Amazing, Butch,
this is exactly the setup Dave Squires wanted to get a patent on
and I should not tell you all yet about it....
Now you came up with the same setup on your own...
Seems to be the morphogenetic fields spreading the ideas.... ;)
This is the cracked "magnetic code" as Dave Squires has called it.
I invite Dave to come over here to tell the whole story...
I guess he can now forget his patent...
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
I think you should say to Dave, not me, amazing! Seeing how I posted the designs nine years ago to The Free energy List and JLN Labs. Look at the drawings on my web page and the dates. Also, these drawings were sent all over the world to many people during that time in my collection of work I mailed out from time to time.
Why would you not mention my past work on this when replying about this? The drawings are out there (and on your own site now) and have been for 9 years.
You didn't bother to mention that?
This is the second time some one has asked me to keep qiut about something I designed. This is the thanks I get for open sourcing my work. No wonder more people don't open source, somebody just claims it for there own. I was asked to sign a non disclosure agreement by that guy with the spiral motor and after I did he showned me my design that had been all over the web!!!
I should never have put my work out on the web. Instead of saving the planet, it's just making other people rich that sell the work to the highest bidder and it never gets to market.
Butch laFonte
Hi Butch !
You just can't stop to amaze us with ammount of simple and more than obvious working ideas ... :D
I'm jumping up and down right now.
Another well established working principle.
Many Many Thanks
This type of vector movement conversion can Help (it is NOW a must) and make Flynn and Hildebrand types of OU motors ALLWAYS workable.
In their setups (and in every other type of today motors) MOVING PARTs IS getting away from the cause of moving rendering LESS and LESS FORCE for movement.
Now Thanks to Butch We have allmost CONSTANT AMMOUNT OF FORCE on moving parts (are not changing distance from cause of moving) as long as we wan't it to act. making our setups predictable, more calculable...it is easier now to push them to OU mode with certainty. This is very important in magnetism where distance is everything.
Dave Squires should quit the patent, join us and make it happen.
What to say ?
Butch Let THE FORCE be with YOU.
Wiz
...ROTLFMAO!
Given the simplicity and power of this effect I would think you people are creative enough to
come up with your own original designs and applications without any input from me or
anyone else. Go get something done for a change.
Go get something done for a change.
Nice one Yucca, now we only need a real build :P.
THIS here shown so simpel.
Pese
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xbF63Gzvtd4
For the case where permanent magnets are used the force of attraction on the magnets is the same for collapsed and expanded states of the steel elements. This means that any motion of the magnets resolves to a integrated average force of very close to zero. My bench tests showed that these cogging forces are equal to within 2% or better.
this power stroke you talk of. Would it not be better to first find the proper timing and have magnets around the entire wheel or both wheels.
How about having a stationary bar magnet on one side and only one wheel say on the right side with the round neos.
After looking at it I realised the sketch I posted above should have more than one pair on neos on it...
It would be better to have a few pairs of attracting neos to give a longer power stroke like this:
So is this a way we can keep say a pendulum swinging possibly?
Similar design right.
Yucca,Hi Stefan,
I thinkyour designwill not work,
cause you would have to move the magnets away from the
iron piston parts and that needs too much energy.
Better stay with a coil, that you energize to move the iron parts into
repelling mode and turn this way the crank.
You can recycle back the energy put into the coil
via LC resonance, if you use a cap in parallel to the
coil and have the same resonance frequency of the LC tank
as the rotation frequency of the wheel.
So you don´t need magnets with it.
Just a coil, cap and the iron piston parts.
As a parallel LC tank needs very low energy at its resonance
frequency this is the way to go.
If you then apply a load to the mechanical output,
the LC tank will not see the load and will not use
more input power.
Regards, Stefan.
@Yucca
Nice work! 8)
Jason
I am kind of lost but ...
Here is my idea using yucca's design...
Imagine if you will a clock
Now think of the operation of this desgin.
Now imagine if you will the wheels of this design are simply driven by 1 load of current say a rechargeable battery running a floppy drive motor so the wheels are gears and the shaft of the motor is modified to turn these gears (The two wheels)
Instead of having say 1 magnet on each wheel let us have 12 magnets on each wheel.
Instead of the magnets influencing 1 piston have them influence 12 pistons at each position on the clock we will have a seperate piston.
These pistons each drive there own wheel and if we wished to delve further these wheels could turn yet more pistons the vastness of this is only limited to your imagination. We could expand wheels to the heavens and create a network of power generation all off of this single fanner magnet load in my mind this principal would work.
http://www.energyinfringer.com/fanner-magnetic-engine-free-at-last-free-at-last-t182.html
Errr I dont get the design that stephan talks of using a cap and a coil hrmmm... I'm curious though...
Sounds interesting cap discharges to create electromagnet in coil? Then Coil fires piston for one cycle. The mechanical load then recharges the cap then the cap discharges again? Is this the deal?
Anyone care to eleaborate further on this idea... With the coils and the cap I know a picture may be a lot to ask but helpful.
who cares who did what first? If the rings push out more energy than it takes to lower and raise the magnet then fun times for all. Everything else is just bullSh*t. To be honest this doesn't look any different than any other magnet jigga any of us have seen. Yes magnets store energy but really the only way to release that energy is by heat. Everything else is just transferring kinetic into whatever. Make love, not PMM's.
I guess I wouldn't have said it quite as coarsely as scraven, but I need help with the fundamentals of this concept. I have looked through this site and through the JLN site trying to find test data on the most basic experiments and underlying assumptions of this technique.
My initial bench tests using PMs and washers, as in the diagram at the beginning of this thread, leave me questioning why we should expect more work out than in.
When put between a strong magnetic field, the washers clearly separate, but I find the force keeping them apart to be relatively small, compared to the overall magnetic field in the center, and the force required to push the washers well into the flux field.
While it may feel like the same force to remove the magnets regardless of whether the washers are together or apart, it stands to reason that there will be some incremental difference because of the rearrangement of the flux field when the washers separate. My hypothesis is that this difference is equal to the force keeping the washers apart.
Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'd like to know if anyone out there has actually tested the forces involved, and has shown that work out > work in at the most fundamental level of this experiment.
I guess the simplest way to test for COP>1 is to try and build a bare bones self runner. Everything else we all hypothesise about (myself included) is just hot air.
NOTE:
You mentioned "the force required to push the washers well into the flux field" From my experiments I find that the mild steel washers are pulled into the flux field and the system will gain energy from that. You need to force them out, that's what costs you energy.
Hi Yucca !
last drawing might work but it is somewhat beyond or bellow original idea so there is big question mark.
First drawing you made has much chance to work.
but you need TWO "Lafonte HARMONICS" ( IIIII ), constructed on this principal:
while one magnet pair ENTERS first IIIII , the other magnet pair LEAVES other IIIII (at a same angle and distance)
that way net IN energy is only friction. OUTPUT is pure strenght of magnets. ;)
Wiz
Thanks Yucca and Wiz for sharing your ideas!!!
I'll be searching frantically for anything that even slightly resembles the last diagram. Got plenty of strong magnets, but i'll probably end up with the rest being far from whats involved in the diagrams...
still, you have to try eh :)
any suggestions for where i get the steel strips? Somewhere not on the net...im a cash only man.
some DIY ideas?
Hi Yucca,
Remember that the magnets need to be connected by steal (like a horse shoe..on the outer sides of the magnets).. I don't see this in your designs.
Jason
Yucca looking at your design it would fight against itself...
If the influence is perpendicular and the push always seems to be up the magnets would follow the arcs..
..|
.(
So maybe an arc with a straight line might prove useful but only on 1 side...
I dunno maybe a pendulum may be the way to go as there is less friction with that then in a wheel after all we are in this to generate electricity not torque per say 1 unit over what is put into operation would be ideal...
I dunno though yucca what are your thoughts I would love to know them .
I wish there were a simple way to test this but I think your new unit may just remain stationary yucca.
But by all means if you have the means to test it please do hammer er out.
@all
I'm thinking that this type of magnetic action is more suited to use with a double acting
linear generator rather than convert to rotary motion.
Fix a centre plate and have the outer plates be the thrusting linear rotors on either side.
tak
Yucca,
If you get it running could we come by your shop or home to take a look at it running.
Regards,
Butch LaFonte
but you need TWO "Lafonte HARMONICS" ( IIIII ), constructed on this principal:
while one magnet pair ENTERS first IIIII , the other magnet pair LEAVES other IIIII (at a same angle and distance)
that way net IN energy is only friction. OUTPUT is pure strenght of magnets. ;)
Wiz
I also missed how exactly we arrive at a 50:1 OU factor... read my replay 58
If cogging is eliminated menas that device is megnetically balanced (angles of exits enters are same)
- only friction IN, Complete magnet strenght OUT.
