Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[joemensor]

As this is a new clearer image of the spindle, is there a chance of a more accurate replication? Also, this hard drive motor has to be fairly generic, any ideas what make/model that is?

Joe.

[klicUK]

As this is a new clearer image of the spindle, is there a chance of a more accurate replication? Also, this hard drive motor has to be fairly generic, any ideas what make/model that is?

Joe.

With regard to the stepper, whatever energy is given from the push will surely be absorbed by the pull or visa versa. If this is not the case then this is the source of free energy - not the rotor.
Why? well my experiment was essentially a clone of the xpenzif device less the one parameter that allegedly makes it work; the stepper. In other words it was an experimental control. I found this to do absolutely NO work, with the screw alignment shown in the video.

One other thing I noticed was the favourites video on the xpenzif profile. Generally if you trawl through the profiles of anyone else interested in this subject, you find the favourites littered with YouTube posts of people doing genuine experiments.

With xpenzif you get

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Q_ESdiF2wM

It's a complete parody of Steorn's energy claims. Now, I know this sounds like I'm clutching at straws but it kind of gives an insight into his psychology. Does he really take this subject seriously, or is he running a different type of experiment?

As for "is there a chance of a more accurate replication?" - err, not from me... 
regards,

klicuk

[Omnibus]

@klicUK,

This is an interesting psychological observation. I'm no expert in psychology but it seems to me many times it isn't quite clear why people do certain things and sometimes their logic of actions differs from what we would expect it to be.

As for the role of the stepper motor, one thing that has always bothered me about magnetic motors is the fact that in most cases there's only one field the contraptions are supposed to utilize. If this field is stationary there's no way for any motor action to take place. That's a law of Nature and to fight with that is nothing but a hopeless illusion. One attempt to change that was Torbay's construction which supposedly would create the needed change in the magnetic field due to its own devices, from within, so to say. The torque created by the gap existing in the construction from the onset would cause changes in the disposition of the elements of the construction which will also have as a side result change in the magnetic field. This was what was expected to happen--creation of torque being unconnected with the change of the field. That is, the torque is caused by the field but is unconnected with its change. To this day, however, mainly because of the much discussed discrepancies in the magnetic induction of same form magnets, this idea hasn't been shown to work in a real device.

Although Torbay idea is worth pursuing, we have something which has been proven to work violating CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a case whereby not one conservative field (through exploring ways to induce changes from within the device) but two conservative fields are superimposed in such a way so that one assists the other and vice versa. This is exactly what SMOT is. In order for the SMOT idea to be utilized practically in a convenient way (SMOT may be applied practically as is but isn't as convenient) it has to be harnessed to do rotary, motor, motion. One of the brightest proposals for such application I've seen is @xpenzif's. Where are the two fields, properly overlaid? One way to see this is when rows of magnetic elements, properly aligned, work independent of each other and the next element picks up from the previous element from another row just before that previous element has completed a certain part of its loop. This can be accomplished without stepper motor. Easier to see the superposition of two conservative fields (of the same type unlike the fields in SMOT), however, is by considering a stepper motor whose field is completely unconnected with the field at play with the steel elements on the drum. When playing with a stepper motor one notices that when trying to turn it it's quite a bumpy turn. One feels the minimums and the maximums of magnetic potential energy. If one stops the rotor of the stepper motor at a hill (the maximum of the magnetic potential energy) and then lets it go the rotor slips downhill followed by uphill, then again downhill, all this with decreasing amplitude until the rotor stops to a rest. Imagine, however, that another field, unconnected with the field of the stepper motor acting on the rotor, picks the rotor up just before the rotor  would otherwise revert its direction towards the stepper motor minimum.  The other, unconnected field, will move the rotor one notch further, correct? In other words, that unconnected field will help the rotor to do something which it won't do in its absence in a million years. Now apply the same idea further but reverse the roles of the stepper motor field and the unconnected field. This will lead to yet another notch, correct? Now, continue with this ... Notch by notch, the drum will be advancing always tending towards equilibrium but never reaching it. Now the problem is, how to achieve these conditions? Well, for now by trial and error, is the answer. @xpenzif has obviously found the engineering solution to that. Most importantly, he uses metal pieces, not magnets to accomplish this goal. Magnet-to-magnet attraction or repulsion can also be utilized but, as I said, it's much, much more complicated to deal with the unevenness of even equally shaped magnets and the unpredictable cooperative phenomena they are prone to.

