Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tugger (shortly: AMT)
Short video of testing of magnetomotive behaviors of
prototype at: http://youtu.be/RfwOWbvO9GU
"Above is drawing where green vectors indicates direction of
magnetomotive forces measured along plane of interaction
of magnetomotive train build of three AMTs. Near placed
magnetic fields integrate and vectors of forces..."
I have disclosed the conceptual designs of AMTs at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers
Now everybody can read about it, make own experiments and discussing it here on the OVERUNITY.
Taras Leskiv - the inventor of Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers.
Design of Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers allows building of count-parallel Magnetomotive Trains and autonomous Magnetomotive Fields Propulsion Systems.
Attached here picture shows section of Magnetomotive Fields Propulsion System where Magnets continuously producing magnetic flux which is
continuously absorbing, conducting and re-emitting by Ferromagnetic Conducting Loops having its walls covered by Dia-magnetic Deflecting Lattices which continuously incline flux so that vectors of magnetomotive forces along Lattices become parallel to each others and un-perpendicular to outer walls of Propulsion System.
Too bad it doesn't work. Your video shows it returning only the energy you have stored in the "magnetic spring" by your "cocking" of the device with your hand.
You have invented yet another "SMOT" that gives back only the energy you put into it. Your field line drawings are wrong, and there is no net propulsive force around the loop.
If you look at my work with the Simple NON Overunity Toy called "HappyFunBall" you will see how you can determine the kinetic energy of your rotor and whether or not any of your magnet arrangements are helping or hurting your performance. But for your device it is even simpler than SNOT.
Take away all the "stator magnets" from your device, and spin the rotor, whose mass you know, to a measured RPM using some external power source. This will allow you to know the Kinetic Energy of the spinning rotor. Time the time it takes for the rotor to come to a stop once you remove the driving power. Now you can calculate the _power dissipation_ of the baseline, rotor-only configuration. Then you can put your stator magnets back in place. Now spin the rotor up to the same RPM as before and start your timer. Does it take longer to come to a stop now, or does it come to a stop faster?
Get the idea? If you can show _any_ arrangements of rotor/stator magnets that takes _longer_ to run down from a known RPM than the simple, rotor-only test... then I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 30, 2014, 09:48:49 AM
Your field line drawings are wrong,
« Reply: Your field line drawings are wrong... »
All published by me drawings of geometries of magnetomotive forces - are results of numerous and careful measurements of magnitudes and directions of forces. If you state that my measurements are wrong, than please, place here photo of your measured results of similar magnetomotive structure, or place here a link to explanations of such measurements.
Also I shall learn about your "Toy called "HappyFunBall" to determine your technical level - such considering how to answer to the rest of your statements and suggestions.
Thanks for replay, TinselKoala.
You need to know my "technical level" in order for you to understand and perform the following simple test... which I will wager you have _never done_?
QuoteTake away all the "stator magnets" from your device, and spin the rotor, whose mass you know, to a measured RPM using some external power source. This will allow you to know the Kinetic Energy of the spinning rotor. Time the time it takes for the rotor to come to a stop once you remove the driving power. Now you can calculate the _power dissipation_ of the baseline, rotor-only configuration. Then you can put your stator magnets back in place. Now spin the rotor up to the same RPM as before and start your timer. Does it take longer to come to a stop now, or does it come to a stop faster?
Now, please tell my what MY "technical level" has to do with YOU performing and reporting this simple test.
