Magnetic Motors/OU

[billmehess]

I would appreciate a clear definition of a OU/Magnetic Motor device. If one has a device that will generate electricity enough to power itself with no external input plus enough to even light a LED does this meet the criteria. Please replay as I would like to post later this week.

[hartiberlin]

It would also be sufficient to power itsself with no additional
output, just overcome the normal frictional losses every motor has.
So showing a device that runs on its own energy without any hidden
power source.
Thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

[Gregory]

Yes, I agree with the definition. But I found a very interesting thing about all permanent magnetic motors:

The question is:
Does any operational all Permanent magnetic motor mean overunity?
I think, it doesn't.

Just think about... Imagine two magnets first. Now ask the question for yourself:
What is the relation / location where these magnets transmit the maximal mechanical energy while acting together?
Got the answer? The answer is: When attracted together, or placed near each other with NO airgap.

Next question: Where is the point where the field of a magnet produce the maximal force?
Is this point inside the material of the magnet?

And what is the power source of an all permanent magnetic motor? Nothing more just permanent magnets of course.

So with this starting point we can see:
When a self sustaining PM motor runs on its own power, it doesn't mean that runs on its all power, because it has air gaps while operate. So, we can't use all the power the magnets have. And this means we don't use 100% of the energy input.
And when we don't use 100% input we transfer only less than 100% magnetic energy into mechanical energy.

This mean the efficiency doesn't reach 100%. But doesn't mean the motor not run on its own power.
Yes, I guess it's can operate continously on its own power, but not on its all power. And this is one simple thing what's denote the viability of PM motors, I think, because their efficiency are below 100% while they're runnig in self sustaining mode and produce continuous mechanical energy with the use of only a part of their magnetic energy.

This is a very interesting thing...  However this is only my viewpoint.

And what do you think?


Best wishes, Greg

[Clarky]

I agree to some extent, but its more about coefficiency of performance. In an ideal device the user isn't having to input any energy other than the intial energy spent to setup the configuration, so therefore it is always overunity (COP > 1).

The main problem exists in misunderstanding of OU, efficiencey and COP. Also under this context it's insufficient to interpret a permanent magnet under classical electrodynamics and dismiss it as not being a potential source of power, as the model does not explain or address the source of the charge there after when you create the dipole. More importantly classical does not even consider the earth as an area of curved space time which was fine 100 or so years ago when it was first created, but is totally contradictory by todays scientific discoveries.

[moshulik]

How do I see an over unity magnet motor.
Let's take first gravity.
We have a 1 tone car on the level of the earth. Let's asume we have the power to switch off the gravity field under the mass. We then apply an impulse to the car to rise vertically. It will move with a constant speed with no more energy spent. When it reaches 10 meters let's say, we switch back on the gravity field. The car will have a potential energy that would be transformed into free energy as it falls down to earth. Of course the "switch" of the gravity field is still not "implemented", however, the energy for this switch would be constant to the mass that we use, so there will be OU, if we use a very large mass.

Now, let's get back to magnets. We can switch on/off magnetic field (not exactly on/off, but "low" and "high") simply by introducing a layer with magnetic permeability between the magnet and the target. So, we have a magnet and a metal ball at 3 cm distance. Also, we have a metal piece of let's say 5mm thick between them. The magnet starts to atract the ball. We conserve this energy into a spring. The ball is now at 1 cm to the magnet (with the metal plate between them). Now, we remove the metal plate. The magnetic field decreases and the ball returns, under the spring action, 1cm let's say (it is now at 2 cm to the magnet). Now we put the plate back between them - the ball is atracted again - and so on etc. etc....

The metal plates could be disposed as rays of a spinning wheel and the movement of it in front of the magnet would be "free of charge" from the magnet's point of view (there are sticky points, but we go over them we energy taken from the ball's movement).

The only question that remains is if the ball adds drag to the plate that is just moving the magnetic field.... So the plate enters the magnetic field easy, but leaves harder, since the ball acts now like a stronger magnet than in was when the plate came between them.

So... this is why I don't think that a permanent magnet motor could work. (Still, a few years ago nobody beleived that an object more dense than air could fly).

The succes is to find a way to "cut" the permanent magnetic field using a quantity of energy that does not depend on the object that interracts with the magnetic field.