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: TD replications  (Read 156585 times)

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #180 on: March 05, 2017, 11:35:21 PM »
note also.... proof reading on the fly often misses errors
e.g.  except for your minor math error

" Pf+if/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp+Fi)/2."
First one must eadd together the two forces, and th results is
divided by 2.

(Pf - if)/2=avf which would be correct in this form Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2.
First one must    subtract    the two forces, and the results is
divided by 2.

What… what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it “should read” like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all.

Quote
You will not be accorded a special status based upon any degrees.

I did not ask for any special status, and I don’t respect any special status of anybody else here either. As long as it is correct and true what one posts, I respect it and appreciate it. But if something is incorrect, then I don’t care if even the owner of this forum or God himself made the false statement, or made the error, it has to be corrected, and if I have time and interested enough I will do that.

Quote
People on this forum, that are here to learn, are here to learn..... what, where and why they want to learn .... not your or some other specific curriculum.

Please don’t speak in the name of other people who read this forum! The calculation methods that I have described are correct (anybody can verify that), and if you or anybody else here wants to keep the exclusive right to “teach the readers” some lousy methods of “doing science” and research, then that is very wrong. People have the right to know what is scientifically correct, and we should let everybody decide for himself which methods and explanations he prefers to learn and accept (if he didn’t know them already). When I wrote that this is your thread, I didn’t mean that therefore I consider you to be the almighty here. Only that you may politely direct the flow of discussion, but not that I or anybody else is obliged to obey your commands. You have no more authority here than I do; not even in this thread.

Quote
Many trolls are very knowledgeable.  If you become a disruption to the topic, no matter how cleverly you do so, the topic will become moderated. and posts simple deleted.

Wow! I have offered truth and correct knowledge, and in return now I have been accused of  being a troll! Now that is quite something! I am a disruption to the topic? Nice one! As far as I know only Stefan can moderate and delete posts. Why do you speak in his name? But even if you could do it, I would not care.

Quote
You can contribute, but just know that we don't need your "help".

Perhaps you don’t ”need” my input for ego reasons, which is easy to remedy. Just simply ignore my posts. But intending to prevent other readers to read my posts by threatening with deleting my writings is outrageous.

I am not posting regularly on this forum because I have better things to do. In this case I have made an exception because Luc’s latest measurements seemed promising, and wanted to make sure the results are not due to simple mistakes that are easy to correct. But now after seeing you egotistic reactions I realize that this may be a deliberate deception, which can only thrive on pseudoscience.

#### Floor

• Guest
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #181 on: March 06, 2017, 05:24:28 PM »
@Nonlinear

I did not say that you are a troll, I implied that you might be.

Luc's experiments / innovations are great and his own, I do not direct them.

Great.... Good to see you have some salt / passion.
Lets not fight, let us use your knowledge.

QUOTE
from Nonlinear

"What… what? I have made few typos in my last post, which have been corrected within few minutes of posting, but I certainly did not post anything like (Pf - if)/2=avf or Fa=(Fp - Fi)/2. Subtract the two forces? From where did you get this nonsense idea that it “should read” like a subtraction? It makes no sense at all. "

END QUOTE

See the files below "subtraction of force in sets.png"
..............................................................................
.............................................................................
The topic is moving away from Gotoluc's project, not what I wanted.

So lets move this "discussion" to the other topic  ?  @

http://overunity.com/16954/magnets-motion-and-measurement/msg496713/#msg496713

Like I originally suggested.

@GotoLuc
There are some other filesattached below, as well.

regards
floor

#### Floor

• Guest
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #182 on: March 06, 2017, 05:28:54 PM »
@gotoLuc

The "MeasPhy 10-5.PDF" file is posted in between the two PNG files above.

It would be really easy to miss that PDF file if I didn't mention it speciffically.

regards
floor

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #183 on: March 08, 2017, 02:15:47 AM »
Here is the first test update of the Mechanical Magnet Torque Amplifier v2.0

Luc

#### telecom

• Hero Member
• Posts: 560
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #184 on: March 08, 2017, 05:09:48 AM »
A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!