No wizkycho, eliminating cogging has nothing do do with overunity.
This is where you don't understand physics.
@Ergo,
If possible, please provide a link or reference where 'physics' shows a motor or generator that has no 'cogging' or 'sticky point'.
If You still don't see BALANCING OU Try Hildebrand (magnetic transistor...)The Hilden-Brand device has no amplifying effect. It only reroutes the flux. Calling it a magnetic transistor is wrong.
You sound like you never tried to unstuck NdFeB two magnets one from anotherI have worked with the largest and most dangerous magnets in my day jobb. No hidden mysteries there.
If a weight was added to the top of the washers (non-magnetic).
Would the free movement of the magnets passing by the washers become restricted because of the weight on the washers?
i.e. The resistance of the magnets traversal would be directly porportional to the weight on the washers...
The more weight, the more resistance for the magnet traversal.
you are again rude. why ? cause you are blind - it is your choiceI'm not rude. I'm just asking you over and over to explain the 50:1 ratio. So far you have not explained how this is obtained.
Even much simpler english then mine is sufficient to describe to smart open minded how it works.I cannot draw any conclusion on this contrapment until you finaly manage to explain the 50:1 ratio.
draw yourself better picture , You are the one that reffuses to understand. Like a child (they are ok, but You should now better)
protocol for good behaviour of Yours:I have never spitted on this device but I have questioned on how the 50:1 ratio is being obtained.
In the future You must say Why something is not working, and not just spit if you don't see it at first.
After you truly see itMore and more I'm starting to feel you belong to the "belivers" that have had a revelation but you can't explain it for "non believers"
you must admitt that You were blind and at least say thanks - cause I made an effort to make You See.
Stay Ignorant ! If you wan't or say thanks I see it now. Don't waste My TIME by NOT addmitting YOU WERE WRONG.
other way you'll be more and more wrong.
can we agree that magnet can easily trevel from one fanner to other no stickys at all ? (I say Yes)
can we say that energy for moving (mechanicall friction) magnet is 1/10th of energy that fanner can develop ? (I say Yes - it is very possible to have that strong magnets and taht low friction )
Multiplay magnet pairs by five (make this gif longer, more fanners...). pure mechanicall friction stays 1/10th. mechanical energy of all fanners is now 5 times greater so 1/50 of force of magnets goes to friction. here is your 1/50 OU mode.
Please Ergo tell me that you see it now.
I understand that to be true with the (un-saturated-magnetic) washers.
Due to the fact that they have magnetic properties the flux lines want to short circuit through them;
so they move into position without too much resistance.
But if a non-magnetic weight was applied on top of the washers, what affect would it have on the magnet's path?
I am unable to verify at this time.
If I'm wrong in my last statement, then for gods sake, please explain how this device is 50:1 overunity.
Sorry, I missed this message from you, simply because of your odd expressions. Not being rude, I'm just telling you.sorry... Now I didn't see your post
But I can tell you that your saying is not true for a fast moving motor.
The discs will not have the time to shift position simply due to sheer inhertia.
And if you make the discs to thin they not have the power to perform any useful work.
Least but not last, the mechanical solution to extract power from repelled fanners will consume any excess energy.
In my book there's still no free lunch here. But feel free to build it and surprise me. Hopefully I'm wrong in this matter.
You see, I want overunity as well. Just like anybody here. I'm not against it you know, but I have to question solutions that doesn't seem to add up.
This concept is simply amazing. Its so logical that I am amazed that no one has thought of this before. I wish you luck with all your work Butch :)
Why don't you build a straight track of washers on a stick.
Along these washers you can easily move two magnets being firmly mounted to keep them from getting stuck to the washers.
It would be enough with twenty piles of washers.
Then test how easily you can move the magnets along the track. Try at different speeds.
Then place some heavy lead or perhaps a non metalic compound on top of each pile to simulate work being extracted. It must be really heavy.
Move the magnets along the track again at variuos speeds and feel the difference.
If there is no force difference I find it very interesting. Then you might have something here.
Until then I rest my case.
When I place metal washers between 2 very strong neo. magnets I get the washers separating,
but it takes a lot less energy to compress the washers then it would take to pull the two neo's apart.
I don't understand were this extra energy is supposed to reside?
Hi AbbaRue,
If you pull the magnets apart then the energy taken to do the pulling can be got back because the magnets can then be allowed to go back together and that could be fed back into the system.
Imagine two springy plastic rulers stood on end and fixed to the tabletop using brackets. At the top of each ruler is a flat magnet, each magnet in attraction. Now imagine that you pull the mags apart and let go, the whole system will oscillate like a tuning fork. Only damped by air friction and eddy currents in the mags, the system will oscillate and come to rest following a normal decay curve.
Now if the effect is real then the rulers will decay at the same rate even if you load the washers as they seperate and fall back together (i.e. the magnets do not see the loading of the seperating steel) . In theory the energy obtained from the seperating steel could be fed back to mantain the rulers oscillations and it would self run.
edit:
Obviously rulers would not be ideal, too much air resistance, better to use 2 piano wire pairs instead.
Best, Yucca.
Are you using permanent magnets or electromagnets?
Although I can allmost see what you propose, and its briliant - that way We would be able to mount linear generator (magnet in a coil) and have supersimple infinite Energy source...but should keep up the oscilations.
Can You make some picture...
Wiz
Cool Yucca.. can't wait to see your animation! I believe that it has to use permanent magnets as an electromagnet takes too much energy.
Jason
Hi 4Tesla,
I've been out this evening for meal (chinese buffet... bloated! ;D) with my family and relatives so no GIF tonight, sorry.
You're right the electromagnets do take energy, but... the cool thing you can do with electromags is harvest some of that energy back, when you charge the electromag up the energy you put in goes into establishing a flux running through the core of the coil, then when you turn it off that flux collapses and induces whats called a Back EMF (electromotive force). that BEMF can then be captured in a storage capacitor and the energy can then be re-used to fire it next time.
With an efficient circuit setup it means you only need to put in a very small bit of extra charge each pulse to keep the magnet pulsing at full strength.
It's very similar to storing momentum in a mechanical system using elastic components or inertia which only loses energy to friction. In electromag you lose energy to circuit resistance, it's very similar.
I think if the effect is as it's described then mechanical or electrical will both work OK.
Let's just hope that the effect does hoodwink Lenz, then we're all laughing! :D
Best, Yucca.
Great discussion going on here.
I thought of using the parts from one of those shake flashlights to do some testing.
You can get one on EBay for under 8.00 US.
Bill
What your describing reminds me of the Micro TPU. Have you followed that thread?.. kind of a cool little circuit and I built it and it works for 10 to 120 minutes depending on the components used. Members, including myself, tried to alter the circuit to make it better, but the original circuit works best. This circuit is one of the most efficient circuits ever, but not OU.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3599.0
Jason
I have been able to confirm the basic "Separation" effect using Ferrite beads instead of washers.
I slipped 4 beads onto a carbon fiber rod and brought the rod between two attracting ceramic magnets, 1/2 inch gap.
The bead stack expanded from 19mm to 28mm when brought between the magnets.
The beads I used fit the rod perfectly, slid very easily with virtually no wiggle. I won't be able to test energy ratios
or if "OU" until I build some kind of real rig.
Parts Used
4 Ferrite beads Part #FB-43-2401 from Amidon Associates CA USA
1 Carbon Fiber Rod .198" (4.98mm) X 24" Midwest Products
2 Ceramic Magnets 47x22x9 mm Home Depot
2 small 1/4 inch thick pieces of acrylic used as magnet spacer for clamp
1 Small C-clamp 3" inner jaw, cast iron
Can you tell me with the beads separated.. how strong is the force that spreads them apart? Can you push them down?
Thanks,
Jason
The beads can be pushed down with your baby finger. But as you can see in the photo, there must be at least enough force to lift three beads against gravity. I will see if I can measure the actual force it takes to force them together. To do this properly, I will need to build a small test rig, which will take a few more days... Perhaps others here can shed some light on what core materials "separate" best. For some of my other projects, Metglas can't be beat, not cheap or easy to get though.
P.S. For some reason, Amidon dosn't list weight or mass on their spec sheets, but here is their web site: https://www.amidoncorp.com
I did a test using neo mags with steel washers (of which may have become saturated in the strong magnetic field). My test was just to see how much force there was between the washers. To my suprise, there was very little. The atrraction force of the neo's to the washers was much greater than the seperation force between the washers. How does one intend to seperate the magnets from the washers if the attraction is so much greater?
Thanks Butch,Yes, but I want to have this a blind test for people doing it.
Have you built anything like this yourself?
I am posting to our web page simulations and force charts of the moving elements divided into segments. We got force increases as high as 16 times and possibly 32.
