I THINK TINMAN IS ON A SUPER GREAT IDEA. LET US ALL PUT OUR GOD
GIVEN GRAY MATTER TOGETHER TO GET THIS GOING TO FREE ENERGY STATUS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJM00HAbuKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmTCj5E8Si4&t=1130s
observation
The magnet which is interior to the rim of the ferrous fly wheel
is more interactive with the fly wheel than is the exterior magnet.
What am I missing here?
I get the whole concept of what he is showing. It looks like an interesting experiment for sure. I understand how he is planning to collect energy in the coil from it. But what I am not understanding, is if it does what he claims, and it pulls in with the force of 3 magnets and leaves with only the force of 1 magnet, then why doesn't it self run without any power at all? He would have more out than in and with a little spin it would continue to increase speed all on its own. Something does not appear to match what he is explaining that he is seeing.
I have no doubt that he is seeing an increase as he ads magnets. What I am missing here, is how he is able to determine it is leaving with way less force. That force needed to break it free from the magnets is not tested in this demo. If I am understanding his demo correctly, I think he will find that it takes the same force to release the pull of the magnets as it the pull of the magnets gave to it on the way in. Or possibly a bit less of course. Am I not seeing something correctly here?
WHAT YOU ARE NOT SEEING IS WHEN THE STEEL PLATE WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE FLYWHEEL APPROACHES THE TWO OPPOSING REPELLING NIBS, THE PLATE IS ATTRACTED TO THE MAGNETS BY VIRTUE OF 4 TIMES THE MAGNETIC FIELD FORCE. AND AS IT IS TRAPPED IN BETWEEN
IN THE REPELLING MAGNETS, ALL IT TAKES IS A VERY LOW ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE TO BREAK THE EQUILIBRIUM HOLD FORCE. AND THEN AGAIN WAKE THE LOCK UP GENIE PUSH REPELLING FORCE. BUT OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE IS THE STORED MOMENTUM OF THE FLYWHEEL ONCE IN MOTION. PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
@ captainpecan
quote from captainpecan
"But what I am not understanding, is if it does what he claims, and it pulls
in with the force of 3 magnets and leaves with only the force of 1 magnet,
then why doesn't it self run without any power at all? "
end of the quote
One should note that each magnet he is using is actually composed of two magnets combined
in attraction, more or less as one magnet. This may or may not be significant. I mention it only
in the interest of being accurate. Also note that the Tin man refers to each of these magnets
(one made from two) as though it is a single magnet during the videos.
The rotating ferrous plate's removal from between the "two" magnets (one on either
side of the rotating ferrous plate) is resisted by the same amount of force as it was
attracted in by the "two" magnets. No net gain.
While using the "two" permanent magnets (one on either side of the rotating ferrous plate)
The rotating plate is pulled into position between the two magnets with a force which is from
3 to 4 times greater than the force it is pulled in by, when only one magnet is present.
One might expect the force of two magnets to be double that of one magnet, but it being
as much as four times greater than when only one magnet is used, gives rise to interesting
possibilities.
If one of the permanent magnets is replaced with an electromagnet, one is tripling the
rotating plate's entrance force, while the electromagnet is on, and reducing rotating plate's
exit force to that of one permanent magnet upon exit (when the electromagnet is off).
This would in theory, double the effective power of the electromagnet.
However ...
1. We have not seen measurements of the force when one permanent magnet is
used and the electromagnet is in position but not turned on (it has a ferrous core).
2. Tin man has only demonstrated measurements of peak forces.
This is ok, as measuring input and output electrical power will serve just as well and
self running would be self appearant.
an other video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtJTodw3QQ
QuoteWHAT YOU ARE NOT SEEING IS WHEN THE STEEL PLATE WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE FLYWHEEL APPROACHES THE TWO OPPOSING REPELLING NIBS, THE PLATE IS ATTRACTED TO THE MAGNETS BY VIRTUE OF 4 TIMES THE MAGNETIC FIELD FORCE. AND AS IT IS TRAPPED IN BETWEENIN THE REPELLING MAGNETS, ALL IT TAKES IS A VERY LOW ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE TO BREAK THE EQUILIBRIUM HOLD FORCE. AND THEN AGAIN WAKE THE LOCK UP GENIE PUSH REPELLING FORCE. BUT OF CRUCIAL IMPORTANCE IS THE STORED MOMENTUM OF THE FLYWHEEL ONCE IN MOTION. PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
See, that is what I am missing. I do not see that there is less force leaving the magnetic field. He never tests that. If it really does require 1/4 the energy to leave and the amount of energy gained as it approaches, that is very easy see with a simple test. Not necessarily the amount of energy, but the fact that there would be a difference in the amount.
