Is this OU?

[rewebster]

I wonder if a shaped magnet may make any difference.

 

Some of the so-called 'crackpot' experiments on the web use electro-magnets, either as part or to start their devices, if I recall right, which are using some 'outside' energy---if they did work after they were detached, would these be considered OU? I haven't read if they have to to be designated OU or not----I don't know about the exact definition. (If the power is still more than the input)

 

 

I haven't read anything that explains the duality of the attractive force and repulsive force, so far though. If you have some links to explain the mechanism that causes it, I would like to read them.

 

Has anyone found anything yet?

[rewebster]

Now consider restricting a magnet. By exerting enough turning force on a distant moveable one, the force exerted on the fixed one can be no greater than that required to break the link.

 

I just saw this---can you paraphrase this? Do you mean, rotating a movable magnet in relation to a 'fixed' immovable one?

[Rocket Man]

i feel almost offended here, i did say that you cannot actually get all the magents to spin, pitty about the torsion wires gcol,

 

the main reason the magnets will not spin is that for any of them to spin, the distance between the poles of separate magnets will increase so the effect of further rotation reduces untill the back torque exerted by the rest of them "breaks the link" between the first and second. the second, third and so on will all snap back to their initial positions leaving the first to spin independantly.

 

there may not be a reason for conservation of energy be we sure as hell wouldnt evolve without it.

 

edit: (rewebster, try not to double post. edit instead.)

[gcol]

i feel almost offended here, i did say that you cannot actually get all the magents to spin, pitty about the torsion wires gcol,

 

I hope it was not my remark about rocket scientists and tool-room techies:-)

 

They might spin if each magnet has gained enough inertia to carry it past the "dead" point., but the spin would be terribly jerky, no?

 

Having second and third thoughts about the torsion wires. If I creep up on it, and don't allow any magnet to turn more than 180 degs, there will be no "twanging".

 

Then I realised what the result could be. Take a row of say 5 ring magnets, an end one fixed, the others free. Rotate the first free one 24 degs, the next one will turn 18 degs, the next 12, then 6, the last being fixed 0. But now I have input 24 degs of torque, and the total torque of the intermediate magnets equals 36.....er, can't be right, can it. Where have I gone wrong?

[rewebster]

edit: (rewebster, try not to double post. edit instead.)

 

OK:-)

 

 

Turning the magnets just a percentage probably would only turn the next less than that percentage; but, turning them the full 180 should turn the one next to it 180, also. Again, I haven't done any lab work on this, but, as a guess, one would get a lot less work done out of the second magnet than what it would take to turn the first (breaking/overcoming the attractive force). The increase/positive gain in work (from turning the first) seems that it wouldn't happen until down the chain some. Maybe that's why some of the ones, like the Kohei Minato device, use a few (16 for his) magnets in his circular set up.

 

 

They might spin if each magnet has gained enough inertia to carry it past the "dead" point., but the spin would be terribly jerky, no?

 

I wouldn't think any more jerky than a standard electric motor, if the magnets were positioned right and the speed of the turning was sufficient.-Would part of that jerkiness (?) be caused from the corners of a square/rectangular magnet?

 

In the Kohei Minato device, he set his magnets up at what looks to be a 45 degree angle to the tangential. I think that there is definitely some significance in that.

[swansont]

Why is that logical?

 

why does it not seem logical, to you?

 

Being in an attracted state on just one end would seem to take less force to move.

 

But they are all coupled, and you are supplying the energy to turn all of them. Everything else being equal, it doesn't matter which one you turn.

[rewebster]

But they are all coupled, and you are supplying the energy to turn all of them.

 

If I get your thinking of the word, 'coupled'--- by the attractive force, right?

 

 

 

 

 

Everything else being equal, it doesn't matter which one you turn.

 

Well, if you turn the 'end' one, it is only 'coupled' to only the second one. If you turn the fourth in a series, say of 16, then the fourth is, by your definition, 'double coupled' ---coupled once in the third-fourth 'couple' and again by the fourth-fifth 'couple'.

 

 

The field strength will extend, depending on variables, (and from post 21), to some extent through and around the series, but the first, still (logically), should still have less field strength associated with it.

