Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: broli on February 02, 2011, 12:12:48 AM

Title: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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=YL3dzJ80hEM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3dzJ80hEM)µ
 
 It took me a bit but the results seem promising.

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

The smaller the airgap the larger the COP.
 
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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=YL3dzJ80hEM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ_q-CnoG6Q (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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ5QbMnoyYU)
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: phoneboy 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli 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.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 10:12:35 AM
My understanding is that when we're dealing with pmm as with any other engine we're dealing with just one contiguous system no matter how many parts or cycles it consists of. Take, for instance, an internal combustion engine. It has many different parts, mechanisms to convert translational into rotational motion, two or four different strokes with their respective actions and so on. Nevertheless, when we do the energy balance we consider the energy obtained versus the energy content of the gas we put in, treating the whole engine as a black box, as you put it.

In our case, in order for the pmm to be self-sustaining the energy obtained when the magnets are closing (minus the energy to pull them apart) should be greater than the energy to pull apart the cores (minus the energy obtained when the cores go the other way). This is even in the ideal situation (without friction). Note, the machine itself has to both produce and spend that energy through negative feedback. No energy from the outside. Therefore, withing one cycle it is only the sum of the energies (with their minuses and plusses) that are at machine's disposal to function and therefore the balance which is done has to account for all these energies within that one cycle and determine if the produced overall energy within that cycle is more than the energy spent during that same cycle.

In our case it is more. However it is indeed only slightly more because the exces energy only comes from the magnets but the work for moving the cores in and out is substantially more and it determines the overall balance. It is not as much more as in your numerical example but it is still substantially more.

As for the scale, the scale for all the energies presented is exactly the same, as is seen from the figures you show and from the numbers for the joules you've calculated. You've given all your numbers in joules so there's no way that the scales would be different.

Thus, the conclusion is, yes, it's an OU machine but a very inefficient OU machine even theoretically, as many even simpler OU machines are. It is the inefficiency of these machines (the low level of OU, insufficient to overcome the friction in a real device) which is the culprit for the massive lack of success we're experiencing in making a working perpetuum mobile. Not that making of a working OU machine is impossible but so far we haven't found a way to make these machines more efficient or to reduce the friction down to levels which cannot obstruct the intrinsic OU property of these machines.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 10:24:53 AM
In our case it is more. However it is indeed only slightly more because the exces energy only comes from the magnets but the work for moving the cores in and out is substantially more and it determines the overall balance. It is not as much more as in your numerical example but it is still substantially more.

As for the scale, the scale for all the energies presented is exactly the same, as is seen from the figures you show and from the numbers for the joules you've calculated. You've given all your numbers in joules so there's no way that the scales would be different.

Thus, the conclusion is, yes, it's an OU machine but a very inefficient OU machine even theoretically, as many even simpler OU machines are. It is the inefficiency of these machines (the low level of OU, insufficient to overcome the friction in a real device) which is the culprit for the massive lack of success we're experiencing in making a working perpetuum mobile. Not that making of a working OU machine is impossible but so far we haven't found a way to make these machines more efficient or to reduce the friction down to levels which cannot obstruct the intrinsic OU property of these machines.

Omnibus I can run a completely new simulation that would jack down the forces due to opening and closing the cores by just using balancing magnets, the fact that this can be done shows the way you calculate COP is not completely correct.

Here's an other example of such balancing magnets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvEXeRmxJY
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 10:32:23 AM
That would be very interesting because increasing the efficiency is indeed the goal. That energy for pulling apart the cores has to be reduced substantially. Hope your idea will work because I know from experience that adding more and more magnets for the purposes of helping to overcome the sticky spot in fact gets the project further into a dead-end. Also I would discourage using the term 'coefficient of performance' as having no scientific meaning. The term used in thermodynamics when carrying out such energy balances is efficiency or efficiency coefficient.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 10:52:17 AM
That would be very interesting because increasing the efficiency is indeed the goal. That energy for pulling apart the cores has to be reduced substantially. Hope your idea will work because I know from experience that adding more and more magnets for the purposes of helping to overcome the sticky spot in fact gets the project further into a dead-end. Also I would discourage using the term 'coefficient of performance' as having no scientific meaning. The term used in thermodynamics when carrying out such energy balances is efficiency or efficiency coefficient.

phoneboy gave me some good insights and inspiration. The balancing or scaling of the core forces is no longer needed in a complete system. This energy is stored in a flywheel and got back out of it when the cores close. If we are going to use cams then we only need to make sure the friction is low. But at 25J excess energy per cycle you need to have some serious friction for it to not operate due to friction. Either the concept and simulation is flawed and it doesn't work or they aren't and it does.

The opening and closing is provided by a cam that's on the same axle as the flywheel and the pistons connected to the magnets on a sliding rail.

@phoneboy: can you perhaps animate or explain your design a bit better.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 10:57:37 AM
Well, let's see it. That's quite interesting. So far, the excess energy you're referring to sinks into an enormous energy expense for the pulling apart of the cores, as in your slightly exaggerated numerical example.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 11:04:15 AM
Well, let's see it. That's quite interesting. So far, the excess energy you're referring to sinks into an enormous energy expense for the pulling apart of the cores, as in your slightly exaggerated numerical example.

Thanks for your understanding.

From here on out I would like to make it an engineering thread. Any design suggestion and improvements are most welcome. I'll try to render and animate the new cam based design in the next few days and go from there with improvements until we get a solid machinable design.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:12:22 AM
I'll follow that development with great interest. Thanks.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: akunkeji on February 03, 2011, 11:14:40 AM
Can release some video shots? I can not access youtube.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:17:32 AM
Why don't you try uploading them here?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 11:18:25 AM
Can release some video shots? I can not access youtube.

The first post of this thread shows a gif animation of the concept devoid of any engineering.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 03, 2011, 11:25:04 AM
Oh, sorry, I thought you had vids to upload but couldn't access youtube.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: phoneboy on February 03, 2011, 01:47:21 PM
@broli, here's a short sketchy physics anim of the concept.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 02:02:19 PM
@broli, here's a short sketchy physics anim of the concept.

phoneboy, you're missing the fundamental part of the concept, the power stroke, when the cores are opened and the magnets are in full repulsion or attraction. Your cores don't open. If possible try to redesign it by having the cores open at the right time, there's then also no need to spin the middle magnet, just leave it facing one polarity.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 02:31:45 PM
phoneboy after some thought your design can be improved without adding additional motion. What you do is wrap a coil around the core and energise it at the right moment, this will behave like opening and closing the cores.  Inductive energy should be conserved. Only loss is joule heating while the current is maintained during the power stroke.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 03, 2011, 02:48:53 PM
In designing a practical version of this machine , much attention needs to be paid to the side bars . They need to be as light as possible consistant with performance .These bars need to move fast , and so heavy weight will cause problems with inertia and momentum . Either by calculation or experiment , their dimensions need to be minimised . A composite material , probably ferrite like in nature might serve . Is ferrite lighter than iron ? this would have the added benefit of eliminating eddy currents .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 02:58:32 PM
In designing a practical version of this machine , much attention needs to be paid to the side bars . They need to be as light as possible consistant with performance .These bars need to move fast , and so heavy weight will cause problems with inertia and momentum . Either by calculation or experiment , their dimensions need to be minimised . A composite material , probably ferrite like in nature might serve . Is ferrite lighter than iron ? this would have the added benefit of eliminating eddy currents .

