This device is the real self-running overunity?

[NTesla]

After more closely viewing the videos, here are some points I noted:

1. One of the videos shows the disc magnets rotating as the rotor is turned. This opposes the view point of some that the magnets cannot or do not rotate.

2. The diameter of the disc magnets in relation to the diameter of the rotor would be very important in terms of torque in assisting rotor rotation.

3. Judging by the force required by Wendall (allegedly the guy in the video) to remove a wire end from one of the disc magnets, the disc magnets are rare earth magnets (i.e neodymium ).

4. I don't believe the use of magnetic bearings is crucial to this device however minimising friction in the bearings would definitely affect performance. Wendall spends alot of time talking about the bearings which surprised me since passive (and active) magnetic bearings are nothing new - he does not mention this terminology so presumably he does not know about it.

5. The distance between the disc magnets must be sufficient enough in the horizontal plane to prevent them being attracted/repulsed by each other. One way around this issue would be to vertically stagger them.

6. No proof of overunity exists. The first video allegedly showing a self running motor was not shown long enough in my opinion to demonstrate this. Subsequent videos always show the device under power and therefore it is logical to conclude that it is simply an electric motor/generator of an unconventional configuration.

7. Replicating this device looks relatively easy - the crucial thing would be getting wide enough disc magnets, correct magnet spacing, and smooth enough bearings (which in my experience are not cheap unless you can scrounge the parts from elsewhere).

Anyone keen to replicate it? 

[Airstriker]

i forgot to ask airstriker,,, you mention an attraction of the magnets to the coil.  with an aircore coil there should there be no "attraction" to it?  am i missing something?  are you shorting the coils to represent what i call "a full load".  and am i mistaken in the thought: the shorting of the coils creates the fullest of possible electrical load?

Yes, you're missing something When you move the magnet towards the coil (doesn't matter whether it's an air coil or a ferromagnetic core), the coil repulses the magnet. When you stop moving the magnet towards the coil, you can see no interaction. But when you move the magnet away from the coil, the coil attracts the magnet. That's just simply saying Lenz's Law. "An induced current is always in such a direction as to oppose the motion or change causing it". Of course we're talking about a loaded coil.

After more closely viewing the videos, here are some points I noted:

1. One of the videos shows the disc magnets rotating as the rotor is turned. This opposes the view point of some that the magnets cannot or do not rotate.

2. The diameter of the disc magnets in relation to the diameter of the rotor would be very important in terms of torque in assisting rotor rotation.

5. The distance between the disc magnets must be sufficient enough in the horizontal plane to prevent them being attracted/repulsed by each other. One way around this issue would be to vertically stagger them.

1. Which video? What timestamp ?

2 and 5. Can be easilily simulated in WorkingModel software. What I found is, the closer the magnets are to each other, the faster the rotor accelerates (you can see it in my video I've posted here). However, I don't know how the size of the rotor affects this. In my video the size of the rotor is constant. The question is also, how to accomodate the demand to keep the distance between the magnets small and also how to prevent them being attracted/repulsed by each other. I'm not 100% sure, but probably setting the magnets in repulsion mode (for example all magnets having N pole up and S pole down) should be enough. It should not affect their abillity to rotate. Am I right ?

[sm0ky2]

seems to me it is the load on the coils that create the BEMF that kicks the rotor.

@mijdtr

ok let me try to give my take on this..

when the magnet passes the coil, it induces an opposing magnetic field through the copper.
this sends a current through the wire, which runs to the Rectifier. (taking significant losses)
then is passed to the Motor on top. This is, by all sense of the term, a "full load".
Taking minor heat losses in the conversion, the DC motor transforms all remaining electricity into
rotational-motive force. This force is cause by a similar
but opposite induction through the DC motor coils, which
causes it to spin in repulsion to the magnets on the inside of the motor housing.

[I have to now quote Tesla in saying that its absolutely rediculous that we are converting A/C to DC, only to convert the DC back to A/C to drive the motor...
but,.. thats how DC motors work.. go figure..]

Now: The more current that is pushed through the DC motor, the faster it spins.
        The faster it spins, the more current is produced by the stator-coil
        Thus, the motor recieves "kicks" via electrical flow, each time the magnet passes the coil,
        which increases the speed of the next rotation, and so on.
This is  NOT "back-EMF". kicking the magnet from behind faster than its spinning passed the coil.....
although the two events would appear to occur at the same moment in "time"
around the rotational cycle.

Diameter is important, only in that the maximum diameter of the coil should be less than 1/2 of the spinning magnet.
or more clearly, less than or equal to the area-portion of the magnet that will be passing it.

(note: resistance limits current, thus the VR controls the speed of the drive-motor, and subsequently the "load")

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

i think a lot of people are getting hung up on the notion that back-emf "pulls" on the actual magnet. Which is an incorrect assumption. It pulls on the Field. 
With a stationary magnet, there is no difference.
but when the magnet is allowed to roll, or spin
    think about magnets that roll and spin......
magnetic rollers are common in many industries.
the Hammell spiner is a good example.

The magnetic field is not attached to a particular piece of the magnet. it pulls on the whole of the affected mass.
the field itself will twist and wrap around the magnet as it spins,
the force always being perpendicular to the affected area.
the coils field would litterally roll right off.

Draw it out, take the area of the passing magnet
and draw a series of perpendicular lines between magnet and coil as is passes. there is more force spinning it comming towards the coil, then there is pulling backwards on it as it leaves. and the force pulling backwards is NOT against the rotation of the device, but in the opposite direction on the spinning magnet.

[Airstriker]

Draw it out, take the area of the passing magnet
and draw a series of perpendicular lines between magnet and coil as is passes. there is more force spinning it comming towards the coil, then there is pulling backwards on it as it leaves. and the force pulling backwards is NOT against the rotation of the device, but in the opposite direction on the spinning magnet.

Would you be so kind and draw it ? Thanks in advance.

And actually it's also BEMF that's kicking the rotor to go faster. Not in a way that you said but indirectly. BEMF is making the magnets spin. The magnets increase their rotational speed. They accelerate. But their rotational speed is in reverse to the rotor's rotational speed. Due to this the rotor accelerates - law of conservation of angular momentum and Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions. Here you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3UsrfHa4MQ

Of course all of this is true if the magnets do really spin ;>

[sm0ky2]

i understand how you guys arrived at that conclusion, all im saying is i dont believe that is what it is.

take the large mass at rest, and spin the small magnet with your hands.
it can barely overcome the moment of inertia of the large disk, any movement achieved by this is minimal, and most likely overpowered by the force of the turning motor.
that type of inertial conversion i dont think would cause the machine to accelerate in any substantial manner, and cause it to explode.

You have to consider the fact that momentum is not only dependent upon angular velocity, but also MASS.