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: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.  (Read 14994 times)

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2009, 02:35:43 AM »
"I'm sure this all sounds confusing but it makes sense if you understand it."
Uh-huh, differential equations are like that too.

So, in terms I might understand, the hypothesis under test is that, if the magnets are close together, it will take more force to separate the assembly than if the magnets are far apart. Force is defined in the usual way and is to be measured by looking at the lever arm that a known weight must be at to exert enough force to separate the bars. The data will be in some accurate length measure of the lever (moment) arms involved, as in the video shown, and let's say, means of 5 trials in each condition will be compared, the conditions being (1) magnets close and in contact with both blocks, and  (2) magnets far and in contact with both blocks.

And we are neglecting the forces involved in setting up the situation and also neglecting friction.

But, do I have to use 2x4s?

Now, possible results from this experiment (for now it is an experiment) are three: 1) The magnets close together could make it harder to separate the blocks. 2) The magnets close together could make it easier to separate the blocks. 3) There could be no difference in the force required to separate the blocks. And since we are defining force by a distance measure, we need to decide how far apart the means of the distance measurements we are making need to be to call them "different", and we need to know the magnitude of our error(s) in measurement, etc. so we can know if our "difference" is likely to be real or the result of experimental error.

But--even if the experiment fails to reject the hypothesis, and it turns out to be correct that in this configuration it's easier to separate the bars when the magnets are apart, it still won't mean you can make a permanent magnet motor out of it.
If the magnets apart and seperated take the exact same amount of work to pull the bar away then the system when incorporated in the rotary design animation I posted, the machine will be overunity.
Even if it takes a little more work to to remove them when seperated as compared to together the system will still be overunity as long as the negative work in not equal to or more than the work done by the rotor magnet when it pulls to the fixed magnet.
Butch

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2245
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2009, 02:40:39 AM »
Since you like statistics so much, this experiment would prove a working motor for about 38%. If you include the cancellation magnets it would be proven 68%. Finally with the reciprocating magnets included on a flywheel it would be proven 98%. The 2% is experimental errors and stupidity.

#### petersone

• Full Member
• Posts: 209
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2009, 11:17:25 AM »
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2009, 06:02:10 PM »
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter
Would that apply to this layout?
See attached
Butch

#### broli

• Hero Member
• Posts: 2245
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2009, 01:35:49 AM »
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter

I build a space ship too but you can't see it. I noticed your pattern of going around numerous thread claiming to have done the same thing with negative results without a shroud of evidence, you are starting to look suspicious. I'd rather have someone trust worthy willing to scientifically gather the data.

#### petersone

• Full Member
• Posts: 209
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2009, 03:55:47 AM »
Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### I can't believe this is over looked!
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2009, 04:48:58 AM »
Hey you guys,
I can't believe after all the tests video on our Youtube site of different aspects of this design that no one has seen the overunity potential in this sequence of operation.
The bars can be moved back together with virtually no work and work is done when they separate.
The main magnet bars move out with less work when the element are together and pull in doing more work when the bars are separated.
Maybe I should put some fish line on it and everyone will start buying plans for it.

#### petersone

• Full Member
• Posts: 209
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2009, 05:24:05 AM »
Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2009, 07:18:11 AM »
Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter
We already showed in the first video that the mags pull in stronger when the bars are seperated. Then the bars are pushed together, but no repulsion exists because the bar ends are in sliding contact with the Mags surface. No work to speak of required there.
Then the mags seperate with the bars all grouped together. The video shows the mags pull back with less work when they are together, why we can't say for sure at this time.
Now that the mags have pulled back, the bars are allowed to seperate and do work.
Now the mags are pulled in again and the cycle repeats.
Yes it is the fanner, but with a modification, the bars are moved back together in sliding contact to eliminate repulsion between them. When the bars are in sliding contact no fields are present in the air gap between the bar ends and the mags and that is where the repulsion exists.
The great majority of free work comes from the bars seperating.
Butch

#### lostcauses10x

• Full Member
• Posts: 234
##### Re: Can anyone confirm the Lafonte balance experiment.
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2009, 07:57:14 AM »
Use long magnets, not disks. May or may not make a diferance.  If it is just the together and at a distance test on a balance such may show what is shown in the first post of this thread. The thin disks most likely would not show such.

Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter

#### Yucca

• Hero Member
• Posts: 884
##### Re: I can't believe this is over looked!
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2009, 07:14:05 PM »
Hey you guys,
I can't believe after all the tests video on our Youtube site of different aspects of this design that no one has seen the overunity potential in this sequence of operation.
The bars can be moved back together with virtually no work and work is done when they separate.
The main magnet bars move out with less work when the element are together and pull in doing more work when the bars are separated.
Maybe I should put some fish line on it and everyone will start buying plans for it.

Hi Butch, I watch all your vids, Great stuff!

My only fear at the moment is that you MAY be redistributing the field shape when the mags are together, making it more concentrated close up and weaker further away.

So maybe if you tested it's attraction force at a distance then at some distance the mags apart might show more attraction?

Of course I hope my fears are wrong, we'd all like to see a PMM run on its own and your ideas seem to be a strong candidate compared to many others. I think perpendicular magnetics certainly has some hidden secrets to it!

Anyway I am going to build a rig, smaller, like yours and start looking at this, it'll go slow as I'm doing other electronic stuff at the moment. But I'll definitely post back here with my findings.

#### Butch LaFonte

• Guest
##### Re: I can't believe this is over looked!
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2009, 08:17:56 PM »
Hi Butch, I watch all your vids, Great stuff!

My only fear at the moment is that you MAY be redistributing the field shape when the mags are together, making it more concentrated close up and weaker further away.

So maybe if you tested it's attraction force at a distance then at some distance the mags apart might show more attraction?

Of course I hope my fears are wrong, we'd all like to see a PMM run on its own and your ideas seem to be a strong candidate compared to many others. I think perpendicular magnetics certainly has some hidden secrets to it!

Anyway I am going to build a rig, smaller, like yours and start looking at this, it'll go slow as I'm doing other electronic stuff at the moment. But I'll definitely post back here with my findings.
Thanks Yucca,
Let me know how the test goes.
Butch