Roll on the 20th June

[The Eskimo Quinn]

On another note closing in on 7000 posts and noticing the views in the last week have jumped in the thousands shows an undeniable fact, Occam's razor, that which usually appears most likely correct usually is.

for those who did not live through the years of this thread, it is easily explained in a paragraph, the original working machine was perpetual motion, but did not need to break any laws of physics, you see in math it is simple, if the kilowatts of energy to lift the rod are equal to the gain by the falling rod being equal in weight, the you have unity, with losses to friction etc, the simple minded simply says it cant work, the clever scientist realises that the electro magnet arc is only providing the lift of half the distance as the power of the magnets in the rod provides the second half of the gap, no more or less that two ring magnets on a pole floating one above the other, each providing half the field, so the lift by the electromagnet in kilowatts is only half the kilowatts provided by the fall, less loss is still over unity - then of course there is the pissy argument that it needs energy to make magnets - for a start who cares? they run 20 years, secondly all parts require energy to be made and the wheel arms probably cost more in energy to make than the magnets. it runs perpetually, define it however you like, no fuel and energy is the result. in any event rare earth magnets do not require the same energy, and those that do can be made with solar or wind etc. So there is no breach of the laws of physics (even i first thought it was until i realised where the addition lift originated)

hence the reason i was talked into building one that has fixed magnets on both sides as the gain is total, however wall issues that do not exist with an arc that switch on when the rod is over the centre have held this project in the hands of many trying to solve it, my own next build will be the original agian with electromagnetic arc.

[sm0ky2]

one thing i learned from this, is that there are Two aspects of the magnetic field.

1) you have the "wall" in and the "exit". which are two equal and opposite forces.

and

2) you have the "lift", which is a different force all together.

the two do not equate at all.

leveraged gravity can easily beat the "wall".
yet the "lift" beats gravity with no problem

the entry and exit forces can be described mathematically, and are well known in magnetic theory.

It is this second force, that is yet undescribed : the repulsion which can lift a mass through the gravitational field. There is not an opposing, equal/opposite force to counter this.
[except the attraction force, which is not being used in this sytem]

the "lift" force causes gravitational gain:  E=mgh
and this force is far greater than the entry/exit forces.
even greater than the gravitational force itself.
Leverage, is what allows gravity to take control.

i find myself unable to discern a direct correlation between this second force, and the Tesla/ Gauss of the magnetic fields. When the gravitational vector is added, the difference is not constant between differing fields, as one would find in other mathematical formulae.
[ else i would name this the Sm0ky's Constant]

but, lets suffice it to say that the excess energy of this system is equal to the difference between the gravitational displacement gained from this second force (E=mgh as derrived from the flux to mass ratio, minus the inertial resistance of the wheel), and the energy required to bring the arm into the "entry" field of the magnetic array. (both of which can vary to some degree)

and since this "free-energy" value is, for the most part, mass-dependent, we litterally have complete control over the ammount of "free energy" this system can create.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

This is why you like the wheel because you understand the math, I will help you with the missing constant, the math for which can only be attained by a theoretical given speed, the wall is not merely the opposing magnetic entry or exit points at the 7 - 9 o'clock arc, the wall also consists of something that does not exist when the wheel is motionless, and that is the centrifugal force forcing the rod outward toward the arc "because it is off centre toward the arc" when the rod moves upward (fires) the centrifugal force applies in the opposing direction, the force is only equal if the rod was centred, which is why when you manually move the wheel into position and it first fires and usually again several times om its own as you saw even in my videos, as the machine develops momentum so too the centrifugal forces start to affect the wheel or at least the rods. with the electromagnet, only the centrifugal force applies as there are no entry or exit walls, and the magnetic math is then more than capable of overcoming both the gravity and the centrifuge effect. This was my end conclusion to using fixed field magnets. Not to say that it cannot be done this way, simply that you have three forces to overcome instead of two because of the wall.

