Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

2022 builders survivor board => Floors MMM-2 builders board => Topic started by: Floor on August 05, 2013, 02:36:48 PM

Title: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 05, 2013, 02:36:48 PM
I won't be able to post the complete set of drawings, or  photos of the test devices in a single upload. There are too many of them (27).
I will be looking for design suggestion / input, on a high efficiency linear elect. gen. for the cyclically operating  prototype. I have acquired many of the materials for a (hopefully working)  prototype, neo mags, precision axles, ball bearings, and other materials.  I am still playing with / drawing the architecture of the new model.  The original test device is crude, and has a lot of friction losses.  It was necessary to vibrate
the model (drum upon it with finger tips) in order to get full actuation of the components.  :)
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 05, 2013, 02:47:15 PM
Note. In the drawing (Figure  9  Position 1) magnets RO are  incorrectly labeled. The face of magnets RO should be simply labeled as "N" or north.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: lumen on August 05, 2013, 07:55:53 PM
It's good to see someone testing the theory of operation before building something in hopes of it working.
Testing the theory usually requires enough building in itself.
 
I am about to test a similar idea, except I found a way of rotating the magnet that requires no work and it will use both attract and repel in it's operation.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 05, 2013, 08:49:45 PM
Thanks for the response

Very cool ! I hope it's a goer. Do you have any photos?
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 05, 2013, 09:04:33 PM
One more photo
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 06, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
NOTE

Please note that in fig. 7 position 1, as in fig 9 position 1 magnets RO are mislabeled. There should be simply an N for north on the face of magnets RO.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 06, 2013, 05:00:45 PM
Dam ! Note upon note.  Figures 7 and 9 should be marked with an S for south, and not an N for north.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: TinselKoala on August 07, 2013, 03:42:08 AM
@Floor: Lovely little machine! I approve. I don't know what it is supposed to do but I hope it does it!

As far as a linear alternator goes, I think if I were you I'd try sort of a "loudspeaker" generator on it. Have your reciprocating part drive the voicecoil of a loudspeaker, and you will get AC power generated by the voicecoil as it moves back and forth over the speaker's permanent magnet.

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 07, 2013, 12:48:08 PM
@Floor:

You write in one of your pictures:

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A MAGNET TO DO WORK

and I think that the purpose of your very interesting machine is to show just that. The machine has two "angle-scales" which will obviously indicate measurements. All looks very well designed and well crafted.

Could you explain in a few sentences what exactly you want to show and what the measurements will indicate according to your opinion?

Please be prepared that people will be sceptical and will ask a lot of questions. I will take some explaining to convince people. But this can be of much help for you, because you will learn how to present your ideas in a convincing way and how to answer common arguments.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 08, 2013, 04:27:20 PM
@TinselKoala
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 08, 2013, 04:38:59 PM
@conradelektro
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: lumen on August 08, 2013, 06:37:55 PM
@Floor
Interesting results!
 
If you get time to make some changes in testing a similar operation, I would like to suggest a change that may result in a larger work result.
 
1: Change the rotating magnet to a diametrically magnetized cylinder. The rotation axis will need to change also, so the poles are flipped on 180 degree rotation.
 
2: Change the slide magnet to a ring magnet with a hole diameter about 1/2 the length of the cylinder magnet, and an outside diameter of twice the length of the cylinder magnet.
 
3: Bring the two together in attraction until the cylinder stops attracting and use this point as the end of the slide action.
 
4: Rotate the cylinder 180 into repel and do all the same fine testing as you have already done!
 
Just a suggestion. Keep up the good work!
 
 
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 08, 2013, 07:47:10 PM
@Floor:

Thank you for the very detailed explanations. It helped me to understand what you measured.

My thoughts:

Situation 1): rotating magnet and sliding magnet are parallel, repelling force = force to move the magnets into close proximity:

The 750 mL of water (750 grams) are necessary at the end of the movement of the sliding magnet to bring it into close proximity to the rotating magnet. But the repelling force depends on the distance of the magnets. So, when the magnets are farther apart one needs less than 750 mL (750 grams) to move the sliding magnet. The force is not constant, but increases the nearer the magnets are. Conclusion: the force necessary to move the magnets together (or the repelling force) is not constant over the whole way, therefore the simplified work calculation (constant Forth x Distance) is wrong.

Situation 2): rotating magnet and sliding magnet are at 90°, forth to turn the rotating magnet 90° into the parallel position:

The 500 mL of water (500 grams) are necessary at the end of the turn once the rotating magnet and the sliding magnet are almost parallel. At the beginning of the turn (when the rotating Magnet and the sliding magnet are at 90°) the force is much smaller. So, in this situation the force depends on the angle between the rotating  magnet and the sliding magnet and is never constant. Conclusion: the force to rotate the magnet is not constant over the 90° turn, therefore the simplified work calculation (constant Forth x Distance) is wrong.