If he simply releases the scale and the back bolt to allow the flywheel to fully rotate again. All he has to do is very slowly allow the flywheel to rotate forward until it begins to pull towards the magnets. If he lets it do its thing, what I believe you will see is that it will in fact pull the flywheel around until the metal passes the gap but it will then slow to a stop and pull backwards again because I do not believe he can show a greater force pulling in that what it is needed to leave. If however, the metal travels past the gap and continues through and past that "gate" pulling it back, then he really does something there. Unfortunately, I don't see him being able to duplicate that effect. I sure hope he can.
Also, for further understanding, his test is using magnets on the outside, as well as magnets on the inside. But his pulse motor appears to replace the outer magnets with his coil.. (electro magnet)... Does he still have outer magnets somewhere when he is using his coil and I am not seeing it in his video? If not, his pulse would have to be EXACTLY the correct current and voltage at EXACTLY the correct moment to accurately duplicate his permanent magnet test. Is the guy who is making these videos discussing this on a thread in THIS forum somewhere, or is he referring to another one?
Also, don't get me wrong here. I'm being negative. I'm always very open minded. I'm just always fact based and trying to dig into the facts as much as possible to understand what is actually going on here.
Quote from: Floor on December 19, 2021, 09:20:00 AM
The rotating ferrous plate's removal from between the "two" magnets (one on either
side of the rotating ferrous plate) is resisted by the same amount of force as it was
attracted in by the "two" magnets. No net gain.
Yeah, see that's what I'm seeing is the case here as well. However, it seems that he says it takes less to leave the field. If that is true, I'm not seeing that.
But like you say, if he is seeing a 4 times attraction with only double the magnets, that could be an effect that can be worth noting. It is so hard to actually test the facts of that in reality though. Only testing the peak doesn't really prove anything, but I'm not exactly sure how to make a better test. This one is difficult.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 19, 2021, 02:28:45 PM
See, that is what I am missing. I do not see that there is less force leaving the magnetic field. He never tests that.
You are correct.
When there are two magnets (one inside the plate and one outside)
There is not less force to leave the field. It is exactly the same, entering and or leaving.
When there is one magnet (inside only) you are correct also.
There is not less force to leave the field. It is exactly the same, entering or leaving.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 19, 2021, 02:28:45 PM
He never tests that.
Testing the entering force IS testing the exiting force. They are equal. This is assumed /
well know in these conditions / goes without saying.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 19, 2021, 02:28:45 PM
If it really does require 1/4 the energy to leave and the amount of energy gained as it approaches, that is very easy see with a simple test. Not necessarily the amount of energy, but the fact that there would be a difference in the amount.
It requires a lesser peak force for the plate to exit away from one magnet
than is needed in order to exit from between the two magnets.
This is what he is demonstrating.
The difference is there, only when there is one of the magnets instead of two.
What is being demonstrated, is that there is three to four time less peak force
present when only one magnet is used. One would reasonably expect that the force
difference would be two times less.... but not three to four times less !
Tinman clearly demonstrates that it is between 3 and four times less.
In this kind of configuration, I would expect that the total energy is 3 to 4 times less
as well. Only more test will tell.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 19, 2021, 02:28:45 PM
Also, for further understanding, his test is using magnets on the outside, as well as magnets on the inside.
Be more clear please. Your statment is less than worthless. Watch the videos again,
and try to not waste other peoples time by asking question you should allread have
the answers to, if you studied the videos and posts.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 19, 2021, 02:28:45 PM
But his pulse motor appears to replace the outer magnets with his coil.. (electro magnet)... Does he still have outer magnets somewhere when he is using his coil and I am not seeing it in his video?
The pulse motor only has two electromagnets on the outside, two stator magnets on the inside
and four "torque" plates.
I get it, that you don't understand the videos or the posts either. I recommend that you
read, watch and study them before your next post.
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJM00HAbuKw
@ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtJTodw3QQ
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 19, 2021, 08:36:59 PM
You are correct.
When there are two magnets (one inside the plate and one outside)
There is not less force to leave the field. It is exactly the same, entering and or leaving.
When there is one magnet (inside only) you are correct also.
There is not less force to leave the field. It is exactly the same, entering or leaving.
Testing the entering force IS testing the exiting force. They are equal. This is assumed /
well know in these conditions / goes without saying.
It requires a lesser peak force for the plate to exit away from one magnet
than is needed in order to exit from between the two magnets.
This is what he is demonstrating.
The difference is there, only when there is one of the magnets instead of two.
What is being demonstrated, is that there is three to four time less peak force
present when only one magnet is used. One would reasonably expect that the force
difference would be two times less.... but not three to four times less !
Tinman clearly demonstrates that it is between 3 and four times less.
In this kind of configuration, I would expect that the total energy is 3 to 4 times less
as well. Only more test will tell.
Thank you for that response. So it is how I was seeing it. However what he was trying to show in his test was what was confusing me. I misunderstood and thought he was trying to say it left with less force and I simply asked for clarification because I was missing something. I went to his channel amd watched all 3 videos multiple times before I posted asking, but I was misunderstanding. Thank you for clearing it up.
