A sincere gentleman sharing a magnet motor build .[NDA issues??]

[ramset]

Tinsel
sooo you feel one Gate is all you need to test this ? It would seem a logical assumption

I do agree with your test protocol as a stand alone example for measuring a given systems input and output, but I feel it is inappropriate to try to fit this build into _your_ frame of reference for these motors [magnet motors] and how to build them..

And to state the profoundly obvious..you [like the rest of the planet] have no actual experience on How to build a working magnet motor.

  Although one  member here [ Verpies] has seen and measured a working Wesley Gary system.. and I feel it is completely plausible that Mack has built a Rotary version,  I must add that  based on Grahams work with "that" system,  getting "There"[a running motor] from "Here" [where UFO is at the moment] will be quite maddening IMO.

Also,  asking UFO to do a rundown test on this motor in its present state would be like doing a rundown test on a half built [or less] recip with the plugs in

Mack has repeatedly stated the criteria for this to work....and he has not varied from that path or changed any details ..and we ain't there yet .

I have nothing but Gratitude for these researchers and their efforts.
link to page  http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20239-magnet-motor-revelation.html

respectfully

Chet K

PS

I think I will touch base with Shawn on this one [CLanZner] .

PPS
its a Double Cheeseburger Now ...

[TinselKoala]

Tinsel
sooo you feel one Gate is all you need to test this ? It would seem a logical assumption

Are you pulling my leg, deliberately missing the point, or something?
With this kind of system, where you are making changes to see if the changes help or not, how are you supposed to tell, besides making good comparisons to a known and repeatable baseline? Do you just spin it by hand, and go, "See, it's working" even when it can be seen to come to a stop? How consistent can your hand spin be, especially when you have something at stake, like your precious theory?

I do agree with your test protocol as a stand alone example for measuring a given systems input and output, but I feel it is inappropriate to try to fit this build into _your_ frame of reference for these motors [magnet motors] and how to build them..

you [like the rest of the planet] have no actual experience on How to build a working magnet motor.

I have a lot of experience building and testing _claimed_ working magnet motors, probably as much or more than anyone posting here. I won't bore you with all the various videos I've produced along those lines, nor will I give details of the years I spent actually getting paid to test things like that.
But just for fun here's one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdrhC1UdDyM

You can take my advice on how to test these things or not, it's up to you. You can also re-invent the wheel if you like, but here's a tip: A square wheel doesn't roll nearly as well as a round one. How do I know this? Because..... comparison testing against a baseline shows it is true.

While one  member here [ Verpies] has seen and measured a working Wesley Gary system.. and I feel it is completely plausible that Mack has built a Rotary version,  I must add that  based on Grahams work with "that" system,  getting "There"[a running motor] from "Here" [where UFO is at the moment] will be quite maddening IMO.

Also,  asking UFO to do a rundown test on this motor in its present state would be like doing a rundown test on a recip with the plugs in

Have you ever seen an old VW engine running on just one cylinder, with  three spark plugs removed? Sure you have. Now add another plug, on the opposite side. Does it run better, or not? How do you know? Now take out all the plugs. Does it run better now? How do you know? You know, because you spun it with the starter motor and all plugs removed... and it didn't run. Add one plug and it lopes along miserably.... but at least you KNOW FOR SURE that adding one plug made a big difference.

Mack has repeatedly stated the criteria for this to work....and he has not varied from that path or changed any details ..and we ain't there yet .

I have nothing but Gratitude for these researchers and their efforts.

respectfully

Chet K

PS

I think I will touch base with Shawn on this one [CLanZner] .

PPS
its a Double Cheeseburger Now ...

Mack still has not produced ANY EVIDENCE that he has ever had what he claims to have had. In other words, except for the money part, he is doing exactly the same thing that HopeGirl and the Robitialles have done. He's making claims without producing evidence, and he's suckered a lot of talented people into wasting their time. And he's come up with some mighty large inconsistencies: to wit, the "NDA" and the "Cease and Desist Order" that he seems to be totally ignoring by continuing to post and to provide "information".

Go ahead, my challenge still stands. Using proper experimental methods, show that _any_ addition or improvement produces a longer runtime than a simple, bare rotor without magnets (but weights in the same place as magnets)  or external ramps will produce. Without doing the tests, you have no basis for comparison and you are simply waving your hands in the air. (By "you" I mean those people who are actually building things of course.)

In a week, a month and a year from now, there will be NO selfrunning magnet motor coming out of this. Mark my words well, and I will accept an apology (and a cheezburger) when the landlord finally calls "time" on this one.