Yes this was on my mind, if we use cams there's a chance that the cores won't follow nicely at high speeds due to inertia. I thought of using springs to remedy this.

As for core material, I would use laminated iron, steel or even better silicon steel. These are easier to get or fabricate than large ferrite cores of the same dimensions. But indeed much heavier.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: lumen on February 03, 2011, 03:07:25 PM
I would think a crankshaft would be best for both the magnets and the bars. Time them using elliptical gearing for the best overlap in operation. Something like a stirling engine but with magnets!
This way all parts are locked together for both push and pull operation and can recover all forces of every component.
 
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 03, 2011, 03:47:41 PM
Re core material .I have ofter thought that it would be possible to construct your own ferrite-like core . First you need a powder with magnetic properties , such as iron oxide , iron filings , or pulverised ferrite rods from old AM radios . Then you need a binding agent such as car body repair paste , epoxy resin , or possibly even plaster of Paris . Mix your materials , put it in a mould and allow to solidify . The resultant cores could be trimmed using glass paper if necessary . Going back to weight of cores , this is the same as using light weight valves of exotic materials in a fourstroke racing engine .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 03, 2011, 04:03:18 PM
Re core material .I have ofter thought that it would be possible to construct your own ferrite-like core . First you need a powder with magnetic properties , such as iron oxide , iron filings , or pulverised ferrite rods from old AM radios . Then you need a binding agent such as car body repair paste , epoxy resin , or possibly even plaster of Paris . Mix your materials , put it in a mould and allow to solidify . The resultant cores could be trimmed using glass paper if necessary . Going back to weight of cores , this is the same as using light weight valves of exotic materials in a fourstroke racing engine .

To be honest I think you'll find that process to be truly hell. You'll have to spend a lot of time and potentially find out it doesn't meet the needs. If possible I would buy it ready made and save a lot of effort, time and even money.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: phoneboy on February 03, 2011, 04:38:22 PM
@ broli, thanks for the suggestion, I have to wrap my mind around it and I'll make some mods to the design. A suggestion for the core, form my design I intended to use three large c8 sheet magnets http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?products_id=256 (http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?products_id=256) and heat them past their curie point.  In the course of reading about processing materials I came across microwave sintering, I don't know how well a microwave susceptor the magnets would be but if not you could surround them with magnetite powder (great susceptor) in a alumina brick surround, nuke them for while to demagnetize, and then grind them to shape.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: TinselKoala on February 04, 2011, 01:47:53 AM
I would think a crankshaft would be best for both the magnets and the bars. Time them using elliptical gearing for the best overlap in operation. Something like a stirling engine but with magnets!
This way all parts are locked together for both push and pull operation and can recover all forces of every component.

The problem of course is that there isn't any source of energy in the magnet-only design. Not like in an alpha Stirling.... in this case the energy source is the difference in temperature between the top and bottom endplates of the displacer cylinder. That is, the Stirling displacer is located in an area of energy flow. No energy flows from permanent magnets, sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovJzmCLdw
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 04, 2011, 02:19:33 AM
In fact there is no need for an external source of energy because the motor is producing excess energy "out of nothing" from within. From @broli's data it is seen that, the output energy is about 1.15 times the input energy.

Now, that's a small OU but it's a matter of principle as far as violation of CoE is concerned. Science isn't interested in how small or how big is the OU. Even if OU were 1.0000000001 this motor violates CoE and produces excess energy "out of nothing".

That's the pivotal conclusion which adds the motor in question to a number of other motors violating CoE.

A completely separate question is whether or not one can use the produced excess energy for he purposes of a perpetuum mobile. That's an entirely engineering question having nothing at all to do with the fundamental problem of violating CoE. In this specific case the excess energy produced is relatively low and exceptional engineering skills and infrastructure are needed, beyond what almost anyone here can afford, to make a working self-sustaining device.  Therefore, conditions or constructions with greater excess energy are needed to be found out, which will make the manufacturing of a working self-sustaining device easier.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: lumen on February 04, 2011, 03:10:51 AM
It is easy to see how the motion of the alpha stirling engine is almost what is needed and in fact may be close enough if timed out correctly. By using two cranks linked together with two elliptical gears, the motion could be made to be nearly square. Like the ends of the link arms following around a square block instead of the circular crank.

@Omnibus "the output energy is about 1.15 times the input energy" What is the input energy?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 04, 2011, 03:41:27 AM
@lumen,

The input energy is the energy ewuivalent to the work needed to separate the magnets (observe the device in Butch's sense) plus the energy equivalent to the work needed to pull the cores apart. The enery obtained is equivalent to the work done when the magnets move towards each other spontaneously, attracting each other (the cores being apart) plus the energy equivalent to the work done when the cores close up.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: spinn_MP on February 04, 2011, 12:05:54 PM
I would not trust FEMM or any other sim program, showing OU.

One of the main problems with Steorn's 2007 Kinetica fiasco (beside the lighting and doubters) was a FEMM program showing OU....
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 04, 2011, 01:11:36 PM
Omnibus makes the point that we have very little spare energy available , and the way forward is to either increase the available energy , or improve the engineering . The second option is the one available right now . I accept that a very high degree of craftsmanship is required , But on the other hand look at the work of Clanzer for example. There are also others of the same caliber . There are also some
excellent model engineers out there , and clock makers . Success will come from the combination of the right design and the right man to build it . The correct design will be a compromise , as always . Look at the work of Finsrud . Even if it is fake , you have got to admire the engineering . The correct design will have a minimum of moving parts , two or three max , even .if that means that the path of the moving cores is less than ideal .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 04, 2011, 01:25:03 PM
A possible simple design .Imagine a wheel with a horizontal axis . near the perimeter is a magnet [one magnet in the simple version . more later .] Suspended above the wheel is another magnet . As the two magnets approach each other they attract . When they reach the cosest point , the core comes into play .The core consists of an iron channel [ a square tube with one side removed .] The open side of the channel is downwards . It is mounted on a pivoted arm and it drops down to cover the two magnets .It is controlled by a cam . The principle is a bit like the Roberts33 motor combined with the action of Bruce's "magnetic toy" shown on his you tube Chanel , but the channel of the magnetic toy is now inverted . There you go , only two moving parts .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 04, 2011, 01:42:40 PM
I would not trust FEMM or any other sim program, showing OU.