Quote
Be more clear please. Your statment is less than worthless. Watch the videos again,
and try to not waste other peoples time by asking question you should allread have
the answers to, if you studied the videos and posts.
And that kind of a response is exactly why I stopped following this forum years ago. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be such a condescending ass to someone simply trying to understand and asking questions. I was under the impression that this is what this thread was created for. Uncalled for and exactly what runs people away from helping us find new concepts by sharing thoughts amd knowledge. I hope it is rare you respond in that manner considering all you have contributed to the forum.
Your right, but then again, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be a lazy
entitled ass, instead of contributing something of merit to the topics either.
My hope...
is that you will do more in the future to diligently contribute, rather than participate as
just another arm chair critic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJM00HAbuKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtJTodw3QQ
best wishes
floor
Quote from: Floor on December 19, 2021, 11:50:20 PM
Your right, but then again, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to be a lazy
entitled ass, instead of contributing something of merit to the topics either.
My hope...
is that you will do more in the future to diligently contribute, rather than participate as
just another arm chair critic.
best wishes
floor
I'm just glad I don't feel the need to be a garbage human being to make myself feel better inside. Maybe if you could have gotten over yourself for 2 seconds you would have noticed I mentioned I was trying to understand it so I could test it myself since oz specifically was mentioning trying to help it be replicated by someone having no luck. I even asked if the forum he was referencing was this forum or another one because I wanted to follow it more.. that's not arm chair quarterbacking. I'm a damn builder because that is how I learn and always has been.. I am on another build right now that just so happens to have many of the same materials that are perfect to try and see if I could replicate what he is seeing. I simply wanted to follow along and learn.. But seriously, I couldn't care less how miserable of a person you have to be inside to treat everyone that way. I'm just thankful I'm not that way. I'm happy many intelligent experimenters are sharing their work and asking questions about it for me to learn from here. If I have to ignore hateful people along the way, so be it. Some people just don't grasp the fact that we are all here working towards the same goals. I will just continue with my other build and share my work as planned. I don't need people like you bringing me down to make themselves feel better.
Do you want to stay off topic or contribute something to the topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJM00HAbuKw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQtJTodw3QQ
I SAY CAPTAIN HE SAYS WHAT. WATER OFF THE DUCK'S BACK I AM WITH YOU,
FLOOR IS JUST A BIDEN SUPPORTER, THAT TELLS A LOT ABOUT HIM. JOKE JOKE
CHILL OUT YOU GUYS IT IS NEARLY CHRISTMAS BE JOLLY AND HAVE A BEER ON ME.
YOU VERY LIKELY ARE AMERICANS BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.
Quote from: seychelles on December 20, 2021, 01:47:23 AM
CHILL OUT YOU GUYS IT IS NEARLY CHRISTMAS BE JOLLY AND HAVE A BEER ON ME.
YOU VERY LIKELY ARE AMERICANS BE KIND TO EACH OTHER.
Exactly!!!
Back to topic. If I adjust the test design slightly, I have most of what I need to try and see if I can replicate the effect. Really all I am missing is the scale which maybe I can find a cheapo fish scale at walmart that would suffice so I don't have to wait for shipping at this time of year. Also finding steel of sufficient thickness to hold all of the flux of both magnets and cancel the repulsion. I'll have to play around with that.
Here is what I am thinking to attempt to replicate his test results assuming my current materials. I have a bunch of 1/2" by 1/2" n52 cylinder magnets that are surprisingly strong for their size. I think they may work well for this test. Now visualize the design being axial instead of radial. In other words, instead of the curved metal piece being vertical and screwed to the side of the flywheel, instead screw a flat piece down to the top of the flywheel protruding out. This eliminates the need to curve it. It now allows a magnet placed below it and above it with the ability to easily adjust the gap smaller or larger by raising and lowering the magnets as he appears to greatly multiply the effect lessening the gap. After all, it seems the only really important part is to get that magnet, plate, and gap setup proper to replicate the multiplying effect. I THINK. If the test is successful, and the upper magnet is replaced with the electromagnet now vertical, it will then allow a plate positioned ABOVE the electromagnet, and magnet above it as well. Thus using the opposite side of the electromagnet and effectively doubling the entire effect with the same single pulse of the electromagnet. That's my theory anyway, assuming I can get past the first step of seeing his results. Looks simple enough of a setup though to try.
Sorry, that was a nasty rambling, I am not even sure I explained well enough to understand.
@ Floor, does this sound to you like a valid test setup that should show the same effect? It seems like it to me unless I am still not fully understanding the effect. It almost seams it would possibly even be easier to do. Any suggestions of changes before I start?
It is going to be a very busy week, but I'll try and source a digital scale locally and get started.
@ Captain pecan
Its acceptable to me that most of us are mere mortals / most of us are
going to flame sometimes / once in a while.
Replications tend to be problematic at the forum.
