@WattBuilder,

great work.

I would like to suggest a simple experiment on your existing setup, please. Can you do the same as you have done but this time replace the magnets on the stick with an equivalent non-magnetic material and still use the remote control to flip the new "non-magnetic" component (as you done on the video) and still see if there is a gain on the swing?

If this has been covered on this thread, please forgive my request and continue with this great work.

Fausto.

...
@exnihiloest,

There’s has been progress since you last posted this……….

I suggest you see the videos first. Then on the one cycle video ask yourself is their a gain from the magnetic array. This will be your foundation for argument with out getting past that point your arguments will have no relevance.

One cycle   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gekDM8vg16k
Gain video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
...

There is definitely no evidence here.
In the first video, you spend work against the magnetic force of the stationary magnet track to put the mobile magnet at its initial position. Then this work is restored by the track accelerating the moving magnet.

In the second video, the remote-controlled rotation of the mobile magnet is not ended when the mobile magnet is moving near the entrance of the track of stationary magnets. It follows that when the mobile magnet enters the magnetic field of the track, to rotate the magnet spends energy to "fight" the opposing field of the track. Then this energy (which was coming from the motor or actuator and has enhanced the magnetic potential of the moving magnet) is restored by the track by accelerating the moving magnet as in the previous case.

I appreciate you efforts and your mechanical assembly, but I'm sorry to tell you that your conclusion about free energy is now simply wrong.
To prove FE, you have to rotate the magnet when it is far outside the magnetic field of the track. Only in this case, you don't need energy to do it. Otherwise your device obeys conventional physics and it is clear that energy is conserved.

@ The World

To help further discussion I am going to give this effect a name.

Definition:

The Yu Effect – The effects of applying kinetic energy to a magnetic field resulting in a kinetic energy gain.



Regards,
Howard G. Yu
Inventor of the Yu Oscillating Generator.

Spoondini,
You claim you have experience working with magnets. So what’s your hold up on doing the experiment? Certainly even you can make a simple pendulum and video it. Or is the fact of the matter is that your too comfortable sitting on your high horse passing judgment.

Howard

Tinu,
Your contradicting yourself.

I’m not contradicting myself at all.
It’s true I wish I was wrong  but there are no contradictions in my previous posts.

In the one cycle video both levers are entering the array with the same amount of energy. The drive magnet is too far away from the array to make any difference at the start point. I guess this is when experience comes into play.

This is plain incorrect. It’s just wishful thinking on your side and nothing more.
On the other hand, although I can live with your wishful thinking because I really don’t care as long as you keep it for yourself, when you go public as an “inventor” my wish is to put the facts back to their place and not allowing the readers be misled anymore. It was enough already.

The array of magnets you use has a magnetic field strong enough so it affects very crude mechanical setups many meters away! If you can not acknowledge that, you simply lack the experimenting capabilities and this might be one reason for your wrong conclusions but I suspect there are other reasons as well.

Before you suggest to the inventor, to study potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields. I believe you should first.

I do, as I have done in the last 25 years or so. Still, I am no “inventor” but a mere physicist. 
What’s your qualifications and experience in the field?

If you did not see the video of OC’s great contribution post on this thread that he ask adminonduty to do. Here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM

The movie proves the point I already stated twice so far. Now for the third and hopefully for the last time:
Initial gravitational potential energy (Eg) of the OC’s setup is altered by magnetic field with a certain quantity that is magnetic potential energy (Em). In one case, total initial potential energy is Eg + Em (attraction) and in the other case it is Eg-Em (repulsion).
Because Eg+Em>Eg-Em (obviously, huh?!), the device oscillates asymmetrically, as per the same movie. No energy gain, no energy loss. Just gaps, gaps and other gaps in understanding …

The experiment you are requesting is has been done in a different way on the one cycle video. The trigger stick hold up the weight serves that purpose and also the tape mark where I used the clip to hold the pipe does as well.

Nope. The trigger stick serves the sole purpose to avoid adding kinetic energy at launch.
It has nothing to do with initial potential energy and other wrong considerations.

Bottom line you get a gain from the magnetic array vs no array.   

Not a single microJ!
But since you yell so loudly and insistently about it, I look forward to see a proof that holds water.
Please don’t make me explain three times each post; information is already there, it just needs to be grasped. Without gaps... 

Cheers,
Tinu

Spoondini,
You claim you have experience working with magnets. So what’s your hold up on doing the experiment? Certainly even you can make a simple pendulum and video it. Or is the fact of the matter is that your too comfortable sitting on your high horse passing judgment.

Howard

Probably the same reason you haven't demonstrated continuous acceleration without batteries.

@Tinu,

You’re the one misleading readers and have the gaps in understanding, not me……….. sorry.   

The movie proves the point I already stated twice so far. Now for the third and hopefully for the last time:
Initial gravitational potential energy (Eg) of the OC’s setup is altered by magnetic field with a certain quantity that is magnetic potential energy (Em). In one case, total initial potential energy is Eg + Em (attraction) and in the other case it is Eg-Em (repulsion).
Because Eg+Em>Eg-Em (obviously, huh?!), the device oscillates asymmetrically, as per the same movie. No energy gain, no energy loss. Just gaps, gaps and other gaps in understanding …

You have this backwards it should be:

Eg-Em>Eg+Em is True
Eg+Em>Eg-Em is False
Eg-Em=Eg+Em is False

You claim that you are a physicist of 25 years that has studied potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields.

Surely, You did not make the classroom mistake of thinking repulsive force is equal to attraction force.

Those that actually have the knowledge and who are skilled in the art. Would tell you that when it comes to magnets the force of repulsive is greater than attraction forces.     

You have just destroyed your grounds for argument.
Your posts are of no relevance.     

If you don’t believe me then look it up. If you don’t believe the books then get two magnets and feel it.

Howard



@Exnihiloest,

It’s not a question of faith when reasoning is involved.

Changing the design to prove it doesn’t work is not grounds for argument. You just proving your way is wrong.
 

Howard

You claim that you are a physicist of 25 years that has studied potential energy, then magnetism and conservative fields.

Yes, that's me. And you are what exactly? You forgot to mention, right?! 
Nevermind. It's clear to whom I've tried to speak.
If my posts are of relevance or not it's up to others and it's clearly above your head; sorry but it was a waste of time trying to explain to you where you went off track then self-delusional.
I'd just say you better skip preaching non-sense and let the mankind know when you're done, "inventor".
Meanwhile, because it's going to be a very very long while, best of luck!