Remarks:

It is rather complicated to do a correct forth and work calculation because the changing field strength of the magnets has to be known at every distance (or angle). The assumption that the forth is constant over the whole way (or the whole 90°) is wrong.

The change of field strength is different in situation 2) and situation 1). It can be assumed that the turning magnet experiences a stronger field on average because its distance to the sliding magnet is always small. On the other hand, the field strength  between the sliding and the rotating magnet diminishes rapidly as the magnets move apart.

Said in short:

The forces are not constant, therefore the simplified work calculation (constant Forth x Distance) is wrong.

The measurements only told the maximum force near the end of each movement (rotation or sliding).

It would be necessary to measure the changing forth in very small steps between the beginning and the end of the movement (rotation or sliding) along the changing field. But in practice this would be difficult if not impossible.

When done in e.g. three equal steps the values of the work in situation 1) and 2) will be much closer than in the wrong calculation (which assumes a constant force). The calculation of the approximation would be: (F1 + F2 + F3)/3 , F1 is the force at a third of the way, F2 is the force at two thirds of the way and F3 is the force at the end of the movement (at three thirds of  the way, F3 is the value used in the wrong calculation).

Speaking in mathematical terms:

The changing magnetic field between the magnets is described by a "differential equation" and the factors in this equation depend on the physical properties of the magnets (which are hard to know).

To calculate the work one "integrates" the force over a "path" through the changing magnetic field.

Conventional theory says that the work in situation 1) and situation 2) is equal (not accounting for friction losses).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 09, 2013, 11:43:25 AM
Because the contraption is beautifully built and very instructive I do a more complete analysis:

In a world without friction

W1 = work necessary to move the "sliding magnet" towards the "rotating magnet", both magnets are in the horizontal position, movement starts from the point where the two magnets are farthest apart and ends when the magnets almost touch

W2 = work necessary to turn the "rotating magnet" from a vertical position to a horizontal position, the "sliding magnet" is very close to the "rotating magnet", the movement is a 90° turn of the "rotating magnet"

W3 = work necessary to move the "sliding magnet" towards the "rotating magnet", the "rotating magnet" is in the vertical position and the "sliding magnet" is in the horizontal position, movement starts from the point where the two magnets are farthest apart and ends when the magnets almost touch

W4 = work necessary to turn the "rotating magnet" from a horizontal position to a vertical position, the "sliding magnet" is farthest apart from the "rotating magnet", the movement is a 90° turn of the "rotating magnet"

(power stroke) W1 = (recovery stroke) W2 + W3 + W4 ;  W3 and W4 are rather small (in a world without friction) because the magnetic field between the magnets is rather weak


In the real world


W3 and W4 have to be done essentially to overcome friction (the magnetic fields are weak).

W3 (in essence against friction) also has to be done while doing W1 (in essence against magnetic filed).

W4 (in essence against friction) also has to be done while doing W2 (in essence against magnetic filed).

W3 and W4 are much bigger in the real world (against friction) than in the ideal world without friction (only against weak magnetic field).

Power stroke: W1 + W3

Recovery stroke: W4 + W3 + W2 + W4


Conclusion

In the real world the "recovery stroke" costs more work than the "power stroke" because of friction.

In an ideal world (without friction) the "recovery stroke" and the "power stroke" would need the same work.


Remarks

All my explanations (in my previous post) about the changing forces in the changing magnet field still hold. It is therefore rather difficult to calculate W1, W2, W3 and W4.

In conventional theory:

Moving two magnets together costs work.

In a world without friction it does not matter along which path the magnets are moved together, it will always cost the same work (always starting from the same start positions).

In the real world the more complicated path will cost more work because of friction losses.


Note

Work = Force x Distance (in case the force remains constant over the whole distance)

Work = "average force" x Distance (in case the force changes along the distance in a linear way, which is not the case with magnets, but could be used to get an approximation)

Work = "force integrated along a path through the changing magnetic field" (this is the case in this machine)


I hope this helps, greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 10, 2013, 10:35:31 PM
@lumen

Hello Lumen

I was not totally able understand  the descriptions and explanations given in your last post. Can you clarify them.

Please find attached the file TD floor 2 Lumen 2
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 10, 2013, 10:52:52 PM
@conradelektro


I just read your last post, and am just now, responding to your previous post as well.