#### lota

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 69
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #185 on: March 08, 2017, 09:23:07 AM »
HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?

Lota

#### Cairun

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #186 on: March 08, 2017, 01:17:39 PM »
Luc,

It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work.  And, again, impressive work!

Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial.  I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale.  This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.

Regards,
Alex

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #187 on: March 08, 2017, 01:37:56 PM »
Luc,

This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything. You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn’t count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.

All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #188 on: March 08, 2017, 03:41:08 PM »

A very impressive machine and remarkable craftsmanship!

Thanks telecom

HelloIt is an interesting machine.How is the input without the lamp?

Lota

Sorry lota, I don't understand your question.

It is an interesting approach you've taken to measure the input vs output work.  And, again, impressive work!
Do you plan to measure the input work and output work by measuring force over distance like you've done for your previous build?
I think that is still beneficial.  I thought about ways to measure the input work and one way to do it is by attaching a string on the
outer diameter of the wheel and wrapping around the wheel then attach the string to your pull scale.  This allows your to measure
in linear force over distance.

Regards,
Alex

Thanks Alex

Yes, I will do force over distance measurement as well.

I agree!  a string around the rotor would be a good way to measure distance and force at the same time.

Luc

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #189 on: March 08, 2017, 04:44:05 PM »
Luc,

This is again nice workmanship, but the concept is wrong because it can not prove anything.
You have yourself recognized that there is at least 40% loss in the 2 motors alone, and then we still didn’t count the losses in the gear mechanism which will be a lot again, and the friction losses elsewhere in the machine. This is just a waste of effort really. With all this work and expense you could have made a purely mechanical feedback loop from the output to the input with much less loss.

I don't agree that this won't prove anything. We will see.
As for wasted expense, the only cost was \$20. for the gear head motor from a surplus salvage store.
The rest I had on hand, even all the 3/4 inch plywood used to build the device was salvaged and free.
You see, I live a very frugal life style, on a \$100 a week, so I know not to waste.

All you need to do is attach a large enough flywheel to the shaft that will store energy, and then drive it with the slider. This can be done by using 2 ratchet mechanisms like the ones in a bicycle rare wheel hub. This way you can utilize and rectify the strokes in both directions. The flywheel can drive the rotor. Since the expected torque from the slider will be greater than the one of the rotor, the slider torque will need to be fitted to the rotor torque to be in the right proportion.

Don't underestimate what I know needs to be done to convert the mechanical output back to the input.
Some of what you suggest would be needed but it's far more complex then what you suggest!...  since the rotor could not just freewheel.
Rotor and slider would have to be mechanically linked to keep the timing.
I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.

Regards

Luc

#### Floor

• Guest
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #190 on: March 08, 2017, 11:32:28 PM »

This latest addition to the magnets motion and measurements project,
is a detailed explanation of how to calculate the work done by a force that is
changing with distance.  (like a magnetic force).

Please find the attached file   "MagnetForceIntegration 2.PDF"

best wishes
floor

PS
Nice Luc

#### Cairun

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #191 on: March 09, 2017, 06:09:47 AM »

I'm sure Alex also knows this. As well, he and I know it would benefit to slow down the rotor once the magnets are in ideal position to the slider magnets to deliver maximum force stroke.

Luc,

Yes, you are exactly right about this.  In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again.  And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.  A cam and follower(or track and follower)setup should allow us to mechanically link the input and output to create a self runner.  I will attempt to model something up to show what I am referring to.

Regards,
Alex

#### Nonlinear

• Newbie
• Posts: 20
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #192 on: March 09, 2017, 03:40:05 PM »
In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again.  And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.

In a generator designed to optimally utilize all the available excess energy at arbitrary speeds of rotation yes. One has to synchronize them and allow the slider to finish the complete stroke before the rotor is moved away. But if your aim is only to produce a closed loop as proof of concept and proof of excess energy, then one can accomplish the task in a simpler way. If there is really 60% excess energy, then the following device should be at least self running.

