44 Times More Power Output than Input

[tinman]

@MH
Yes,i know where you are comeing from-anothe PM EM machine claimed to be OU. Turns out the measurements taken where incorrect,and the inventor corrected them.
But the OU part is not what grab'd my interest,it was the fact that the axially magnetized magnets could actualy rotate at all,while conected to a motor via a belt.

The other thing was these torsion field's?. I had never heard of them,and niether had TK-do you know what they are ,without looking them up?.
Turns out they are very real,and now i know what they are-something learned already.

Torsion fields: WIKI
In physics, a field is an assignment of a quantity (vector, tensor, or spinor) to every point of the space containing it. The word torsion refers to any variable that describes rotation. Thus, torsion fields do exist. For example, an electromagnetic wave with circular polarization or the stress tensor of a solid body under torsion stress can be described as torsion fields, although such usage is rare.

Below is a pic of the coil,and how the magnet is placed-coil yellow section.
Also a close up pic of his actual setup,showing the belt around the motor and disc magnet.There is two O rings either side of the belt on the disc magnet.
Now i know the video you refer to isnt showing anything new,but this is different,when the magnets are fixed to a shaft,and driving small generators-wich had a 10 ohm load across them.

I think you would have a hard time comeing up with an explination for this one MH.
It may be a worthy challenge for you.

[tinu]

Tinman:

The hollow cylinder magnets rotate because they are never perfectly symmetrical about the main axis with respect to the magnetic field they produce.  There is always an asymmetrical "lump" in the magnetic field and therefore that extra repulsion/attraction creates torque and gives you a motor.

MileHigh

 
Hi MH, Tinman,

Either that or because of eddy currents, much like an asynchronous motor.  It is well known that the magnetic field of a pulsed coil is a sum of two counter rotating magnetic fields; if the conducting rotor is placed on the axis of symmetry of such coil it won't start rotating by itself but here the rotor is placed off the axis. I'm too lazy to do the math but maybe someone is willing to test if a non-magnetic squirrel cage (or a tin can for that matter) starts rotating if similarly placed above and off-centre of a coil.

Oh, almost forgot to mention that NeFeB magnets and their coatings are good conductors... Moreover, magnets are mounted using brass tubes and washers.
I suspect a ceramic magnet (i.e. one taken from an old speaker) won't rotate.

Regarding the paper http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf , apart from the good words I have for it, there is at least one potential huge error not yet discussed in: "Having five magnets provided a calculated COP of 40 when multiplying the number of moving magnets by the generated power out of one generator when..." (page 90, bottom right).
Well, there are many systems including mechanical ones (i.e. car differential) where one could take power out either from one place or simultaneously from several places but the total available power is the same. Here, because of the intricate magnetic coupling, I strongly suspect the author made a simple but unfortunately wrong assumption.

Best regards,
Tinu

[tinman]

 
Hi MH, Tinman,

Either that or because of eddy currents, much like an asynchronous motor.  It is well known that the magnetic field of a pulsed coil is a sum of two counter rotating magnetic fields; if the conducting rotor is placed on the axis of symmetry of such coil it won't start rotating by itself but here the rotor is placed off the axis. I'm too lazy to do the math but maybe someone is willing to test if a non-magnetic squirrel cage (or a tin can for that matter) starts rotating if similarly placed above and off-centre of a coil.

Oh, almost forgot to mention that NeFeB magnets and their coatings are good conductors... Moreover, magnets are mounted using brass tubes and washers.
I suspect a ceramic magnet (i.e. one taken from an old speaker) won't rotate.

Regarding the paper http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6483.pdf , apart from the good words I have for it, there is at least one potential huge error not yet discussed in: "Having five magnets provided a calculated COP of 40 when multiplying the number of moving magnets by the generated power out of one generator when..." (page 90, bottom right).
Well, there are many systems including mechanical ones (i.e. car differential) where one could take power out either from one place or simultaneously from several places but the total available power is the same. Here, because of the intricate magnetic coupling, I strongly suspect the author made a simple but unfortunately wrong assumption.

Best regards,
Tinu

Hi Tinu
There was a measurement error,and he has a second paper that explains that. It was in reguards to the DC input,and forgetting about the AC component.
In his first paper,you will see that the test went beyond 1 generator x 5. He has two hooked in series,and a cap on the output aswell. This is how he made his measurements x5. First 1 gen,then two,and the math was done from those measurement to get the total for 5. He also talked about the magnetic coupling between all 5 magnet,s ,and arranged them to dismiss that. Also with disc magnet,s having like or unlike poles facing one another-you will not gain any drive coupling from them that will effect the next one to it.

[TinselKoala]

I am having a really really hard time believing that the apparatus as shown will actually turn the generators by spinning the magnets. I don't believe that there is enough torque. Sure, a magnet can spin when it's not trying to turn anything else... but those belts and pulleys, the O-ring edge things.... no. Unless I see that apparatus itself running on top of the big coil and spinning the magnets which are then spinning the generators, I just don't believe it.

Is the device in the photo a _mockup_ of something he wished would work?

I skimmed through the video and I can't tell from that. I just read the paper again, and it seems that he did use clipleads to measure and never actually soldered all the motors together with wires. But I still can't believe that the magnets can rotate those motors! I am thinking right now that it might be the case that the big coil's oscillating field might be rotating the _motors_ instead of the magnets.

Anyway, if there is a video of the apparatus in operation please let me know asap, because I just can't imagine how to get enough torque from the rotating magnet to overcome the _huge_ mechanical losses built into the system.

ETA: Oh, I didn't mean to say I'd never _heard_ of torsion fields, I just said I didn't know what they are. The WIKI definition isn't really what people like Gennady Shipov mean when they talk about torsion fields, I think. I don't believe in the kind of torsion fields that Shipov does, and I think that those are the only kinds of torsion fields that can (or rather can't) be responsible for things like this magnet spinner or Gennady's "reactionless" inertial drive systems.

[tim123]

Is this the same Jeff Cook? Selling a 'reactionless drive toy'...?

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