Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[Omnibus]

@Grimer,

I see you?re encouraging @Axle for his effort shown here: http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Axle001/DCP15851.jpg , which is in essence what also @ClaNZeR is trying to do with his tri-force setup, because he has achieved partial rotation. Unfortunately, partial rotation isn?t at all to be celebrated. I can show you almost full 360o rotation, self-starting, done in various ways but this isn?t to be considered a success at all. There?s this sticky spot at the end of this 360o turn which has to be overcome through proper overlaying of an external field. Paul Sprain does it with a brute force, as I?ve pointed out many times, creating that needed additional field by applying energy externally. This may be very practical but for the purposes of wide acceptance of these devices in the academia and at large it is crucial to find a way to superimpose properly an existing conservative field for the creation of which no external energy is spent or to have the device change the fields from within, due to its action. A device utilizing properly overlaid fields is Johannes Taisnierius? device (contemporary SMOT, that is) which is the only scientifically confirmed construction so far to produce, although discontinuously, energy out of no source. All the devices that have attracted real attention such as these of @xpenzif, Lego motor, @alsetalokin, Torbay, this one http://youtube.com/watch?v=98u1FAx9JkM etc. seem to function under these principles.

Of course, you can immediately show me this device: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dvlDEqf2pCc which is one of the most interesting I?ve seen so far. One may argue, however, that here as well there are two properly overlaid fields?one is the resultant set of potential troughs and hills, formed by the cooperative action of the stator magnets and the other formed by the magnets of the rotor.

These are just about the only experiments so far that deserve attention and all of them need at least two mutually assisting fields of proper form and properly overlaid (or changing due to the action of the device itself).

[couldbe]

There?s this sticky spot

Isn't there always?

at the end of this 360o turn which has to be overcome through proper overlaying of an external field.

In other words, none of these gadgets is OU.

[Omnibus]

There?s this sticky spot

Isn't there always?

at the end of this 360o turn which has to be overcome through proper overlaying of an external field.

In other words, none of these gadgets is OU.

All of these gadgets are OU, so far only the Johannes Taisnierius' being confirmed scientifically. As for the sticky spot or spots which always exists or exist, these can only be overcome by properly superimposing additional conservative fields or by constructively allow for changing the field from within the device. Taisnierius' device is the simplest model which allows one to understand how this proper ovelaying occurs and how it assists in overcoming the sticky spot.

[sm0ky2]

here is a very simple demonstration of OU using these types of devices.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yMoIExJEaBU

you can place a projectile launching mechainsm over the neodyium sphere magnet. and have a release lever, to let go of the projectile at an area just before the track ends.
place the projectile cart  just outside the influence field at the edge of the repelling zone.
strike it with an impact pendulum of known force. very simple - Energy In

the cart flies down the track, hits the switch, your projectile goes flying through the air.
you angle the launcher at a set angle. and simple ballistics equations gives you your energy out.

[0c]

@Grimer,

I see you?re encouraging @Axle for his effort shown here: http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x165/Axle001/DCP15851.jpg , which is in essence what also @ClaNZeR is trying to do with his tri-force setup, because he has achieved partial rotation. Unfortunately, partial rotation isn?t at all to be celebrated. I can show you almost full 360o rotation, self-starting, done in various ways but this isn?t to be considered a success at all. There?s this sticky spot at the end of this 360o turn which has to be overcome through proper overlaying of an external field. Paul Sprain does it with a brute force, as I?ve pointed out many times, creating that needed additional field by applying energy externally. This may be very practical but for the purposes of wide acceptance of these devices in the academia and at large it is crucial to find a way to superimpose properly an existing conservative field for the creation of which no external energy is spent or to have the device change the fields from within, due to its action. A device utilizing properly overlaid fields is Johannes Taisnierius? device (contemporary SMOT, that is) which is the only scientifically confirmed construction so far to produce, although discontinuously, energy out of no source. All the devices that have attracted real attention such as these of @xpenzif, Lego motor, @alsetalokin, Torbay, this one http://youtube.com/watch?v=98u1FAx9JkM etc. seem to function under these principles.

Of course, you can immediately show me this device: http://youtube.com/watch?v=dvlDEqf2pCc which is one of the most interesting I?ve seen so far. One may argue, however, that here as well there are two properly overlaid fields?one is the resultant set of potential troughs and hills, formed by the cooperative action of the stator magnets and the other formed by the magnets of the rotor.

These are just about the only experiments so far that deserve attention and all of them need at least two mutually assisting fields of proper form and properly overlaid (or changing due to the action of the device itself).

@Omnibus,

There are two subtle differences between the TriGate and WhipMag and the other devices you compare them to. The Torbay and Sprain devices use only one magnetic relationship (repulsion or attraction) and make use of only one magnetic pole. The WhipMag and Trigate use both repulsion and attraction simultaneously, using both poles to achieve positive motion.

And the SMOT is not even in the same class.