Hilden-Brand Magnet Motor

[gyulasun]

this is the 3rd time I kindly ask you for this.

Hi Gyula, have a look at pic 3 on reply 278.

Hi Albert and Ergo,

Albert, Thanks for this, I was aware of that picture but wanted to see the simulation with the same size gap (you used wider gap in reply 278 than in the latter 3 simulations) but now it does not matter if you also agree that there is no force in the gap at all in either case, right?

So is Jacks valve better than when the magnet is replaced with iron? Why is it better or more efficient? can you tell me that?
You say yourself that increasing the cross sectional area of the core increases the resultant force. So you have to sacrifice cross sectional area to make room for Jacks magnet.

Yes, Jack's valve is better than when the magnet is replaced with iron  because (as I explained) you actually make its cross sectional area bigger by filling up the space that was earlier occupied by the perm. magnet.

No, you do not have to sacrifice cross sectional area to make room for Jack's magnet, I did not mean that. I emphasized the effective area if you would read it again in my previous letter, and for me it means that if you could take out the sleeve and reshape it into a normal cylinder core of the same length the sleeve has had: this would mean an equivalent cross sectional area in my understanding. And if you increase this area with the cross sectional area of the magnet, you will naturally have a stronger electromagnet than with the sleeve's original cross sectional area. But then you cannot compare this latter result to that of the perm. magnet + electromagnet flux result because you must compare apple to apple.

The case as I see it is that you always have to sacrifice some cross sectional area of an electromagnet to fit in a magnet to turn it into Jacks valve. If the insertion of the magnet doesn't result in an increase of force, then it is pointless. just leave it as an electromagnet.

No, you do not have to sacrifice some cross sectional area of an electromagnet to fit in a magnet to turn it into Jack's valve.

Let's think from backwards and you could make simulations too.
Suppose we need 3200 N attractive force in Jack's valve.

Step 1: no perm. magnet, no sleeve shape core but a normal cylinder core i.e. we have to convert mathematically the cross sectional area of a sleeve of 1" ID and 2" OD (as Jack indicated in his drawing in reply 287) to be an equivalent area of a cylinder shape core with the same height or length. This way the core of the electromagnet will of course be thinner than the bars width they are attached to.

Step 2: apply an excitation current into the coil that is wound around this cylinder core till you receive 800 N  (yes, 800 N please) in the airgap and note the current or the input power to the coil.

Step 3: replace this equivalent cylinder shaped core with the sleeve from which we started out in step 1 and apply the same input power to get (more or less) the same 800 N force in the same airgap. I can only hope this will come out in the simulation without changing the input power too noticable (within 5-10% maybe?)

Step 4: insert the permanent magnet into the sleeve, apply the same input power into the electromagnet as in step 3 or 2 and now you will have to receive 4 times as much force i.e. 4*800=3200 N.

You may use your setup you used when reported simulations in your reply 295.

If Rob (MeggerMan) could also afford his time to run such simulations, it would be also great to see his results in the setups above.

Ergo, I hope you also understand now the problem of the cross sectional areas and maybe you see now it differently?

Regards

Gyula

[JackH]

Thanks gyulasun

[acp]

Step 5, replace magnet with iron, observe practically same result as step4.

If the valve behaves in the same way in real life (I hope it doesn't) as in the simulations then there is no chance of overunity with Jacks valve.

By the way, I think Honk made some very interesting experiments that could be applied to motors. Great work Honk.


regards

Albert

[gyulasun]

Step 5, replace magnet with iron, observe practically same result as step4.

Albert, I hope you replace magnet with iron with physical sizes I kindly suggested.

Why are you not willing to consider the cross sectional area/mass/volume difference which is created by your replacement?  These factors do count in the performance of an electromagnet. There is no point to continue this series of arguments because you prefer ignoring my suggestions.  Debunking?

Regards

Gyula

[acp]

Hi Gyula, there really is no need to acuse me of debunking.  If it's not possible to raise a question (which in my opinion has not been answered) regarding a claim of free energy without being accused of debunking then I think we can end the discussion right here.

I do not see the need to perform anymore simulations as per your suggestions as I believe the simulations allready provided are sufficient.  I also believe your reasoning is flawed. If someone would perform the test in real life of the valve with the magnet replaced with the iron then we will know how it stands as being a feasible energy source.

Regards

Albert