One of the main problems with Steorn's 2007 Kinetica fiasco (beside the lighting and doubters) was a FEMM program showing OU....

As far as I recall PM orbo shows an energy increase per cycle using a torque transducer, but this increase is in the mJ range so almost useless for practical purposes.

The sim I did is based on an experimental proof of concept that shows similar behavior. The energy gain per cycle is tens of J's which is very real and big.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 04, 2011, 02:37:07 PM
Where is the FEMM program showing OU in Orbo? Also, can you give a link to Bruce's 'magnetic toy'?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 04, 2011, 05:38:02 PM
@Omnibus remagnetic toy . I do not know how to create a link . Go to reply#
1 page one of this thread by Broli . There you will find a link to Bruces motor A3 . this link takes you to a Youtube page , and you will see the magnetic toy vid listed in the column on the right .
Title: Amazing how many ideas come from brainstorming together
Post by: Butch LaFonte on February 04, 2011, 09:33:57 PM
I have always wondered how much progress would be made if people put as much thought into trying to figure out how to make something work as they put into trying to figure out why something will not work and then just leaving the idea alone after doing so. It's good to see the ideas and people working together.
I will post over 1200 drawings of over 1200 ideas I have come up with over the years to my Flickr sight.
I will post all video's to Youtube of tests Mark and I ran, most all done my Mark after building them in his shop.
It will take months to get them all up loaded, but they will be available should anyone want to view them. There are magnet only, coil only, magnet/coil combinations, and a few other types. I will also continue posting any new ideas we come up with.
I am getting many emails and messages and I will try to answer them all in time. Thanks everyone for all the help you have given over the years. I wish I could meet you all and have a beer together!
Maybe someday,
Butch
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: gravityblock on February 05, 2011, 11:27:28 AM
In engineering, it is common to design one part or many parts to perform one function or one task only.  We need to get away from this kind of thinking.  We need to design a system, where each part performs multiple functions and tasks working together with other parts performing multiple functions in order to increase effiency.  For example, if we have a system based on conventional engineering concepts utilizing 2W input, but is only giving 1.75W output, then the same system being more efficient on the input side making the most use from each part, may use 1.5W input while giving the same 1.75W output.

This video will show how energy saving on the input side, can give more energy out than the energy put in.  A small particle of carboxy fullerene is placed on top of heat sensitive explosive. Irradiation with a 785 nm laser (1W) results in an instantaneous explosion.  In the absence of carboxy fullerenes, the laser with output power of 5W, failed to ignite the explosives.  ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJvh0yA69ow )

I agree, OU is an engineering issue.  Its good to see people working together for a change.  Great thread!

GB
Title: Re: Amazing how many ideas come from brainstorming together
Post by: exnihiloest on February 05, 2011, 11:42:31 AM
...
I will post over 1200 drawings of over 1200 ideas I have come up with over the years to my Flickr sight.
...

Please save your time and ours. Only one but working would be enough.

Title: Re: Amazing how many ideas come from brainstorming together
Post by: spinn_MP on February 05, 2011, 12:55:03 PM
Please save your time and ours. Only one but working would be enough.
Yep.
Ok, But Butch is playing the tune.
Or, the Butch's group?

Win-Win arrangement.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 05, 2011, 02:16:48 PM
exnihiloest, I'll say this early on irregardless of your content. Please refrain from posting in this thread which I created. This also counts for your friend spinn_MP.

Thanks.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: ramset on February 05, 2011, 03:12:18 PM
Butch,
Your ideas are one of the ties that bind us in this quest to harness magnetism,

1200 ideas and concepts for a design? WOW

How many did Edison and company do before they got a light bulb ?

They persevered and got the Bulb,

The odds are with you Butch!

Thanks

Chet
PS
Broli tell the boss you want to Moderate your thread?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: spinn_MP on February 05, 2011, 03:23:11 PM
exnihiloest, I'll say this early on irregardless of your content. Please refrain from posting in this thread which I created. This also counts for your friend spinn_MP.

Thanks.

OK, a fair call...
Similar call kept me from one of the more successful  threads, for years...
(E.g., the "Jule thief" stuff...)
No harm done.
Cheers!
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: ramset on February 05, 2011, 03:29:10 PM
They say the Aboriginal society went for 50,000. years with out inventing the wheel [they never did]?

Some guys don't look for change,some do!

You do you!

Chet
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 05, 2011, 09:11:49 PM
Became really busy last days so couldn't do much design work. I have made this crude rotary version. I think this would reduce complexity and issues arising from a linear system. The most important thing is finding cores that large. I actually found a relatively cheap substitution. Steel strapping. These can be bought with all kind specs and above all they can be bought pre painted. This would eliminate the eddy current issue.

The presented design is really a crude setup I made in the little time I had, it's missing some functional things, but imo this is the way to go.

http://www.cswp.org/steel.htm
http://www.materialflow.com/index.cfm?mf=browse.showPart&partClassID=3353&PName=High%20Strength%20Steel%20Strapping
...
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: gravityblock on February 05, 2011, 10:38:46 PM
I really like the pre-painted steel strapping idea for the cores.  A rotary system does appear to be much simpler than a linear system also.  This is a good start, and the best thing of all, it can be done without the need to have the parts machined, etc. which should reduce the cost.

GB 
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 06, 2011, 01:41:34 PM
I really like the pre-painted steel strapping idea for the cores.  A rotary system does appear to be much simpler than a linear system also.  This is a good start, and the best thing of all, it can be done without the need to have the parts machined, etc. which should reduce the cost.

GB
This is pretty much what they use to make toroide transformer cores. I have now a lot of strap tie ribbons because they used it on all the materials for the roof on my new house I'm building. Finally I get a garage too to do all the experiments in ;D
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 06, 2011, 02:38:09 PM
@broli . Excellent design , excellent artwork . I would like to illustrate my design in the same way . Unfortunately , due to having very poor eyesight these days , I am unable to do it . It would be really nice if you , or someone else could draw it for me . I f there are points about the design which are unclear , then just ask . Many thanks , Neptune .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 09:29:09 AM
@broli . Excellent design , excellent artwork . I would like to illustrate my design in the same way . Unfortunately , due to having very poor eyesight these days , I am unable to do it . It would be really nice if you , or someone else could draw it for me . I f there are points about the design which are unclear , then just ask . Many thanks , Neptune .