My response is attached as the file "TDfloors reply 2 conradelektro 2 "  PDF

2 previous long winded post are also attached

Cheers
   floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: lumen on August 11, 2013, 03:37:43 AM
@lumen

Hello Lumen

I was not totally able understand  the descriptions and explanations given in your last post. Can you clarify them.

Please find attached the file TD floor 2 Lumen 2

 
Yes, those dimensions are good.
 
The idea is that the cylinder is attracted to the ring magnet to the point where the field through the center hole causes an equal opposing force and stops attraction.
 
At this point, it also becomes easier to rotate the cylinder, in fact, there are ways to reduce the rotation force to near zero.
After rotation of the cylinder, the slide will now repel.
The forces could be very high using Neo magnets with the dimensions you are showing.
 
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 11, 2013, 04:03:40 PM
@conradelektro

           Thank you for the compliment,  and the more complete analysis.


   cheers

       floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 11, 2013, 04:12:30 PM
I am interested in examining the interaction of various shapes of magnets and magnetic fields.  I like your idea, and will consider building a device to test it. 


        Thanks again
             floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 11, 2013, 04:16:52 PM
@lumen

          My previous post is to lumen

                     floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 11, 2013, 06:32:23 PM
@Floor:

I am reading your reply (PDF-Files) very carefully and want to make some drawings about further measurements. I am sure, your machine allows to do meaningful approximative measurements which will clarify the situation. And doing and analysing these measurements will be instructive.

But it takes time, please hold on for a few days.

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: About cynicism: Yes, I tend to be cynic and sometimes derogative. But I think that in the presence of outrageous unsubstantiated claims one is allowed to be a bit direct and angry. I hold for myself that I am never cynic and derogative when presented with measurements, clear diagrams and understandable facts. I have no problems with errors, misunderstandings and lack of knowledge. I myself have little knowledge and make many errors, but I try to learn. I really hate if someone says "I have made a great discovery but I can not tell you what it is!". This is BS of the worst kind. There should be physical punishment (whipping or waterboarding) for such statements. If you want to keep a secret, please shut up. If you have something to tell, please do it in a clear, complete and logical way. You will find many people interested in it.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 11, 2013, 09:08:35 PM
@ conradelektro

Please,  take the time that you want to.  Honest input will be well and happily received, whenever it arrives.

About irresponsible statements and claims, and especially an unwillingness to hear well reasoned argument.  Believe me, I can relate to the way you feel. 

But please consider, there are also, many kinds of irresponsible and statements and claims.

Have you ever been tortured ? ........

          greetings
                floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 12, 2013, 11:13:08 AM
For all experimenters who want to calculate "force" and "work" I put together a small recapitulation of high school physics. (See attached PDF-file.)

I needed that anyway for Floor's machine.

We want to use proper terms and proper mks units like the professionals, that looks much better.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 12, 2013, 04:24:37 PM
I could do the diagrams for careful measurements. This is how I would measure. See the attached PDF file.

@Floor: may be you have the time and the will to do the measurements? We could then do a careful calculation.

The diagrams would be enough, no physical details about the magnets are necessary. The diagrams will implicitly contain all facts (up to a certain precision, which should be good enough for a proof or disproof of principle).

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: I am pretty sure that my suggestions are correct in principle. But there could be some little errors because one has to be very careful and systematic when writing this.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 12, 2013, 08:01:25 PM
@conradelektro

Thank you very much. 

I am excited to sit down with the file and proceed with the measurement process, come what may in terms of the findings.

An experiment is only a bad one, when  one accidentally  drops the beaker and it breaks on the floor. Although  important discoveries have even been made this way to.

P.S.

After reading your last post to me and after my reply. 

Late yesterday afternoon, my time, I read and scanned through, nearly the entire (over 1 year long) thread about a certain heat to electricity device. The postings / event were rather an interesting study in social behaviors on internet forums.  I believe I now have a better understanding of some of social dynamics of forums and in particular of over unity.  We humans need to learn how to say, I'm sorry, please, and thank you, and mean it.

After reading that thread, I then Looked at the archive of your postings here at OU.  I give you an over all grade of A, for integrity.  I hope I can do as well here.

Greeting  floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 13, 2013, 09:27:56 AM
@conradelektro

After reading that thread, I then Looked at the archive of your postings here at OU.  I give you an over all grade of A, for integrity.  I hope I can do as well here.

Greeting  floor

@Floor:

It is easy to do better than I am doing in these threads, because I get angry when reading embellishments and boasts. And I wish I could do more experiments. It is easy to talk/write and so very hard to build something decent.

I have a tendency to rant about sharing and patents. But I am a bit proud that I found and tested some Joule Thief type circuits and pulse motor circuits which I could replicate successfully. (I did nothing new. I understood, replicated and measured.)

