describing what's happening. The math is identical. Everybody knows that springs are not sources of energy, they just store energy.
You can't use gravity to create energy either, it's just a fact of life.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on September 17, 2009, 11:36:40 PM
No, because it is really your muscle power supplying the energy and that's not in your analogy. Pushing the car into place is like compressing an invisible spring. That's a very very accurate way of describing what's happening. The math is identical. Everybody knows that springs are not sources of energy, they just store energy.
MileHigh
I think I understand now, why you don’t think the YOG will work.
You’re probably thinking that the magnetic array works some thing like this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKiasJrN1s
Here you can see your invisible spring as the hand pushes the car into place that you are talking about. The wood moves.
You’re confusing that with the HJ track.
The real goal is to come into the array and out the array without resistance. That’s the hard part.
The HJ track works differently, it allows the train to come in and out without hardly any resistance. That’s why his work was so popular.
Here are some video’s that show it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHbp2uQaXW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoWGxmnCRMs
Do you see the merits of the YOG now :-\
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 16, 2009, 05:02:48 AM
exnihiloest
Sounds like you made up your mind.
Also reading some of your post. It looks like your going around bashing other people’s hard work.
It is not a question of hard work. It is a question of results.
A hard work is not a free energy proof.
Quote
So I’ll play along with you……. What part of my device troubles you?
Not one troubles me. That is the reason why I say you do not get FE. All are conventional, including your explanations.
Quote
Oh and by the way save the smoke screen talk.
I never said force is work.
Are you sure you have an understanding of how my device works?
It does not work.
When I asked "What let you think that the energy your system could provide will be more than this one consumed by the actuators?", you replied about forces and lever. It was not the point, forces are conserved by a lever and force is not work.
Quote from: exnihiloest on September 18, 2009, 08:14:08 AM
When I asked "What let you think that the energy your system could provide will be more than this one consumed by the actuators?", you replied about forces and lever. It was not the point, forces are conserved by a lever and force is not work.
exnihiloest,
There is a combination of different features of the YOG that makes it possible, some are:
Lever, Pendulum, Counterbalance circumference and Actuator.
But I’ll try to answer your question in a way for you to understand better. It sounds like your focus is on the actuator.
Lets take a look at one cycle of the YOG and actuator.
Here you have a servo that gets energized for about one second to change it’s orientation 180 degrees pointing towards the magnetic array. Once the orientation has been achieved the servo de-energize. Theirs no more input electricity into the YOG at this point.
After de-energizing, gravity then pushes the counterbalance lever’s top portion. Which is the drive magnet into the mouth of the magnetic array.
The array then sucks it in and the magnets repulsive push will travel the drive magnet out the other end.
Kinetic energy then returns the cycle at that point.
One way to view this is
Time.
The time for electricity to turn the orientation 180 degrees pointing towards the magnetic array.
Is less then,
The time of travel through the magnetic array that will allow the YOG to generate electricity during travel.
Basically time of consumption is less than time production.
Quote from: exnihiloest on September 18, 2009, 08:14:08 AM
It was not the point, forces are conserved by a lever and force is not work.
We’ll if you look at it that way ?
Then it’s back to what MileHigh pointed out about an energy-neutral “carrierâ€.
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 17, 2009, 03:02:47 AM
What I’m getting at is permanent magnets under normal conditions lose 1% of its energy strength every year. So the magnets will eventually out live my life span.
In the “carrier†point of view, the YOG becomes a magnet energy extractor. Harvesting energy from the magnets to carry over to the output of the YOG.
In that case the YOG allows magnets to become a Super Battery, point "A".
Then if true, the YOG has merit and becomes the first magnet energy extractor in history.
More out then in. Free Energy is still achieved.
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 18, 2009, 05:08:52 PM
exnihiloest,
There is a combination of different features of the YOG that makes it possible, some are:
Lever, Pendulum, Counterbalance circumferenc...
...
The time of travel through the magnetic array that will allow the YOG to generate electricity during travel.
Basically time of consumption is less than time production.
We’ll if you look at it that way ?
Then it’s back to what MileHigh pointed out about an energy-neutral “carrierâ€.
More out then in.
I asked for measurements or at least calculi, not for blah.
So if we are not in the domain of science, but in that of faith, you can count me out.
Quote
Free Energy is still achieved.
Yes of course. And Allah is great as others say with the same certainty.
exnihiloest,
Leaving so fast?
You already made up your mind, in the beginning anyway. You did not ask for measurements or calculi. Check your post.
Seems like you entered in bashing without open to hear the science.
Besides, who are you to make any demands?
Nevertheless, I believe my invention has merit and I owe it to the generations that will fallow, to be aware of this method.
Is their anyone reading these posts see the merits of the YOG?
Howard
For those of you who want to calculate the physics and math for yourselves. You can compare a “see-saw trebuchet fix hingedâ€, to one cycle of a YOG in action.
A trebuchet is kind of catapult that uses a counterweight to supply the energy for throwing a projectile. It was used during the Medieval Times to destroy castles
When transferring the variables of the YOG to a trebuchet. One may calculate it in the reverse order of a trebuchet.
1. Value of the drive magnetic on top of the lever = the projectile mass.
2. Value of the repulsive magnetic ramp array = the projectile acceleration.
3. Value of the pendulum counterweight = the counterweight for throwing projectile.
Once the value for the pendulum counterweight is achieved. You can convert that to figure to the amount of RPM and torque needed to turn a turbine.
The circumference in the lower part of the YOG plays an important role too. That circumference allows for physical transfer to the turbine or dyno.
For example the YOG, produces about 150 RPM with a 15lbs weight in a one swing.
Find a low drag turbine and look at its rating or chart to see what amount of electricity it will produce.
While your looking for a turbine’s chart, find a low power servo that will orientate the drive magnet and find a low power micro controller that will tell the servo when to turn. Your local hobby store should carry them.
You will see the difference in the input and output. Free Energy through YOG. ;)
Here’s a link that has trebuchet formulas.
http://www.algobeautytreb.com/trebmath35.pdf
I hope this analogy helps the readers understand better.
Howard
Howard,
I am not going to debate the merits of your design with you myself. I think that you are going to have to prove it for youself. I looked at the clips you pointed to. In the Bedini clip you can clearly see the person pushing the car back up the track and "compressing" the invisible spring. Poor old Bedini backed Mylow when there was zero evidence to do that.
You appear to be a long ways away from measuring energy in vs. energy out but that's the only thing that counts. It does not look easy to do for your setup either.
I will just repeat my suggestion from before: Give yourself one more year to produce tangible results and if you have nothing after one year then drop the project and move on.
It is crystal clear to me that what you are doing is without merit, you are chasing after a pipe dream. I know that you will disagree hence my suggestion for the one-year time limit.
MileHigh
Hi WattBuilder.
I have placed some questions about your YOG in the pic. please give a description of what they are and what they are supposed to do.
I simulated your YOG on Working Model 2D software but it doesn't seem to work so I need to clear up those questions.
If it doesn't work with Working Model 2D I will attempt to simulate it on Silux 2D.
Generators with moving parts are very inefficient and breakdown and are noisy, it is the generators with no moving parts that are the next step in technological evolution.
Jerry :)
Hi onthecuttingedge2005,
Cool…. you have a simulator….. I wasn’t able to get my hands on one of those.
As you can see I’m terrible at drawing. :-\
The two things that you are pointing to is the actuator, which will be used on the YOG.
One method is to apply a Howard Johnson magnetic linear track used as an actuator.
It is compose of three parts.
1. The umbrella looking thing is the HJ track.
2. The drum like thing represents the train that will point into the track.
3. Under the drum or train that I did not draw will be a servo that will rotate only 180 degrees. To point the north pole face towards the HJ track.
Once the train/drum enters into the track the magnetic array that is part of the HJ track will drive it thru until out the other end. Once out the other end, the servo turns again and repeats the cycle again.
Here is a link to the HJ track video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndRrCZiM1CU
Here you can see him using a Fish Scale to weigh the train while the train is in the gate.
In the video you can hear him say that its pulling 12 to 14 pounds and see the scale at 12 pounds.
It’s almost like grabbing the top of the lever and pushing at 12 pounds to a length out of the gates.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on September 20, 2009, 07:17:53 PM
Generators with moving parts are very inefficient and breakdown and are noisy, it is the generators with no moving parts that are the next step in technological evolution.
I like solar I think every home should have at least one solar device. It will almost take everything that we can throw at it to solve the harm mankind has already done to the earth. Especially when the earth has ice sheets braking off in the size of states.
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on September 19, 2009, 06:51:39 PM
exnihiloest,
Leaving so fast?
Sorry, I'm not a devot and don't believe the gurus.
Quote
You did not ask for measurements or calculi. Check your post.
I asked :
"What let you think that the energy your system could provide will be more than this one consumed by the actuators?"
but you did not understand it because this simple idea of measurement, calculus and proof is outside your mind.
Quote
...
I believe my invention has merit
...
Is their anyone reading these posts see the merits of the YOG?
I'm sure you will get many other memberships and ignorant bigots to support this new "science". It will be just a bit more noise in the FE domain.
Good luck.
That’s was absolutely hilarious !!! :D
WOW !!!
Well, I wasn’t expecting everybody to understand.
For some it may be frustrating and for some not so much.
For those who are building the Yu Oscillating Generator “YOGâ€.
You may notice the oscillating swings gets larger and larger. This acceleration of momentum will eventually cause the lever to touch the floor for example.
So one may need to install, depending on your scale “end stops†to limit the swing range.
You can use springs or dampers or sock absorbers to absorb some of the kinetic energy.
Howard
Hi Jim,
True, humans are subjected to conditioning. For some when their beliefs and reality comes into conflict, fear kicks in and tend to justify their way onto others. Especially Change.
Change is good but never easy without it we can’t evolve.
Quote from: P-Motion on September 22, 2009, 07:15:52 AM
As with what I've been working on, I have taken a lot of criticism. There have been some that found it and the science interesting.
The Yu Oscillating Generator “YOG†took me tons of hard work and criticism before I was able to get to this point. So I can understand how you feel. I think you are on to something with your overbalance wheel.
I believe you are on the right direction when you mentioned the “drinking Bird†Who says we can’t use temperature to turn a wheel. Currently everyday temperature is used to effect mass.
One example is heating a seized bolt to release it. Another is a thermostat used in homes to turn on a switch for an air condition unit.
I way you can have your wheel turn is adapting the “Drinking Bird†onto your wheel. Here is a suggestion and picture that may work for you.
You can use the sunlight to heat the mercury that will affect your wheel’s gravity.
Howard
Jim,
I don’t really see it and I’m not afraid to admit it.
But, your drawing to me almost looks like a playground swing set. The child will extend his/her legs towards the momentum to unbalance the swing. The child’s legs is the rolling ball counterweight and the child is on the lever instead of the bob.
On the YOG the drive magnet on top of the lever adds weight. I notice the lever ratio compare to the weights does effect the speed of the swing.
Well it’s an interesting point of view.
Howard
Jim,
Ooh, I see what you mean.. Good point.
But I’m not able to add that function into the YOG.
The YOG is global patent pending and that function will resemble too close to the 2 stage oscillator. I don’t want to be infringing on his patent.
Besides I think mine works better then his! ;D
The YOG center of gravity is suppose to shift, that’s what allows the lever’s drive magnetic to return back onto the magnetic array and also allows the weight of the lower pendulum that is a lot greater to come back down turning the turbine
Quote from: P-Motion on September 23, 2009, 10:42:56 AM
Otherwise the law, Conservation of Energy would suggest that entropy would keep it from working.
Not really? I heard that word use in two ways.
If it’s used as thermodynamics then it does not apply.
If it’s used to refer as “slowing down†then that’s not a problem.
Because the kinetic energy of the pendulum and the magnetic push of the magnetic array will launch the drive magnet out. Then the next cycle repeats.
Any loss of kinetic and potential energy due to air resistance, bearings, turbine load and what ever can be think of. Gets replenish when the drive magnetic goes through the magnetic array.
Howard
Hi Jim,
I’m not familiar with the Mag-Lev and Johann Bessler work too much, But I will look into it a little more to catch up.
To those who are building the YOG for testing, I want to point out that the HJ track has different versions.
If you decide to build the round and square gate looking array. That array only goes one way but it has a stronger force then the bi-directional array. You will need to rotate 180 degrees out of the array vertically. So that the return swing will have the drive magnet out of the array to swing freely back.
If you decide to build the bi-directional array where the array magnets are all north. Then continue as I was explaining to rotate 180 degrees horizontally.
Either way will work just as good….
I will be on a trip and will answer questions upon my return whenever that may be. ;)
Howard
For the readers who have decided to build the YOG for testing.
There is a way replace the input source electricity.
This can be achieved by removing the servo and adding a Tail Vane instead. This method will allow for basic aerodynamics to do the work.
In order to allow the tail vane below the drive magnet to rotate 180 degrees. You will need to add a bearing, so it can change the orientation of the drive magnet facing towards the magnetic array. If you happen to choose an array that tries to turns the drive magnet. You will need to add guide rails next to the tail vane to keep it true.
Note: this will only work for a bi-directional arrays.
I am almost completed with this test unit using the tail vane. That I originally had plans for teachers and educators. Hopefully in the coming weeks it will be ready for videoing.
Howard
To all,
Here is my latest video. Showing how the YOG gains energy from magnets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
This is just an analysis of the YOG’s one cycle.
Enjoy
Howard
Howard,
I see themerit in your plan. I believe it possible to use gravity to reverse the direction of the magnet on the end of the lever. I can't express to well in words, but if the magnet is mounted on a rotating plate with a weight behind it, at the end of each cycle the weight would continue moving forward thereby rotating the plate and reversing the direction of the magnet preparing it to pick up energy on the next cycle.
A little wary of the fact your already taking orders on your website before a working model has been demonstrated. It's a neat idea but a quick way to loose street credibility.
Spoondini,
I’m not sure what you mean about the plate? The original OU YOG uses a servo to orientate the drive magnet direction. The Tail Vane method allows for aerodynamics and acts like a guide to keep the drive magnet from turning while in the array. Depending on the array of course.
I’m not talking orders on the Overunity model. I’m talking orders for the Wind and Wave YOG models. There is no mention about Overunity at my website for some of the same reasons you have mentioned.
It’s hard enough getting into the renewable energy industry as it is without mentioning OU.
But it’s good that you see the merits of the Overunity YOG model. I still have yet to try some other concepts for an actuator. Some that I wonder are the Tri-gate, V ramp, and SMOT devices? I haven’t had much luck with Perendev methods yet.
Howard
I was also thinking about smot like devices in this design. I'm not sure if it will ultimately work because what were essentially taliking about is a magnetic gate, and these don't really exist. It requires as much energy (actually more) to position at the trigger point than imparted by the gate.
I still think your on to something.
Spoondini,
We’ll it’s just something I may be looking into in the future.
As for magnetic gates not existing. What is your definition of it ? How are you basing on.
@all
I’m also posting at the EF renewable energy forum too.
Howard
Magnetic gates meaning unidirectional magnetic acceleration with free entry, these don't exist (yet?). If it did, you could simply build a rotor with a permanent maget one of those nifty trigates to continously accelerate. I think it would be a waste of time (my oppinion).
With respect to your device, I was thinking smot like because the reason smots haven't been closed is because of the inability to return the ball to it's starting point. By using a pendulum to 'catch' the ball, mechanical/gravity device to spin it around and align for a return pass across a different smot (parallell but opposite), could we possibly close the loop and get energy out of magnets?
Please take this as a voice of reality as opposed to pessism, but I 'think' there will be a repelling magnetic force near the entry to the smot/gate which will negate the energy gained through the acceleration.
Can you sketch out ur current mag setup on top the pendulum?
Quote from: spoondini on October 09, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Magnetic gates meaning unidirectional magnetic acceleration with free entry, these don't exist (yet?). If it did, you could simply build a rotor with a permanent maget one of those nifty trigates to continously accelerate. I think it would be a waste of time (my oppinion).
Spoondini,
Well I like to give it a try …. ;D
Quote from: spoondini on October 09, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
With respect to your device, I was thinking smot like because the reason smots haven't been closed is because of the inability to return the ball to it's starting point. By using a pendulum to 'catch' the ball, mechanical/gravity device to spin it around and align for a return pass across a different smot (parallell but opposite), could we possibly close the loop and get energy out of magnets?
Please take this as a voice of reality as opposed to pessism, but I 'think' there will be a repelling magnetic force near the entry to the smot/gate which will negate the energy gained through the acceleration.
I see it too but my original thinking was to have the arc closer to the fulcrum of the YOG. That way the ball enters and exit out of the array past the mouth. It’s almost like dropping the ball a quarter in the array and then having the ball drop out a quarter before the end of the array.
I notice when magnets are close together the electrons seem to bleed over to the neighbor magnets and concrete at the ends of the array.
A Gyro looking like device may be used instead of a ball. It looks like one of those arcade game room rides where the child straps into the center and spins around all axis.
I hate to switch directions but it is tempting for me to test it …. :'(
Quote from: spoondini on October 09, 2009, 05:52:54 PM
Can you sketch out ur current mag setup on top the pendulum?
Sure, for the readers of this tread, this picture is what I used in my proof of concept that energy can be harness from magnets.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Attached is a drawing of the array. I do get resistance entering into the array. It’s the “little wheel big wheel effectâ€. Further adjustments on this will increase the amount of energy captured from magnets.
Also notice how I use the iron as a flux extension. The HJ banana shape brings the counter flux spin too close for my preference.
Enjoy
Howard
After reading a little bit more into SMOT. It seems that they work “one-way†not “Bi-Directional†that’s too bad.
Howard
Great work, we need more guys like you in the forum...sharing theory, building and documenting experiment.
I would recommend you keep the flipping mechanism purely mechanic. Putting a servo up there and powering it by energy from the setup can become very tricky unless you think otherwise. spoodini's idea could help by using a small overbalancing weight of some sort.
Below you can see a rendition. Each wheel is a sequence in time. When the magnet hits the fartest point the small overbalanced weight is allowed to drop thus rotating the magnet with it. I recommend a lock mechanism, so the overbalanced weight does not shift or act funny while the magnet has still not reached the sides.
Thanks Broil,
Yeah, the counter weight would work but the tail vane has weight too, and helps with the over rotate. Also allows for greater range for the glide rails to keep it straight during a pass.
Super rendition drawing. As you can see at my website I’m horrible at drawing. Good thing you have posted that.
I was waiting for the right time to point out that when you have them in a modular array like that, next to each other. You get an Engine ;D
Howard
Latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
It's the least I could do. People who understand the spirit of this forum need to be supported. You seem to be very near to a working device.
Hi WattBuilder.
I was studying variances of your model, however I could not get your model to perpetuate.
However, after close study of my last variance model which I call a Chaos Accelerator Pendulum, under heavy air resistance and under electrostatic potentials this model continues to perpetuate non stop.
it will try to center itself but the attraction of the chaos pendulum causes the setup to over balance and get highly attracted to the keyed slot attractor and causes the Chaos Pendulum to accelerate to a very good potential which flings the keyed slot attractor away at high velocity.
the process has continued to function non stop for 3 hours of testing. I even let both attractors start at dead center, they which eventually off balance the pendulum which causes it to accelerate past the key slot attractor.
note:
I had 'objects do not collide' under preferences turned on to avoid both attractors from hitting each other.
the two blocks on each end are just a source of repulsion for the key slot attractor to prevent it from leaving the screen.
it may be an anomaly but if anyone can confirm my experiment I would appreciate it, thanks.
the model was tested with Working Model 2D software.
Jerry
please read below post.
here is the data file on the Chaos Accelerator Pendulum.
Jerry
I made a video of the chaos accelerator pendulum, sorry about the quality since I was pointing a video camera at my monitor screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dsVop4tpOY
I will see about making some better quality videos the next time.
the model seems to perpetuates forever on the software. I let it run all night, it doesn't stop.
Jerry
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on October 13, 2009, 03:12:48 AM
I was studying variances of your model, however I could not get your model to perpetuate.
Hi Jim,
I not surprise the Working Model 2D software wasn’t able to simulate the magnetic array. Thanks for trying. ;)
Your Chaos Accelerator Pendulum looks neat. It maybe a good classroom exercise for teachers. Other then using a ROMP. Can you post that on a new topic ? I think some teachers may want to ask you some question on it.
I would like to keep this topic of the Yu Oscillating Generator on focus. It absorbs energy from magnets and lifts weights higher that will convert to torque. The gain torque drives a turbine that can produce electricity.
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hello WattBuilder,
thank you for this interesting demonstration. I really wonder about some of the members her just talk and talk leading nowhere as one member has already stated.
Now I have one practical question :
You said in your presentation
that both sticks ( upper lever ) have the same weight, but this is just one necessary conditions of two. The other condition is the center of mass of each stick.
Can you please measure the center of mass of your two sticks with the stone and the magnet attached and repeat your experiment ? Where is this masspoint of each stick located ? For this purpose just take out the sticks and balance each stick on your finger and mark it. I have the feeling that the center of mass of both sticks is not at the same level.
Only if this is the case you can compare the two processes.
Regards
Kator01
Hi WattBuilder,
have you seen this here :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agReLN-tGQE&feature=fvw
have a look at all parts of this man- it is important.
Here he demonstrates that it works :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzuXm7r8Ybw&feature=channel
Another thing which you can do to strengthen the mag-field of your runner-magnet is to cover the top with iron-sheet thus making it one piece of iron together with the outer two fluxguides. I am looking for a document where is was explained in detail.
Regards
Kator01
Hi Kator01,
I have made some progress since the demo of the YOG’s one cycle video. The YOG is now modified and the lever too.
I was anticipating this question.
Both sticks are made of PVC pipe found at a local hardware store. They were both cut from the same piece of pipe. Both were weighed down to the 100th of an ounce. The stone and the drive magnet assembly were repeatedly checked, including the screw that holds it.
The masspoint is about 8 inches close to the neck of the stone and drive magnet.
Now remember that there was a gain about 15 inches. If the masspoint was lower it will show the gain less because the lever ratio would be less. For example 7:1 ratio is better than 4:1
One way to get the same effect of the gain in the video is to increase the mass point higher. But as you can see there is no way to increase the length longer past the array of magnets without hitting them.
Can you post this over at my main thread? As I would like to keep this topic separate?
I’m gland you like my video. I hope more people can get a chance to see it.
Cheers
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hi Kator01,
I’m familiar with shielding magnets. I think there are simpler ways then using a battery though.
As for the flux guide, I’m too not sure? That’s something I will have to look into.
I read somewhere that electrons flow, something like 500 times faster through iron then through air.
The more flux spins interacting with the opposing magnets flux spins, will allow for traction.
The more spins the better.
The iron would allow for more speed and concentration of the electron to flow but where? At what point does the opposing electron from the other meet?
Now one way to look at it is if the flux can go through the flux guide, passing it? Then they are sure to meet?
Another way to look at it is that electrons flow normally greater on the skin of a copper wire. Would the skin separate the electrons from colliding that will allow for traction?
Well, I really need better materials and test equipment. But I will look into it. The answer my just be as simple as just sticking a thin iron sheet over the two extensions and just measure it. :P
Howard
My latest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hi Kator01,
The iron plate guide across the poles actually worked, it gained about 2 inches over the HJ array.
Howard
Hi All,
This new array set up seems to out perform my previous array by about 6 inches. Its based on repulsive force is greater then attraction force.
I’m going to be switching over to this for future testing until better comes along.
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hi All,
Here is an experiment method to prove the Yu Oscillating Generator achieves overunity.
This method is based on the YOG gaining kinetic energy per cycle as it absorbs the energy from magnets.
The illustration attached shows, cycle end points that starts from “A†to “Hâ€.
Whereas “A†is the start point and “H†is the last “end stop†point.
Start at “A†and face the drive magnet to the array. Then lock it in so it does not turn as it makes a cycle pass.
When the cycle ends simply mark the point. It should be somewhere around “Bâ€.
From there re-orientate the drive magnet to face into the array again and lock it in.
Release it at point “B†and it should end around point “Câ€.
Repeating this process until you cycle to “Hâ€.
You should see the mark points get lower and lower and that the YOG gains energy, lifting the weight higher and higher.
The reasoning behind this test is that the release points of the next cycle have an increase of kinetic energy and potential energy from the magnetic array. Therefore it will add on top of each cycle.
After this experiment one may view that everything else to work out on the YOG is now Negligible. In that it is just now a matter of increasing the scale. Whether you’re working out the method to orientate the drive magnet or working out the load resistance of the turbine. The ability to scale just makes those issues too small to be a problem anymore.
So there you go! You just proved The Yu Oscillating Generator achieves overunity.
Try it and see. :D
Note: This test method has been confirmed on my test unit.
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Howard,
Nice to see some updates. Sounds like you're making progress. Have you had any success with 2 cycles yet using the windvane mechanism previously mentioned? I'm following your developments with interest. Continued acceleration through multiple cycles will be the proof your concept will work. The novelty of mixing a magnetic motor (kind of) with a pendulum is something I've never seen before. It just might work.
So you're saying that you have confirmed continuous acceleration in 'slow motion'!!!!! That's awesome.
Was just thinking (dangerous)...
Before we pop the cork on the champagne bottle and celebrate the first perpetual motion device in the history of mankind, I realized that you are adding energy every time you stop the device and manually turn around the magnets. Kind of like a SMOT, you have to position the ball each time (adding energy). Although this might seem negligible, you're not gaining that much energy with each oscillation, and the act of turning over the magnet, whether using electric, air resistance, or gravity will create a drag on the unit potentially wiping out the gains. In short, the experiment you conducted is not conclusive and what you deemed as trivial is now the determining factor as to whether the YOG will achieve OU.
The final proof will be in a self running unit that does not rely on external power or tampering of any kind. Not yet ready to start throwing any $$'s at the device until we hit the undisputable point of OU.
Quote from: spoondini on October 19, 2009, 09:20:13 AM
Was just thinking (dangerous)...
Before we pop the cork on the champagne bottle and celebrate the first perpetual motion device in the history of mankind, I realized that you are adding energy every time you stop the device and manually turn around the magnets. Kind of like a SMOT, you have to position the ball each time (adding energy). Although this might seem negligible, you're not gaining that much energy with each oscillation, and the act of turning over the magnet, whether using electric, air resistance, or gravity will create a drag on the unit potentially wiping out the gains. In short, the experiment you conducted is not conclusive and what you deemed as trivial is now the determining factor as to whether the YOG will achieve OU.
The final proof will be in a self running unit that does not rely on external power or tampering of any kind. Not yet ready to start throwing any $$'s at the device until we hit the undisputable point of OU.
First in history, lol have you been sleeping outside?
Anyway that's the whole point isn't it, to spin the magnet on the rod. The magnet is so far out of the field that you can call any effect on it negligible. So the only thing that remains is to use some of the energy you gained to spin the setup. But even in theory the magnet on the rod is pretty symmetrical so it should technically take no energy at all to spin it. I encourage that the first setup should be completely mechanic to blow any talk of energy input out of the water.
Broli - I'm also very optimistic about this setup, but by nature I'm a critical thinker and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
BTW - You implied that there are other perpetual motion devices, could you please point me to one that has been undisputably demonstrated (not one where the inventor disappears and we are trying, but unsuccessfully, to replicate). I know of pendulums which have swung for years, but they will eventually stop. The Finsrud will run for a couple of months before being reset. I would love to see a genuine perpetual motion device.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 19, 2009, 08:44:50 AM
Hi All,
This new array set up seems to out perform my previous array by about 6 inches. Its based on repulsive force is greater then attraction force.
I’m going to be switching over to this for future testing until better comes along.
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k)
Have you considered using a halbach array and compare that to your current results. It should make the field about two times stronger.
http://www.skytran.net/phpsite/media/inductrack%20halbach%20array.jpg
Great progress indeed Howard!
I am still puzzled with the necessity of the pendulum oscillations to achieve inceased amplitude. Best I can come up with, is that the magnet array might work exceptionally well with the accellerating entry and decellerating exit.
I am still wondering if the array could offer advantage in a horizontal setup with continuous rotation. It would take away the little issue of revering the lever magnet.