A replication should or even must be very precisely
from the same materials
and
of the same dimensions
and
as exactly a replication as possible
else
it is not a replication.
Many of the original builds utilize at least some salvaged materials.
This can make experimentation easier for the original builder, and a real
challenge for any one "replicating".
It is best to clarify for oneself right off the bat.
as replication, quasi replication or variation
and also
state this right up front for the general readership.
... ... ... ... ... ...
It is quite a different affair to build an electric motor, as opposed
to producing a set of measurements which meet a good level of
accuracy precision and repeat ability.
My opinion is that the Tin Man has probably taken the best course
in his approach to measurements.
1. It would be expensive and fairly difficult to set up and precisely measure
the changes in the forces of his neo magnets over such a small amount
of distance as is present as the travel of the "torque plate". Neos are powerful
and will flex things out of alignment if they can.
But this could also be very worth while / valuable.
2. In these specific conditions it is probably best to move on to measurements
as electric power in put and out put / self running. The tin man is especially well
qualified and equipped for such tasks.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
In order to do mechanical measuring, type testing / measurements ....
I recommend starting off with a list of well stated objectives.
Take some time to think it through and to determine what are the mechanical
tolerances your method / device must have in order to meet those objectives.
Important ... The device needs to be adjustable / can be calibrated but also
mechanically stable / minimize wobble / back lash and so on.
I think it is important to enjoy and take at least a little pride in the project
as well ?
What else. If you intend to measure forces and distances caused by those forces.
Best to
Create a precision set of dedicated to the project, weight objects to hang from the
device, either directly or via a pulley. Plastic bags of sand within cloth bags, plastic
bottles of water, other.
Use a good quality digital scale to create that weight set. Fish weighing scales suck.
... ... ... ... ...
You may need to either visually magnify (a lens) or amplify the distance readings
in order to have high pecision.
floor
P.S. Thanks for the good reminder / intervention seychelles
it is much appreciated.
@ Floor,
I 100% agree about replication has to be as exact as possible or it is not a replication. In this case, I simply don't have the exact stuff to do a perfect replication. For instance, there is no information on the mass of the flywheel or the diameter. My guess is this effect would not be dependent on the flywheel so much as what is going on between those magnets and the gap. But if I wait until I find a piece of 2" exhaust and cut and bend to exact specifications as well as ordering the n32 rectangular magnets with a countersunk hole in them because that hole itself changes the path of the flux, then I will never get building. Of course, wasting time and money on a useless build does nobody any good. However, it appears as if he believes this should be able to be replicated without exact precision of all exact specs. He seems more interested in replicating "the effect" than his experiment exactly. So I am kicking around the best possible way I may be able to possibly replicate "the effect" with the resources I have available. IF it is NOT dependent on the exact curvature of the metal, or the diameter of the flywheel, or having the exact magnets, then MAYBE I can show a greater than double strength which would prove the effect is able to be replicated. Or a failure would also prove that there is more to it than just alignment and gap.
He also isn't exactly specific on width of the metal plate. However he does mention his could stand to be a mil thicker if was to choose. My aim is to get just thick enough to allow like poles to attach to each side in the manner he shows.
And yes, fishing scales suck. I ordered a better scale from amazon earlier I need for my other projects anyway. Maybe it will make it this week with all the shipping delays. But if my plan to replicate the effect fails, I can change each property of it one by one as I get them until I have a duplicate. After all, most of my experiments have ended up proving to me what DOESN'T work. But hey, there is knowledge in that as well... But I'm hoping this will get the job done. I'll post pics here as I get it moving.
For captainpecan.
This is a video of my version of tinman's motor. I was a member of the private group he abandoned while we were working on his project. The video has very little information as it was made for the private group that already understood the principles of how the motor was supposed to work. There were several of us on the project and some of them have very good electrical and mechanical skills. We were not able to get a self-running machine to work.
However I can tell you that with careful adjustment and measurements you can prove that the 1+1=3 principle does work. That was proven many times by the group. For most of us using n42 neos the best metal thickness we found was 1/8th inch mild steel. Also some of the builders built the motor with the axle of the flywheel horizontal. And with the metal tabs sticking straight out like you described. This will make it much easier to measure the forces by simply hanging weights on the end of the metal tabs if you built it like you are suggesting. We also found that with the n42 neos the cores of the coils we were using needed to be about 1/3 of the distance from the metal tabs compared to the distance of the neos from the metal tabs.
One of the problems most of us or maybe all of us faced was that Brad (tinman) kept insisting we needed a coil with very low inductance so we could get a very quick on and off time of the pulse. But he also insisted that the coil resistance had to be high in order to keep the current low and thus be able to get a self-running machine. Those two qualities are opposing characteristics. As you raise the resistance to get the current down you also raise the inductance and vice versa. Anyway enjoy the short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1L78aTVGQ0
Quote from: citfta on December 20, 2021, 03:35:03 PM
For captainpecan.