@neptune, I would but I can't promise much, due to time and motivation constraints. If a good idea needs to be visualized for true understanding then I can help, but not necessarily if the idea can be conveyed in a simple diagram.

Currently I'm continuously rethinking the concept of this thread. Going through with the purely mechanical variant will ensue many issues at higher speeds, but then again we wouldn't need many cycles per second for a proof of concept. But then again I don't want to waist much time on little output.

I think a continuously rotating setup with no secondary motion would be the easiest to build. I'm talking about something similar to this:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10021.5

In fact the stationary magnets there are not needed. We know that irregardless of the poles of the magnets the attraction or repulsion of two magnets trapped between a ferromagnetic materials is reduced significantly or elliminated completely. So irregardless of the field the coil produces it has no mechanical effect on the rotor magnets. We just need to make sure the air gap is tight.

This setup would easily allow us to have 50 to 60 cycles per second at approximately 3000-3600 RPM.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 07, 2011, 09:52:32 AM
exnihiloest, I'll say this early on irregardless of your content. Please refrain from posting in this thread which I created. This also counts for your friend spinn_MP.

Thanks.

I replied about who said "I will post over 1200 drawings of over 1200 ideas", not about you.
I do not obey the censors, particularly those spreading or supporting useless matter about clearly fallacious FE claims.
Sorry for that.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 10:33:50 AM
I do not obey the censors, particularly those spreading or supporting useless matter about clearly fallacious FE claims.
Sorry for that.

If you don't like it go make your own thread or even better your own forum. This is not your forum, this is not a public place and your opinion is meaningless. Go take your free speech bullshit elsewhere buddy because you seem to misunderstand the difference between a privately owned forum and a public place. If you keep ignoring the polite request I'll ask for moderation of this thread and shut your anti progressive negative bullshit by force.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 11:03:44 AM
Found a local distributor for black painted steel strapping. They deliver all over europe:

http://www.recypack.co.uk/_london/index.php?search=steel&page=search&submit=Zoek# (http://www.recypack.co.uk/_london/index.php?search=steel&page=search&submit=Zoek#)

Although it's hard to make out the dimension of the coil it seems to be rather very cheap.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 07, 2011, 05:00:27 PM
@broli . Thanks for at least considering my request re illustration . The black steel strapping can often be found in skips [dumpsters] outside warehouses , construction sites and on docks and wharves . Anywhere heavy goods are strapped to pallets .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: teslaalset on February 07, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
Hey Broli,

Excellent work being done here!
Sorry for not stepping in earlier, but I am too occupied with the stuff of Thane for the moment, as you are aware of.

Just a quick question/remark on your FEMM simulations:
I checked your lua file and something wondered me.
If you move one element (in either of the 4 four loops), you only obtain the force of the moved element.
But in my view, when you move an element, you should also check the forces on the other elements in my view, since they likely are influenced as well due to that movement.
I'll try to post a modified lua if I can find sufficient time, to see if this is valid or not.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 05:59:34 PM
Hey Broli,

Excellent work being done here!
Sorry for not stepping in earlier, but I am too occupied with the stuff of Thane for the moment, as you are aware of.

Just a quick question/remark on your FEMM simulations:
I checked your lua file and something wondered me.
If you move one element (in either of the 4 four loops), you only obtain the force of the moved element.
But in my view, when you move an element, you should also check the forces on the other elements in my view, since they likely are influenced as well due to that movement.
I'll try to post a modified lua if I can find sufficient time, to see if this is valid or not.

I move either the magnets or cores simultaneously. The force on one magnet should be equal and opposite to the other magnet as the system is symmetrical. Also there's no need to look at the forces on the magnets when the cores are moving or vice versa, because when one is moving the other is kept stationary.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: teslaalset on February 07, 2011, 06:11:37 PM
I move either the magnets or cores simultaneously. The force on one magnet should be equal and opposite to the other magnet as the system is symmetrical. Also there's no need to look at the forces on the magnets when the other cores are moving or vice versa, because when one is moving the other is kept stationary.

Doesn't keeping elements stationary when forces are present also consume energy?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 06:36:40 PM
Doesn't keeping elements stationary when forces are present also consume energy?

Work or energy is the integral of force over a path. If you don't move at all then there's no work being done.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 07, 2011, 11:21:18 PM
In short: Consider all MOVING parts when calculating the energy.

VERY IMPORTANT WHEN USING FEMM!!
What really bugs FEMM some times are the "working space". I FEMM you have to determine a working space where you can put your experiment inside. The smaller this space are compared to the object being experimented with, the more inaccurate the readings are.

I do allways place a toroide of steel around the experiment, just to make sure most magnetic fields are taken into account. If not doing so, FEMM will "hide" some magnetic flux "outside" the working space from the equation when calculating forces, and therefor the results will not sum up correctly. You end up in sometimes considerably more output than input.

So, broli, try to either increase the working space considerably (which takes more proccessing time), or add a thick toroidal steel core around the experiment. Add a space of "Air" outside the toroide also. Now your results, if taken into account ALL moving parts, ALL in its respectively directions, you will probably end up in COP 1.

Because, a magnetic force, provided by a magnet, will ALLWAYS attract to the steel just as much as the steel are attracted to the magnet - they are both in the same boat, so to speak. Therfor magnetism, just as gravity, cannot be used as a source of energy. Both are conservative forces. A force isn't energy.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 07, 2011, 11:40:28 PM
In short: Consider all MOVING parts when calculating the energy.

VERY IMPORTANT WHEN USING FEMM!!
What really bugs FEMM some times are the "working space". I FEMM you have to determine a working space where you can put your experiment inside. The smaller this space are compared to the object being experimented with, the more inaccurate the readings are.

I do allways place a toroide of steel around the experiment, just to make sure most magnetic fields are taken into account. If not doing so, FEMM will "hide" some magnetic flux "outside" the working space from the equation when calculating forces, and therefor the results will not sum up correctly. You end up in sometimes considerably more output than input.

So, broli, try to either increase the working space considerably (which takes more proccessing time), or add a thick toroidal steel core around the experiment. Add a space of "Air" outside the toroide also. Now your results, if taken into account ALL moving parts, ALL in its respectively directions, you will probably end up in COP 1.

Because, a magnetic force, provided by a magnet, will ALLWAYS attract to the steel just as much as the steel are attracted to the magnet - they are both in the same boat, so to speak. Therfor magnetism, just as gravity, cannot be used as a source of energy. Both are conservative forces. A force isn't energy.

