http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LOkMsh9dqk

This seems to be an easy experiment to perform with obvious overunity consequences. I'm wondering why there's not a single person who has repeated the experiment to confirm it. I don't understand why all the promising work of this man has been blatantly ignored in favor of wild goose chases.

Love the connection time outs.

such is simple with a question. What is the energy required to move the magnets from on position to the next??

When looked at properly it does not work out. If it takes work to reposition an object to were it will cause a position change that measurements are to be taken from, that has to be accounted for in the system. The work done to the system is not accounted for in the diagram.

That's not the point of this thread. You can discuss that in Butch's original thread. I just want people with the tools to confirm the experiment shown in the video.

It's good that you think that because my simulation software doesn't. I believe it's real but I want others to confirm it and get involved in this quite interesting phenomena. This is part of another trick. All combined they can yield an overunity device like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL3dzJ80hEM

Where the upper repelling magnets cancel the force to move the bars towards the magnets when the magnets have closed in on each other. When the magnets are most furthest from each other the bars gets opened with a weaker force as is shown in the video of the experiment. So inherently the bars will want to move out on their own because the repelling force of the canceling magnets at the top is stronger now. Or like butch has called it "an overunity device within an overunity device". You get energy from the moving magnets attraction each other and energy from the top cancellation magnet wanting to repel the whole setup open due to the weakened attraction force on the bars.

But again I don't want to side track on this thread too much. It would be interesting to see others confirm this experiment.

Damn some times this site is a pain in the A@@

If some one want to try such: I suggest long magnets for such, The thinner ones will show a lesser to difficult to measure in such.

 Its the dispersal of the field from and back to the magnets in the diameter that changes with what is shown.  The closer the magnets are the less the dispersal pattern will be.

Think of them magnets as the closer they are together the tighter the fields become with less bled off.   Again a crude analogy.

Yes what you say makes sense but this simulator seems to not like it. The cancellation magnets need to be placed in such a way that when the primary magnets are together the bars can be opened and closed with 0 energy. I want to build this setup but I need some mentor to discuss the mechanical aspects and materials so I don't waste money.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LOkMsh9dqk

This seems to be an easy experiment to perform with obvious overunity consequences. I'm wondering why there's not a single person who has repeated the experiment to confirm it. I don't understand why all the promising work of this man has been blatantly ignored in favor of wild goose chases.

Broli,
Thanks for the support. The lack of recognition does not bother me. After all, Vincent van Gogh never sold a single painting during his life time.
Butch

It's hard for me to imagine a cruder way of doing this "experiment".
Please use a fulcrum that is actually pointed, instead of the top of a 2x4, so we can tell exactly what the lever arms are. Please mark the position of the weight accurately, on top of the 2x4 instead of on the side. Please use, e.g. a spring scale, to quantify the forces involved. Please insure that both magnets are tight against the horizontal blocks for all tests. Please make sure the magnets/blocks are always exactly the same distance from the fulcrum.
And so forth.

You do the experiment.

What experiment?

(What is the hypothesis under test, how are the constructs defined and quantified, what data is to be taken and how, what statistical tests will be performed, what comparisons are to be made, and do I have to use 2x4s?)

This is part of a 4 stroke mechanism. After the magnets have done significant work by moving to each other the bars close and the magnets move away from each other effortlessly. At this point the bars will have to open again, this experiment shows that the bars will open with a lesser attraction force than when the magnets are together. If you want to go all out you can include the cancellation magnets to show how the bars will open spontaneously (when the primary magnets are away from each other) if the canc. magnets where mounted in such a way to cancel the attracting force of when the magnets were together.

I'm sure this all sounds confusing but it makes sense if you understand it.

"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.