New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible

[F6FLT]

@onepower

Sorry to be in a scientific attitude, not a handyman. I "believe" in math, it's pure logic, and math is completely embedded in physics and its definitions of magnetic field, forces, work... I only said that Kozeka's explanation is not correct because Maxwell's electromagnetism math is incompatible with an energy gain in a cycle of permanent magnet movement, whatever their path and motions. And this is true not only for the work of a magnetic force, but for that of any conservative force.
So if we do have an energy gain, either unknown energy is taken where we don't expect it, and that's interesting, or Maxwell's theory is incorrect, the magnetic flux would not be conservative, but for different reasons it's unlikely nevertheless possible.

Dozens of permanent magnet motors have already been patented or promoted for investor research (Minato, Perendev, LLW9...) but if we are here, it's because none of them could be duplicated, and Occam's razor tells us that it is because none of them are working so far.

I saw somewhere but I don't remember where, an experiment with magnets moving face to face, or sliding side by side, with measurements and calculation of the work done. The work was not quite the same for both movements, and could have provided energy over a cycle. The experiment was very rough, I considered that the energy gain was less than the experimental uncertainty on the measurements and I did not attach any importance to it. Now with this new claim, it may need to be explored further.

[onepower]

F6FLT

Sorry to be in a scientific attitude, not a handyman. I "believe" in math, it's pure logic, and math is completely embedded in physics and its definitions of magnetic field, forces, work... I only said that Kozeka's explanation is not correct because Maxwell's electromagnetism math is incompatible with an energy gain in a cycle of permanent magnet movement, whatever their path and motions. And this is true not only for the work of a magnetic force, but for that of any conservative force.
So if we do have an energy gain, either unknown energy is taken where we don't expect it, and that's interesting, or Maxwell's theory is incorrect, the magnetic flux would not be conservative, but for different reasons it's unlikely nevertheless possible.

I see several flaws in your reasoning. First while the math may be logical it is dependent on whether one is considering the right variables and equations or not. Everyone said Earnshaws theorem could not be violated and therefore assumed magnetic levitation was impossible. However a spinning magnetic top can levitate without violation of the theorem because it does not apply. They made false assumptions by applying rules where they have no application. So the math can be correct but not if your asking the wrong questions and making false assumptions... obviously.

Think of it this way, the conservation of energy states energy must be conserved or input equals output. However a heat pump can output six times more energy than the input. This is true because the heat pump does not dissipate the input energy as heat it pumps already existing heat from one place to another. If you did not understand how it worked it would appear as an energy gain and all the math would be incorrect but it's not incorrect... you would be incorrect.

Dozens of permanent magnet motors have already been patented or promoted for investor research (Minato, Perendev, LLW9...) but if we are here, it's because none of them could be duplicated, and Occam's razor tells us that it is because none of them are working so far.

It's dependent on our perspective. If the actual mechanism for gain was never disclosed and it seldom is then logically you do not know how or why it works and could never replicate it. Occam's razor suggests the more probable explanation is the more likely one so let's look at the probabilities.
1) You cannot understand it and do not know how it works and cannot replicate it.
2) The inventor understands it and knows exactly how it works.

In my opinion the more probable explanation is that the person with the most facts making the least assumptions is more likely to be correct. Unfortunately this is not you because you have no facts and obviously do not understand how it works. Occam's razor should never be used from a position of complete ignorance to the facts and that was never its intent.

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.

Simpler is not better that's a populist prostitution of the intent of this principal however the more facts we as individuals have in hand making the least assumptions should be the most likely explanation. Which begs the question... have you done any tests or experiments to prove anything for yourself or relied on mostly unqualified opinions from the internet which are generally 99% BS?.

Case in point, Occam's razor suggest people who fail to produce the desired results due to their own ignorance to the facts are most likely the people we should not be taking advice from. A much better option would be to pay attention to people who have found success. For example are you more likely to believe a mechanic who claims your truck cannot be fixed or the mechanic who just fixed it?... pretty obvious in my opinion.

No offense but I find your sense of reason... unreasonable.

Here is an interesting question, if a PM is in fact an electro-magnet in that each electron orbit locked within any given magnetic domain in itself constitutes a "current loop" then what if any given action/reaction could change the axis of some of the free electron current loops. We are speaking of billions of individual electrons within a PM which move in an orbit which on the most fundamental level constitutes a "path of conduction" does it not?. As above so below and we cannot just ignore the fact that infinitely massive things tend to follow the same laws as infinitely small things whether we understand it or not. If the rules we say we believe apply then they must apply in a universal sense otherwise we are left with contradictions. We must ask the question... what is possible, on what level and to what extent?. Anything less is just boring in my opinion.

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
I see several flaws in your reasoning. First while the math may be logical it is dependent on whether one is considering the right variables and equations or not.

You should apply your statement to Kozeka, that's exactly what I said about his explanation. There are "flaws in his reasoning" because he considers the right variables and equations to explain an incompatible fact.