Or, is a field created within the array, that can only be taken advantage of once each direction?
Thanks so much, and good luck with your further progress!
J
Cloxxki - I ask myself the same question. If a permanent magnetic array can accelerate in one direction (with free entry), you should be able to line several up to make a circle (continuous rotation). Nobody has yet been able to make such because of the inherent conservative nature of magnetism. In simple terms - the sticky points.
My suspension of disbelief that this can work is because the pendulum action provides the momentum necessary to overcome the sticky point in front of the magnet array. A continously rotating wheel never get's the momentary gravitational acceleration associated with the YOG.
That being said, the most recent test performed still does not have me 100% convinced we're there. Although I want to believe Howard has solved the riddle of perpetual motion with a touch of overunity, in reality I'm expecting the device to decelerate slightly with each oscillation. Just like Jamie Ronor's stators or SMOT devices, it looks good until you try closing the loop. I play with magnets quite a bit and can make lots of things 'look' like they're going to work until I try to get continous motion. Howard's design is truly unique with the oscilating pendulum, he just might do it.
Hi Howard,
really good progress, congrats.
When I made this comment on the cross-plate I remembered this website here
http://www.leevalley.com/shopping/Instructions.aspx?p=54198 (http://www.leevalley.com/shopping/Instructions.aspx?p=54198)
But now it gets even more interesting if you combine an halbach array with the shielding-technique
of Mr. Roney I mentioned in the beginning.
best wishes
Kator01
@ spoondini
Yes, I was able to get two cycles but I had to start over on the bearing design on the lever. The bearing mounted on the wooden lever started to bend and gave me a lot of problems. Since then I have switch to square aluminum tubing for a lever with patio door hinges instead of bearings. The hinges seem to work better and helped with the over turn.
As for the act of orientating the drive magnet. It does not take away any kinetic energy from the YOG. The YOG does not need to stop to turn. Turing a drive magnet on a 10 foot lever is no different then turning a drive magnet on a 60 foot lever. Whereas the 10 footer lifts 15lbs vs the 60 footer lifting 1500lbs. So with a long enough and strong enough lever you can actually lift a car. Therefore the YOG should be able to spare a couple of watts to turn the drive magnet.
@ Broli and Kator01
I will shoot for completely mechanically operated YOG but not for too long. I don’t think it’s wise to sit on this technology, as the world needs it. Thinking about it, every day that passes a life could have been saved.
As for the Halbach array it does make sense to use a stronger array method then buying stronger magnets. The shielding technique will sure need to be reviewed.
The YOG does open up a lot of methods ………..
@ Cloxxki and Spoondini,
The continuous rotation vs YOG oscillation debate is a discussion that can be too long for me right now. There are so many factors that come into play between the two.
· For example when you close the loop with a magnetic array the flux pattern changes vs an arc array. It’s like having one big circle magnet with the spins traveling through the hole.
· The YOG can also store kinetic energy like a flywheel and factor in potential energy.
· Rotary devices works better with speed and the YOG works better with leverage.
· I also believe magnets are like fingerprints and no two are the same.
· Also the flux concentration with a closed loop seems to me a lot more sensitive vs an arc array. For example I tend to look at flux spins like a wheel. The drive magnet is like one big wheel and the closed loop magnets are like little wheels or bumps. If you drive a car over a bunch of bumps in a circle the car loses speed.
So that’s just to start. Maybe later when I clear my plate I'll can come back to this.
@ All
Well, at this point it’s just now a matter of time working out the orientation the harder way “no electricityâ€.
Thanks for the support!
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Cheers on 2 cycles! Indeed the pendulum vs wheel could be a thread unto itself, but the bottom line is that you are the first I've seen take this approach and your reported results are promising. Respect your enginuity and drive to get this tested and developed. Best wishes.
Thanks for your answers Howard.
I am most impressed with what you seem to have accomplished already.
I wish I could walk next door and make my hands dirty to help you out, sweep your floor even if that would help you work better.
All the best, keep the updates coming, and keep safe.
J
Cloxxki,
Thanks for offering to help and for realizing that I’m doing this alone.
The hard part is over now as I’m in the phase now of trying to get as much people to understand as possible.
Cheers
Howard
@All
Here’s my update.
I have now made the decision to put a hold on using the tail vane method to orientate the drive magnet. It’s taking me longer then I have planned. The things that I am running into going this route are lack of access to better materials and better tools.
I know that there are going to be some readers who will have a harder time understanding when I revert back to the use of the servo method.
The full understanding of the ability to scale and its effects is something that one may have to figure out. As my knowledge came from working in the field of the Automation Industry. I will do my best to help those understand.
For now I want to clear up the “step†function of my drive magnet’s position. Before I put up additional videos of the YOG.
You may have notice on my previous video that the drive magnet is offset from the centerline of the lever. The reasoning for that position is to allow for the step in a cycle to take place while also orientating the drive magnet. This function allows for “walking†or “climbing†how every you like to view it.
This makes it possible to add on top of the gain kinetic energy. Resulting in the lever getting lower and lower and the weight lifting higher and higher.
One can compare it to traveling up a flight of stairs or a truck bumper jack lifting a car.
It would be great if the magnetic array has a knob where you can turn up the magnetic energy for every cycle pass, but apparently magnets aren’t made that way.
The value of energy from the magnetic array is fixed. Depending on your array set up. So that’s why we need to add the “step†function.
Hopefully in the coming days I will be posting a new video where you can see the YOG in action with a servo.
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Good luck with the servo method Howard. I think you made a wise decision to go with a method you are confidant you can make work (perfection is the enemy of the possible). If you use a servo but can still demonstrate continuous acceleration until load is attached, you will have convinced me the concept works (not sure how much that matters). Best wishes. Like cloxxki I also wish I could physically help you as your device shows promise. Following your updates closely, thanks.
Spoondini,
I think you will like this next video then.
Cheers
Howard
@All
Well …….. I’m done.
Here’s the gain proof video with servo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
The input is about 1.3 Watts for 2 seconds to turn the servo per cycle.
I used a Doc Wattson meter
The circumference that will drive the turbine measured about 343 to 354 Revs/Min. I started at the 10 o’clock position and let it swing one cycle. The tachometer used is an Ametek 1726 and was measured by placing the wheel on the meter up agents the circumference.
Howard
Holy $$$$T. You've done it Howard! I see continuous acceleration!
I have never, I mean NEVER seen anybody actually pull off OU in these boards. Unless you're hiding a motor or electro mags, this is the real deal.
As you've stated, the servo can be replaced with some engineering tweeking to run completely non-electric. I'm sure the torque can be increased through some trial/error in the mag arrays. I think you've done it man.
All bow to our savior Howard!
PS - I think there were some earlier posts on this thread that need a plate of crow served up.......
Nice indeed, you pulled out that servo installation pretty quickly. I bet this will catch some attention, remember to give assistance to replicators and ignore the skeptics.
Wow Howard
Looks like it works, the more swings the more power, fantastic work ;D ;D
Are you going to apply for the Overunity prize ? [when it runs itself and produces power]
I wonder if a small-scale version can be built ?
Where are all those people that spent their time on the Mylow Motor,
looks like it's time for another replication
cat
Howard what's your take on putting this system horizontally without the pendulum concept. Surely if there's excess force in one direction it should accelerate horizontally as well unless the pendulum is a secret ingredient. The biggest advantage would be not having to flip the magnet around.
Howard and Ladies and Gentlemen:
You really have to look at all angles before you claim victory. All that you are looking at here is the equivalent of a child shifting his weight on a swing so that he can swing higher and higher. Howard's rotating servo mechanism is the equivalent of the child shifting his position on the swing.
Therefore, the energy source that is making the oscillator swing higher and higher is the battery pack that is affixed to the pendulum.
Here is the test that Howard should have done to double check his results: Remove the magnet array and start the pendulum and make the servo system go back and forth just like he does in his clip. You will see the pendulum swing higher and higher, confirming that the moving servo itself is what is adding energy to the swinging pendulum. What is making the servo go back and forth? The answer is the batteries.
The reason the pendulum swings higher and higher is because chemical energy in the batteries is being transformed into more mechanical energy being stored in the swinging pendulum.
You guys have got to put on your thinking caps.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on October 27, 2009, 07:34:55 PM
Howard and Ladies and Gentlemen:
You really have to look at all angles before you claim victory. All that you are looking at here is the equivalent of a child shifting his weight on a swing so that he can swing higher and higher. Howard's rotating servo mechanism is the equivalent of the child shifting his position on the swing.
Therefore, the energy source that is making the oscillator swing higher and higher is the battery pack that is affixed to the pendulum.
Here is the test that Howard should have done to double check his results: Remove the magnet array and start the pendulum and make the servo system go back and forth just like he does in his clip. You will see the pendulum swing higher and higher, confirming that the moving servo itself is what is adding energy to the swinging pendulum. What is making the servo go back and forth? The answer is the batteries.
The reason the pendulum swings higher and higher is because chemical energy in the batteries is being transformed into more mechanical energy being stored in the swinging pendulum.
You guys have got to put on your thinking caps.
MileHigh
I partially agree. It's not a battery pack it's the magnet itself. To get rid of this argument it should be centered or even moved to the other side so that it technicality loses energy every cycle. But that doesn't explain the previous video which was centered ;) .
@milehigh,
Good observation. I watched the video again and the megnetic array is not perfectly centered, this could indeed be the cause of acceleration. The center of gravity does appear to shift. My jury just went back to deliberation. I've been meaning to make a 1/100th scale of this thing, pure mechanical to validate but time is hard to come by.
@spoondini,
I got your message but computer froze everytime I tried to reply. Easy to email me markdansie@bigpond.com
Kind Regards
Well, very good !
Congratulations !
Can you get the energy out of the magnet array at the top via coils to turn the drive magnet to get rid of batteries all in all ?
Then it would be the real breakthrough, if you could show this without batteries.
To turn the magnet by 180 degrees should not take much energy and could probably be made also mechanically somehow..
Looking forward to see an update.
I will put this onto the news.
Regards, Stefan.
use a really loose bearing in place of the servo. as the arm falls to one side so should the top magnet support.
something like this;
Quote from: spoondini on October 27, 2009, 05:01:34 PM
I'm sure the torque can be increased through some trial/error in the mag arrays. I think you've done it man.
@Spoodini,
Yup, just like we post before about using different types of magnetic arrays. We can always increase the amount of energy gain by using stronger magnets. Cheers!
Quote from: broli on October 27, 2009, 05:17:48 PM
Nice indeed, you pulled out that servo installation pretty quickly. I bet this will catch some attention, remember to give assistance to replicators and ignore the skeptics.
Howard what's your take on putting this system horizontally without the pendulum concept.
@Broli,
I had the parts already and the hobby store was close.
Sure,
Replicators I’m at your service.
As far as this system horizontally ? I’m not at the point yet to take on that challenge. Maybe one day.
Quote from: powercat on October 27, 2009, 05:34:36 PM
Are you going to apply for the Overunity prize ? [when it runs itself and produces power]
I wonder if a small-scale version can be built ?
Where are all those people that spent their time on the Mylow Motor,
looks like it's time for another replication
@PowerCat
No, But If Stefan decides to award me the title or trophy I’ll accept it but as far as the cash. I will request for him to either and pass it to the next winner or charity at his discretion.
As for a smaller scale version? Possible but the larger the YOG the larger the gain.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 27, 2009, 07:34:55 PM
Here is the test that Howard should have done to double check his results:
@MileHigh
Ummm, Of course I did.. I do have it right here you know.
As far as the child shifting the weight? It does to a point but, for the child to gain higher and higher swings. The child must add more energy to the next swing then the previous amount of energy in the first swing, in order to gain.
I don’t know how to increase the energy of the servo rotating 180 degrees? Do you?
Did you forget to add in the energy gain from the magnetic array as well?
MileHigh don’t forget to put on your own thinking cap. Quote from: hartiberlin on October 27, 2009, 09:25:04 PM
Can you get the energy out of the magnet array at the top via coils to turn the drive magnet to get rid of batteries all in all ?
@Stefan,
Your absolutely right !!!
If I cannot get rid of the batteries all in all. Judging by what other members have proven all ready using coils to collect energy from the magnets as it passes….. it will be awfully darn close !
Cheers everyone !
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
Howard:
QuoteAs far as the child shifting the weight? It does to a point but, for the child to gain higher and higher swings. The child must add more energy to the next swing then the previous amount of energy in the first swing, in order to gain.
That is not correct. The child just has to add the same amount of energy each time. Each additional addition of energy by the child results in the swing getting slightly higher, exactly like you are demonstrating in your clip.
The principle behind the operation of your device is that every time you get to the end of a swing, your servo turns the magnet around by 180 degrees. That we can agree on, correct?
You note that the center of mass of the magnet is not centered relative to the axis of the arm.
Suppose you imagine a much more idealized situation, the upper arm of the pendulum swings to the far left and slows down and comes to a stop for a fraction of a second. At that moment your servo swings the mass of the magnet around by 180 degrees in 1/10 of a second.
To make it easier to visualize let's just imagine that the arm is not moving at all and has no momentum when in fact is slows down, stops, and then reverses direction.
So what happens when the servo rotates the magnet by 180 degrees, knowing that the magnet's center of gravity is not lined up with the center axis of the arm? Momentum has to be conserved, so when the mass of the magnet swings from the left to the right (the 180 degree turn) we know that the arm has to move to the left a bit.
In other words, when the mass of the magnet swings from left to right, the arm moves a tiny bit from the right to the left to converve the momentum. Can you see this?
So what does that mean? When the arm moves a tiny bit from the left to the right, your set of barbell weights at the bottom of the pendulum moves UP a tiny bit. That adds gravitational potential energy to the system.
Exactly the same thing happens on the other side of the swing. The mass swings from the right to the left, the arm moves a tiny bit from the left to the right, and the set of the barbell weights at the bottom of the pendulum moves UP a tiny bit, adding gravitational potential energy to the system.
Another way of saying all of this is that each time you move the magnet with the servo, you are increasing the angle of the swing. Increasing angle of the swing means that the barbell weights at the bottom of the pendulum are being raised higher and higher every time you flip the mass of the magnet around.
That's the real deal Howard - this will work with or without the array of magnets, the energy comes from the batteries, I suggest that you check again.
MileHigh
What matters most.
input watts vs. output watts, period.
nothing else matters.
Taking a cue from onthecuttingedge and taking into consideration MileHigh's sage advice, have you considered playing around with something along these lines?
onthecuttingedge had a good thought but you need the magnet to turn the other way at the bottom of the swing.
MileHigh makes a good point, but if the mag-array really does have anything to do with it, it'd be interesting to follow-up on that theory.
In this case, the pivot-counterweight and the magnet-weight could both be close to the same weight (favoring the counterweight), since your now depending on geometry and gravity to change the configuration of the top pivot arm.
After some tuning and possible adjustment of the bottom counterweight to allow for the additional mass imposed by the top counterweight, all things should again be 'equal' on the 'playing-field' and any significant additional force would necessarily have to come from the overhead magnetic array, should any additional force be available.
The bias shown would only put the magnet about 8-deg off-center, which shouldn't effect much as far as flux-lines are concerned.
Tony
@spoondini,
thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am doing the maths on it. The best way is to convert everything to joules. I can see potential in this and must congradulate Wattbuilder on his work so far. As always I will take my time with this before giving an opinion.
I have already thought of a number of ways to turn those magnets.
Mark
WattBuilder,
Did this video provide any of the inspiration for your magnetically assisted YOG?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
Maybe you could give AdminOnDuty some ideas about how to flip the magnet?
0c
Interesting. Adminonduty's experiment is essentially the same as the YOG, a pendulum based magnetic gate. Posted on YouTube April 29, 2009
@All
One method to replace the trigger or the hand controller is to use a micro controller called BasicStamp it uses 9vdc and is programmable.
It can be bought at RadioShack.
@MileHigh
Your still blocking out the energy gain from the magnetic array. Even if you can argue your way to an “energy natural carrier†the energy gain from the magnetic array is still there?
That’s the real deal MileHigh â€" Your best argument will not come close to disproving energy gains from the magnetic array. Have you even seen my videos?
@onthecuttingedge and ATT
Interesting point of view. Great work guys. I what to point out my magnetic array does not swing perfectly centered in the array. I’m getting a twist force or a force that wants to push it out the array from the sides before the end of array. You guys are on the right track when using a non-servo method. A “U†shape array may keep it in.
@OC
Nice find.
No that video did not inspire me. I believe I may have inspire him. The other way around my video was posted on April 19, 2009 and my patents were well before that date too.
My inspiration came from Howard Johnson and he should get recognized for his work.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
MileHigh
I think Howard already prove how the magnet array generates more power in one of his earlier videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
The child on a swing problem.
You have virtually came up with one solution in your post.
QuoteYou note that the center of mass of the magnet is not centered relative to the axis of the arm.
As Howard has the only device at the moment it is up to him if he wants to check this.
Apart from centring the magnet on axis arm, I think the magnet could have a counterbalance added to it, so it was equally balanced on the axis
cat
@PowerCat
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 27, 2009, 11:25:45 PM
As far as the child shifting the weight? It does to a point but, for the child to gain higher and higher swings.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 26, 2009, 11:39:45 AM
For now I want to clear up the “step†function of my drive magnet’s position. Before I put up additional videos of the YOG.
You may have notice on my previous video that the drive magnet is offset from the centerline of the lever. The reasoning for that position is to allow for the step in a cycle to take place while also orientating the drive magnet. This function allows for “walking†or “climbing†how every you like to view it.
This makes it possible to add on top of the gain kinetic energy. Resulting in the lever getting lower and lower and the weight lifting higher and higher.
One can compare it to traveling up a flight of stairs or a truck bumper jack lifting a car.
It would be great if the magnetic array has a knob where you can turn up the magnetic energy for every cycle pass, but apparently magnets aren’t made that way.
The value of energy from the magnetic array is fixed. Depending on your array set up. So that’s why we need to add the “step†function.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@All,
Here's a drawing about what I think Stefan was talking about.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 28, 2009, 01:46:15 PM
@MileHigh
Your still blocking out the energy gain from the magnetic array. Even if you can argue your way to an “energy natural carrier†the energy gain from the magnetic array is still there?
That’s the real deal MileHigh â€" Your best argument will not come close to disproving energy gains from the magnetic array.
Howard,
As excited as I was that it appeared you gained energy from magnets, this is scientifically impossible. Please don't take this as negativity, just the same level of questioning anybody trying to validate your work would ask. I also 'see' what milehigh is seeing. I could make such a pendulum with continuous acceleration without the magnets with a seperate source of power continuously shifting the center of gravity.
I might be eating my words if this ultimately works(which I hope it does), but the magnetic forces should ultimately balance out, just like gravitational forces.
I've seen a thousand examples of what appear to be unidirectional torque applied by magnets, however nobody has EVER made the wheel continue spinning. I will concede that I've never seen your approach, so maybe it will work.
Now I really need to see it without a shifting center of gravity coupled with continuous acceleration for my jury to finish their deliberations. (my oppinion + $1 will buy you a cup of coffee at mcdonalds).
Yes, Howard, simular to this,
but you could also use a generator on the wheel axis
to generate some DC power to power your servo
or something simular.
You have to pay attention to that the coils
in your example don´t break the movement too much due
to the Lenz law dragg.
Looking forward to see more videos from you.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Spoondini,
“It does to a point†that’s what I have been posting.
The offset acts like a “step functionâ€.
Say you use energy to lift your legs up and down. You do not advance until you place one leg forward.
The YOG advancing is only needed for the circumference to turn the turbine longer.
So lets take your energy and assign it a value “Sâ€. Now add in the value of the magnetic array “Mâ€. Now the total YOG energy is now “SMâ€
Now what MileHigh is having a problem at is that he is not adding in the “Mâ€. Also he is viewing the YOG as an “energy neutral carrierâ€. At best just transferring energy over, the “Sâ€.
The energy loss is due to many factors like load of the turbine, bearings, air and the imperfections. Lets give that value “Lâ€.
If “LS†is less than “M†then you have Overunity.
The value of “M†can always be increased just by getting stronger magnets or a better array set up.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
I've got the concept. It's just that in my warped mind m(magnets) and g(gravity) equal pe(potential energy) and can't really become additive. Unless I drop a magnet into a bottomless coil.
It may be a good idea to replace that servo with something less current hungry. With my experience with RC model planes, I've learned that those little servos can demand a big lunch !
Still a good idea though ;)
Spoondini,
Lets look at a playground see-saw. You have two kids equally balanced on a pivot. Kid “A†and kid “B†When kid “A†pushes its legs (lets give that value a number say 5) Kid “B†use up all the energy from “A†and the value is now down to 0.
Now, Kid “A†straps on a magnet next to an array and pushes a value of 5 again. The magnets will add push say 4. Now kid “A†has a total value of 9. Kid “B†will only use 5. So you have an OU remainder.
Let’s compare that to the YOG. The servo is kid “A†and the counter weight is kid “Bâ€. The remainder is lifting the weight higher that allows longer rotation turning the turbine.
The magnets energy level is set at the manufacture. The magnets cannot increase it self or add it self. The offset magnet allows for the next tier to be reached
Did this help? If not can you explain at what point is not clear?
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
Excellent work and video, Howard!
A relatively simple "proof" as far as video proof goes, would perhaps be to put the array on a vertical rail. Let's say you repeat the video as it was, with the addition of an assistent lifting the array out of range for the servo driven magnet. Can you use the servo to load the oscillator as concerns offered?
I will add how I admire Howard's attitude in this, how he's not after the money of the OU prize, and how he sends credits towards the late Howard Johnson. I have seen posters with just ideas who've showed much different attitudes.
Respectfully from Holland,
J
After collaborating with several of my associates, I am afraid at this stage I am with MileHigh. To convince me otherwise you would need to have the magnet not offset when you turn it. I,E mount the servo motor dead centre and the magnet dead centre on the servo. This should be pretty easy to do. If you can demonstrate that with that set up then you might have something.
As far as generating power I would use a linear generator at the bottom of the device which you could power up some caps and place variable load onto to work out at what point you reach equilibrium. You could then compare that to you power used by the servo. This test then would not matter if your magnet is not on centre provided the power generated exceeded power consumed.
I have to agree that the servo is a pretty hungry device to do the work. There are many otherways you may consider.
I do like the originality of the device.
Finally the energy gains are minimal if you take in account the amount of the pendulum swing is increased bu just a couple of inches each swing from its previous swing.
This is a fun project, I do wish you the best, but until you can demonstrate the magnet turning without being offset(on its own axis) then I would suggest no cigar.
Like always,I would like to be proved wrong.
Kind Regards
Mark
PS,
I checked out some earlier video's. One you demonstrated a comparison of the magnets vs a rock or weight. You replaced the "broomstick" to demonstrate the magnets working. Unfortunately we did not know if the length was the same or the mass. if the mass was different a simple explanation is obvious why you had a difference.
Spoondini also makes some good points.
I think you need to rethink your demonstration (I encourage you to do so) and conclusions. I also charge for my advice....a free cup of coffee normally unless your a large company. Feel free to contact me anytime and I can put you in touch with some mathematics and physics people who can do a far better job of explaining this than I can.
You seem like a genuine person and I have no doubts your not a scam artist, but you will need to do a little more homework to get that cigar.
Kind Regards
mark
Well spoken MarkDansie.
Howard - I want to reiterate my appreciation for the uniqueness of your approach and I really do want this to work. You do seem like a very genuine person with a good head for honest business.
With regard to understanding your theory, I fully understand where your coming from. Just like I understand Lee Tseung's lead out theory. Not trying to put you in the same category as Mr. Tseung, but both theories are trying to extract excess energy from conservative forces, which is 'physically impossible'.
BTW, I do believe that it is possible, it's just that we haven't figured out how (I wouldn't be on these boards and playing with magnets if I didn't think so). You're approach might very well be the breakthrough we've all been looking for. For me, it will require a demonstration (or personal replication) that does not leave open ended questions. You are doing a great job at eliminating one question after another. I feel bad that you went with the servo (as I thought was a wise idea), and I ended up with additional questions (after milehigh pointed out the shifting center of gravity). I know it might seem that I/we are never satisfied, but if this works you will eventually give a demonstration which leaves no room for doubt. If the forum here can't find any open ended questions, you're on your way for a university test/endorsement. Now that might actually buy you more than a cup of coffee.
@ All Readers,
I have been repeatedly posting it does to a point.
Let it be very clear the servo adds energy by shifting the magnet weight.
It adds energy only to a point. The array of magnets allows it to go past that point. Servo say “Point X†and now with the array energy “Gain Point Yâ€
Child on a swing… Say a five-year on the swing can only reach to an 8 o’clock position the child can not reach to the 11 o’clock position without help like the array. If the child can reach to the 11 o’clock on his own then I’ll will say that’s one super baby! Then I will check if that child is on steroid’s.
The offset, call it a step forward or call it a weight shift or call it a happy day at McDonald’s. It allows for the needed range increase to turn the turbine. Remember the array adds to this.
The amount of gain energy depends on the YOG scale and magnets/set up you install.
This let this thread be an example of what a TROLL can do by throwing off ones thinking.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Cloxxki,
Thanks,
Glad you like the video.
Quote from: markdansie on October 29, 2009, 07:41:38 AM
I checked out some earlier video's. One you demonstrated a comparison of the magnets vs a rock or weight. You replaced the "broomstick" to demonstrate the magnets working. Unfortunately we did not know if the length was the same or the mass. if the mass was different a simple explanation is obvious why you had a difference.
@Markdansie
This question has been answered see past post.
Quote from: markdansie on October 29, 2009, 07:41:38 AM
I can put you in touch with some mathematics and physics people who can do a far better job of explaining this than I can.
Great invite them all and I also request all the readers to invite the top minds in the world as well. Bring them here on this forum. Lets have this showdown and get it over with. Don’t forget NASA.
LET IT RAIN !
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Spoondini,
Well, I’m currently putting together a turbine. Those ironless axial flux generators are sure expensive. Hopefully I can get a good power reading without scaling it.
Well, Howard,
the most Genius thing is,
that you have found a "SMOT Ramp",
that has no drag on the entrance and at the EXIT !
Maybe you can make a video and show your magnet configuration ?
Maybe just also show it just in a linear fashion ?
Does it also work, if you put the runner magnet in front of a linear
track ( not curved) and then let it go and it will shoot out of the end ?
Please let us know.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 09, 2009, 11:09:30 PM
I do get resistance entering into the array. It’s the “little wheel big wheel effectâ€. Further adjustments on this will increase the amount of energy captured from magnets.
Stefan - Per a previous post, there is resistance entering the array.
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 29, 2009, 12:41:41 PM
@ All Readers,
I have been repeatedly posting it does to a point.
Let it be very clear the servo adds energy by shifting the magnet weight.
It adds energy only to a point. The array of magnets allows it to go past that point. Servo say “Point X†and now with the array energy “Gain Point Yâ€
Child on a swing… Say a five-year on the swing can only reach to an 8 o’clock position the child can not reach to the 11 o’clock position without help like the array. If the child can reach to the 11 o’clock on his own then I’ll will say that’s one super baby! Then I will check if that child is on steroid’s.
Hey Howard, I've got an idea !
Why not remove the magnet array and do the experiment again, just to prove a point that it's not just simply the "Child on Swing" effect of the shifting weight.
I'm pretty sure there is gain as the servo assembly shoots through the magnet array. As I know from my experience with servos, that one servo has not got enough kick to swing that pendulum on its own, while it's mounted in that way.
I think you are doing a great job, and I think your idea has great potential.
Howard
Once you get to the point where the device is running itself,
will you allow an independent team to visit you and inspect your device ?
cat
@Bulbiz ,
what an excellent suggestion. So WattBuilder run the same experiment without the magnetic array at the top. How is easy is that. At least its a start. So it should not be too hard to organise that.
Failing to do that you have to demonstrate the device with no shift in weight, other wise you have no credability. Any amount of semantics does not replace good practical demonstrations.
@Stefan
it appears the smot ramp does have no resistance...think it through carefully why this is so. I think Spoondini has hit the nail on the head.
