Larskro's magnet motor video was a fake - he admits on second video

[MileHigh]

Wilby:

You are such a rude-ass little schmuck.  I just tried to do something that was hopefully interesting for some people, just for the fun of it.  And you post your typical "Look at what a rude-ass thoughtless illogical negative little schmuck I can be" postings.  It's a logical fallacy for you to make that posting Wilby because the posting was a sincere effort to make a positive contribution around here and it certainly wasn't a 'troll' posting.  You are the evil incarnate little troll like some nerd exorcist nightmare fantasy come true.  You know that movie Weird Science where Kelly LeBrock turns the annoying asshole older brother into a disgusting farting puss-oozing squat little round grotesque monster?  Well I bet you that image will resonate with most people that read this and they will associate it with you from now on.

And I know just by saying that I turn you into Fapby.  So go sniff around your latest hotspot and find some napkins.

MileHigh

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

[T-1000]

Mags:

I think a picture is really helpful so I edited a screen cap from the clip.   Below is what I think the proper circuit really is.  Or at least the circuit below will work.

I'll discuss it in the next posting.

Remove battery and make it work just from initial rotor spin. That will be accomplishment.
Here is E. Leedskalnin's book for help: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Magnets/Leedskalnin/Magnetic-Current_Edward-Leedskalnin_51pp.pdf

[TinselKoala]

Leedskalnin's book "Sweet Sixteen" is a lot more revealing.

http://www.leedskalnin.com/Leedskalnins-Writings-A-Book-In-Every-Home.html

Now, I will tell you what the first de-gree love making is. The first degree love making is when the fresh boy begins to soil the girl by patting, rubbing and squeezing her. They start it in that way but soon it begins to get dull and there is no kick in it, so they have to start in on the second de-gree and keep on and then by and by, when the right man comes along and when he touches the girl, then he touches her like dead flesh. There is no more response in it because all the response has been worked out with those fresh boys.  Why should it be that way?
Everything we do should be for some good purpose but as everybody knows there is nothing good that can come to a girl from a fresh boy. When a girl is sixteen or sev-enteen years old, she is as good as she ever will be, but when a boy is sixteen years old, he is then fresher than in all his stages of development. He is then not big enough to work but he is too big to be kept in a nursery and then to allow such a fresh thing to soil a girl --- it could not work on my girl. Now I will tell you about soiling. Anything that is done, if it is with the right party it is all right, but when it is with the wrong party, it is soiling, and concerning those fresh boys with the girls, it is wrong every time.

And so on and so forth.

[Magluvin]

MH, did you modify that schematic? The battery,coil and resistor are all in series, then that all is in parallel with the reed and also the led in the original schematic. You have taken the battery out of the loop when the reed is open, where it is not in Lars circuits, neither one of them. And it is the way he had it in circuit 1 is what I like. Not just a one way street  for the battery.

In my books on switching supplies, there is never anything possibly going back through to the source. It is always a one way street, like Lars second circuit. But the circuit from vid 2 does give back to the battery. And at this point, I am not concerned YET with OU from circuit 1, but with the efficiency increase from the standard by not having a 1 way street for the source. If this method can be arranged to be a switching supply that is near 90% the one way street method, then what might the efficiency be giving the source a way to accept back some energy from the circuit as I have found in Lars first circuit.

If this modified circuit is what your 3 posts of explanation are all about, then we are not talking about Lars circuits at all, as I and others thought that we were.
So I didnt bother with the 3 posts as they are of a different circuit. A circuit that fits your needs for explanation, not the real subject at hand. It is a diversion. Or just a fumble. You can see the differences I claim here dont you? Well I think the differences are clear. 
And if we were discussing why the leds are brighter in Cw and CCW of the rotor, then how can this apply to your explanation of the battery and coil emf adding up or subtracting with your new modified version? The battery is out of the loop when the reed opens.  You are changing the subject M. Why is that?

Lets stick to Lars circuit here. It is where all this particular discussion began. ;] This is the quote from your modified circuit post...
"I think a picture is really helpful so I edited a screen cap from the clip.   Below is what I think the proper circuit really is.  Or at least the circuit below will work.
I'll discuss it in the next posting."   

By saying this, you dont think either of Lars circuits are what he is using. Even though he shows the same circuit 2 times but just a change in polarity of the battery from one to the other. How do you come to the conclusion that your circuit mod is what you "think" lars really used?  Thats libelous.  Misrepresentation.  And you will have to show us the reasons with proofs as to why you are stating these claims.

His circuits work. Why is yours the better guess? Both of his circuits work, just one is more efficient than the other.
Your mod is not the same circuit as either of Lars circuits. 

You wonder why I get irked. ;] It is all in these last 4 pages. ;]  yup

Mags

[Magluvin]

Thanks for the Magnetic Currents pdf T-1000. Im going to study it this weekend. 

Ill skip the fresh young boys Tinselkoala prefers to Magnetic Currents.   

Mags