Work from 2 magnets > 19% output 2

[Floor]

@Lumen

wow sounds fantastic !
Thanks for the up date. 

Would you mind starting / dedicating a new topic to your
next test sets ?

Lumens TD test or name it as you like ?

                  regards
                       floor

[Floor]

@Norman6538

Thanks Norman.

Lets keep figureing it out.

                 floor

[Low-Q]

@floor

I changed my testing setup to be more ridgid and altered the process order of recording the data along with a new digital force guage and now the findings are closer to what I expected.
The tests that once indicated a gain of over 13% were repeated along with several other interactions that I thought would indicate a path of gain and at this time nothing has shown a gain of over 3% and in fact the test results varied from about +2.5% to a -2.5% depending on the test.
To me, the results indicate no gain with any path I have tested so far.
Next I plan to setup for the TD data collection and hope the data indicates a different result.
I will be using neo's which may have a different result than your findings with ceramic magnets, but it's a good place to start.

+/- 2.5% sounds reasonable. That just means the measurements are made properly, and typical output is in average 0 - as expected with a closed loop system.


Vidar

[Floor]

This design and exploration was long winded, Not O.U.,
riddled with errors.

Still a good learning experience, worth while and very messy.

[Floor]

                               THE NEXT TWO POSTS
              ARE THE RESULT OF MY EDITING MANY POST INTO
                       JUST TWO POSTS, FOR CONTINUITY.

xxxxx 1

This kind of device lifts more weight a greater distance than
is input into it
        as
a lighter weight is lowered a shorter distance.


xxxxx 2
The output work is a little more than twice the input work.

It uses magnets to do this.

xxxxx 3
Strictly speaking there is  no  net work done.

xxxxx 4
The work output is undone in resetting the device back to its starting
position.

xxxxx 5
But the work input is also undone.

                Zero    net   work in   and   zero  net  work out.

It can also be linked to a second unit (like itself) that operates at a larger scale.


xxxxx 6
A series of the devices can be linked so that the scale of the final output is
many times larger than the initial input (10x  or 100x ?).  But, I'm pretty certain that
there is a maximum  /  limit to which this cascading effect can be done.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
xxxxx 7
If the "out put" weight object were a magnet being lowered through a wire coil
(the magnet's fall  is  the reset), that weight object would still fall to its lowered /
start position even when a resistive load is placed across the coil.

A capacitive load across the coil would be problematic, I'm pretty sure .

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Again

Using this device (the twist drive)

a heavier weight is lifted by a lighter weight lowering a little more than
1/2 the distance the heavier weight is lifted.  It uses magnets to do this.


xxxxx 8
This process can be done repetitively, and even when done in an
                  escalating cascade of the devices,
                               as long as
the process is reversed at the end of the cascade,
                      as a deescalating cascade.
                 @      https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a

                              an other design posted by synchro 1
                 @        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOBZsCWMDzI

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Here, in this video  (below), 133 grams is lifted 41.5 units of distance by the lowering of 115
grams 22 units of distance.   

EDIT This was 105g not 115g on the sliding unit. Ratios are actually better than was
originally calculated here (it is 1.26 to 1  and not   1.156 to 1)  END EDIT

A lifting distance ratio of 1.886 to 1
                    and
A weight difference ratio of 1.156 to 1.    EDIT (1.26 to 1  and not   1.156 to 1)

                  @    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3or5

If I had subtracted the weight of the SL thread tensioning weight,
while also adding the input weight in decreasing increments...

The average force over the 22 units of input travel distance whould be
about 85 grams ?

A weight difference ratio of 1.564 to 1 ?  and not 1.156 to 1     EDIT not 1.26 to 1

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
It is interesting to note that the 22 units of travel distance upon the
input / sliding unit has remained the same in both demonstrations.

           however ....

In this, the https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a  video / demo,

input is 105 grams by 22 units of travel (105 x 22 = 2310)
                   and
output is 115 grams by 40 units of travel  (115 x 40 = 4600)

A lifting distance ratio of  1.818 to 1
                  and
A weight difference ratio of 1.095 to 1
...
In the      present    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a     video,
133 grams is lifted 41.5 units of distance  by the lowering of 105 grams
22 units of distance.

