Cookies-law

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.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81712
  • *Latest: Element

  • *Total Posts: 485323
  • *Total Topics: 14264
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 7
  • *Guests: 146
  • *Total: 153

Facebook

Author Topic: Simplifying what we have observed  (Read 8013 times)

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2017, 04:43:18 AM »
Why don't you tell me what the constant force from gravity is then,, since I take it that here on this planet you do not think that it is 9.8m/s/s.

It would also seem that you do not think that 9.8m/s/s is a rate of change.

It also seems that you do not think that this rate of change will be applied whether or not other forces are in play or if some magic velocity is attained.


It seems you misinterpret what I said.


It also seems you have trouble converting 9.8m into 32 feet


"Constant"???? Who told you this ??
It is only consistently the same close to the Earths surface.


Double the distance from earth, g = 1/4
It is called the Inverse Square Law

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #60 on: February 27, 2017, 04:43:18 AM »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #61 on: February 27, 2017, 05:05:59 AM »
"Magic velocity"?? Really


If you want to call it "magic" I suppose
Or we could talk about what really is observed.


For instance high velocity meteorite of sufficient size
that it does not burn up during its passing through
the earths atmosphere. And let's say it doesn't hit
the earth. Let's say it travels passed the earth, maybe
comes pretty low to the ground but is going so fast that
it keeps going back into space.


During the descending half of its' journey gravity adds to the
velocity. During the ascending half, gravity subtracts from its'
velocity. So when it enters, then leaves our planet, the earths
gravity has net 0 effect on the rock.


Such is the nature of a conservative field.


An acceleration is the integral of Time.
Time is in the equation twice - do you see that?


Fast rock
1m/1000(m/s) + 9.8m/s/s;  1000m/s + 0.0098m/s
V=1000.0098m/s


Slow rock
1m/1(m/s) + 9.8 m/s/s ; 1m/s +9.8m/s
V= 10.8m/s


Do you see now how gravity affects things differently
at different velocities over a given distance?


This is because you gave the problem as a distance.


If you had proposed that they fell for 1 second of time
Instead of a given distance, my answer would have been
from the perspective of a time constant.


The situation you proposed was across a constant distance.


You have to take into consideration how much time the
acceleration is applied for.


Because it is moving at 1000m/s there is only 1/1000th
of a second that gravity is accelerating the rock over that 1m.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #62 on: February 27, 2017, 05:12:57 AM »
Gravity is a change in time over time.


Magnetism is a change in time over distance.


This is a very important observation.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #63 on: February 27, 2017, 02:23:36 PM »
You are still missing it.

I have already told you that it is  O.K. for you to not see things the same way I do.

I try most of the time to see things the way others do,, then I go on my way seeing things my way.

Try looking at gravity as moving "through" time.


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2017, 03:16:46 PM »
I used the rock and gravity as an analogy.

Gravity so far only seems to care about the masses involved and the distance of separation, not the velocity of the objects under observation.

At any point in time the force of gravity is determined by the masses involved an there distance of separation, not there relative velocity, so as the distance changes the force changes and the rate of change of that change becomes the rate of change in distance of separation.

The rate of change from the gravity interaction is internally controlled, the rate of that change is external and is controlled by the change in distance.

Gravity operates independent of time.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #64 on: February 27, 2017, 03:16:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #65 on: March 13, 2017, 06:31:01 AM »
I find this interesting.

I have built many arrays,  the one on the left is a very simple stack of magnets where one row is overlapping the other row by 1\2 magnet.  I took two of these and broke them in half and put them together like the one on the right.

If you happen to power a coil in repulsion at the right time it does not repel the array, instead it pulls the other magnet pole into the coil with a fair amount of force,,,

Imagine the array on the right placed on a disc on a bearing so it is free to rotate,, blah blah blah.

If you use a stack of magnets instead of a coil it is also interesting in how it responds,,

One thing I tried, but I am not good enough to do it well,, was to short the coil a little before the leading magnet was underneath the coil,, and then open the coil before the trailing magnet was underneath it,, I would think that if that could be done correctly then the array would rotate without using any other input to the coil.

This is a small angle of interaction,, a small window to play in but I find it very interesting.

Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #66 on: March 13, 2017, 09:24:54 AM »
Not really sure I understand, but sounds similar to what I'm doing.
I do know that shorting the coil just as the field the coil see's is about to reverse will cause more production from the coil.
artv

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #66 on: March 13, 2017, 09:24:54 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #67 on: March 13, 2017, 02:11:24 PM »
I was just playing with an interaction,, I grab what I have available to use as a demonstration device to play with.

I used the array setup on the left to look at the field interactions passing over the poles,, saw what they did with all PM's and then tried a coil and that all took me right back to a motor I built that would increase current draw as it sped up.

Kind of what I am saying is that if you have a trailing opposite pole then the "coil" working in repulsion to the leading coil is not necessarily in repulsion,, and vise-verse  :)

How often do you see the interactive field strength go down, in one sense, as the magnet gets closer?

Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #68 on: March 13, 2017, 07:27:02 PM »
As a permanent magnet(pm) approaches a coil that is loaded, the coil produces a magnetic field of the same pole , which in turn wants to repel the approaching magnet, correct? (aka Lenz)
When pm hits dead center of the coil, the flow in the coil reverses right?
Short the coil, on one of it's leads, depending on polarity, just as the reversal is taking place, you will increase gain in the coil.
And I'm thinking short it again as the pm leaves, for more gain but not sure yet ,time will tell.
artv

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #69 on: March 13, 2017, 09:52:56 PM »
As a permanent magnet(pm) approaches a coil that is loaded, the coil produces a magnetic field of the same pole , which in turn wants to repel the approaching magnet, correct? (aka Lenz)
Loaded meaning a coil connected to a load so that current will flow through the coil,, yes
Quote
When pm hits dead center of the coil, the flow in the coil reverses right?
At dead center there is no longer a change in magnetic flux so if the coil had no resistance and the load had no resistance then I think the current that is flowing through the coil would continue to "flow".
Quote
Short the coil, on one of it's leads, depending on polarity, just as the reversal is taking place, you will increase gain in the coil.
And I'm thinking short it again as the pm leaves, for more gain but not sure yet ,time will tell.
artv

I am not sure what you mean by "one of its leads".

I look at the magnetic induction process kind of like spinning up a flywheel,, the change in flux one way spins the flywheel up in one direction, (current flow), when the magnet reaches the center and then tries to go away from the center of the coil it then tries to spin the flywheel the other way which takes input to slow the flywheel down and reverse it,, so you put in work to spin it up and then you have to put in more work to slow it down,, this is while the coil is allowing current to flow.

You can stop the "flywheel" part by opening the connection to the coil when the PM reaches the center, the result is a voltage spike.

What I am playing with is when the coil is large enough so that part of the winding covers the trailing magnet so that when the "Lenz" force appears it also pulls the trailing magnet towards the coil, thus offsetting some of the mechanical work needed for the induced voltage\current from the coil,, now when you open the coil the magnets, both of them, are free to keep on going.  Also by using only a pair of magnets there is not this effect trying to pull another magnet that is leading the inducing magnet back into the coil,, so you would have a N and S magnet next to each other, a space between them and the next set and then another N and S magnet next to each other and another space and so on,, so if instead of "shorting" the coil it was connected to a very low resistance primary winding of a step up transformer,, then close the switch completing the circuit at the correct time and then open the switch again at the correct time and the mechanical input cost might be lower than the electrical output collected from the secondary of the transformer.

It is a very small window, or angle of rotation that I am talking about relative to the rotating part,, say like 10 degrees with the switch closed and maybe 40 degrees or so with it open,, that would depend upon the build,, this little finger toy only has 2 pairs so I am using close to 20 degrees maybe closed and 340 degrees open,, just for an example,,,,   I am still trying to see what coil shape works best for me.

This is a sidetrack from the testbed I am slowly building,, that one uses a different approach :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #69 on: March 13, 2017, 09:52:56 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #70 on: March 20, 2017, 06:50:56 PM »
decades ago when the cost of gasoline was so low that you did not even consider it there was a phrase,,

"There is no replacement for displacement when looking for cheap horsepower"

When you are concerned about the "cost",, well it usually means that you need to change the method of making the power.

Offline shylo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #71 on: March 22, 2017, 11:37:16 PM »
"I am not sure what you mean by "one of its leads".
Hi webby,

AS the approaching magnet induces the build up in the coil, almost instantly an oppsite field begins to build.
They share the same space but a little out of time, if you give a path of delay , you can feed it back ,to assist .

"What I am playing with is when the coil is large enough so that part of the winding covers the trailing magnet so that when the "Lenz" force appears it also pulls the trailing magnet towards the coil"

I use a pole for each leg of the coil, but not continuous.
Also using coils at 90 degrees seems to reduce the magnetic interference from one coil to the next.
artv


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #72 on: March 23, 2017, 12:51:35 AM »
Thanks for the information.

Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #73 on: March 23, 2017, 06:26:10 AM »
If I use V=n*(ba/t) and then take V/r to find the current and then I use current*t that gives me the coulombs,, right?

Now that I have the the coulombs and V,,, I can then choose the correct capacitance.

If that is right,, have you ever noticed that as long as n,b,a and r stay the same that the coulombs stay the same,, in other words a given coil and a given magnet will move the same coulombs per cycle no matter the t.

b=flux in Tesla
a=area in m^2
n=turns
t=time in seconds
r=resistance
V=voltage


Offline webby1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2851
Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #74 on: March 23, 2017, 04:02:23 PM »
You ever notice that a capacitor does not really care abut how much time I use to charge it?

You ever notice that torque does not really care about time?  I mean, if I apply 10N-m of torque for 50 degrees and then extract 50N-m of torque for 10 degrees the time does not matter to the torque.  I could apply that 10N-m of torque over 50 degrees in 0.1 seconds and then extract that 50N-m of  torque over 10 degrees in 0.02 seconds,, the torque does not care, it is still a net zero thing.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Simplifying what we have observed
« Reply #74 on: March 23, 2017, 04:02:23 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: