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

[Butch]

Hi guys, I started reading this thread with a keen interest.  Then I got busy and haven't had the chance to come back to it till now.  I would like to offer an idea/opinion.  This is a very interesting concept but the main task is going to be how you alter the magnetic field across the washers (I guess I'll call them washers for now even though they can be just about anything - beads, metal donuts, etc.)  Although I'm not totally convinced that it maintains a constant inductance across the gap, it does appear that the inductance change is small.  It seems like everyone is trying to devise a way of using electromagnets to change the field. 

So I would like to offer a different idea.  Have any of you ever used a magnetic base?  I work in laser research and we use these things a lot in our optical setups - they work well with our giant steel tables.  This Wikipedia page explains how they work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_base

When the V part of the holder is against steel, you can turn the diametrically magnetized magnet very easily.  However, if you hold it in air, you'll find it very difficult to turn the magnet to the "on" position.  Basically when a ferrous metal is bridging the gap to the V, it allows a path for the flux to flow in the "on" position and the magnet will spin very easily. 

Well, this would suit this project perfectly!!!  If you placed your dowel rod with washers in the V part of this holder, then (assuming the inductance does not change much in the gap) the diametric magnet should be easily rotated.  As you rotate the magnet, the washers will move back and forth.  If the inductance is really constant, placing a load on the washers should not affect the magnet rotation.  I think you'll find this method very easy to construct and should work way better than an electromagnet.  I've included a picture of the setup for clarity - I have not tried this and don't really have the time. 

If anything, this will quickly allow you to determine how the system works.  If the magnet is hard to move when the washers are forced in the "closed" position (aka heavily loaded), then this is not a constant inductance gap and probably would not produce overunity.  However, if the rotation is easy to spin regardless of washer loading, then we have a great step forward!

Hope it helps,
Charlie

Charlie,
Great idea!
Butch

[Koen1]

This stack fanner idea, except for Free Energy extraction (and lots of it) - cause magnetic field is free, can be used as it is without moving magnets as spring - very efficient magnetic spring or even dumper for automotive aplications...I mean there is no any possibilty magnet will ware off due to overcounterpolarization. Finally Magnetic Dumpers possible      ...even extraction of energy (if made as variable reluctance - washer can go out of field) when bumping on the roads...tremendous possibilites with these thingees...or energy absorbers-redirectors when cars crash...

Well yeah, that was clear from the start.
But that's something completely different from the idea you have so aggressively been pushing over the past weeks,
where you claimed that it is possible to produce 50:1 overunity by moving the magnets to and fro.

When someone builds a factory of such springs or dumpers send me a first Million of profit - this no joke at all, it is worth even more.

Still kicking some serious crap out of unbelievers asses. Stupid Unbelievers go away from this forum you are allways wrong.

Mwahaha raaaaaight.... And you dared to accuse me of pompous posts? LMAO

But really, you were so very adamant that you can produce 50 times the input energy using this "fanner" principle,
but you still haven't shown it. Shouting very loudly that you are convinced it is so is no proof. Show it.
Build a simple setup in which the elements you indicated as crucial are incorporated, so there's the washer stack,
the magnets, the mechanism to move the magnets, and the magnetic equilibrium mechanism, and your piston,
and the collector coils, and then input an X amount of energy and show that you measure 50X the output energy.
Do that, and I shall graceously admit that I was wrong in doubting your claims and attitude.
But keep shouting "it is so!" with zero empirical foundation, and I will just keep replying "I don't think so".



[/quote]

[wizkycho]

@wizkycho

The idea at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3979.msg74303#msg74303 with the holder/lifter and the coils will not work because the back EMF from the coil will make it very difficult to rotate the diametric magnet in the center.  That's why I think it would be perfect for this project since the inductance change between the gap is "suppose" to be equal all the time. 

Your idea of using the ring like you show in your picture is good but the problem is that the magnet/core things are not going to leave the washers very easily.  This will cause all the energy gained from the pistons to be lost due to magnetic stiction.  You might be able to balance the movement of the magnet/cores with a second row/piston setup that was to the side and 90 degrees out of phase with the first.  Personally I think keeping the magnets inside the core and just rotating them like I drew would give the best results.  And really, I'm not convinced this setup has constant inductance - if it does we could possibly get overunity, if not then its a lost cause - another energy converter. seems like only mech friction to overcome, very very good.

     In any such rotating lifting magnet there is need to be kind of mechanicall cog (that mech cog mechanism reqiure very small and always constant E in - no matter number/strenght of mags) that will when magnet gets in position assure it will stay in that position while fanners are done with work. Coils are here to (re)direct (rotate) magnet. What is very good thing here (and in your proposal is that rotating magnet in center needs to move only 90 degrees (if full cir.360 deg) and I allso am very sure that for that is needed very small energy scince fanner - "WEIGHT" (it would be if lifter) is allways there (same and available inductance).seems like only mech friction to overcome, very very good.

LaFontefanners_by_knitel
magnet core pair (moving left-right) are moving in linear (what ring ) fashion will move very easily cause gap between two closeest fanner stacks is only 1mm flux easily bends-jumps over that short distance. it will move exactly the same as if fanner stacks are connected - no cog at all. I tried this and 1mm gap moving magnet doesn't feel at all. just pure mech friction needed to overcome.
(nothing is supposed to be in satturation here)

I still  can not decide which is better rotating cilindrical magnet type or my proposed linear moving magnet core pair ?

[newton2]

Hello Honoured  OverUnityForum-Profile        Charlie_V  !!

Thanks about Your important writing a warning
against Alcoholics and Drugs , etc !!

I also warn against such Destructive Matters & Means !!

WKR & have Yourself a nice Day and a pleasant Late Autumn  ! 

[AbbaRue]

I like the rotating magnet idea because a line of these magnets would fit nicely onto one shaft and then you just need to rotate the shaft.
I'm just not sure if the magnetic field will obey us and follow the iron core around to were we want the most concentration of magnetism.
When the magnets are placed directly beside the washers the field has no choice but to pass through the washers from pole to pole.
But once you try to bend and redirect the field it may choose a different path.

Has anyone experimented with different thicknesses for the washers to see what would be ideal.
Is it better to have many thin washers or fewer thicker washers?
Also what size of magnets are we looking at here?
Could we use a number of smaller magnets placed in a row or should we use single large surface area magnets?