Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83907
  • *Latest: Vi

  • *Total Posts: 524044
  • *Total Topics: 15602
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 9
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7  (Read 58219 times)

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« on: February 02, 2011, 12:12:48 AM »
Finally got around to getting to know FEMM and decided to simulate one of Butch's old ideas:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3dzJ80hEMµ
 
 It took me a bit but the results seem promising.

 http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/5209/simanim1.gif

The smaller the airgap the larger the COP.
 

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« on: February 02, 2011, 12:12:48 AM »

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2011, 08:51:12 AM »
In a generator type setup there's no need for the secondary motion of opening and closing the cores. A coil acts as a variable magnet, we know that any magnet does not or neglible affect a moving magnet along its direction due to the forces being diverted sideways.

This is also what I alluded to a while ago in and older thread:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10021.0

But it went under the radar and remained there. I guess if we can't collaborate, build and research together then why bother posting anything under the "open source" banner.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2011, 10:29:05 AM »
@broli,

As you know, I'm following the pmm development closely, alongside with the other aspects of OU. I'm sorry to say but to me Butch's ideas hold no promise. I wish I'm wrong (which will become at once apparent if Butch produces a real working motor based on these pretty common ideas). The main reason why I consider these and all kinds of other similar ideas as not very promising for our attempts to make a working perpetuum mobile is that the way the excess energy, small as it is, is produced in these constructions is not technological. By that I mean that excess energy obtained, say, during rotation has to be used in a translational motion in order for the sticky spot to be overcome. In another rendition excess energy obtained along one direction has to be used for inducing translation in another direction for the sticky spot to be overcome. And so on and so forth. I hope you understand my point. Not that they cannot be made but such devices are very difficult to fine tune even in their better designs as the ones of @Roobert33 or Walter Torbay, to name a few.

Therefore, it seems apparent that the "switching" through the excess energy should be sought along the lines of Steorn's Orbo where the excess energy appears along the direction of the motion and the switching is due to internal properties and asymmetries of the materials thus avoiding mechanical friction. Fine tuning of such devices is difficult too because of the difficulty in finding the right materials but once found the making of a working device seems much more promising.

I wonder if there would be a way to model the changing magnetization behavior of a material alongside the interaction of materials whith a given magnetization using FEMM or better yet Maxwell3D? What I mean is to account not only for the interaction of the magnetic field as the parts of a given magnetiation approach each other (as it is usually done) but also to simulate the changing character of the ME dependence of, say, ferrite. In other words, to try to model the behavior of the neo-ferrite couple, as in Steorn's Orbo, when another neo is approaching it or retracting from it.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2011, 10:29:05 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2011, 10:51:26 AM »
I respect your opinion omnibus but not necessarily agree with it in this case. The design in this thread is a 4 cycle system. I merely just simulated each cycle and their associated forces and shared the results.

We are talking about palm sized dimensions giving us macroscopic energy gains. One cycle of the 3mm gap setup gives 18.1 J of excess mechanical energy this become 24.8 J when the gap is reduced to 1mm. If you even had 10 cycles per second we're talking about 181 Watt and 248 Watt respectively of continuous mechanical power. If that's not convincing then I don't know what is.

And I believe the secondary motion of opening and closing the cores can be omitted completely by using coils around the upper and lower legs like I suggested above. This would significantly reduce the engineering complexity and cost.

Steorn aside, the main point what lafonte also showed with his proof of concepts is that the usual longitudinal force can be diverted to one that is transverse to the motion of the magnet. This seems to hold as long as the flux goes out the magnet and into the core making a sharp turn.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2011, 01:35:18 PM »
Besides the analytical results of the above, designs like the below are only speculative. To me the ou is almost a sure thing, it's how do we make a practical model that's not too expensive out of it. This is why a concept based on continuous motion is the most preferred.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2011, 01:35:18 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2011, 05:10:55 PM »
Besides the analytical results of the above, designs like the below are only speculative. To me the ou is almost a sure thing, it's how do we make a practical model that's not too expensive out of it. This is why a concept based on continuous motion is the most preferred.