Will post web link when Eric gets the folder uploaded.
Will test in real world situation to verify.
Thanks,
Butch
@drsquires:
I don't quite follow what your saying.
I know the problem with all the magnetic motor concepts in past is always that last magnet in the circle. (SMOT)
It always takes more power to past that last magnet then the power accumulated while moving around the circle.
I don't see how this is any different. The closer you get to the edge of the washers the stronger the attractive force
between the magnets and the edge of the washer. So to move away from the edge of the washers is going to take
greater force then the attractive force between the edge of the washers and the magnet.
Or you won't be able to pull the magnet away from the washers.
If you don't pull the magnet away from the washers then the stack of washers won't collapse for the next cycle.
I understand the expansion of the washers is free energy.
But to make them separate you have to move the horseshoe magnet into close proximity to them.
And then to cause them to collapse again you have to move the horseshoe magnet away from them again.
To move the horseshoe magnet away from the washers will take a certain amount of force.
This force is not free, it has to come from somewhere. So were is this force coming from?
This is why I mention using 2 units so the attractive force of one is the pulling away force needed for the other.
Or am I missing something important here?
I have a Perm.Magnet style motor here that I can spin by hand so it works as a generator.
But even with no load at all across it, I find it very difficult to turn by hand because of the strong attraction of the PM's.
To sum up my question: How do you balance the system to eliminate this force?
Are there generators out there that have no magnetic resistance to turning them without a load on them?
Could you draw up some form of diagram?
Hi all !
Quadraticaly shaped washers are must !!!
- Round washers wan't work cause they are close to magnets only In two points . that point cause of very small surface emidiately saturate and can not conduct enough flux. so don't make experiments with rounded washers. Much more force will be produced if quadratics are used cause much more flux will pass through them and allso repel one on another with gretaer surface. Whole edge (quadratic) is close to magnet and recives flux, not just one point (rounded).
- quadratic washers allso balance whole setup. magnets easily leaves washer stack cause they are already attracted to another washer stack.
if missed - read posts 89 and 115 see the animation (post 89). It reveals everything the way it should be done - magnets easily move from one stack to other, if rounded are used it is not so.
before proceeding any further You must understand this.
Wiz
Hi all !
Quadraticaly shaped washers are must !!!
- Round washers wan't work cause they are close to magnets only In two points . that point cause of very small surface emidiately saturate and can not conduct enough flux. so don't make experiments with rounded washers. Much more force will be produced if quadratics are used cause much more flux will pass through them and allso repel one on another with gretaer surface. Whole edge (quadratic) is close to magnet and recives flux, not just one point (rounded).
- quadratic washers allso balance whole setup. magnets easily leaves washer stack cause they are already attracted to another washer stack.
if missed - read posts 89 and 115 see the animation (post 89). It reveals everything the way it should be done - magnets easily move from one stack to other, if rounded are used it is not so.
before proceeding any further You must understand this.
Wiz
What wizkycho just said makes a lot of sense. The only small problem is finding square "washers" :p.
Hi all and koen !What are you talking about "magnetic transistor"? I know of no such thing. Yes, we can guide magnetic flux through a path quite easily,
1. magnetism from permanent magnet is free and can do work for thousend years (it is proven !!! at least with magnetic transistor experiment...and many other exp.), isn't that so koen1 ? (this is something "science" do not wan't to know. Magnetic tranzistor should be in schools allready
,it is a real natures phenomenon and behaviour)
2. now, moving magnet on principle of equilibrium or balance (see my simple gif animation at replay 89 - this topic) - requiresYes, the magnetic equilibrium principle does work to reduce drag.
very little energy to overcome only real friction of mechanics. this friction energy, if setup is moving at same speed,
is constant no matter how much magnets you use.
3. strenght of fanner movement is proporcional (linear) with strenght of free flux (point 1)With "fanner movement" you mean the spreading out of the washers I suppose?
so energy at point 2(INPUT) is always much much lower then energy of 3(OUTPUT), no matter how much you multiply output (you can put 100 NdFeB magnets) and get only 30% of that energy through fanners and you will already have 30:1 for output team and you don't have to wory 'bout that load(weight) on output will dissrupt setup and make it underunity - like lenz can and does.What input? You haven't indicated where you're inputting what. What is your input?
Many tests need to be done to establish how much exactly fanners can extract from given field strenght and what are the best conditionsIf you would just start with explaining how you think you can extract energy from a couple of seperated pieces of metal at all, that might help.
and dimmensions to get maximum percentage (blue) from fanners, but allready 50:1 is not so hard to imagine. So you could help allso.
When we establish how much fanners can get, even simpler (less moving parts, no need for balancing) setup can be made using magnetic transistor effect (3-4 times amplification of flux). so fanners should be able to extract at least 50% or more to get 3:1 O:I .....and then "amplify" that setup with another three in branching style and you have 9:1 and so on and on ....easily to get to 50:1....Ok, so now I get where you got your ratio. Now explain where you extract the energy, please.
Still having trouble seeing how the seperation of a few washers is going to produce 50 times
the input energy...
Since Wizkycho apparently can't or won't explain that,
perhaps Yucca, Dave or Butch could explain it?
All I see you guys talk about is a method to remove an attracted magnet
from the washer stack by replacing it with another magnet, thereby
minimalising the energy input needed to move the magnet out of
its attraction position...
But how do the washers produce the 5000% output?
Or is it "just" a variation of the LaFonte Equilibrium effect, "just" serious decrease
of the magnetic "drag"?
So that the resulting motor doesn't experience nearly as much drag, and thereby
behaves much more efficient than a "normal" motor?
Is that the big breakthrough?
Because with all the focus on the washers I got the impression that you were
actually saying the washer effect itself was responsible for the 5000% OU...
???
@Yucca: Thanks! That helps a lot. :)
@Wizkycho: I am sorry, but anyone who so confidently proclaims a permanent magnet to
be an actual "flux capacitor" immediately plummets several hundred feet in my esteem.
Next thing you know you'll be claiming that you can go back to the future. ;)
If you think a permanent magnet is a "magnetic" capacitor, then you probably also think
that a battery is a "current capacitor"?
I'd almost think that you believe that magnetic flux flows through a magnetic material just
like electrons flow through a conductor... Surely you don't...?
To get the point across on how powerful this effect can be since Butch posted the wimpy
simulation results and very suboptimal structures I will post one simulation result of a better
structure to get you guys going the right direction.
This simulation uses M19 steel with 7 large segments that would be 4 inches deep and 3 inches high.
The gap on each side to the magnets is 0.25 inch. The magnets are N45 NIB.
The total stroke would be about 8 inches in this example.
The force developed at the starting point shown here is just over 390lbs or 1738 newtons.
Again the magnetic forces of attraction would be much larger, but is of
no consequence if proper design is used to manage and cancel those forces.
Enjoy,
Dave Squires
Yucca did you look at Erhfinders web site http://www.forgotten-genius.com/documents/home_1.html In his news section is a video of something similar and running
Chet
Hi WizHi all
Not sure why it doesn't work for you but I was able to play the "Time to wake up" video on the http://www.forgotten-genius.com/documents/in_the_news.html site, if it doesn't open for you maybe try this direct link to the video on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/v/wO5ASxjwi14&hl=en
Regards;
Paul
6. conversion of linear mech energy to electrical using linear permanent magnet-coil arrangement.
Wiz
Yucca did you look at Erhfinders web site http://www.forgotten-genius.com/documents/home_1.html In his news section is a video of something similar and running
Chet
I think these mechanical solution presented over here are
interesting and might work,
but to get the COP really into the range of 20 to 50 you have to go with
electric power input.
I think these mechanical solution presented over here areHey Guys,
interesting and might work,
but to get the COP really into the range of 20 to 50 you have to go with
electric power input.
I agree with Stefan. Go with an electrical system. We will post early video we did to help you along with basic principle.
Free energy for all,
Butch LaFonte
hartiberlin:
Would your theoritical design impliment PWM with very long strand coil (maybe many miles of magnet wire) using very high voltage but very low amperage? Newman Motor like. But instead of driving a very large magnet rotor you are positioning the metal squares...
No real current would be used but create a very strong magnetic field.
koen1!So let me get this straight...
1.http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.msg130730#msg130730
and many other experiments.
don't be affraid to call it Magnetic transistor,
Permanent magnet is flux capacitor, only difference is it is allmost Infinite.Since you are so very adamant, please indicate how you think you can store additional flux inside
We all know what magnetic resistor is and how it is made.
We can allso make magnetic diode.
Magnetic transistor can not work without filled capacitor (or battery) - just like transistor can't. the difference is magnet is Infinite,current battery and capacitors are not. soon we will have magnetic schematics of some device.No, it is not that I deny any possibility that we might be able to somehow amplify energy and use magnetic fields in the process.