Vidar

This depends on your boundary conditions. I've used the mixed BC just like in that famous FEMM tutorial, 1/uo*R*mm where R is the radius of the boundary in mm. The calculation of force is quite far from this boundary especially for the magnets. You can actually see the paths for the force calculation.

And again calculating force or "work" on a stationary object is meaningless. I have no clue why this is even mentioned.

The simulation files have been posted, if you think there's something wrong with it I'd like to see your "corrected" results. It's easy to criticize, but contributing is something else.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 07, 2011, 11:42:44 PM
@Low-Q, restrain from offering advise on matters you have limited or no understanding. @broli's calculations are correct, the efficiency (not COP) is indeed greater than 1 and it is supported by experiment. The problem is that the OU is so low (as low, if not lower, as in most of the studied constructions) that even the best workmanship would hardly end up
 in a working device. Some new concept, a real breakthrough is needed which would bring about greater OU needed for making a real working device.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 08, 2011, 09:57:23 AM
...
This is not your forum, this is not a public place and your opinion is meaningless.
...
If you keep ignoring the polite request I'll ask for moderation of this thread and shut your anti progressive negative bullshit by force.

Therefore I presume overunity.com is Broli's forum!  ;D. Your request was not "polite" but insulting. Keep cool, guy.
Femm uses the laws of physics to modelize the systems. Thus if COPs>1 appear, they are software bugs (like with wm2d or ltspice, it is easy to build perpetual machines). Otherwise there is a hidden energy source which has to be identified. This forum is devoted to free energy in real life not in pious image.
We see in this thread useless designs with comments not supported by facts and observations, not even by theory, but very pretty cartoons (I don't deny the artistic side  :) ). It is the interest of experimenters to know it and not to waste time in cartoons with no future because based on flaws. One can have a different opinion, I respect different opinions, they must all be expressed, but mine too. May be you are not from a country of free speech. You should learn what it is.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 10:12:21 AM
The forum may not be @broli's own forum but the truth is it is infested with arrogant incompetents such as @exnihiloest. So what that femm uses the laws of physics to modelyze the system. As I have shown, the laws of standard physics taught in colleges and universities contains inherently violation of CoE, as I have already shown. This fact has been missed so far in theoretical physics but it desn't mean it isn't there. Therefore, there is nothing unusual for femm to uncover situations whereby OU shows itself. One such situation is the one studied by @broli and he deserves admirations and encouragement for that finding of his and not attacks by incompetents such as @exnihiloest.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: lumen on February 08, 2011, 11:55:25 PM
At this point I will say that the energy gain exists when modeled in Maxwell 3D also. It's like the fields pushing against each other within the iron, exerts no force back into the magnets. The force needed to separate the iron when the magnets are close is greater than what is gained by moving the iron back to the magnets, but the energy gained from the separating magnets is still greater and in the end the process does show a large gain.
I also examined another modification (shown below) to this process by dividing the iron into two pieces and moving the iron apart in the same direction as the magnets would separate. Surprisingly, the iron already wants to separate when the magnets move into place and as the iron moves apart the magnets move apart with greater force which can be used to move the iron apart, which increases the force to move the magnets apart!
Something like a self starting separation that increases in force. After the magnets are separated, the iron will slide back to the opposing iron with no force and again the magnets can be moved back to center with no force to restart the event.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: fletcher on February 09, 2011, 12:53:02 AM
Only a build will confirm the if the two different sim software results are accurate or not - two products showing the same or similar gain means either the sims have it right, which can be replicated in real world - OR - both sims are not sophisticated enough to model real world.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 01:40:11 AM
Like I said, the sims are correct in their OU conclusion because it coincides with the results from the experiment, as already seen.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 09, 2011, 07:33:46 AM
Thanks for your constructive contribution lumen.

This is a rather simple problem for such simulators which are used to accurately predict much more complex systems. It would defeat the purpose of simulating anything if these simulators couldn't predict such a simple system. To add insult to injury even vizimag shows the same behavior.

Again, we are talking about tens of joules in gained energy per complete cycle. on a palm sized setup, this is too enormous to just brush off as a "bug". Especially when experiments show similar behavior.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 09, 2011, 09:22:42 AM
The forum may not be @broli's own forum but the truth is it is infested with arrogant incompetents such as @exnihiloest.
...

No progress, omnibot? Always in ad hominem attacks?
Time for you to consult a psychiatrist.
http://tinyurl.com/yk4oyj8

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 09, 2011, 09:29:13 AM
Like I said, the sims are correct in their OU conclusion because it coincides with the results from the experiment, as already seen.

There is no positive results in any experiment, allowing to conclude OU.


Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 09, 2011, 09:35:28 AM
Holy mother of trolls. Attention lacking much?

I just asked Stefan for moderator privileges over this thread. If I were you I'd start preparing that wonderful free speech and exit strategy speech.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: spinn_MP on February 09, 2011, 10:09:14 AM
No progress, omnibot? Always in ad hominem attacks?
Time for you to consult a psychiatrist.
http://tinyurl.com/yk4oyj8

He's already under psychiatric "surveylance". Poor man actually suffers from a "Dunning-Kruger" effect..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Quote
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to appreciate their mistakes.[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their own abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people.

Omnibus is probably a synonym for an "extremely incompetent gibberish", which also happens to be one of his favorite phrases lately...
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 09, 2011, 10:34:37 AM
@Low-Q, restrain from offering advise on matters you have limited or no understanding. @broli's calculations are correct, the efficiency (not COP) is indeed greater than 1 and it is supported by experiment. The problem is that the OU is so low (as low, if not lower, as in most of the studied constructions) that even the best workmanship would hardly end up
 in a working device. Some new concept, a real breakthrough is needed which would bring about greater OU needed for making a real working device.
You are right about this. However, I was just telling broli my experience with FEMM. I have also designed several "COP > 1" designs in FEMM - untill I discovered that the working space affected my results greately. It is important to understand the limitations which can misguide the designer to believe that the results are correct. What harm can be done to brolis FEMM experiment IF he tried to follow my advice?
brolis design are hopefully correct, but putting limitations to any input from other members, or force people to shut up, at overunity.com isn't your job.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 09, 2011, 10:40:54 AM
This depends on your boundary conditions. I've used the mixed BC just like in that famous FEMM tutorial, 1/uo*R*mm where R is the radius of the boundary in mm. The calculation of force is quite far from this boundary especially for the magnets. You can actually see the paths for the force calculation.

And again calculating force or "work" on a stationary object is meaningless. I have no clue why this is even mentioned.