Can't agree more. That's what our whole discussion is all about -- how to reach that point of having a continuously moving OU device alreaady knowing without a doubt that excess energy can be produced discretely.

One obvious goal in this respect is to try to find ways to substantially increase the excess energy produced and this is where I'm probably missing something with respect to this proposal. So, first, could you please discuss a little bit more the last two sets of sims you presented. Both seem to show substantial excess energy, indeed. Aslo, how exactly do you envision to use it for continuous motion? I think we should do anything possible to make advances in this pursuit and especially try not to miss an important development, while remaining critical at the same time.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2011, 06:18:55 PM »
@broli,

I guess it may help in this discussion if I illustrate in more concrete terms what I have in mind. Analysis as to whether or not a concept is viable for a continuous motion (already knowing that production of excess energy is possible without a doubt) should necessarily involve the observation of a closed loop. Thus, although the recent study I did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnqXJbwpNRo ;like I said I’ll do more work on that this month or in March) shows categorically that excess energy can be produced in a closed loop, it is not technological in this particular case. That is, other factors make it obvious that other solutions for making of continuously working device powered by excess energy should be sought. Indeed, as seen in the figure below, illustrating the experiment, it is possible to have the test magnet land on two different potential surfaces when removing it from the point L where the force of attraction is maximum to points K and M where the force of attraction is zero – it is obvious then that the integral of the force the test magnet experiences along the closed loop  L-M-K-L is non-zero, which, if the path is traversed in the proper direction would yield excess energy. And yet, that isn’t a technological way to make a perpetuum mobile because of factors such as friction and because of the way excess energy is obtained, especially having in mind its low value etc.

I think a similar closed loop analysis should be made of Butch’s proposals to see how technological they are. I may stand corrected, of course, but so far I’m not too optimistic.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2011, 06:18:55 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2011, 07:38:18 PM »
The analysis is based on this concept:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3dzJ80hEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_q-CnoG6Q

Note however that those are animated in attraction unlike the simulation which has them in repulsion. But I believe both are equivalent, I'm planning on simulating the other mode too.

the initial state is magnets away from each other and the C cores are closed.

The fource cycles:
1) cores closed: magnets moving to each other, calculate forces on magnets
2) magnets near each other: cores moving away from each other, calculate forces on cores
3) cores opened: magnets moving away from each other, calculate forces on magnets
4) magnets away from each other: cores moving to each other, calculate forces on cores

After these 4 cycles everything is at its initial state and energy is gained.

Also note the big magnets at the top, their position can be really arbitrary. If you look at the force graphs of the cores you'll see that opening and closing them irregardles of where the magnets are produces almost the same amount of work. So why not ease the job of the actuators by placing repelling magnets anywhere in the system attached to the cores. That way in theory their opening and closing forces can be almost completely canceled.

The setup would use two linear actuators to open and close the cores, this is your energy input. And you will get the energy output from the magnets as torque on a wheel with a reciprocating rod.

But the actuators have to act fast, so perhaps it's best to use pneumatic ones.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2011, 09:45:10 PM »
The attraction setup like the youtube video show about the same. COP 4.75, energy gain 22.88J/cycle. This is quite big for a setup that has a planar size of 20cmx8cm when closed up. The only limit would be the speed of the linear actuators opening and closing the cores. If these simulation results are accurate one could create 1000Watt of mechanical power at about 44 cycles per second with this small setup. During one period the cores have to be moved twice. At 44Hz the period is 22.72ms. An actuator that can open the cores in 1ms should do the trick, don't know if it can be done.

But pneumatic actuators can be super speedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ5QbMnoyYU

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2011, 09:45:10 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2011, 12:14:11 AM »
Thanks. Now, (discussing it in the sense of Butch's drawing) I think we have no disagreement regarding the obvious discrepancy in the work necessary to pull the magnets apart when attached to the cores compared to the work they do when attracted to each other away from the cores. That was obvious from the Butch's initial video demonstrating this effect and this is obvious from your graph 'Magnets: force over distance' although I still don't quite understand how it was obtained (how was, for instance, the value -1.06J obtained since it appears that most of the curve is placed above the zero line). This is an effect we do agree with and it is the basis for the conclusion that there is OU in this setup. That should go without saying and it's the really attracting side of this proposal.