So the math for the centrifuge effect is additional; which is why the math for the gravitational vector is not constant, what it also means it that the wheel must have a set top speed, or the centrifuge math will keep altering and so too the corelation of distances from the arc and strength of magnetic fields, and whilst the strength of the magnets can simply be increased to counter increases in centrifuge, in so doing the wall strength increases equally with fixed field arc magnets.

just been running the numbers in my head, i think i finally worked out how to do it with the fixed magnets, cant believe it took 3 years to see the obvious that we all missed. give me half an hour and i will try and write it so that it is not confusing and the theory is easily understood(save any ranting and raving about physics) should be a slightly painful yet simple enough modification.

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Ok the key i believe is modifying the leverage, remember the arm extensions? the physics change is the same, we cannot move the arc as the rod needs to fire to the maximum leverage point of fall, yet we need more leverage, the problem primarily exists because the wall or bounce wall is at the start of the 7 o'clock point where we have the least leverage and momentum has yet to begin, the theory of extentions was right but there was no momentum to smash the wall, that is because the wall at 7 o'clock is repulsion, we need to change it to attraction, naturally we do not want to pull the rod down but up, so for a fixed magnetic arc it need to be above the rod ends inside the arc of the wheel probably behind the wheel, which means the ends of the rods will need to have some form of u shape at the end, what you end up with is exactly the same wheel with exactly the same math properties as the existing wheel yet no entry wall, though the exit wall will be as strong as the entry wall once was, there will be roughly a quarter rotation of momentum that did not exist before, leverage at speed, the only variance will be to make sure the lift is just a lift, to avoid too much drag that will now be present as a friction, however this drag is compensated by the balance equation that still to this day contradicts the same laws of physics in which it is written, everyone sees it yet the Newtonian math has never been changed. i will put that in the next post

[The Eskimo Quinn]

The balance laws somewhat contradict the laws of lift and fall regarding energy requirements and energy output, a falling object will produce more energy than it takes to lift the identical object the same height, that is newtons law, Archurian law says baloney, take a see saw and put a ten kilo gym weight on one end and place gently till in contact an identical weight on the other end and let go, the lever will fall past centre every single time before balancing, showing there is always more out than in, remember you are using the energy of the falling object to lift the identical object the same distance but it always ends up greater , yet foot pounds to newton meters to kilowatts says this does not happen, so our eyes are lying when it happens? or newton was not correct? the reason a wheel with a coin does not fully rotate is centrifuge forces take away that extra energy. so if you always get more energy from fall than lift of equal objects why is there not a million machines? because everyone watches it balance in the end, that does not mean the first action was not overunity, in fact the first weight falling back again shows even more energy still there until it balances, however this only seems to work with levers as pulleys do not do this, yet there is mathematically no leverage as the distance is the same, the variable is momentum as both are subject to gravitational math, the beauty of the SOG is that the first weight is shifted across so the balance variable is removed leaving a reduced gravitational math equation, the power from which is as previously noted magnetic, and as previously noted are in short a battery of power that lasts for decades. So the only argument ever presented is that you need energy to lift the second weight that is not accounted for, this also is true, but to lift it once by human or machine is a small price for it to continue the action itself for the balance of the magnetic lifespan, some 20 years, suffice to say that other parts will wear out long before that.

if you heated a water tank with 1 kilowatts produced steam to turn a turbine and produced 1 kilowatt and even without excess energy it ran itself we would consider it a miracle, we would not say well you had to fill the water tank.

It is not the gravity that is free in the wheel, it is the momentum, created by a shifting rod that cost almost nothing to shift comapored to the outpout gained.

actually that would be a good build for someone with lots of times and little money, a single sog arm on a see saw with magnets at each end to push the rod back up again, though i imagine the weight would need to be enough to break the ground wall, and some form of falling barbs within the rod tube that prevent it falling backward, like the falling barb on the end of a spear fishing spear. when the tube end is down the barbs in each end (opposing directions )fall open inward to catch and hold the fired rod then when the rod tube is inverted when the other end falls the fall outward to the wall to allow it to be fired back whilst the opposing set in the other end do the opposite. Just a thought.