This is a video of my version of tinman's motor. I was a member of the private group he abandoned while we were working on his project. The video has very little information as it was made for the private group that already understood the principles of how the motor was supposed to work. There were several of us on the project and some of them have very good electrical and mechanical skills. We were not able to get a self-running machine to work.
However I can tell you that with careful adjustment and measurements you can prove that the 1+1=3 principle does work. That was proven many times by the group. For most of us using n42 neos the best metal thickness we found was 1/8th inch mild steel. Also some of the builders built the motor with the axle of the flywheel horizontal. And with the metal tabs sticking straight out like you described. This will make it much easier to measure the forces by simply hanging weights on the end of the metal tabs if you built it like you are suggesting. We also found that with the n42 neos the cores of the coils we were using needed to be about 1/3 of the distance from the metal tabs compared to the distance of the neos from the metal tabs.
One of the problems most of us or maybe all of us faced was that Brad (tinman) kept insisting we needed a coil with very low inductance so we could get a very quick on and off time of the pulse. But he also insisted that the coil resistance had to be high in order to keep the current low and thus be able to get a self-running machine. Those two qualities are opposing characteristics. As you raise the resistance to get the current down you also raise the inductance and vice versa. Anyway enjoy the short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1L78aTVGQ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1L78aTVGQ0)
Fantastic info, thank you for sharing. It's good to hear that the 1+1=3 has been replicated. I don't expect OU, but this sounds like a very interesting effect I would like to experiment with. Thank you again for the quick advice. It is well noted.
Yea good input..
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Notes.
It is difficult to keep a metal plate positioned between two magnets,
(with specific gap widths on ether side, especially if the plate needs to easily
pass straight through the gap.
however...
A purely linear movement of the "torque" plate is a vary desirable variation
of which to have measurement sets of.
Good measurements of the attracting force between the torque plate and 1 magnet
and then of the force of 2 magnets attracting the torque plate.
This meaning ...
a set of measurements of the force at distances a, a + a, a + a + a, a +a +a +a, a + a +
a +a +a (5 ? measurements). The average force * displacement measurements (then totaled together) will give us yet more valuable data.
You may find that making and using your own set of weight objects turns out
to be faster and easier than using a digital / pull type force gauge, but may also
require the use of a pulley ?
Mark and increment each weight object in increments of Newtons (also grams).
Example 0.10 N, 0.15 N, 0.20 N, 25 N, 50 N, 100 N, 200 N, 300 N, and so on
(No conversions needed later on) You must find the appropriate ranges / increments
of weights to use, by a little bit of trial and error (only initially).
floor
QuoteGood measurements of the attracting force between the torque plate and 1 magnet
and then of the force of 2 magnets attracting the torque plate.
This meaning ...
a set of measurements of the force at distances a, a + a, a + a + a, a +a +a +a, a + a +
I used to build quite a few motor/generators and ran a different setup.
We can determine the force or force curve along a path by measuring the acceleration. Force>>>Acceleration>>>Velocity>>>Mass-Velocity(momentum)>>>Energy. I placed a small magnet on the flywheel or shaft then used a hall effect sensor or pickup coil to measure how fast the magnetic field changes.
How fast the sensor voltage measurement changes tells us the acceleration at any given time and the acceleration is dependent on the force it is experiencing. The faster the curve changes the greater the acceleration thus the greater the force. It's much easier to measure the force on a DSO or Arduino in real time that using scales.
Basically, with a moving magnet and a fixed unloaded generator coil the slope or rate of change of the voltage is a measure of the acceleration of the magnet and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC
@AC
That would be a bit more data.
How soon are you expecting you'll be ready with the charts and graphs for we
readers to see :)
Quote from: onepower on December 21, 2021, 12:01:37 PM
floor
I used to build quite a few motor/generators and ran a different setup.
We can determine the force or force curve along a path by measuring the acceleration. Force>>>Acceleration>>>Velocity>>>Mass-Velocity(momentum)>>>Energy. I placed a small magnet on the flywheel or shaft then used a hall effect sensor or pickup coil to measure how fast the magnetic field changes.
How fast the sensor voltage measurement changes tells us the acceleration at any given time and the acceleration is dependent on the force it is experiencing. The faster the curve changes the greater the acceleration thus the greater the force. It's much easier to measure the force on a DSO or Arduino in real time that using scales.
Basically, with a moving magnet and a fixed unloaded generator coil the slope or rate of change of the voltage is a measure of the acceleration of the magnet and the force applied to it.
Regards
AC
Not to be he who say nay
But i feel the need to correct a fallacy in your thought process.
Please allow me to explain:
The 'force' presented by a magnetic field is not the same as a force from, say pushing or from a rocket engine.
It falls into the category of Impulse Force
Defined by the scalar flux across a defined distance.
Although the equation appears similar to that of gravity,
the magnitudes are exponentially greater and the distances
are exponentially smaller.
