Magnet motor in Argentina

[Omnibus]

What force move magnet M5 out of the ring?

M5 is the next magnet, so to move M5 away you need a force bigger than the repulsion of M4, becasuse M5 spring force sholud be equal or bigger than M5 repulsion force.

And again we are with the same problem M4 and M5 are the same strength...

The force to move M5 up comes from the combined repulsive forces of M1, M2 and M3 as well as, partially, M16 and M15. While lifting M5 magnet M4 is out of the picture (it?s lifted), therefore, M4 doesn?t exert any force. M4 starts exerting a force when it?s dropped right at the right moment, that is, when the three rotor magnets have moved to the next position facing three stator magnet. In such a case the force exerted by M4 is favorable for the rotation (recall what the role of M3 was when we first started ? it was favorable; now M4 has taken the role of M3).

[_GonZo_]

OK I give up  with you guys...

I am not a teacher of phisics, just an engeneer so I do not have the resources to teach you basiscs phisics...

I will think later how to build a simple machine like this for a cost of some little $ so you can build it and latter show mw how it works or doesn?t.

[Omnibus]

Hi Omnibus,
the first law is always correct, otherwise the universum
would have been collapsed.

We disagree on that. First principle (as well as the second) is due to purely empirical observations. Exceptions to it (if there are such ? I still haven?t seen one although I may appear here as arguing in favor of Torbay) would mean violation only in very special cases which will not affect the integrity of the world as we know it.

It is really just a conversion of 2nd law energies, that means
heat is converted to mechanical energy and then into electrical energy
and in the load back to heat, so it is just a cycle of heat being used very
efficiently.

Heat cannot be converted more efficiently to work than the Carnot cycle allows. The enthalpy dH always contains an entropy component TdS in addition to the free energy dG (free energy in the sense of Gibbs, not in the sense we use it here in this forum). Work is only due to ?dG while the part TdS is inevitably lost ? it can never be turned into useful work. This is what we know so far.

If, as you presume, the first principle is intact, then your supposition would imply that it is the quantity TdS that can be turned into useful work. Although this is in itself something blasphemous to state in the mainstream science it still is not enough, even if true, to account for the huge amounts of useful energy claimed to be produced by Torbay?s device.

[hartiberlin]

Okay, Omnibus, I disagree with you in this.
There are better conversion processes than the Carnot cycle,
especially with right turning circle processes  in PV diagrams.
There heat is converted on a 100 % efficiency to mechanical
energy,so it is a heat machine which does not need a heat sink,
just a heat source !

I still think all free energy machines just violate just the "second law".

[Omnibus]

OK. Let's agree to disagree. Let's discuss this at some future time in a different topic, not here. Too much to discuss here regarding Torbay and if we start another discussion within this one it may turn into a mess.

I'm just gonna mention again that I have not seen a convincing demo of an overunity magnetic motor yet (the most promising so far are those of Wesley Snyder and Torbay but I still haven't seen a clear cut experiment). What still keeps my interest in the subject (even if these turn out not to be viable) are the electrolysis of water in an undivided cell and the SMOT where I think production of excess energy does occur (continuous in the first and periodic in the second case). The principle of production of excess energy in these is not at the expense of the heat of the environment. And, to mention again, the claimed energy produced by Torbay is too much for it to be accounted for by cooling the environment.