hello?

Huwwo..lol...



I looked at this video and a few things
jumped into my mind right away on this.

I understand that a few centuries ago
a crankshaft looked like a good idea.

But that it is still used is just idiotic.



In the case of this experiment,
the most force available to use
is wasted to the least leverage

When just past 0 (Zero) or 180 degrees,
almost no "lever" (Hence leverage) is present.

The ratio is just abysmal to say the least...

As the magnets force quickly weakens from distance,
the crankshaft is gradually increasing usable leverage.

Very sad...



A nice heavy flywheel, with a ratchet toothed edge
and the linear motion of a matching "Pawl" ratchet
utilizing the full force of available linear energy
needs to be the first improvement here for sure !

If set up correctly,
when the magnet pair are at their closest
the pawl would be at 90 degrees to the axle,
thus making the longest lever with most leverage
and transfer 100% of the usable energy provided.

Gradually tapering off as the pawl leaves a perfect
90 degree lever transfer angle (Maximum leverage)
decreasing in leveage as the magets force reduces too.

The current arrangement is absolutely backwards
in conversion efficiency to be absolutely clear.



Moving on to the next step of potential improvement,
we have to abandon the usual way we think about power.

We tend to think:
Power in >>> Power out.
(Electricity in >>> Motive force out)

the video's concept is backwards to our way of thinking.

It is the opposite of the usual concepts
we naturally tend to gravitate towards.

Here, we are putting power in to CANCEL
what will the result in power output.

However, once thinking is reversed here,
lots of good things quickly come to mind.



If the force we are trying to harness is linear,
then go with that and add to it in multiplicity.

Let me define the word "Unit" to mean:

One pair of opposing magnets,
orientated to repel each other
(N<>N or S<>S to be clear)
and one coil to cancel the repulsive force
as a "Building block" to save typing space.



[/Start: "Draw picture with words mode"]

1 - Start with a very heavy large flywheel,
    add two opposing sets of ratchet teeth
    to the flywheel's edge side-by-side.

2 - Align a linear motion rod past flywheel edge,
    support each end in two saddle-block bushings.

3 - provide a staggered set of "Pawl" clutchblocks
    such that they engage at each of the rod's travel
    forming a perfect 90 degree lever upon the flywheel.
    transfering linear power to rotary @ 100% effeciency.

4 - Place one "Unit" on BOTH ends of the linear rod.

5 - Alternatively turn off each of the two end "Unit's"
    to utilize both directions of the linear travel rod.
    (As opposed to wasting one of the usable directions)

[/End: "Draw picture with words mode"]



OK, now we have a starter kit that has 100% effeciency
of linear to rotary energy conversion for the most part,
and we are no longer completely wasting one the linear rod's
full range of motion to just a "Return trip" to the beginning.

when the left coil releases the usable magnetic force
one of the pawls engages with the corresponding track
of ratchet teeth on the flywheel's edge.

At the end of the rod's full stroke to the right,
the right coil will release It's cancellation force.

The second pawl will engage the second track of ratchet teeth
and will be lined up at 90 degrees too to maximize effeciency
due to this pawl being mounted at a staggered position on the rod.



Now it gets intersting (LOL), think "Parallel-path" magnetics.

Start with the left "Unit", lets say it is N<>N orientation.

Make a secone unit that is S<>S orientation
and mount it directly on top of the first one,
connect the unused core ends with a magnetic bridge.

Mount the movable north and south set on a second
magnetic bridge too, then onto the linear rod's end.

So far it is just a complete path loop.

But we are still in "Repulsion" mode,
only now it is 2X in effective force
in both directions of linear rod travel.



[/Start: "Sail off end of concept mode"]

Now add a third bridge and matching coil set
and you will still have 2X Repulsion,
but you can also add 4X attraction too.
with only a small input of electrical energy
to (What has now become) a four coil set.

Thats 4X attraction when energized,
and 2X repulsion when non-energized.

[/End: "Sail off end of concept mode"]



This just isn't easy to put into words here,
but I don't have a easy to use drawing utility.

Any suggestions on a free and easy CAD utility,
that will work on the old Win-9x kernal machine I use?

Three pics would have done the work of all the above...


To those not familier with parallel-path concepts:

Google "Parallel Path Magnetic Technology"
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&newwindow=1&num=100&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=#num=100&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&q=%22Parallel+Path+Magnetic+Technology%22

A "Starter kit" to get your mind wrapped around this:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Article:Joe_Flynn's_Parallel_Path_Magnetic_Technology_--_by_Tim_Harwood

Hope this helps, sorry to ramble.

Please don't re-quote this entire friggin thing on here,
just reply instead, or edit the quote to short quips OK ?

Thanks 

1 How much energy is used to overcome the repelling force?
2 The energy used to top the piston to the magnet is less than the energy it creates even with that poor magnetic coil field interaction and energy transfer or induction?

When electricity is applied to the coil, (+ -), it greatly amplifies the magnetism over and above what would normally be the combined force of the electro-magnet and the permanent magnet. It's actually  2.9 times the power of the permanent magnet. When the polarity is switched, (- +),  the magnetism at the face end of the coil is gone. Simply stopped. At 18 volts, 95.31 percent of the power produced by the above motor is generated by the permanent magnet. The electro-magnet is just simply acting as a switch, which at the appropriate time, is turning on and off the magnetism from the permanent magnet.

http://www.gap-power.com/index-2.html

this uses the same principle:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Harry_Paul_Sprain_magnet_motor

http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Paul_Harry_Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi

@jesus

The idea of ou is to me a bit stupid , because you need to build a machine that powers it self , so the function of the machine is to drive it self how useful is that . Ok if there is enough left maybe we can run leds on it .

What i am looking for is over use of power , OU is hard to Tell get 10 different experts and you will get 10 different results , if you got tough that ou doesn't exist then you will never proclaim it dose , his testing is only to prove that he is wright .

@jesus


I know there is a huge potential with this one , i see it do everything .

But my point is To really prove Ou you will need no meter and no experts , that is the only way to do so , you just got to be able to do the impossible regardless of meter readings .

Like using a 1.5v battery to light a 40 watt bulb to full brightness for over one hour , at that point you can prove OU but not that you are legit ...

So everyone get overuse so wasting time with closing the loop because the loop needs to be free standing and out of the circuit and nobody is ready for it ...

Mark   

MK1,

No offense, but now who's sounding like IST?? (just kidding) 

Well honestly , he repeated all i did shown him but never quite got the meaning of it and kept repeating his naive views ...

I'm Canadian too i have been subjected by the same federal propaganda he was we are only a few years apart , but that is where it stops .