A lifting distance ratio of 1.886 to 1
            and
A   weight difference ratio of 1.266 to 1.

EDIT / addition 2/7/22  if the input force had been increased  incrementally
during its application the weight ratio output to  input would also have been
closer to 1.564 to 1  rather than  1.266 to 1.  At an average input force of 90
grams, the input weight ratio would be 1.477 out to 1 in.

5519.5 'output' to 1980 'input'  or 2.78 'output' to 1 'input'
133 g x 41.5 deg. = 5519.5 and 90 g x 22 deg. 1980
end of EDIT

Slightly stronger magnets are used in the second video
AN EDIT WAS HERE
and RO rotates farther because it is weighted heavier.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
                                                Big edit

So....
xxxxx 9
Wouldn't this be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in...

if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the cyclical
raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m ...

as a result of a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
xxxxx 10
                      If the "out put" weight object is lowered into water,
                                   ( the object's fall  is  the reset),
                               that weight object would   not  fall.
                                                     because
               the buoyancy is constant and would continuously counter act
                                             the downward force.
                                                             but
       If the "out put" weight object is   a magnet   being lowered through a wire coil
                                    (again the magnet's fall  is  the reset)
                        that magnet would still fall to its lowered / start position
                              even when a resistive load is placed across the coil.
                                                           because
                     The magnet's fall is resisted only while the magnet is in motion
                                                            therefore
                                          that resistance is not continuous
                                                                 and
                              the magnet will accelerate and then slow down
                                             again and again during its descent
                                                                 but
                                          it will still reach the bottom of its fall
                                                                 and
                                  this will generate electric power from the coil

                                                   As acknowledgment...
                                     It was an other who suggested the use of
                                                  this type of generator

EDIT / ADDITION                    This was years ago !

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

                                                   CAN TIME BE TRADED FOR ENERGY ?

Some of you may have all ready noticed these things but please
bear with me in order that others may come to understand the
point here.

For clarity please note that the "output" weight object is the one that
hangs from the rotating magnet pulley.  Also note, the reason I will
sometimes enclose the words "input" and "output" in quotation marks,
is that there is no    net   work done in either the input, nor in the output
actions, during the course of a full cycling of the device. That work is
canceled out.

If Isaac Newton's observation are correct in this context (they are) then the
energy exchanged in the actions of the twist drive device must balance to
zero (they do).

Which is pretty much the same as to say, that within the context of the
twist drive ...

In order for the twist drive to be reset to its starting position,     all   of
the energy present as the falling of the output weight object     must   be
utilized in the resetting action.

                                           This   is   valid and...
         If any of the energy of the falling of the output weight object
      is used to do work, outside of the twist drive mechanism its self,
                   the twist drive cannot reset to its starting position.

This remains true, even though the "output" work is more than two times
greater than the "input" work.

Question ...
         Is the net gain from the magnets or from gravity ?

         P.S.
           This is not theoretical.

           riddle

no
smoky color
in the air,

cause
H20 power
is every where

it blew
in the window
and out the door

so the tin man could
stand upon his

                 floor

           Question ...
                  Is the net gain from the magnets or from gravity ?

            best wishes
                   and
                      thanks y'all
                                       floor


reply from smOKy2

              Neither
          Each one is considered 'conservative' when observed independently.
          Net gain comes from the understanding of the difference between the two.
end
Thanks smOky2

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Once again let me state that some are already aware of these things.

I would like to ask those people to bear with me once again in order
that others can come to understand a few more details here.

In this other device @

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOBZsCWMDzI

We see the lighter object lifting a heavier one by the same
distance the lighter object is lowered.   an EDIT was here

If the leverage factors are set up differently, the same device can
instead, lift a same as the lighter weight amount, but by a greater
distance than the lighter weight falls.  an EDIT was here also

Similarly the twist drive can instead lift two times that of the inputted
weight (even more), to the same height to which the input weight is
lowered by simply changing the leverages involved.