Your magnet machine is the first "permanent magnet contraption" that caught my interest, because you are measuring instead of claiming. And I realy would like to analyse your "curves" once you have done the measurements. Do not try too many measuremenst, because you could loose interest. I think that about fife to seven measurements per set are enough. For the "pure friction set 3A and set 4A" three to five measurements are enough.

The measurements do not have to be evenly spaced along the track. Put more and more water into the container and note how far the sledge moved or the rotation proceeded. You can note the angles from your scales. One can calculate "distance" from "angle".

A measurement set would consist of five to seven pairs of numbers: angle (or distance in mm) - millilitre. I just need these "pairs of numbers" and will do the diagrams with a drawing program (TurboCad) and the calculations with a spread-sheet (MS-Excel).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 13, 2013, 05:32:22 PM
@ conradelektro


I am taking the day, to get some recreation and exercise. i will do the next measurement sets later in the week. 

Cheers
        floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 25, 2013, 06:27:25 PM

I am taking the day, to get some recreation and exercise. i will do the next measurement sets later in the week. 

Cheers
        floor

Floor, are you sill planing to do some measurements?

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 29, 2013, 04:31:42 AM
@conradelektro

yes.

 I'm still looking forward to doing measurements.  Some money making projects, and another magnet related project have kept me busy.
I may begin measurements to marrow.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 29, 2013, 11:46:45 PM
No measurements yet!

I'm still doing prep.  Here is a progress report.  My printer is out of ink so,  right now,  I am at the local library printing out a chart to write down measurements upon.

I may finish by this evening ?

                                                 Cheers
                                                           floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on August 31, 2013, 04:30:27 AM
@conradelektro

Here are the first sets of measurements. 

There are no graphic representations yet, and there are yet more measurements to take.
It was a lot of work

Thanks again for your time.
(and your patience)

                                    Cheers
                                         floor


Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on August 31, 2013, 10:38:27 AM
@Floor:

Great, the measurement accuracy is better than I expected (little difference between all five measurements). I think that three measurements (instead of five) per position or weight are enough.

Unfortunately it is not clear to me which movements you measured.

I came up with a "numbering" or "naming" of the different movements of your machine in the attached document (which I already attached in an earlier post). May be we can stick to this "naming" of the movements: set 1), set 2), set 3A), set 3B), set 4A) and set 4B).
 
You can of course define an other "naming" convention.
 
Take your time, there is no hurry.

The 22° jump: may be it means that the neccessary force (weight of the bottle) is less at 80° than at 68° or 90°. You could move your machine to 80° by hand and then find a weight that holds it at 80°?
 
Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 01, 2013, 02:11:00 AM
@conradelektro

As yet there are only 2 sets measured, the largest ones.

RO = rotating magnet
SL = sliding magnet

Both of these sets of measurements, were taken with the magnets in place.

RO was measured while SL was in close proximity.

SL was measured while RO was parallel to SL  "0 degrees off"
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 01, 2013, 02:24:20 AM
The above PDF file "TD measurements corrected 1" undoubtedly still contains errors.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 02, 2013, 04:04:49 PM
@conradelektro

Thanks for the input / suggestions.

Yes we will investigate the "jump" in later measurements.

My apologies for the sloppiness, errors and redundancy of some of the previous uploads.


Please find the carefully produced and attached PDF file for your review / checking / entertainment.


                          PS
                           Other people's reviews, error checking and will be appreciated.
                           For the convenience of others, please include a PDF format version for lengthy input.

                    Cheers
                           floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 02, 2013, 04:09:54 PM
Here is the PDF version


                      floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 03, 2013, 08:08:24 AM
More measurements, there is perhaps one more set needed.

The graphical representations are not done for these last sets.

please find attached 3 jpeg files


                                         Cheers
                                                floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on September 03, 2013, 10:40:25 AM
@Floor:

The measurements are very nicely done, great. You are close to calculate the total work.


W1 = work necessary to move the "sliding magnet" towards the "rotating magnet", both magnets are in the horizontal position, movement starts from the point where the two magnets are farthest apart and ends when the magnets almost touch

W2 = work necessary to turn the "rotating magnet" from a vertical position to a horizontal position, the "sliding magnet" is very close to the "rotating magnet", the movement is a 90° turn of the "rotating magnet"

W3 = work necessary to move the "sliding magnet" towards the "rotating magnet", the "rotating magnet" is in the vertical position and the "sliding magnet" is in the horizontal position, movement starts from the point where the two magnets are farthest apart and ends when the magnets almost touch

W4 = work necessary to turn the "rotating magnet" from a horizontal position to a vertical position, the "sliding magnet" is farthest apart from the "rotating magnet", the movement is a 90° turn of the "rotating magnet"


Power stroke: W1

Recovery stroke: W2 + W3 + W4


I think I do not have to redo your graphs, they look o.k.