 

------------------------------------------------

here's something interesting and as it relates to the 'jerkiness' and should be considered a viable source.

 

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

 

 

Even after it exists, they still want to criticize it and not see it's importance:

 

 

1) low total power involved, we do not know whether it would scale to useful size

2) possible confounding of input/output currents

3) nothing close to commercial application available as yet.

 

 

under 'NEC Rating' near the bottom

 

 

 

-------------------------------------------------------

 

I can understand the reluctance for anything like this, or even close to this, to be looked at, thought about, or possibly accepted by any professionally trained physicist for the simple reason that it may be a crack in the pot:rolleyes: that holds the fluid of knowledge that their (and our;) ) world of reality is based.---

[gcol]

I have realised that a row of circular magnets on a common axis should exhibit the same characteristics as a torsion wire, as long as no magnet turns more than 180 degs. Past 180 is the equivalent of snapping the wire, but in the case of 'magnetic torsion', the wire will in effect re-join. From what I gather concerning sophisticated setups, it is this process of snapping and re-joining that exhibits interesting and non-intuitive effects. Am I on the right track?

[swansont]

Well, if you turn the 'end' one, it is only 'coupled' to only the second one. If you turn the fourth in a series, say of 16, then the fourth is, by your definition, 'double coupled' ---coupled once in the third-fourth 'couple' and again by the fourth-fifth 'couple'.

 

 

The field strength will extend, depending on variables, (and from post 21), to some extent through and around the series, but the first, still (logically), should still have less field strength associated with it.

 

A is coupled to B is coupled to C, and so on down the line. The turning does not happen sequentially; B does not wait until you are done turning A before it feels a torque and starts to rotate. And so on down the line. You are starting with a flawed premise.

[Rocket Man]

if you think about it, there is no dead point at 90 degrees, the magnets are attracting N-S and S-N, the magnets actually move most easily through this point. rotate the north of the first closer to the second, the south moves away reducing the attraction of the south and increasing the attraction of the north. so the force on the south of the second feels a stronger force than the north of the second so it moves to a new equilibrium with the same angle as the first.

[rewebster]

Since this is only a thought experiment (on my part anyway):

 

a row of circular magnets

 

First, It would depend on the orientation of the 'circular' magnets--whether horizontal to the 'ground' plane or vertical. All circular (disc) magnets that I've seen so far are made with the poles on the flats. I would be interesting to see ones made where the poles are orientated across the diameter of the cylinder.

 

a torsion wire

 

A torsion wire would 'flex' , so, it would have a different reaction to a setup where there would be a rigid axil through the magnet.

 

no magnet turns more than 180 degs

 

Magnets aren't singularity points---They have dimensions. As one turns, it's 'end edge corner' actually becomes closer to the second; so, the field effect changes--not as a pure 'sin' wave function, I don't believe, but one has to consider the dimensions of the magnet and the closer distance that that magnet is AND the altered effect of the field in the process.

 

Past 180

 

Do you mean, past 90?

 

---Even then, magnetic fields (the reactions) seem to be not exactly orientated to angles.--To 180's and 90's maybe, but from just me playing with the ones I have, it depends on the shape.

 

From what I gather concerning sophisticated setups, it is this process of snapping and re-joining that exhibits interesting and non-intuitive effects. Am I on the right track?

 

'Setups' seems to be the key word----they all seem to be a little different, and precision in the setup also seems to be the other key.

 

 

 

 

A is coupled to B is coupled to C, and so on down the line.

 

But these magnets aren't touching

 

 

The turning does not happen sequentially; B does not wait until you are done turning A before it feels a torque and starts to rotate. And so on down the line.

 

I think they would. Just because magnetism propagates at light speed, doesn't mean that the magnets will react at light speed.

 

Air resistance, resistance in the pivot points (and/or bearings) will slow the secondary's magnet's reaction. (And I believe these things are just part of the reason why the reaction isn't instantaneous.)

 

And because the magnets are separated, the field strength from the first, let's say, isn't as strong in effect to the fourth, as it would be to the second's field. I don't think it's an inverse square field in close range---it may be out farther, though. That may be one of the reasons why some of these machines seem to work.