This is a rather fun thread and in some ways has many people thinking. However good questions and suggestions have been raised. They need to be addressed to progress your development of the device.
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: Cloxxki on October 29, 2009, 03:28:49 AM
A relatively simple "proof" as far as video proof goes, would perhaps be to put the array on a vertical rail. Let's say you repeat the video as it was, with the addition of an assistent lifting the array out of range for the servo driven magnet. Can you use the servo to load the oscillator as concerns offered?
Hey, I proposed that first! :-)
But thanks for supporting the idea.
I have an idea for a purely mechanical solution to reorient the drive magnet. If I get time I will post.
Wouldn't it be possible to eliminate the servo if you simply used a drive shaft through the magnet mount arm and linked it to a gear which would mechanically engage to flip the magnet once it passes the top magnet array? It would create a little bit of drag, and you'd need to use a small magnet or clasp to keep the servo magnet in place while it passes the top array, but by the looks of the momentum, it seems like it could work.
Hi Stefan,
Sure, I may be able put up a video explaining the magnetic array. It can work linear as well too. I don’t have the time in the near future though. I‘m getting closer to power testing on the YOG. ;D
For now attached is an example explaining the force values behind it.
Best Regards,
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@PowerCat
Sure no problem but I think the replicators will beat them to it.
@Asymatrix
In theory it should. Your right.
@Other guys,
I’m not going to risk throwing it off just for your curiosity and setting me back. I’m telling you what’s going to happen. If you guys don’t believe me then it’s your problem not mine? Respectfully. ;)
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 27, 2009, 11:25:45 PM
@MileHigh
Ummm, Of course I did.. I do have it right here you know.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@All
Theirs still some of you who don’t fully understand yet. That’s okay I blame myself for not being clearer. Hopefully majority of you guys are past the point of the “one cycle videoâ€. If you’re not past that point then, take a look at OC’s posted video on this thread. If that does not do it for you. Then go to a hardware store buy two magnets, a nail and a wooden stick. Glue one magnet to the end of the stick then take the other end and put a nail through it. Find something you can nail it to. You just made a pendulum. Get a marker and simply mark where you start and stop just like the videos. Then try it with out the magnet. You just proved energy gain from magnets.
For those guys that are past that point but can’t make that connection. Let’s try to look at it instead of energy lifting weights. Let’s look at it as Time of Production. Try to focus on what happens to the gain magnetic energy?
In my Proof of gain video, you see the YOG swing around but can’t figure out how to separate the energy from the servo to the magnets gain energy.
Now in that video you see me stop the hand controller and talk then start again. Did you notice how the YOG was still in production power until the end of the video? Can you see how no input power was entered into the YOG.
Okay now you may think It’s just the kinetic energy getting released from the servo. Yes it is and also releasing the gain magnetic energy.
If you picture the YOG with array and without array. The YOG with the array will take longer to slow down to a complete stop turning a turbine.
Ok almost see it?
Lets look at that one cycle video. One with array one without. Now picture a bicycle upside down. The pedal is now the lever part of the YOG. The array lever turns longer causing the bicycle wheel rotating for a longer time. Time of Production vs the lever using the rock.
Did that help guys?
For the guys past that point and sees what I see.
Be patience…. On how to make the YOG better. Lets focus on how the can get the technology available to the world first then build from their. The faster the technology is out the faster we save lives.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
Congratulations Howard. Please don't get distracted by detractors.
@ Bulbz and Spider4re
Thanks for your support guys. ;)
@All
If your wondering about the array picture that I posted for Stefan.
Yes, It can be used for other applications as we’ll.
It can also improve the Worlds Transportation System
I had to get that off my mind.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
A pulse recover circuit consisting of a capacitor to recover and return the pulse to the power coil to move a solenoid plunger and throw lever, would cut the operating battery power input in half. A DPDT reed switch and two trigger magnets, one on each end of a T bar halfway down the pendulum arm,
would reverse the polarity of the solenoid pulse coil where ever desired, but past the array on each side. The pendulum magnet can rotate on it' CG, collect the pulse and return it with the simple addition of two 45 degree gears. One coil one battery one magnet. A Joule theif charger could keep the run battery topped off, the rest period between pulses is so long, and the run cost could drop below zero, or go O.U. on it's own.
Hhoward,
Patented devices are allowed in eric's open prize for ou. http://www.phact.org/e/freetest.html. His endorsement would be huge for you.
Recommend you give it a shot.
Somewhere on his website there's also an open offer from an individual for 1 million for ou verification.
Convincing folks here is not going to carry any weight.
Howard
Have you decided on which method you are going to use to make the device run-itself,
and if you have, how long do you think it will take before you can demonstrate OU ?
cat
@wattbuilder,
the request of removing the magnetic array can be achieved by shielding it or increasing the distance between the magnet (IE shorten the shaft.) Removal of it all together would be better.
It appears you are unwilling to do this. Why?
A common mistake with inventors and even some university researchers is that they sometimes only see the data they want to see not all of it. Often when I am engaged to verify devices I am amazed that even engineers can be fooled......and when they are, they answer " I just wanted to believe it worked that much that procedure went out the door".
Up until now I have given you the benefit of the doubt, I still do, but only just. My associates who (and you guessed some are ex NASA, and many scientists) already dismissed your claims and questioned why I even wasted my time with it. The truth is I am open minded. But when you refuse to do simple tests like remove the magnetic array or not centre the mangets so there is no weight shifting, then it is obvious you are either self deluded or trying to pull a scam of.
I have nothing to prove here, in fact most people think I am an arsehole, however my track record is 100% correct. I just gave a deposition for a court case in Seattle and my involvement in another case this year resulted in an arrest warrent in South Africa. I do not piss about with people who make false claims and take other peoples money.So far you haven't tried to take other peoples monies.
All I have asked, as many others have, is for two simple tests or changes to be made. Failure or lack of a good reason to do so will be very revealing.Your device is simple to replicate so it is only a matter of time before someone else conducts the same test.
I guess this in some ways is what I call peer review. Ultimately I and many others want to help you progress your project. There is no room for ignorance or bad methodology.
I wish you well , and please ask you reconsider running the test without the magnetic array or changing the device to turning the magnet without weight shifting.
With good intentions and kind regards
Mark Dansie
Markdanise, how do you figure it could show the clear gain we see with each pass, without the magnet array? He stops the servo at one point and it starts to slow down, then engages the servo and we see the gain increase.
You just made the point, shifting servo equals gain. Servo stops, yog stops. Must be eliminated before we can assume the magnet array causes 'continuous' gain.
Just for fun I will take another crack at this.
Adminonduty's clip is actually showing you proof that magnets are not a source of energy. The reason for this is that you have to go through a closed loop to check for any net energy gain or loss in a magnetic field. In his clip if you go one way it appears that you gain energy, and if you go the other way it appears that you loose energy. But the rule says that you have to do a complete loop, and in this case you have to go one way and then back to complete the loop, and then you get a net zero gain in energy.
The same thing applies to Howard's setup. If you think that the system is gaining in energy in one direction, then you can do the following thought experiment: Flip the whole setup so that it is horizontal and imagine that the arms are strong and stay straight. Now you don't even have to flip the magnet at the end of the arm around if the array really is giving you energy.
If you do this horizontal setup you know that you have eliminated gravity from the equation. Therefore if you are gaining energy as you go through the array in one direction, then why not just let the arm keep rotating all the way around so that it can come back for another pass through the magnetic array to pick up even more energy?
The answer is that this will not happen, the magnet at the end of the arm will have gone through a closed loop and there will be no net gain in energy. There is just no escaping this reality. Even if you can make a perfect mechanism to rotate the magnet at the end of the arm in Howard's actual setup, just the process of rotating the magnet will require energy, as anyone knows when they try to push two magnets together when the same poles are facing each other.
Therefore, the perceived energy gain that you can get by flipping the magnet around at the end of each swing will be canceled out by the energy required to turn the magnet around because you will be fighting against the magnetic field produced by the array.
Howard's setup is a mechanical resonator, just like an LC oscillator, a.k.a. a tank circuit. A fixed amount of energy is put into the system and then oscillates back and forth between gravitational potential energy (M x G x h) and rotational energy (1/2 Moment_of_inertia x angular_velocity-squared).
Sitting on top of the operation of this oscillator is the magnetic array that acts like a "disturbance torque" that is acting on the swinging pendulum. This disturbance torque is a function of the angle of the pendulum and can be measured at any point in the swing. The disturbance torque either accelerates the swing or slows down the swing, it all depends what angle you are at and which direction the swing is going in.
When you look at a full swing, back and forth, you are going through the closed loop that I referred to above. The net energy gain or loss in the rotational energy of the pendulum after you go through a full swing back and forth is zero.
It seems like everyone agrees that the servo and the unbalanced weight are adding energy. Therefore the added energy from the servo actions are sitting on top of everything that I just described above.
What that means is that if you set the pendulum swinging and you time the servo system properly, you will see roughly the same increase in the swing angle of the pendulum with or without the magnetic array in place.
I probably won't post again on this thread, I think I covered all the bases here. I will just repeat the same advice I gave to Howard a while back: Give yourself one year to get something tangible and if you can't after one year then quit the project and move on to something else. Many people would tell you that there is no point in spending five or six years chasing after a dream that will never materialize.
MileHigh
@Synchro1,
Yup, that sounds like it may work too.
Cheers,
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Spoondini,
I may have to go after that title too.
Just looking around at all these routes and possibilities. How can any rational man not see the finish line?
Btw, the YOG takes longer to stop because it’s transferring out the magnetic energy.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Powercat
No not yet. I’m still fighting with building this turbine. I need to see what kind of watts I currently have with this test YOG. I may have already achieved OU with it? The servo is currently using 1.3 watts for 2 seconds per each cycle.
I wish I can just order one of those ironless generators instead of trying to build one from local store parts.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@MileHigh,
We’ll I guess that was it!
Your final attempt and greatest argument that you can come up with.
So you’re claiming that the one cycle YOG video does not show gain energy from the magnetic array. That is lifting 12lbs of weight higher then without the magnets.
We’ll everybody he just proved he is an official TROLL.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 30, 2009, 08:12:26 PM
The same thing applies to Howard's setup. If you think that the system is gaining in energy in one direction, then you can do the following thought experiment: Flip the whole setup so that it is horizontal and imagine that the arms are strong and stay straight. Now you don't even have to flip the magnet at the end of the arm around if the array really is giving you energy.
If you do this horizontal setup you know that you have eliminated gravity from the equation. Therefore if you are gaining energy as you go through the array in one direction, then why not just let the arm keep rotating all the way around so that it can come back for another pass through the magnetic array to pick up even more energy?
Humm……. Take away the gravity from a pendulum ?
Humm……. Flip the device over horizontal?
It’s like claiming you debunk Howard’s car doesn’t run anymore, buy flipping his car over. LOL
Then you debate the YOG as a Magnetic Rotory Motor? This is the best you can do? Your not even close.
Even if you can show a video with just a top offset weighted lever reaching the same point as my Proof of gain video.
You can never challenge the extra cycles that the array gets over no array.
Then on top of that even more… by some miracle if you can match the cycles. You still can’t match the speed and time vs no array.
Bottom line your whole case is based on theory and mine are from tests I preformed.
Howard
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Asymatrix
Spoondini answered this better than I can. It is a process of elimination. If we get the same effect without the magnetic array then you can atribute the gain to the servo shifting the weight. If not then we can assume the magnetic array is indeed doing its job. I suspect it is a bit of both.
The other alternative is to have the magnet attached to the servo on a equal axis so no weight shift occurs. Either way it will be interesting to see the result.
Mark
@Markdansie,
Sorry dude, I’m not going to do it. You’re just going to have to wait.
As for challenging my creditability. Your own creditability is now in jeopardy. Your looking desperate for challenging mine.
Just because your own team on a high horse decided not show up and damaging your creditability doesn’t mean you have to come after mine. You’re the one looking bad, not me a bit.
Respectfully Speaking,
Howard Yu
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Milehigh,
thank you for your explanation and after my many years observing and building magnetic devices I have to agree with what you said.
@WattBuilder
Howards car never ran in a closed loop situation. Milehigh is no Troll and you seem to be aoiding what everyone is asking here.
1. You need to do the test without the magnetic array and or
2. have your servo rotate the magnet without shifting the weight to give a bias. I am not sure why you do not seem to agree that this has to be done to eliminate any doubts that the weight shift could be the reason for the whole gain.
Many people here have a genuine interest in seeing these results and it better to cover all the basis why you can before going to the wider public or the scientific community.
I remember seeing a motor I assisted in building actually self start when we pulled the stator in. It build up a good speed only to eventually slow down. had me fooled for a while until I realised that the energy used to bring the stator in actually provided the power.
I have never seen a magnetic device where it could be closed looped or flow through a set of magnets (smot type set up) where the gain could be captured and put to use.
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
@Wattbuilder
I have no concern over my reputation, I am not making the claims here. I have no reason to personally attack you unless you start asking for money.
Your reasons for not wanting to do the tests either without the magnetic array or with a balanced magnet on the servo are obvious, and I am sure you have tried it before.
As they say "ignorance is bliss", and in public forums like these you will find people who will hang on everyword you say and become fanatical believers. I am sure they will pander to your ego why you are the ring master of this circus. History unfortunately is not on your side but I encourage you to continue.
I suggest you contact some people who can assist you and have the knowledge required to explain things to you to avoid further embarrassment. I can assist you if you wish putting you in contact with the right people with the scientific expertise you are sadly lacking. Many others have taken up my offer and are quietly working on devices until they are ready to return to the public demain. Others become casualties of their own ego's.
There are many good people who can help you here as well. Listen to them. Selective listenning or testing serves no other purpose than to prolong your journey where your credability will be casualty along with your ego.
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on October 31, 2009, 01:43:15 AM
@Asymatrix
Spoondini answered this better than I can. It is a process of elimination. If we get the same effect without the magnetic array then you can atribute the gain to the servo shifting the weight. If not then we can assume the magnetic array is indeed doing its job. I suspect it is a bit of both.
The other alternative is to have the magnet attached to the servo on a equal axis so no weight shift occurs. Either way it will be interesting to see the result.
Mark
I seriously doubt that little magnet assembly weighs enough to push the arm that far out on it's own. But I suppose it is good scientific methodology.
duplicate
::) hello every body
to Howard no offence
Mark Dansie is a genuine person and seriously looking for a solution that can really help humanity as well as reward for its creator
i have the personal experience of the same
Mile High is very intelligent read his postings and you will get a lot of good advices specially this
QuoteThe disturbance torque either accelerates the swing or slows down the swing, it all depends what angle you are at and which direction the swing is going in.
if you go through with this you will understand the man knows what he is saying
try to understand everyone here is welcoming you and giving you good advice may be some of the advices are of such low level that you are way above them
concentrate your work you are doing fine i want to send you 100 Pounds (send me your details on personal message) as i have gain some thing from your video its a contribution towards improving your work.
a word of advice
1) when you will start gaining the output power that will work as braking effects so your current setup is not capable of handling that braking effect.
2) You don't need a rotary generator i will send you a pulse current integrator to collect energy without a battery and dispense as and when required this is our new high tech development this will reduce mechanical effect.
although i am very busy in a good sizable project not related to energy but if you need any assistance i will be more then happy to do that. coz alternative energy is not for saving money its for saving human lives for future....
i am learning a lot from this forum
Ali
Quote from: winsonali on October 31, 2009, 05:10:49 AM
2) You don't need a rotary generator i will send you a pulse current integrator to collect energy without a battery and dispense as and when required this is our new high tech development this will reduce mechanical effect.
Ali, can you share this info here as well?
It would be much appreciated.
Winsonali,
I don’t have to be here on this forum. I have been doing nothing but trying to share my technology with this community.
I’m not finish and feel these debates are pointless. In fact it’s harmful towards my efforts. There’s nothing to debunk here.
I presented my theories. Then showed my experiments. Presented my data. Trying to help people understand my views at absolutely no risk to them.
Then I get guys like MileHigh attacking my theories right from the start of this thread. Making it harder to explain my point of view.
Then I get guys like Mark Dansie telling me what to do and how I the Inventor should conduct my experiments. When I don’t and he does not get his way? He attacks my creditability and work. He can’t just wait.
These guys my think they’re doing good but they are in reality clouding views. People can make their own final decision but how can they when I not done explaining it to them. “work in progressâ€
Ali thanks for your support! It seems are goals are the same.
I will be sending PM
Howard Yu
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Wattbuilder.
Howard. Don't let those Morons throw a wet blanket on your achievment. Your dry test video of the weighted versus the magnet run conclusivly demonstrates the validity of your claim. Two one way tracks with the magnet servo traveling sideways and the magnet mounted 90 degress from it's current position would allow it to swival around like a baseball bat from one side to the other to run back the other way through the reverse one way track, and double the power. A pulse solenoid with a power recovery and pulse return capacitor wired in series between the battery and coil would conserve running current. A special DPDT Reed relay with a back swing pause attenuator, so it dosen't double trip would simplify it even further. Congratulations on what I consider be be a tremendous accomplishment.
Howard:
QuoteSo you're claiming that the one cycle YOG video does not show gain energy from the magnetic array. That is lifting 12lbs of weight higher then without the magnets.
I clearly see the "gain" in energy for the one cycle. Your fundamental flaw is that it would be more appropriate to call that a half-cycle. You simply have to account for the full cycle (left swing then right swing) in the operation of the device. In your second last clip you clearly show how during the second half of the cycle you loose energy and the pendulum does not come back all the way, which is exactly the same thing that happens in Adminonduty's clip. The pendulum by definition has to do the two half-cycles to complete a full cycle. The net energy gain when it swings through the two half-cycles to do a single full cycle is zero. This is an intellectual leap that your mind has to make to truly understand what is going on.
Howard Johnson never delivered anything that actually worked from what I could gather by doing some critical researching online. He passed away and his "research" has been actively been promoted as part of the mythos of free energy devices by those people that stand to gain financially because of this. Is someone out there selling Howard Johnson books or DVDs? I bet you they are and it would take me about five minutes worth of searching to dig this up.
Synchro1:
No need to start name calling. That also applies to you too Howard. You made a couple of vague postings here and on the EF about a "pulse solenoid with power recovery" to flip the magnet around and you even believe that this could be an OU device and the battery powering it will never need charging. I can tell by your choice of words that you have only a very basic and very limited knowledge about energy and electronics and what you are saying is simply not going to work. You are simply fantasizing about an imaginary device that will somehow flip the magnet for Howard's pendulum without being able to give precise details. If you think that I am simply giving you a hard time then I challenge you to post a schematic and build it. Post the schematic first and explain how you think it will work first though because I am 100% confident that I could explain to you how it will NOT work and I don't want you to waste your time any more than I want Howard to waste his time.
It's nice to fantasize that a swinging pendulum with a "Howard Johnson" magnet array could be a source of free energy. The reality is that looking at your clips it is obvious that there is nothing there. This is no surprise and countless people have tried to do something similar before and all of them have failed. It's not because they made a mistake in their designs or theories, it's because the real theory - the real thing - states that this is impossible.
It's all about understanding how magnetic potential energy can be converted into rotational kinetic energy and vice-versa. The gravity is not really a factor because it is energy-neutral. The magnets are also energy-neutral, acting exactly like massless invisible springs.
You can allege that I am a "bad guy" all you want, but the truth is that I am a "good guy."
MileHigh
@wattbuilder
as I said "ignorance is bliss". It seems you do not accept rational debate or questioning of your theories which have not been supported with any evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
When people are trying to help in pointing out possible flaws, you say they are clouding the issues.
Take some advice, go read the Mylow thread. Many peoples reputations were destroyed over that.
I have nothing more to say on this matter, but keep your eye on google as your name has been promoted to scam status (not by me, but you must realise many hundreds read this forum). It often amazes me the number of emails I get far exceed the posts on the forums in these cases.
Ali knows first hand my intentions and assistance I am willing to provide and how that assistance can be helpful in progressing a project. Ali is making great progress and I am sure we will be hearing from him soon. Ali was willing to listen to people with the expertise needed to assist him and not discount what they say. He is a brilliant man himself with the wisdom to know that others could help him rather than bury his head in the sand as you have chosen.
.
However it seems that if we do not accept your theories and evidence as presented then we are wrong and are harmful to you. What a lot of BS You will gather your following of believers (self deceivers) and I hope you enjoy your ten minutes of fame.
Often I am attacked (and yes my family has even been physically threatened) when I have conducted tests or arranged testing for devices when the results are not what the inventor wanted to hear.
Actually I must thank you at this stage. It is people like you who enhance my reputation and credability. Thank you.
I and many other do want to help, but your arrogance and ego seem to be self defeating.
Good Luck (PS I do mean luck as you have abandoned rational thought and logic)
I will not clutter this thread for a while , i will just drop in now and then and say hi
Kind Regards
Mark Dansie
PS that's my real name and my real email is markdansie@bigpond.com
@Mile High
Yu claims his bi directional track accelerates the reversed magnet the same amount in both directions. How do you account for the apparent equal acceleration both ways when your theory would generate an unequal one? Any off the shelf solenoid would move a throw arm with a lever and pitman
that would turn a wheel 180 degrees. Who are you to insult my vocabulary?
You don't take the time to try and understand what people are saying. I never said the unit would self power. I included a Joule thief charger for that.
Synchro1:
I already explained that even if you could rotate the magnet by 180 degrees with a perfect stystem you would still have to expend energy to rotate the magnet against the magnetic field generated by the array.
If you think that you have a truly viable system for rotating the magnet then post mechanical and schematic diagrams and explain how it would work, talk is cheap.
QuoteI never said the unit would self power. I included a Joule thief charger for that.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. A Joule Thief charger? Like I said above, you are just throwing catch phrases around without any real meaning. You can't just "throw a Joule Thief" at the problem. You should avoid the temptation to speak in free energy pseudo techno babble. You have to be specific and real.
The bottom line is that any unpowered mechanical system to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees would stop the pendulum cold in it's tracks in three or four cycles. Any mechanical system powered by a battery to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees would require way more battery power than you could ever possibly extract from the pendulum. Plus the only reason that you would have an apparent "gain" for each half-swing if you rotate the magnet by 180 degrees is because you are "forgetting" about the amount of energy you would have to expend to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees against the resistrance of the array's magnetic field. It's a no-win situation.
MileHigh
@MileHigh,
It’s clear how your mind rationalize things.
In my demo video I said one swing is a cycle. Then your mind changes the definition into two swings are a cycle. Then you compute the swing does not come back all the way. Of course it doesn’t that way. You did not add in the flip in between the swing.
Your whole grounds for logic is irrelevant until you can get past this.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2009, 04:13:25 PM
I clearly see the "gain" in energy for the one cycle. Your fundamental flaw is that it would be more appropriate to call that a half-cycle. You simply have to account for the full cycle (left swing then right swing) in the operation of the device. In your second last clip
you clearly show how during the second half of the cycle you loose energy and the pendulum does not come back all the way, which is exactly the same thing that happens in Adminonduty's clip. The pendulum by definition has to do the two half-cycles to complete a full cycle. The net energy gain when it swings through the two half-cycles to do a single full cycle is zero. This is an intellectual leap that your mind has to make to truly understand what is going on.
Even Synchro1 pointed it out to you.
He is contributing â€" listing at theories, looking at data and giving a suggestion on how to move forward.
As far as the name calling! Didn’t you post this to me from the start of the thread?
Quote from: MileHigh on September 20, 2009, 06:34:18 PM
It is crystal clear to me that what you are doing is without merit, you are chasing after a pipe dream. I know that you will disagree hence my suggestion for the one-year time limit.
MileHigh
@Mark Dansie,
Great ! Take a break collect your thoughts!
Maybe now the other members of this community will get a chance to post.
Mark Dansie and MileHigh you are both welcome to come back to this thread later when more advancements have been made. Simply I’m not finish. Just remember to allow other members views and not dominate theirs.
Howard Yu
YOG Gain Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
Howard,
Your work is commendable, however, it's an up-hill battle.
I have a lot of experience with a similar setup.
Take heed of MH's and MD's advice. In your defence however, yes the magnet array IS responsible for most if not all the added rotation of your pendulum, but as MH has said, this gain is offset by the energy required to rotate the magnet.
Check Rickoff's (among several others) setup as well. He hit a wall when it came down to making it self rotate. In fact all have hit this wall.
Your setup is not all that unique, but rather a variation of an old theme/concept. No one has yet overcome the entry problem....energy seems well conserved in all cases thus far.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2009, 08:41:36 PM
Synchro1:
I already explained that even if you could rotate the magnet by 180 degrees with a perfect stystem you would still have to expend energy to rotate the magnet against the magnetic field generated by the array.
If you think that you have a truly viable system for rotating the magnet then post mechanical and schematic diagrams and explain how it would work, talk is cheap.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. A Joule Thief charger? Like I said above, you are just throwing catch phrases around without any real meaning. You can't just "throw a Joule Thief" at the problem. You should avoid the temptation to speak in free energy pseudo techno babble. You have to be specific and real.
The bottom line is that any unpowered mechanical system to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees would stop the pendulum cold in it's tracks in three or four cycles. Any mechanical system powered by a battery to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees would require way more battery power than you could ever possibly extract from the pendulum. Plus the only reason that you would have an apparent "gain" for each half-swing if you rotate the magnet by 180 degrees is because you are "forgetting" about the amount of energy you would have to expend to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees against the resistrance of the array's magnetic field. It's a no-win situation.
MileHigh
We should be giving Howard words of encouragement, not discouragement.
If the goal is achieved then brilliant, and if it doesn't then at least he tried.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 31, 2009, 09:42:29 PM
I have a lot of experience with a similar setup.
Take heed of MH's and MD's advice. In your defence however, yes the magnet array IS responsible for most if not all the added rotation of your pendulum, but as MH has said, this gain is offset by the energy required to rotate the magnet.
@poynt99
Yes, I agree and to add on that.
The energy gain can be increased simply by increasing the scale, magnet strength or array setup past any offset energy requirements. The drive magnet does not rotate in the array, there are no fields to over come during rotation. Quote from: poynt99 on October 31, 2009, 09:42:29 PM
Check Rickoff's (among several others) setup as well. He hit a wall when it came down to making it self rotate. In fact all have hit this wall.
I have realized this, thank you. I believe my approach is different.
Quote from: poynt99 on October 31, 2009, 09:42:29 PM
Your setup is not all that unique, but rather a variation of an old theme/concept. No one has yet overcome the entry problem....energy seems well conserved in all cases thus far.
.99
I know of no other such device that can harness energy from different forms of either, Wind, Oceans, Rivers, Creeks, Underwater currents, and Magnetic Arrays. Do you?
As far as the entry problem. I have …… that’s why were are all here on this thread right? It’s shown on my one cycle video.
Regards,
Howard
Hi Wattbuilder.
I just wanted to mention that "all" carrier fields are infinite in propagation.
Gravity and or Magnetic fields are infinite in propagation, I just wanted to point that out because you were saying there weren't any fields to over come in one of your comments.
have fun.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 31, 2009, 10:42:29 PM
As far as the entry problem. I have …… that’s why were are all here on this thread right? It’s shown on my one cycle video.
Regards,
Howard
Is there not a slight force required on the magnet at the entry point of the array ?
.99
@Onthecuttingedge2005,
LOL …….. Yes I cannot escape those fields no matter where the YOG is in the galaxy. :D
I was referring to MileHigh’s error of rotating 180 degrees against the resistance of the array’s magnetic field.
Howard
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2009, 08:41:36 PM
Plus the only reason that you would have an apparent "gain" for each half-swing if you rotate the magnet by 180 degrees is because you are "forgetting" about the amount of energy you would have to expend to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees against the resistrance of the array's magnetic field. It's a no-win situation.
MileHigh
@Poynt99,
The resistance at the entry point is not a problem any more when the proven results are a positive gain out the other end.
I view it as an efficiency factor. That will only increase the magnetic energy captured.
Gain is gain.
Howard
Indeed, but the resistance is there, and equates to some loss each half cycle.