The proposed operation is this (referring to the earlier version where force measurements were done):

1) The stroke length of the slider was already about 10 times shorter than the travel length of the rotor magnet. If you allow the slider to deliver its work even faster say 10 times faster than the speed of the rotor magnet, then the freely rotating rotor will travel only about 1/100th distance of the stroke during the movement of the slider. This is negligible, and it nicely approximates a perfectly synchronized rotor-slider. It is also possible that a slower movement of the slider would be also satisfactory. Like for example just let both slider and rotor move at the same speed. In that case the rotor would travel 1/10th of the rotor’s stroke distance while the slider completes its stroke. One can calculate how much efficiency gets lost this way and find an optimum, a compromise between practicality and ideal condition.

2) The synchronous operation can be guaranteed by using a toque brake on the shaft, and keeping the RPM of the rotor at sufficiently low level, so that the slider should be able to complete the stroke before the rotor travels a significant distance away from the synchronous position. The torque developed on the brake can be measured, just like the RPM, from which one can calculate the output power.

3) A large enough flywheel will absorb and smooth out any jerky movement, and contribute to the slow synchronous operation.

4) A timing latch could be utilized (similar to the one used in old pendulum clocks) to time and synchronize the release of the slider magnets at the right moments, only slightly before the rotor completely covers the slider magnet.

5) The linear bidirectional movement of the slider can be rectified and converted to unidirectional rotation using two bicycle hubs (or similar ratchet mechanism), one on each side. One on the left side drives the flywheel while moving forward, and the other on the right side drives it while moving backwards.

6) this way a continuous rotatory movement can be sustained, with an easy and handy way of measuring the output power. No need for accelerating and decelerating the output wheel, or stroke. But it would make sense to start designing such a machine only after precise reliable measurements prove the existence of at least 20-30% of excess energy. Anything below that would make it challenging to overcome the losses, and it would have no practical significance anyway.

#### gotoluc

• elite_member
• Hero Member
• Posts: 3096
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #193 on: March 09, 2017, 04:10:57 PM »
Luc,

Yes, you are exactly right about this.  In order to achieve maximum output the input magnet has to come to a complete stop and wait for the output magnet to finish its stroke before the input magnet can move again.  And vise versa, the output magnet has to stop and wait for the input magnet to finish its stroke before it can move to achieve minimal input work.  A cam and follower(or track and follower)setup should allow us to mechanically link the input and output to create a self runner.  I will attempt to model something up to show what I am referring to.

Regards,
Alex

Hi Alex,

User name TinselKoala made a suggestion of using a Scotch Yoke (1st pic) to convert the linear output to rotary.
The problem with it is there's no rest time. However, I thought there could be a way to modify the Scotch Yoke to create a pause time and found a variation that does exactly that (2nd pic)   Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/uk012.html

The same site also has an Indexing mechanism (3rd pic). Link to animation: http://www.mekanizmalar.com/four-slot-two-pin-geneva-mechanism.html
This mechanism may do what we need to turn the rotor in four segments of rotation, stop, lock and pause.

As it is my magnet rotor only has 2 sets of magnets but I could add a second set without too much work and expense to advantage of the 4 position of this indexing mechanism.

I like both of these mechanism instead of gears since I could cut them out of plywood with a router.

Food for thought

Luc

#### citfta

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1050
##### Re: TD replications
« Reply #194 on: March 09, 2017, 04:49:14 PM »
Hi Luc,

Great videos as always from you.  I do have a suggestion.  The Geneva drive is an ingenious device but needs to be built with very close tolerances to work properly without it wanting to hang up.  We had some CNC machines where I worked that had them as part of the automatic tool change mechanism.  I am afraid it might not work well made from plywood.  I think the modified scotch yoke would be much easier to get working properly.

Respectfully,
Carroll