Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: broli on May 26, 2009, 12:59:56 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
What is shown in the diagram in the first post will be real. Even with iron or other ferromagnetic material, a perfect "Sink" for the magnetic flux will not happen. Spin of the iternal electrons etc.
Think of the length as a resistor (very crude analogy, lol and incorrect, but shows the idea).
It is also such the closer the magnets are the more contained the interaction of there fields are. Less spread and loss with tighter pole positions in the dispersal. More of the fields connect with the iron.
What is shown in you original post, I believe is real.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Well to show such a force variation exists it can be complicated in the materials and balance used to measure such.
Such can be done, and will show such. I have no doubt, yet one problem with this is a thing of magnets and there domain and domain shifts when in close proximity of a different magnet. Such depending on the magnet material will also show variation of the strength of the magnets as some domains will for a time shift to the stronger fields.
Also the material used as in iron will also form domains at magnetizing that also would have an effect on such experiments. Not an easy task to do properly. The material used for attraction would need to be demagnetized before any rearrangement is done so such could be eliminated from the situation. Also the property's of the magnetic material and its variations would also have to be studied to take it also into account.
Were I can see how it is real and the whys of it, the methods of what is going on and the why of it becomes part of proving it.
I think you could set up a balance with some smaller: as long as they are "long" that might show some of this. Note the size of the stuff he is playing with.
Software seems to leave out a lot of stuff relating to magnets. For the most part such is not enough to be a valid problem in the normal situations.
Take a look at his presentations. He uses some large expensive magnets to play with. hell them things are risky to play with in a good lab system, much less in your home.
I can not say I like his balance system, or his controls, but he does show an interesting observation from such.
-
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
-
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.
Broli,
Intergrate this research with this machine and you have a very good chance for overunity.
See Link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbK9Di4Oebs&feature=channel_page
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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.
-
"I'm sure this all sounds confusing but it makes sense if you understand it."
Uh-huh, differential equations are like that too.
So, in terms I might understand, the hypothesis under test is that, if the magnets are close together, it will take more force to separate the assembly than if the magnets are far apart. Force is defined in the usual way and is to be measured by looking at the lever arm that a known weight must be at to exert enough force to separate the bars. The data will be in some accurate length measure of the lever (moment) arms involved, as in the video shown, and let's say, means of 5 trials in each condition will be compared, the conditions being (1) magnets close and in contact with both blocks, and (2) magnets far and in contact with both blocks.
And we are neglecting the forces involved in setting up the situation and also neglecting friction.
But, do I have to use 2x4s?
Now, possible results from this experiment (for now it is an experiment) are three: 1) The magnets close together could make it harder to separate the blocks. 2) The magnets close together could make it easier to separate the blocks. 3) There could be no difference in the force required to separate the blocks. And since we are defining force by a distance measure, we need to decide how far apart the means of the distance measurements we are making need to be to call them "different", and we need to know the magnitude of our error(s) in measurement, etc. so we can know if our "difference" is likely to be real or the result of experimental error.
But--even if the experiment fails to reject the hypothesis, and it turns out to be correct that in this configuration it's easier to separate the bars when the magnets are apart, it still won't mean you can make a permanent magnet motor out of it.
If the magnets apart and seperated take the exact same amount of work to pull the bar away then the system when incorporated in the rotary design animation I posted, the machine will be overunity.
Even if it takes a little more work to to remove them when seperated as compared to together the system will still be overunity as long as the negative work in not equal to or more than the work done by the rotor magnet when it pulls to the fixed magnet.
See this animation > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbK9Di4Oebs&feature=channel_page
Butch
-
Since you like statistics so much, this experiment would prove a working motor for about 38%. If you include the cancellation magnets it would be proven 68%. Finally with the reciprocating magnets included on a flywheel it would be proven 98%. The 2% is experimental errors and stupidity.
-
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter
-
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter
Would that apply to this layout?
See attached
Butch
-
Hi Broli and All
I done a simple test with this,I know Butch doesn't agree with me,but,there is more attraction when mags. are apart,also a force x distance thing,when the mags. are together they are using a short distance of air to complete the circuit,they are not to bothered with the iron,when the mags. are apart,large air gap,the mags, will "look" for the iron from much further away.It may look to be a similar pull at a short distance,but that is not the full story.I may be right,I may be wrong,but that's what I found.
peter
I build a space ship too but you can't see it. I noticed your pattern of going around numerous thread claiming to have done the same thing with negative results without a shroud of evidence, you are starting to look suspicious. I'd rather have someone trust worthy willing to scientifically gather the data.