What's the difference?
(without giving a 4 hr lecture)
A force causes acceleration throughout the duration the force is applied.
An Impulse transfers momentum, and acceleration happens over time, after the impulse.
The reason is because of how the force scales down as it leaves
a majority of the energy transfer occurs faster than the object
can accelerate, conservation of momentum is the equation we have to use.
The momentum of the moving object and the momentum of the Maxwellian
equivalent of magnetic momentum, resultant from the interaction between
two fields.
Imagine two equivalent scenarios
A high-velocity bullet
And a speeding vehicle
The momentum of the two are the same (large bullet/small car)
The car hitting you transfers its' momentum (or a fraction thereof)
and continues moving, pushing you along.
The bullet stops in your chest (or at your vest)
all of the momentum transfers into your body
and Then you move.
Very similar to an elastic collision, such as the delay between when
a que ball hits another ball, and then that ball accelerates across the pool table.
Floor
QuoteThat would be a bit more data.
How soon are you expecting you'll be ready with the charts and graphs for we
readers to see
I don't experiment with mechanical devices anymore and trashed all my old test beds a while back. In the picture below, I found an old motor/generator magnetic bearing test bed I invented maybe 9 years ago collecting dust under my bench. It was pretty cool and I can give it a spin by hand and it will continue for eight hours or so. It uses 2" N52 ring magnets in magnetic attraction instead of repulsion which is kind of interesting.
Now I only build and experiment on solid state devices unless I see something that really peaks my curiosity.
Regards
AC
I think this is better than trying to type this stuff
https://youtu.be/cggDEEmcsYc (https://youtu.be/cggDEEmcsYc)
smoky2
QuoteNot to be he who say nay
But i feel the need to correct a fallacy in your thought process.
Please allow me to explain:
The 'force' presented by a magnetic field is not the same as a force from, say pushing or from a rocket engine.
It falls into the category of Impulse Force
Defined by the scalar flux across a defined distance.
I'm not sure what your getting at and I was talking about using a small magnet on the flywheel of Tinmans motor and a fixed coil to measure force and acceleration. The small magnet and fixed coil is only being used as a sensor.
If we move a magnet quickly towards a coil we get a narrow pulse, if we move it slower we get a wider pulse. Therefore we can use the slope of the pulse in a sine wave to measure the magnet and flywheel's acceleration. If we can measure the acceleration of the flywheel and we know it's mass then we can calculate any change in force applied to the flywheel.
So rather than use a static fish scale on Tinman's motor we could use a magnet and coil to measure any force and acceleration applied to the flywheel while it's spinning.
Regards
AC
THE ANSWER TO THIS TEST IS EASY. TEST ONE WITH MAGNETS RECORD CURRENT AT A SPECIFIC VOLTAGE AND CHECK REVOLUTION AFTER 5 SECS. DO THE SAME WITHOUT MAGNETS.
Quote from: citfta on December 20, 2021, 03:35:03 PM
One of the problems most of us or maybe all of us faced was that Brad (tinman) kept insisting we needed a coil with very low inductance so we could get a very quick on and off time of the pulse. But he also insisted that the coil resistance had to be high in order to keep the current low and thus be able to get a self-running machine. Those two qualities are opposing characteristics. As you raise the resistance to get the current down you also raise the inductance and vice versa. Anyway enjoy the short video.
I have been kicking this statement around for a couple days now while I wait for materials to test things. Even though his statement seems impossible because the two characteristics oppose each other. Is it possible that he may have been simply referring to the use of multiple coils in series and it is simply perspective. For instance... when he is referring to a coil of low inductance, could he be referring to just each coil individually. Yet when he is referring to high resistance, he is referring to the multiple coils in series and actually talking about the whole circuits resistance? The low inductance of EACH COIL will allow the quick on off pulse time as it reacts to its ratio of turns (inductance) to core permeance, while from the perspective of multiple low inductance coils hooked in series the resistance increases more and more for each coil added further restricting the current. It's a possible way to satisfy both conditions he says is required at the same time. Understanding that this method would still produce a higher inductance for the series, each coil will have its own lower inductance. Just a thought.
Quote from: captainpecan on December 22, 2021, 11:52:18 AM
I have been kicking this statement around for a couple days now while I wait for materials to test things. Even though his statement seems impossible because the two characteristics oppose each other. Is it possible that he may have been simply referring to the use of multiple coils in series and it is simply perspective. For instance... when he is referring to a coil of low inductance, could he be referring to just each coil individually. Yet when he is referring to high resistance, he is referring to the multiple coils in series and actually talking about the whole circuits resistance? The low inductance of EACH COIL will allow the quick on off pulse time as it reacts to its ratio of turns (inductance) to core permeance, while from the perspective of multiple low inductance coils hooked in series the resistance increases more and more for each coil added further restricting the current. It's a possible way to satisfy both conditions he says is required at the same time. Understanding that this method would still produce a higher inductance for the series, each coil will have its own lower inductance. Just a thought.
