Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[magpower]

Sean

Special thanks for all your work in such a short time. Sad this never worked. I have made many versions and same story. Really looks like coming to the end, but I  have a few more tries on spare fingers! Just wondering on your final version what was distance from outside edge rotor magnet to edge of stator magnet in mm. Just looks bigger gap than Al's. We see next guy disappear like always and gets bought out. I assume Al's is on a hot beach with drink in hand. Cheers

Wayne

[magpower]

Hello all,

I spoke with my bearing guy yesterday, and he has given up.  People will not return emails, or phone calls. 

Monday, I will attempt to call and get the information myself.  I will keep trying.

I switched out my N38's for N35's and got much better AGW, with the rotor at high speed.

I am going to order and try some even weaker rotor magnets.  My N35's are better than the N38's and I think weaker is better.

I have posted my latest video.  Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EffHs8n6oo0

Cheers,

Bruce

Bruce

Great work also and our last draw is real bearings like Al's. I think this project might take some time for all pieces but let me know. I tried the wobble rotor today but nothing, duds in stator, just no rotor change. Going back Al's smaller scale and maybe catch what he saw.

Wayne

[Omnibus]

@Bruce_TPU,

I have also tried with N35 and can't really tell whether this exchange or the application of the "liquid wrench" lubricant made it easier to lock in AGW. Anyway, I think it's a good idea to try it with even weaker rotor magnets (for the same mechanical configuration). Where are you going to order your weaker magnets from?

Also, maybe different lubricants can be tried for the rotor and the stators, say, slower for the rotor and faster ("liquid wrench") for the stators or vice versa. That will affect the timing. Maybe varying lubricants and trying different dampers can be an easier substitute for changing the weights of the rotor and stators which seems crucial for the timing. This may also spare the effort to look for other bearings.

Finding the right conditions for proper timing is the gist not only with this motor.

[sm0ky2]

My final attempt at this, was a 10-sided polygon, with the stator sized specifically to 'gear' off of the rotor.
this allowed for a near-perfect AWG-synchronization at higher speeds.
With the last design, the induction-rods are not even necesary for high-rpm stabalization

But alas, i could not achieve any self-acceleration like in the original video.

If the original device worked like it was calimed to have, my thoughts are that it must be something more than just a pure magnetic coupling, driving it. Perhaps the secret lies in the rythimic motion of the stator magnets, this maybe is not a linear rotation.
with all but the last design - low-rpm tests would confer this, the stator spins in unison when like poles are passing -> then a dead zone -> then spins very quickly as the attraction of the opposite pole lines the stator up -> then dead zone -> and the cycle repeats itself.

unfortunately i do not have any way to tell if this is occuring at high rpm. should it be?
with the purely synchronized rotor/stator (last one i built) this does not occur at all, they turn together perfectly throughout the cycle. - it does not appear that there is any net power gain from that, the difference in RPM is converted to torque, and they slowly decellerate over time.

So, any chance at reproducing this phenomenon, is going lie in a non-linear rotation of the stator, compared to the linear movement of the rotor. If this in fact occurs at high rpm,  could the difference in the stators' rotational speed during the attraction/repulsion phases of its cycle generate enough inertia to give the rotor a 'kick' ?

im not going to dismantle the rotors just yet, probably going on the shelf though or incorporated into new experiments. theres just too many variables and im starting to lose momentum with this project seeing as noone has reported any significant results from their replications.

[Omnibus]

@ClaNZeR,

The problems encountered when one attempts through the setup you?ve shown here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4kq1oNMtws

and here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLLXuH2YPYk

to have the ball make full turns in a self-sustaining manner are exactly the same as in a device such as the one shown by @xpenzif. It?s just a different design but the principle is the same. Try, for instance, removing one or two of the diagonal columns in @xpenzif?s device and you will observe that, self-starting, the cylinder will make almost a full turn. The problem is to make the cylinder make full turns on its own when all the diagonal columns are there and are acting in concert. This is a very subtle task to achieve which @xpenzif, unlike anybody else, has been able to do. Notice that when you?re placing the ball at its initial position there are no magnet stations behind it. Thus, the ball is only experiencing a forward pull. Don?t get deceived that the ball exiting the first station exits the second and so on. This is an aftereffect of the ball having it?s highest potential energy at the very beginning, before entering the first station. An analogy is when a ball is overcoming a hill when made let go from an even taller earlier hill.

Imagine, however, if there?s a series of equally tall hills, as would be the case when there are earlier stations, before the place where you first positioned the ball to commence the experiment?the ball will not have enough energy to overcome even the next hill. All these equivalent stations will form a common cooperative field with troughs and hills which the ball has to overcome. This won?t be possible because in a real experiment the work necessary to bring the ball at the top of the hill will always be greater, due to losses, than the energy the ball has at the bottom of the hill.

One way to deal with this is to have another field, properly overlaid, to aid the ball in overcoming every following hill. The way this occurs in Johannes Taisnierius? device (the contemporary SMOT, that is) proving conclusively violation of CoE. In @xpenzif?s device this second, independent field is claimed to be that of the stepper motor, something none of the replicators paid attention to.   

There is a hope that a design such as the one invented by @alsetalokin may be one practical contraption for such proper overlaid fields that would allow continuous production of excess energy but its principle of action is still pretty unclear. As you know, I discounted it initially out of hand because it isn?t self-starting. However, the construction of the device which enables it to work may not be just a stationary placement of its different parts with respect to each other. It may be that for the desired additional effect of acceleration to kick in it may be absolutely essential (as part of the construction) that some of these parts are in mutual motion. Once this additional effect of acceleration appears (enabled by the initial setting in motion of some of the parts of the machine) it may be that the initial input of energy to move these parts is more than compensated further when the effect of acceleration emerges.

Now, I?ve read what @Grimer and @Harvey have to say about the principle driving these devices but so far I don?t see the mechanism for the appearance of the excess energy in their theories. In addition, as far as I can see even if there is anything of substance in these theories ultimately it will converge into the principle involved in Johannes Taisnierius? device. A this moment it is really unclear to anybody, including those who have shown experimental success, how this, so far only viable principle, can be harnessed to make reproducibly a practical device producing excess energy continuously. We are all shooting in the dark at present which I hope will gradually change as we gain more and more experience both by trying to work on the current design and by exploring the principle in various other contraptions as you?ve decided to do. I?d rather try to deepen the understanding regarding one or a limited number of devices (like I said all these devices are based on the same underlying principles), especially when they seem to be governed by fewer parameters to explore, as @alsetalokin?s, and that?s why I?ll stay for now with this one and @xpenzif?s. People are different in their approach, however, and what is important is to achieve success even if someone like me would think that spreading out too thin doesn?t provide the shortest road for that. Good luck.