New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible

[F6FLT]

Producing work with permanent magnets is as easy as it is with weights.
A falling weight produces work at the expense of its initial gravitational potential energy.
A permanent magnet "falling" towards another one, or pushed away, produces work at the expense of its initial magnetic potential energy.

In both cases, the potential energy on arrival is lower than it was at the beginning. The difference of potential, only depending on the start and end positions of the objects, whether gravitational or magnetic or electric, is the cause of a movement from A to B. If the start and end potentials are the same because we want a cycle, there is no longer a cause to go from A to A.

In order to close the loop you can imagine that going from A to B requires a different work than from B to A. So far it's been wishful thinking, because no experiment has shown it. This is why the theory, in line with the observations, stipulates that the energy used/supplied does not depend on the path (conservative force) but only on the potential difference.

Does anyone see something new in Kozeka's machine? I don't. What would be the subtle "new discovery" of Kozeka that would allow us to bypass everything we have seen so far?

[Floor]

Quote from floor
"I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate NET WORK done through permanent magnet interactions."
End quote

That is...... net work done.

Yes I see that his design is workable, although in my opinion he is too much so guided toward the classic mistake of going directly toward circular motions.
Presumably ....  to improve efficiency via conservation of momentum.

Similar, although more circular motion based designs,  it seems are marginal... in the respect  that  they barely demonstrate a work difference between input and output,
and /or are within the margin of error / questionable..

The inventor says that his outputted rotational motion...  needs to a repeat / second stage to complete a full circle of rotation.

I worked with several variations of design (rotating) I  came to that same conclusion myself. 
Although I have previously stated (in a OU forum topic) that my designs "didn't work out".  I don't rule it as outside of the possible..... that if the inventor
can implement additional stages, he might arrive at a self runner.

His design reminds me some what of Howard Johnson's work.. except that

1. Johnson expresses a different theoretical explanation for the excess force / work.
2. The physical mechanisms  of their devices are dissimilar.

But ......  both parties are focused on the  the force differences available at the corners or edges of the magnets / transition zones.
Most rotating designs focus similarly.

Honestly speaking however, I have made only superficial examinations of either ( this design and / or Johnson's  designs).

Because of these and other inventors admissions that their designs were / are marginal, I have taken a different tack.

My explorations have focused upon right angle interactions and reciprocating  motions... with the idea that rotation and momentum conservation
could occur at a later stage.

Conservation of momentum becomes less consequential when    high force / slow, short length displacements .....
                                                 are found in both the input and output of a device.

Perhaps you can help determine, if my designs are " Over Unity" or not ?


              floor

[F6FLT]

Quote from floor
"I'm satisfied that some of my own tests and measurements demonstrate NET WORK done through permanent magnet interactions."
End quote

That is...... net work done.

Oh, really? That is enough? I am afraid that we do not share the same intellectual demand for scientific evidence.

As long as there is no duplication by independent teams, the assertion of perpetual motion cannot be taken for granted. We need diagrams, measurements with margins of uncertainty, experimental demonstrations, especially when the claim is extraordinary. This is necessary to devote time to duplication and to duplicate. I only saw the diagrams, as in hundreds of other patents for perpetual motion machines that do not work.

The new concept idea that allows the revolutionary effect that we have not been able to achieve so far, would also be welcome. The only thing here is that forces between permanent magnets moving face to face are different from forces between magnets sliding side by side relative to each other, and it is suggested that consequently both in association could maintain a cyclic movement.
The question of forces is something known for a long time, and it is irrelevant: a weaker force can do more work than a stronger force, what matters is not the forces but the work of forces, and therefore their product by their displacement, which is energy. About this point, we have nothing from the inventor.
In conclusion what we have here is an empty shell that Kozeka has to fill, the ball is in his court.

[Belfior]

I think self looping is the minimum you have to achieve to go blow on any trumpets. I think there has to be electromagnets included. Then you can just turn magnets off on sticky points.

This might require that the magnet motor is accelerated to a certain sped first, but then you can get electrical power from a second rotor and use that to pulse the first rotor for movement

[F6FLT]

@Belfior
I agree with you. Only self-looping is a proof. I noticed that when we try to close the loop of a device that we think is overunity, that's when we see the flaw we didn't see before!