One way to double the resistance for a given inductance is to apply Lbuck = (1-k)*2*Lpri when the windings are equal inductance. For example with K=.5, if both windings are 5mH with 1 ohm resistance each, then Lbuck = (1-.5)*2*.005 = .005 with a total dcr of 2 ohms. So, two identical coils connected in a bucking mode with a coupling or K factor of .5 will yield a total inductance equal to each individual inductance but with twice the resistance.
Pm
My build...
Not a replication.
but
A test bench.
To measure static magnetic force at several diminishing distances.
and
arrive at the total kinetic energy of the motions,
not the peak force only.
i.e.
1. To measure the energy present over the course of travel of a
ferrous plate in attraction to and rotating toward and then into, a centered
between two neo magnets position.
2. To measure the energy present over the course of travel of a
ferrous plate in attraction to and rotating toward and then into, a centered
before one neo magnet position.
I have two balanced fly wheels.
One is iron, 7 inches in diameter / magnetic interacting, the other is of a zink alloy
and 6 inches in diameter non magnetic interacting.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I intend to use the non ferrous fly wheel.
There will be other variation of / measurement sets later.
Also hopefully a linear motion / energy measurement set, yet later.
Lets measure and narrow down the variables.
floor
progress...
I just spent two days on a dead tree removal job..$ income...
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
I'm still assembling materials / working out the design.
I have
the fly wheel
two ball bearing sets of an appropriate size
an axle of an appropriate size
I'm thinking to do a horizontal axle design
with a degree indicating scale printed upon the fly wheel.
The fly wheel will also serve as the pulley upon which weight objects are
sequentially suspended in descending increments of weight, as the steel
plate is rotated farther from the magnet/s.
Break away from the magnetic attraction force will be caused by the pull
exerted by the weight objects. The pull force needed to do this, will be determined
at multiple increments of distance of the steel plate from the magnet/s.
best wishes
floor
And a happy holiday to the Tinman and the very loud fisherman !!
And all who toil "in this thing we do" for a better world!!
With gratitude
Chet K
DITO RAMSET. MAY THE ETERNAL LIGHT AND FORCE BE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.
Peace on Earth good will toward men.
MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL FREE ENERGY RESEARCHERS.
PERSEVERANCE WILL EVENTUALLY REVEAL THE ELDORADO
OF YOUR DREAMS.
Build / Test Progress update
4 minutes and 47 seconds video
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86l8ef
A second update...
Like the last video, this one is also very brief.
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86mvmf
I realize I'm playing it up in the video / leading it on
but
understand that I don't know those answers yet either....
HI FROM AN ARMCHAIR OBSERVER. PLEASE BEAR IN MIND THAT IT WILL BE FRUITLESS
TO MEASURE THE STATIC PULL REPEL FORCE ENERGY. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN ENERGY IN MOTION AND STATIC ENERGY. SO FOR THOSE WHO CAN BUILD
THIS TEST IS IN MOTION. TEST THE CURRENT USE IN TIME WITH RESPECT TO
REVOLUTION REACH IN TIME.
What the H---S been going on in here ?
SEYCHELLIES
Are you posting nude selfies to the forum ...
again ?
EVERYBODY IN PARADISE IS NUDE. IT PAYS
TO ADVERTISE.
Quote from: Floor on December 28, 2021, 05:45:56 PM
A second update...
Like the last video, this one is also very brief.
@ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86mvmf (https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86mvmf)
I realize I'm playing it up in the video / leading it on
but
understand that I don't know those answers yet either....
Looks good with what you have there. Seems to be a pretty noticeably strong magnetic force with your current setup. Seems to be enough to see the effect. Who knows, maybe the effect is better with ferrite magnets instead of neo? May as well find that out also, lol... I am also waiting on supplies. I'm not far away from being able to show my layout. I already have my neo magnets but the crude setup I had to put together while waiting on parts is just not true enough to show me anything. The neo magnets are just pulling stuff to much to keep a constant gap. I'll have my new bearings and shaft in next couple days hopefully.
Something I am very curious about, is once a setup is solid enough for a good test, the comparative result of simply flipping a magnet around so they attract each other instead of repelling. Just curious if the 1+1=3 effect would still be present in attraction mode. It seems like it should not matter if all things were equal. It seems that the effect would be there either way. But for some reason, I kind of have a hunch it may only be achievable in repulsion like the original setup if we can get it to work for us. Just something I'm curious to try.
Thanks for your update as well.
For clarity and as a restatement.
My present set up, tests, measurements and so on, as yet,
are not nearly enough like unto Tinman's to
be in fairness, called a replication.
They therefore cannot invalidate, but may to some degree (hopefully) validate.
Laters
Quote from: citfta on December 20, 2021, 03:35:03 PM
For captainpecan.
.....
