Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

Author Topic: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy  (Read 3176488 times)

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4905 on: July 19, 2015, 04:24:13 PM »
No, the issue here is mesuring the energy that it takes to get the car to some speed versus the continuous power required to keep the car going at that speed given windage, tyre rolling losses, etc.  The PM oriented one way yields a higher field, but that higher field does not come for free.  Conversely, if you reverse the PM you end up with a weaker field and that field costs less energy to establish.  The PM does not add energy in the former case, nor does it destroy energy in the latter case.  You are not evaluating the energy required to set-up the field.

If the ball were to reach the same apogee cycle after cycle, or successively higher apogees then things would be very interesting.

Quote
On the bouncing ball:  A cycle starts at the ball's apogee.  As you note, each successive apogee is lower and lower due to losses.  Each cycle begins with a given gravitational potential energy and over the course of that cycle, the potential at the end is less than at the beginning.  The ball only bounces because GPE converts to KE during the fall and then into potential energy in the stress of the ball material on impact and then back into KE as the ball pushes away from the ground, and finally GPE as it reaches its new apogee.

Thank you MarkE
Did you get that Spilled Fluids.
Do you understand that when the bottom of the ball contacts the ground,it stop's moving,but the top of the ball continues down. This pushes the sides of the ball outward,and this now become's potential energy. When the top of the ball stops moving,the ball now stores the energy(potential energy),and that stored energy is the same as the energy required to lift the ball to it's starting height-minus losses like sound/vibration,wind/air resistance. As soon as the sides of the ball start to contract,the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy-the point of motion. The ball then leaves the ground,and is raised as high as the stored energy within that ball allows.

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4906 on: July 19, 2015, 04:28:21 PM »

Irregardless of whether the EM is an EM or a PM, and as well, irregardless of whether the "block" is ferrite or a PM, is work being performed during any period of time during which the system is "stationary"?

PW
No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.

picowatt

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2038
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4907 on: July 19, 2015, 04:32:27 PM »
No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.

So, if we ignore the heat generated and only consider the work performed applying tension to the spring scale, do we agree that it is only during the time period during which the tension is changing that counts as work?

PW

synchro1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4775
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4908 on: July 19, 2015, 04:34:43 PM »
A laser beam.  Once again you fail.

@MarkE,

A laser beam is not an electrical current. We were discussing voltage potential between charged capacitor plates.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4909 on: July 19, 2015, 04:36:18 PM »
No work is being done while the system is stationary in either case,unless you wish to take produced heat as work being done-which proves my point even further.If we are to take heat output from the coil,and also added the work done on the spring,then regardless of time,the total work done over that time is more with the PM in place.
So:  We all agree that no work is being done on the spring except when the magnet is initially energized, right?  So: Do we also agree that the input energy we want to measure is NOT during the static interval, but the initial interval when work is being performed on the spring?

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4910 on: July 19, 2015, 04:37:24 PM »
@MarkE,

A laser beam is not an electrical current.
Pirhana are not elephants.

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4911 on: July 19, 2015, 04:44:07 PM »
@ MarkE,PW,verpies-we wont include SF,as he just dosnt know.

My point is this.
We all agree that it takes energy to create a magnetic field<--right?

So with this being understood,i can give good reason as to how and why a PM can do useful work in regards to my experiment.It is all well and good to post fancy PDF's,and text book physics,but now it is time to deal with the real world,and we do this by experiments,as i have done.

In regard to my experiment that i gave SP to carry out(that he disagreed with,although being unable to tell us why). In order for the electromagnet to be attracted,a temporary field of opposite polls must be built around that ferrite keeper. As we know,to build or produce a magnetic field takes energy,and in this case,the energy is supplied by the electrical energy flowing into the coil to build that field around the ferrite keeper. When we change that ferrite keeper out for the PM,no energy is required to build that second field,as it already exist-->that second field is already built. So no energy is needed to temporarily align the magnetic domains within the keeper to create that temporary magnetic field,as it already exist with the PM. This is why a PM can do useful work,as it reduces the needed energy required to create that second magnetic field. No other material you use for the keeper will do this,as all will require energy to create that second field-->!!energy is required to create a magnetic field!!.

picowatt

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2038
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4912 on: July 19, 2015, 04:45:38 PM »
So:  We all agree that no work is being done on the spring except when the magnet is initially energized, right?  So: Do we also agree that the input energy we want to measure is NOT during the static interval, but the initial interval when work is being performed on the spring?

If so, rate, time, inductance, resistance, reluctance, etc...

This simple experiment is getting awfully complicated.

We're gonna' need some fancy test equipment...

PW

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4913 on: July 19, 2015, 04:51:01 PM »
So:  We all agree that no work is being done on the spring except when the magnet is initially energized, right?  So: Do we also agree that the input energy we want to measure is NOT during the static interval, but the initial interval when work is being performed on the spring?

Indeed.
And we can calculate the energy consumed,and the work that was done on the spring very accurately by using a capacitor of a set value,and with a set voltage,discharged across that coil in both circumstances--as i have done.I used an upside down L shaped pendulum to lift a set weight in stead of the spring. In every test,using many different materials as the keeper,the PM out performed all other materials by a margin of over 80% in calculated energy in regards to the height the weight was lifted.

synchro1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 4775
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4914 on: July 19, 2015, 04:51:55 PM »
Pirhana are not elephants.