The simulation files have been posted, if you think there's something wrong with it I'd like to see your "corrected" results. It's easy to criticize, but contributing is something else.
Thanks for the feedback @broli! I will try this experiment myself - under your conditions, and mine.
Btw. It wasn't meant to be negative critizism in my post. I just shared my experience about FEMM, which might disturb the results greately. I think such feedback are important. Who knows how much experience you got with FEMM? I didn't. Therefor my little advice. I hope you understand :)

Edit:
Quote
And again calculating force or "work" on a stationary object is meaningless. I have no clue why this is even mentioned.
You're right, provided that the "stationary" object never changes position.


Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 09, 2011, 12:28:53 PM
I did a test in FEMM. It looks like the net energy required to move the steel bars out and in are pretty much regardless of position of the magnets. The next test is to see the energy required to move the magnets back and forth in one complete cycle.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 09, 2011, 04:44:18 PM
I get COP 12... but that is calculated in only 4 positions:

1 - Initial alignment,
2 - Magnets close to eachother
3 - magnets close + iron bars separated
4 - magnets in initial alignment + iron bars separated.

All forces are calculated as average between those positions, and the distances varies with 20 units on the bars, and 104 units on the magnets.

When I got more time I will take more samples to get a better average.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 09, 2011, 04:47:52 PM
I get COP 12... but that is calculated in only 4 positions:

1 - Initial alignment,
2 - Magnets close to eachother
3 - magnets close + iron bars separated
4 - magnets in initial alignment + iron bars separated.

All forces are calculated as average between those positions, and the distances varies with 20 units on the bars, and 104 units on the magnets.

When I got more time I will take more samples to get a better average.

Vidar

I suggest you use a lua script. I'm pretty sure that 12 will converge down to a lower value with more steps.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 05:34:32 PM
@broli,

You mentioned earlier you have an idea for a more efficient construction. Probably it would be a good idea to have @lumen try it with his Maxwell3D.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 05:42:01 PM
Funny how those incompetent in physics such as @exnihiloest and @spinn_MP are now trying to be taken seriously as competent in psychiatry. Sorry @broli, couldn't resist.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 09, 2011, 05:43:30 PM
@broli,

You mentioned earlier you have an idea for a more efficient construction. Probably it would be a good idea to have @lumen try it with his Maxwell3D.

Don't know which design you actually mean, but now you mention it there is a 3d case I would like to see simulated. The one I posted on the first page:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10316.msg273152#msg273152 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10316.msg273152#msg273152)

This is not a cross section view but actually the setup. The stationary magnet has half of itself sticking out while the other half under the core. In FEMM I couldn't make the 3d transition, but the force was lower when the magnet approached the stationary from between the cores than when it left. In a true 3d simulator this by passing can be achieved.

Might be wishful thinking as it completely eliminates opening the cores AND is a continuously rotating setup. But you never know. Below is another example of just a linear case.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 09, 2011, 06:00:00 PM
If opening the cores can be eliminated somehow that would increase efficiency. However, I don't quite see how that may be achieved since it is an essential part of restoring the initial state or so it seems.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: phoneboy on February 10, 2011, 12:38:58 AM
@ broli, just saw something over @ energetic which could be used to separate your discs @ the appropriate time check this link: http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/MovePath.html (http://www.correlatedmagnetics.com/MovePath.html). Your linear design with the half shrouded magnet is very similar to the linear one I posted on page one, an air gap seems to be the key.  Here's an animated gif of the flux path hope it helps.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: gravityblock on February 10, 2011, 05:00:16 AM
It's pretty obvious looking at Butch's videos there can be a gain from this concept.  I don't know why the sims are even needed to show this effect.  It's like we compute 2+2=4 in our head, but yet we need to use a calculator to convince people that 2+2=4.  The sims and the calculator step should have been un-neccessary from the very beginning.  We need to design and build, instead of debating the sims.

GB
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 10, 2011, 11:30:49 AM
I am still on the simulation - it's cheaper LOL. Anyways, I spent some time with FEMM last night, and ran an extended simulation. The initial setup in this thread, show still COP >> 1. There are in short, much less energy spent to release and close the iron bars, than the energy gained by the magnet movement. I ended up with COP 3-4.

I have access to laminated steel bars, and magnets, so I must try to make a very simple test when I get home from work...
I am not a very skilled person with mechanics, so don't hold your breath ;D

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 10, 2011, 11:40:11 AM
He's already under psychiatric "surveylance". Poor man actually suffers from a "Dunning-Kruger" effect..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)

Omnibus is probably a synonym for an "extremely incompetent gibberish", which also happens to be one of his favorite phrases lately...

Well done !


Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 10, 2011, 12:03:39 PM
Is this thread about Omnibus? No, it is about a FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7 ::)
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: neptune on February 10, 2011, 12:07:57 PM
This post is off topic but very important .I spent all morning trying to create a new thread , but it is beyond my skills . Go to Peswiki News dateline wed Feb9 th . There is a brilliant article on a practical Zero Point energy device of 1Kw output , using only three components ! Could someone with some skills please post a link , or better still start a new thread . Thanking you in advance .
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 10, 2011, 01:51:46 PM
This post is off topic but very important .I spent all morning trying to create a new thread , but it is beyond my skills . Go to Peswiki News dateline wed Feb9 th . There is a brilliant article on a practical Zero Point energy device of 1Kw output , using only three components ! Could someone with some skills please post a link , or better still start a new thread . Thanking you in advance .
The thread are created with the link. Please let us continue on topic in this thread, so we do not discuss zero point energy here :)
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 10, 2011, 04:24:33 PM
Well done !

@broli, I'll have to keep replying to these clowns and it will become a mess.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 10, 2011, 10:25:32 PM
@broli, Have you done more experiments lately? I feel that you are on the right track.
Btw. could it be possible to "close" and "open" the magnetic path by using rotation of steel, instead of forcing iron bars back and forth?

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 11, 2011, 12:17:15 AM
@broli, Have you done more experiments lately? I feel that you are on the right track.
Btw. could it be possible to "close" and "open" the magnetic path by using rotation of steel, instead of forcing iron bars back and forth?

Vidar

Can't say that I did. Trying to get back on track with some stuff in life then I can see where to go next.

Another thing is that there are so many possible designs that's it's hard to affix on one and go through with it. It's sort of like gambling.

For instance you just suggested another interesting thing that got my mind racing.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 11, 2011, 11:23:59 AM
@Low-Q, Is this what you had in mind?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: exnihiloest on February 11, 2011, 11:37:24 AM
Is this thread about Omnibus? No, it is about a FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7 ::)

This forum is about real FE, not about software bugs or misuses.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 11, 2011, 12:09:40 PM
Can't say that I did. Trying to get back on track with some stuff in life then I can see where to go next.

