Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

# New Book

### Statistics

• Total Posts: 482702
• Total Topics: 14228
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 10
• Guests: 190
• Total: 200

### Author Topic: TD replications  (Read 23611 times)

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 10
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #195 on: March 05, 2017, 08:52:07 PM »
Quote
BTW, your calculations came to the same as I had calculated, so again I fail to see what I forgot.

Here is a parable: Joe and Fred have calculated the surface area of a gate that they want to paint, which is a square. They know how much paint is needed per square meter. So if they calculate the surface area of the gate then they will know how much paint they will have to buy, and how much that will cost. One side of the square is 2m long. Joe calculates the surface area as S=(2[m])^2=2^2[m^2]=4[m^2]. Fred prefers to calculate the same as S=2+2=4.

As you can see in this specific case the numerical result of both calculations are the same (4) and correct, but Fred is calculating it the wrong way. If the length of one side is not 2m but let’s say 3m, then Joe will get a correct result as S=(3[m])^2=9[m^2], but Fred’s result of S=3+3=6 will be wrong. The fact that two different methods of calculation give the same result for a specific case (or even for several specific cases) does not mean that both methods of calculation are equally valid for all possible cases.

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

You have provided useful measurement data, and doing a great work on testing the energy balance of different magnet arrangements. I did not say that you did not do anything useful, or that you have not provided something essential. Your data already merits serious investigation (if true) and that is the reason I have chimed in and trying to help. Even if it finally turns out that there is no real COP>1 in these permanent magnet arrangements, the measurements are still of value if they are scientifically correct and sufficiently accurate. In such a case future experimenters can already know that it might not be the best idea to look for overunity in this area.

But both your method of setting the measurement points and the method of calculating the COP are not the most scientific and accurate, and therefore not very convincing for the scientifically minded. You can fix this with no extra effort, and obtain/present neat measurement results for the same cost and work spent. The correct approach will also be valid for any possible measurement point distribution.

Quote
So I guess you'll have to explain what I have not done.

You have done it (calculated the COP), just not the right way, which was also suggested by telecom, but now I see that it has been nicely described even earlier on January 04 by Floor:
http://overunity.com/14311/work-from-2-magnets-19-output-2/msg498005/#msg498005

If you read the explanations in the pdf that is attached below this post, you will see that in general case it is not wise to use uniform segment sizes. In the regions where the curvature of the force function that you are measuring is large, one supposed to use small displacement sizes. Where the curve is nearly straight line (nearly constant increase or decrease of force per same displacement) one can use larger displacement increments.

If the segment sizes are not uniform, then your method of simply averaging the forces, and ignoring the lengths of individual displacements will give a wrong final results. It is also wise to conform with the established scientific method of calculating the COP as the ratio of the output and input work (not average forces).

Quote
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        ?

Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must add the two forces together, and then divide the result by 2. Your version first divides Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong result.

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

This is your thread, you don’t need my permission. It indeed makes sense to post everything relevant into this thread as well. Although I have also attached a similar pdf document to this message to clarify the calculation methods, yours is also useful, because it explains the subject in more layman terms and it may help those with less technical knowledge. If we want to implement the best method of COP calculation, then I (of someone else) will have to slightly modify the earlier posted spreadsheet as well (but the change is trivially simple).

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

Yes, it does. Whatever you get above 100% is free excess energy.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #195 on: March 05, 2017, 08:52:07 PM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 658
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #196 on: March 05, 2017, 10:16:38 PM »
QUOTE from Nonlinear

"Yes, except for the minor math error in this formula: Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct
in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2. First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2. Your version first divided Fi by 2 and then adds Fp to it, which gives a wrong
result."

END QUOTE
OK
Average force = (peak force -  initial force) / 2 ............ I see,  previously .... I left out the parentheses.

Force applied = average force    times    displacement.
.........................................
.........................................
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g.  except for your minor math error

" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.

(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must    subtract    the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.

Corrections are duly noted and requested, welcomed,... this is, in part, why
the subject matter is in a public forum.

However please understand that this is NOT a conventional class room.
You will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.

I am neither a math wiz nor an expert in magnets nor physics.
But then neither do I have the kind of brain damage that some times
(not that you do either, I don't know ?)
People on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn.....
what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other
specific curriculum.