 

 

You are starting with a flawed premise.

 

hmmmm?

 

What premise are you working from to think that I have a flawed premise?

 

 

 

if you think about it, there is no dead point at 90 degrees, the magnets are attracting N-S and S-N, the magnets actually move most easily through this point.

 

The 90 degree point is stronger, it seems, (on a bar magnet) due to its end corner being in closer proximity (to the second magnet) from rotating around the center point's axial mechanism.

[swansont]

A is coupled to B is coupled to C, and so on down the line.

 

But these magnets aren't touching

 

The magnetic force is a field effect, so they don't need to touch.

 

The turning does not happen sequentially; B does not wait until you are done turning A before it feels a torque and starts to rotate. And so on down the line.

 

I think they would. Just because magnetism propagates at light speed, doesn't mean that the magnets will react at light speed.

 

Air resistance, resistance in the pivot points (and/or bearings) will slow the secondary's magnet's reaction. (And I believe these things are just part of the reason why the reaction isn't instantaneous.)

 

And because the magnets are separated, the field strength from the first, let's say, isn't as strong in effect to the fourth, as it would be to the second's field. I don't think it's an inverse square field in close range---it may be out farther, though. That may be one of the reasons why some of these machines seem to work.

 

Friction is usually minimized in such configurations.

 

If the pivots add friction, you are even worse off. If, due to friction, there is a delay in the rotation of the next magnet until the rotation of the first is complete, then there is no net torque on the next magnet — the effect of each neighbor cancels out. The friction will ensure that no more magnets will flip.

 

 

You are starting with a flawed premise.

 

hmmmm?

 

What premise are you working from to think that I have a flawed premise?

 

You are stating behavior of magnets that is contrary to how they are observed to actually behave.

[rewebster]

You are stating behavior of magnets that is contrary to how they are observed to actually behave.

 

errrr---What behaviors?

[swansont]

You are stating behavior of magnets that is contrary to how they are observed to actually behave.

 

errrr---What behaviors?

 

Post 21, and the followups.

[rewebster]

errrr---What behaviors?

 

Post 21, and the followups.

 

specifically would help

[Rocket Man]

im not entirely sure how disk magnets will behave in this experiment but there are only two possibilities.

 

1: the magnets will not work in a line of more than 3 due to the problems faced with the original set up,

 

2: the magnets will offer no resistance in rotating pole over pole yet will remain coupled. any torque offered by the first is used to overcome the fricion in the second and third etc.

 

may i recommend we ignore inertia for the moment untill we come to an agreement on how magnets behave.

yes there will be a delay in the rotation of the second magnet due to interia but it will eventually rotate to mirror the exact angle the first has adopted.

the torque is applied by the first, through the second and to the third untill the attractive forces between the folowing magnets becomes greater than the strength of applyable torque from the first.

[swansont]

errrr---What behaviors?

 

Post 21, and the followups.

 

specifically would help

 

If you rotate a magnet in that configuration, if the neighbor is close enough to experience the torque, it will do so immediately (at c). There is no larger delay; all are coupled together. If the torque is large enough to flip them (overcoming any friction) then it will flip them. You don't get a discount on the energy expended by flipping one at the end.

 

That's the problem with thought experments. If you don't have the concepts nailed down, you will go astray. From a false premise, any conclusion at all may be drawn.

[gcol]

Swansont:

 

Agree.

 

If you rotate a magnet in that configuration, if the neighbor is close enough to experience the torque, it will do so immediately (at c). There is no larger delay; all are coupled together. If the torque is large enough to flip them (overcoming any friction) then it will flip them. You don't get a discount on the energy expended by flipping one at the end.

 

And also, I am wondering whether in fact any of them will flip, except for the one to which external torque is supplied. (For the case where the one on the opposite end is fixed). That torque must be distributed over the intermediate magnets, none of which can therefore have more torque than the first. (The second more than the third, the third more than the fourth, etc.) The second may therefore almost get there, but not quite. The greater the number of magnets, the smaller the torque on any intermediate one. I am assuming that all magnets are of the same strength and are evenly spaced. Uneven spacing and strength may be a special case.