Having trouble finding my videos? Here's a couple of illustrations of my "technical level", to help you decide whether I am worthy enough to criticize your apparatus:
HappyFunBall SNOT with Arduino display of velocity and Kinetic Energy of ball. (recent work from a few months ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4num28k4EnA)
The Mylow HJMotor test bed, unpowered rundown calibration run. (from several years ago)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mhs5nnRSB4
With a device containing a rotor (instead of a ball) and stator magnets, the process of determining the KE of the moving rotor, what its power dissipation per turn is, and how much energy must be added by any "gate" or "stator" arrangement for the rotor to turn perpetually, is essentially the same as what I've done here. By weighing the ball accurately and measuring its velocity as it goes through my sensing gate, I know the ball's KE at that instant. Your computation will be a little more complicated since you are dealing with an odd-shaped rotating rotor, but I'm sure your "technical level" is up to calculating the rotor's MoI from masses and geometries. Hence you will know, just as I know for my SNOT, your rotor's dissipation of mechanical energy as it turns. Hence you will know just how much energy you need to replace, "from somewhere", for your rotor to keep turning. Now, when you place your stators in place and perform an "unpowered rundown" you will be able to see, very easily, whether or not your stator assemblies hurt or help.
Or, if you have a system like I have in HappyFunBall SNOT, you can know exactly what energy you need to supply to your (stators removed) rotor to keep it rotating at a constant RPM. Then, with stators in place, supplying this same energy from outside, you will see (I predict) a slower stable RPM than you saw without the stators in place.
I predict that your stators will actually _slow down_ your rotor, by adding drag; they will never increase its speed or Kinetic Energy.
Now.... let's try to determine what _your_ "technical level" really is. It should take no more than an afternoon for you to perform and video this simple test, and you don't even need any fancy instrumentation like an Arduino and a photocell. You just need some way to apply the same starting input energy to the rotor each time (I'm sure your "technical level" is up to this challenge; if not, I or others here can help you with that) and an accurate method of timing the rundown times. (Even the videocamera's time stamp or frame rate will be sufficiently accurate here.)
Are you asking me about your favorite method of testing, or you stating
that something is "to bad" because that you do not know about achieved results of all different testing including you favorite one?
Is not it logical to ask before and conclude after knowing the results?
Also, I can not find your publications on "artificial geometries of
magnetomotive forces".
Now I shall learn your explanations of your "Toy called "HappyFunBall",
which you encourage to look at - as an argument of your statements.
Just be cool TinselKoala, and do not forget in-scripting links to referred
documents.
Perhaps you can explain just what is wrong with my suggested test above, and why you won't perform it.
And perhaps you cannot.
I predict, again, that your rotor, without any stators, will take longer to run down from a known RPM, than it will take to run down from the same RPM with all your stators in place. This test will show, I predict, that your magnet arrangement is creating _drag_, not providing any advantage.
If you think otherwise, it would be a simple matter for you to PROVE ME WRONG by doing the test yourself, and publishing the video showing your work.
You can insult me all you like, but until you provide some actual data supporting your claims, nobody will believe you. I've given you a very simple experiment to perform that would go a _long way_ towards supporting your claims IF you could only show a longer rundown time with stators than without. But of course.... you cannot.
I don't care one whit about your simulation results or your explanations. Just show me the results from a _REAL EXPERIMENT_ where you compare relevant conditions to see their effects. Don't worry about me.... I won't be holding my breath waiting for real data from you.
Why should I worry about someone who can not behave self nicely.
I've started this topic for discussion of:
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers - which are devices producing artificial and utilizable
geometries of magnetomotive forces explained on my web-site at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/
geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers
Occasionally I'd like to discuss similar structures of complex magnetic permeability.
The article explaining of constructions and functions of said AMTs include explanation of
magnetomotive trains and two (out of numerous) testing of proof-of-concept prototypes,
which I consider valuable and worth for discussion here. All other testings I consider of
lesser values and unworthy for any considerations.
If you or someone else will ask me why these testing are more important than others - than
I'll gladly explain why. If you or someone else want to discuss something else than I recomend to
do it elsewhere.
QuoteNow everybody can read about it, make own experiments and discussing it here on the OVERUNITY.
Taras Leskiv - the inventor of Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers.
Sound familiar?
You refuse to perform the simple experiment I described. This means to me that you _know_ that there is nothing unusual, nothing in the least bit "overunity" about your device. You don't want to "discuss" or to "experiment", really, you just want people to go "ooh" and "ahh" for you.