This topic is not a competition, cooperation is the goal.  Many trolls are very knowledgeable.  If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.

You can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".
Hopeing you can continue to stay involved, sincerely
floor

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #196 on: March 05, 2017, 10:16:38 PM »

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 10
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #197 on: March 05, 2017, 11:35:21 PM »
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g.  except for your minor math error

" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.

(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must    subtract    the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.

What… what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it “should read” like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all.

Quote
You will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.

I did not ask for any special status, and I don’t respect any special status of anybody else here either. As long as it is correct and true what one posts, I respect it and appreciate it. But if something is incorrect, then I don’t care if even the owner of this forum or God himself made the false statement, or made the error, it has to be corrected, and if I have time and interested enough I will do that.

Quote
People on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn..... what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other specific curriculum.

Please don’t speak in the name of other people who read this forum! The calculation methods that I have described are correct (anybody can verify that), and if you or anybody else here wants to keep the exclusive right to “teach the readers” some lousy methods of “doing science” and research, then that is very wrong. People have the right to know what is scientifically correct, and we should let everybody decide for himself which methods and explanations he prefers to learn and accept (if he didn’t know them already). When I wrote that this is your thread, I didn’t mean that therefore I consider you to be the almighty here. Only that you may politely direct the flow of discussion, but not that I or anybody else is obliged to obey your commands. You have no more authority here than I do; not even in this thread.

Quote
Many trolls are very knowledgeable.  If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.

Wow! I have offered truth and correct knowledge, and in return now I have been accused of  being a troll! Now that is quite something! I am a disruption to the topic? Nice one! As far as I know only Stefan can moderate and delete posts. Why do you speak in his name? But even if you could do it, I would not care.

Quote
You can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".

Perhaps you don’t ”need” my input for ego reasons, which is easy to remedy. Just simply ignore my posts. But intending to prevent other readers to read my posts by threatening with deleting my writings is outrageous.

I am not posting regularly on this forum because I have better things to do. In this case I have made an exception because Luc’s latest measurements seemed promising, and wanted to make sure the results are not due to simple mistakes that are easy to correct. But now after seeing you egotistic reactions I realize that this may be a deliberate deception, which can only thrive on pseudoscience.

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 658
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #198 on: March 06, 2017, 05:24:28 PM »
@Nonlinear

I did not say that you are a troll, I implied that you might be.

Luc's experiments / innovations are great and his own, I do not direct them.

Great.... Good to see you have some salt / passion.
Lets not fight, let us use your knowledge.

QUOTE
from Nonlinear

"What… what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it “should read” like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all. "

END QUOTE

See the files below "subtraction of force in sets.png"
..............................................................................
.............................................................................
The topic is moving away from Gotoluc's project, not what I wanted.

So lets move this "discussion" to the other topic  ?  @

http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg496713/#msg496713

Like I originally suggested.

@GotoLuc
There are some other filesattached below, as well.

regards
floor

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #198 on: March 06, 2017, 05:24:28 PM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 658
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #199 on: March 06, 2017, 05:28:54 PM »
@gotoLuc

The "MeasPhy 10-5.PDF" file is posted in between the two PNG files above.

It would be really easy to miss that PDF file if I didn't mention it speciffically.

regards
floor

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #199 on: March 06, 2017, 05:28:54 PM »

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2765
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #200 on: March 08, 2017, 02:15:47 AM »
Here is the first test update of the Mechanical Magnet Torque Amplifier v2.0

Luc

#### telecom

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 378
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #201 on: March 08, 2017, 05:09:48 AM »
A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #201 on: March 08, 2017, 05:09:48 AM »

#### lota

• Newbie
• Posts: 11
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #202 on: March 08, 2017, 09:23:07 AM »
HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?

Lota

#### Cairun

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #203 on: March 08, 2017, 01:17:39 PM »
Luc,

It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work.  And, again, impressive work!

Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial.  I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale.  This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.

Regards,
Alex

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 10
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #204 on: March 08, 2017, 01:37:56 PM »
Luc,

This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything. You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn’t count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.

All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #204 on: March 08, 2017, 01:37:56 PM »

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2765
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #205 on: March 08, 2017, 03:41:08 PM »

A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!

Thanks telecom

HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?