A question: Let's assume the two magnets are both in the horizontal position and very close together. (One has to hold the "sliding magnet", otherwise it would want to move away. One also has to hold the "rotating magnet", other wise it would want to turn away from the horizontal position.) If you let go of the"rotating magnet", does it snap or turn back to the vertical position completely by itself (without manual intervention)?


Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 03, 2013, 10:37:07 PM
@conradelektro

Yes, under those conditions RO snaps back.

Also RO tends to snap back when the magnets are separated.
Also SL  tends to return to close proximity to RO even when RO is at 90 degrees off.

Here are the "little graphs" and an over lay of all the graphs.




Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 03, 2013, 10:45:17 PM
The force imbalance is reverse of what I had projected ?

After all calculations,  corrections and reviews are complete, I am willing to loan the
TD unit to you, if you wish, and if you will pay for shipping both ways.


                         Cheers
                               floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 04, 2013, 04:39:50 AM
@conradelektro

Previous post was also @conradelektro

I don't want to make any claims at this time, and I do not want anyone else making claims at this time, at least not here in this topic.
There needs to be solid multiple peer reviews, error checking and replication, before any claims are made.

Do you agree ?

                                                               floor
                                                                   
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 04, 2013, 08:24:00 AM
OOPS
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on September 04, 2013, 12:59:40 PM
@Floor:

The measurements and graphs are very nicely done. Whatever they say, it is for you to interpret.

I am not interested enough in "permanent magnet machines" to put serious work into it. Therefore I respectfully decline the offer to do any tests personally.

I am working on a ball magnet spinner, which already takes too much of my time. Further I am always working on and off on electrostatic machines. See the attached drawing (which I built partially). It is very easy and versatile to drive a servo with an Arduino (I have the Arduino Due).

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: lumen on September 04, 2013, 05:45:19 PM
@Floor
 
I'm not sure if it's correct with the graph  showing "work" as the area under the lines.
I am probably wrong but "work" is distance x force and the graph is showing force at point.
 
I think the "work" might be more closely related to the length of each line in your graph as it has been recorded as points of force on an increasing scale.

On second thought, it would probably be best to just calculate the distance between each point and the average force of the two points and multiply, save the result and do the same for every point. Then just add all the work (units aren't important at this point) in each set and compare the total work of each set.
Every time I did it this way, it always worked out to even or so close I just considered it equal.
 ??? ??
 
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on September 05, 2013, 12:10:13 PM
@Floor
 
I'm not sure if it's correct with the graph  showing "work" as the area under the lines.
I am probably wrong but "work" is distance x force and the graph is showing force at point.
 
 ??? ??

"Work" is essentially the area under the graph (the integral of the graph or curve). One would have to write grams as kilos and millimetres as meter and to multiply the whole with "G = 9.81". But this would just alter the aspect ratio and not the comparison Floor is interested in.

If (a < b) then (a*c < b*c) as long as c is a positive constant.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: lumen on September 05, 2013, 07:14:02 PM
"Work" is essentially the area under the graph (the integral of the graph or curve). One would have to write grams as kilos and millimetres as meter and to multiply the whole with "G = 9.81". But this would just alter the aspect ratio and not the comparison Floor is interested in.

If (a < b) then (a*c < b*c) as long as c is a positive constant.

Greetings, Conrad

Yes I can agree.
Though the entire test should be repeated with another test fixture of better precision (no knocks about the proto test device) to rule out any errors and to determine energy gained to see if a useful machine can be built.
 
The process appears too simple to be missed in the many years of testing magnetic fields so one naturally wonders where the error lies if any.
 
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 05, 2013, 08:41:11 PM
@ lumen

Thanks for the response / interest / posts

Yes I agree the concept seems to simple to have been missed by so many years of testing.

@AllReaders

I am putting together a list of error checking procedures.

Allso please find attached the PDF file "TD Graph totals"

                                          Cheers
                                                Floor


Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 07, 2013, 08:03:18 AM
@ All Readers
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 07, 2013, 08:06:07 AM
One more
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: conradelektro on September 07, 2013, 10:51:45 AM
@Floor:

Your measurements, the photos and of course your machine are so exceptionally well done that I will try to redo your graphs in Microsoft Excel. Just to see that everything checks out (which probably will).

But it will take time, because it is not my main area of interest.