When someone with "technical level" challenges you, you do what every other bogus claimant does: Instead of performing simple, proper experiments that illustrate the validity of your claims, you refuse to cooperate and you start in with the insults. Let me tell you something: How I behave has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the fact that YOU aren't providing support for your contentions, and the other fact that YOU are refusing to perform a simple experiment that would actually test your claims.
QuoteAll other testings I consider of
lesser values and unworthy for any considerations.
In other words, any testings that _actually test_ your claims..... you consider unworthy. Here you place yourself into your own chosen category: Magnet motor builders who refuse to do anything that might potentially falsify their contentions.
Why are you so afraid to perform the simple test I outlined for you? Isn't your "technical level" up to it? Or.... is it because you KNOW already what will happen? Why don't you take this excellent opportunity to PROVE ME WRONG? I know why.... it is because you cannot.
Out of that large collection of sentences, you've produced above - I conclude that you have not read my publication where testing of prototypes are explained, instead you are reflecting on "watching" of supplemental videos which you have interpolated with your own experience.
Not willing to copy part of web-page here - I only explain that presented testing produced by placing of parallel magnetomotive trains so that its middles are coinciding what cause clock-wise motion of rotor, and when middles are manually returned to coincide, than clock-wise motion is produced again. If middle of rotor is manually forced count-clock-wise then rotor always moves clock-wise, what does not occur when this middle stays oppositely. This manifest asymmetry of magnetomotive potentials produced by AMTs which produce artificial geometry of magnetic fields between rotor and stator where most vectors of forces are uniformly tangential to radius of rotor what causes generation of torque.
I have to say, It seemed pretty much insulting to me how ageofm's Topic was nullified in the 2nd posting. Although I had no success in using diamagnets to obtain that imbalance, it sounds interesting. You can't just say "uh, you are unwilling to disassemble your device to do my experiment, so you must be a scammer". That's just not fair. Even tho, if a rotor does brake more in one direction than in the other does not prove OU, it is nevertheless highly interesting behaviour in a device that has only magnetical contact between stator and rotor (other than the axis).
Quote of TinselCoala from above:
<<You refuse to perform the simple experiment I described.>>
This Topic was started as supplemental to my publication, because that published
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers are explained in words supposed to be
understandable for general audience, and its very naturally that some people could need
additional explanations, such posting questions here.
Those argues with TinselCoala allowed me to realize that the web-site-explanation of
proof-of-concept devices - can be better with simple drawing-scheme representing three
different stages of experiments manifesting three different magnetomotive potentials.
Hence I have produced such scheme attached below.
Drawing consists of three simplified representations of 4-AMTs units of train secured
stationary and 3-AMTs units train allowed to move parallel to static train. Green lines
between trains indicates directions of magnetomotive forces between trains, and arrows
indicate direction of motion resulting from attraction between trains of opposite magnetic
polarities.
The uppermost scheme of drawing demonstrates that dynamic train moves left-ward when
right-edges of both trains are aligned, and bottom scheme - demonstrates that alignment of
left-edges of trains manifest zero-magnetomotive-potential. Most important is middle-scheme
of drawing where middles of trains are aligned and dynamic train manifests motion
left-ward... During testings of numerous simplier vertions of AMTs - similar testing were
manifesting motionless trains when its middles were coinsiding, and currently achieved
results mean that it is not necessary to conduct comparative testings by revolving rotor
clock-wise and count-clock-wise, or comparing rotors revolution with- and without stator.
Comparative testing is already unnecessary because that numerous and various prototypes
have produced direct manifestations which can be perceived directly without application of
deductive methods.
U-u-h! Instead of wasting time by entertains of TinselCoala - I decide to continue on
improvements of AMTs for achieving greater inclination of magnetomotive forces and
decreasing weight of current versions... then I plan to build full-scale prototypes of different
variants of different utilities.