All you need to accomplish now is to generate and store enough excess energy each half cycle to power your magnet rotator and you're off to the races.
;)
.99
There's a self running Galvanic pile pendulum oscillator that has run continuously in a vacuum jar in the British Museum for nearly 150 years! Let me point out that Mile high sounds like an outrageous Gadfly or a Clown when he alledges that the servo magnet rotates inside the array. My advice is for him to get his eyes checked. Also, the resonant tank circuit, can be wired with the capacitor in series with the inductor or in parallel. A linear solenoid has two wires leading from the coil. One coil wire goes to the positive pole of the capacitor, and the negative pole of the capacitor goes to the negative pole of the battery. The other wire from the coil goes to one end of a reed switch, and the other end to the positive pole of the battery. When the switch is closed by the trigger magnet, a power pulse travels from the capacitor to coil to magnetise it, and is reinforced by backup current from the battery. When the switch opens, the power from the collapsing magnetic field is recaptured by the capacitor which has a Farad balance with the induction Henry's from the coil, and is ready to recharge the coil again. This is called an LC feedback resonant tank circuit, and works with pulse coils. Howard is using a very inefficient stepper motor, which consumes much more power.
synchro1 good work we all should be constructive and let Howard work hard
Howard:
You have to try to avoid the temptation to taking leaps of faith into the unknown. In your clip where you "demonstrate gains" you never considered the shifting weight causing the increased swing amplitudes until myself and several other people hammered the point home until you acknowledged it. If nobody said anything you would still be self-deluded in thinking that you had "proved" that you were on the right track. By the same token, Poynt99 agrees with me that it would take energy to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees at the end of each swing. This is not an error, it simply has to be for things to stay in balance. You seem to be assuming that I am wrong without testing this yourself. With some careful experimenting with a perfectly balanced magnet on a rotating axis you should be able to prove this yourself. Why are you saying that I am wrong? What is your reasoning? You can't just assume things.
Synchro1:
Enough with the name calling, try discussing things where you make rational points that you can back up. You are putting words into my mouth when you state that I allege that the servo magnet "rotates inside the array." I never said that. Also, forget about trying to describe a circuit in text, it simply doesn't work. I will repeat what I said to you before; if you have an idea for a circuit, post the mechanical and electrical schematic and explain how it works to everyone reading this thread. I don't buy what you are saying at all, you are just in a spin zone. You are alleging that you have a more efficient solution for rotating the magnet by 180 degrees at the end of each swing? Then bring it on, schematic diagrams and a full explanation of what's going on referencing your schematics.
It is incredible seeing the "two cultures" in action yet again. People like myself and Poynt try to be flexible and offer a wide latitude in our understanding of your statements when we make our rebuttals to the points that you and Howard make. You guys being the "believers" will focus in on a narrow point made by myself or Poynt99 and ignore the context and offer no latitude in your understanding of our statements before you make your rebuttals. If you can't make a logical argument then you start name calling. You also simply ignore all relevant points made by the "other side" that you can't rebut or don't understand or are unwilling to consider. Such is life.
The "Rickoff" example is a very good one with respect to the viability of this project. He built his wheel because of the Mylow affair and long after Mylow was proven to be a fake he continued building. His language early on in the project was overconfident, he was convinced that he was going to have a continuously spinning wheel if he found the "magic Mylow configuration." This was a stillborn project from the very beginning and it is a shame to see it all end up being nothing more than time, money, and mental and physical energy being poured down the drain.
I know that Howard is not going to stop, so that's why I suggested that he give himself a year before he calls it quits. Life is short and I am sure that there are better things that he can do.
MileHigh
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 27, 2009, 11:25:45 PM
@MileHigh
Ummm, Of course I did.. I do have it right here you know.
As far as the child shifting the weight? It does to a point but, for the child to gain higher and higher swings. The child must add more energy to the next swing then the previous amount of energy in the first swing, in order to gain.
Quote from: MileHigh on October 31, 2009, 08:41:36 PM
Plus the only reason that you would have an apparent "gain" for each half-swing if you rotate the magnet by 180 degrees is because you are "forgetting" about the amount of energy you would have to expend to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees against the resistrance of the array's magnetic field. It's a no-win situation.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on November 01, 2009, 03:13:42 PM
I know that Howard is not going to stop, so that's why I suggested that he give himself a year before he calls it quits. Life is short and I am sure that there are better things that he can do.
MileHigh
What are better things to do ????
I know ! Try to help the worlds energy crisis and Save lives. That sounds better than arguing with people with a good idea who are trying.
Regards,
Howard
@MILEHIGH Please stop your negativity over here and only read this thread and only post if you have ideas how to enhance the gain effect.
Hi Howard,
It seems they are not arguing with you or your good idea, as much as they are asking better foundation for claims, and more valid (generally accepted) counter-experiments.
I think there is no better helper towards free energy than a sound critic like these 2. They offer you simple modifications of your design, to take away the lion share of doubt regarding the obvious gains displayed. At this point, it is hard to see it's really the array at work.
Arguing really only starts when one party ignores parts of the input from the other, or at least fails to respond to it.
Please understand, that as referenced, the Mylow thing hit this community quite hard. It was not pretty. I was a believer, because I'm naive when it comes to human intentions. I, among hundreds, was left betrayed. We all learned. I am convinced you are not trying to fool us, and the others are surely not alluding to that. Just, that perfect evidence with look different. Perfect of course doesn't exist, but the threshold to start replication will not have been reached for many at this point.
I still believe that permanent magnets can be "fooled" to be used for propulsion, and I hope you're on the track of the code now.
Good luck,
J
Quote from: MileHigh on November 01, 2009, 03:13:42 PM
Howard:
...
By the same token, Poynt99 agrees with me that it would take energy to rotate the magnet by 180 degrees at the end of each swing. This is not an error, it simply has to be for things to stay in balance. You seem to be assuming that I am wrong without testing this yourself.
...
MileHigh
Hi Milehigh
You are perfectly right. I also said the same at the begining of the thread. And in the absence of experimental proof (that a complete looped perpetual motion would give), I asked WattBuilder for the energy consumed by the actuators for rotating the magnets. I got vague replies outside the point so I had quit the thread because it was no science. I come back today and see it is still at its starting point.
The problem with permanent magnet motors is always the same. A magnet or a magnetic material moves in a magnetic field only if it decreases its magnetic potential, otherwise there is no magnetic force. The magnetic potential is given by the field and the position of the object in the field.
As we cannot have a looped path presenting an endless decreasing magnetic potential because the potential is always the same at the starting point, to loop the movement needs to enhance the potential of the object somewhere at each turn (it is done here by the rotation of the magnets by 180°). But this needs energy, at least as much energy that the object lost in "falling" in the decreasing magnetic potential. The situation is the same with any potentials, as "gravity motors" or with motors mixing gravity and magnetic or electric potentials.
What is funny is that inventors of permanent magnet motors claim to use conventional theory of electromagnetism to describe how they work! It is a proof of ignorance. The equations of conventional physics prohibate obviously such perpetual motions.
A working permanent magnet motor is clearly outside the physics laws. By using only classical electromagnetism, no one can prove such a motor works. I do not say that a permanent magnet motor is impossible. I say that only strong experimental evidences are required to prove it (and then new theories).
Quote from: synchro1 on November 01, 2009, 02:01:10 PM
Howard is using a very inefficient stepper motor, which consumes much more power.
The servo actually contains a brush motor which is controlled by a circuit and governed by a potentiometer, but you're right about it being inefficient though ;)
I seized on a great solution! The remote controlled automatic car door lock! Anyone who owns a late model car is familiar with this feature, and the sound the linear solenoid makes when it opens and shuts the door lock bolt. This solenoid not only comes complete with a DPDT switch, but it has a capacitor in the circuit. Buying one off ebay, or the auto salvage market would give one a remote
switch station along with the powerfull pole reversing solenoid. This should be many times more efficient then the current brush motor he is using. Look, Mile High, I'm unwilling to spoon feed you. Find a tank circuit diagram on your own time.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 01, 2009, 05:16:26 PM
@MILEHIGH Please stop your negativity over here and only read this thread and only post if you have ideas how to enhance the gain effect.
Hi ,I thick your a bit rough on Milehigh, he has articulated what many have expressed here.
You speak about the gain.What gain? We are trying to establish is the gain caused by the weightshift or is it indeed the magnetic array? From what I have seen there is no net gain with the magnetic array as it is is being pushed through the sticking point by the gravity of the counter weight. We have kindly asked that the magnetic array be removed to do a comparison or the magnet attached to the servo be affixed so it rotates on a neutral axis (no weight shift)
It is important to break these two down so we know what forces are at work here.
All further discussion without these tests or enhancements to the designare fruitless until these fundamentals have been established.
HJ never demonstrated anything that could be harvested because in the end everything balances out.
I am, along with many others are trying to be constructive here, but it is futile to proceed with design improvements if the device is based on a false premise.
The single isolation video proved nothing as we do not know the difference in mass between the rock and the magnetic device.
There is nothing sophisticated about what we are asking.
Your were kind enough to give us some leway with the Mylow device and we saw many other reputations demolished, but ultimately it was the OU forum and the skills of its members that ultimately exposed that fraud. In this case we are all impressed with the originality of the approach, but concerned about the ignorance to address issues raised.
I do not want to dampen anyones enthusiasm, but it is important to put in place reality checks before moving ahead based on assumptions only.
Kind Regards
Mark
@Cloxxki,
There’s no need for critics before testing is finish. They are taking up time and efforts for progress to move forward. There are replicators on this but they are not speaking up and I don’t blame them for not wanting to deal with the heat yet.
@exnihiloest,
There’s has been progress since you last posted this……….
Quote from: exnihiloest on September 21, 2009, 02:59:57 AM
I'm sure you will get many other memberships and ignorant bigots to support this new "science". It will be just a bit more noise in the FE domain.
Good luck.
I suggest you see the videos first. Then on the one cycle video ask yourself is their a gain from the magnetic array. This will be your foundation for argument with out getting past that point your arguments will have no relevance.
One cycle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Gain video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Bulbz and synchro1,
I agree, I do have one of those auto door locks solenoids. But the plunge is less than an inch. Haven’t figured it out yet. I’m still fighting with the turbine. I really need to see where the power is at. I just need to beat 1.3W for 2 seconds. If not, it will show us where to focus.
@markdansie,
It’s his place you know. He has every right to protect his forum. This forum can’t be a place for “public stoningâ€. How do you aspect other inventors to speak up.
As for Milehigh I believe his responses were contradicting himself and were unproductive.
I'm not the other inventors or scammers ….. I don’t know? I’m not them. I have done nothing to be treated like them.
Howard
Hi Mark,
the One cycle movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
clearly shows, that there is a gain in, so please no more negative comments anymore.
Surely it would be nice, if Howard would remove the upper magnet array
and show us, that the remote control back and forth movement will
NOT make the pendulum accelerate so fast as with the magnet array on the top.
Quote from: hartiberlin on November 02, 2009, 09:42:11 PM
Hi Mark,
the One cycle movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
clearly shows, that there is a gain in, so please no more negative comments anymore.
Surely it would be nice, if Howard would remove the upper magnet array
and show us, that the remote control back and forth movement will
NOT make the pendulum accelerate so fast as with the magnet array on the top.
1. It clearly shows nothing as the mass would have to be the same let alone the position of the mass. This is so basic I am not sure why you cannot see that. (great party trick and so much more imaginative than fishing line)
2. His refusal to remove the array as a comparison test speaks for itself. No amount or verbage and semantics will change anyone's mind on this.
3. Since when asking basic questions is a negative? My sister is a cop and taught me to keep asking the same question until you get an answer or two different answers to the same question.(even better)
4. At this stage we have an inverted swing with the magnet mounted on the servo being of centre pumping in the energy with each isolation. (why can"t you see this?). As suggested if he centered the magnet so there was no offset of the servo the device would not work.(prove me wrong)
5. This is the first stages of perpetuating a scam. Wave a big stick and tell the non believers that they must remain silence or else. (Look what the My low project did to Sterling) I have to play by the rules so I will make this my last post. Many people have contacted me privately on this project and will not post here as they always get threatened with a big stick if they ask questions. Lets keep things rational and on a scientific basis here.
6. I have followed through on many devices listed here over the years. Some my involvement privately is still active. However history is not on my side. Your prize is still in tact. This does not stop us all hoping for a breakthrough, but as time goes on many of us grow wiser and more experienced in evaluating these technologies. Why are you so down on some of the best people and most experienced in your own forum? Why are we the bad people? Go look at the history of the all the threads and show me one device that has demonstrated overunity. I can show you many where people have wasted other peoples time and money and in some cases solicited funds in a fraudulent way. I an no Erik Grieg, but if it wasn't for the rational majority asking questions this forum would join the ranks of the Sterling Allen's, Denis Lee's and others.
7. This takes me back to the days of the Mylow tapes on youtube pleading his sincerity and gathering the mindless masses to discredit and attack the non believers. Many of us who dare question the technology were attacked. You allowed us to continue you question here. What has changed? Sterling attacked this forum pubically, destroyed the NEC(several resignations) and now has his hat out begging for money as all credability was destroyed. Just silencing us is turning this into another circus, one with an obvious ending.
No need to ban me as this is my last post on this topic. However can I suggest you start another thread called "I told you so"
Kind Regards
Mark
Yeah,
This is a tough one. Watching it again, and knowing there is some entry repulsion there, it is quite possible as MH says that the shifting weight of the magnet might be responsible for the added rotation each half cycle. I'm on the fence with this until we see some variation made.
Indeed, I think we would all like to see how things operate without the array there.
My experience with this type of thing did not involve the entry point, as that was "eliminated".
Howard, please demonstrate the pendulum operation without the array there ;) ;)
Thanks,
.99
PS. @ Mark Dansie, I wouldn't say Howard is trying to scam anyone. Doubtful there are any intentional "tricks" incorporated to help things along as Mylow had done.
Hmm,
I thought the masses and the lengths were the same in the 1 cycle test ?
Didn´t he state this somewhere ?
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 29, 2009, 12:41:41 PM
Great invite them all and I also request all the readers to invite the top minds in the world as well. Bring them here on this forum. Lets have this showdown and get it over with. Don’t forget NASA.
LET IT RAIN !
Howard
Howard,
I notified Mark Dansie about your invention. You asked us to bring in folks and have a show down. Mark clearly knows his stuff. NASA scientists and Eric Krieg will be much less forgiving than milehigh and markdansie have been. Should your quote read, 'invite anyone who agrees that my one cycle video is conclusive proof that magnets can impart additional energy.' Milehigh said it best when he clarified that you displayed half a cycle. This is why I initially saw promise in your invention, but remained adamant that continous acceleration (due only to the magnetic array) would need to be conclusively demonstrated. Many have shown temporary acceleration (look at James Rony Stators, haven't heard anything from him lately?), but this is always due to initial energy imparted by the user, ie placing the wheel in the right place. Nobody has ever made a magnetically powered device continue accelerating on it's own accord, the laws of physics are not on your side.
You can take the feedback/questions you are receiving as constructive or a challenge and prove them wrong, or you can summarily dismiss them as TROLLS.
Stefan,
If milehigh wouldn't have chimed in, my pea brain wouldn't have picked up on the shifting center of gravity, and for that I thank milehigh for bringing me back down to earth. I don't think Howard is employing trickery like Mylow, but remember that this board took him down. When one makes extraordinary claims in a public forum, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect extraordinary proof.
The question in my mind still remains as to whether the YOG can use gravity to power through the sticky point and actually attain a net energy gain. Until some of the variables already pointed out have been eliminated, nothing has been proven - FACT. If the one cycle video is proof, then there would have been a deluge of press/university researchers/companies banging down Howard's door. It's out there for all to see on youtube and I don't think it's causing a stir in the legitimate energy/magnetic community.
Please prove it for the world Howard.
Spoondini,
I understand your hunger for the truth. The hunger for knowledge can be overwhelming for some. It can change a rational man into an un-rational one.
My first response after posting the gain video was it does to a point. Then in the posts later I explained what will happen. Like this….
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 31, 2009, 01:35:40 AM
Even if you can show a video with just a top offset weighted lever reaching the same point as my Proof of gain video.
You can never challenge the extra cycles that the array gets over no array.
Then on top of that even more… by some miracle if you can match the cycles. You still can’t match the speed and time vs no array.
Bottom line your whole case is based on theory and mine are from tests I preformed.
So basically if you come to the conclusion that there is a gain from the magnetic array. Then with reason that gain is their in the YOG. That energy is in a form of kinetic energy. That difference of energy in the YOG is what I’m trying to tap into.
I believe for the greater good is to stay on track and try to help as many people as I can along the way.
If your not convince that’s ok the replicators are on it. It will just confirm on what I have been saying.
Remember at any point anybody can see for them self, just by building it.
Howard
Howard,
You can double The door lock throw by mounting it in the center beneath the gear, attaching a slotted lever between the wheel and the solenoid plunger an a pin at the 3 o'clock position and switching it open and close on each rotation to withdrawn center then the 9 O'clock extended position. This requires switching twice instead of just once, but may save you a trip to the auto parts store. A resonant feedback capacitor, either in series or parallel between the coil and battery would capture the collapsing magnetic field when the contacts open, and return it to the coil to augment the charge from the battery for the pulse. This results in a 50% savings of input power. Furthermore, you can measure any power generated by pulsing the pendulum from the bottom center against a face down disc neo attached to the bottom of the pendulum and measure the current it takes to move it the same distance as the magnet track.
All very nice and complicated, but the inventor stated that a tail fin would also turn the magnet, at the cost of a bit air drag. If this air drag is less than the array's gain, by all means use that! You get the same weight distribution, just as the cost of a bit of drag, rather than under suspicion of possible gain from the turning device itself.
The gain in the servo assisted video is huge. Seems a smartly cut tail should not spoil that party, if indeed the servo input doesn't enhance the swing significantly now.
OU could be proved via purely mechanical (tail fin or counter weights to turn the magnets) or electrical (servo). When electronics come into play watts in vs watts out come into play. AC readings on output can and probably will make OU a tricky subject until verified by some 'credible' source (it's like groundhogs day on many OU stories which are precipitated by honest misreadings).
It really depends on how comfortable you are with electronics vs mechanical engineering. Pick your poison, they both present their own challenges. Impressed with the mechanical work up to date. Best of luck.
Synchro1,
I like what you are saying. Flip vertically instead of horizontal. Using a small slotted lever to push/pull forward.
Is it like this?
The auto door lock pop would probably cut the energy time by 50% or more
There is another possible method that is has been weighing on my mind.
Sometimes called the Smart Alloy, Muscle Wire or Memory Metal, is an alloy that "remembers" it shape. You can reshape the wire, but when temputure is applyed it returns to the preset shape.
Here are some videos of the alloy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k20J4NDgAYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuHDFuDQ1PI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9f-W6Xi_Wo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrsx6f4HrSE
Regards,
Howard
Here you go Howard, how about this:
I am going to add some "colour commentary" for you:
When the mercury switches trigger the solenoids to fire they will rotate the magnet by 180 degrees. You want to fire the solenoids with just enough energy to make the 180 degree turn and no more than that. Therefore you want to use a transistor to fire each solenoid where the pulse width is timed by a 555 timer setup. You can use the CMOS version of the 555 timer and use very small timing capacitors and a very large timing resistors to reduce the power consumption of the 555 timing setup to almost zero. Therefore the only real energy you will use is to fire the transistor, and you keep the firing time of the pulse to a bare minimum. The solenoid only has to "launch" the rotating magnet on its trajectory to the opposite depression in the metal plate where it will remain locked in place until the the next half cycle starts and the opposite solenoid does the same thing. The magnet is basically pseudo "coasting" as it rotates around the 180 degrees.
This is basically a ping-pong game between two solenoids that are the "bats" and the magnet is the "ball." The game is being played as slowly as possible so as to use the least amount of energy possible.
There is one minor complication related to the sloshing mercury in the mercury switches. You don't want to accidentally trigger the solenoids twice. Therefore you need at least three 555 timers, one each to time the pulse for each direction and a third 555 timer that is the "lockout" timer that will prevent any retriggering for about one (?) second once the first trigger fires. You figure after about one second you are guaranteed the sloshing mercury will not generate a second trigger.
So to do this you need a quad CMOS 555 timer ship and a one or two CMOS flip-flop chips and perhaps a few CMOS logic gates. Using this setup more than 99.999% of the battery energy will be used to fire the transistors and power the solenoids and less than 0.001% will be used for your timing circuit. For all of this to work the magnet has to be perfectly balanced in its housing.
To make it as efficient as possible the ends of the solenoid plungers should not have any rubber bumpers on them because the rubber will dissipate energy.
If you have access to a machine shop and know your stuff or know somebody that knows his stuff the mechanical stuff should be doable. Drilling a shaft through the center of the magnet should be doable but would have to be done very very slowly, or perhaps you can find a stock magnet that already has a central shaft that is already perfectly balanced. I am not so sure about the ball bearing setup, it could actually be a small wheel on a good bearing with a spring-loaded fulcrum, or some variation on the theme. I am not a mechanical guy but I have to assume that somebody would be able to build this without having to go overboard. If you know about electronics, the timing circuit is trivial and could be breadboarded in a day.
One last thing, you have to drill a shaft that's mirror-image to the shaft that is used to hold the spring-loaded ball bearing. I did not show that in the drawing. That's really debatable though. You could balance the magent some other way if you wanted.
Then there is another interesting school of thought that just occured to me. You could intentionally keep the magnet unbalanced so that when you are at the end of the swing the magnet wants to "fall" down. In this case the solenoid will need even less energy when it fires because the magent will "fall" into place and lock after it rotates by 180 degrees. So in this case you are using gravity to "help" the rotation process along. In this case you will use less battery energy, with the trade off that you are now drawing some of the gravitational potential energy out of the pendulum. Every time the magent is "released" by the solenoid and "falls" into the opposite 180 drgree position, you are lowering the center of gravity of the magent system but just a tiny bit - and that represents sucking some energy out of the pendulum.
Just adding a few more thoughts. Something similar to what I am describing probably already exists in real life as an off the shelf part. It would be some sort of mounting for something that will "click" in one of two positions that are 180 degrees apart. Some sort of an actutator system that would be used in factory automation or process control. The finer and more delicate the mechanism, then chances are the more expensive it will get. Something that you could simply mount your magnet on top of and then build something to hold the solenoids in place, etc. With enough Google searching, you could probably find something that will work.
An off the shelf part may have some sort of spring tension mechanism so that you could adjust the "stickyness" for when the setup clicks into place. You need just enough "stickyness" so that the magnet will not "unstick" itself as it experiences torque as it passes through the array. The lower the "stickyness" setting, the less energy you have to put into the solenoid to "launch" the magent through its 180 degree rotation.
My original point still stands, when the magnet rotates it will be fighting against the external magnetic field from the array and a little bit of energy will have to be expended to do this.
Also, every time the magnet rotates, you are expending energy to "launch" it and put rotational energy into the mass of the magnet. When the magnet "lands" in the depression 180 degrees away, this rotational energy is lost forever. Therefore in theory you would like the magnet to rotate as slowly as possible to reduce the amount of energy lost for this step in the process.
Ultimately you could tune all of the paramaters just right so the minimum amount of energy is expended to do the 180 degree rotation.
MileHigh
Good stuff MH.
Howard,
Reluctance to perform a test without the magnet array is either out of fear, or arrogance, or a combination of both. That's pure emotion--it's not science.
Please set your emotions aside for a brief moment and consider running a test without the array present to observe how it behaves. That would be science. Surely you must also be curious?
Give it a go--the worst that can happen is you gain more insight into the various interactions going on :)
.99
Hey Poynt,
Thank ya'll v'ry much. Thank ya very much.
I have a sobering final comment for everybody about this or any other magnet flipping setup and it is this:
You are basically building a big "pendulum motor" when you do this. That's it.
A New Age Metronome.
MileHigh
One way to keep from having to rotate the magnetic end at the top of the staff;
Have both polarity magnetic ends on the staff shaped like a "Y" and have the
the "Y" "fall over" to a position one of it's magnetic arms vs the other only at the
end of the pendulum's range. It could almost be made to fall over by itself and
would only need to be locked in place electronically. There was a post by Billmehess
that showed only a surprisingly small amount of angular misalignment was required to
keep an unused magnetic field stowed out of the way.
:S:MarkSCoffman
The YOG is a motor generator. Howard's clever adaptation of the Lever Pitman mechanism allows the switch and hammer throw to help accelerate momentum at at very efficient exchange rate. Really nested pendulum's. This hammer throw motor assist method, triggered at the apogees, is not
a disadvantage, but an innovative way to transfer electric power into stored momentum. The lever can be lengthened, and the end of the square slot opened. Lever and Pitman are a Scottish invention to transfer the linear piston motion of the steam engine into rotary flywheel motion.
@mscoffman,
Good point, although the step function does need to step forward to the travel direction. The “Y†configuration would save energy by another 50%.
Energy for 90 degrees is half the energy for 180 degrees. 8)
@All,
I want to share a test result that I did in the past. When I was running the YOG to get some data. I had planned on using end stops to keep the drive magnet from hitting my floor’s tile.
I was looking for something I can use as a damper, some thing I could use to absorb the excess kinetic energy. While I was digging through my garage hoping to find some stiff springs. I found two rubber bungee cords.
When I placed the rubber cords on both ends of the swing, above the floor to catch the lever. What happened was very comforting.
The lever ended up bouncing off the rubber cords increasing the speed of the YOG to a point where the servos would not keep up with the speeds. The drive magnet wasn’t able to turn fast enough and eventually smashed against the frame breaking off the drive magnet. It cost me a servo but was well worth it. Imaging what kind of speeds I could of achieved if only I had a faster servo. ;D
Cheers
Howard
wonderfull keep it up
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 04, 2009, 08:21:40 PM
@mscoffman,
Good point, although the step function does need to step forward to the travel direction. The “Y†configuration would save energy by another 50%.
Energy for 90 degrees is half the energy for 180 degrees. 8)
@All,
I want to share a test result that I did in the past. When I was running the YOG to get some data. I had planned on using end stops to keep the drive magnet from hitting my floor’s tile.
I was looking for something I can use as a damper, some thing I could use to absorb the excess kinetic energy. While I was digging through my garage hoping to find some stiff springs. I found two rubber bungee cords.
When I placed the rubber cords on both ends of the swing, above the floor to catch the lever. What happened was very comforting.
The lever ended up bouncing off the rubber cords increasing the speed of the YOG to a point where the servos would not keep up with the speeds. The drive magnet wasn’t able to turn fast enough and eventually smashed against the frame breaking off the drive magnet. It cost me a servo but was well worth it. Imaging what kind of speeds I could of achieved if only I had a faster servo. ;D
Cheers
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 02, 2009, 06:51:48 PM
...
I suggest you see the videos first. Then on the one cycle video ask yourself is their a gain from the magnetic array. This will be your foundation for argument with out getting past that point your arguments will have no relevance.
One cycle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Gain video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
@Howard,
There is no energy gain.
The extra movement in the first movie comes from extra energy provided by your hand in form of potential magnetic energy when placing the lever with magnet at the starting point. This action requires from your side a significantly larger effort as when placing the lever without magnet, even if both levers are otherwise identical (i.e. having the same mass, size etc)
The extra movement in the second movie obviously comes from the batteries, through the electric motor (servo) that increases the same potential energy of magnet at the end of the lever in respect to the array of stationary magnets.
I appreciate your perseverance but I humbly suggest you to study potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields. Examples of failed similar contraptions are plenty into this forum. Yours is similar with SMOT, which could not be properly understood by a certain “physics professor†that made our life miserably around here several years ago.
Cheers,
Tinu
Tinu,
Your response is incorrect. I believe you have not made it past the point of the one cycle video.
How can you say I applied more energy positioning the lever of equal length and mass?
Especially when the gravitational potential energy is the same at the start point.
Have you even read the past post on this thread.
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 05, 2009, 07:06:38 PM
...
How can you say I applied more energy positioning the lever of equal length and mass?
Especially when the gravitational potential energy is the same at the start point.
...
Howard,
I say so because it is as simple as that.