Friction is difficult to measure and I am not sure how to put friction into the calculation. Possible effects of vibrating the machine are also not clear to me. These are interesting technical problems. 10% measurement error in a mechanical contraption is not much according to my unimportant opinion. Theoretically a very small COP, e.g. 1.1 or even 1.0001 , would be enough to proof OU, but practically speaking, one will always be accused of not having measured accurately enough.

Floor, what you could do is to clearly name the different "strokes" or "steps" which your machine does and to define the order in which the "strokes" should happen. This would help to talk about it. I see four "strokes" or "steps".

I tried to list the four strokes in this post
http://www.overunity.com/13699/new-perm-mag-engine-design-1-5-1-ratio-work-from-magnets/msg369721/#msg369721


The optimum presentation would be:

________________________________________________

For each "stroke"
- name of the stroke (e.g. "stroke 1" or "stroke A")
- a drawing or photo with arrows indicating the movement
- the measurements (a list)
- a graph

For each friction measurement:
- name of the stroke during which the measured friction happens
- the friction measurements (a list)
- a graph

Then the order in which the strokes should happen (may be a simple diagram).

A discussion of the result (by help of overlaid graphs)
________________________________________________


I am not ordering you to do this, it is just what I would do in order to interest other people in this principle. Presentation is very important if you want to have an audience. Everything is already in the files you published in this thread, but the reader needs a huge effort to piece everything together. And not many will make the effort. You may also want to present your results elsewhere (in a journal or at a convention) and then you also need a nice presentation.

I am also of the opinion, that it is good to have more machines (in different sizes), not just one. It always happens that the only existing machine fails when presented, which is a bummer. It is also very convincing if two or three machines show in principle the same results. I know it is a lot of work. It all depends on how much of your time you want to put into this idea. The costs do not seem to be very high (if a few hundred Euros are not a problem). And it is an interesting idea, even if it is not OU.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 07, 2013, 08:04:02 PM
@conradelektro

Thanks again Conrad

Up to this point.

1. TD or TD test unit for (twist drive).

2. RO for (rotating magnet)
     a. RO pulley
     b. RO pulley shaft
     c. RO graph xyz ??? (undecided) I want to use meaningful / descriptive but short  labels not just 1.a 1.b stc..
     d. etc.

3. SL for (sliding magnet)
     a. sL pulley and so on

I don't want to spend time to debate some one who hasn't  taken the time to understand the device / concepts.
(I don't mean you)

I'm not looking for PR public relations right now, but rather PR peer review.

I agree that my "big picture" organization is a mess at this time.  My thinking  / formulation process is "stream of consciousness "
style. I focus / act upon parts as they arise,  then focus on / organize later.  I have focused up to this point upon what is, all ready a great deal of organization.  I'm working on it.

As always your observations and advice are well received. 

And as before, please take the time you want / need.


                                      Cheers
                                            floor

                                                           
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 08, 2013, 05:47:49 PM
REVIEW MATERIALS 1           REVIEW MATERIALS 1         REVIEW MATERIALS 1         REVIEW MATERIALS1
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 09, 2013, 07:21:46 PM
Here is a simple explanation of the effect of SL string stretch

Please find attached file TD SL string stretch model JPG
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 11, 2013, 04:21:10 PM

I took some serious time to clean up my file folders, and my "big picture" organizing is coming together.

So far I'm still afloat, and not upon the proverbial unsanitary tributary, with no means of propulsion !

Her are some error checking results.

I didn't know that GIF files can't be uploaded

                                                         Cheers floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 11, 2013, 04:26:25 PM
-----------------------------
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 20, 2013, 09:31:55 PM
I still hope for peer review.

Has anyone done or is anyone planning to do error checking on my paper work, or is anyone building their own version of a"TD" test device ?

                                            Cheers floor

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 21, 2013, 01:41:29 AM
Hi floor,
not sure I understood correctly how the machine will work...
Is it you turn one magnet against another which makes them to repel at certain distance, where the work of turning is less than the work produced by the repelling?

The pulley doesn't have to be cylindrical, but rather in the shape of a cam to reflect the changing torque or the repelling force.

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 21, 2013, 04:46:21 AM
@telecom

Yes you understand correctly.  Except,  I originally thought that it would take less force to close the gap between the magnets by
rotating than by sliding. The measurements say that it is the other way around.  It takes less force to close the gap by sliding than by
rotating. A lot less.

Using a cam could even out the forces, but it would be a really unusually shaped cam, and very steep. I think some other method would
be needed.

At this time I am preparing to republish all of the information in a simple and clear way.

I am hoping that others will duplicate the tests, but so far no one has offered to do so.

                                                   thanks for your time and the ideas.


                                                Cheers floor


Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 21, 2013, 06:32:12 PM
I wonder if LE magnet can be replaced by a solenoid?  This will greatly simplify the operation, as long as it stays within your equation.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 21, 2013, 08:31:29 PM
@telecom

Thank you for the suggestion / ideas.