If someone is building or deciding to build any experimental models of constructions of
complex magnetic permeability - than I'll be glad to learn about results, and glad to share my
experience achieved through last ten years of building and measuring of thousands of
variants of said constructions.
If what you believe about your system is true, then it would be trivial to arrange it in a circle and produce a continuously-running device. But you cannot.
All you have actually done is to place two magnets in attraction, and restricted their possible motions by your mechanical arrangement. What I say is still True: your system does not produce a continuous unidirectional thrust, it only attracts to a magnetic potential "valley" and sticks there. It returns the energy you put in by "cocking" it, and nothing more.
IF your system produced any excess energy, or created a real unidirectional thrust, you could show it very easily AND UNEQUIVOCALLY by doing the simple experiment I suggested. It would take you less time and effort to do it, than you put into your last post. But you won't... because you know that your claims are false.
Or, if you like, you could explain why my suggested experiment _won't_ show your excess energy or unidirectional thrust, even though you believe it to be there... thus giving you a reasonable excuse for not performing it.... and adding greatly to the amusement of the more knowledgeable readers here.
Ten years and thousands of constructions.... and you still haven't built a self-runner? You still haven't been able to close the simple loop, just by wrapping "P1" around into a circle? You still have not provided ANY force measurements, any energy measurements, any real data? I feel sorry for you, wasting all that time and money.
To be honest, Koala, I am not sure if the wheell would ever have been invented if you were around back then ;D . This is discouraging, where persistence is required.
Not long ago, diamagnetic levitation or the levitron was considered and declared impossible and violating eg. maxwells "laws". We are human, we change the rules. We fly, we transmutate elements, we defibrilate the dead... We change the rules. And one day we may have a working PMM. Maybe not, but we need to keep on experimenting. I don't see less sense in it than in, eg. playing with an RC Helicopter.
As I see, there are those diamagnetic elements, they may add a factor that is capable of adding a twist to the parallelisation tendency of the ferromagnetic field. And with such a twist, even a static fields arrangement may cause a torque.
Update: I have just observed an anomaly with diamagnetic graphite that makes this tugger much more plausible. You may repeat this experiment with only s pencil and a magnet. Yet to be verified tho. See here:
www.overunity.com/14274/turn-off-a-pm-strategies/new/#new
It is cool that you are doing such seemingly impractical investigations of tiny effects, because that tiny unnoticed things are only things left after centuries of massive investments into academies. In case of AMTs discussing here - I am interesting in changeless magnetic fields where distances between ferromagnetic and diamagnetic comonents are changeless and both vectors and magnitudes of magnetomotive forces are permanent. I tested many carbon based materials and found them acting similar to others diamagnetics and found that there great number of different compositions having vary diferent indices of magnetic susceptability varying from minus ten to minus hundreds for pyrolytic carbon.
Though interesting is your noticing that moving magnet producing multiple or complex effects - here I support your suggestion that also electrostatic forces could be manifesting along with weak magnetomechanical effects and carbon could form sort of domains capable to change its electic polarisation.
Plus... I've even seen videos where man has slab of carbon for levitation of strong magnet above that slab - what means that forces are sufficient to hover mass of magnet itself. Also, internet has many videos where tiny pyrocarbon plates hovering over sets of magnets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Carbon_forms
That's right, pyrolytic graphite is often used for diamagnetic levitation.
Extreme diamagnetism has a diamond, at least in theory, like 10000, compared to 100 of Pyrolytic carbon, but when I tried it with a tiny diamond, it didn't perform more than graphite. I think it really is a diamond (uncut, 2mm cubus crystal) and no fake, as I was able to scratch a ruby with it.
Also very interesting in terms of diamagnetism: Nanotubes and Graphene...
