Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

It's easier than you think.

It will go something like this.

Measure the output work first (as just   one    of the flip flops)
The work done in those two motions is equal (one to the other).
Only one needs to be measured in order to know what the other is.

No electric input for now.

Manually position the pulsing magnet to one of its positions
(extended or retracted).
Lock it into that position (somehow).

What you measure is the force needed in order to pull the flipping magnet from
the strokeing magnet.

Those measurements are done in small increments of distance.

Grock that around for a little while and we can look into it in a little more detail
later on / before / if you decide to actualy do any measurements.

   later

The closest the magnets get is somewhere about 4mm spacing, and furthest is about 9mm spacing (roughly).

I could construct the pulley / string rig and mount a hanging scale. Position the magnets in sticking position as you specified, and use the attached printout to keep uniform spacing in 1mm increments. 

Slowly apply force till the separation point and record the weight measurements at each 1mm increment to achieve said separation.

I wanted to run it by you before I print away and construct

Eventually you do a statement of the parameters of the device.

A sketch

Physical dimensions of the magnets used.

The type of magnets used (N42 or what ever).

The polar orientations of each magnet.

The polar orientations of the magnets in relationship to each other.

Radius of the rotation of the flipping magnets from the center of
     the axis of rotation, to the center of the magnet.

The number of degrees of the rotation of the flipping of the magnets (one direction).

The total length of the straight line travel, of the flipping of the magnets, as measured
      (one direction).

Others?

... ... ... ... ... ...
Then move on to probably, the electric power   input   into the device.


    P.S.
It is not critical that a pulley is used in order to maintain a pull which
is tangential.  One may manually adjust the direction from which pull is
applied, for each measurement in order that it is tangential. 

Because the change in degrees during rotation in this device is small, even
some error here will not be very significant I think.

In the attached drawing   "Lucs Force Multiplication.png"
the "RO" stands for rotating.  This drawing is from an old topic.
The lable "RO counter weight not shown"  does not apply to this topic.

When a pulley is used rather than a lever, the pull direction
is always at 90 degrees to a line which is from the center of rotation
(tangential).  If the weight or force application string, is attached to a
lever one must be careful to maintain the correct direction of pull.

This way looks much easier.  The shaft is directly in the center of the teeter.

But I have a little emergency first- the header manifold on my 3 zone furnace is pouring water- and a storm coming monday in the dead of winter..

I need to attend to my houses heat .  Ill be back

Floor-  Move this where you will..  Not incredibly scientific data in the least..  I was just doing some initial testing to decide how to setup my jigs for actual tests. NO RPM DATA AVAILABLE YET.  Perhaps in the next few days when I am off work.  And no exact measurements.  Just raw data for now.

Spinning Slowly at 5.43v and .52 amps. (2.82 watts) unloaded.  Moving an identical magnet as close as I can freehand, input power peaked at 5.43 volts, 1.63 amps. (8.85 watts) An increase of 6.03 watts.  That is a 213.83% increase in input energy. with an obvious decrease in RPM.

Next- Spinning rather quickly at 11.98 volts and .9 amps.  (10.78 watts). Moving the same magnet as close as I can freehand peaked at 11.98 volts and 1.15 amps (13.78 watts).  An increase of 3 watts. That is a 27.83% increase in input wattage. With no visibly noticeable decrease in RPM

From this non-scientifically performed test- I am am calculating---> 27.83 is an 87% decrease of 213.83.

And as I said- I did not measure RPM but I am all but guaranteed we lost MUCH MORE RPM at less efficient slower speeds than high speeds..

I filmed it here-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZslwyYV0c

I will repeat this with controls in place in the coming days

       

Poles are on the broad faces of the magnets ?

When rotating the magnet by hand...

The forces encountered between the magnets go in this order ?

1.  (twisting) applied force is against attraction while the magnet's broad faces are
      parallel  (unlike poles are diverging from one another due to rotation)

2.  (twisting) applied  force rapidly       increases      with increased rotation. Maximum

3.  (twisting) applied force begins to     decrease       as the rotating magnet approaches
     90 degrees off from its initial position

4.  at 90 degrees off from initial position the (twisting) applied force needed to cause
     rotation is at a    minimum   but is still required  to cause rotation.

5.  (twisting) applied force begins to   increase     as the rotating magnet approaches
     parallel to the fixed magnet. (like poles approaching / facing one another / repelling)

6.  (twisting) applied force peaks (second to most maximum)  then rapidly decreases to zero

7.  At precisely parallel the force drops to zero.

We readers now have the basic parameters...

Much better than if we are left to just guess or assume.


Good.

    Thanks.