Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

floodrod
This is the kind of fast prototyping 3D printers excel at and I use my Prusa clone for this kind of stuff all the time. I haven't looked at the Kundel motor to deeply but built/tested the solid state version found in the forums.

Have you looked at the John Ecklin patent US3879622A?. I think this may be doable and may relate to the Wesley Gary effect as the setup looks similar.

Good luck with you research
AC

Onepower-  please post a link to this "solid state device" you speak of.  I would like to have a peek..  And thanks for the other patent number.  I do want to venture into the magnetic shielding concepts sooner or later.  And yes, the 3d printer makes so much easier and accurate. And of course less expensive.

Snycro-  thanks dude.  The new design seems to reciprocate much easier than the former.  The main advantage as I see, it allows me to try several different reciprocation drivers.  I can't resist the urge to rotate magnets past the reciprocator arm magnets to see if it will self-run. I know it's a pipe dream, but if the Kundel action has even a slight gain, and the sliding magnets has any sort of gain as research here suggests, working both these actions against each other seems like something I have to try

All the measurements tell us it should run itself by it's own power! I believe that you have a "State of the Art" advantage unavailable to other imaginative inventors. I think there is a real chance that you can make it work!

I am re-printing the parts.  The diametric reciprocator ring magnets were too close together to squeeze the axle arc discs with nuts in and have any room for a throw.  And it gives me a chance to print this with decent quality.  Last thing I want to do is glue expensive magnets into a crappy print.

Regarding the "State of the art" technology-  the Ender 3 3d printer goes for $189 on amazon..  (which is equivalent to my off-brand model). A few hours learning Tinkercad and Cura  (both free), anyone can be up and going in a day or two, and probably cheaper than what they spend on fabricating / sourcing strange parts.  With this hobby, I can't see doing it without a 3d printer.

I spent a few hours looking back on my previous working kundel models and reviewed my notes, which is leading me to another part which needs modification.

The best results came with a latching hall sensor, or when a non latching hall sensor was triggered with magnets a full 180 degrees around. 
Same thing with the electromagnet build.  It works awesomely when each pulse is held for 180 degrees of the rotation, but starts to lose massive efficiency when I started shortening the pulses. 

Basically, giving the reciprocator a short quick push was not enough. Each throw needed to hold that position until 1/2 rotation (or close to) was complete to obtain the best results.

Comparing that info to this design- I see my sliding propeller is only activating the throw somewhere under 1/3 of the half revolution throw required. (between 45-55 degrees out of 180) , thus releasing pressure on the inner propellers before they complete their 180 degree flip.

I am not saying this design will work, but this needs to be addressed next.

Study the position of JLN's diametricly polarized Orbo torus coil. A second inverted NS magnet rotor would act as a Kundel gear if axled. The "Orbdel"?

I got it running in a new way- but needs modification and I think I have an excellent method.. 

Currently a nice size iron core transformer is being used as an electromagnet.  And on the reciprocation carriage I mounted  a 40mm x 20mm N52, same as the propellers.  the idea was to switch polarities on the electromagnet every 1/2 rotation to reciprocate the carriage.   I didn't realize  The big NEO just wants to suck on the electromagnet when it's not powered.. So in this configuration, I only need to power the electromagnet 1/2 the time to repel the big neo for the last 1/2 turn since the attraction is being done by the core and magnet with no power.     Tested the concept and YES it works..

Problem is the attraction from the reciprocator carriage trigger magnet and the electromagnet core is so  great when the electromagnet is off, combined with the attraction of the propellers attracting to the center reciprocator magnet, I need to max out my power supply to have enough repulsion.  Since the attraction is far greater than the repulsion, it's causing a rough-ride..

So here's my plan...   If I put the exact same setup on the other side, I would get extreme attraction in both directions evenly with no power input.  . And all I should need to do is  pulse one electromagnet to repel at the right time to release the attraction on 1 side and let the opposite side take over by pulling the reciprocator carriage.. 

I think this method would allow me to use much less input power and for a shorter duration of time, while taking advantage of the extreme attraction that occurs on both strokes with no power input.

In a complete cycle as ...
> 1.886 to 1     and then     1 to > 1.886     more accuately stated (not as  COP)

Floor,

If you are still keeping tabs on this topic, this statement has confused me since it was posted.  Are we saying the initial throw takes > than 1.886 units of input force to get 1 unit out, but the next and opposite return throw will get > than 1.886 units out for 1 unit of input force?  So 1 complete revolutions output power is equal to input power?

Now what about revolution #2 (throw 3 and 4)?  and so on?  Is each throw after the initial startup push getting 1.886X more than input?  Because I can't see much difference between throw 2 compared to 3, the momentum and action appears to be similar (if not increase slightly  with each throw).

With the biggest and best spinners I have made as of this date-  I would guess the spinner turns close to (if not) 3/4 the way around on the initial push. It goes much past the 180 degree mark and if I did not keep pressure, would even push the reciprocator back to the original position because it went so far.  I attached a video link of this action...  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skruZW_jRxk 

Basically are you saying based on your evaluation each full revolution would be equal to input power?  Or are you saying the first revolution would be equal to input power, then each revolution there after would be more than input?

Thanks in advanced

Cool.  I'll bet your getting a pretty good feel for
   and
some new understandings of magnet interactions.
  and
You have done / presented some nice builts to.
cool again.