Regarding mentioned here diamagnetic materials acting within magnetic flux:
1. it seams more practical - to analyze diamagnetics with application of lists or
tables of magnetic susceptibility (not permeability) where more negative indices
are associated with materials having properties of "stronger expulsion" of magnetic flux
and sort of repulsion of magnet itself;
2. it seams more practical to analyze magnetic flux as phenomena subscribed by
theories of wave-particle duality where many manifestations allow to suggest that,
partially, flux behave similar to flows (of gas or liquids) manifesting behaviors
subscribed by formalizm of wave-mechanics such as refraction etc....
doing so you can contemplate that its more practical to experiment with thin plates
intersecting large portion of applied magnetic fields, - instead of application of same
bulk-mass of materials in shape of rods, cubes or balls - intersecting small part
of applied magnetic flux. Weight-to-surface ratios are important and can be somehow
interpolated with spread large but thin sails of a ship producing sufficient propulsion
while rolled-up sails cause that a ship is relatively motionless -
however mass of sails is the same.
I am observing a graphite pendulum, that hangs close to a microwave oven ring magnet. I push it slightly. It remains in motion for a extraordonary long time. However, as it swings closer to the ringmagnet, it often does not swing away again in the exact mirrored angle, but swings away in random angles +- 70 degrees of what is expected from plain action/reaction... very strange.
BTW. I agree with the surface vs fieldstrength thesis.
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers have been improved and successfully tested!
Enjoy reading about it at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers/asymmetric-magnetomotive-panels
Also watch video of testing of prototype at:
http://youtu.be/ko9sIwvp024
Or, simply enjoy photo of one of prototypes here and ... comment, discuss, ask, suggest ... or even try to build your own structures of complex magnetic permeability.
@ageofmagnetizm:
I'm impressed with your experiments and development! I hope that when you finish the "loop" (ie wheel) that it doesn't kill the effect. . . .
Please keep us posted with your continued work ~ both good results and bad :)
truesearch
@truesearch
Thanks for sharing optimizm. I feel lot of power for carrying on my research,
just want my blisters to fade away during summer vacation.
I also understand your tiny portion of pesimizm about "wheel" because that
this will smash out many of basic axioms we are prospering on.
Would you please suggest which effect could be "killed" when in "loop"?
@ageofmagnetizm:
Based on your webpage explaining the "AMT" I notice that your representation of a magnet is like this (field-lines drawn similar to "radiating" lines):
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/_/rsrc/1387704527294/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers/TUGGERMAGNET.JPG
I rather think that magnet "field-lines" MUST travel between the SOUTH and NORTH poles of the magnet like the traditional drawings for a magnet:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/VFPt_cylindrical_magnet_thumb.svg/220px-VFPt_cylindrical_magnet_thumb.svg.png
It maybe inccorrect but my opinion is that if the "field-lines" are COMPLETELY broken (no return path) then the magnet will immediately stop being a manget. . .
Now, the problem that MIGHT happen is that once you have a complete "wheel" that there will be no possible way for any return "field-lines" and then the magnetic force will stop pushing/tugging to make continual motion. . . I REALLY hope I'm wrong and that your design will work.
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/_/rsrc/1387706258891/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers/TUGGERSTRAINSFIELD.JPG
Please understand that I respect your experiments and SINCERELY hope that your build is a "self-runner".
Wishing you the best! And keep us posted ~ if it works or not :)
truesearch
ageofmagnetizm, If you haven't seen it yet there is some new research and a free ebook (PDF) on "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17560-uncovering-missing-secrets-magnetism-92-pages-free-new-book.html
Also of interest by the same author is another message thread here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19554-free-energy-thats-been-hiding-under-your-noses-faraday-maxwell-themselves.html
titled : 'Free energy' thats been hiding under your noses from Faraday and Maxwell themselves
The author of the book (who is the person writing in those message threads) says he has every book on magnetism on the planet and has done extensive research on the true nature of magnetism and is explaining it in ways that mainstream science has failed to do. You may find some information of interest to you.
@truesearch
Thanks for this question.
Never thought that my sketches of geometry of magnetic fields can be
comprehend so different.
Indeed my drawings are some different from similar conventional systems.