[klicUK]

@klicUK,

This is an interesting psychological observation. I'm no expert in psychology but it seems to me many times it isn't quite clear why people do certain things and sometimes their logic of actions differs from what we would expect it to be.

As for the role of the stepper motor, one thing that has always bothered me about magnetic motors is the fact that in most cases there's only one field the contraptions are supposed to utilize. If this field is stationary there's no way for any motor action to take place. That's a law of Nature and to fight with that is nothing but a hopeless illusion. One attempt to change that was Torbay's construction which supposedly would create the needed change in the magnetic field due to its own devices, from within, so to say. The torque created by the gap existing in the construction from the onset would cause changes in the disposition of the elements of the construction which will also have as a side result change in the magnetic field. This was what was expected to happen--creation of torque being unconnected with the change of the field. That is, the torque is caused by the field but is unconnected with its change. To this day, however, mainly because of the much discussed discrepancies in the magnetic induction of same form magnets, this idea hasn't been shown to work in a real device.

Although Torbay idea is worth pursuing, we have something which has been proven to work violating CoE beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is a case whereby not one conservative field (through exploring ways to induce changes from within the device) but two conservative fields are superimposed in such a way so that one assists the other and vice versa. This is exactly what SMOT is. In order for the SMOT idea to be utilized practically in a convenient way (SMOT may be applied practically as is but isn't as convenient) it has to be harnessed to do rotary, motor, motion. One of the brightest proposals for such application I've seen is @xpenzif's. Where are the two fields, properly overlaid? One way to see this is when rows of magnetic elements, properly aligned, work independent of each other and the next element picks up from the previous element from another row just before that previous element has completed a certain part of its loop. This can be accomplished without stepper motor. Easier to see the superposition of two conservative fields (of the same type unlike the fields in SMOT), however, is by considering a stepper motor whose field is completely unconnected with the field at play with the steel elements on the drum. When playing with a stepper motor one notices that when trying to turn it it's quite a bumpy turn. One feels the minimums and the maximums of magnetic potential energy. If one stops the rotor of the stepper motor at a hill (the maximum of the magnetic potential energy) and then lets it go the rotor slips downhill followed by uphill, then again downhill, all this with decreasing amplitude until the rotor stops to a rest. Imagine, however, that another field, unconnected with the field of the stepper motor acting on the rotor, picks the rotor up just before the rotor  would otherwise revert its direction towards the stepper motor minimum.  The other, unconnected field, will move the rotor one notch further, correct? In other words, that unconnected field will help the rotor to do something which it won't do in its absence in a million years. Now apply the same idea further but reverse the roles of the stepper motor field and the unconnected field. This will lead to yet another notch, correct? Now, continue with this ... Notch by notch, the drum will be advancing always tending towards equilibrium but never reaching it. Now the problem is, how to achieve these conditions? Well, for now by trial and error, is the answer. @xpenzif has obviously found the engineering solution to that. Most importantly, he uses metal pieces, not magnets to accomplish this goal. Magnet-to-magnet attraction or repulsion can also be utilized but, as I said, it's much, much more complicated to deal with the unevenness of even equally shaped magnets and the unpredictable cooperative phenomena they are prone to.

I understand what you are saying RE the stepper working in conjunction,  I was thinking the same myself, and if you had some sort of momentum going then maybe this would be a valid experiment. But, what I (and other replicators like x00013) observed with the rotor layout shown in the xpenzif design was that it was not possible to get that movement going. Change the design and you change the experiment. Actually it has just occurred to me that I was wrong to say that my device did NO work, because actually it did. Doing *no* work would be a passive rotor without any stators presented to it, but mine acted as a frictionless break. In other words, using that size screw (#4 I think), on that size rotor, with one stator aligned the same as in the original video, the results that I got (and many other replicators reported the same results with different alignments) was a device that acted antagonistically to motion. So with this rotor/screw configuration, placing the same rotor on a stepper motor and getting spontaneous motion would indeed be very interesting. But.... Time will tell if it's genuine.

regards,

klicUK

[shruggedatlas]

Well, we here in the US work under the presumption "first to invent" while in Europe the principle is "first to publish" if I remember correctly. We should ask @shruggedatlas, however, for clarification on these matters because she seems to be a real expert in this.

Thank you for the kind compliment. I believe in the U.S. you are much better off filing a patent before you publish anything. To note, there is a grace period, so you have some period of time after disclosing your invention to file a patent.  But still, it is better to file first than to risk the clock running out.