Another thing is that there are so many possible designs that's it's hard to affix on one and go through with it. It's sort of like gambling.

For instance you just suggested another interesting thing that got my mind racing.
I think it is important to think as simple as possible. Work out the principles, and then find the least common denominator to make it as simple as possible.

I can allways make a FEMM simulation based on the rotary idea I got.

Edit: I had in mind a simpler version than those you have drawn (Good ideas though - one of your drawings remind me about the laminated iron core in brushless motors. Maybe that can be used. I have a few of these cores). I haven't tried my idea in a simulation yet, but I will.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 11, 2011, 12:20:28 PM
I suddenly got a new idea. Using a half iron disc in a rotor (aligned just as in one of your drawings), and let a magnet attract to its outer diameter. While the magnet is inside the half iron disc, we move the magnet to the center where it will privide much less torque when the half disc escape from the magnet. Move the magnet out when the half disc are on the oposite side so it can provide greater torque when the half iron disk approaches again...

Or shape a half spiral of iron from center and out. Let the magnet attract the outer part of the spiral, then let the magnet follow the spiral into the center as it rotates, and let the spiral escape there, where it is less counter torque.

I will make a drawing!

Edit: We let the magnet moove up and down, controlled by a crankshaft. The excess energy are created by the difference in torque and velocity difference between the outer enterance diameter and inner escape diameter.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 11, 2011, 02:13:07 PM
In the quest of over simplification, how about the following design.

Perhaps too simplified :P . This is in a similar category as the one I illustrated a few pages ago with half of a the magnet sticking out.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 11, 2011, 11:26:52 PM
Here is a couple of drawings which might be something:

The first model are complicated to build due to lots of moving parts, crankshaft etc.

The second model are very simple design.

Common for them both are the principles shown in the initial post by proli. Equal poles repel, but the rotor- and stator magnets are just looking at them self since the magnetic field loops directly back to themself while inside the shield, but rotor and stator will see eachother outside the shield where the magnetic fields are not guided directly away from eachother.

The designs are suppose to work like this:
The rotors in both designs rotates clockwise. The rotors are rotating eccentric to the stator magnet ring. This is done to provide torque as the rotormagnets can escape from the statormagnet as they rotate. There is a magnetic shield one half round so the rotor and stator inside it doesn't care if the rotor magnet approaches the stator - even when like poles are facing.
When the rotor magnet escape from the shield, it is very close to the stator. Which means it wants to escape from the stator. The eccentric alignment of the rotor llows the rotormagnets to escape in an rotational manner.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: gyulasun on February 12, 2011, 12:27:01 AM
Hi Vidar,

Interesting setups, I like them, although at the moment I cannot see how torque may develop between rotor and stator magnets, if you mean this is a motor setup?  Can you sometime test it with your magnets?

Thanks,
 Gyula
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 12, 2011, 12:40:43 AM
Hi Vidar,

Interesting setups, I like them, although at the moment I cannot see how torque may develop between rotor and stator magnets, if you mean this is a motor setup?  Can you sometime test it with your magnets?

Thanks,
 Gyula

Put a magnet inside a ring magnet, if aligned like shown it will be pushed to the center, fairly standard.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: lumen on February 12, 2011, 01:49:21 AM
Vidar,
I like the second concept, maybe you could add to it by having the rotor repelling like you are on the first half, but then attracting on the way back in also. Just a mirror of the repelling area, but working in attraction. If you get what I'm thinking.

I thought I was going to be very busy this weekend but UPS will not be delivering until next week so I may find some time to run a few 3D models in Maxwell. I should quit work since it always interferes with my hobbies.


Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 12, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
Put a magnet inside a ring magnet, if aligned like shown it will be pushed to the center, fairly standard.
True, but the magnet must rotate to approach the center - because the magnet are rotating eccentric to the ring magnet.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 12, 2011, 10:23:31 AM
Vidar,
I like the second concept, maybe you could add to it by having the rotor repelling like you are on the first half, but then attracting on the way back in also. Just a mirror of the repelling area, but working in attraction. If you get what I'm thinking.

I thought I was going to be very busy this weekend but UPS will not be delivering until next week so I may find some time to run a few 3D models in Maxwell. I should quit work since it always interferes with my hobbies.
Lucky for me I work with two of my hobbies: Loudspeakerdesign, and graphics (designing product catalogs, ads, flyers etc.) At home I spend my time at overunity.com, and flying RC planes and helicopters. My life is a hobby - except my wife. She tells me do do things all the time... ;D

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 12, 2011, 02:04:27 PM
Here is a new design which use the very same, and promising, principle as the initial design in this thread. However, I have now designed a dual rotor motor.

To separate the shields at correct places, a cam from the rotors can control this. There must be a 1:1 gear which connect and sync both rotors (not shown in the drawings).

I hope this looks interesting. The attached pictures have a explanations in them.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: teslaalset on February 12, 2011, 02:24:29 PM
Vidar, what 3D program are you using for your designs here?
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 12, 2011, 05:35:34 PM
Vidar, what 3D program are you using for your designs here?
Google Scetchup.
http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/download/index.html (http://sketchup.google.com/intl/en/download/index.html)
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 12, 2011, 05:58:17 PM
Can some one please try my last design in Maxwell 3D? I't impossible to simulate this in FEMM - which is a 2D software.

My thoughts:
Opening and closing the shields do not require energy to do - the potential energy applied when fully opened, will be released when the shields are closing. Because there are in average the same magnetic force applied by the stator- and rotor magnets, regardless of their position in the horizontal plane. This is "confirmed" in the FEMM model in the very first post in this thread.
The shape of the shields in my design will give a uniform shielding, and does not provide any sticky spots.
However, whether the shields are open or closed, it will have a huge impact on the magnets and how they interact with eachother.

So I am very keen to know what a "magnetic 3D software" will tell. Can't wait :)

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: lumen on February 12, 2011, 11:03:38 PM
Can some one please try my last design in Maxwell 3D? I't impossible to simulate this in FEMM - which is a 2D software.

My thoughts:
Opening and closing the shields do not require energy to do - the potential energy applied when fully opened, will be released when the shields are closing. Because there are in average the same magnetic force applied by the stator- and rotor magnets, regardless of their position in the horizontal plane. This is "confirmed" in the FEMM model in the very first post in this thread.
The shape of the shields in my design will give a uniform shielding, and does not provide any sticky spots.
However, whether the shields are open or closed, it will have a huge impact on the magnets and how they interact with eachother.