 

Am I right?

[rewebster]

Uneven spacing and strength may be a special case.

 

Most of the ones referenced showed an uneven spacing

 

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

One of things that is 'requested' of these systems seems to be a little extra 'kick' to either start them, or keep them going. The initial resting enertia of the 2nd, 3rd, etc. to start the spin process would, (in my thought experiment) the most major thing to overcome--as well as the field attraction.

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

Whether or not these systems actually produce more work than they take to run, really isn't the point.

 

 

Even if they produce just 10% of 'some unaccountable' energy IS the point.

[swansont]

And also, I am wondering whether in fact any of them will flip, except for the one to which external torque is supplied. (For the case where the one on the opposite end is fixed). That torque must be distributed over the intermediate magnets, none of which can therefore have more torque than the first. (The second more than the third, the third more than the fourth, etc.) The second may therefore almost get there, but not quite. The greater the number of magnets, the smaller the torque on any intermediate one. I am assuming that all magnets are of the same strength and are evenly spaced. Uneven spacing and strength may be a special case.

 

Am I right?

 

I think so. During the rotation of the first magnet, each successive magnet will rotate through a smaller angle (smaller yet if friction is present), and then return to the original position. They won't end up flipping.

[rewebster]

They won't end up flipping.

 

 

Let's go at it from a different angle:

 

Can you devise an (thought) experiment where they WOULD end up 'flipping'?

 

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

(one came to me--and I want to see if we may be on the same page)

[CPL.Luke]

where the magnetic fields were strong enough to overcome the force of friction and the other magnets.

 

however like swansont said it won't scale forever, and eventually the magnets won't flip.

[rewebster]

where the magnetic fields were strong enough to overcome the force of friction and the other magnets.

 

yes---but in what configuration?

 

 

however like swansont said it won't scale forever, and eventually the magnets won't flip.

 

Let's just say 10 (exact magnets) in a row, then---not 10 in a circle----how could you get them to flip? (as just a thought experiment)

 

 

-------

 

I'll be back later to see if someone came up with a similar 'test'

[gcol]

yes---but in what configuration?

)

 

I would suggest either a series of magnets of decreasing strength, or equal magnets spaced at increasing distances, perhaps?

 

Have not previously considered positioning them in a nose-to-tail ring formation, as a closed loop, all free to rotate. Began to imagine it, but brain began to hurt. Might be easier to make a demo device, using bar magnets which are cheaper and easier to obtain. Might make an interesting executive desktop toy.

[rewebster]

I would suggest either a series of magnets of decreasing strength, or equal magnets spaced at increasing distances, perhaps?

 

That would be 'the ones' I would have exactly said. As each 'coupling' is of less strength, the ability of the previous one (and those before it) would be greater to that one (and the next adjacent ones down the series).

 

The problem with them being exactly the same distance is that they would be fighting too much equilibrium, both of field and inertia.

 

That is why most of the ones referenced DO have an uneven placement--on either the angle or distance.

 

 

The other scenario is of a ring configuration.

 

A variable spaced or strength setup wouldn't work----

 

but, again, for me (thought experiment) the main things to overcome are the field and inertia---turning one wouldn't work either to begin the 'flipping' all.

 

--however, what if ALL were 'flipped' at the same time---maybe then, after overcoming the initial field restraints and resting inertia, the circle of flipping may continue (or maybe just one has to be mechanically outside driven).

 

Would, then, the product of the work being done be more, or at least close, to overcome some of the loss due to friction by the work of the inertia of those spinning?

 

 

------------------------------

 

And that would and should be considered with the series/row of magnets of decreasing strength, or equal magnets spaced at increasing distances---Would more work be done from the 'flipping' down the series as it would take to 'flip' the first? (the main idea of this thread)

 

--------------------------------

 

I think a lot of people glance at these types of independent experimenters and do think 'crackpot' or 'pseudoscience'. Again, some are---some aren't.

 

 

Does it seem logical that 'light speed' squared should be in an equation? IF Einstein would have used the actual number there, in place of the symbol, 'c' , in the original equation, what level or kind of difference in thinking would there have been over the last hundred years?