Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[JFK]

Actually I have watched many of his 451 youtube videos.

I partially agree with only one of those which is totally off topic for a board such as this one.
Nevertheless I won't cite him because of the way he presents his "knowledge".

If you read the comments in the youtube I posted, he admits to taking a bullet in the back....
My question is why only one.

[tinu]

@omnibus,
I?ve been proved to be incompetent exactly in the same degree as you proved that CoE is violated: not at all.
And I?ve told you to talk to somebody else, haven?t I? Talk to people that will buy your crap, ok? You have absolutely nothing to tell to me. Get used to it and make yourself happy.

@JFK,
The proof that alsetalokin video is faked is long posted into this very thread. I?ve seen it at least twice. It?s just that either the proof was not observed (which I strongly doubt) or it is rather not commented because of other reasons.
Anyway, take Desertphile beyond what he seems to be at a first glance. It?s not that he is right (although he actually is), but his multi-facet way of thinking and elementary simple but nonetheless true arguments are actually genial. He is caustic but all MF fakers deserve it and much worst. It?s high-class reaction to somewhat that otherwise would not even worth commenting if not becoming a plague of our times and a miserable game of deceiving.

Now, where the f*** is the next PMM?

Cheers,
Tinu

[Omnibus]

@tinu,

Like I said, you've proven you're not qualified to make such pronouncements. In addition, no one nowhere has proved @alsetalokin's video is faked. Stating that is only a product of your unqualified way of thinking which you mustn't impose on others. Especially, restrain from advocating an obvious idiot and a retard such as @Desertphile because you're just unqualified, which may change, and shouldn't stoop to the pathetic lows of the likes of @Desertphile. You don't belong there.

[sm0ky2]

as much as i disagree with Desertphiles tactics, and illigocal arguments...

the fact that Al MAY HAVE produced an artificial video, and subsequent mayhem, of hundreds of people tryin to replicate the device,  is becomming more of a likely situation.

lets look at the non-divisible ratio of RPM between rotor and stator.
8 magnetic (mono)poles vs 1 magnetic dipole.

Start from any position, and follow this sequence around the rotor, look at where the stator is.
There s not any starting position you can begin at, with that ratio of RPM, and provide 2 kicks per rotation. - complete waste of hours of calculating circles, to resolve this, but at present i had no other method, than to use the available information.
2 kicks are the minimum necessary for continuous rotation (negating losses).
to overcome these losses, AND increase speed of the rotor/stator(s), the must be at least THREE kicks in the directions of mutual rotation.
Anything less than this will subject your rotor and stator to negative repulsion forces during each rotation,  and eventually bring the cycle to an end.

the maximum "kicks" per rotation with ths device is 4. which i have replicated 3 times, under varying magnetic flux densities
(and a 4th time using a 10-sided rotor, as per someones suggestion about pentagons occuring in nature)

With 4 equivalent "kicks", there are 4 equal/opposite "pulls" which balances out the system.
Thus: Al's motor must have 2 or 3 kicks, to be sustainable, or produce an acceleration.
This does not coincide with the ratio of RPMs, and the circumference of the two interacting magnetic fields.
I was hoping to have actual pictures of the rotor/stator interaction - but apparently the "stobe" effect prevents us from making an accurate video recording of this relationship. s any analsys of the original video from this perspective, is futile.
So i have worked this from 720 starting points around the circumference of circle, each 0.5-degrees apart, this was all done at the original (allgedly accurate) RPM reported directly from AL.
he stated that the RPM of the stator was 5316, and the rotor was at 1337.  This was obtained from a diferent type of tachometer than the one in the video. He later came back and corrected these values to say 5360/1340  or 4:1 - which i have already proven does not work, because of the synchronization.
Digg made a video of a perfectly synchronized rotor/stator combo, to demonstrate this.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Could_Alsetalokin_Have_Been_Right
So for my calculations i used the values Al gave, when he performed testing of the device.
5316/1337 - under the assumption that the portion % error from the tach was constant on both readings, and therefore the values represented are proportional to the real (+/- human error.)

