Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[Omnibus]

@vipond50,

On the contrary, not your pics, @cub3 should be removed.

[vipond50]

@vipond50,

On the contrary, not your pics, @cub3 should be removed.

Onmibus
Is that the correct email address in your profile? If U want I'll send them along to U.
Bill

[hydrocontrol]

@cub3,

I agree with the philosophy you espouse but there doesn't seem to be any concreteness. I'm trying to be as close as possible to the original but learning elementary parameters such as the exact weight of the rotor or the profile of the magnetic induction in the original at a certain distance from stator and rotor seems to be a struggle. These are very likely the crucial parameters for this endeavor to be successful. What do you propose?

Cub3

I'll replicate it, but where are the spec's ? Are we suppose to work up the one from the original spec that Al posted at the beginning of the Steorn site or the interpreted plan set that Jason put together that Al approved, but does not match the original spec?
How can anyone say which one is correct when the original constructor changed the spec to an untested device? The unit I am working is Rotor Spec. is off Al's original, the stator Mag's ect, etc, etc, following the device in the video.
BTW Are u working this? or arm chairing? I think this is a fair Q?.

Omnibus is trying, but he to has no real spec to work with. At best we are making Educated guesses. If u have more accurate data please post it.
So as Omni asked, What do you propose?
I myself am going to continue to work this project as i see fit....... Period.
Enough Ranting
Thanks for your posting
Regards
Bill

I would have to agree with all this. I believe most replicators (including myself) felt that there would be a lot of variance allowed with the design. A 'slap it together' and it will work attitude. A lot of that was based on the lack of information on how long it really took for Al to get it working and the lack of exact details. This comes from that fact that Al himself 'slapped it together' and just 'accidentally' got it to run. It was 'not by design' or at least it was not by the original intent of the ultimate design that OverConfident and Al were shooting for. Along the path to the ultimate design Al just happened to get it to work.  A 'billion to one shot'  so to speak. On the surface the working design seems simple enough to replicate considering that Al just 'accidentally' got it to work. Initial work by Clanzer (Sean) seemed to indicate that there would be a lot of variance since he threw together a Stator of many small magnets and got it to anti-gear fairly easily. It is now fairly apparent that this is not a 'slap it together with a few tweaks' system. The next logical step is to database all the exact details to try to sort out a solution but that will be difficult if Al does not provide 'exact' details from the 'working' system which so far has not happened.

[cub3]

@cub3,

I agree with the philosophy you espouse but there doesn't seem to be any concreteness. I'm trying to be as close as possible to the original but learning elementary parameters such as the exact weight of the rotor or the profile of the magnetic induction in the original at a certain distance from stator and rotor seems to be a struggle. These are very likely the crucial parameters for this endeavor to be successful. What do you propose?

Cub3
I'll replicate it, but where are the spec's ? Are we suppose to work up the one from the original spec that Al posted at the beginning of the Steorn site or the interpreted plan set that Jason put together that Al approved, but does not match the original spec?
How can anyone say which one is correct when the original constructor changed the spec to an untested device? The unit I am working is Rotor Spec. is off Al's original, the stator Mag's ect, etc, etc, following the device in the video.
BTW Are u working this? or arm chairing? I think this is a fair Q?.

Omnibus is trying, but he to has no real spec to work with. At best we are making Educated guesses. If u have more accurate data please post it.
So as Omni asked, What do you propose?
I myself am going to continue to work this project as i see fit....... Period.
Enough Ranting

Thanks for your posting
Regards
Bill

@vipon50

Ther in is the problem I have read through these posts  and indeed did point out pulley system ( not a weight).I merley mentioned 

To replicate is to exatly reproduce the original.

Is this not so?

Therefore, to deviate from exatness of original item/ product/concept/components/tolerances/materials.is not a reproduction.  surley reproduces and then moves on .

I am absolutly aware of what all of your problems are.

I only humbally asked that you collectively GOT YOUR  ACT together and established a database  or spreadsheet with time line from AL's 1st to last.

Regards
Den

[Omnibus]

@hydrocontrol,

There have been amazing things from the very beginning and one of the most amazing is that @alsetalokin won't take some time to really do some elementary measurements of just a few parameters of the working motor, let alone immediately reproduce it (instead of symbolically disposing of it). As has become obvious, the famous mistake he did which allegedly caused the acceleration to kick in, the AGW, isn't the key to the success because almost everyone achieves AGW with ease. Just stating that the stator magnet have to be stronger than the rotor magnets isn't the key to success either--because they are anyway. Obviously there's more to know about these two or three parameters than we've been drip fed as someone noted appropriately. By the end of the week I'll do experiments with my N38 and N35 neos and will try different stator magnet-stator bearing combinations which were also mentioned as a factor. In the meantime I'd like to know where the rest of us are with this and soon someone (not me, of course) should approach @alsetalokin and clarify whether or not he still can reproduce the effect shown in the first video. It very well may be that he has come upon that effect only by chance, without a clear understanding what combination of factors caused it, combination of factors which he now cannot reproduce. If that's the case, I think he should be upfront with it and should not feel embarrassed because that's a situation more common in scientific research than one would expect. In such cases embarrassing would be the tendency to hide that difficulty to reproduce experimental results pretending that everything is still OK.