If you do not admitt to yourself magnetic transistor (or call it what you like) effect exists and that it is so, there is nothing left for you to understand. Interesting as hero member you believe in energy amplification (transistor powered by void) but can not believe in magnetic amplification (transistor powered by magnet) !?! why is it so ?
Nobody heard of an electret (only few)
everything else you speak of is linguistic debate.
That only shows how little you know of anything.
"nobody heard of electret" hah!
What nonsense. If you haven't heard of the term "electret", then you
clearly know very little about electrical theory.
Very hard to see the needle on the meter. Did see it move near the end.Jason,
Jason
Jason,
Mark is showing with his hand the direction the needle is moving. It's the direction that is important. What do you make of the direction of the needle movements in relation to what he is doing with the bars?
Butch
Hi Butch,Gyula,
When Mark pushes in the bars the needle goes to the left: means the current becomes a bit less. And when he pulls them out, the needle goes a little to the right: means some current increase. Also when the bars separate the needle goes to the left: current decrease.
Is this what you mean?
rgds, Gyula
This is the first of five test videos done by Mark years ago. I want you all to watch it and please tell me what think you see going on in the test, the results that is.
Here is the link > http://www.fdp.nu/shared/files/ButchLaFonte/Perpendicular%20Magnetics/Test1.mov
Thanks Guys,
Butch
I just had a crazy idea. I thought about the repulsion between the washer "plates" and turned it upside down to think attraction instead. Attracting plates would be a charged capacitor. Repelling plates should be a capacitor "charged" with inverse power. Then I had an even crazier idea. What would happen if you shorted (or loaded) the plates either just approaching or just leaving the magnets....?
Unless you can produce the related math, some drawings, video and test results I can only assume you are a policeman.
Hi guys, I started reading this thread with a keen interest. Then I got busy and haven't had the chance to come back to it till now. I would like to offer an idea/opinion. This is a very interesting concept but the main task is going to be how you alter the magnetic field across the washers (I guess I'll call them washers for now even though they can be just about anything - beads, metal donuts, etc.) Although I'm not totally convinced that it maintains a constant inductance across the gap, it does appear that the inductance change is small. It seems like everyone is trying to devise a way of using electromagnets to change the field.Charlie,
So I would like to offer a different idea. Have any of you ever used a magnetic base? I work in laser research and we use these things a lot in our optical setups - they work well with our giant steel tables. This Wikipedia page explains how they work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_base
When the V part of the holder is against steel, you can turn the diametrically magnetized magnet very easily. However, if you hold it in air, you'll find it very difficult to turn the magnet to the "on" position. Basically when a ferrous metal is bridging the gap to the V, it allows a path for the flux to flow in the "on" position and the magnet will spin very easily.
Well, this would suit this project perfectly!!! If you placed your dowel rod with washers in the V part of this holder, then (assuming the inductance does not change much in the gap) the diametric magnet should be easily rotated. As you rotate the magnet, the washers will move back and forth. If the inductance is really constant, placing a load on the washers should not affect the magnet rotation. I think you'll find this method very easy to construct and should work way better than an electromagnet. I've included a picture of the setup for clarity - I have not tried this and don't really have the time.
If anything, this will quickly allow you to determine how the system works. If the magnet is hard to move when the washers are forced in the "closed" position (aka heavily loaded), then this is not a constant inductance gap and probably would not produce overunity. However, if the rotation is easy to spin regardless of washer loading, then we have a great step forward!
Hope it helps,
Charlie
This stack fanner idea, except for Free Energy extraction (and lots of it) - cause magnetic field is free, can be used as it is without moving magnets as spring - very efficient magnetic spring or even dumper for automotive aplications...I mean there is no any possibilty magnet will ware off due to overcounterpolarization. Finally Magnetic Dumpers possible :D :D :D...even extraction of energy (if made as variable reluctance - washer can go out of field) when bumping on the roads...tremendous possibilites with these thingees...or energy absorbers-redirectors when cars crash...Well yeah, that was clear from the start.
When someone builds a factory of such springs or dumpers send me a first Million of profit - this no joke at all, it is worth even more.Mwahaha raaaaaight.... And you dared to accuse me of pompous posts? LMAO :D
Still kicking some serious crap out of unbelievers asses. Stupid Unbelievers go away from this forum you are allways wrong.
@wizkycho
The idea at http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3979.msg74303#msg74303 with the holder/lifter and the coils will not work because the back EMF from the coil will make it very difficult to rotate the diametric magnet in the center. That's why I think it would be perfect for this project since the inductance change between the gap is "suppose" to be equal all the time.
Your idea of using the ring like you show in your picture is good but the problem is that the magnet/core things are not going to leave the washers very easily. This will cause all the energy gained from the pistons to be lost due to magnetic stiction. You might be able to balance the movement of the magnet/cores with a second row/piston setup that was to the side and 90 degrees out of phase with the first. Personally I think keeping the magnets inside the core and just rotating them like I drew would give the best results. And really, I'm not convinced this setup has constant inductance - if it does we could possibly get overunity, if not then its a lost cause - another energy converter. seems like only mech friction to overcome, very very good.
Well yeah, that was clear from the start.
But that's something completely different from the idea you have so aggressively been pushing over the past weeks,
where you claimed that it is possible to produce 50:1 overunity by moving the magnets to and fro.
Mwahaha raaaaaight.... And you dared to accuse me of pompous posts? LMAO :D
But really, you were so very adamant that you can produce 50 times the input energy using this "fanner" principle,
but you still haven't shown it. Shouting very loudly that you are convinced it is so is no proof. Show it.
Build a simple setup in which the elements you indicated as crucial are incorporated, so there's the washer stack,
the magnets, the mechanism to move the magnets, and the magnetic equilibrium mechanism, and your piston,
and the collector coils, and then input an X amount of energy and show that you measure 50X the output energy.
Do that, and I shall graceously admit that I was wrong in doubting your claims and attitude.
But keep shouting "it is so!" with zero empirical foundation, and I will just keep replying "I don't think so". :)
Hi Dave S. and Butch,
great to hear that you both finally have come to the conclusion that
Butch was the first one to think about this and
has put it out 9 years ago.
As Dave did not know this and Butch did put out so many designs,
which many of them lacking a good andwell explained descriptions, it is no wonder,
that is was ignored for so long.
As Dave realized this principle on his own and told me
privately about it, also without me knowing that Butch had already
put it out 9 years ago, I was baffled when I learned it later
from Dave and Butch, that it was already out.
When Dave did not yet know about it being already published by Butch long time ago,
he still wanted to get a patent about the basic idea and then he
learned from Butch, that it was already in the public domain.
Now it is good to see, that many people can use this and Dave still
can patent his own work for real machines based on it, so he at least
gets some reward for all his simulation work which he showed me in parts privately.
I think he has proven with his FEMM simulations that this principle is
THE BREAKTHROUGH in "cracking the magnetic code", how Dave called it
and is the most promising principle
of an overunity motor.
Too bad, Butch did not explain it better 9 years ago, so more people
would have understood it and already worked on this long time ago.
But anyway, now as it is out, this is the best "new"(old) magnet overunity motor
principle ! ;)
Regards, Stefan.
But really, you were so very adamant that you can produce 50 times the input energy using this "fanner" principle,
but you still haven't shown it. Shouting very loudly that you are convinced it is so is no proof. Show it.
Build a simple setup in which the elements you indicated as crucial are incorporated, so there's the washer stack,
the magnets, the mechanism to move the magnets, and the magnetic equilibrium mechanism, and your piston,
and the collector coils, and then input an X amount of energy and show that you measure 50X the output energy.
Do that, and I shall graceously admit that I was wrong in doubting your claims and attitude.
But keep shouting "it is so!" with zero empirical foundation, and I will just keep replying "I don't think so". :)
Hello Koen1
I'm with you in this matter and I have thought a lot about it lately and I think I have found the reason why it won't work.
As usually when people go crazy over something and totaly believe they have found the holy grail they always miss
out on something that "they didn't think of". And that scenario is repeated every time. Sometimes thinking is of good use.
The thing is: A setup using a line of washer piles placed between a moving horseshoe magnet will have an unwanted effect.
The nearby piles will also get repelled by the magnet and it declines from the center of the strongest magnetic field, being the magnet.
The repel force from the washers will spread out on all affected piles of washers. And the accessible power is consumed by inertia.
So this is the nail in the coffin on the washer idea...To bad, for a short while I really hoped we had something good going on here.
I'm not negative, I'm realistic and I also know a thing or two about magnetic flux lines.
It will take the route past the other washer as well because ut tries to find the easiest path
that is the furthest away from saturation. Try it on and you'll see I'm right in this matter.
