Magnet motor , tried to replicate a 2nd working proto. Unsuccessful so far :(

[q-continuum]

I know this thread is 8 years old, but feel this is the correct spot to post...

Perhaps remove one to three of the Arc Magnets as well as move the visualization from 2D rotary into 3D toroidal spinning, since this is how nature likes to move.  See enclosed screenshot:

The RED arrows shown in the cuboctahedron may only show 1 of the 4 vector color directions in the Rhoden toroid (left), but note that there are 4 symmetrical planes of the cuboctahedron.  The black arrows may be dielectric, and the red arrows may be magnetic (unsure at this time).  Please comment.

[mscoffman]

There is the fallacy of the "hand magnet" in overunity devices, that is of thinking that there is no energy input when there is some

then claiming overunity energy where there is only normal human input energy. This shouldn't preclude something as is being

suggested, where input energy is parametrically applied, and seeing if the result might possibly be overunity.

In this case the fixed and variable characteristic of two sided mechanical tape, or the parametrically applied forces of servo motors

under computer control.


A similar concept seems to occur in the, Wang Shum Ho, pure magnetic motor Web Link..

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Wang_Shum_Ho_Generator


Here the rotor seems to have vibratory motion in the X,Y plane while damping fluid converts the X,Y motion perpendicularly

into the -> Z plane which allows rotor power rotation or damping.


I'd like to have the last laugh of converting the fake hand-magnet computer-fan into a computer servo actuated OU device.


..S..MarkSCoffman

[Low-Q]

Replicating a device that doesn't work in the first place, will expectedly not work no matter how many times you replicate it.


Vidar

[clearchrome]

Replicating a device that doesn't work in the first place, will expectedly not work no matter how many times you replicate it.


Vidar

Well, if you use a good scientific approach, you always improve the replication toward your final objective from a partially working model.


You will never find a project working straight off the back in a tree with green money bills growing on it


All theoredical concepts must be validated experiementally as we tend to simplify the complex nature we are in.
We don't always account for every nature's effects which would be too tedious to take into account without a super brain computer... and even here, im sure we still simplify stuff.


The concept here beeing the one from Johnson effect.

[Low-Q]

Well, if you use a good scientific approach, you always improve the replication toward your final objective from a partially working model.


You will never find a project working straight off the back in a tree with green money bills growing on it


All theoredical concepts must be validated experiementally as we tend to simplify the complex nature we are in.
We don't always account for every nature's effects which would be too tedious to take into account without a super brain computer... and even here, im sure we still simplify stuff.


The concept here beeing the one from Johnson effect.

A good scientific approach has never lead to over unity, because good science has proven beyond doubt that over unity does not exist.
It is OK to have theoretical concepts, but the theory can't have misleading flaws. Flaws has mislead countless (and each and everyone of them) hobbyists into great frustration every time their practical findings does not support their theory of over unity.

There is no theory in over unity that is supported by physics. So just give up, and find other ways to free energy that does not violate physics - it's plenty of it - so much that the humanity as a whole cannot tame it all, just charge you money for using it... Find your way around, and not tell the government what you power your house with ;-)

Vidar