When I compare two images of fields of bar magnets from my report and
drawing of "cylindrical magnet" which you've scripted here, - than I see
that both have "fields lines" indicating directions of magnetomotive forces
round magnets. Both images have these lines suddenly interrupted, but on yours -
painted lines discontinue at the edges of image, and on mine - painted green vectors
discontinue by semi-circular contour-lines which indicate equipotential planes where all measured forces are equal in magnitude. If measuring device is calibrating
for higher sensitivity - than length of drawn vectors increase and second pairs
of contour lines can be painted above-over, following measurements allows to paint
more and more contour-lines and elongating vectors become connecting
opposite magnetic poles of the bar magnet. Such image will become identical to yours
but also having contour-lines indicating change of magnitude of forces.
Its very seldom when I conduct such extensive measurements, just
for pure academic curiosity, - oftenly, I measure magnetomotive forces
in that volume of space where its direction and magnitude are important for experiments,
hence my drawings can be continued with longer vectors covering whole
planes of drawings, but such drawings would not provide better comprehension of
experiments. But that does not means that "field-lines" are COMPLETELY broken"
- they simply not painted further where its parameters are unimportant for presentation.
Obviously that "lines" go somewhere, most of connect to "lines" of opposite pole
of same magnet, others go to opposite poles of other magnets, and some of them
go event to magnetic poles of planetary magnetic fields. Soon later I'll read some more about geometries of "reluctant magnetic circuits" which you've mentioned
in the second part of your question.
Do not hesitate to ask about anything else - this increase my comprehension of others
comprehension of me, and allows to improve quality of following reports.
@ageofmagnetizm:
Thanks for your response to my ignorant concern ~ it's obvious that you want to share your knowledge and experience :)
On another note, there was a link posted on another thread for Ken Wheeler's "Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism" book. Here it is if anyone wants to see it:
http://www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf
truesearch
@@truesearch
I've looked through my reports again and found that its explained that
green vectors indicate geometry of 'measured' magnetomotive forces
near, along or around particular objects - not whole magnetic fields as far
as possible. Direction of arrows indicates direction of attraction
(not repulsion) and lengths of arrows indicate magnitude of force which
is also indicated by contour-lines.
Now about that that:
"then the magnetic force will stop pushing/tugging to make continual motion."
Indeed, your suggestion is OK. I've build several prototypes of sections of
magnetic motors which manifest good results in section but can not be build
in rings, and I've seen many build by others which stubs for the same reason.
One of such motor I have published and it is on my YouTube channel at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXma6_-iHok
When its stator is build in ring then reluctance of its magnetic circuits
dramatically drops down and forces near magnetorefracting screens
become too weak for propulsion of motive magnet.
Such effect can not occur in my discussing here arrangements of
magnetomotive trains.
Explanation of my current arrangement of reluctant magnetic circuits
can be simplified to one pair of bar magnets - one dynamic magnet being
perpendicular to the axle of motor and capable to move, and one
static magnet being parallel to the axle.
Dynamic magnet has its North pole toward axle and South pole
toward static magnet, static magnet has its North pole toward South pole
of dynamic magnet hence these poles attracting each others.
Magnets attract by nearest magnetic poles but they also could attract by
distant magnetic poles such forcing magnets to become parallel to
each others but there is no attraction because that those distant poles
are attached to ferromagnetic components of motor which absorb
magnetic flux of those poles and there
"magnetic force ... stop pushing/tugging" as you've suggested.
But this can not happens between interacting magnetic poles because that
there is permanent air gap which function as reluctant part of
reluctant magnetic circuit formed by two magnets and ferromagnetic
components which form loop including: base- magnet-air-magnet - hub.
Building of such loops in series round hub - does not influence permeability
of air between interacting magnetic poles,
hence reluctance of magnetic circuits remains constant and magnitude
of magnetomotive forces remains constant too, moreover -
interacting magnets continuously magnetize each others what cause that
magnets remain as strong as possible for its molecular composition.
I'll be glad to read more suggestions of possible reasons of malfunctions.