-
Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter
-
Hey you guys,
I can't believe after all the tests video on our Youtube site of different aspects of this design that no one has seen the overunity potential in this sequence of operation.
The bars can be moved back together with virtually no work and work is done when they separate.
The main magnet bars move out with less work when the element are together and pull in doing more work when the bars are separated.
Maybe I should put some fish line on it and everyone will start buying plans for it.
See this link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8lgEUJXKc&feature=channel_page
-
Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter
-
Hi Butch
Forget the fishing line,you are not in that club,thank god,looking at the sim,so I understand it right,gain and loss.Gain is when the mags,come together and when the bars separate.Loss.When the bars are brought together and the mags. are separated.Have I got that right? if so it's a case of if gains>losses.Yes?
This is basically the fanner? If so I will think some more.
peter
We already showed in the first video that the mags pull in stronger when the bars are seperated. Then the bars are pushed together, but no repulsion exists because the bar ends are in sliding contact with the Mags surface. No work to speak of required there.
Then the mags seperate with the bars all grouped together. The video shows the mags pull back with less work when they are together, why we can't say for sure at this time.
Now that the mags have pulled back, the bars are allowed to seperate and do work.
Now the mags are pulled in again and the cycle repeats.
Yes it is the fanner, but with a modification, the bars are moved back together in sliding contact to eliminate repulsion between them. When the bars are in sliding contact no fields are present in the air gap between the bar ends and the mags and that is where the repulsion exists.
The great majority of free work comes from the bars seperating.
Butch
-
Use long magnets, not disks. May or may not make a diferance. If it is just the together and at a distance test on a balance such may show what is shown in the first post of this thread. The thin disks most likely would not show such.
Hi Broli
That's not very nice!!Every comment I have made is based on tests I've done.All comparative,not absolute.This one was done on a test rig with a non magnetic 6in disc with 2 pairs of magnets mounted vertically about 2in apart on the circumference,one pair almost together,one pair 1in apart,the disc is free to move,bringing in a 1/2in iron bar on a centre line always attracted the 2 mags the two mags that were apart,even when the iron was brought in nearer to the two adjacent mags,the disc turned to attract the two separated mags.
To make sure it was not a difference in the "power" of the mags,I changed them around,same result,all 4 mags. were 1/4x1/4 neo's,with a steel backing on each pair,if you feel that is not a valid test,please tell me why.
I never make negative comments,I jusy say what I have found.
peter
-
Hey you guys,
I can't believe after all the tests video on our Youtube site of different aspects of this design that no one has seen the overunity potential in this sequence of operation.
The bars can be moved back together with virtually no work and work is done when they separate.
The main magnet bars move out with less work when the element are together and pull in doing more work when the bars are separated.
Maybe I should put some fish line on it and everyone will start buying plans for it.
See this link > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8lgEUJXKc&feature=channel_page
Hi Butch, I watch all your vids, Great stuff!
My only fear at the moment is that you MAY be redistributing the field shape when the mags are together, making it more concentrated close up and weaker further away.
So maybe if you tested it's attraction force at a distance then at some distance the mags apart might show more attraction?
Of course I hope my fears are wrong, we'd all like to see a PMM run on its own and your ideas seem to be a strong candidate compared to many others. I think perpendicular magnetics certainly has some hidden secrets to it!
Anyway I am going to build a rig, smaller, like yours and start looking at this, it'll go slow as I'm doing other electronic stuff at the moment. But I'll definitely post back here with my findings.
-
Hi Butch, I watch all your vids, Great stuff!
My only fear at the moment is that you MAY be redistributing the field shape when the mags are together, making it more concentrated close up and weaker further away.
So maybe if you tested it's attraction force at a distance then at some distance the mags apart might show more attraction?
Of course I hope my fears are wrong, we'd all like to see a PMM run on its own and your ideas seem to be a strong candidate compared to many others. I think perpendicular magnetics certainly has some hidden secrets to it!
Anyway I am going to build a rig, smaller, like yours and start looking at this, it'll go slow as I'm doing other electronic stuff at the moment. But I'll definitely post back here with my findings.
Thanks Yucca,
Let me know how the test goes.
Butch