The proof is in your hands yet I understand why your mind will reject it.
A simple experiment to provide anyone with the evidence: side-by-side place the two levers (both of equal mass and dimensions but one with and one without magnet) elastically hanging from the ceiling or from another appropriate support so that levers can both swing with ease in a vertical plane, like a simple pendulum, but they can not rotate around their axis. When preparing this simple setup, let the free end of the levers (and the magnet for the lever that has it) be approximately in the same position relative to the stationary array of magnets as it was when letting them oscillate from the starting point, as in your movies.
By conducting the above experiment you will see that, at equilibrium, the non-magnetic lever stays vertical (it simply hangs down) but the magnetic one is feeling repulsion from the stationary magnetic array and therefore it will prefer to stay away from the vertical and further from the stationary magnetic array.
Now push the magnetic lever so it becomes vertical, as the non-magnetic one. Here is most of the extra energy you need to provide (aware of it or not, you provide it all the time), energy that you can now feel it and see it, in the simplest and most practical way I could come up with. In reality the extra energy applied is higher than that.
In short and in order to reply to the second line also: gravitational potential energy is the same but magnetic potential energy is not, hence total potential energy is not the same. Because total potential energy is different (higher in the ‘magnetic case’), it is perfectly natural that the amplitude of oscillations is different.
Hit me if I wasn’t clear enough.
If it’s technically uncomfortable to prepare the above-suggested setup, I can come up with a similar test that would only require the proper adjustment of the counter-balance weight that is attached to the wheel.
A movie would be instructive and fun.
Cheers,
Tinu
Tinu,
Your contradicting yourself.
Quote from: tinu on November 06, 2009, 09:44:41 AM
In short and in order to reply to the second line also: gravitational potential energy is the same but magnetic potential energy is not, hence total potential energy is not the same. Because total potential energy is different (higher in the ‘magnetic case’), it is perfectly natural that the amplitude of oscillations is different.
In the one cycle video both levers are entering the array with the same amount of energy. The drive magnet is too far away from the array to make any difference at the start point. I guess this is when experience comes into play.
Before you suggest to the inventor, to study potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields. I believe you should first.
If you did not see the video of OC’s great contribution post on this thread that he ask adminonduty to do. Here it is again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
The experiment you are requesting is has been done in a different way on the one cycle video. The trigger stick hold up the weight serves that purpose and also the tape mark where I used the clip to hold the pipe does as well.
Bottom line you get a gain from the magnetic array vs no array.
If you need further proof you can at any time do these experiments yourself.
Howard
@WattBuilder,
great work.
I would like to suggest a simple experiment on your existing setup, please. Can you do the same as you have done but this time replace the magnets on the stick with an equivalent non-magnetic material and still use the remote control to flip the new "non-magnetic" component (as you done on the video) and still see if there is a gain on the swing?
If this has been covered on this thread, please forgive my request and continue with this great work.
Fausto.
Hi Fausto,
Thanks, I’m glad you like the work I’m doing. Yes I did cover the results on past posts, but that’s ok.
When I did that experiment in the past. I use the rock instead of the drive magnet. The YOG with the rock shows the lever going lower and lower to a point. For example 9 cycles to reach a reference point on the large ruler. Then when I attached the drive magnet, the cycles to reached the same point is achieved in 5 and you will also gain in speed and time to reach that point vs using the rock. The energy gain from the magnets are increasing the kinetic and potential energy in the YOG .
I’m sorry I can not do a video at the moment right now as I am trying to get electrical energy readings.
Kind regards,
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 02, 2009, 06:51:48 PM
...
@exnihiloest,
There’s has been progress since you last posted this……….
I suggest you see the videos first. Then on the one cycle video ask yourself is their a gain from the magnetic array. This will be your foundation for argument with out getting past that point your arguments will have no relevance.
One cycle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Gain video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
...
There is definitely no evidence here.
In the first video, you spend work against the magnetic force of the stationary magnet track to put the mobile magnet at its initial position. Then this work is restored by the track accelerating the moving magnet.
In the second video, the remote-controlled rotation of the mobile magnet is not ended when the mobile magnet is moving near the entrance of the track of stationary magnets. It follows that when the mobile magnet enters the magnetic field of the track, to rotate the magnet spends energy to "fight" the opposing field of the track. Then this energy (which was coming from the motor or actuator and has enhanced the magnetic potential of the moving magnet) is restored by the track by accelerating the moving magnet as in the previous case.
I appreciate you efforts and your mechanical assembly, but I'm sorry to tell you that your conclusion about free energy is now simply wrong.
To prove FE, you have to rotate the magnet when it is far outside the magnetic field of the track. Only in this case, you don't need energy to do it. Otherwise your device obeys conventional physics and it is clear that energy is conserved.
Exnihiloest,
Well, you are incorrect again. Your theory is unsupported as my theories are now backed with test results.
At least now you are trying to listen instead of your previous posts before.
Quote from: exnihiloest on November 07, 2009, 05:10:19 AM
In the first video, you spend work against the magnetic force of the stationary magnet track to put the mobile magnet at its initial position. Then this work is restored by the track accelerating the moving magnet.
No..…… I’m not loading it like a spring. The start position of the drive magnet is too far away from the array field, to make any difference. Remember there is also some resistance entering the array with the drive magnet too.
Hopefully you can figure out that I could of bypass the array to get to the start point. By simply walking over to the other side of the YOG and then install the lever with the drive magnet.
Quote from: exnihiloest on November 07, 2009, 05:10:19 AM
In the second video, the remote-controlled rotation of the mobile magnet is not ended when the mobile magnet is moving near the entrance of the track of stationary magnets.
Yes, The servo is not fast enough due to the energy gain in the YOG, as it gets faster and faster. This actually decreases the available energy gains.
Improving the speed of the servo will only help the YOG collect more energy from the array in the faster swings.
Quote from: exnihiloest on November 07, 2009, 05:10:19 AM
It follows that when the mobile magnet enters the magnetic field of the track, to rotate the magnet spends energy to "fight" the opposing field of the track. Then this energy (which was coming from the motor or actuator and has enhanced the magnetic potential of the moving magnet) is restored by the track by accelerating the moving magnet as in the previous case.
The servo does use energy to rotate 180 degrees, but your forgetting that the energy gains from the magnetic array can be increased beyond the needed energy for the servo. Which can be easily done by changing the array arrangement for better gains or increase the magnetic strength “stronger magnets†as needed. Don’t forget the array length can be increased too.
I suggest you go back to the one cycle video point. Once you have concluded that there is energy gain from the magnetic array. Then with reason you can see that the gain goes somewhere. In this case it’s in the form of kinetic energy in the YOG.
I'm sorry to tell you that my conclusion about free energy is right.
Howard
@ The World
To help further discussion I am going to give this effect a name.
Definition:
The Yu Effect â€" The effects of applying kinetic energy to a magnetic field resulting in a kinetic energy gain.
Regards,
Howard G. Yu
Inventor of the Yu Oscillating Generator.
Howard,
Naming the effect after yourself before demonstrating conclusive proof such an effect is even real is like putting the cart before the horse. I believe Mylow already named the effect after himself (and many before him), and Mr. Tseung has the 'lead out' effect which is also essentially the same, don't forget 'Roney Stators'. You might need to take a number on naming the effect of extracting kinetic energy out of magnets and/or gravity unless you are really 'the one' who changes the textbooks.
By the way, to simplify further discussion, I'm going to give this effect the following name:
The Spoondini Effect - The effects of naming an effect not yet demonstrated except to one's self
Feel free to reference throughout the thread for speed when we are redirected to the 'proof' in the one cycle video.
Sorry for being so blunt Howard, but you've moved from questionable claims to narcissism and possible self-delusion.
Spoondini,
You claim you have experience working with magnets. So what’s your hold up on doing the experiment? Certainly even you can make a simple pendulum and video it. Or is the fact of the matter is that your too comfortable sitting on your high horse passing judgment.
Howard
Spoondini was the first to bow to you WB, I think he's revolting because it injured his back.
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
Tinu,
Your contradicting yourself.
I’m not contradicting myself at all.
It’s true I wish I was wrong ;D but there are no contradictions in my previous posts.
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
In the one cycle video both levers are entering the array with the same amount of energy. The drive magnet is too far away from the array to make any difference at the start point. I guess this is when experience comes into play.
This is plain incorrect. It’s just wishful thinking on your side and nothing more.
On the other hand, although I can live with your wishful thinking because I really don’t care as long as you keep it for yourself, when you go public as an “inventor†my wish is to put the facts back to their place and not allowing the readers be misled anymore. It was enough already.
The array of magnets you use has a magnetic field strong enough so it affects very crude mechanical setups many meters away! If you can not acknowledge that, you simply lack the experimenting capabilities and this might be one reason for your wrong conclusions but I suspect there are other reasons as well.
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
Before you suggest to the inventor, to study potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields. I believe you should first.
I do, as I have done in the last 25 years or so. Still, I am no “inventor†but a mere physicist.
What’s your qualifications and experience in the field?
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
If you did not see the video of OC’s great contribution post on this thread that he ask adminonduty to do. Here it is again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
The movie proves the point I already stated twice so far. Now for the third and hopefully for the last time:
Initial gravitational potential energy (Eg) of the OC’s setup is altered by magnetic field with a certain quantity that is magnetic potential energy (Em). In one case, total initial potential energy is Eg + Em (attraction) and in the other case it is Eg-Em (repulsion).
Because Eg+Em>Eg-Em (obviously, huh?!), the device oscillates asymmetrically, as per the same movie. No energy gain, no energy loss. Just gaps, gaps and other gaps in understanding …
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
The experiment you are requesting is has been done in a different way on the one cycle video. The trigger stick hold up the weight serves that purpose and also the tape mark where I used the clip to hold the pipe does as well.
Nope. The trigger stick serves the sole purpose to avoid adding kinetic energy at launch.
It has nothing to do with initial potential energy and other wrong considerations.
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 06, 2009, 01:55:22 PM
Bottom line you get a gain from the magnetic array vs no array.
Not a single microJ!
But since you yell so loudly and insistently about it, I look forward to see a proof that holds water.
Please don’t make me explain three times each post; information is already there, it just needs to be grasped. Without gaps... ;)
Cheers,
Tinu
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 07, 2009, 02:25:31 PM
...
The servo does use energy to rotate 180 degrees, but your forgetting that the energy gains from the magnetic array can be increased beyond the needed energy for the servo.
...
It is the key point that you have to prove. Until now it is a not founded assertion, a pure question of faith.
If it was true, you should be able to easily maintain a perpetual motion without any extra energy (for example you could add a second magnet track with reversed polarity, diametrally opposed to the first one in order you would not even have to rotate the magnet).
You have to rotate the magnet when it is still under the influence of the magnetic track field to enhance its magnetic potential and give it the potential to be pulled back again, at the price of mechanical energy.
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 07, 2009, 09:18:20 PM
Spoondini,
You claim you have experience working with magnets. So what’s your hold up on doing the experiment? Certainly even you can make a simple pendulum and video it. Or is the fact of the matter is that your too comfortable sitting on your high horse passing judgment.
Howard
Probably the same reason you haven't demonstrated continuous acceleration without batteries.
Quote from: spoondini on November 08, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
Probably the same reason you haven't demonstrated continuous acceleration without batteries.
because it can't be done? is that what you are saying spooner? or are you just avoiding the question?
@Tinu,
You’re the one misleading readers and have the gaps in understanding, not me……….. sorry. :D
Quote from: tinu on November 08, 2009, 03:36:25 AM
The movie proves the point I already stated twice so far. Now for the third and hopefully for the last time:
Initial gravitational potential energy (Eg) of the OC’s setup is altered by magnetic field with a certain quantity that is magnetic potential energy (Em). In one case, total initial potential energy is Eg + Em (attraction) and in the other case it is Eg-Em (repulsion).
Because Eg+Em>Eg-Em (obviously, huh?!), the device oscillates asymmetrically, as per the same movie. No energy gain, no energy loss. Just gaps, gaps and other gaps in understanding …
You have this backwards it should be:
Eg-Em>Eg+Em is True
Eg+Em>Eg-Em is False
Eg-Em=Eg+Em is False
You claim that you are a physicist of 25 years that has studied potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields.
Surely, You did not make the classroom mistake of thinking repulsive force is equal to attraction force.
Those that actually have the knowledge and who are skilled in the art. Would tell you that when it comes to magnets the force of repulsive is greater than attraction forces.
You have just destroyed your grounds for argument.
Your posts are of no relevance. ;)
If you don’t believe me then look it up. If you don’t believe the books then get two magnets and feel it.
Howard
@Exnihiloest,
It’s not a question of faith when reasoning is involved.
Changing the design to prove it doesn’t work is not grounds for argument. You just proving your way is wrong.
???
Howard
Hi Howard
Are you any closer to making it run by itself ?
cat
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 08, 2009, 01:51:18 PM
You claim that you are a physicist of 25 years that has studied potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields.
Yes, that's me. And you are what exactly? You forgot to mention, right?! ;D
Nevermind. It's clear to whom I've tried to speak.
If my posts are of relevance or not it's up to others and it's clearly above your head; sorry but it was a waste of time trying to explain to you where you went off track then self-delusional.
I'd just say you better skip preaching non-sense and let the mankind know when you're done, "inventor". ;)
Meanwhile, because it's going to be a very very long while, best of luck!
You de man, Tinu. There is something about if you do a line integral around any arbitrary closed loop in an unchanging magnetic field - when you get back to where you started your net energy gain is zero. However, depending on where you are on the loop, you may be sitting in a position of positive or negative magnetic potential energy. If you travel from Point A to Point B on the loop, you may experience a net energy gain, or a net energy loss - it all depends what part of the loop you are on and in what direction you are travelling. Pretty magical things those line integrals. A little bit of calculus applied to the real physical world can go a long way towards enlightenment and understanding of how things work.
The idea that the shifting weight of the servo magnet contributes to the net gain seems wrong for one simple reason. The 'arm' of the servo magnet assembly is turning opposite to the direction the pendulum arm is swinging. If anything, one would think it would decrease momentum slightly. No?
Stand on the edge of the street curb, until you tip over. See which way you swing your arms :-)
Quote from: Cloxxki on November 09, 2009, 02:00:50 AM
Stand on the edge of the street curb, until you tip over. See which way you swing your arms :-)
Throwing your arms back increases the momentum of the fall? Don't think so.
@Powercat,
I’m still working at the turbine. The weight of turning the stator is some thing I have to overcome hopefully without scaling the YOG.
@Tinu,
Your response is typical.
Rest assure that I’m educated in multi-discipline.
@Asymatrix,
I would like other members to give that question a shot. :)
Regards
Howard
Howard.
I think you are expecting way much more power out of the YOG than the YOG can deliver. Positioning an output coil directly beneath the base of the Pendulum under a very strong Neo' that rocked overhead, would recover all the output the Yog can deliver. Imagine how much power it would take for that same coil and magnet to pulse the pendulum the additional distance the magnet track sends it. It's not going to amount to very much. Way less then you need to run a turbine stator and recover power. You would have to run the YOG for long periods of time, and store the power just to light a small bulb.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 08, 2009, 03:49:03 PM
You de man, Tinu. There is something about if you do a line integral around any arbitrary closed loop in an unchanging magnetic field - when you get back to where you started your net energy gain is zero. However, depending on where you are on the loop, you may be sitting in a position of positive or negative magnetic potential energy. If you travel from Point A to Point B on the loop, you may experience a net energy gain, or a net energy loss - it all depends what part of the loop you are on and in what direction you are travelling. Pretty magical things those line integrals. A little bit of calculus applied to the real physical world can go a long way towards enlightenment and understanding of how things work.
Indeed! Isn’t that magical … the language of science is the same all over the word. A couple of equations, few sentences and voila: light for everyone, be it the end-road signal or the start of a great path.
Yet, I’m reluctant of even mentioning line integrals inhere. I mean, there are so many indoctrinated followers that venerate their leaders, leaders that imho are no more than social parasites (although modern ones) and those are the few of them. ;) Most are simply crooks.
Let’s see: how the nasty concept of “line integrals†can be avoided? Hmmm… how about the following?
“They†say that traveling along a magnetic closed loop can result in a net energy gain. Science says it is not so. “They†say science may be wrong or incomplete. Science says it can live with that but it demands irrefutable proofs and it warns that according to everything we know in the present, it is most unlikely being the way “they†wish it to be. Proofs never show up. Gurus of magnetic free-energy say to “themâ€: “show me the money and keep persevering (fools)â€. I suspect the bracket is whispered when counting their money made from movies, DVDs, booklets, plans, magnets, parts, kits, interviews, meetings, seminars, sold advertisements, sponsors, donations, investments, ‘research grants’, per-diems, etc. etc. etc.
Now, having the picture portrayed, I have no problems assuming that one of “them†is building a device that generates energy by moving an ultra-special part of a rotor (made of magnavorite, of course) around a closed loop, in a unchanging magnetic field. Great! Hurray!!! Magnetic free energy has been finally obtained!!! But wait a second: a humble electron moving along the same closed path feels his energy is growing. He then feels energetic an independent; he decides to leave the atom. Oh, no: a second electron sees the first one and he leaves too. What?! :o Protons syndicate goes on strike?! Protons leave the nucleus? Huh? ??? There is no nucleus anymore. And… and…where is the inventor?!!! Oh, I see: he’s somewhere around! ;D
Hopefully that piece of magnavorite affects the universe (I mean the ‘damn line integral’ value) just locally, otherwise it would be no universe any longer.
What do you think MileHigh?
I admit it’s a much longer explanation but can it be a good substitute for when and where the original does not work?
Thanks for your post,
Best regards
Tinu
Quote from: WattBuilder on November 08, 2009, 01:51:18 PM
...
@Exnihiloest,
It’s not a question of faith when reasoning is involved.
Surely you read neither Thomas d'Aquin nor Augustin.
You never read the "proofs" of creationists.
"Reasoning" is also used in all religions and sects. A false reasoning is yet a reasoning.
Quote
Changing the design to prove it doesn’t work is not grounds for argument. You just proving your way is wrong.
???
Howard
Your reply is not even a reasoning. Where is science?
My purpose was just a suggestion because you presented no evidence.
If you have other means to prove your claim of overunity, you are free to use and show them. Until now and for the reasons I have already mentionned, the evidence is that you have nothing, like hundreds of PMM builders who claimed for 20 years the same not working things as you.
This explains why you did not quote the part where I said that you have to rotate the mobile magnet outside of the magnetic field of the track otherwise you do work against the magnetic field and it is this energy from the motor that is then recovered and leads to the acceleration of the magnet. It is clear you are not comfortable about science and technical arguments.
Perhaps it would be possible to position some sort of spring or rubber bumper at the end of the cycle to give it an extra kick. It might not be beneficial, as the arm moves relatively slowly, but if that could be utilized, the momentum might build on itself with each rotation.
I just popped in and saw this thread still going. I thought it would be finished already given the number of well respected and qualified members of this forum who have reached a concensus there is nothing here.
However, I do see we have some Johny come latelies who feel words can out smart science.
PS Teslaalnet, you never answered my questions re you past experience, qualifications and who you are. I was so kind to give you lengthy details to your questions and even had some members back up my claims with their experience with me. (when you were trying to shoot me down)
Just being silent doesn't help.
The forum is a place where everyone is welcome. I always pronounce my lack of expertise in areas where I am not qualified and listed to those who do. However no ammount of wistful thinking or delusional arguments will make something come true.
So hoping to hear from you soon
Kind Regards
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on November 10, 2009, 07:53:11 AM
I just popped in and saw this thread still going. I thought it would be finished already given the number of well respected and qualified members of this forum who have reached a concensus there is nothing here.
wow, you think your opinion carries that much weight? ::)
Quote from: exnihiloest on November 10, 2009, 03:42:50 AM
This explains why you did not quote the part where I said that you have to rotate the mobile magnet outside of the magnetic field of the track otherwise you do work against the magnetic field and it is this energy from the motor that is then recovered and leads to the acceleration of the magnet. It is clear you are not comfortable about science and technical arguments.
It looks to me like the servo magnet is turned well outside the magnetic field of the top track.
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 10, 2009, 08:02:22 AM
wow, you think your opinion carries that much weight? ::)
No, and that is my point. We are all equals here, but it seems some (teslaalnet) feels he has the right to question others about qualifications, backgrounds etc, yet portraying something he isnt. As you know many people here are very more qualified than other to pass comment and have credability. I think you must have read my eresponse wrong as I stated I am always happy to plead my ignorance and expertise, an that is to put my opinion in perspective.
So lets ask you the same question, do you think your opinion counts and why?
Finally , credability is everything, who are you going to listen too? Those who claim and support everything to this forum will work and everyone who disagrees is MIB, works for the oil companies or should be excumunicated. Or are you going to listen to the people with the experience and qualifications to offer informed opinion?
I am not writing this as a defence to your question but more as a question to the wider issues your questions raise.
Outside this forum , who do you think will be asked by investors or to assist in getting a project going ...the ones that call wolf everytime, or those who use reason and logic.
Kind regards
Mark
I was able to replicate the simple enhancement magnet mechanism with
a simple pendulum. The stationary magnet flat and below the pendulum
magnet with north up and the pendulum magnet vertical with north to the
right of the swing where it travels 1/8 inch further with the magnets compared
to the stock pendulum swing without any magnets.
This is similar to my work here where the pendulum swings higher than
its dropped point.
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
So if we switched the stationary magnet polarity on each swing it might continue on its own.
Norman
@Norman
good work. That is a good way of looking at it in that rather rotating the swinging magnet reversing the polarity of the fixed. Great idea and good lateral thinking. Would be interesting to see (even if you manually rotate it at this stage) if it got an accumilated gain on each swing
Kind Regards
mark
Quote from: norman6538 on November 12, 2009, 02:49:30 PM
This is similar to my work here where the pendulum swings higher than
its dropped point.
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
So if we switched the stationary magnet polarity on each swing it might continue on its own.
Norman, interesting stuff. How long have you been doing these experiments?
Have you seen the "Magnetically Assisted Pendulum"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
0c
@Norman
good work. That is a good way of looking at it in that rather rotating the swinging magnet reversing the polarity of the fixed. Great idea and good lateral thinking. Would be interesting to see (even if you manually rotate it at this stage) if it got an accumilated gain on each swing
Kind Regards
mark
I did that last night by making a Model T crank handle for the stationary magnet but was not able to get it to keep going... I suspect 1/8 inch is not enough extra . Notice that in my pendulum experiments I layed the pendulum down deliberately to reduce the gravity force and put it in range of the magnets. I do not like to work with strong magnets because they hide things that would otherwise been seen.
reference to my work http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
Norman
hello Guys,
i am submitting a simple diagram for continuous movement of pendulum instead of using servo motor and this will use electric power just for very short pulses may be this will help a little bit
i have developed a new method of producing electric power without inter crossing the magnetic fields may be some one can give me better suggestions what ever you are doing mechanically i am doing electronically
I was basically designing input section of genie without a dimmer with AVR capability then i think about using permanent magnet in a transformer that experiments failed and i saw number of patents dating 1954, to 1978 and i also review Tom Beardom's MEG i realize something is not right in this method and i developed this new technique of using magnetic field with out inter crossing and produce good use able electric power. These are really new lines of working with magnetic fields this involves highly precise sensing circuits and software
Few results of my experiments raised these questions
1) what is the speed of magnetic lines
1A) what is the frequency of magnetic lines.
1B) what is the resonant frequency of any magnetic material.
1B) an aluminum wire coated with silver offer good conductivity(current travel on surface area), but eddy current is highly reduced
2) why a stationary magnet do not produce eddy current or electro magnetic current in a coil which law define this part?
3) an air core coil when in operation produce and offer electronic characteristic showing blocking AC current, exhibiting current lagging , LC circuit acts like pendulum , but it don't attract metal as a magnet until and unless it has some permeable material experiencing its current flow
in my experiments i am developing methods for reducing the eddy current loses, inter crossing of magnetic forces even then you can generate good amount of electric current
these are really new lines of working with magnetic field This involves highly precise sensing circuits and software
please note i am not using pendulum to generate electric current
details of my work is here http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7987.340
Norman, interesting stuff. How long have you been doing these experiments?
Have you seen the "Magnetically Assisted Pendulum"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
0c
Yes - and that is what tweaked me to do my simple experiment.
I just love simple experiments that have not meters and measurements
to be disputed and argued about.
I have a magnet addiction for about 5 years now. It took me probably
6 months to tweak up the pendulum to where it was in the video.
But can't take it to the bank and get money. However it defies our
current science along with the Finsrud device. And I just love that.
Most in the boxers deny what it does.
Norman
this is cool!
all you have to do is flip the magnet's polarity at each swing so the pendulum swings higher and higher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 13, 2009, 07:07:51 AM
this is cool!
all you have to do is flip the magnet's polarity at each swing so the pendulum swings higher and higher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw
…and that would be exactly an no more than an electric motor with permanent magnets; its principles were discovered by M. Faraday in 1821. ;D
@ all,
Ohhh, there is more!
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor - Jedlik's "lightning-magnetic self-rotor", 1827. (Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest.)
So, it seems I’ve just found about the ancestor of Bedini himself and of his “window motors†as well as of other “inventionsâ€! ;D ;D ;D
rotfl
How nice! There is a good root in all things, including present bad ones…
Cheers,
Tinu
this is cool!
all you have to do is flip the magnet's polarity at each swing so the pendulum swings higher and higher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw
Great but the hand can play tricks. I use a stop and pull it out to eliminate that.
My pendulum goes about 1.5 hrs past its dropped point partly because it is laying down to reduce the gravity forces to match the magnet forces.
see mine here.
http://student.ccbcmd.edu/~norman/magwork.html
Norman
Quote from: FreeEnergy on November 13, 2009, 07:07:51 AM
this is cool!
all you have to do is flip the magnet's polarity at each swing so the pendulum swings higher and higher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw
Not cool at all but stupid. The same error again and again...
The equilibrium point is shifted left due to the polarity of the magnets. It is obvious that the pendulum would oscillate symmetrically each side of an oblique line and not of the vertical line joining the axis.
It is a question of potential. The new "vertical" line (mid position) is not that one from the gravitational potential alone but that one resulting from the magnetic AND gravitational potential.
Quote from: norman6538 on November 13, 2009, 07:28:22 PM
this is cool!
all you have to do is flip the magnet's polarity at each swing so the pendulum swings higher and higher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw
very good trick !!
why he took the second magnet in his hand ? ( out of the web cam !! )
Quote from: tagor on November 14, 2009, 06:38:32 AM
very good trick !!
why he took the second magnet in his hand ? ( out of the web cam !! )
I set the second magnet on the top of the acrylic base to add a couple more degrees of swing. The camera was on a tripod to the side. I didn't realize at the time that the second magnet would be out of the frame. Sorry, I'll try to do better next time.
There's no trick involved but you need a low friction pendulum so you don't lose all the gain to friction. AdminOnDuty's bearings are better than mine, but you can see the gain even in my video. Anyone can do this.
Since the time I did that video, I have come up with magnet configurations that give up to 20 degrees height gain (about 3/4"). I have some other configurations I want to try when I get around to it again.
0c
Quote from: 0c on November 14, 2009, 10:51:27 AM
AdminOnDuty's bearings are better than mine, but you can see the gain even in my video. Anyone can do this.
sorry
but
if there is a gain ...
you can launch it by hand ...
and the device must accelerate until ... or before exploding !!
Hi Guys,
I’m still around……..
I have to limit my postings and replies.
Because my farther is in the hospital and his heart situation has not changed.
There is gain from the magnets. I wish people would do a simple test before saying there is no gain. If they are so worried about the drive magnet starting too close to the array they can simply measure the magnet’s weight with an electronic scale.
Keep up the great work guys. As everyday passes we get closer and closer.
Howard
wattbuilder:
we pray for your father he will get well soon and you will be able to achieve your task
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 27, 2009, 01:16:53 PM
@All
Well …….. I’m done.
Here’s the gain proof video with servo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
The input is about 1.3 Watts for 2 seconds to turn the servo per cycle.