The only way to prevent the other washers from being affected is to increase the air gap
between the piles of washers, but then you'll face a sticky spot when trying to leave the pile.
When you have realised I'm right here, I expect a public excuse in this thread for all your
yelling, stubbornness and sassy behavior when told how things hang together.
Hello Koen1
I'm with you in this matter and I have thought a lot about it lately and I think I have found the reason why it won't work.
As usually when people go crazy over something and totaly believe they have found the holy grail they always miss
out on something that "they didn't think of". And that scenario is repeated every time. Sometimes thinking is of good use.
The thing is: A setup using a line of washer piles placed between a moving horseshoe magnet will have an unwanted effect.
The nearby piles will also get repelled by the magnet and it declines from the center of the strongest magnetic field, being the magnet.
The repel force from the washers will spread out on all affected piles of washers. And the accessible power is consumed by inertia.
So this is the nail in the coffin on the washer idea...To bad, for a short while I really hoped we had something good going on here.
Mechanically driving it with magnets makes not much sense to me.Sorry, I was focused on the mechanically solution that wizkycho was pushing so hard.
Magnet flux doesn't act as electron current . Electron current will lineary of resistance devide its curents through two paths. complete magnet flux will not devide proportionaly(lineary) of mag resistance but whole of it will pass through one path with less resistance, while it has larger permeability.I have never mentioned this mix up. This is your interpretation of my words.
Permeability means most desireable path for mag flux. How can You possibly think that flux will jump over air that has perm of only 1 ?Simply because the washers can't handle the flux from the nearby neos. In order to handle all the flux the washers must be just as
Have You ever seen B-H curve?In daily basis. It's part of my jobb. The correct name is actually B/H curve, not B-H curve.
I can publicly only call for You to be banned from this forum, cause you say something is not working not giving it a slightes tought. what a destroyer. You are destroying this forum...this is clear.What kind of BS is this. You show your childish narrow-minded perception abilities by this statement.
you don't make any ,not even simplest experiments, to prove your "wannabe it is so" theories.I have made my fair share of experiments in my earlier days but once you get past the entry level of understanding
Sorry, I was focused on the mechanically solution that wizkycho was pushing so hard.
If "driving it via a LC tank at the resonance frequency" solution makes any difference is yet to be seen.
I have never mentioned this mix up. This is your interpretation of my words.
I know exactly how flux lines travel and interact. Don't put words in my mouth I have never spoken.
Simply because the washers can't handle the flux from the nearby neos. In order to handle all the flux the washers must be just as
wide and high as the neos, namely a solid block of iron. Let's say the washer area is half the height of the neo area.
This means that the flux of approx 1.36 tesla is driven to 2.72 tesla if all of the flux should pass through the washers. But it can't.
It will stop at 1.7 tesla and seek another path. Why 1.7 tesla. Simply because this is where the saturation starts to have an effect.
In daily basis. It's part of my jobb.
What kind of BS is this. You show your childish narrow-minded perception abilities by this statement.
I have never threatened you or been abusive. I have just told the true facts that you totaly refuse to believe or even consider.
When does a man destroy a forum by a sane logic discussion? It's you with your bad attitude that is destructive.
I have made my fair share of experiments in my earlier days but once you get past the entry level of understanding
magnetics you can see in your mind how the outcome will become. This is when you truly can see the magnetic
interaction of a contraption in your mind because you know almost all parameters involved in the setup.
When you come to that level (if ever) we might be able to have a civilized discussion.
Not even Hartiberlin believes in your idea. Why is this so. Because his eduction level is good and he can see the error himself.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5064.msg133710#msg133710
I haven't provoked you once but you behave as I am the worst case of scum alive. I just told you some basic facts you rejected badly.
You are truly unbelievable and ingnorant in your stubbornness. Now I'm being rude, but you deserve it.
DIDN'T YOU GET THAT THE RECTANGULAR WASHER PILE ONLY HAVE HALF THE AREA OF THE NEOMAGNET?
THIS MEANS THE FLUX WILL SATURATE THE WASHERS AND THE EXCESS FLUX IS FORCED TO TAKE ANOTHER ROUTE.
Sorry for shouting but this is probably the only way to make wizkycho understand, but I don't think he will get it anyway.
washers together have bigger surface then magnets so they can not saturate Seeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then build the darn thing and learn I'm right in this matter.
I dout it, but I dare you, and rise You 1000So you are a poker player. This explains your complete lack of logic and beliefs in success without ever questioning your own ideas.
We allready have a way to swith a strong field on off with low current, the joseph flynn valve.
also have a very effient way to convert a linear movement into a circular movement, the revetec.com trilobe crank.
The construction is: make a josehp flynn valve in "U" shape, in each extreme set a butch lafonte laminated expander, in the midle set the trilobe. Thats all Folks.
The working: turn on flynn valve to one extreme on (another extreme is automatically off) the laminated in this extreme is expanded (the another extreme is automatically compressed) and the trilobe rotate, next switch the flynn valve to the another extreme on.
Like charges DO REPELL, Wires DO explode due to large currents, and coin crushers are NOT the same thing.
I think the problem here may be you are trying to compare apples and oranges
BEP,
"I can tell you now that moving the source from the compressed portion of the laminations to the gapped laminations and back to the compressed portion causes no variation in the magnetic flux."
BEP,
We would like to see our test results replicated. Can you show on video with a scope that you get no change of flux in the coil core and the voltage stays steady?
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Like I said 'zero circuitry'. I have a coil around one section of the stator for pickup purposes only. With my scope on 100mv/Div it barely registers when turned quickly by hand. If it shows continued promise I'll likely start another thread as it is nothing like what you've presented. Sorry, I'm busy enough proving to myself I am not an idiot so I rarely 'replicate' another's work.BEP,
Design is nowhere near complete. I need to include positioning screws for adjustments of axial/radial postion and balance. So far it looks like I'll have to beg for CNC time at work.
I'm doing all design on AutoCad with good measurements so once I can present it as useful or a complete mistake the info will be good.
Thank goodness this idea is in no way related to my previous works so I'll have no problems posting info. It uses part of the concept you proposed but includes others I haven't seen public before. I hope to have a POC to post by next week but can make no promises, yet. Then you can all tell me it is something done before but I seriously doubt it.
BTW: FEMM is useless on this.
@ButchBEP,
If you haven't already I suggest you replace the rod holding the washers (tipping experiment) with something nonferrous and repeat the experiment.
I suspect the spreading washers increased the 'attraction zone and flux for the rod', between the magnets. This should also require more weights to cause tipping. 'Attraction zone' is not a formal term AFAIK.
This may start another battle but the washers, now magnets, focus more magnetic flux separated than compressed. This increase in flux concentration should also create a stronger pull on the horizontal rod. If the rod is nonferrous there should be no increase in focused flux and the distance between the washers should not be as great.
Hope this is helpful :)
Hello Sirs,
I try to understand this principe but i'm not natural english speaker and it's hard to understand all you say.
1/ The setup
Do you think this kind of simple setup can be a good firt approch ?
Does the LC resonant frequency be calculated be near the idéal rotation speed (in turn per second) ?
2/ Output évaluation
If i drive this setup with frequency generator (GBF) and choice a good capacitor for my coil i can easly évaluate the input power
But how to simple mesure the output ?
Molux,
I believe the rotary approach is the best way. Look at this video and tell me what you think.
Also, the best way to test this theory for true overunity is to use a scope to show that the supply voltage/current is constant when the rotor is moving and doing useful work.
Below is a link for the youtube rotary basic layout for testing the concept. It will need proximity switch added. The final product will need resonance element in design.
Feel free to write me if you have any questions. lafontegroup@charter.net
Here is video link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7a8rEEAfLM and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IpN0oRL-ls
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
PS
Molux, my english is bad and I was born and raised here in the United States.
Sorry for my bad english
(Thanks for this interesting thread)
Molux
BEP,
The rod is nonmagnetic stainless.
Butch
Thanks for that info. So the metal is probably type 300. Likely 316 stainless steel? I used 316 stainless steel fasteners in one project and found the metal to have an effect on the shape of the field but only while moving within the field.BEP,
Still, I'm puzzled why there is so much difference in attraction to the magnets when compressed or released. If the rod was ferromagnetic it would explain it. Perhaps the washers are easier to saturate while compressed? Your test results would be unwanted when dealing with the laminated rotor I described above. I want no differences between compressed and expanded and have none but none of the early tests I did were as inventive as yours.
Molux,Thanks a lot for information and help Butch
I believe the rotary approach is the best way. Look at this video and tell me what you think.
Also, the best way to test this theory for true overunity is to use a scope to show that the supply voltage/current is constant when the rotor is moving and doing useful work.
Below is a link for the youtube rotary basic layout for testing the concept. It will need proximity switch added. The final product will need resonance element in design.