I am building a second test device. This might take some time. The new device will be able to test solenoids, and permanent  magnets of various shapes and designs. 

Do you build prototypes?

                                 Cheers
                                         floor
                                         
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 21, 2013, 09:58:22 PM
Hi floor,
this is great that you are building a new test rig, looking forward for the results.

I'm determined to have something working as well,
already bought a coil and want to buy a large magnet or two ( 3" dia x 2").
My main concern is a safety in working with such a powerful magnets, not even sure
I will be able to combine them together, if needed.
I have a mechanical engineering background, can work with Solidworks.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 22, 2013, 04:04:07 AM
@Telecom

I think that it is possible, that under some conditions OU  results may require a certain minimum of size and strength of magnets.
Of course, if one has a self looped device, that is delivering a percentage of excess energy,  on might reasonably expect bigger magnets to give a bigger excess. 

In general, I think that what will work with large or powerful magnets, will also work with smaller magnets.  For purposes of testing and experimentation, and to save on costs I use cheap ceramic magnets.  But the strong magnets sure are fun to play with. Be aware that they can chip or even shatter if they collide. It's a real heart breaker to loose an expensive magnet this way. The risks can tend to take the fun out of playing around with them.  Best of luck to you.  Let me Know as things progress.

                                             Cheers
                                                 floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 22, 2013, 05:34:13 PM
i keep wondering why to none of our scientists ( millions of them) didn't come an idea to make an experiment similar to yours.There is something wrong here...

Now, after your experiment, I'm also thinking to switch to smaller magnets, since it appears that the sideway attraction ( repulsion) has better results than the axial. In this case it would be natural to use a rotational rather than reciprocational motion the

Btw, it would be easy to integrate the curve once we could fit some kind of an equation for your graph, perhaps parabolic?
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 22, 2013, 08:52:49 PM
@Telecom

I have also wondered that / if some other person had tried this mag. field arrangement before. I have never seen it before.  That is part of the reason, I thought it was worth exploring. 

No one at OU has come forward to say they "have seen it before". 

Nearly all experimenters I have observed in my examinations, appeared to me, to be way too preoccupied with

1. The conservation of energy, usually by conservation of momentum through rotation.
2. The use of stronger and stronger magnets.
3. Alignments that use only the most powerful attracting or repelling potential, ie. more or less direct north to south alignments.
     I guess that even scientists tend to get stuck on "bigger is better.
4. I don't know.

I don't understand "BTW". does this mean the best of two worlds?  Engineering mathematics is not among my skills. I am really just beginning it as a study.  Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the curves in my graphs and the areas under the curves, can give only an approximation of the forces.  The correct equation will reveal a much more accurate value for those forces ?   As to what equation best fits the purpose, I don't even know where to begin.

                                                     Cheers
                                                          floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 22, 2013, 09:12:53 PM
@Telecom


                           PS

I had originally thought that the SL (sliding) forces would be stronger than the RO (rotational). My projections were in part  based upon the fact that my first measurements were only of the total weights needed to "close the gap by rotation as opposed to by sliding.  These measurements  were greater than 1. 5 : 1.  The 1.5 being the sliding force and the 1, being the rotational force.  After modifying the measuring device for the next set of measurements (addition of the 0 to 90 degree scales), It was shown that the RO forces are in fact greater than the SL.  How unexpected and odd !

                                                             floor

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 22, 2013, 09:29:18 PM
Hi floor,
btw stands for "by the way".

The formulas can only approximately describe the process, but your measurements
are describing them exactly, so your measurements are more important.
What I've noticed from your graphs, is that the excess of work is almost constant at
any distance, therefore it is not really important to integrate, after all. Lets won't worry about the math.

It would be interesting to see what happens with two Neo magnets, or two magnets of different strength, or a very strong magnet and a weak solenoid.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 22, 2013, 09:37:14 PM
@Telecom


                           PS

I had originally thought that the SL (sliding) forces would be stronger than the RO (rotational). My projections were in part  based upon the fact that my first measurements were only of the total weights needed to "close the gap by rotation as opposed to by sliding.  These measurements  were greater than 1. 5 : 1.  The 1.5 being the sliding force and the 1, being the rotational force.  After modifying the measuring device for the next set of measurements (addition of the 0 to 90 degree scales), It was shown that the RO forces are in fact greater than the SL.  How unexpected and odd !

                                                             floor

I must also say that this is counterintuitive.
Can you please point me to the graph with the measurement?
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2013, 03:50:24 AM
Magnet strengths could affect the ratios,  Particularly so , if the two magnets are of greatly different strengths. 