I used a Doc Wattson meter
The circumference that will drive the turbine measured about 343 to 354 Revs/Min. I started at the 10 o’clock position and let it swing one cycle. The tachometer used is an Ametek 1726 and was measured by placing the wheel on the meter up agents the circumference.
Howard
Hi all,
I would rather have seen the servo controlled magnet rotate about its center of mass as opposed to rotating as an eccentric weight. I'm afraid the off center orientation of the magnet imparts an an oscillatory force or eccentric force for each re-orientation of the magnet on every servo cycle. I fear that this is what's giving the extra 'push' on the turn around of every cycle. I wish I was wrong.
Greg
Quote from: WattBuilder on October 26, 2009, 11:39:45 AM
@All
Here’s my update.
I have now made the decision to put a hold on using the tail vane method to orientate the drive magnet. It’s taking me longer then I have planned. The things that I am running into going this route are lack of access to better materials and better tools.
I know that there are going to be some readers who will have a harder time understanding when I revert back to the use of the servo method.
The full understanding of the ability to scale and its effects is something that one may have to figure out. As my knowledge came from working in the field of the Automation Industry. I will do my best to help those understand.
For now I want to clear up the “step†function of my drive magnet’s position. Before I put up additional videos of the YOG.
You may have notice on my previous video that the drive magnet is offset from the centerline of the lever. The reasoning for that position is to allow for the step in a cycle to take place while also orientating the drive magnet. This function allows for “walking†or “climbing†how every you like to view it.
This makes it possible to add on top of the gain kinetic energy. Resulting in the lever getting lower and lower and the weight lifting higher and higher.
One can compare it to traveling up a flight of stairs or a truck bumper jack lifting a car.
It would be great if the magnetic array has a knob where you can turn up the magnetic energy for every cycle pass, but apparently magnets aren’t made that way.
The value of energy from the magnetic array is fixed. Depending on your array set up. So that’s why we need to add the “step†function.
Hopefully in the coming days I will be posting a new video where you can see the YOG in action with a servo.
Howard
My one cycle video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Hi wattbuilder,
look here :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4337757.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4337757.html)
homepage of these guys :
http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/ (http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/)
Regards
Kator01
Quote from: Kator01 on November 28, 2009, 12:06:10 PM
Hi wattbuilder,
look here :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4337757.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/industry/4337757.html)
homepage of these guys :
http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/ (http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/)
Regards
Kator01
Later we'll think back and say "Wow, this took 40 years after Concorde flew"? So smart, so simple. Great stuff. Makes making magnet motors so much easier, less parts. Just, OU...someone will have to think of the magic shape to make it happen.
Twisting those mags is lower torque than pulling apart in max attraction, but I bet it costs the same work in the end. OK, enough off-topic from me :-)
Hi Kator01,
It’s good to see more applications using magnets for common needs.
It looks like a process similar to the Fisher & Paykel Smart drive motors for reducing cogging.
Here’s a link
http://www.thebackshed.com/windmill/WhatFP.asp
Notice how the ferrite is magnetized N S N S in the shape of arrows in the last picture.
Sounds like more companies are catching on. ;)
Howard
what I would like to understand is how people can't see past the illusion of Kinetic energy transfer.
Gravity and Magnetism only transfer kinetic energy. they are carriers of the kinetic force.
the only thing you can improve on such devices is their means to 'store' kinetic energy more efficiently!
I suggest a few M.I.T classes would help out a lot.
Jerry 8)
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on November 29, 2009, 01:59:39 AM
what I would like to understand is how people can't see past the illusion of Kinetic energy transfer.
Gravity and Magnetism only transfer kinetic energy. they are carriers of the kinetic force.
the only thing you can improve on such devices is their means to 'store' kinetic energy more efficiently!
I suggest a few M.I.T classes would help out a lot.
Jerry 8)
Jerry,
I don’t believe there are any illusions, the YOG harness kinetic energy from the magnetic array. It will store the kinetic energy until released and transfer into another form of energy like electricity.
Generally, pendulums have similar abilities in storing kinetic energy like a flywheel.
There is research today underway to transfer this into electricity. It’s known as â€flywheel technology†and is being conducted by MIT and NASA among many other companies.
I am among the few researchers in the pendulum category.
Here are some reference links:
http://www-power.eecs.berkeley.edu/publications/theses/PerryPhDThesis.pdf
http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/04/08/flywheel-energy-storage-a-much-greener-90-efficient-battery/
I really don’t feel like debating with every forum member who disagree, please be patience there will be more data.
Respectfully ;)
Howard
Hi Howard.
might I suggest using better engineering tactics to promote your YOG.
use radii lines directly on the YOG wheel with some top dead center above it, take some direct video shots on the top dead center so we can view the radii gain.
then place the pendulum at say 3 o'clock position at start and release it, the pendulum should if you are correct pass up the 9 o'clock position on the opposite side if the magnets are indeed adding energy to the system.
try to avoid all the angled video shots and rely more on accurate measurement shots, I am a stickler for accuracy measurements and good reliable data.
if you can please the mathematicians then you have it made. that's where it's at.
thanks for the videos and any in the future you may make. it passes my time when I've watched everything else under the sun.
Jerry 8)
CuttingEdge:
Quotethen place the pendulum at say 3 o'clock position at start and release it, the pendulum should if you are correct pass up the 9 o'clock position on the opposite side if the magnets are indeed adding energy to the system
.
Chances are the pendulum will pass the 9 o'clock position but that will not be proof that the magnets are adding energy to the system.
If you pass 9 o'clock swinging from right to left then you have to do the test in the other direction. When you release the pendulum at 9 o'clock the pendulum will not make it to 3 o'clock, because the magnets are taking energy out of the system.
The added energy in the first swing is canceled out by the lost energy in the second swing.
MileHigh
Onthecuttingedge,
Although I do feel that am sharing, instead of promoting here.
I did a similar test that you mentioned that was posted on this thread. It’s called the YOG gain method.
There is gain, experiments not only from me but from three others mentioned on this thread from magnets.
Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2009, 01:10:42 PM
CuttingEdge:
Chances are the pendulum will pass the 9 o'clock position but that will not be proof that the magnets are adding energy to the system.
If you pass 9 o'clock swinging from right to left then you have to do the test in the other direction. When you release the pendulum at 9 o'clock the pendulum will not make it to 3 o'clock, because the magnets are taking energy out of the system.
The added energy in the first swing is canceled out by the lost energy in the second swing.
MileHigh
MileHigh,
There you go again trying to confuse people.
Once the orientation has been changed it does go past the 3 o’clock position. It’s shown in my video with the servo. ???
And before the new comers jump up a down, yes…. the servo requires energy to turn … for haven sake :(
Howard
ALL,
Well, the power test results are in and to me the results are disappointing with this turbine.
I used an Ametek 38V DC servo as the turbine. It has the lowest drag resistance that I was able to get my hands on. In the picture below you can see the skew iron on the armature. This reduces the cogging to the point where I wasn’t able to feel it with my fingers.
The test was performed on the YOG during one cycle starting at the 2 o’clock position and just letting it swing once. I then repeated this test ten times and averaged the high voltage reading unloaded.
Lead weight = 16 volts dc average
Drive magnet = 17 volts dc average
No weight = 23 volts dc average
Note: I didn’t measure time of production.
The return swing wasn’t that great either. I will have to increase the counter weight to get better oscillating motion. I also may have to change the magnetic array configuration in order to get a stronger force pushing the drive magnet or just find better turbine.
Howard Johnson was able to measure 12-14lbs of force on the train with his magnetic array as seen in this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndRrCZiM1CU
If I can achieve this I may probably have it made without scaling.
Howard
Here's the picture of the Ametek 38vdc
Hi,
Here’s a picture of my toroids that just came in today.
I may decide to use them for my loop back circuit or just make a joule thief attached to the turbine. I will still need to think it through before I get to that point.
Howard
Quote from: MileHigh on November 29, 2009, 01:10:42 PM
...
If you pass 9 o'clock swinging from right to left then you have to do the test in the other direction. When you release the pendulum at 9 o'clock the pendulum will not make it to 3 o'clock, because the magnets are taking energy out of the system.
The added energy in the first swing is canceled out by the lost energy in the second swing.
MileHigh
It is correct.
The pendulum oscillates around an equilibrium position depending on its potential in the field in which it moves.
If the field is only the gravitational field, the equilibrium position is on the vertical line passing by the axis.
If there is an added magnetic field, then the equilibrium position is shifted right or left, depending on the relative polarity of the magnets. Without observing a gain in the amplitude of several successive swings, it is not possible to conclude anything.
ALL,
Here’s a video I did recently.
Basic magnetic array track. A review of attraction vs repulsion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYY1y3EA6iY
Howard
Great work Yu.
For those looking at the equilibrium position being shifted right or left check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gotoluc#p/a/f/2/w9P3Rh3Q_gI
If the magnets are shifting the equilibrium in Yu's machine then this may be just another way of explaining what is going on. Looks like a possible way to get OU to me.
Keep up the good work Yu.
Bill
Quote from: maw2432 on December 15, 2009, 09:17:22 PM
Great work Yu.
For those looking at the equilibrium position being shifted right or left check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/user/gotoluc#p/a/f/2/w9P3Rh3Q_gI
If the magnets are shifting the equilibrium in Yu's machine then this may be just another way of explaining what is going on. Looks like a possible way to get OU to me.
Keep up the good work Yu.
Bill
great video!
this is a much easier way to keep the pendulum swinging with very little input. over unity is so near i can smell it.
peace
ALL,
I just got my shipment in today of a wind turbine.
It’s a Ginlong 500A and the wiring setup is for higher amps.
Here’s a link to the specs
http://www.ginlong.com/wind-turbine-pmg-pma-permanent-magnet-generator-alternator-GL-PMG-500A.htm
It’s harder to turn with my hand then I was hoping for but I guess that’s because it contains very strong neo magnets.
I’m going to try to break in the bearings and see if that helps.
Happy Holidays :D
Howard Yu
Yu very nice generator. How much in US dollars?
Keep up the great work.
Bill
Maw2432 and FreeEnergy
Thanks guys for the support! I have been getting great responses from people all over the world. Thank you all so very much. I do feel bad I haven’t been able to respond to all as I would like to but I will try to do better as my workload allows. :)
@ Maw2432
That cost me $450 plus shipping. I don’t recommend the replicators to buy one just yet. I still need to test it out first. My plans for it has many purpose other then the OU YOG Model. I plan to use it for the Wind YOG model as well, So for me I can justify the expenditure.
Right now I’m at the step function part of the OU YOG Model. I have two methods that I still need to test out to be sure. One with input electricity and one without. Hopefully I can avoid scaling it up but a lot of the results are pointing towards increasing the gain strength of the array.
Well, stay tune guys, as I will be posting results as they develop.
It should be around after the Holidays.
Howard
Basic magnetic array track. A review of attraction vs repulsion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYY1y3EA6iY
ALL here and ALL sending outside replies,
I’m ready to release the method that I feel is better than the wind vane method.
This will remove any input electricity needed for the YOG.
There have been a lot of great replies on orientating the drive magnet. Thank you all very much for your suggestions.
This method is called the “Magnet Throw Method†and the reason why I decided to choose this route is because I feel this will be easier for the replicators to build and confirm this technology getting it out the door. Note I have not build and tested this method yet. I have been going over this for a while now and it’s time to release it.
This method uses a small lever to throw the drive magnet forward. The small lever has a magnet on the bottom end that will temporary hold its position while the counterweight launches the main lever forward causing the flip while passing the fixed magnet.
Once the drive magnet has completed its flip the counterweight will allow the small lever to release its position without loss of kinetic and gravitational potential energy. It’s as if I was releasing it at the start position, which is the point of the fixed magnet.
I hope I this was able to explain that clearly.
Sometime after the holidays I will be posting the results.
Happy Holidays
Howard Yu
Come on!!! What is this?? It all comes down to the pull/push effect when turning the mag on the pendulum. "Sigh" This can be accomplished by anyone with a little knowledge how mags works.
He he, actually, think about it. All our powerplants contains humungus pendulums swingin back and forth like an old clock from 1805 just to get a generator in motion. I don't know about you guys but I'd keep my powerplant a well guarded secret just for the sake of keeping my dignity intact for the reason that I couldn't come up with something better, ha ha!
I'm sorry if I stepped on any toes here with my comment but you got to do better than this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certain it works as stated but in my world, that has to be the dumbest proposition yet in alternative power source!
I have a large stepper motor that will put out 60v at 4 amps without too much drag. Used in this context, I could see it deliver more than enough output to power a reversing unit for the top magnet. Since the top magnet will be out of the field of influence, the switch over would be without effort. Small geared motor with trigger and limits would do the trick. I used the same idea in a weight movement experiment and it worked well.
So what is all the guff being given this guy? Just for the hell of it? I see again the one flicking the garbage is a less than 10 poster. New handle, same old garbage. Nothing better to do.
Wattbuilder, you have a winner, fly with it. Might want to make your charging system monitor the output and cut out the charger if it drops below a certain level. That will keep the pendulum in motion and not stall it.
thay
Thanks Thay,
Interesting about monitor the output. The funny thing that came to mind was a pacemaker maintaining a heart beat for some reason?
Looks like your able to see what I see. It makes me think sometimes what’s with some people.
To ALL,
I’m just waiting on a shipment to get in. Hopefully increasing the strength of the array will go smooth.
I hope you all had a great time over the holidays.
Howard
You don't see the picture here.
The business of aviation, cars, tools or whatever, pick one, they are all planning and building tomorrows technology. They all anounce from time to time new ideas, never seen solutions etc. bla bla bla, but the thing is that nothing is actually new anywhere. It is just basically refined old shit. The only time it was new was when it started, take for example the car. The beginning of that is when the world for the first time saw the piston based engine, the steam engine. That idea has refined to combustion engine containing, yeah... pistons. It's now over 100 years old and still with us in our cars, bikes etc.
So what am I saying? Whatever new with that it is still old. They can add flat proof tyres, autopilot, anything that makes a drive as safe and comfortable as possible but it is still all old. It's like renewing the wheel over and over again but it's still a wheel.
Well, like my first post, it's just an opinion!
Hello ALL,
I have new video ready of the “ Yu Oscillating Generator’s “ new array.
The Yog is the only generator in history that can harness wind energy, kenetic energy from waves, Tidal currents underwater and in this video proof from magnets.
The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Enjoy !!!
Howard Yu
Very nice video Howard!
I really like the force meter, that's a great thing.
You seem to be measuring the intertial "hit" on the exit side, and the peak resistance of the sticky spot, which is logical at first glance. I then get to wonder...can both really be compared that way, in the same unit of measure? I mean, let's say exageratingly you have a 10 inch long sticky spot halfway the lever, averaging .2lb. When you slowly push it through, without benificial gate behind it, you would be shedding quite a bit of inertia on your way through it.
Simple example : lever speed 20 inches per second hitting the sticky spot. Taking consistent "drag", providing you JUST make it all the way through, you'd average 10 inches per second through the sticky spot, making it take exactly one second. Negative thrust is 0.2Lbs. Here's where my physics knowledge is rusty. How many Joules would the sticky spot then rob?
The inertial force hitting (being absorbed while measuring) at the exit, tell us how heavy a weight could be momentarily be lifted supported without heiight gain, right? I wonder whether a tap of the same impulse could get you through the sticky spot on the way in.
If you could try and estimate the length and average of the sticky spot, you might be a step closer to proving gain beyond anyone's doubt.
Good luck with your progress,
J
Thanks Cloxxki,
Yeah, I thought the force meter would be a brain tickler ;)
Actually the lever weighs less than 0.1 lbs. and there is friction force loss from the air drag and bearings. After saying that I will like to point out that the force measurement of the output should really be a lot higher If I was measuring closer to the output end of the array instead. In the video you will see that I measured extremely far away on purpose and still got a terrific gain of energy of 300% at that point.
Now for the sticky spot, the force gauge started at zero to 0.3 lbs. for a certain amount of length. The noticeable reading are shown only when I enter the magnetic field. The length of the input force is nowhere near the length of the output. You can actually see me at the beginning of the video releasing the lever with my hand causing the lever to slowly drift downwards. Then you will see me lift the lever higher closer to the array and the array pulls it into the end to hold.
Remember the Yu Effect is when you apply kinetic energy to a magnet through a magnetic array, you will get a gain of kinetic energy out the other end from the magnet.
Basically it eliminates the sticky spot problem ….. no more worries !
The kinetic energy applied to the magnet is from the Yu Oscillating Generator’s bottom counterweight. Yes it’s that simple !
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Regards,
Howard Yu
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
A minor point, but I wondered if when you first released the swing arm on the left (left in the video), if what was shown was magnetic attraction, or a function of the counterweight, or both? Thanks
Hi Howard,
Hmm,
energy is force x distance.
When you only need 0.3 Newton for 5 cm you need
0.3 Newton x 5 cm = 1.5 Newtoncm of energy to push the rotor-magnet-arm into the array.
But when you hit the forcemeter it is only maybe a few Millimeters,
so you get maybe 1.3 Newton x 0.5 cm= 0.65 Newtoncm
of energy out.
So I found your last video with the remote control much
more convincing.
Too bad you did not work with pickup coils around your magnets
and store this energy to turn the magnets on the rotor arm.
This would then be the final proof that it would selfrun.
Regards, Stefan.
i find it extremely odd that it is now top heavy,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk&feature=related
this one appears not to be this way
i don't believe this to be proof of OU,
firstly because your set up is top heavy
your lever starts at the base of the track, and does lift it up the the 90* mark and past it, but everything after that is gravity
does the difference in weight happen to be about 1.3 pounds?
if so it might be the momentum of the difference in weight
to prove OU you could simply balance your lever, this would show your track is overcoming the friction
i agree with stefen, if this is the video he was refering to, bc this one appears to have gain whereas i can't see the top heavy version being able to reset itself
Happyfunball,
I’m a little disappointed in the video upload to YouTube. There seems to be a slight audio delay. The drive magnet’s north pole is in the front of the travel direction where you see the iron. The attraction is due to the south pole on the backside of the drive magnet pulling towards the north’s on the array.
Stefan,
Well, I was thinking that if I could prove energy gains from the array then everything else to prove on the YOG would be self explanatory.
When calculating energy (force x distance) the start of the length should really begin just right after the sticky spot because the magnets pushes the lever through the array.
The force meter shows force at a certain point between sticky spot to the floor.
Mr bojangles,
I tried to factor out gravity as much as possible for this experiment. But in order to keep the lever from floating around ( weight less ) there is a slight over balance to the top on purpose.
The difference of 1.3 lbs is not the gravity. That’s why the very first measurement was the lever. In the video it show less than 0.1 lbs.
The track does over come the friction. You can clearly see it pushing it through with the drag on the lever.
Regards,
Howard Yu
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard,
I really like what you have done so far.
Question:
Any luck on making the magnet flip on its own when the arm reaches one side or another?
I have been thinking about it and I have NOT been able to come up with a method that I am sure would work.
Rich
Quote from: ragnew on January 19, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
Howard,
I really like what you have done so far.
Question:
Any luck on making the magnet flip on its own when the arm reaches one side or another?
I have been thinking about it and I have NOT been able to come up with a method that I am sure would work.
Rich
Hey Rich,
The graphic below shows a method that I have tested successfully, It works quite well with fairly heavy weights on top of the pendulum. I have not tested the rig with a magnetic ramp yet. I was attempting to test the idea that the reversing action pumps the pendulum. I have successfully made that automatic reverser which is driven by air resistance. I have not proven the pumping action yet so maybe Howard is on to something with his magentic ramp. My pendulum is about 10' tall so there is plenty of time during the swing for the fin to reverse the magnet before it reaches top center on the return trip. As I mentioned, I have not proven the self pumping action, but I need to rebuild my rig with better balance and better bearings etc. to give it a fair test.
The tail fin I made from a plastic lid off a large coffee can which is just the right stiffness and is easy to cut out and puncture for mounting. You could attach a much larger fin if you want the action to be more pronounced. It is interesting to watch and it does effectively reverse the top weight on each half of the cycle.
I hope Howard tries it on his apparatus.
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 19, 2010, 09:27:29 AM
Happyfunball,
I’m a little disappointed in the video upload to YouTube. There seems to be a slight audio delay. The drive magnet’s north pole is in the front of the travel direction where you see the iron. The attraction is due to the south pole on the backside of the drive magnet pulling towards the north’s on the array.
Thanks for the reply.
el-tigre,
Thank you for your thoughts. You choose an interesting way to do this. I was not thinking along those lines.
I will have to do some testing.
Rich
If the YOG is overunity, then a powered switching device for the magnet shouldnt be an issue. Assuming the YOG will drive a generator/ electric motor, it would be a simple matter of using a stored charge (rechargeable battery) for the first few passes until the YOG can generate power, which would then recharge the battery. Basically the same as a car's ignition. Right?
Quote from: ragnew on January 19, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
I really like what you have done so far.
Question:
Any luck on making the magnet flip on its own when the arm reaches one side or another?
Thanks Ragew,
I have all the parts here now ready to go …. but I have decided to put a hold on the project for now. The reason why I decided to do this is because even if I built this there will be still doubt.
At this point it all comes down to the array.
@El-Tigre,
Great work your doing their !
The array will try to twist the wind vane and you may run into alignment issues like I have but there is a way to over come this.
Have your drive magnet face north into the array and also have your array in the shape of “ U “ upside down. Just picture my array with walls on the side.
One other thing if you slightly tilt it forward or back you can control the direction of turn.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 19, 2010, 05:48:05 PM
If the YOG is overunity, then a powered switching device for the magnet shouldnt be an issue. Assuming the YOG will drive a generator/ electric motor, it would be a simple matter of using a stored charge (rechargeable battery) for the first few passes until the YOG can generate power, which would then recharge the battery. Basically the same as a car's ignition. Right?
@Happyfunball,
Your right. If you look back to Broli’s picture on this thread you will see a picture of many YOG’s in front of each other lined up. When you have them in a modular array like that, you will get an OU Engine. Just picture the turbine shaft longer to reach all the YOG’s with one-way sprockets.
@ ALL
My claim still stands on it’s own merit.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard
To ALL Moderators,
Shouldn’t this video be great news and the topic be posted on the forum’s homepage news list ?
Here are the grounds to post it.
1. I have achieved Overunity.
2. I have proved The Yu Oscillating Generator can harness energy from magnets.
3. All Inventors and researchers working towards energy from magnets now have more merit and they are not all crazy.
4. I am the first to “Publicly prove energy gain from magnetsâ€. Simply because there is no data available measuring In vs. Out with a meter publicly. (No hands)
5. Most importantly ! Lives can be saved.
Posting this as news would advance further peer review.
My claim still stands on it’s own.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard
theoretically your input should be the difference in weight of the lever plus friction
your video does not prove anything, your starting point is higher than the point you are gathering your output from, your output meter should be at the same height and degree that you start the lever at
your starting the weight at like 60* and letting it fall almost 150*
and since your lever is top heavy the only gain you can claim is the distance the magnets start until the lever is upright and slightly past the 90* mark, because anything past that is gravity which is where you are getting your force,
changing it and making it top heavy most likely makes it more inefficient
Mr Bojangles,
It looks like you did not bother to read my post to you. The lever weighs 0.1 Pounds for the experiment. Think it over again. You will find that when you drop something that weighs 0.1 pounds from 8 feet 3 inches “ which is the height from the middle of my array to the floorâ€.
You won’t even get close to 1.3 pounds by far.
It’s common sense right ? ???
My claim still stands on it’s own merit.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard
Hi Howard,
As you're finding out, it's not so easy to have those who've been disappointed in the past declare OU from a video. A convincing video of a car would be pretty hard to do, had the thing not been invented yet. I hope this will not discourage you.
My concern, from the video would be that the work put into the lever to break through the sticky point, is rather large for the amount of balance in the system. Like a long soft spring.
If I understand the Yu effect correctly, this fixed amount of negative work will be decimized by initial inertia and mass in the system, while the array would be better able to speed up the lever when already in motion, past its entry velocity into the sticky spot? This makes me wonder why H. Johnson never seemed able to exhibit the Yu effect, at least replicably. A second identical gate for this train, and it would have shot through that at increased exit speed?
With the amount of gain you seem to be getting from the array, it seems to me that persuing the tail fin to have a self-runner would be relatively easy for huge amounts of convincing proof. If the gain can't flip a fin 180degrees in it's spot, it'll hard to measure it amount on such a large aparatus anyway. I realize the self-centering will need to be pretty good, but you managed it would the remore controlled servo just fine. A slight damper on the bearing might do the trick. Oherwise, a guide rail.
Looking forward to your next move,
J
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 20, 2010, 05:41:07 PM
To ALL Moderators,
Shouldn’t this video be great news and the topic be posted on the forum’s homepage news list ?
Here are the grounds to post it.
1. I have achieved Overunity.
2. I have proved The Yu Oscillating Generator can harness energy from magnets.
3. All Inventors and researchers working towards energy from magnets now have more merit and they are not all crazy.
4. I am the first to “Publicly prove energy gain from magnetsâ€. Simply because there is no data available measuring In vs. Out with a meter publicly. (No hands)
5. Most importantly ! Lives can be saved.
Posting this as news would advance further peer review.
My claim still stands on it’s own.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs)
Howard
do you plan on sending Stefan your invention? or maybe a replica?
or you can just send it to me :-)
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 20, 2010, 07:16:05 PM
Mr Bojangles,
It looks like you did not bother to read my post to you. The lever weighs 0.1 Pounds for the experiment. Think it over again. You will find that when you drop something that weighs 0.1 pounds from 8 feet 3 inches “ which is the height from the middle of my array to the floorâ€.
You won’t even get close to 1.3 pounds by far.
It’s common sense right ? ???
My claim still stands on it’s own merit.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard
Hi Howard, it is no valid measurement.
You must measure the integral of the force over the distance:
Energy= Integral F ds
Where:
F=Force
s=distance
d= delta
If you only measure peak F values you don´t do it right.
Better try to wire a few coils around your magnets and use
their output to change the direction f the rotor magnet
and thus show a selfrunner.
Regards, Stefan.
Hi Howard,
I had a thought that may help you. If you build a tail fin reverser, and use your remote control gear to operate a simple solenoid latch which will lock it in place after it flips over, then no one can argue your servo is putting more energy into the system.
Just open the latch when the pendulum reverses and close it before it reaches your magnet array. This will keep your drive manget from twisting and will demonstrate that the servo can't put any energy into the system. I was thinking of designing a mechanical latch for this set up, maybe actuated by a small pendulum or a trip lever.
Keep on experimenting and remember, the theories all have to be revised when the experiments prove them wrong. Earnshaw is a great example, and it wasn't so many years ago that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. ;D
@ Cloxxki,
Correct, The Yu Effect eliminates the sticky spot problem.
As for Howard Johnson who I have the highest respect for. I can’t figure out why he did not measure the output force and show it publicly.
I hope the picture and drawing below helps you out with your concerns. In the picture you will see the lever resting at the start of the field because of the north facing north.
In the drawing you will see the input and output ranges. It’s a big difference.
Note: for the new readers - the term Sticky Spot refers to the resistance spot.
@ FreeEnergy,
The YOG is too large to ship but Stefan should have plenty of magnets lying around his shop to test the array.
@ Stefan,
My measurements are legitimate and are sufficient to prove OU.
I believe your point of view is looking at the entire energy capabilities of the array. It’s not required to prove OU.
In my drawing you will see I measured the force at point “F†which is more than enough to just prove OU. You can pick a point anywhere from “C†to the floor “I†and it will still show gain.
If you review the picture and drawing you can clearly see the length and force from “A†to “B†is less than the length and force from “B†to “Iâ€
You can also see the acceleration as clear as day.
Respectfully Stefan, I achieved OU conclusive from magnets and it should be allowed to be posted as news for advancement of further peer review.
@ el-tigre,
Thank you for suggestions. I think at this point for me is to get right down to it. Because no matter what I build, the array will be the final key.
Although I must admit judging by the history of other claims. It seems that If I put on a dog and pony show I will get more recognition for my work or hold back secrets and allow for mystery. In the future, the world will look back during these times and we will be judged. Hopefully it wont be so severe.
My claim still stands on it’s own merit.
This Video is conclusive proof I have achieved OU.
Video: The Yu Effect â€" proof of energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Regards,
Howard
Ok Stefan,
Your right.
I should not use the striking force.
I can live with that. I will just have to find a better way to measure.
I now stand down from my latest video claiming Conclusive Proof that I have achieved OU.
Regards,
Howard G. Yu
your picture shows what i was referring to
because your system is top heavy, the only work you need to put into it is the difference in weight until it goes past 90* and falls,
what you have neglected to think about is that if it does go all the way to the floor, your input has now increased because you now have to move the lever from the floor all the way back up to the magnet array, which is a lot more distance than the magnets who move it only like 30*
why not just put a couple gears on it, and use the torque to spin your magnet, or build two so they can power each other
you can't claim proof until you have a runner....
Quote from: mr_bojangles on January 23, 2010, 12:45:27 PM
because your system is top heavy, the only work you need to put into it is the difference in weight until it goes past 90* and falls,
Mr Bonjangles,
The lever is less than 0.1 pounds or less than 45.359 grams or less than 1.6 ounces. I made it top heavy only for testing the array only.
If you still think gravity of 0.1 pounds is causing the gain of 1.3 pounds then ask a friend to drop a coin from 10 feet into your hand at the floor. You will find you’re not close to 1.3 pounds by far.
Quote from: mr_bojangles on January 23, 2010, 12:45:27 PM
what you have neglected to think about is that if it does go all the way to the floor, your input has now increased because you now have to move the lever from the floor all the way back up to the magnet array, which is a lot more distance than the magnets who move it only like 30*
I think you have neglected that the YOG has a pendulum in it’s design. The counter weight returns the cycle back to the array.
Beside the point, the entry point resistance gets eliminated by the YOG’s counterweight. Hence The Yu Effect.
Quote from: mr_bojangles on January 23, 2010, 12:45:27 PM
you can't claim proof until you have a runner....
Are you kidding me! of course I can. It’s math. The science community will have no choice to recognize my work.
I’m a measurement away from proving OU.
Howard
i don't understand why you modified your original design
i have only been talking about your most recent video, your old design doesn't behave in the same manner as this one, its the opposite,
"neglected that the YOG has a pendulum in it’s design. The counter weight returns the cycle back to the array."
what counterweight? your video does not have a pendulum, and a pendulum implies your design is now bottom heavy, which would not behave in the same manner as your current set up, thats irrelevant because that would change the input
if you show this same thing happening with a bottom heavy set up, or with a perfectly balanced lever then you could easily prove a gain (and your older videos seem to support this)
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 23, 2010, 04:47:54 PM
Mr Bonjangles,
The lever is less than 0.1 pounds or less than 45.359 grams or less than 1.6 ounces. I made it top heavy only for testing the array only.
I did not modified my design I only
temporary made it slightly top heavy so that I can measure the array’s forces without having the counterweight throwing off my measurements.
It was only for the array’s test. The reason why I made it slightly top heavy is because of the 10min time limit on YouTube videos. I don’t have all day waiting for the lever to stop floating around
(weight less) every time I touch it or wait for it to pick a side and slowly rest
before I can take a measurement. This is a clear as I can reply. If you still don’t get it. Just read it again or sleep on it. You will eventually see what I’m talking about.
Howard
hello, i give you credit for going with big diameter and weak mags. balance the wheel and show it, if it takes longer than 10 minutes, compress vid, use vegas pro
i dont understand what time restrictions have to do with anything,
a balanced lever would conclusively show a gain, and if you chose not to use a balanced lever because it didn't work, then it isn't a gain
that way you can show there is basically no input and whatever output you got could be considered gain
Quote from: X00013 on January 24, 2010, 12:53:24 AM
hello, i give you credit for going with big diameter and weak mags. balance the wheel and show it, if it takes longer than 10 minutes, compress vid, use vegas pro
X00013,
They are not weak magnets and compressing the video will not shorten the time. It will decrease the video quality.
Quote from: mr_bojangles on January 24, 2010, 03:50:56 AM
i dont understand what time restrictions have to do with anything, a balanced lever would conclusively show a gain, and if you chose not to use a balanced lever because it didn't work, then it isn't a gain
Bojangles,
I replied this to you. Please take the time to read. When you become a builder and place your videos on YouTube you will notice YouTube does not allow a recording time of over 10 minutes per video.
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 24, 2010, 12:17:08 AM
The reason why I made it slightly top heavy is because of the 10min time limit on YouTube videos. I don’t have all day waiting for the lever to stop floating around (weight less) every time I touch it or wait for it to pick a side and slowly rest before I can take a measurement.
This is a clear as I can reply. If you still don’t get it. Just read it again or sleep on it. You will eventually see what I’m talking about.
Howard
Quote from: mr_bojangles on January 24, 2010, 03:50:56 AM
that way you can show there is basically no input and whatever output you got could be considered gain
Bojangles,
I’m not even worried about the slight imperfection of the weight. For the reasons I have pointed out to you. I’m working on figuring out the best way to measure the Output. If I don’t get a positive gain IN vs OUT I still have the YU Effect to fall back on.
If you still have concerns. Be patience for my next video.
Howard
Video: The Yu Effect â€" Kinetic energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Great job Howard. Considering doing a build.
I am sorry to say that this design does not produce any free energy. The calculations are all wrong. Lift a rock up with your meter and then drop the rock on it. You will find the same results if not better.
Another way would be to do away with the magnets and drop the arm from the 11:59 position and take the reading. I bet you get the same reading if not better.
You will never produce enough energy to take the arm back to the starting point and or past. At least not with the design you are now showing.
I am not trying to burst your bubble but I do suggest that you think about it more before making such false claims.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 26, 2010, 09:57:47 PM
Great job Howard. Considering doing a build.
@Happyfunball,
Thanks,
A lot of the parts can be found at the local hardware store. You might want to make it smaller. That’s what I would do if I were to build another one. Going up and down that ladder can be a pain. My YOG is configured around a 7:1 ratio on the lever.
Note the array’s arc to the fulcrum is hard to change unless you redo the arc. If you decide later to increase the long side of the lever after you build the arc, you will have to redo the arc’s curve. Because the radius of the lever will end up hitting the ends of the array. I used a long piece of wood attached a router on one end and the other end I had a hole with a bolt thru the fulcrum to guide my cut.
If any body has any questions on building one let me know.
Howard
@Nightlife,
Your repeating the same points that was already addressed. I don’t see the point of repeating myself over and over. Please read again and stop guessing. Your welcome to do your own test.
Remember I do have it right here. What I report are the data I get.
I don’t view anybody that does not take the time to read seriously, Has it even cross your mind that I would have done that weight test first before posting a claim. Think
If you still have concerns. Be patience for my next video.
Howard
Video: The Yu Effect â€" Kinetic energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Quote"@Nightlife,
Your repeating the same points that was already addressed. I don’t see the point of repeating myself over and over. Please read again and stop guessing. Your welcome to do your own test."
LOL, I had already tested this a couple of years ago and I am telling you that you are not taking into account of the calculations needed. You can not just say the force of the hit is more then the force of the start. You have to calculate the distance in the mix.
Add the distance from the bottom to the exit and divide it by the drop force and then compare your findings to the start force or add the distance from the bottom to the the start and multiply it by the start force and compare that to the drop force. You have yet to show those figures which you must take into consideration. I did these things already and I am telling you that you are not even close to perpetual motion not to mention your false claims of over unity.
Nightlife,
You claim you tested this a couple of years ago? Ok then, lets see it! Where’s your video? I’m calling you out! I’m telling you can’t get 1.3 pounds from dropping 0.3 pounds from 10 feet. Isn’t the real fact is you’re the one making false claims.
Now you’re arguing about types of measurements. Again Please Read! You’re late. I posted this to Stefan.
Quote from: WattBuilder on January 22, 2010, 11:20:16 PM
Ok Stefan,
Your right.
I should not use the striking force.
I can live with that. I will just have to find a better way to measure.
I now stand down from my latest video claiming Conclusive Proof that I have achieved OU.
Regards,
Howard G. Yu
Nightlife, blowing your horn trumpet trying to show how smart you are, is not working. It’s clear I measured force and not energy. There for I can’t really say it’s conclusive proof YET. I’m working on different measurements in my next video.
I’m not to proud to admit it.
I dare you to.
If you still have concerns. Be patience for my next video.
Howard
Video: The Yu Effect â€" Kinetic energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Howard, there was no reason for me to have recorded my test because there was no gain to record. I will however give this next link to a u shaped array that I posted to prove to another member that I could pass thru a u shaped curve. The array you are about to see is one I have used many times in many different experiments because it is the best one I have been able to create for this type of use. I refer to this array as the nightlife array.
http://www.youtube.com/user/bcnightlife
I have since created jigs for making the array. This array has been used to do what you are doing as well as many different ways. The one I am now working on has three arms and four different arrays. I do not record my results unless they are what I hoped for.
I have started one array at 7 o'clock and ending at 1 o'clock. I would start the draw at 10 o'clock and it would pass over 12 and pass thru the gate at 1 o'clock but it would not go far enough around to be picked back up by the draw at 10 o'clock. I did however find that the arm traveled further around when I started the array at 7 o'clock then it did starting it at 10:00. I also found that the arm went further around starting at 12:01 without magnets then it did with the array starting at 10:00 and ending at 1:00.
QuoteNightlife,
You claim you tested this a couple of years ago? Ok then, lets see it! Where’s your video? I’m calling you out! I’m telling you can’t get 1.3 pounds from dropping 0.3 pounds from 10 feet. Isn’t the real fact is you’re the one making false claims.
I doubt you accounted for the weight of the arm which must be factored in.
You don't want to get into a pissing match with me. I am only trying to help you save some time. I am not book smart but common sense is one of my fortes. ;)
@nightlife
Do you think Howard thinks his arm will enter and exit the array without any additional force? He doesn't. This is magnetism combined with gravity/ momentum. There isn't any doubt that the YOG shows a gain in arm travel, the question is whether it's more than the force required to turn the arm magnet. It seems to me that we see increasing potential energy with which to turn the magnet. Imo it's not overunity for the first few passes but might be afterwards.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 29, 2010, 09:38:49 PM
@nightlife
Do you think Howard thinks his arm will enter and exit the array without any additional force? He doesn't. This is magnetism combined with gravity/ momentum. There isn't any doubt that the YOG shows a gain in arm travel, the question is whether it's more than the force required to turn the arm magnet. It seems to me that we see increasing potential energy with which to turn the magnet. Imo it's not overunity for the first few passes but might be afterwards.
LOL, as I said before, I already tested this. Gravity has an equal north and south just as does a magnet. Don't forget that. ;)
Quote from: nightlife on January 29, 2010, 09:52:43 PM
LOL, as I said before, I already tested this. Gravity has an equal north and south just as does a magnet. Don't forget that. ;)
Tested it how? The YOG shows increasing arm movement. Discounting the first half dozen passes, did you then try to harness the momentum to create a current/ power the arm magnet?
Quote from: happyfunball on January 29, 2010, 10:34:53 PM
Tested it how? The YOG shows increasing arm movement. Discounting the first half dozen passes, did you then try to harness the momentum to create a current/ power the arm magnet?
It does not show increasing arm movement aftr the gate that would be any different then the movement if the magnets were not used. As matter of fact, it slower after the gate then with it is without the use of magnets. He just has not properly calculated the factors. The only increasiing movement is from th start of the array to the end of the array. The moment it passes the gate, all the gain is lost. It is not really any different then having straight array that is lifted up like in this next video.
All I was doing is trying to save you all some tme but it is obvious that you don't believe me so I will stop trying to help. Good luck guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhX7BF9pL0
Quote from: nightlife on January 29, 2010, 10:59:53 PM
It does not show increasing arm movement aftr the gate that would be any different then the movement if the magnets were not used. As matter of fact, it slower after the gate then with it is without the use of magnets. He just has not properly calculated the factors. The only increasiing movement is from th start of the array to the end of the array. The moment it passes the gate, all the gain is lost. It is not really any different then having straight array that is lifted up like in this next video.
All I was doing is trying to save you all some tme but it is obvious that you don't believe me so I will stop trying to help. Good luck guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvhX7BF9pL0
It wouldn't be different without magnets? This goes back to the question of whether the momentum is gained by the shifting weight of the arm magnet. I think it has been shown that it is not, due to the point on the curve at which the magnet is rotated. As for a SMOT, they are essentially sloping magnetic ramps, the YOG's is different. But if the array can be classified as a SMOT (certainly not a typical SMOT), the point of the YOG is gravitational assistance as far as I can tell.
QuoteBut if the array can be classified as a classic SMOT, the point of the YOG is gravitational assistance.
The gravitational assistance is canceled out by the return back towards start with work left to return back to start. I had considered using a electromagnetic coil to help the assist back to start but then energy required is greater then the energy created. A jule theif may help in this but at best all we would get is a perprtual motion that would stop with the slightest amount of resistance added. I have not went that far with testing because I felt it was a waste of time. Another option was to cancel the magnetic field using a electromagnetiic coil after the arm was in the field to allow a smother exit canceling out the resistance of the gate. But again, the energy required trumps the enrgy created.
The arm's weight is a factor as is the distances traveled. Remember that when calculating. There is no sense in me explaining any more then I have already. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, you will eventually.
Quote from: nightlife on January 30, 2010, 12:14:24 AM
The gravitational assistance is canceled out by the return back towards start with work left to return back to start. I had considered using a electromagnetic coil to help the assist back to start but then energy required is greater then the energy created. A jule theif may help in this but at best all we would get is a perprtual motion that would stop with the slightest amount of resistance added. I have not went that far with testing because I felt it was a waste of time. Another option was to cancel the magnetic field using a electromagnetiic coil after the arm was in the field to allow a smother exit canceling out the resistance of the gate. But again, the energy required trumps the enrgy created.
The arm's weight is a factor as is the distances traveled. Remember that when calculating. There is no sense in me explaining any more then I have already. Either you get it or you don't. If you don't, you will eventually.
This is the crux of the hypothesis. I do think the first few passes need to be cancelled out of the equation. Howard, how about settling it and attempting to rig a YOG powered motor for the arm magnet. Any extra energy would be OU in theory.
Quote from: Nightlife on January 29, 2010, 09:29:58 PM
I doubt you accounted for the weight of the arm which must be factored in.
You don't want to get into a pissing match with me. I am only trying to help you save some time. I am not book smart but common sense is one of my fortes.
Nightlife,
So you did not do the test.
It sounds like now your basing my work on your own failures.
Quote from: Nightlife on January 29, 2010, 09:52:43 PM
LOL, as I said before, I already tested this. Gravity has an equal north and south just as does a magnet. Don't forget that.
We’ll it’s clear you didn’t. My array is not a SMOT. In my array the sticky spot is in the entrance of the array’s travel direction. SMOT’s are at the end of the travel direction. Apples and Oranges
Your mind keeps trying to justify it based on assumptions. You keep referring back to the weight of the lever. Look at the data. Can you see the lever weighing less than 0.1 pounds? Did your mind just blocked it out again? Don’t forget magnets have an unequal force with other magnets, It’s a fact.
Quote from: Nightlife on January 30, 2010, 12:14:24 AM
The gravitational assistance is canceled out by the return back towards start with work left to return back to start.
Do I really have to explain how a pendulum works now ?
Listen Nightlife I’m willing to help you but when you open discussions with me, Attacking my work, I will defend it.
Your posts are of no relevance to me. Anybody reading it can just see your reasoning.
Quote from: happyfunball on January 30, 2010, 12:47:24 AM
This is the crux of the hypothesis. I do think the first few passes need to be cancelled out of the equation. Howard, how about settling it and attempting to rig a YOG powered motor for the arm magnet. Any extra energy would be OU in theory.
@Happyfunball,
We’ll for now I want finish my measurements of the array.
I’m thinking of either placing a long spring attached to the probe of the force gauge to measure energy or attaching a string to the lever pulling a weight up off the ground. I haven’t made a final decision yet but I’m still looking for a better way.
Howard
Video: The Yu Effect â€" Kinetic energy gain from magnets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBtl0OTSccs
Hi Howard.
In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k ) you have already shown that you get energy gain.
Nobody can dispute that so there is really no need to try to show that again.
The only important thing now is: "Can you rotate swinging magnet with that energy gain?". If you can, than you have a selfrunner.
Keep up the good work!
Frenky
Quote from: futuristic on January 31, 2010, 04:15:24 AM
Hi Howard.
In this video (http://www.A.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k ) you have already shown that you get energy gain.
Nobody can dispute that so there is really no need to try to show that again.
The only important thing now is: "Can you rotate swinging magnet with that energy gain?". If you can, than you have a selfrunner.
Keep up the good work!
Frenky
Thanks Frenky,
If that’s how my supporters feel then I will advance my work to show it.
I will now move forward to demonstrate the “Throw Method†in my next video.
Howard
Hi howard I havn,t got much to say but keep going - you have been so gracious to all who have conversed with you.Its a greater credit to you than invention. Look forward to your next video.
SMOT arrays have been shown on youtube that power a runner
into an array, then accelerate the runner, then let the runner
exit the array. So in my opinion it has been shown that SMOT
arrays can be used to generate excess energy. There was no proof
provided that a magnetically reversed runner would go through
the array backward and also accelerate. So it's something to think about,
specifically, turning off the runner by moving it away from the array
(R^2 decreasing the field), on the retrace. The pendulum center
motion would then be biased slightly in one direction.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Thanks Dumbas,
It’s been my pleasure conversing with the members here. As they are truly more energy Out then In. :)
@Mscoffman,
Good point on turning off the runner magnet in one-way arrays, whether it’s a SOMT, a V-gate or HJ Circle Square gate; ect.
For me on those I like to rotate the runner magnet vertically, so on the return swing the magnet is out of the field. However I do feel those one-way arrays have a stronger force then the bi-directional arrays like the one I have on my test YOG. This area will certainly still need to be explored.
Howard
Mark, the problem is that a smot can not produce enough power to get the runner back into the array. This is the same problem that this design is going to have. You can reverse the polarities to throw the runner but it still is not powerfull enough to re-enter the array.
I provided a video of a runner being pulled in and then exiting an array but the problem is getting the runner back up to the hieght of the array to repeat the process. If a runner can not make it back and pass the point of start without assistance, it can not produce any excess energy. The assistance will cost more then the energy created. At best, the only thing that could be achieved is perpetual motion which would end with the slightest amount of load added. When dealing with magnets and or gravity, you are dealing with equal forces. Niether can be used to produce becuase equals can only copy each others oposite motion.
You can use a magnetic array to over come gravity's equal force but the array will not over comes it's own force. Just like you can use gravity to over come a magnetic arrays equal force but it will not over come it's own.
To over come the equal forces, you have to have an odd configuration. Like four arrays and three arms. If Howard was to use three differnt arms fixed as close to equal distances apart as he can get them, he may then be able to create free energy. He must over come the equal forces by using a odd configuration. 1 to 2 is not enough, it must be at least 2 to 3 and I suggest at least 3 to 4 to get the best results. This way you have 2 arms pushing one thru the gate at all times.
Quote from: nightlife on February 03, 2010, 08:21:17 AM
Mark, the problem is that a smot can not produce enough power to get the runner back into the array. This is the same problem that this design is going to have. You can reverse the polarities to throw the runner but it still is not powerfull enough to re-enter the array.
I provided a video of a runner being pulled in and then exiting an array but the problem is getting the runner back up to the hieght of the array to repeat the process. If a runner can not make it back and pass the point of start without assistance, it can not produce any excess energy. The assistance will cost more then the energy created. At best, the only thing that could be achieved is perpetual motion which would end with the slightest amount of load added. When dealing with magnets and or gravity, you are dealing with equal forces. Niether can be used to produce becuase equals can only copy each others oposite motion.
You can use a magnetic array to over come gravity's equal force but the array will not over comes it's own force. Just like you can use gravity to over come a magnetic arrays equal force but it will not over come it's own.
To over come the equal forces, you have to have an odd configuration. Like four arrays and three arms. If Howard was to use three differnt arms fixed as close to equal distances apart as he can get them, he may then be able to create free energy. He must over come the equal forces by using a odd configuration. 1 to 2 is not enough, it must be at least 2 to 3 and I suggest at least 3 to 4 to get the best results. This way you have 2 arms pushing one thru the gate at all times.
So far, all you have done is post a link to a SMOT. Not relevant in the least. What Howard is trying to do is not simply to utilize a magnetic array and gravity. Rather, it's the combination of a magnetic array and the momentum of a weighted pendulum. If you have a link to video of that, then post it. Otherwise, enough with the SMOT.
happyfunball, call it what ever you want but the bottom line is that magnet array is a smot design and the swinging pendulum is nothing more then a runner. He will not be able to get the penduum to swing back and fourth more then he would if he didn't use the magnet array. Anything used to return the pendulum will use up the energy created. You are dealing with equals. You must use a unequal configuration before you can even think about it possibly working without the need of outside assistance.
I am done here. Good luck to you all and if you would like some help, pm me.
Quote from: nightlife on February 03, 2010, 11:05:33 AM
happyfunball, call it what ever you want but the bottom line is that magnet array is a smot design and the swinging pendulum is nothing more then a runner. He will not be able to get the penduum to swing back and fourth more then he would if he didn't use the magnet array. Anything used to return the pendulum will use up the energy created. You are dealing with equals. You must use a unequal configuration before you can even think about it possibly working without the need of outside assistance.
I am done here. Good luck to you all and if you would like some help, pm me.
No, it's not a SMOT design. The YOG's array is boosted in the center, not a SMOT. Show me a pendulum which displays increasing gain with each pass. Equals? There's a visible gain. If you have any relevant videos or experiments, post a link.
Quote from: nightlife on February 03, 2010, 08:21:17 AM
Mark, the problem is that a smot can not produce enough power to get the runner back into the array. This is the same problem that this design is going to have. You can reverse the polarities to throw the runner but it still is not powerfull enough to re-enter the array.
@nightlife
Yes, I agree and realize that, but still I think your work shows that
it is possible to accelerate the weight. I have several ideas including
use of a pendulum and two vertically stacked mounted unidirectional
arrays, but getting the energy balance right is the key. The pendulum
would supply vertical lift to the runner then *mostly* get paid back
at the other end. It saves having to induce rotational momentum
into a heavy weight then extraction of the energy back out again
or just pitching it away.
It just seems that if SMOT can do acceleration, then other array types
should expect that too. What may not work, is to reenter an array
in reverse which may extract any potential energy gain back out.
Come-on though; It seems as if, however slowly, experimental progress
is being made. And I consider this exciting.
---
quote author=happyfunball link=topic=8051.msg226422#msg226422 date=1265208952]
So far, all you have done is post a link to a SMOT. Not relevant in the least.
What Howard is trying to do is not simply to utilize a magnetic array and
gravity. Rather, it's the combination of a magnetic array and the momentum
of a weighted pendulum. If you have a link to video of that, then post it.
Otherwise, enough with the SMOT.
[/quote]
This is why I didn't post a link...wattbuilder says his array is not SMOT.
But SMOT's does seem to have something about to say about other
array types.
:S:MarkSCoffman
ALL,
Here’s a picture of the Throw Method’s arm. I still need to install the fix magnets that will hold the small lever to throw the drive magnet forward.
If the fix magnets gives me too much problems, I will use some sort of lock and pin. (Mechanical or Electrical)
Howard
Thanks for the update
ALL,
Here’s where I am at with the “throw methodâ€.
It seems that the array on my test YOG is not strong enough.
What I’m finding is while the counter weight of the pendulum is flipping the small lever forward. The momentum is reduced greatly due to the fix position of the holding magnets. Another thing that was found was when the small lever finishes the flip. The main lever is at a closer position to the array, starting the next cycle. Instead of further away.
Conclusion is to not fight the momentum but to go with it. The YOG must have the room to advance or resistance losses will take over. A stronger array may still be a viable solution to this throw method.
Another thing that I mentioned earlier was the use of a lock and pin. I was thinking of using it at the end of the small lever. Allowing for advancement in the swing while locking it in at variable range positions ageist a backboard.
So far the original servo method seems to be the best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
The data I get still points towards a stronger array and increasing the scale.
For the new readers,
The reason why I’m trying these new methods is because I do not have the funding and resources to build a larger scale that will finalize everything. So the best I can do for now is to try to find a way to orientate the drive magnet under the parameters of the wooden test YOG you see.
Regards,
Howard
Dear Howard,
Great Work. You may want to check out the Lee-Tseung Lead Out theory Thread.
Quote
http://www.youtube.com/A?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
We have now examined the Yu Oscillator in greater detail. Here is my conversation with Mr. Cheung at the Hong Kong Invention Association.
Mr. Cheung: “Have you seen the Yu video. It looks like he is also Chinese. He is using a pendulum. You claimed that gravitational energy can be lead-out via a pulled pendulum. Does his device follow the Lead-Out Energy theory?â€
Tseung: “When the Lee-Tseung lead-out energy theory is applied to a pendulum, so long as there is tension in the string, gravitational energy can be lead-out. The Yu Oscillator has no string. However, it is the equivalent of an unbalanced wheel. In our presentation slides, we already explained that the unbalanced wheel is equivalent to a pendulum.â€
Mr. Cheung: “Can you explain it again using the Yu Oscillator as example?â€
Tseung: “Let us take an unbalanced wheel with additional weight on the bottom. If we pull the weight in the clockwise direction, when we let go, the weight will swing back in the anti-clockwise direction. The behavior is exactly like that of a pendulum. In our calculation of applying a horizontal pull to a pendulum, the lead-out gravitational energy is approximately 50% of the supplied horizontal energy.â€
Mr. Cheung: “Are you claiming that gravitational energy is lead-out by the Yu Oscillator?â€
Tseung: “Yes. However, the supplied energy in the Yu Oscillator is not from a Pulse Coil. It is from the Howard Johnson type actuator.â€
Mr. Cheung: “Can stationary permanent magnets impart energy?â€
Tseung: “There is a magnet at the tip of the moving rod. This magnet can gain kinetic energy and move faster in a suitably configured magnetic field.â€
Mr. Cheung: “Are you claiming that there are two mechanisms at work here. One is the lead-out gravitational energy. One is the lead-out magnetic energy from the actuator?â€
Tseung: “That is my best understanding so far.â€
Our Tong Wheel has already demonstrated that the Output energy is greater than Input energy. We are inviting independent scientists to double check the experimental results in Hong Kong. Mr. Rasa of the AMURT.NET organization is helping a City Government of China to bring OU inventors for a meeting or conference. You will be most welcome.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u3fOwkiM7U
The Howard Johnson magnetic actuator set up.
An object can gain kinetic energy when it falls under the gravitational field. A magnet should be able to gain kinetic energy when it moves under the influence of a suitably arranged magnetic field. This does not violate any laws of Physics.
The Yu oscillator can gain kinetic energy when the magnet at the tip of the rod passes through the magnetic actuator set up.
Howard, your Yu Oscillator does not violate any Laws of Physics. Continue your brilliant work!
Happy Chinese New Year of the Tiger.
Quote from: ltseung888 on February 14, 2010, 08:13:40 AM
Our Tong Wheel has already demonstrated that the Output energy is greater than Input energy. We are inviting independent scientists to double check the experimental results in Hong Kong. Mr. Rasa of the AMURT.NET organization is helping a City Government of China to bring OU inventors for a meeting or conference. You will be most welcome.
Lawrence Tseung
Director
Help Seedlings Innovate Foundation Limited
Hello Mr. Tseung,
Congratulations to you and your team’s terrific work over there.
Inviting scientists to double check your results shows a great deal of honor on your part.
I will contact Mr. Rasa of the AMURT.NET organization to request further information on the conference.
Happy Chinese New Year !!!
Sincerely,
Howard Yu
Quote from: WattBuilder on February 14, 2010, 11:55:19 PM
Hello Mr. Tseung,
Congratulations to you and your A’s terrific work A.
Inviting scientists to double check your results shows a great deal of honor on your part.