The problem is in the work needed to bring in the cores compared to the work to separate them and the practical construction to accomplish that (I know you mentioned a pneumatic actuator but it still doesn't seem quite clear how this is to be applied concretely in a practical device). As is seen from your 'Core: force over distance' graph those works are practically the same. At least the discrepancy seen is nowhere near the discrepancy seen regarding the magnets.

Now, like I said, those four works should give a net energy "out of nothing" in the ideal case and this is an OU device without a doubt should there be no friction and should the negative feedback be 100% efficient. We know it's not so in real life so this is what has been bothering me from the get go. As I mentioned, I'm not saying a working device based on this principle cannot be made but it will be extremely complicated to do technologically. I know Butch's main goal in posting these ideas is to find a financial backer and that's indeed what's really needed in this case. A financial backer, very serious at that (meaning putting a lot of money into the project). I really wish he could find one but I still don't see how he can accomplish to convince one with the complicated proposal at hand. So, again, all boils down to getting out of the substandard infrastructure almost everybody here has for this pursuit. Unfortunately, I don't have the answer how to do that other than just going ahead and spending your own money as most of us do. The situation is tough because it may not be that the simpler designs we can afford to try are the ones actually yielding the necessary level of excess energy. In addition, it isn't even that clear that that's the case (that one should necessarily seek more complicated renditions to solve the OU problem). Would be interesting to hear what you think regarding this transition from ideas to a practical device.

Offline phoneboy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2011, 02:01:20 AM »
Hi, don't post much but after reading the thread I thought this might fit what your discussing, this is an unfinished design I started after I saw Mr. Lafonte's switcher, it's basically a magnetic Bourke engine. The pictures are of the design sans the flywheel. The would motor need a push to start but as the center magnet (fixed to the crankshaft) got beyond the neutral position (shown) the flux would couple with one of the outer magnets and the other outer magnets flux would complete through the channel. Since the outer magnets are fixed to the piston the attraction would cause the piston to slide forcing the yolk up or down causing the crank/center magnet to rotate.  Even though the center magnet is rotating the flux stays linked, attracting until it gets to the the opposite neutral point where it would half cog. Never posted as I haven't had the time to construct, the idea is that you should be able to store enough energy in a flywheel during the power stroke to get past the neutral point, the switcher would take care of the rest.  If interested I remember working this up in femme, would have to search for the images if interested.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2011, 02:01:20 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2011, 03:03:40 AM »
@broli,

OK, I got the negative sign although I still don't remember how FEMM calculates the force over distance. That's a detail, though, and I trust you calculations. However, as far as I can see the overunity is on the order of 0.2 (107.29J in vs. 124.31J out). That seems low and is of the same order of magnitude as anything else to view this design, too complicated in addition, as a breakthrough. Sorry to nag on that but I really want to see advance in the field and am ready to go out of my way to help it.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2011, 07:55:05 AM »
@broli,

OK, I got the negative sign although I still don't remember how FEMM calculates the force over distance. That's a detail, though, and I trust you calculations. However, as far as I can see the overunity is on the order of 0.2 (107.29J in vs. 124.31J out). That seems low and is of the same order of magnitude as anything else to view this design, too complicated in addition, as a breakthrough. Sorry to nag on that but I really want to see advance in the field and am ready to go out of my way to help it.

Yes the negative sign is my doing, just a way to show that negative means energy input and positive energy output.

FEMM just calculates force, I change the distance in 1mm increments and calculate the force. That's how I can graph it and calculate its integral.

I don't quite get this "on the order of 0.2 (107.29J in vs. 124.31J out)". I don't see the occurrence anywhere of those number. As you said opening and closing the cores has almost the same amount of energy attributed to it whether the magnets are at close proximity to each other or not. So I take the difference of those two and label it as input energy. Then I calculate the force over distance of both when the magnets move to each other and then away. Again take the difference but label it as output energy. The ratio of these I call COP, the difference I call net gain per cycle.