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Panels also are discussing here.
Said Panels are ambient fields propulsion systems made of
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tractors which are dipolar variants of
Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers made of permanent magnets
having structures of complex magnetic permeability attached to both
magnetic poles of utilizing magnets.[size=78%] [/size]
So producing magnetic fields have artificial geometry what causes that
ambient magnetic fields tugs Panels perpendicular to vectors of
magnetomotive forces of ambient fields.
Construction and function of Asymmetric Magnetomotive Panels are
explained in the second paragraph at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers/asymmetric-magnetomotive-panels
Following is photo of tested prototype of Panel made of four
Dipolar Asymmetric Tractors, where green vectors indicate
magnetomotive forces measured round/along of panel.
Wow! Dipolar Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tractors are selected for the Deep Space CamSat challenge organized within SpaceApps - a NASA incubator innovation program.[/font][/size]https://2015.spaceappschallenge.org/project/dipolar-asymmetric-magnetomotive-tractors/ (https://2015.spaceappschallenge.org/project/dipolar-asymmetric-magnetomotive-tractors/)[/size]Everyone round our glob can register there and take part in virtual brainstorming over next weekend.[/size]
Quote from: dieter on February 17, 2014, 06:51:16 PM
That's right, pyrolytic graphite is often used for diamagnetic levitation.
Extreme diamagnetism has a diamond, at least in theory, like 10000, compared to 100 of Pyrolytic carbon, but when I tried it with a tiny diamond, it didn't perform more than graphite. I think it really is a diamond (uncut, 2mm cubus crystal) and no fake, as I was able to scratch a ruby with it.
Also very interesting in terms of diamagnetism: Nanotubes and Graphene...
Just so you know, a lot of materials can scratch a ruby, including another ruby. Your test did, however prove it is not glass, or quartz, but it could be sapphire (single crystal aluminum oxide) which is 9 on the Moh's scale. Diamond, at 10, is 300% harder than 9. Ruby is also 9.
Of course, this presupposes that your ruby is really a ruby, and not red glass, or some other material.
Bill
New report about construction and testings of Asymmetric Magnetomotive Channels and Tractors, read it at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/magnetorefractive/geomagnetic/magnetomachanical/asymmetric-magnetomotive-tuggers/asymmetric-magnetomotive-channels-and-tractors
or simply admire the video of testing at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A5tD6KVJWs
I've just started testing of prototypes of "long" AM-Channels and fist [/font]
prototype can be admired on video at:[/font]
[/font]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E9egsgM-7U
[/font]This prototype is already manifesting new phenomena where not just [/font]something little bit moving along something else - but AM-Tractors are MOVING THROUGH the AM-Channel, and its obvious that this motion is caused by magnetic fields of artificial geometry producing by sets of permanent magnets and structures of complex magnetic permeability, which continuously producing magnetic flux continuously curving in useful direction.
Also admire picture, its both nice and impressive.[/font]
Hi OveUnity!
I've published new report about testing of linear magnetic motor at:
https://sites.google.com/site/ageofmagnetizm/home/magnetomechanics/am-channels-2nd-report
Watch new video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6esinE76oME
Supplemental testing can be watched at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfwZ9YfCdnQ
Same Tractor is testing in Channel of new Tuggers.
Tractor moves similar through the Channel, from west to east but its motion is twice faster,
what means that new structures of complex magnetic permeability are twice more efficient.
More videos have been uploaded:
https://www.youtube.com/user/ageofmagnetizm/videos?shelf_id=0&sort=dd&view=0
Particular interesting is video where moving Train maid of two AM-Tractors is testing in AM-Channel.
Train is moving to the west end of channel from east end, also moving from middle of channel
and from every place within channel.
Such motive behavior was not manifested by previous prototypes where tractors were moving only from end to end
but not from the middle of channel. Inside of channels, tractors had long sections moving forward and short sections of motionless. Through fine tuning - magnetic field became smother, more homogenous and tractors became moving forward from every place in channel.