Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[TinselKoala]

Where's the asymmetric "pull" in that picture, that would be required to make it turn, and keep turning?
It is clearly what we call a "non-starter".


(But don't believe me, PROVE ME WRONG, I'm the Evil Skeptic, who single-handedly prevents Magnet Motors and Gravity Wheels and Buoyancy Drives from freeing the world from the Tyranny of Oil.  Just go ahead and buy some magnets, hire a machinist, build it yourself. Doesn't "quite" work yet? Well, maybe a few more magnets, or bigger, or shielding, or a strategically-placed electromagnet will get it going--just keep changing the design, buying more magnets and eventually you'll understand a subtle fact:
just why this thread, and so many others like it, have dried up: Magnetism is conservative, and so is gravity; you get out what you put in, minus losses.)

[hartiberlin]

Hey everyone...

I'm not sure why this thread is drying up like it is, this is a fascinating discovery.  Is there anyway this would work?  As you can see in this top-view picture, if you have a rotor (the 'cross' shaped object) and the stator (the ring of plate sections), would the rotor spin fairly freely because the magnets are never leaving the steel, thus no 'wanting to stick' to it effect?

http://nullium.fileave.com/ou.jpg

I guess in this configuration the forces would cancel each other out.

The iron cores really must repell each other and MOVE to do the work.

Regards, Stefan.

[Blainiac]

I see what you are saying Stephan. If the areas where the flux are going through (the blue areas) are where the expanded plates are, could one attach some kind of drive thing on each set of plates to push the rotor (the x looking thing) around?

http://nullium.fileave.com/ou.jpg

[Blainiac]

Where's the asymmetric "pull" in that picture, that would be required to make it turn, and keep turning?
It is clearly what we call a "non-starter".


(But don't believe me, PROVE ME WRONG, I'm the Evil Skeptic, who single-handedly prevents Magnet Motors and Gravity Wheels and Buoyancy Drives from freeing the world from the Tyranny of Oil.  Just go ahead and buy some magnets, hire a machinist, build it yourself. Doesn't "quite" work yet? Well, maybe a few more magnets, or bigger, or shielding, or a strategically-placed electromagnet will get it going--just keep changing the design, buying more magnets and eventually you'll understand a subtle fact:
just why this thread, and so many others like it, have dried up: Magnetism is conservative, and so is gravity; you get out what you put in, minus losses.)

Haha, I completely understand that gravity and magnetism are conservative, and it drives me crazy how if you try to get something to go in one area, energy is somehow conserved in another spot...  I found this out with Wankel designs, so I know what you're talking about...

The diagram is very bad, the mechanism that "pulls" (pushes in this design) is actually the ring-like STATOR structure in this:

http://nullium.fileave.com/ou.jpg

Each set of stacked plates in the blue area are going to push a rod up, and each set of plates set on a crankshaft or something are going to keep it going...    (yeah right)  I was just wondering if since my experiments show that the magnets obviously want to stick to the steel plates when trying to pull the magnets away from them, if you could just always have the magnets in the same amount of steel plates around them, so this stick won't occur, allowing the magnet ROTOR (the cross thing) to spin freely...  God I need a good 3D diagram... 

[newton2]

Hello Honoured Profiles
and The Honoured Administrator
of This The Honourable OVER-UNITY-Forum  !

And my especially meant : HELLO to the most recently
written REPLIES of the Honoured Profiles....from The
Blainiac ,
Hartiberlin / Administrator ,
Tinselkoala

Might I kindly briefly and mostly meant as an in-passionate Science/Technics Words-Line
then just write about :

==>> The very "Definition" of :
==>>
==>> CONSERVATIVE  FORCE-FIELD
==>> suggested as a "Suitable Users Definition"  in Classical Mechanics is NOT.......NOT  !!.....
==>> ............
==>> reliably founded , though just "POSTULATED" ;
==>> in Elder Physics-Litteratures/Theses then the socalled Classical H-Magnetical-Field is
==>> "TERMED" as to be : 
==>>  NON-Conservative in "Its Properties" .........
==>>  with formal Reference -->> to i.e.  CLOSED-PATHS-LOOP-INTEGRAL-"over"-
==>> [ H-force acting on a socalled H-Pole as moved in Close-Loops-Paths in a H-Force-Lines-
==>> Field.... ]...!!
==>> (most briefly explanatively written though.......for a little-more-complex) 

---------------------------------------------------------

(And also as an in-passionate CO-notice : The Relativistical Theories "should" indeed make many
  "Possible" Methods for OU , IF-THOUGH-ELSE THe Relativistical Theories "ARE" so "TRUE" and "once-for-all"-Proven .........though The Relativistical Theories are NOT so "reliable" nor "usable"..
instead of Founding Methods for OU and for SPACE-DRIVE , then ONLY "generate" LOTS of "PRIZES" and "Degrees"......!!) 
----------------------------------------------------------

I have been most busy to fulfill my Science/Technics Results , so thus delayed :

In soon Time I will kindly "attach" a rough handmade Sketch about :
Classical H-fields-lines if in "Free Space" ......;
and if when located mu-r-objects are .......etc....etc....!!
-------------------------------------------------------------

WKR & have Yourselves a nice Day and a pleasant Winter and
Y 2009 HAS TO BE THE YEAR OF PUBLIC-ANNOUNCING ABOUT OU-METHODS.....!!
ULTIMO MOMENTO.....!
For if NOT , THÈN ELSE several Generations´s Persons´s Hardlabored Workings for researching
for OU  WILL BE LOST.......!!