[TinselKoala]

      UFO. and the Prony Brake.
      Damn good username though!
     

In the test arrangement I have described several times now, the air and bearing resistances are a repeatable load on the system. It's a built-in "Prony Brake" without adding any complicating parts.  There may be some change in bearing resistance as magnets pull in various ways, but a properly adjusted bearing system should not suffer much from this effect. It's good to use ceramic, nonmetallic bearings of course but those are pretty expensive and may be hard for some workers to find.

My hypothesis is that magnets, ramps and etc. can only add drag to the system, and can never provide a non-cancelling thrust that will propel the rotor. The way to test this hypothesis is to use a repeatable starting impulse to the rotor, so that the _same amount of energy_ can be given to it, over and over, and to use the rundown time, with the air and bearing resistances as the repeatable load, as the variable of interest.

If you have a good baseline measurement of a system that you know is inert, can't produce any noncancelled thrust, then you can know if any changes add drag, or add thrust, by simply timing the rundown and comparing to the baseline.  I propose doing stepwise measurements at each change, but if someone wants to test a full build against a baseline measurement of a blank inert rotor, that's fine with me. But TEST AGAINST A BASELINE, don't just sit there pushing with your hand and going "oh wow look at that".

If you have good data on the "blank" rundown time, and you add magnets and a ramp, and the rundown time is now shorter.... did the additions produce any thrust? If adding one ramp, or two balanced ramps, doesn't produce any thrust, but only adds drag, why would anyone suspect that adding another ramp would reverse this drag and produce thrust?

Look, all somebody needs is a weight on a string, a stopwatch, and pencil and paper to record the results (and a calculator to crunch the numbers from repeated trials). Think of how easy it would be to _prove me wrong_ if any changes actually added noncancelling thrust to this system.  UFO could do it in an afternoon, since his rotor clearly only takes a few seconds to run down for each trial (not ten minutes or an hour like some of my test builds take.)

ETA: From the Description in the YT video I linked above:

The rundown graph may be downloaded from
http://www.mediafire.com/?uwlbxuwz4fw
The control condition graph (no stator, keepers on rotor mags) is
http://www.mediafire.com/?zzgtomvn4vo
The motor drive power is precisely the same for both conditions.

I'll define here a C of P (coefficient of performance) for magnet motors.

CoPMM = (rundown time in exp. condition) / (rundown time in control condition) .

So a CoPMM over unity would be, well, ...OverUnity.
And anything else, not.

[ramset]

Tinsel
the analogy to a recip was not  about running it on  one cylinder with fuel ,it is my opinion that a run down test of a system like this which according to the claimant requires multiple components to work in synchronicity in order to manifest a "self runner"or gain , it would be like doing a rundown test on an unfinished recip with no fuel or other prerequisite components in place.,

a worthless exercise at this stage IMO.

Yes I have spoken with many experimenters that were convinced their systems would work if only somebody would build it [somebody else]
here we have a person claiming he has built this and it works as advertised, and I know you cannot read his other contributions in many different threads at energetic ,so it is hard for you to get a feel for him beyond this awkward thread with an NDA issue.

regarding an apology should your prophesy come true ,that would infer I am insulting you in some way?
you should know I am not attempting to insult in any way.

and on that note I would hope we could keep all correspondence here free of insult and nasty innuendos.
I feel it is improper for such a group to engage this way.
we have a finite amount of resources [people who can and will build] and an infinite amount of possibilities.

just one mans opinion.
and a gentlemen's bet with benefits....

respectfully
Chet K 



 

[TinselKoala]

Well, it seems then that according to you, the only valid test would be to compare "not running at all".... that is, just sitting there +without+ any help from Mister Hand ... and "running on its own" --- again, with no involvement of Mister Hand at all. Fine, but that makes no sense to me since we always see just what is shown in UFO's video: Mister Hand pushing the thing at various rates with various forces and from various starting positions, making the claim that "it's almost there....." . Which is nonsense. And of course, if a build doesn't run itself, it's not a complete build by definition, so can't really be tested. Right?  (insert facepalm here.)

If you have a good baseline measurement of a system that you know is inert, can't produce any noncancelled thrust, then you can know if any changes add drag, or add thrust, by simply timing the rundown and comparing to the baseline.  I propose doing stepwise measurements at each change, but if someone wants to test a full build against a baseline measurement of a blank inert rotor, that's fine with me. But TEST AGAINST A BASELINE, don't just sit there pushing with your hand and going "oh wow look at that".

There is one _real_ reason why people don't want to do the simple tests I'm proposing. They are afraid of what they will find.