Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[pablo escobar]

In the original Video from AL he has 3 stator magnets.
2 at the front are left alone to spin and be influenced by the Rotor.
What he then does is spin the Stator at the back the opposite direction, the stator keeps moving the same way as do the two front stator magnets. When the back Stator has sync'd with the Rotor it seems to hold a steady RPM and then by releasing the breaking effect of the two front stator magnets, the Rotor accelerates to over twice the speed.

It is good to be sceptical, but at the same time too try and copy how he achieves the effect.
At the moment you just have 1 stator. If you spin your rotor you seeing it turns the first stator, now spin the rotor and spin your stator the same direction, see the difference it has? Now add a couple more and play

On your Rotor do you have the Magnets SS-NN-SS-NN etc etc

I will buy smaller bearings tomorrow. As can be seen on my pictures, the board has place for three stators, I will try this with the smaller bearings.

Yes, they are mounted SS-NN-SS-NN etc

My stators will be separated by 120 degrees... I don't know any of the parameters/dimensions of the original device

Should the stators have a larger inertial mass? My current stator has only a few grams of mass.

I believe that the stators are NOT equidistant apart.  The original design was to be 13 stators I believe.  AL is using a stator - 3 stator - 4 stator -3 configuration.  The Judsen regulators are around the 4 stator magnet.

[Omnibus]

@Dansway and @vipond50,

I can?t agree more. The replication should follow the original design as much as possible. So far, @CLaNZeR is doing a fantastic job except maybe for the rotor magnets which have to be cylindrical, as in the original. I'm still waiting for Jdo300's drawings and the magnets and then I'll try to kick in too.



@skymovingcloud,

While I agree with @Dyamios that at this point the important is this to be replicated by third parties it won?t hurt to ask you whether you?re familiar with the finite element and the finite boundary method. These are variational methods in which the space to be analyzed is divided by an appropriate mesh and a variational problem is solved in each triangle of that mesh.


@yorkshireman,

Indeed, that?s the Searl motor as far as I can tell. This looked to me more like the Lego motor, the Grandpaw?s motor and another one with moon and planets. The last too have the planets and the moon mechanically locked, though. So far I thought, the closest appears to be the Lego motor but, yes, this one is more like a replica of the Searl?s motor. @gaby de wilde and @ClaNZeR were working recently on a similar idea too. The thing is, I don?t think Searl has ever had it replicated by a third party. Correct me if I?m wrong.

P.S. Oh, it resembles also the motor by @itseung888, forgot to mention. The closeness to Searl's seems the greatest, though.

[skymovingcloud]

@skymovingcloud,

While I agree with @Dyamios that at this point the important is this to be replicated by third parties it won?t hurt to ask you whether you?re familiar with the finite element and the finite boundary method. These are variational methods in which the space to be analyzed is divided by an appropriate mesh and a variational problem is solved in each triangle of that mesh.

@Omnibus, I'm not yet, but now's the time to do some learning. Even if I'm not up to the job, I hope to get the ball rolling on the theoretical side, and I do agree that the device needs to be replicated before serious effort is applied. thanks

[CLaNZeR]

I tried reversing the spinning magnet but I can't find any resonance, I even tried to speed it up in reverse direction with a DC motor...

Naklaw

You got a answer from AL over on this thread mate

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60132&page=7

Must admit it is nice to see someone sticking around after posting a video and even better that he is interacting and answering peoples questions.

[FunkyJive]

Hi Yorkshireminer.

A very interesting observation of yours - the 8 and 13 forming part of the Fibonacci sequence.

However, I would personally doubt that this has a specific bearing in this case (though I could be quite wrong of-course), particularly as the wheel will rotate with only one cylindrical magnet with many more than two bar magnets required.

However, I do think that 13 cylinders could be a significant number - namely that it is a prime number. This would at-least ensure that with any number of bar magnets less than thirteen, you would minimise the probability of a stable state as the optima of attraction and repulsion would effectively rotate around the spinning wheel - always at a different speed to its rotational velocity with no common denominator to their ratios.

All the best,

Funkyjive.