As for design complexity, i agree. However it's only a machining issue. A high school machine shop should have the needed resources to make this. I too want to get rid of the actuators if needed.

phoneboy just posted an interesting idea and view that can be taken further. We can design the motor to be one complete setup and put a cam somewhere in order to open and close our cores. This will also get rid of external power sources and the machine would run and regulate itself.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2011, 08:25:53 AM »
Sorry, didn't mention where I got these numbers and they are quite important for the discussion. They are the sums of the positive and negative joules in your two graphs, respectively: (+25.58J +98.73J) = 124.31J which is the energy out and (-1.06J -106.23J) = -107.29J which is the energy in. If I'm understanding that correctly, it means 124.31/107.29 = 1.16 overunity and that is really low. It is on the order of the OU any OU machine known so far would produce. Therefore, the proposal at hand doesn't appear to be a breakthrough at all, its complexity aside.

I think you've done a very good job in quantitatively analyzing the proposal ahead of efforts to make the actual device. Now it's more likely to save such efforts because apparently such OU as the one discussed can be achieved by devices which are simpler and therefore less expensive to make. Unless we really come up with designs offering substantial increase in the OU produced. If you remember, years ago there was a whole movement of making FEMM sims and some folks even attempted using Maxwell3D. Probably we should go back to making these sims now with more experience under our belt. I'll probably get a new laptop in the near future which will allow me to do that modeling more efficiently. We'll see. Something's gotta be done to speed up the process of creating a working pmm, gravity motor or a hybrid magnetic-gravity motor.

Offline broli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2217
Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2011, 09:40:01 AM »
Sorry, didn't mention where I got these numbers and they are quite important for the discussion. They are the sums of the positive and negative joules in your two graphs, respectively: (+25.58J +98.73J) = 124.31J which is the energy out and (-1.06J -106.23J) = -107.29J which is the energy in. If I'm understanding that correctly, it means 124.31/107.29 = 1.16 overunity and that is really low. It is on the order of the OU any OU machine known so far would produce. Therefore, the proposal at hand doesn't appear to be a breakthrough at all, its complexity aside.

I think you've done a very good job in quantitatively analyzing the proposal ahead of efforts to make the actual device. Now it's more likely to save such efforts because apparently such OU as the one discussed can be achieved by devices which are simpler and therefore less expensive to make. Unless we really come up with designs offering substantial increase in the OU produced. If you remember, years ago there was a whole movement of making FEMM sims and some folks even attempted using Maxwell3D. Probably we should go back to making these sims now with more experience under our belt. I'll probably get a new laptop in the near future which will allow me to do that modeling more efficiently. We'll see. Something's gotta be done to speed up the process of creating a working pmm, gravity motor or a hybrid magnetic-gravity motor.

Omnibus I don't think it's correct you calculate a COP like that. Because you are comparing two different actions which have their own scale.

Imo calculating COP like that can be misleading, for instance if the cores took 10000J to open and close, so that we know they have no energy contribution while the magnets energy contribution remained unchanged. Then according to your calculation the COP would be |(10000+25.58J)/(-10000-1.06)| = 1. This is preposterous as there's no input whatsoever in this case.

Calculating COP like that implies you are dealing with a black box type scenario where you input some energy value and get some value back, and comparing these two gives you the "COP". Perhaps it's my own fault for using the term but this scenario doesn't describe such system. We are dealing with two systems.

The opening and closing of the cores is a self contained system. And the moving of the magnets is a self contained system. What you do is flip flop between systems and get energy out or in of one while the other is waiting/idle.

The way you calculate COP put everything in one system. And suddenly the system that had the highest magnitude numbers dwarfs the other and you get a misleading figure.

In a way you can see that part of opening and closing the cores is like potential energy. You put energy in to open it but you get energy back when you close it due to magnetic attraction. So really what matters is only the difference between these two. Because these forces can be canceled almost completely by strategically placing magnets in repulsion as the youtube video shows.

 

OneLink