FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7

[Omnibus]

Besides the analytical results of the above, designs like the below are only speculative. To me the ou is almost a sure thing, it's how do we make a practical model that's not too expensive out of it. This is why a concept based on continuous motion is the most preferred.

Can't agree more. That's what our whole discussion is all about -- how to reach that point of having a continuously moving OU device alreaady knowing without a doubt that excess energy can be produced discretely.

One obvious goal in this respect is to try to find ways to substantially increase the excess energy produced and this is where I'm probably missing something with respect to this proposal. So, first, could you please discuss a little bit more the last two sets of sims you presented. Both seem to show substantial excess energy, indeed. Aslo, how exactly do you envision to use it for continuous motion? I think we should do anything possible to make advances in this pursuit and especially try not to miss an important development, while remaining critical at the same time.

[Omnibus]

@broli,

I guess it may help in this discussion if I illustrate in more concrete terms what I have in mind. Analysis as to whether or not a concept is viable for a continuous motion (already knowing that production of excess energy is possible without a doubt) should necessarily involve the observation of a closed loop. Thus, although the recent study I did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo ;like I said I’ll do more work on that this month or in March) shows categorically that excess energy can be produced in a closed loop, it is not technological in this particular case. That is, other factors make it obvious that other solutions for making of continuously working device powered by excess energy should be sought. Indeed, as seen in the figure below, illustrating the experiment, it is possible to have the test magnet land on two different potential surfaces when removing it from the point L where the force of attraction is maximum to points K and M where the force of attraction is zero â€" it is obvious then that the integral of the force the test magnet experiences along the closed loop  L-M-K-L is non-zero, which, if the path is traversed in the proper direction would yield excess energy. And yet, that isn’t a technological way to make a perpetuum mobile because of factors such as friction and because of the way excess energy is obtained, especially having in mind its low value etc.

I think a similar closed loop analysis should be made of Butch’s proposals to see how technological they are. I may stand corrected, of course, but so far I’m not too optimistic.

[broli]

The analysis is based on this concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3dzJ80hEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_q-CnoG6Q

Note however that those are animated in attraction unlike the simulation which has them in repulsion. But I believe both are equivalent, I'm planning on simulating the other mode too.

the initial state is magnets away from each other and the C cores are closed.

The fource cycles:
1) cores closed: magnets moving to each other, calculate forces on magnets
2) magnets near each other: cores moving away from each other, calculate forces on cores
3) cores opened: magnets moving away from each other, calculate forces on magnets
4) magnets away from each other: cores moving to each other, calculate forces on cores

After these 4 cycles everything is at its initial state and energy is gained.

Also note the big magnets at the top, their position can be really arbitrary. If you look at the force graphs of the cores you'll see that opening and closing them irregardles of where the magnets are produces almost the same amount of work. So why not ease the job of the actuators by placing repelling magnets anywhere in the system attached to the cores. That way in theory their opening and closing forces can be almost completely canceled.

The setup would use two linear actuators to open and close the cores, this is your energy input. And you will get the energy output from the magnets as torque on a wheel with a reciprocating rod.

But the actuators have to act fast, so perhaps it's best to use pneumatic ones.

[broli]

The attraction setup like the youtube video show about the same. COP 4.75, energy gain 22.88J/cycle. This is quite big for a setup that has a planar size of 20cmx8cm when closed up. The only limit would be the speed of the linear actuators opening and closing the cores. If these simulation results are accurate one could create 1000Watt of mechanical power at about 44 cycles per second with this small setup. During one period the cores have to be moved twice. At 44Hz the period is 22.72ms. An actuator that can open the cores in 1ms should do the trick, don't know if it can be done.

But pneumatic actuators can be super speedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ5QbMnoyYU

[Omnibus]

Thanks. Now, (discussing it in the sense of Butch's drawing) I think we have no disagreement regarding the obvious discrepancy in the work necessary to pull the magnets apart when attached to the cores compared to the work they do when attracted to each other away from the cores. That was obvious from the Butch's initial video demonstrating this effect and this is obvious from your graph 'Magnets: force over distance' although I still don't quite understand how it was obtained (how was, for instance, the value -1.06J obtained since it appears that most of the curve is placed above the zero line). This is an effect we do agree with and it is the basis for the conclusion that there is OU in this setup. That should go without saying and it's the really attracting side of this proposal.

The problem is in the work needed to bring in the cores compared to the work to separate them and the practical construction to accomplish that (I know you mentioned a pneumatic actuator but it still doesn't seem quite clear how this is to be applied concretely in a practical device). As is seen from your 'Core: force over distance' graph those works are practically the same. At least the discrepancy seen is nowhere near the discrepancy seen regarding the magnets.

Now, like I said, those four works should give a net energy "out of nothing" in the ideal case and this is an OU device without a doubt should there be no friction and should the negative feedback be 100% efficient. We know it's not so in real life so this is what has been bothering me from the get go. As I mentioned, I'm not saying a working device based on this principle cannot be made but it will be extremely complicated to do technologically. I know Butch's main goal in posting these ideas is to find a financial backer and that's indeed what's really needed in this case. A financial backer, very serious at that (meaning putting a lot of money into the project). I really wish he could find one but I still don't see how he can accomplish to convince one with the complicated proposal at hand. So, again, all boils down to getting out of the substandard infrastructure almost everybody here has for this pursuit. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer how to do that other than just going ahead and spending your own money as most of us do. The situation is tough because it may not be that the simpler designs we can afford to try are the ones actually yielding the necessary level of excess energy. In addition, it isn't even that clear that that's the case (that one should necessarily seek more complicated renditions to solve the OU problem). Would be interesting to hear what you think regarding this transition from ideas to a practical device.