There is no way to provide motive force with the reported ratios.
the best is an apparent pattern of 1 compression+"kick" about every 17 rotations.
which is would require roughly 900% energy input into the system to sustain rotation.


Therefore:  I hereby conclude by the logicalities of Euclidian deduction - that one of the following MUST be true:

1) Al's video is a "fake" - or has an external powersource, unknown to the inventor, such as a near-by EMF
or

2)  Al's proported RPM of either Stator, Rotor or Both has been Falsified or reported Innacurately.


That being said - We must look forward, If this device is even workable - we MUST know the proper proportion of RPM between rotor and stator.

--  This should be evident to those of you who have "matched" rotational speed of the original device attempting to achcieve "AGW" lock.

If i were to proceed at this point - it would have to be nothing less than a DIRECT CONVERSATION with AL himself, to determine which of the above statements is actually the case.

I have already pointed out 2 instances where AL intentionally fed replicators incorrect information. For reasons only HE knows.  perhaps the incorrect RPM ratio was another of these, to throw us off? - there are reports that he wants to market his device...

but then again, if he was faking it, he would not know the proper ratio to being with.

[Yadaraf]

as much as i disagree with Desertphiles tactics, and illigocal arguments...

the fact that Al MAY HAVE produced an artificial video, and subsequent mayhem, of hundreds of people tryin to replicate the device,  is becomming more of a likely situation.

lets look at the non-divisible ratio of RPM between rotor and stator.
8 magnetic poles vs 2 magnetic poles.

Start from any position, and follow this sequence around the rotor, look at where the stator is.
There s not any starting position you can begin at, with that ratio of RPM, and provide 2 kicks per rotation.
2 kicks are the minimum necessary for continuous rotation (negating losses).
to overcome these losses, AND increase speed of the rotor/stator(s), the must be at least THREE kicks in the directions of mutual rotation.
Anything less than this will subject your rotor and stator to negative repulsion forces during each rotation,  and eventually bring the cycle to an end.

the maximum "kicks" per rotation with ths device is 4. which i have replicated 3 times, under varying magnetic flux densities
(and a 4th time using a 10-sided rotor, as per someones suggestion about pentagons occuring in nature)

With 4 equivalent "kicks", there are 4 equal/opposite "pulls" which balances out the system.
Thus: Al's motor must have 2 or 3 kicks, to be sustainable, or produce an acceleration.
This does not coincide with the ratio of RPMs, and the circumference of the two interacting magnetic fields.
I was hoping to have actual pictures of the rotor/stator interaction - but apparently the "stobe" effect prevents us from making an accurate video recording of this relationship.
So i have worked this octagon from 720 starting points around the circle, each 0.5-degrees apart,
There is no way to provide motive force with the reported ratios.

Therefore:  I hereby conclude by the logicalities of Euclidian deduction - that one of the following MUST be true:

1) Al's video is a "fake" - or has an external powersource, unknown to the inventor, such as a near-by EMF
or

2)  Al's proported RPM of either Stator, Rotor or Both has been Falsified or reported Innacurately.


That being said - We must look forward, If this device is even workable - we MUST know the proper proportion of RPM between rotor and stator.

--  This should be evident to those of you who have "matched" rotational speed of the original device attempting to achcieve "AGW" lock.

If i were to proceed at this point - it would have to be nothing less than a DIRECT CONVERSATION with AL himself, to determine which of the above statements is actually the case.

I have already pointed out 2 instances where AL intentionally fed replicators incorrect information. For reasons only HE knows.  perhaps the incorrect RPM ratio was another of these, to throw us off? - there are reports that he wants to market his device...

but then again, if he was faking it, he would not know the proper ratio to being with.

sm0ky2,

Al made a subtle observation concerning proper operation of his device: there cannot be any stray metal near the device -- even tiny screwdrivers are bad.

I wonder how many replicators have followed this advice.  Even with the TriForce I am constantly reminding myself to isolate the device.

Cheers 

Yada..
.