Feel free to write me if you have any questions.
Is that coil in the animated pic wound correctly?Koen,
Doesn't look like it...
And you must admit that this setup is actually simple enough for people to build one,
so instead of remaining stuck in the theoretical discussion part of it, where's the
build attempts? There's none? That's odd... ;)
Butch,Koen,
I hadn't thought of that yet... indeed, it may be intended to make you look bad.
Not that it works, 'cause everyone who understands the concept will see that
the coil is wrong, and will know that it should be a normal "horizontal" coil.
Aside from that, do you really think such a setup would produce more
energy at that coil than it would need to cause the movement of the magnet
which causes the induction of that output?
I just scanned the thread and was surprised that no one has realized the effect described is a macroscopic analog of negative magnetostriction.
The same effect you see in a stack of washers happens at a molecular level in most feromagnetic materials -- it is called magnetistriction. Materials like iron and cobalt have positive magnetostriction coefficients-- which means they elongate along the direction of magnetic field and shrink tangentially. Materials like Nickel have a negative coefficient and shrink lengthwise but grow tangentially to the magnetic field.
In a solid material you can tune magnetoeleastic effect to achieve magnetoacoustic resonance -- something that would be extremely difficult in the devices you are making.
Dating right back to Hans Coler's devices there is evidence that magnetoacoustic resonance is a viable method for generating excess energy.
could you not make a coil around the washers themselves and see if they still spread and generate power at the same time or maybe have the washers as magnets instead like someone else suggested earlier in the thread?Infringer,
not to piss on anybodies parade but this sounds like a worthy thing to look into...
-infringer-
Hi Butch and all,
I have tried this method and honesty, was amazed to say the least. I used thick round washers and will try square ones soon. One thing though, when the magnets are in close proximity to the washers and the washers are "defying gravity", it does take a considerable amount of effort to draw the magnets away. I take it this is due to the attraction of the magnets to the washers. Is there a specific type of washer used?
Also, Butch, I did see your diagrams on the fdp website years ago but it didn't make sense to me until this forum entry. I commend you and all on your efforts to free energy.
Well Done.
-Dale.
Hi Butch and all,
I have tried this method and honesty, was amazed to say the least. I used thick round washers and will try square ones soon. One thing though, when the magnets are in close proximity to the washers and the washers are "defying gravity", it does take a considerable amount of effort to draw the magnets away. I take it this is due to the attraction of the magnets to the washers. Is there a specific type of washer used?
Also, Butch, I did see your diagrams on the fdp website years ago but it didn't make sense to me until this forum entry. I commend you and all on your efforts to free energy.
Well Done.
-Dale.
Dale,
Thanks, we are running tests around the clock to find best material and shape and overall configuration.
I am looking forward to trying pure laboratory grade iron, 99.8 % pure.
It's a pain to work with, after machining you have to reanneal it.
The stuff is almost magical.
Butch
I did a bunch of tests over the weekend ... All the tests I have ever made using magnets as a source of energy always balance in the end.
I really thought this may have been the one that was different but I am sorry to say crap!
If anyone else has had any better luck I would like to hear about it cause I hate it when things don;t work as planned.
(and I don;t like being a fun wrecker)
It is like every line of force that is used to do work requires the same work to remove it. All the tests I have ever made using magnets as a source of energy always balance in the end.
I really thought this may have been the one that was different but I am sorry to say crap!
If anyone else has had any better luck I would like to hear about it cause I hate it when things don;t work as planned.
(and I don;t like being a fun wrecker)
@BEP
I have my own CNC machines so it's possible for me to build virtually any prototype design. In the past I found it much easier to only build enough to test the operating principal. This usually indicates the problem and even lets you do some "what if " testing to find a modified condition which may improve possibilities of any gain in energy.
So far it looks like anything that depends on the changing magnitude of the field will always require the same energy in the opposite move to reduce the field.
At this point it looks like a moving field with a constant magnitude may be the only possibility.
Don't let patents scare you away.
I'm not a legal expert, but from what I understand about patent law, anyone is entitled to build a patented device to test for themselves. Patents are infringed only when such devices are marketed or used for financial gain. If you think there is patent out there that actually works, feel free to build it and report your findings, just don't sell it or use it for profit.
Hi Butch,Stefan,
why don´t you and Mark concentrate to
build the real principle reciprocating motor as
shown in your video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpmkWw2zkLI
??
Mark could use his black coil from this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7a8rEEAfLM
and just needs to design a new iron core to
push the rectangular washers...
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan,
That is an old video. We shipped a reciprocating motor and a rotary motor to Atlanta for testing. We want to be 100% sure that no counter emf is being produced against the supply voltage during the repelling of the moving elements.
Regards,
Butch
Hi Butch,Stefan,
what is the purpose of shipping it to Atlanta ?
To an university there ?
Did you take a video of it proir to shipping it there ?
Many thanks.
we are getting patent protection so no one can suppress it
It's such a breakthrough that we are getting patent protection so no one can suppress it or make the public pay gasoline like prices for it.
@ButchBEP,
I truly hope that works for you.
BEP
We are building a fixture just for demonstration on video to the public. The fixture will show work done by the "fanner" elements or rotary element and no counter emf is experienced by the power supply. In most video's that show overunity no name or address or invitation is given so the device can be examined by the public. That will not be the case with our group. We will allow the public to examine the device. It will be at my location or Marks. It's super simple and can be understood by the general public. Will notify this group and others when the demo is ready.
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
Hi Butch,Luc,
I've been following your work for over a year now and would like to wish you all the best with your new findings. It sounds like a very exciting breakthrough ;D
May God grace be with you and give you the real thing so the World can finally learn the benefits and power of sharing.
Thank you
Luc
Luc,
Thanks for your support. The timing could not be any better for this to come along.
Will keep you posted.
Butch
Hey Butch, any updates on how the fixture is coming along?Broli,
Dear ButchGpezzella,
can I use principle from you discovery for build my own magnetic motor, of course different from your?
Thanks
Dear ButchBuild your machine, if it works give it to the world.
the one descived from you in this forum, the iron disks that under magnetic field separe itself.
If I have understand well this principle was already know but never used.
Thanks
Oh, if it was only that simple and true......
There are other scenarios played.
For example: Would you be so willing to publicly give such information if it meant innocent members of your family suffering in a multitude of ways just because you decided to become a humanitarian?
-or-
Broadcast the information knowing that you will be forced to drive to another country for life giving medications for a family member just because you loose your job, health care, retirement income and all the benefits of past labors. Why? To be a humanitarian?
I suppose I could be a martyr for such a cause but you can stuff it if you think I will put innocent family members through it so I can be 'the good guy un-remembered' - again.
To the INVENTORS.
Because of your bickering on who has done/got what first, and patenting fiasco, we (the rest of the world) are still running things on oil/coal and line governments big fat wallets.
Get your grip together and let free energy into the world. Screw patent and claims and whatnot.
If you intend on hoarding the knowledge and wait on the grace of your wonderfull government to grant you patents, then we are never seeing free energy, because too much money is tied up into energy business. No way in hell they will grant you a patent you can make any money off. Youre in their playground now and youre after a piece of their pie.
Its gonna play out like this:
• You develop a device
• You file for a patent
• You go on youtube and demonstrate your device
• You get a bit greedy and you try get some investors in to get the "bussiness" rolling
• Time passes, world yaawns (1 - 8 years)
• Patent office writes back and informs you either that such a device allready exists under a different name and you would have to reformat your claim or some such, causing another delay.
• You get some investors or government assasinates you and we forget all about that wonderfull device you "sommebody" (yes we cant even recall your name anymore) was working on.
• We still run appliances and homes on oil.
The way it should play out to get a world in a better shape:
• You develop a device
• You proove it works to the people
• You make contengency plans if something was to happen to you or the device
• You publish papers online with diagrams for evey Joe out there soo he can build it on his own
• Government is screwed with this new FACT and has to addapt
• There is either a revolution, or mankind opens up a new chapter in human history on how we beat powerty, war,...
• And yes, you will be remembered as a man who freed people from this slavery to energy moguls.
• And yes were damn sure to make you ritch. Just immagine, a man that saved Earth opening up a donation page. You would get millions upon millions of donations. If indeed economy would exist as such that is. But still, you wont go hungry or anyone else for that matter ever again.
Its either that or you keep worrying about your precious device and your BILLs and hoping you will get a patent granted, you will get investors and a fat big wallet.
I appologize for vocabulary quirks, as I am not a natural English writer. ::)
Besides, you gave that statement not thinking first.
Once again.
Yes i would wholehartedly decided to let the information loose.
Once the genie is out of the bottle,.. you know the rest. It would be kinda pointless for the government threats then right?
