PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-05-26, 17:49:48
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Raymondslab new "no drag" device  (Read 1981 times)
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 845
Well, Ray starts the video by saying he's going to try different frequencies and drive voltages but doesn't do it, plus doesn't end up showing anything new.

However, at one point he got the camera close enough that I could hear a distinctive clacking mechanical sound when he removed the magnet and then when he puts it back it sounds way smoother. To me that's a giveaway his device is going from a non efficient state (frequency) causing the clacking sound which adds mechanical drag to the prime mover, then when he adds the magnet it's load dampens out the waste causing a slight increase in rpm and obviously uses less current.

Until Ray demonstrates this effect can occur at any RPM by lowering the input voltage, then it's not looking like there's anything unusual.
Plus disabling comments and asking for donations is not helping his cause.

Regards
Luc
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2758
   Another video, and observations by Ray:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj7c5d3f8sU&feature=em-uploademail
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 845
Well, that's interesting but it's also a change from what he was previously demonstrating.

Thanks for the update
Luc
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 458
I had seen the vid.  One thing I was wondering is how much resistance is the track that the object moves back and forth on.  Could the addition of the magnet help reduce that friction by lifting it a bit as it moves.... His theory's change a bit for each showing.  Dunno.  Theory on the first one and how it was set up had me thinking. But now I think there is just something else going on.  Firstly he would have to use a standardized voltage for all tests. Check the input amps of just the drive motor alone. Then with just the connecting rod, then with the object load alone to see the amount of losses incurred just there alone and then see if the intro of the magnet overcomes any of the previous if not possibly more.

Mags
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 845
Mags, look at the video again, because he addressed the possible conclusion of reduced track friction.

Regards
Luc
   

Group: Mad Scientist
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 458
Mags, look at the video again, because he addressed the possible conclusion of reduced track friction.

Regards
Luc

Seen that.  Not sure its not unless I see it. 

Would need to maybe set up a rig to take measurements of the pressure on the connecting rod at different angles of the crank drive to see if there is particular areas of motion that are now helping during a cycle.

Would be cool if like a spring pendulum like mine could resonate at his particular freq, as if the effect is real, the pendulum should vibrate longer with the magnet introduced than the pendulum rundown on its own.

Mags
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2758
  Ray's latest experiment:  7.5 V drive, so a different frequency involved.  LED lights from generator effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gBfaLPlMJA&feature=em-uploademail

Posted May 16, 2020.
   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 845
Thanks PhysicsProf,

I don't know if you noticed but that video is no 3, so I looked to find no.2 which has not been posted here yet and is very interesting since Ray demonstrates how it works.

This is reminding me of Floor's (at OU) Twist drive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1B9NnRUMvU

Regards
Luc
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2758
  Thank you, Luc  O0 I had missed that No. 2 video.  Interesting..
   
Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2758
  Raymond has a new video, #4 in the series:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLIo6e1ek8

   
Newbie
*

Posts: 33
Hi Folks,

now it took me some hours to find out what Raymonds first experiment is all about. Raymond unfortunately misses the basic systematics in proving a physical
principle he believes he has discovered. The most important law in scientific experiments is the "control-experiment".

What does it mean in this case ? He needed to replace the mass of the parallel magnets on the sled with an  equivalent non-magnetic mass.
I can predict that he will get an even better "energy-input-gain" in comparison to the one with magnets on the sled. Why ?

Because without the big disc-magnet in place his setup equals this device here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current_brake#/media/File:Eddy_currents_due_to_magnet.svg

Now if he places the disc-magnet in the slot one magnetic bar close to the disc-magnet gets partly saturated and  the magnetic field of the parallel magnet on the sled
gets distorted in such a way that part of the magnetic retarding effect is lost.

There is no OU-effect. He just removed part of the magnetic-retarding-effect.

...and no I will not comment on his channel because I do not educate people in his age....only here will I post my viewpoint because I hate other people losing time by repeating pointless experiments. He should have known better.

Mike

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 621
Quote
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qLIo6e1ek8

Hi All

This guy didn't prove anything. He provides energy by pushing the mobile against the magnetic field, and when the threshold of repulsion is reached, the mobile is propelled by the magnetic potential energy he had acquired.
This is as stupid as claiming that when you make a mobile roll up a hill, the fact that it then rolls downhill would be proof that you are drawing energy from the Earth's static gravitational field.

It's all about potential energy. The difference in potential energy between the start and end positions, whether it is magnetic or gravitational, is used as energy to move the mobile forward.  In a certain sense, it is indeed extracting energy from the field, but at the cost of a final configuration that is not the starting one. In a loop, the start and end position being the same, there is no difference in potential energy, so the system cannot be looped, the operator will have to provide energy again to bring the mobile back to the point where it can be propelled. The field is only a means of using the potential energy, not a source.

I can't count the number of times I've seen people claim this stupidity that they would "harvest motion from static magnetic field". After hundreds of similar experiments on Youtube, which looping always fails, it's time to draw the consequences and avoid wasting everyone's time relaying this nonsens from do-it-yourselfers who think they are new Tesla when they misinterpret banalities of physics known since the 19th century, and are so trapped by their Dunning-Kruger effect that they want to teach us their "art" on youtube. C.C



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-05-26, 17:49:48