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

[MileHigh]

Well we could take a walk down the garden path i guess,or we could look at it for what it really is-that being--> When a set voltage is supplied to a brushed DC motor with a load on that motor,the only !!only!! way to decrease the current input (without changing the configuration of that motor),is by reducing the load on that motor. As the load on the motor dose not change throughout the test(the load being the rest of the DUT),then a second energy source must be provided to that load,so as to lift some of that load from the DC motor driving that load. The only thing we did was add the two PM's to the DUT,and i even went as far as fitting a counter weight that was the same weight as the PM that was to replace it. So we added the two PM's,and our current draw to the prime mover dropped by around half. As the supply voltage was a fixed amount,and the current dropped by half,this means we are now using half the power we were before the PM's were added.

The way i carried out the experiment was very accurate,and the same results were had time after time.

But if you look very carefully at what I posted it fits exactly into the scenario that you describe.   It fits exactly.

Somewhere there is a clip where someone adds a big external magnet to a running motor and the motor speeds up but the power draw stays the same.  That's the same deal one more time, adding the magnets gave the motor more torque and made it more efficient such that it did more "useful work" for the same input power.   You can't make every motor with giant magnets.  There are design goals for size, weight, and cost.  So adding the big external magnet to the motor is not an "improvement" if you have size as an important design goal.

In your experiment the "true output" of your setup is buried in the waste heat power.  Adding magnets did nothing more than improve the efficiency and reduce the waste heat power.  The magnets themselves remain as dead as a doornail and don't contribute even a nanowatt of power to the setup.

[Pirate88179]

No, I disagree. And that's why I've advocated the stepwise testing against a blank, inert system consisting of the rotor with nonmagnetic weights instead of magnets and no stators.

Timing the rundown from a known starting impulse or RPM will allow you (or would allow ME, at least) to calculate the actual power dissipation of the blank rotor. Then adding the magnets and one stator and repeating the rundown time would allow the experimenter to see whether the single stator/magnet arrangement added a little drag, or a little thrust. It's possible that you only would get a small amount of thrust (added power) from a single stator, not enough to make it keep running but enough to offset _some_ of the power dissipation of the blank system. The rotor would take longer to run down in that case .  Add, say, six stators, all adding their slight amount of thrust (power), and perhaps they would be enough to more than offset the power dissipation of the blank rotor, and the device would speed up until bearing friction and windage again matched the added power and the thing would run along at a constant speed. Each stator would not be enough on its own but a number of them might add together to make the desired effect.

However the reverse is also true.... if an individual stator adds _drag_ instead of thrust, or does nothing (neither adds power nor dissipates it) then adding more of the same will only drag you down faster ( or do nothing) . But without doing the actual comparison testing against a blank system, you'll never know. Pushing around with Mister Hand, changing things because it doesn't continue to run, is just a waste of time and doesn't produce any Real Data that allows for making valid conclusions about whether or not your stator design is going to work or not. It's comical, to think that the experimenters might be missing the "correct" design entirely because they aren't making any real, valid, comparison tests against the blank system.

It's even more comical, since one reason they aren't doing this is _because the suggestion comes from me_.  An hour's worth of actual testing would tell them instantly whether or not their stator designs are helping (adding some power) or hurting (only adding drag), even with testing just a single stator and comparing against the blank inert system. 

Of course we know that there is no possible added thrust from any stator configuration they can come up with... and since actual testing would demonstrate this, they are not doing it, out of fear of what they might find.

Well, of course you are right...this is exactly what I meant.  You are the one that showed those run down tests during the Mylow saga.  Everyone should do that to establish a base line...just as you suggested.

What I was trying to say was that if one stator does not add anything except additional drag compared to your baseline testing, then adding 10 of them will not improve it, only make it worse.

I learned this from working on a "gravity" motor 10 years ago using fluid in pvc tubes on a bicycle wheel.  One tube did not work, so I kept adding tubes and finally, I accidentally designed a really great braking system using 8 tubes, ha ha.  You could give that wheel a really good spin and it would stop in about 1.5 revolutions.  Had I performed your base line test, I could have quit after adding the first tube and saved a lot of time.

Bill

[ramset]

another replicator sharing his build
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDfJFIxmSr0&feature=youtu.be

from here

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20239-magnet-motor-revelation-20.html

thanks for looking

Chet K

[CANGAS]

Well, of course you are right...this is exactly what I meant.  You are the one that showed those run down tests during the Mylow saga.  Everyone should do that to establish a base line...just as you suggested.

What I was trying to say was that if one stator does not add anything except additional drag compared to your baseline testing, then adding 10 of them will not improve it, only make it worse.

I learned this from working on a "gravity" motor 10 years ago using fluid in pvc tubes on a bicycle wheel.  One tube did not work, so I kept adding tubes and finally, I accidentally designed a really great braking system using 8 tubes, ha ha.  You could give that wheel a really good spin and it would stop in about 1.5 revolutions.  Had I performed your base line test, I could have quit after adding the first tube and saved a lot of time.

Bill

Ha ha ha. Reminds me of a time 15 or 20 years ago when I did a similar ritual of establishing a baseline etc. It was a gravity wheel using solid weights (44 caliber lead balls for a 1851 Navy Colt). When I changed the weight configuration it self-braked much faster than the original configuration. A brisk spin-up and stop in 1 1/2 revs.

Wasn't looking for a novel brake.

CANGAS 190

[Pirate88179]

Ha ha ha. Reminds me of a time 15 or 20 years ago when I did a similar ritual of establishing a baseline etc. It was a gravity wheel using solid weights (44 caliber lead balls for a 1851 Navy Colt). When I changed the weight configuration it self-braked about 2 or 3 times faster than the original configuration. A brisk spin-up and stop in 1 1/2 revs.

Wasn't looking for a novel brake.

CANGAS 189

Neither was I but I sure found one.  This shows the importance of TK's rundown tests.  Of course, I was doing this long before I even heard of TK.  Maybe I should have attempted to make a breaking device and by accident it might have kept spinning?

Bill