Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[Ergo]

I also missed how exactly we arrive at a 50:1 OU factor... read my replay 58
If cogging is eliminated menas that device is megnetically balanced (angles of exits enters are same)
- only friction IN, Complete magnet strenght OUT.

You ramble, wizkycho.
Cogging has nothing to do wether a device is overunity or not. Can anyone please explain precisely how this device is supposed to be 50:1 overunity.
In my opinion there is nothing remarkable going on. The discs are naturally repelled from each other when a field is applied.
The magnetic field source can come from moving permanent magnets or static electromagnets but there is always a cost involved.
And there is nothing speaking for the cost being less when using discs compared to a ordinary solenoid with a center hole that is pushing/pulling a rod magnet when energized.
It is exactly the same principle. As long as no one can justify the 50:1 claim I will reject this as another wishful thinking.

[wizkycho]

Ergo !

Cogging represents NEGATIVE INERTIAL MASS-FORCE INCREASE - MUCH MUCH more ENERGY INPUT to unstuck,
start machine...once started vibrations are developed and other mechanicall problems that increse LOSSes to the point
machine is unuseable and wobble... althogh at first may seem that foreward attracction in one time will balance with reverse attraction in other point...
You can underestimate force of 1 magnet but do not underestimate forces of many - You just wan't be able to make workable machine
It is just simple practical advice , very simple to understand - no ramble about it.

To overcome that magnet attracctions to fanners needs to have BALANCED forces on shaft - NET attractions on shaft at least at most of the times zeroed if not allways or drastically reduced

ONE magnet pair leaves one fanner while OTHER magnet pair enters other fanner. both magnet pairs on same "shaft"
So no matter how many BALANCED magnet pairs we use 50 or 100 energy for friction input stays same - BUT output is twice
with 100 than with 50 - so You see how 50:1 - Maybe Dave Squires has other much better Idea , would love to hear it.
If not balanced more magnets you use more Inertial "PROBLEMS"

Wiz

[wizkycho]

And Ergo !

Cogging in this PM ONLY machines has much if not everything to do with OU.
DON'T MIX cogging in todays MOTORS - GENERATORS, cause vectors of attractions are different and in this PMM Only there is no
REPEL forces as such or as function of Lenz. Many differences.

You see that no matter what you put on output fanner it DOES NOT effect input
So please explain where do You see Cost in Input E? Or why this can not be OU ?

Wiz

[Ergo]

No wizkycho, eliminating cogging has nothing do do with overunity.
This is where you don't understand physics.

An output from a motor or any other moving device is entirely created by torque and speed.
Just because you eliminate cogging you still have to add power to create torque.
My claim is that the input power is equal or higher than the output from a device using this new "dics" contraption"

If you can explain how great torque is created from this setup at none or very small power input then I might reconsider my stand.

[BEP]

No wizkycho, eliminating cogging has nothing do do with overunity.
This is where you don't understand physics.

@Ergo,

If possible, please provide a link or reference where 'physics' shows a motor or generator that has no 'cogging' or 'sticky point'.

Thanks,


BEP