Everyone said Earnshaws theorem could not be violated and therefore assumed magnetic levitation was impossible. However a spinning magnetic top can levitate without violation of the theorem because it does not apply.

I agree with you that Earnshaws' theorem or any other theorem demonstrating impossibility can generally be circumvented. The reason for this is that such a theorem cannot define its field of application without uncertainties or unknowns, which is not the case when the theorem is a positive statement where sufficient elements for the effect can be given.
I rather consider these theorems as challenges (as for the second law of thermodynamics).

However, in our context, it is not at all the same problem ("non sequitur"). I am not saying that Kozeka's device or permanent magnet motors in general cannot work, I am simply saying that his explanation of this particular case is wrong. If Kozeka correctly explained his device, why energy can be extracted from the movement he developed between two points of equal potential magnetic energy despite the conservative force, in the same way that the explanation of rotational magnetic levitation explains the circumvention of Earnshaws' theorem, this would be perfectly acceptable. But he didn't do it.

The past shows us that inventors who provide theoretical explanations that are incompatible with what they claim to have built, do so to give credibility to their inventions through science that they manipulate or do not master. Only people who are unskilled in the field are bluffed. Many investors have fallen into this kind of trap and lost money, as well as DIYers who have wasted their time. So be careful!

If the actual mechanism for gain was never disclosed and it seldom is then logically you do not know how or why it works and could never replicate it.

Science is the study of what is observable. What is not observable cannot be part of the scientific method. This is why science cannot theorize about the existence of God or the eating habits of the Pink Unicorn.
Whether we imagine the existence of the Pink Unicorn or that of a secret principle of permanent magnet motors hidden for decades is of the same level.
We need observable facts.
When it comes to permanent magnet motors, we don't have them yet.

...Which begs the question... have you done any tests or experiments to prove anything for yourself or relied on mostly unqualified opinions from the internet which are generally 99% BS?.

Many! In electronics, since the age of 11. That's why I'm very careful now. All the experiments in FE I have done so far (single wire transmission, back emf, SMOT, so-called "scalar waves", Steorn-style parametric motors...) show that everything works according to conventional theories.
I'm looking for loopholes but I haven't found any yet. Most of those who believe they have found them are only surprised by commonplace phenomena that they do not understand.
That's one of the reasons why everyone here still pays for electricity. Wouldn't someone pay it?

if a PM is in fact an electro-magnet in that each electron orbit locked within any given magnetic domain in itself constitutes a "current loop" then what if any given action/reaction could change the axis of some of the free electron current loops. We are speaking of billions of individual electrons within a PM which move in an orbit which on the most fundamental level constitutes a "path of conduction" does it not?. As above so below and we cannot just ignore the fact that infinitely massive things tend to follow the same laws as infinitely small things whether we understand it or not. If the rules we say we believe apply then they must apply in a universal sense otherwise we are left with contradictions. We must ask the question... what is possible, on what level and to what extent?. Anything less is just boring in my opinion.

Why "if"? A magnet is indeed a set of current loops constituted by electronic spins (for the most part) and to a lesser extent by orbital rotations around atomic nuclei. It has been known since the early 20th century. Moving magnets are indeed billions of billions of billions of charges/spin in motion, and this too has been known since the beginning of the 20th century. When you know the elementary behaviour of a current loop, you just have to integrate on the whole volume to get the overall effect. This can even be done by Einstein's relativity. The magnetic field, for example, is the Lorentz transform of the electric field (and vice versa), between inertial reference frames moving relative to each other. The same facts are explained as well by Maxwell's electromagnetism as by Einstein's relativity. But it's not that simple. We also know that the spin is quantified and that the electron has two spin levels, which can be seen by NMR.
I don't think we have to re-invent the wheel. We have to complete what is known and see beyond, which requires us to know the current state of the art rather than wanting to destroy it because we would not understand it or because it would come from "formatted" academics. The best and more modest method is therefore the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

[Belfior]

This has just become the most interesting thread on this forum...

[Floor]

Greetings fellow earthlings

I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate net work done through permanent magnet interactions.

The principles are so simple that it is almost embarrassment, that It has taken 5 years to arrive at these observations / understandings.

I understand why they should work, how they work and that they in fact do work.

What ever else we can say about, and may have observed in the fields around permanent magnets....

                                              Two statements which are very certain, and  ......................  utterly noncontroversial are .......


1. Between magnets,  there are numerous methods by which we can create a very near balance of attracting and repelling forces.   
           
                   because of the above

2. In specific arrangements of magnets and along specific vectors, magnets can be made to approach or be withdraw from very near proximities
  with out doing work against magnetic forces.


That which is seems controversial .............   but which is also very reasonable and  can in fact be done  .....

1. A third magnet can approach and / or be removed from a near proximity to, and also be installed and / or removed from
between a combination of a first and a second magnet, with out doing work against magnetic forces.

2. Said third magnet's installation between a first and second magnet can create a balance between the attracting and repelling
forces between those said first and second magnets.

These actions and force Neutralizations are vector (direction) specific.