It is well that the reader should also understand, that the raising and / or
lowering of the twist drive weight objects can be done slowly, without
any ill effects.

           best wishes
               floor

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Would it be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in
if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the
cyclical  raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m as a result of
a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?

The answer is no.

But this kind of process can in theory, lift an automobile to a
height of 6 feet, as the result of an input as the application
of 100 grams as force over a displacement of 5 millimeters.
To my knowledge, no one has done this yet. That the process
can be escalated to   that   degree is theoretical. There may
be unforeseen limitations. Such a device would be large, expensive
to manufacture and cumbersome.

However that may be, it remains that the process   can    be escalated
to a very large degree and any argument to the contrary would not be a
reasonable contention. Not even. 


best wishes

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Magnet falling through a copper tube @

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30oPZO_z7-4
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnet-falling-though-copper-pipe.1010705/
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/magnet-falling-though-copper-pipe.1010705/page-2

ADDED 10/21/23 @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0svs-uGx8s&t=107s

and so on
Returning to this question (my own)

Would it be more mechanical work out than mechanical work in
if a series of escalating, cascading "twist drive" units, caused the
cyclical raising and then lowering of 5 kg by 0.5 m as a result of
a cyclical input, as the raising and then lowering of 100 g by 5 mm ?

Changing the answer up with a small emphasis.

The answer (classically) is no.

           Here comes the but...
When one observes the momentum present during the operating of the
twist drive (no third magnet present as the output weight), it becomes
apparent that the momentum of the input weight object and that of the
output weight object are greater combined, than would be the momentum
of the input weight object alone.  These two objects have neither, the same
mass nor the same travel distance. The output weight object has a greater
magnitude of each of these characteristics. The full cycling of each object
(as rise and fall, fall and rise) occurs during essentially the same time period.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
There are now 37 videos on my channel at DailyMotion.com.   They are not monetized.

           @        https://www.dailymotion.com/seethisvid1

There are rest assured, many misstatements made during many of these videos. 
Go figure. Be forewarned, they are produced on the fly and without edits.


There are at least 3 twist drive videos.  Here is one of those

                  @     https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7b3x9a
Momentum ...
from 6 minutes and 50 seconds to 8 minutes and 50 seconds.

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Another is here @
                          https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4p1ome

168 grams is lifted 43 units of distance by the fall of 158 grams at
22 units of distance.
         > 2 x "output"

         P.S.
       Thanks again smOky2 for your comments and observations.

        best wishes

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
                          Dropping a neodymium magnet
               through a 1/2 inch inside diameter, copper tube.

The magnet weighs 22 grams static upon the scale.

The copper tube weighs 190 grams.

The copper tube weighs 212 grams as the magnet falls through it.

Once the magnet arrives at the bottom of its fall through the tube,
the combined weight of the tube and the magnet is also 212 grams.
Let me try to describe this in a another way.

One could say that the "twist drive"  device is useless.  If one
uses its output in some way other than to reset itself back to
its start position, it will not reset itself.  It is only 1/2 O.U. .

I know, its sick, but the device really can operate in a series of
escalating cascades, to the point that one is lifting an automobile
with one finger's effort.

foreword....

The mechanic has lifted my car six feet into the air (please don't drop it).
              In doing so, he has just created an arrangement within a gravitational
              field of energy.
                                 But what use is it ?
                                                    None,
unless there is interaction with a second field. In this instance, it is a field of activity
(auto repairs) within the first field (beneath the lifted car).

In one sense, it is only because we have
                        stalled the automobile in time,
that we are able to get use from the potential kinetic energy of its position
relative to the ground. We left it raised in the air.

Even though we made no   direct use  of the kinetic energy of its position
relative to the ground, lifting it was beneficial to us. Was it not ?

If after the repairs are performed and we don't lower the car back to the ground,
well guess what ?  It's not profitable to us either.