So I am very keen to know what a "magnetic 3D software" will tell. Can't wait :)

Vidar


It's an interesting design, but to simulate this would take a huge amount of computer time. It would be best to simulate only the working principal to first determine if a design is feasible.
If a design principal appears to have a suitable gain in the simulator, then it is usually faster to build a real device. At least for me because I have CNC machines in my shed. I only have problems with finding enough free time, since I also use my machines for extra income projects.
I am actually surprised that the original design concept of this thread does show gain, and that once the field enters into the iron, it virtually cannot attract or repel another magnet trapped in the same iron. The puzzling part of this is how to use this for an actual gain in energy if possible.

Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Omnibus on February 12, 2011, 11:12:00 PM

It's an interesting design, but to simulate this would take a huge amount of computer time. It would be best to simulate only the working principal to first determine if a design is feasible.
If a design principal appears to have a suitable gain in the simulator, then it is usually faster to build a real device. At least for me because I have CNC machines in my shed. I only have problems with finding enough free time, since I also use my machines for extra income projects.
I am actually surprised that the original design concept of this thread does show gain, and that once the field enters into the iron, it virtually cannot attract or repel another magnet trapped in the same iron. The puzzling part of this is how to use this for an actual gain in energy if possible.

You can use this and many other, even more efficient designs, for an actual gain in energy but what is really difficult is to make a self-sustaining device. Otherwise, in many of the already known OU devices, this one including, you can put in a certain amount of energy and the device will produce more than you've put in. Portions of such excess energy you can produce easily and that's already a given. The problem, which is of purely psychological and political nature, is how to make the device self-sustaining, using the excess energy produced. The trouble is that said excess energy is produced in a way which doesn't allow to directly use it as input energy.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 13, 2011, 12:52:59 PM
Can someone help me with a LUA-script for linear movement please?

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 13, 2011, 05:59:24 PM
Can someone help me with a LUA-script for linear movement please?

Vidar

You need to be way more specific than that.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 13, 2011, 06:13:16 PM
You need to be way more specific than that.
OK.

I already have LUA scripts for use in FEMM to calculate torque. This script, I can edit the resolution on the steps (degrees) and edit the final sample point - say 45 degrees where the simulation stops.

I have now a need to calculate a linear movement in X and Y, not circular. A LUA script which do not calculate torque pr. degree, but force pr. distance in X or Y plane. I also want to edit resolution of the steps, and edit where the simulation stops.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 13, 2011, 06:17:41 PM
OK.

I already have LUA scripts for use in FEMM to calculate torque. This script, I can edit the resolution on the steps (degrees) and edit the final sample point - say 45 degrees where the simulation stops.

I have now a need to calculate a linear movement in X and Y, not circular. A LUA script which do not calculate torque pr. degree, but force pr. distance in X or Y plane. I also want to edit resolution of the steps, and edit where the simulation stops.

Vidar

What you are after requires a little vector math, if what you want indeed requires going from point A to B in a straight line. If you can share what you already have and perhaps annotate with comments what you want I can help.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 13, 2011, 08:47:30 PM
What you are after requires a little vector math, if what you want indeed requires going from point A to B in a straight line. If you can share what you already have and perhaps annotate with comments what you want I can help.
Here is the FEMM simulation. Group 1 ("T T" shape) are suppose to move vertically in steps I determine by possibly editing a script. The results for each step are added up and displayed in a console.

I will then calculate an average force over a given distance to determine the required energy to raise a magnetic shield.

If you need any more info, please let me know.

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 14, 2011, 10:08:30 AM
I attached the sim and script. The scale is in mm, the script is set to a distance of 50mm, which you can adjust. Results are stored in the text file that is created.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 14, 2011, 12:21:59 PM
I attached the sim and script. The scale is in mm, the script is set to a distance of 50mm, which you can adjust. Results are stored in the text file that is created.
This is GREAT! Thanks for your help :) :)

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 14, 2011, 01:38:26 PM
Do you know where to modify to move a group sideways?

Here is the original script:
mydir="./"
outforcefile = mydir .. "ForceResults.txt"
open(mydir .. "Forcetest.fem")

mi_saveas(mydir .. "temp.fem") --make a temp file for the processing

-- the step size
increment = 1

-- determines the total distance to move up
distance = 50

-- calculates the amount of steps
steps = distance/increment

-- this part empties an already exsting file.
handle = openfile(outforcefile,"w")
write(handle, "")
closefile(handle)
   
   -- The main loop
   for n=0,steps do
      mi_clearselected()
      mi_selectgroup(1) --select the TT shape
      mi_movetranslate(0, increment) --move up

      mi_analyze()
      mi_loadsolution()
      mo_groupselectblock(1)
      
      forceY = mo_blockintegral(19)
      position = n
      
      handle = openfile(outforcefile,"a")
      write(handle, position, "\t", forceY, "\n")
      closefile(handle)
   end

        mi_clearselected()
        mi_selectgroup(1) --select the TT shape

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 14, 2011, 01:42:55 PM
Depends when you want to move it. If it's after you moved the TT's up then just copy and paste the entire for loop so you have two for loops. Then adjust the content of it appropriately. I can do it quickly if you give me the needed info.

http://pastebin.com/tpB4xdSG (http://pastebin.com/zYtj4u5y)
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 14, 2011, 01:56:09 PM
Depends when you want to move it. If it's after you moved the TT's up then just copy and paste the entire for loop so you have two for loops. Then adjust the content of it appropriately. I can do it quickly if you give me the needed info.
Basicly I want group 1 (not necesserely the TT shape) to move to the right 50mm with 1mm steps. Well, basicly the same as the "upwards" script, but I want it to move to the right - not up.

Hope this information helps - I am too rookie with scripts to ask the right questions I guess :)

Vidar
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: broli on February 14, 2011, 02:18:46 PM
Basicly I want group 1 (not necesserely the TT shape) to move to the right 50mm with 1mm steps. Well, basicly the same as the "upwards" script, but I want it to move to the right - not up.

Hope this information helps - I am too rookie with scripts to ask the right questions I guess :)

Vidar

Oke just ignore the above link. I just made two script, one for up movement and one for side movement. In the side one you can add a negative sign, to choose either left or right movement.  Also don't forget to fill in your group number as I just left it on x.

Using lua scripts is pretty easy, just look at the skeleton of it and copy and paste to learn and experiment.
Title: Re: FEMM simulation showing COP 3 and 7
Post by: Low-Q on February 14, 2011, 02:24:45 PM
Oke just ignore the above link. I just made two script, one for up movement and one for side movement. In the side one you can add a negative sign, to choose either left or right movement.  Also don't forget to fill in your group number as I just left it on x.

Using lua scripts is pretty easy, just look at the skeleton of it and copy and paste to learn and experiment.
Thanks again! Superb :)