Besides, you gave that statement not thinking first. If the inventor is true of heart and is trying to get this out, dont you think hes allready in their sights? If the inventor knows that, then why is he wasting his time on getting this thing out when he knows his family is threattened and he will never be permitted to get this thing out?
OK said that,... he can give the technology to someone else anonimously, and he gets it out as long as it gets out.
THEY (by this I mean the oposition, corporations and governments, oil cartels..) are genuinely screwed if this gets into public domain.
Killing one lone inventor and his whole family and close distant relatives is not gonna help them. Once the genie is out of the bottle, the revolution can not be stopped.
As they are, but a few in control of many. Once you loose that control youre as good as dead. Their time is comming.
The inventor I am reffering to is SM whos invention is known to you allready. Allso I see a nice movement in free energy bussiness in Australia. This is comming out and no idle threats are gonna make any difference. They better buckle their bellts, write their wills, get their affairs in order, ...
Patent office is nothing more than a filtering system on what people should and should not know.
Its a body for control. Who else likes to control their subjects? (fill the blanks yourself).
I trully admire SM if his invention or rather adaption works. We all know 95% of todays free energy comes from none other but Nikola Tesla work. But I dont mind that. Humanity has been put on hold for 100 years, its time these things come out.
They made enough fortune through controlling the technology to suit their vision of the world.
When encrypting never go below 256 bit. I would go 1024 or 2048 just to be safe, but in the day of quantum computing there is no telling what super-computer monstrosities our government has to unencrypt (even incredibly complex 2048 one yes).
Hey everyone...
I'm not sure why this thread is drying up like it is, this is a fascinating discovery. Is there anyway this would work? As you can see in this top-view picture, if you have a rotor (the 'cross' shaped object) and the stator (the ring of plate sections), would the rotor spin fairly freely because the magnets are never leaving the steel, thus no 'wanting to stick' to it effect?
http://nullium.fileave.com/ou.jpg
Where's the asymmetric "pull" in that picture, that would be required to make it turn, and keep turning?
It is clearly what we call a "non-starter".
:D
(But don't believe me, PROVE ME WRONG, I'm the Evil Skeptic, who single-handedly prevents Magnet Motors and Gravity Wheels and Buoyancy Drives from freeing the world from the Tyranny of Oil. Just go ahead and buy some magnets, hire a machinist, build it yourself. Doesn't "quite" work yet? Well, maybe a few more magnets, or bigger, or shielding, or a strategically-placed electromagnet will get it going--just keep changing the design, buying more magnets and eventually you'll understand a subtle fact:
just why this thread, and so many others like it, have dried up: Magnetism is conservative, and so is gravity; you get out what you put in, minus losses.)
Has anyone here heard from Butch lately? Considering that he started this thread, his absence is getting noticeable.
It would be be nice to hear from him, even if just to say hello.
TK if you can't do it don't think it's impossible or even difficult.The solutions are simple when we see the answers. Myself I'm starting to lean less on the gravity wheel side. Sure it would be something to have a runner, but it will have to be rather big if you plan on energy production. This is why I'm leaning more heavily on electro magnetic systems. My true goal is to find and replicate what Tesla has found in his labs 100 years ago.
He said he was applying for a patent. I wished him well and that was the last I expected to hear from him.BEP,
Either he realized trying to make use of a supposed gradient was a mistake or he did discover something useful. Either way, I expected that would be the end.
Stefan likes to refer to Perpendicular Magnetics as "breaking the magnetic code". In our research we have found three magnetic codes related to Perpendicular Magnetics and we are researching a fourth.
Butch LaFonte
You can take mild steel washers (the kind that does not stay magnetized when magnet is removed) and place them on a vertical wood dowel. Now place a magnet on each side of the washers with the north pole of one facing the south pole of the other. Have a horse shoe shaped flat bar connecting the outer poles of each magnet so that you have a self made horse shoe magnet.
Now move the open air space between the inner poles so that the washers will be between the two faces of the magnets.
Notice that the washers separate from each other. This is because the magnetic path through each washer has the same orientation and they repel each other.
Now notice that the work needed to remove the horse shoe is equal when the washers are together and touching each other or when they are separated. This means that the work available from the separating of the washers is free because the washers separate at a 90 degree angle to the magnetic field or flux flow direction. After testing I posted a series of drawings years ago, but no one bothered to notice this.
Do not allow washers to separate to a point where they go beyond the width of the magnet. They must stay in the space between the pole faces of the two magnets.Remember the wood dowel is at 90 degrees vertical to the horse shoe when the horse shoe is laying flat on a table.
I have posted to my web page 7 drawings that include a new rotary version using this principle which makes use also of the conservation of angular momentum as part of it's operation. As you know when a mass is rotating in a circle and work is done to make the mass move toward the center axis of rotation the speed of the mass will attempt to increase and the work done on the mass shows up as an increase in the speed and kinetic energy of the rotating mass.
This is done in my design with out having to put additional work into the system.
This should open up a whole new field in overunity permanent magnet and/or electromagnet research and development.
See web page > http://lafonte.fdp.nu
Open folder B00 and look at drawings, Butch10, Butch8, Butch2a, Butch2, Butch11, 1-7-08 A and 1-7-08 D
Also see attached drawing
Thanks,
Butch LaFonte
The LaFonte Group
Birmingham, Alabama
Actually this kind of phenomena had been applied on material handling technolgy for sheets metal storage in 90's.
First of all Butch mentions this himself. And second of all...so what? Maybe you don't understand the point of an invention. He came up with a way to use it as a primemover in a motor or generator. That's a new invention. Even though Tesla invented the induction motor, the idea of magnetic induction wasn't his.
If you're like a little lamb waiting to be fed then that's your problem. Even if he has made all those claims, what do you care? You should have your own goals and desires. Setup your own experiments and see what you learn out of it.A lamb to be fed? ;D ;)
Let's all hope Mr. LaFonte will find something new! Sincerely!Shortly after the web came on line I started posting my designs and to date have over 2000 I have put out there for the public. Many have been built in Marks shop and my home for testing. Yes I have made claims that I should not have made till I had funds to complete the research and development of the designs. But I never got funding to do that (until recently). So I get excited when I get positive test results and make claims prematurely, well then just take me out back and shoot me. Tell me which is worse, putting out over 2000 designs for the public (that many have filed patents on) and building and testing many of them or someone who's total contribution is making negative comments on a list from time to time using a "screen name".
It's just that there is not exactly anything new in his findings... It seems..?
Mr. Butch claims are becoming an "urban legends" material. Check out the claims made by him (his group) in only the last 5 years....
Revolutionary, New, Free energy, just about to deliver, anytime now.....
Ah, well....
How many different concepts there really were? >:(
...but negative posting never built anything and never will...We should ask Stefan to get the "Report to moderator" button to do something useful,
We should ask Stefan to get the "Report to moderator" button to do something useful,
and stop these time wasters wasting his data bandwidth as well.
Your record speaks for you, Butch.
Paul.
Hey, Mr. LaFonte, sorry for my little critique.... I just wanted to remind you for all the past promisses You've made in the last few years....
Although you may produce "+2000" contributions, it's really just a question of "quantity over quality"? Hello??? Ding-dong? Wake up! OK?
Which of your projects shows something widely replicable, something which can be used for (_name it..._).... A single achievement to be mentioned? Yes or No!?? Out of "2000"? At least something like a can-opener? Surely, out of 2000?
I just said I was aware of your work (made public) in the last few years. Due to my skeptical nature, I managed to recognized just a few variations of the SAME concept(s)... Magnetics is funny.... ;D
@Paul-R
Lol. Your proposals are "extraordinary", (since the "Egyptian fulcrum" (the infamous Archer's) thread).... You showed your understanding, LOL.... A simple lever is an OU device, hehe... Kill the Newtonians etc stuff.... Idiot.
(Precious! I just read your post in the Ltseungs thread, when you say that "TinselKoala has an intelligence of a pack of biscuits....") ;D
Looser!
(Whisper:) If I were you, I would not questioned someone else's intelligence.... It can "backfire" at you, Oh, great Teacher!
You want a "report to moderator button"? So you can ban people just for their (fair!?) objections? Yes, majesty?
You have something to offer? Just say so... >:(
(Whisper:) If I were you, I would not questioned someone else's intelligence.... It can "backfire" at you, Oh, great Teacher!
Thanks for the info Butch, it's appreciated!Spikey,
Do not allow a few greedy, selfish people, with backwards attitudes ruin your attempts to share your discoveries and research data.
ANYONE who applies for a patent in this field, especially given what we know about the state of our planet and the idiots who control it, and consequently us - is both asking for trouble (you can guess what i mean by that) and incredibly selfish and short sighted.
'Patented' alternative energy devices don't make it to maket - full stop.
