TD replications

[gotoluc]

Thanks Luc for the video, now your results make more sense.
There are several mistakes in your approach and measurements, which may be very well the cause for the detection of COP>1. The biggest mistake is to judge the efficiency of a device based on average forces. That is completely unscientific, and it can very easily mislead you. The total work must be measured and calculated, like in my spreadsheet.

The second mistake is ignoring the role of measurement errors. A measurement is never 100% accurate, there is always some error in it. The experimenter must be aware of the expected maximum error margin of his measurements, and disclose it together with the measurement results. Without this, the data can not be taken seriously. For example the best resolution of your scale is 5g which is extremely low and produces a very large error if you are measuring forces in the range of 0 to 100g. When you are measuring 100g then the uncertainty of the measured result is 10g, which is 10%. The correct way of showing your measurement result is: 100g +-5g, or with other words, the real force could be anything from 100-5=95g to 100+5=105g, the error margin is 105-95=10g, which is 10% of the measured value of 100g. Therefore if you find a COP=1.1 with such large error margin of measurement, then your measurements are pretty much useless to prove anything. If you are measuring even less than 100g, like in some of your measurement series measuring 5, 10, 20g etc. then your error margin is so huge that the data is of no value to prove anything. If your scale has a low resolution, then build a device that requires the measurement of about 100 times larger forces than the 5g resolution. If this is not practical, then use a scale that has got sufficient resolution and accuracy to produce around 1% (or less) measurement error.

The third mistake is not to measure the complete cycle of movement. For example webby1 was trying to convince you few pages back that you have to measure the 4th part of the cycle as well, in one of your earlier devices. He finally succeeded in this effort in post:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496971/#msg496971 and you provided the data in:
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg496974/#msg496974
After you have measured this 4th part of the cycle and taken it into account, then your (still incorrect) averaging calculations showed only 10% of excess work, which can very easily attributed to the other mistakes already mentioned.

In this case of rotary device this is not as critical as in the previous devices, but I would still recommend you to measure the complete cycle. Meaning, two rotary magnets pass in sequence above the slider. Please also measure the output force as well at least 10 times, like after each 1mm movement.

I was trying to get a manual feel of the forces in your device using two neodymium magnets of 4x2x1cm, which I don't recommend to anyone. These magnets are just too powerful, and if one doesn't have very strong fingers, they can also harm you! But, I have got no ceramic magnets of rectangular shape right now, so can not do the safe version.

Anyway, keep up the good work, and if the COP is still higher than say 1.2 even after fixing these mistakes, then it should be possible to build at least a perpetuum mobile using this magnet arrangement. If the COP would be really 1.6 like in your measurements, then the machine should be able to generate useful output power as well, besides just running itself.

Thanks Floor for the links and the drawing.

Hi Nonlinear

Thanks for your post.

I've been aware of the scales 5 gram resolution limitation and agree it's not ideal for small measurements.
The errors % margin will be greatly reduced with the version 2 build as the scale will be in the Kg measurement ranges.

Lets see what these new numbers will show.

Regards

Luc

[Nonlinear]

If you have the time, I would like to talk over / better understand your suggested approach.  Maybe in the topic
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/

I don't think it is a good idea to separate the discussion of measurement techniques from the experimental thread (here) where the action happens. There is a good chance that those who experiment and supposed to read and implement the suggestions will not find them. Like in this post:
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg499599/#msg499599
telecom has explained how to measure and correctly calculate the input and output work already on the 9th February. His suggestion was ignored and the averaging continued as if nothing happened. If you ignore good advice then why would anyone be willing to help?

Anyway, if you don't' understand telecom's explanation, then I can explain it again. What is it that you don't understand?

[gotoluc]

I would tend to agree with you Nonlinear. Better keep the measurement techniques of a replication in this topic.


Now, concerning telecom's advice "below"


"Re Gotoluc measurements:
work = force x distance
I would like  Gotoluc to measure force for each segment of his input
and output dials, and multiply this force by the length of the segment.
Then add them together for the input and output.
This will give us input and output work.
The more segments he has, the more precise would be the calculations.
In fact, he already has everything in place, just needs to do the above
operations."


I do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.
So I guess you'll have to explain what I have not done.
BTW, your calculations came to the same as I had calculated, so again I fail to see what I forgot.

Kind regards

Luc

[Floor]

@Nonlinear

A request of / upon Telecom by floor
@
http://overunity.com/16987/td-replications/msg499531/#msg499531 

Telecom's rseponce next day
@
http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg499599/#msg499599


Have I given a correct interpretation of the basics of the process for calculating the
work in these magnet interactions here ........
           
     @       http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005        ?

  If so, and with your permission   ..... then I will re post those three pages / files here ?


A COP of 161.2838 .... does this mean basically the same thing as 61.2838 % more out
than in ?


             thanks
                 floor

[verpies]

I do remember reading it and re-read but can't seem to understand or find what I have not provided.

I just popped in here without reading the entire thread.

Please give me some links to your work, in which you had summed the force*distance for the input and output of your system, so I can evaluate it.
If I notice anything you have omitted or any errors, I'll let you know.