One reason for this is that no piece of iron is completely magnetized.  Groups of atoms within a magnet, are aligned magnetically with each other in regions, (magnetic domains). The combined mag. fields of these domains, collectively, are aligned as the overall  magnetic polarity / field  of the iron or magnet.   Regions within a magnet that are not  magnetized (are not magnetic domains) will be attracted to either
the north or south poles of another magnet. If the one magnet is very much stronger than the other, this effect can even cause the two
north (or south) poles to stick together. 

I think that stronger magnets will have no effect on the ratio, if they are very nearly the same strength.  I don't know absolutely that this is so. 

A permanent magnet and an solenoid (with an iron core) would have constant attraction and so this would not work in this configuration   Two solenoids would work just as with two magnets.


 
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2013, 04:23:00 AM
The graphs are those already posted

Just remember that RO is rotating and SL is sliding. The two large graphs represent measurements with the magnets in place. 

SL is clamped at close proximity to RO in the LARGE RO graph,  (The width of a sheet of paper)

RO is clamped parallel to SL in the LARGE SL graph. (as SL is pulled toward RO by the weight)

The little graphs RO and SL represent the return stroke and the return rotation. 

Also represented as little graphs (not present in the graph over lay) are measurement of the stroke and rotations while one magnet has been removed (friction alone). Not very relevant under the test conditions.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2013, 04:35:34 AM

Here are  those graphs again


                                       Cheers
                                            floor

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2013, 03:46:27 PM
@Telecom

I think that the shapes of the magnets affects the ratios. No ACCURATE tests have been made of this assumption. 

As I had originally assumed that forces SL would be greater than forces RO, I also assumed that square (or rectangular magnets stacked to form a square magnet) would produce a more extreme ratio.  I had at one point also considered cylindrical magnets (polarity ACROSS the long axis (rather than along it).  It may be that long narrow magnets (thin broad wafers with the pole on the broad sides) will yield a yet better result.

At this point I am still hoping for replication by some one else. After all no one knows for certain, that I haven't just made up these measurement sets.

                                                 Cheers
                                                      floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: telecom on September 23, 2013, 05:51:51 PM
I agree,
this may be a shape related fenomena.
I personally have a full trust in your data.

You mentioned that you are planning another set of experiments.
May be you can describe the jig you are planning to use, so some people could build it concurrently?
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 23, 2013, 06:52:21 PM
@TeleCom

Essentially The same TD (twist drive) measuring device with mounts designed to accept a variety of shapes and sizes of magnets or electromagnets.

If some one wants to build one, I would hope that it would be a close replica of my current simple device.  My physical measurements seem to be the only thing that could be disputed at this time.  I haven't figured out a way to post the actual physical device.  If one other person verifies the measurements they can or I will come forward with "outrageous" claims. Hopefully there will be many replications after the first, one and the world can have it.

The magnets are only about $3 US for 2, at true value hardware.  The steel axles were scraped from a dead printer, the 0-90 deg. scales can be hand drawn or printed with a graphics prog. and glued to a card board backing. My pulleys are pill bottle lids (stopper type) screwed to blocks of wood that were hand shaped on a belt sander.  The collars on the axles were scraped from the same printer,  they are hubs broken from the centers of paper driving wheels. etc.....

                                         cheers floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 25, 2013, 05:37:26 PM
@Readers

I am posting some drawings that are of changing perspective of rotating objects. They are my as yet incomplete notes, on interacting spiraling fields.  Please just ignore them if you wish as they are off topic, in regard to the physical mechanics of the TD test unit, except for in a convoluted / abstract way.

Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on September 25, 2013, 05:55:25 PM
JEPEGS below



                                   floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on June 25, 2021, 12:03:30 AM
Learning the ropes..
    floor
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on June 25, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
No one was willing to explain force and distance integration.
Most readers / commenters didn't how to proceed with this / know either.
Too bad.
No O.U. here either.

Still I gained a lot of experience, knowledge any way.
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Thaelin on June 26, 2021, 06:15:58 PM
@Floor
    But then, is not that what makes it all worth it? The thrill of the chase? You never come out of it with nothing, you always gain insight and knowledge in one direction or the other. I learned from you as probably a lot of others did. A big thanks for sharing your findings.
thay
Title: Re: New Perm Mag Engine Design 1.5 : 1 Ratio (work from magnets)
Post by: Floor on June 26, 2021, 11:36:42 PM
@ Thaelin.

Thrill of the hunt, you bet and... I'm still learning.
I want to do my best in being someone who is not..
getting in the way of anyone else having their version of that either.


Thanks
  best wishes
        floor