Open source is different - look at all the info and resources surrounding HHO and GEET at the moment.
It's time to stop thinking in terms of 'How much money can i make out of this' and more of 'How much can we benefit from this as a species'.
Actually, the time for this kind of thinking was about 50 or 60 years ago, but better to be late than never to arrive at all eh?
Ignore the creeps and idiots who do you a disservice, and focus more on the people, such as myself who both value and respect your efforts in this area.
Bottom line is this If you sell or patent 'free energy technology', the world will never see, hear, or use it..If you open source the technology - the 'die hard' money lovers will still try to rip you off, BUT the ideas (which cannot to stopped) will be out there, in the world, amongst like minded people to collaborate on, which hopefully lead to real world applications and technologies for the betterment of all.
Keep on keeping on Butch, your doing a grand job.
Spikey.
Spikey,
I don't mind the negative comments. The way I see it is there are two ways to go through life, as a spectator or in the arena. I knew when I chose the arena that there would be trash thrown at me. But that beats being a spectator any day.
Thanks for the support,
Butch
But what people are forgetting about these magnet motors is the fact the Neo Magnets do not last very long when acted upon by other magnets.
Do your homework on who your talking to before you look foolish.Build a Bedini SG, DallasGoldBug, if you can face proving yourself wrong.
Overunity claims via magnet powered devices are yet to be confirmed.
DallasGoldBug
As for magnet motors are one thing, you are powering them with ELECTRICITY. Overunity claims via magnet powered devices are yet to be confirmed.
HOWEVER, there are instances of over driven motors where the flux of the coil exceeds the magnet and does cause degaussing
This is only true when it comes to ceramic motor magnets. They are easily demagnetized compared to NdFeb:s.
A motor using NdFeb will not become damaged from any overdriven motor coils as long as the cooling is efficient enough.
Only excesive heat will damage a NdFeb magnet in an electrical motor environment.
Also, how do you push the washers together once you've let them spread out, it looks like pushing them together would be hard.Charlie,
Your pictures are a bit misleading. I thought the washers were shrinking but when I wanted to animated it I noticed the magnets where coming in closer. Below is an animated gif. In the future you should consider making an animated picture. Btw it's a clever idea.Broli,
Your pictures are a bit misleading. I thought the washers were shrinking but when I wanted to animated it I noticed the magnets where coming in closer. Below is an animated gif. In the future you should consider making an animated picture. Btw it's a clever idea.Broli,
Pulling the magnets away from the washers is not going to be easy. You'll have to exert a large force to do so. I would imagine this force is greater than the force that pushes the washers away.Charlie,
Broli,
Any way you could put step # 5 in the animation?
Thats where most of the work is done.
Thanks,
Butch
Pulling the magnets away from the washers is not going to be easy. You'll have to exert a large force to do so. I would imagine this force is greater than the force that pushes the washers away.
Hi ButchPeter,
The net result looks,on the face of it,to be positive,good luck to you ether way,you are not afraid to put your head on the block,imho it's the way to be,I wish I was,I have 1 or 2 ideas,but I have't the balls to come out with it,like you.
peter
Step #5 is the same as step #1 butch :P.Broli,
Just like butch said when you close in they will pull on you so that's energy gain. You'll just have to give that energy back when you spread the magnets back open. On the other hand you can use a clever trick to not feel any push/pull by doing the below thing. Basically you have a set of magnets that always repel each other attached to this main apparatus. I was thinking of ways how to store the energy effectively when the poles come to each other. Springs wouldn't work nicely as their forces are linear with distance. I need something that had a 1/distance relationship. Then it struck that one could just use magnets in repulsion. That way the attraction from the main apparatus will get canceled by the repulsion of magnets attached to it. Same poled electrical charge could also be used if you worry about demagnetization.
Butch I have a rotor design in mind that uses the balance experiment you did on youtube. Although it does not use the fanner repulsion but can be incorporated. But I just wanted to keep it as simple and effective as possible. Sure you can convince a lot of people that step by step there's a net energy gain, but everyone wants to see a self resetting runner in the end ;D.Broli,
The design I have is 3d in nature so I'm going to give sketchup a go and try to make a rendition of it.
Edit: Design is attached below. I have to admit that it has many unfinished parts as I got too lazy ;). Even the spacing of the guiding hoops is not correct. But this is the main idea. First of all from that view it's supposed to rotate CW. Now as the spaced out washers come from below the magnet they get attracted by a big force as proven on your balance experiment. The distance between the hoops should remain constant until the moment the washers arrive at the middle of the magnet. At this point the distance between the hoops will start to shrink very rapidly thus bringing the washers together. But the magnet will still want to keep them in the field. But as you've experimentally proven the force is weaker than they were spaced out and thus the washers manage to escape. While coming back the hoop distance expands again and pulls them apart and the process restarts.
Butch I was already convinced a page ago but where does this put us now. The same problem always arises. There's always a lack of physically, verbal or financially help. I've seen and experienced this myself. It made me question the whole free energy community. Why are people trying to dig so far in history when overunity/free energy designs are right under their noses, all they have to do is contribute their share and it'll get done.Broli,
I will try to come up with a self sustaining design. BUT It should be made clear that there are two separate overunity cases you have shown so far. The free energy you get from individual washer repulsion. And the free energy you get from leaving the field when the washers are stuck together. I thought the latter was the stronger one and that's why the previous design I posted was based on that phenomenon. But I will try to come up with a simpler,better and maybe cheap to build solution.
I will complete the video tomorrow, today my wife has me painting the living room and dining room.
Thanks,
Butch
Butch,
It may be better to design it so the steel does not need to be pulled from the magnets.
1: Magnets under heavy repulsion will pull harder to the steel.
2: Magnets under heavy attraction will pull less to steel.
3: Steel only distorts the field shape,it does not weaken the field.
The design would work the same even if you only covered one magnet with steel.
Then it would look like a shield and all the testing I have done on the shield theory follows the rules above.
In any case it appears we don't need to think of any of this any more because someone already has it!
Yes! Look at freeenenegynews.com PESWiki and see the new wind turbine that needs NO WIND!
Mr LaFonteChet,
Maybe a headliner on the top of the Forum soon?
You are one special Man [wish I lived closer, I would come and paint your house]
Chet
Hmm you made me wonder about something. It might have been tried to no avail.Broli,
Edit: Oke model is attached. I realized it kind of looks like the Perendev motor now. Instead of have the plates move up and down, you shield half the magnet. When they aproach each other shielded it would be like the plated idea. But once they cross each other they sense each other better and push each other away.
The time has come to materialize it now
Yep that is about right ;D. The time has come to materialize it now. It doesn't seem be that difficult to build.I agree, looks like a turning point has been reached.
Listed below are links to videos that show testing of the 3 aspects that should allow the LaFonte Group, Ring Force Cancellation Perpendicular Magnetics Motor to operate in an overunity mode.
See video links >
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngkEkeBL1Kk&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mlpr6o86X0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAxbOQ3nM8w&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btjit4WnH_c&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552L2-jG9P4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYdd8hu8YNA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwzKg1tiexs
When separated, the plates experience noticeably more force towards the gap between the magnet poles, and it takes noticeably more force for them to leave separated. I tried using the rotational energy of the rotor to collapse the plates (with a cam) before exit, but the forces canceled out enough, that I didn't see any gain from this setup. With a spring pushing plates together, spinning the rotor became very noisy, the plates slammed apart entering the magnetic field, making a "Chak Chak Chak" kind of sound. A fast spin with the hand gave it only about 10-15 revolutions.Derricka,
Hello, I realize this thread has been abandoned. However I have some questions dealing with the original setup.
Does the original setup have the same reluctance with the washers closed verses when they are open? This answer would save me a lot of time if anyone can answer that. This was claimed to be the case in the beginning of the thread but I couldn't find where anyone verified this "fact".
If you close the washers, does it take the same force to remove the magnet as when the washers are open - assuming you do not let the magnet touch the washers (in which case it should be harder to remove since the fanning washers will distribute the force over a larger area).
Plain and simple question, does the first drawing in the beginning of this thread work the way it says it works? If it does not, then why. If it does then please someone must have verified this. It will save me alot of time having to go back and retrace people's steps.
Thanks,
Charlie
So from the video, there is a great difference in reluctance from when the washers are closed verses when they are open. The claim at the beginning of this thread is wrong and that moving the washers into the field when they are closed is much weaker from when they are allowed to open.Yes, but it works out that is great for the design that has the washers in sliding contact when moving back together. It adds a second overunity element to the design.
That's a very interesting design but I don't like how you have to pull it apart. There has to be a better solution. I can't think of anything at the moment though. :(Pull what apart???? The elements (washers) repel each other and work can be done with that repulsion force.