Lota

Sorry lota, I don't understand your question.

It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work.  And, again, impressive work!
Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial.  I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale.  This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.

Regards,
Alex

Thanks Alex

Yes, I will do force over distance measurement as well.

I agree!  a string around the rotor would be a good way to measure distance and force at the same time.

Luc

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 2765
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #206 on: March 08, 2017, 04:44:05 PM »
Luc,

This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything.
You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn’t count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.

I don't agree that this won't prove anything. We will see.
As for wasted expense, the only cost was \$20. for the gear head motor from a surplus salvage store.
The rest I had on hand, even all the 3/4 inch plywood used to build the device was salvaged and free.
You see, I live a very frugal life style, on a \$100 a week, so I know not to waste.

All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.

Don't underestimate what I know needs to be done to convert the mechanical output back to the input.
Some of what you suggest would be needed but it's far more complex then what you suggest!...  since the rotor could not just freewheel.
Rotor and slider would have to be mechanically linked to keep the timing.
I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.

Regards

Luc

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #206 on: March 08, 2017, 04:44:05 PM »

#### Floor

• Hero Member
• Posts: 658
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #207 on: March 08, 2017, 11:32:28 PM »

This latest addition to the magnets motion and measurements project,
is a detailed explanation of how to calculate the work done by a force that is
changing with distance.  (like a magnetic force).

Please find the attached file   "MagnetForceIntegration 2.PDF"

best wishes
floor

PS
Nice Luc

#### Cairun

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #208 on: March 09, 2017, 06:09:47 AM »

I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.

Luc,

Yes, you are exactly right about this.  In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again.  And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.  A cam and follower(or track and follower)setup should allow us to mechanically link the input and output to create a self runner.  I will attempt to model something up to show what I am referring to.

Regards,
Alex

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #208 on: March 09, 2017, 06:09:47 AM »

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 10
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #209 on: March 09, 2017, 03:40:05 PM »
In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again.  And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.

In a generator designed to optimally utilize all the available excess energy at arbitrary speeds of rotation yes. One has to synchronize them and allow the slider to finish the complete stroke before the rotor is moved away. But if your aim is only to produce a closed loop as proof of concept and proof of excess energy, then one can accomplish the task in a simpler way. If there is really 60% excess energy, then the following device should be at least self running.

The proposed operation is this (referring to the earlier version where force measurements were done):

1) The stroke length of the slider was already about 10 times shorter than the travel length of the rotor magnet. If you allow the slider to deliver its work even faster say 10 times faster than the speed of the rotor magnet, then the freely rotating rotor will travel only about 1/100th distance of the stroke during the movement of the slider. This is negligible, and it nicely approximates a perfectly synchronized rotor-slider. It is also possible that a slower movement of the slider would be also satisfactory. Like for example just let both slider and rotor move at the same speed. In that case the rotor would travel 1/10th of the rotor’s stroke distance while the slider completes its stroke. One can calculate how much efficiency gets lost this way and find an optimum, a compromise between practicality and ideal condition.

2) The synchronous operation can be guaranteed by using a toque brake on the shaft, and keeping the RPM of the rotor at sufficiently low level, so that the slider should be able to complete the stroke before the rotor travels a significant distance away from the synchronous position. The torque developed on the brake can be measured, just like the RPM, from which one can calculate the output power.

3) A large enough flywheel will absorb and smooth out any jerky movement, and contribute to the slow synchronous operation.

4) A timing latch could be utilized (similar to the one used in old pendulum clocks) to time and synchronize the release of the slider magnets at the right moments, only slightly before the rotor completely covers the slider magnet.

5) The linear bidirectional movement of the slider can be rectified and converted to unidirectional rotation using two bicycle hubs (or similar ratchet mechanism), one on each side. One on the left side drives the flywheel while moving forward, and the other on the right side drives it while moving backwards.

6) this way a continuous rotatory movement can be sustained, with an easy and handy way of measuring the output power. No need for accelerating and decelerating the output wheel, or stroke. But it would make sense to start designing such a machine only after precise reliable measurements prove the existence of at least 20-30% of excess energy. Anything below that would make it challenging to overcome the losses, and it would have no practical significance anyway.

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #209 on: March 09, 2017, 03:40:05 PM »