Farce. You went on to claim that the Laser generates an "Electrmagnetic field" a few comments back. With no help from electrons apparently? Lasers really have nothing what-so-ever to do with the subject of capacitor charge and are not even electricity.

tinman

• Hero Member
• Posts: 5242
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4915 on: July 19, 2015, 04:54:46 PM »
If so, rate, time, inductance, resistance, reluctance, etc...

This simple experiment is getting awfully complicated.

We're gonna' need some fancy test equipment...

PW

This is where everything that is really simple,gets turned into something that is unnecessarily complicated.
All you need is a known weight,a capacitor of know value,and a set voltage-nothing more other than the rest of the mechanical setup.
You guys make things so complicated,when in fact,there quite simple test to carry out.

picowatt

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2038
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4916 on: July 19, 2015, 04:59:32 PM »
@ MarkE,PW,verpies-we wont include SF,as he just dosnt know.

My point is this.
We all agree that it takes energy to create a magnetic field<--right?

So with this being understood,i can give good reason as to how and why a PM can do useful work in regards to my experiment.It is all well and good to post fancy PDF's,and text book physics,but now it is time to deal with the real world,and we do this by experiments,as i have done.

In regard to my experiment that i gave SP to carry out(that he disagreed with,although being unable to tell us why). In order for the electromagnet to be attracted,a temporary field of opposite polls must be built around that ferrite keeper. As we know,to build or produce a magnetic field takes energy,and in this case,the energy is supplied by the electrical energy flowing into the coil to build that field around the ferrite keeper. When we change that ferrite keeper out for the PM,no energy is required to build that second field,as it already exist-->that second field is already built. So no energy is needed to temporarily align the magnetic domains within the keeper to create that temporary magnetic field,as it already exist with the PM. This is why a PM can do useful work,as it reduces the needed energy required to create that second magnetic field. No other material you use for the keeper will do this,as all will require energy to create that second field-->!!energy is required to create a magnetic field!!.

Those are excellent points and well stated.  I'll think on them a bit.

I wonder what happens during the second half of the cycle of the full cycle, during which time the tension returns to its starting point?

'Bout done with coffee...

PW

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4917 on: July 19, 2015, 05:02:40 PM »
@ MarkE,PW,verpies-we wont include SF,as he just dosnt know.

My point is this.
We all agree that it takes energy to create a magnetic field<--right?

So with this being understood,i can give good reason as to how and why a PM can do useful work in regards to my experiment.It is all well and good to post fancy PDF's,and text book physics,but now it is time to deal with the real world,and we do this by experiments,as i have done.
At this point my patience is wearing thin because over and over and over, very patiently, and graphically the input energy that matters has been pointed out, as has the fact that the experiment as established does not measure it.  So, no the experiment does not show that the PM performs useful work.  It establishes only that a stronger field can be established, much as the ferrite block allows for a stronger field at higher magnetizing energy cost than a block of wood.
Quote

In regard to my experiment that i gave SP to carry out(that he disagreed with,although being unable to tell us why). In order for the electromagnet to be attracted,a temporary field of opposite polls must be built around that ferrite keeper. As we know,to build or produce a magnetic field takes energy,and in this case,the energy is supplied by the electrical energy flowing into the coil to build that field around the ferrite keeper. When we change that ferrite keeper out for the PM,no energy is required to build that second field,as it already exist-->that second field is already built. So no energy is needed to temporarily align the magnetic domains within the keeper to create that temporary magnetic field,as it already exist with the PM. This is why a PM can do useful work,as it reduces the needed energy required to create that second magnetic field. No other material you use for the keeper will do this,as all will require energy to create that second field-->!!energy is required to create a magnetic field!!.
It is a bit more complicated than that, but not much.  You can aid or buck the electromagnet with a permanent magnet.  As I have shown in the current versus time plots, the current versus time under constant voltage drive differs for the three cases.  Three different input energies result in three different spring extensions.

MarkE

• Hero Member
• Posts: 6830
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4918 on: July 19, 2015, 05:05:29 PM »
Indeed.
And we can calculate the energy consumed,and the work that was done on the spring very accurately by using a capacitor of a set value,and with a set voltage,discharged across that coil in both circumstances--as i have done.I used an upside down L shaped pendulum to lift a set weight in stead of the spring. In every test,using many different materials as the keeper,the PM out performed all other materials by a margin of over 80% in calculated energy in regards to the height the weight was lifted.
If you wish to shift to a different experiment then we can discuss that set-up and what you have measured.

gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
Re: Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy
« Reply #4919 on: July 19, 2015, 05:10:11 PM »
Maybe my past experiments can help here.

I had found in my mostly magnet motor design that I could increase an electromagnet pull force by adding PM.

I started with a small model that could pull 250 grams on the scale with a power input of 1/2 a watt. So I built a bigger model and could pull 500 grams with the same 1/2 watt input. So then I built a super model that could pull 2,500 grams with the same 1/2 watt input power.

Do we remember what we learned from this?

Luc