I will contact Mr. Rasa of the AMURT.NET organization to request further information on the conference.
Happy Chinese New Year !!!
Sincerely,
Howard Yu
The email of Rasa is rasaviharii@hotmail.com. The conference is planned for mid-April. One of the guests is John Bedini. I spoke to the organizer a few minutes ago. He had a list of at least four Chinese Inventors. He asked me to help to invite more.
Mr Tseung,
Well, it looks like I will not be able to attend the conference in Hong Kong.
Regards,
Howard
@Wattbuilder
Relative to this you-tube video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
It would be better if the
magnets on the YOG were mounted directly inline with
the servo motor shaft and pendulum staff. This could be
accomplished by gluing them onto a plastic disk or other
method. Then use a visual sign to indicate the direction
of the magnets by a method that is balanced in weight in
both directions. Like painting a black arrow in one direction
and a pastel arrow in the other on a white background,
to make it easy to manually actuate the servo.
Currently some of the gain is due to overbalancing
the pendulum. It may still work with the new method
though, and would be more honest. Currently some
of the energy from the servo is pumping the pendulum
directly through overbalancing and cannot possibly
be overunity, coming from the unbalanced YOG head.
I am interested in seeing what would happen when
all of the additional energy comes from the magnetic
array.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on February 18, 2010, 02:28:26 PM
@Wattbuilder
Relative to this you-tube video;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
It would be better if the
magnets on the YOG were mounted directly inline with
the servo motor shaft and A staff. This could be
accomplished by gluing them onto a plastic disk or other
method. Then use a visual sign to indicate the direction
of the magnets by a method that is balanced in weight in
both directions. Like painting a black arrow in one direction
and a pastel arrow in the other on a white background,
to make it easy to manually actuate the servo.
Mark,
In the past I did a test to something similar to what I think you are talking about. It’s on page 5 in this thread.
Quote from: mscoffman on February 18, 2010, 02:28:26 PM
Currently some of the gain is due to overbalancing
the pendulum. It may still work with the new method
though, and would be more honest. Currently some
of the energy from the servo is pumping the pendulum
directly through overbalancing and cannot possibly
be overunity, coming from the unbalanced YOG head.
There is an unbalance, however it’s not a bad thing. The assistance of the off balance gravity does help. Think about it …. Why Not ….
Imagine tipping a boulder off a hill, just to have it returned back to tip it off the hill again.
Now some of you guys are wondering if the energy from the falling boulder is greater than the energy to tip it? We’ll it certainly is.
Quote from: mscoffman on February 18, 2010, 02:28:26 PM
I am interested in seeing what would happen when
all of the additional energy comes from the A
array.
:S:MarkSCoffman
In my last video using the force gauge. I was trying to demonstrate that with measurements.
It seems that there is doubt.
Here’s one way to look at it. Energy = force X length. I get a force that depends on how strong of magnets I use for a length depending on how long my array is. The resistance entering the array is eliminated due to the gravity acting on the counterweight of the YOG. Hence the Yu Effect.
I’m within the laws of physics. The YOG does work. These methods I show to rotate or flip the drive magnet are to please the general public. Actually, using the servo is more practical in a commercialization roll out of energy producing.
I see farms of these similar to the windmill farms. These units will be outdoors or in large hangers type buildings. Each YOG will stand 60 feet in the air. Producing at least 1 megawatt each out performing the windmills of today. The source to power the servos will come from renewable energy technology like tidal, wind, and solar. This technology will lead the national standard in energy storage. A cleaner earth.
Howard
@wattbuilder;
It's good to see that overbalancing actually works as a method.
It's just that non-overunity processes are not going to result
in a net energy gain...Energy spent accelerating overbalancing
weight is needed to be paid back from the pendulum energy
watt for watt, by a generator operating below 100% efficiency.
...I suspect people won't want to run their electricity through
a Yog pendulum, just for grins.
Overunity magnetic array acceleration is real IMHO in my opinion
...and it is too bad we can't have a clean demonstration of it.
---
FYI:
On another subject...It is very easy to control a model
servo motor from a very small and inexpensive circuit
called an NE555 timer IC generating a PPM pulse percentage
proportional modulation signal. The NE555 could be
connected to two photo-resistors and controlled by a chart
paper that rotates at the axis of the pendulum. The chart
would cause the servo motor to rotate to whatever angle
you setup, by ink on the chart paper, for a given angle of
the pendulum. This would completely automate the YOG
servo motor and get rid of the necessity of the heavy radio
control console, plus get rid of the need for current to power
an RC receiver, as well as remove manual intervention and
likely control errors. This would make servo operation fully
repeatable and uniform on each pass and would be very
much in the spirit of having a machine run itself, as well
as improve it's demonstratability significantly.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on February 19, 2010, 11:44:18 AM
It's just that non-overunity processes are not going to result
in a net energy gain...Energy spent accelerating overbalancing
weight is needed to be paid back from the A energy
watt for watt, by a generator operating below 100% efficiency.
...I suspect people won't want to run their electricity through
a Yog pendulum, just for grins.
Okay then, if you say so ?
The fact is that the YOG harness the kinetic energy produced from the magnetic array.
Allowing magnets to become a super battery.
Quote from: mscoffman on February 19, 2010, 11:44:18 AM
Overunity magnetic array acceleration is real IMHO in my opinion
...and it is too bad we can't have a clean demonstration of it.
There are links to videos on this thread not only from me but from other members that you may find interesting.
Quote from: mscoffman on February 19, 2010, 11:44:18 AM
FYI:
On another subject...It is very easy to control a model
servo motor from a very small and inexpensive circuit
called an NE555 timer IC generating a PPM pulse percentage
proportional modulation signal. The NE555 could be
connected to two photo-resistors and controlled by a chart
paper that rotates at the axis of the pendulum. The chart
would cause the servo motor to rotate to whatever angle
you setup, by ink on the chart paper, for a given angle of
the pendulum. This would completely automate the YOG
servo motor and A the necessity of the heavy radio
control console, plus get rid of the need for current to power
an RC receiver, as well as remove manual intervention and
likely control errors. This would make servo operation fully
repeatable and uniform on each pass and would be very
much in the spirit of having a machine run itself, as well
as improve it's demonstratability significantly.
I’m familiar with this method as a sensor. Some of the problems that I have run into in the past is that the sensors are in a fixed position and are not variable. You will need a variable indicator / sensor to pickup different positions as the YOG climbs. This will allow for better utilization of gravity from the unbalance drive magnet.
One way that I have found that works pretty well is to use a ball in a tube with end switches. It kind of works like a mercury tilt switch, this way your sensing gravity with kinetic energy shifting. For the larger YOG’s an encoder wheel with a micro-controller like BasicStamp works well too. This part I consider the easy part though. :)
Howard
"The fact is that the YOG harness the kinetic energy produced from the magnetic array.
Allowing magnets to become a super battery."
What? You cant be serious.
ALL,
This should do it.
I haven’t test this yet and I’m still working out the best way to lock the pin or use the electro magnet release. What ever is less energy of course?
I’m also researching a way to operate that lock mechanically before electrically. Please bare with me as my time is limited.
Below in the picture you will see that I use buoyancy to shift the unbalance drive magnet. The lock will hold it’s position until the end of the cycle. From their the lock will release and the buoyancy will rotate the magnet.
I’m going to take a break for half a week from posting to catch up on my other responsibilities. Enjoy !
Howard Yu
I like your efforts, Howard! Seeing your intentions to improve your current device, - I advice you to improve your ferromagnetic screening of applyed magnets, what you can learn at:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsjwvjk_27hfhbw8cn
Also whach videos of similar devices:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6320555275620307180
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbuOWo7nps
Whish you`ll continue your research.
Taras Leskiv
I like your efforts, Howard! Seeing your intentions to improve your current device, - I advice you to improve your ferromagnetic screening of applyed magnets, what you can learn at:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsjwvjk_27hfhbw8cn
Also whach videos of similar devices:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6320555275620307180
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rbuOWo7nps
Whish you`ll continue your research.
Taras Leskiv
Quote from: WattBuilder on February 20, 2010, 01:50:07 PM
This should do it.
I haven’t test this yet and I’m still working out the best way to lock the pin or use the electro magnet release. What ever is less energy of course?
Below in the picture you will see that I use buoyancy to shift the unbalance drive magnet. The lock will hold it’s position until the end of the cycle. From their the lock will release and the buoyancy will rotate the magnet.
greetings sir,
i saw your dilemma and thought id offer my thoughts,
i like the buoyancy idea, but that means you will have to have the thickness of the container between the magnet and the track
i wondered, could not the reverse be accomplished?
if you take the magnet and put it on an axle, but do not put it through the middle, naturally one side of the magnet will be heavier and fall in place of your desired magnet direction
heres a quick paint job, odd how that phrase worked out...
edit::::::::: to add jpeg pic of same file
Quote from: mr_bojangles on February 24, 2010, 02:23:05 AM
greetings sir,
i saw your dilemma and thought id offer my thoughts,
i like the buoyancy idea, but that means you will have to have the thickness of the container between the magnet and the track
i wondered, could not the reverse be accomplished?
if you take the magnet and put it on an axle, but do not put it through the middle, naturally one side of the magnet will be heavier and fall in place of your desired magnet direction
heres a quick paint job, odd how that phrase worked out...
edit::::::::: to add jpeg pic of same file
won't work, happy hunting!
Ageofmagnetizm,
Thank you, I will take a closer look of your ferromagnetic methods and will keep it in mind.
I do plain on continuing my research. I just had to take a small break.
Howard
Quote from: mr_bojangles on February 24, 2010, 02:23:05 AM
i wondered, could not the reverse be accomplished?
Mr bonjangles,
According to the tests that were preformed. It would seem that to utilize the unbalance drive magnet for what I have been calling a step function to climb higher. The unbalance will need to be forward of the travel direction.
ALL,
Here’s a simple experiment that I would like to share.
What I did was test if buoyancy can rotate the drive magnet and also allow for the unbalance of the YOG’s drive magnet as well.
I purchased a clear plastic tube from a local pet store (aquarium section) and placed a steel nut and washer on top of Styrofoam inserted into the clear plastic tube. I then filled it with water in a sink underwater to eliminate air bubbles that may get trapped inside. Luckily I happened to have some end capes to plug the ends of the tube with some teflon tape.
The buoyancy was confirmed by see if the steel nut rises to the top of the tube while holding it vertically. It does rise.
Then I checked to see if there is an overbalance. The results showed there was.
I the picture below you will see that I balanced the tube on a pen cap. The center mass is offset. Notice how the length on the nut side is shorter.
What this means,
I may be able to replace the servo and it’s energy used to orientate the drive magnet by using buoyancy. Also the input energy that the YOG uses can be as low as a simple pulse to unlock a pin release.
Further research is still needed to find a way to release that pin without electricity.
Howard
Hi Howard,
I was wondering how the magnet arrangement works. Is there a sticky point before the pendulum magnet enters the influence of the array? Also, if the pendulum magnet is balanced (in the video and elsewhere i read that it was unbalanced) so that you don't have to fight gravity to turn it around, it still accelerates from the array correct?
Thanks,
Charlie
Quote from: Charlie_V on March 02, 2010, 10:41:42 PM
I was wondering how the magnet arrangement works. Is there a sticky point before the pendulum magnet enters the influence of the array? Also, if the pendulum magnet is balanced (in the video and elsewhere i read that it was unbalanced) so that you don't have to fight gravity to turn it around, it still accelerates from the array correct?
Thanks,
Charlie
Here My take:
>I was wondering how the magnet arrangement works. Is
>there a sticky point before the pendulum magnet enters
>the influence of the array?
No!...A "Sticky Spot" only occurs for circular magnetic
array's (motor rotor fields).
That is the beauty of a pendulum...It doesn't circle
around back to the beginning! The sticky spot is;
"a net array interaction in a circular magnet array"
On the flip side, A pendulum mechanism re-runs
through the magnetic array backwards, if the yog
head magnets were not flipped the array would
probably extract most of the energy back out that
it had just deposited on the previous pass. There is
component of the array acceleration that is bidirectional
and a component that is unidirectional called the
magnetic gradient - this has to do with how the
magnets are sorted. And they always will be sorted,
independent of design intent vs/or via design intent.
>Also, if the pendulum magnet is balanced (in the video
>and elsewhere i read that it was unbalanced) so that you
>don't have to fight gravity to turn it around, it still
>accelerates from the array correct?
The servomotor does indeed pump energy directly into the
pendulum which is ultimately supplied by a dry cell battery.
It pumps energy into pendulum only via the unbalanced
mechanical overbalance...The logic of allowing it is that;
if the electricity to actuate the servo is supplied by the
pendulum it will be a kind of a pass through reaction.
If on the other hand if he does what he is thinking the
overbalance will *extract* some energy to make the
magnet flip, removing it from the pendulum...You see it
all depends of the timing of the unbalance asserting
itself. He just needs to not extract too much.
So No, I think he will have to flip the YOG head magnets
or the reverse motion would largely extract gained
energy back out.
:MarkSCoffman
This may help. I think that if you flip the running magnet it may work. This picture is of a magnet design that would allow this to happen. You could mount a peg on each side for the magnet to hit and flip. You would need to use a weak stationary magnet attached to the arm to hold the magnet in the flipped possition until it was flipped again.
Sorry,
I'm having a hard time visualizing how the magnet arrangement in the array works. Could you or someone draw it in detail? All the magnet stuff I've ever worked with had two spots, a place where it accelerated toward (or away) and a place where it would stop. If the magnets were arranged so they repelled, you would have to push it through a sticky point, then beyond that sticky point it would repel away. If it was in attraction then it would attract up to the "sticky point" and then it would try to hold it still.
I'm curious how you make the magnet arrangement so that the moving magnet can clear the other magnets without having to change the polarity while in the field. You are changing the polarity once out of the field which is really interesting. I've tried to read about Howard Johnsons stuff but it never made sense. Surely one of you guys could help me out.
Thanks,
Charlie
Quote from: Charlie_V on March 02, 2010, 10:41:42 PM
I was wondering how the magnet arrangement works. Is there a sticky point before the pendulum magnet enters the influence of the array?
The sticky point (known as resistance point) happens on the test array that I have set up is
during the entrance influence of the array not before.
Once the drive magnet has passed the sticky point. The remaining length of the array is where the OU energy comes from, as it picks up momentum from the field.
Quote from: Charlie_V on March 02, 2010, 10:41:42 PM
Also, if the pendulum magnet is balanced (in the video and elsewhere i read that it was unbalanced) so that you don't have to fight gravity to turn it around, it still accelerates from the array correct?
Theoretically, if the set up of the array and the magnetic strength is strong enough, you don’t have to have the unbalance of the drive magnet. The unbalance helps with a minimal cost of the input energy while orientating the drive magnet. You might as well.
In past post I have been calling this the “step function†trying to explain what I feel is taking place. The energy gained from the off balance is allowing for advancement in travel. I have used examples of climbing up a stairway and also used an example of a bumper jack. In the case of the stairway, it’s not the energy moving your foot up but the energy moving your foot forward.
Quote from: Charlie_V on March 03, 2010, 08:45:04 PM
I'm curious how you make the magnet arrangement so that the moving magnet can clear the other magnets without having to change the polarity while in the field. You are changing the polarity once out of the field which is really interesting. I've tried to read about Howard Johnsons stuff but it never made sense. Surely one of you guys could help me out.
As far as changing the polarity while in the field, that might be a better discussion for a new thread as I’m trying to keep this thread within scope.
One of the great things that I feel about Howard Johnson work was he was able to point out that the spins of the magnetic flux can be utilized to do work. He then was able to clarify it with his work with magnetic vortexes. His work also complements magnets that they have an unequal force with other magnets.
My advice is to read it again and again. Focus on how the spins interact with each other. But here’s a tip for your new thread. Counter clockwise against counter clockwise equal
traction. Counter clockwise against clockwise equal slippage.
Regards,
Howard Yu
wont happen without round mags ;D ;D
Howard,
I havent seen a detailed diagram of your array, but since you say it's an HJ array, I'll assume from appearances that it's similar to the first one in his book, the flat track w/ the corners of the magnets facing up.
I'm wondering what would happen with the setup he uses on the train car/ track. Basically a box formation w/ bar magnets and a circular mag ring mounted on back to cancel spin.
It might require two separate arrays, each in one direction, but it seemed from the footage that it achieved the most thrust. Not sure if entering the array would be possible though.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 12:16:28 AM
I havent seen a detailed diagram of your array, but since you say it's an HJ array, I'll assume from appearances that it's similar to the first one in his book, the flat track w/ the corners of the magnets facing up.
To be fair, it’s not so much the set up of the array that I give HJ credit for on the YOG array. It’s more relates to the work he has done with the spins that magnets have.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 12:16:28 AM
I'm wondering what would happen with the setup he uses on the train car/ track. Basically a box formation w/ bar magnets and a circular mag ring mounted on back to cancel spin.
It might require two separate arrays, each in one direction, but it seemed from the footage that it achieved the most thrust. Not sure if entering the array would be possible though.
In the past when I was studying HJ’s work, I set up a box configuration like an up side down “U†shape array. That kind of mimics the circle portion of the HJ square & round gate. I then placed many magnets side by side with the north’s facing out towards the train like the HJ gate. What I found was when the trains north faces the north’s opening of the array, It does attract. The array sucks the train right in and stops at the transition point from square to round.
The result from that test is what I have on the YOG now and still can be improved.
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on March 04, 2010, 12:35:35 PM
To be fair, it’s not so much the set up of the array that I give HJ credit for on the YOG array. It’s more relates to the work he has done with the spins that magnets have.
In the past when I was studying HJ’s work, I set up a box configuration like an up side down “U†shape array. That kind of mimics the circle portion of the HJ square & round gate. I then placed many magnets side by side with the north’s facing out towards the train like the HJ gate. What I found was when the trains north faces the north’s opening of the array, It does attract. The array sucks the train right in and stops at the transition point from square to round.
The result from that test is what I have on the YOG now and still can be improved.
Howard
Interesting thanks
There is a video someone posted either on this form or another one that has a guy demo one of HJ's toy train systems. The train also had a "sticky" spot just before it enters the array - I think this is pretty normal.
Howard (Yu) I can see how your system works, I like it. The point where the pendulum has max potential energy is basically the same spot that the "sticky" point is located. The gravity (due to the weight) is strong enough to overcome this spot and during the kinetic energy cycle the weight gains speed. The reversal ensures that the energy gained during the kinetic cycle isn't taken away.
Now I am interested to see how it performs when the pendulum magnet is not unbalanced because this will show how much energy is added via the magnetic interactions. If you replaced the pendulum magnet with just a weight, keeping it unbalanced, then the pendulum would still increase in energy because you basically have a swing and your parametrically pumping the energy using the battery (just like a kid shifts his center of mass to keep swinging). Separating the two will let you know how much energy you can extract from the magnets.
Assuming you connect a generator to the pivot, you only want to load it enough to extract the access energy gained from the magnets. Any more would over damp the system and make it act under unity. From that point it comes down to how strong can you make the magnet interactions to increase the energy (making the gap spacings closer while increasing the pendulum weight will probably do it - just guessing here). If you really do get an energy gain from the magnets then this energy can be stored and reused to flip the servo - keeping itself going and proving a very large point that needs to be proven.
Please forgive if these statements make me sound like I'm trying to be all knowing and over commanding. I'm really asking a question as to if you think I am understanding your system or if I missed the mark completely - I'm also trying to give some helpful suggestions which you probably already tried. I've had a long day and don't feel like rewording it to sound less pompous.
Charlie
Not at all Charlie, it sounds good to me. :)
But the circumference of the lower part of the YOG has the optimal point of energy extraction. It seems like you have a good grasp on the technology and it reads clear.
As for the moment my hands are full to do another video. I’m currently testing some parts I received and I will have some more parts coming in soon. “Hopefullyâ€
Here’s a link to my YouTube channel where I have my videos hosted. Just in case you haven’t seen all of them.
http://www.youtube.com/WattBuilder
Howard
news?
Quote from: FreeEnergy on April 04, 2010, 09:38:08 AM
news?
Well, not really much? :-\
Lately I have been working a lot of extra hours to fund my research and also I’ve been relocating the test YOG to a new lab with a little bit more room.
To add, I will be modifying the test YOG at the new location due to using the buoyancy method. The extra weight it adds to the wooden frame may cause some safety issues that I rather get out of the way.
The new test YOG will be a lot stronger and scaled up on the lever ratio. :)
I will try to use memory alloy to release the pin electrically for now. But the most importantly it will have clear energy output features for testing and public acceptance.
For now that’s it without posting ahead myself.
Regards,
Howard
Quote from: WattBuilder on April 05, 2010, 06:21:36 PM
Well, not really much? :-\
Lately I have been working a lot of extra hours to fund my research and also I’ve been relocating the test YOG to a new lab with a little bit more room.
To add, I will be modifying the test YOG at the new location due to using the buoyancy method. The extra weight it adds to the wooden frame may cause some safety issues that I rather get out of the way.
The new test YOG will be a lot stronger and scaled up on the lever ratio. :)
I will try to use memory alloy to release the pin electrically for now. But the most importantly it will have clear energy output features for testing and public acceptance.
For now that’s it without posting ahead myself.
Regards,
Howard
thanks howard for the update.
i really enjoyed watching all you videos and reading this WHOLE thread.
keep up the good work dude.
take care.
peace.
Hi ALL,
I’m just checking in and still working at it.
Here’s what I’m working on now.
I have made some progress on finding out a better way to not use any electrical input for the YOG on the buoyancy method.
Instead of using the memory alloy to release the pin electrically, I have found when using dynamic braking it can be very advantageous.
The long lever will have a small motor as part of it, to hold it’s position during a cycle pass. When the drive magnet reaches the end of a cycle pass. I will use something like a reed switch to release the connection to the small motor. Allowing the buoyancy to turn the drive magnet unbalanced.
For those not familiar with braking a motor, It’s when you take the wire’s from a DC motor for example and short the two wires connecting them together. You create a field within the DC motor that will not allow the motor to turn anymore.
So the connection on the reed switch is normally closed.
I will keep you guys posted as progress develops hopefully I get a break to spend more time on the YOG.
Many thanks all for your support ! :)
Howard Yu
again, thank you for sharing your work!
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on September 15, 2009, 12:46:24 PM
I think Bessler's Wheel is an over rated clock mechanism. nobody can get it to work but my clock works just fine. lol
sorry. I had to.
Jerry ;)
Jerry, nobody has the remotest idea what made the "bessler wheel" work, if work it did. Interpreting Bessler's work is some people's fun, some even believe, it's like theology or trying to translate Dead Sea scrolls when you only speak German. But it is a useful focal point for discussion about self running gravity and CF "powered" devices.
Regarding that Yu oscillating gizmo, I'd say do away with the magnets, up the weight and offset of the 180° "flag" weights, and you might be onto something.
Quote from: nicbordeaux on May 05, 2010, 03:47:31 PM
Regarding that Yu oscillating gizmo, I'd say do away with the magnets, up the weight and offset of the 180° "flag" weights, and you might be onto something.
As an inventor, the thought has cross my mind for a gravity model for fun.
For now I am happy with the free energy the YOG provides as is.
Here are some of my thoughts on the gravity model.
The buoyancy method would be my pick and most of the functions are already their.
The potential issues when removing the magnetic array with the buoyancy method is the loss of gain kinetic energy. That will affect the time for the drive magnet to reach 180 degrees for a cycle pass.
Now I have been holding on to this solution to solve the potential time issue that I came up with for the magnetic array model. But I was waiting to see of I even needed it.
It’s actually a common feature in old clocks used as an escapement. I like to view it as a mechanical time delay. It’s when you have a string attached to the moving lever with a weight on the other end of the string. The YOG will be positioned between two poles.
So when the YOG makes a cycle pass and reaches its end of cycle. The string with the weighted end will swing horizontally over and wrap itself around the pole. Then after to unwrap itself to allow for the next cycle to repeat.
This wrapping and unwrapping of the string causes a mechanical delay that is adjustable to allow for the time that the buoyancy may need to rotate 180 Degrees.
To conclude, the real energy is with the magnetic array for the benefit of mankind.
Howard Yu
Hello everyone ...
Been following progress for this machine for a while and I'm very happy that things are going well so far!
One thing I had to ask so here I am :)
Are those strings gonna be at the most lower part of pendulum (just to be sure I understood correctly)? If so .. then from what I understood that would presume constant swinging amplitudes .. no? It might be hard to start the YOG?
As for time delay ... why not using larger air balloon and have that rotation to happen faster .. the same moment that top of the pendulum leaves magnet area, magnet switch would open and release AC motor/breaker mentioned before ... simple and beautiful!!!
In my opinion those strings are making things way to complicated ... but then I might be wrong?!
Thank you for sharing info about your invention Howard!
Regards
Goran
Hi Goran,
Welcome to the forum!
I was planning for it to be located at the upper part of the pendulum.
I not too sure about using a balloon without testing it but it may drag the cycles?
The mechanical delay is just in case the YOG needs more time for the buoyancy to position the drive magnet overbalance. Hopefully I wont need it.
Here’s a video of a clock that uses it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRoz4XC83yk&feature=related
Thank you for fallowing my work. I hope to share many more great inventions that may be even better than the YOG. ;)
Howard
Hello Howard .. and thanks for welcome
I made translation error by saying balloon .. I was thinking about buoyancy air container thing!
Larger air container (also missinterpreted as balloon :) )would switch the drive magnet faster, I think. That old clock mechanism is OK when you have constant swinging amplitudes ... YOG doesn't have that - supposing you recharge batteries and you don't want to overcharge you need to disconnect generator and then swinging amplitude goes up since not under load ... so I was thinking maybe faster drive magnet switching is a MUST?
Goran
Ok, I see now what you mean. :D
Well, I just need to show OU with the YOG and have the technology publicly proven.
Afterwards I plan on building the larger scale servo units for some serious energy production.
So starting the YOG at constant swinging amplitude may not be so bad. Instead of letting it climb of course.
But I do agree on faster drive magnet switching. The amount of kinetic energy stored can be tremendous. Hopefully in the future when I get funding. I would be able to increase my research in this area.
Here is some thing to think about when increasing the buoyancy.
Buoyancy = The weight of displaced fluid.
It’s not so much the weight of the magnet that gives the overbalance when the drive magnet rotates 180 degrees.
It’s the weight and distance of the drive magnet from the center mass that allows for the overbalance. :)
Howard
After reading my last post. I think I may have made it a bit more confusing.
So here’s a picture to help.
See how the short weight is equal to the tall weight in the vertical position. Both are equal.
See how the horizontal position of the equal weights, now has an overbalance on the tall weight and the short one does not.
That is how the overbalance is achieved due to leverage basically.
One more thing I would like to point out. When building this is to be cautious of the amount of increased buoyancy added. Because in the horizontal position the float itself shifts the fluid that can change the counter weight. Therefore the weight of the fluid itself can weigh more than the levered magnet.
Regards,
Howard
My apologies for late reply (if one was expected) …
I'm thinking about that picture and can't really visualize what should happen. Having that buoyancy happening like that is making shift of liquids center of gravity on one side, and lever effect on other, and total effect of all that I can't predict, but looking forward to see it working and understand it.
When you first mentioned using buoyancy I thought it's going to be something like on this picture. Air container would have to be as flat as possible to provide near 180 degrees shift but not full 180 to prevent it get stuck (supposing that not having full 180 would not affect flying magnet?). Also, liquid container would be near pendulum axle to minimize effect of liquid movement. Maybe that movement of liquid CAN have beneficial effect … but that is another thing that would require experimenting …
Goran
Hi
Here’s a quick picture.
As for it getting stuck. A slight tilt forward will keep it from getting like that.
Hope it helps.
It looks like I have a large workload this week and it’s going to cut in on my posting time. So, I’ll have to get back to you guys at a later time.
Thanks,
Howard
Good luck with your work and please don't keep us waiting too long! :)
is this thread dead???
I hope the thread is not dead. I have always looked forward the Yu experiments.
Bill
Very one in the world has to see this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6gaN8gRs5A
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter5.pdf