One of the problems most of us or maybe all of us faced was that Brad (tinman) kept insisting we needed a coil with very low inductance so we could get a very quick on and off time of the pulse. But he also insisted that the coil resistance had to be high in order to keep the current low and thus be able to get a self-running machine. Those two qualities are opposing characteristics. As you raise the resistance to get the current down you also raise the inductance and vice versa. Anyway enjoy the short video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1L78aTVGQ0
Citfta, captainpecan
For what it may be worth, this was a post by Erfinder long ago that may shed some light on this. A simple way to make a 10 fold change in a coil's inductance.
QuoteFinally, someone else is experiencing this phenomena and talking about it....I was experimenting some time ago, Armagdn03 can vouch for this as I mentioned the experiment to him....I was trying to find a simple method for dynamically changing the inductance of a coil....the idea was to charge a coil in a low impedance state and allow it to discharge in a high impedance state. I wanted the inductive kickback of a high impedance, and the charging time constant of a low impedance coil.
Charge the coil in low impedance mode, and then switch the coil impedance characteristic to high and discharge the coil at a higher impedance.
This task was accomplished using a trifilar coil (untwisted). Two of the windings are connected in series, and the third winding is the control....
The two series connected windings measured 36mH. When the third (control) winding was shorted on itself it the inductance of the series connected windings dropped to 3.6mH, thats a change of 10:1, and all you did to get that incredible change was short the third (control) winding on itself...
Regards
Cadman
I spent several months trying to replicate this. Best performance I could get was 300RPM on 30v for 20ma. I was waiting for Brad as he said he had a new improved design but that was 6 months ago. Certainly the 1+1=3 effect was present in a static test but I could not get the same performance when running. I have since removed the TPs and replaced with PMs. The rotor & TPs need to be precision cut to size. I was going to get something fabricated but was waiting to see the new specs which never came. Here is where I got to. https://youtu.be/_kmveZUMHF8 (https://youtu.be/_kmveZUMHF8) This is what I'm working on now https://youtu.be/DN3sllYB6VI (https://youtu.be/DN3sllYB6VI) same coils, flywheel, switching etc just PMs instead of TPs. Happy New Year! :)
First measurments (linear action) to remove the steel plate.
as in this video @ https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x86l8ef
Check my math ?
second set / no calcs. yet.
The magnet configuration I have on my test bench is too
radically different from the Tinman configuration. These peak
force ratios are very different.
Its not applicable here. >:(
I will have to wait for my neo magnets to show up.
Lets make this one go ------------------->
@ seychelles
Here's to the new year and O.U.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLwmk8nLvKs
except that it is Sunday.
From the charts (above)
Peak forces are at a ratio of
984 grams as force (2 magnets) to 800 grams as force (1 magnet).
peak forces ratios 984 / 800 = 1.23 to 1
kinetic energies over the course of the 90mm of displacements are at a ratio of
38893 (2 magnets) to 26250 (1 magnet).
actual kinetic energy of the forces ratio 38893 / 26250 = 1.148 to 1
peak to peak 1.23 to 1 and actual energy 1.148 to 1
This is the reason for measuring the force changes over the distances
and not simply the peak forces of the Tinman design.
The charts show (in part) the process.
How re you how are your measurements taken?
Are you measuring linear force?
Arc radius?
From a tangent? Or just arbitrarily selected measuring point?
Distance from center of rotation?
Or torque at the axle?
These details make a huge difference in how the mathematics are applied
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 03, 2022, 04:26:57 PM
How re you how are your measurements taken?
Are you measuring linear force?
Arc radius?
From a tangent? Or just arbitrarily selected measuring point?
Distance from center of rotation?
Or torque at the axle?
These details make a huge difference in how the mathematics are applied
All this is allready given in the topic.
EDIT
I came back to edit this post and got ...
other wise
My point being..
Peak force measurements of the tinman design are the only things that had
other wise been presented and / or discussed in this topic.
Why are only peak forces presented ?
Because many have overlooked, that the application of a
different measurement process is necessary in order have any
idea if there is inherently, a desirable energy difference, right out
the gate ? I'm guessing.
The difference between the ratios of the peak forces only,
and
the ratios of the work done throughout the course of the travel
of the interacting magnets are typically very different.
Example 1
given in the above charts.
Example 2
in the twist drive interactions the difference is thus...
Peak forces are 133 grams to 115 grams or 1.156 to 1
while..
The actual kinetic energy difference during the entire course of the
magnet travels is > 2 to 1.
also
How does one proceed, in order to do these kinds of measurements ?
The charts above, to some degree illuminate that process.
That's what I am up to.
When my neo. magnets arrive, I can do / walk through the process of
measuring around a fly wheel (forces / total energy causing rotation).
best wishes
floor
EDIT
P.S.
The neo. magnets just arrived !
More observations and a couple of ideas.
For the tin man and for us all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X_2IdybTV0
Here is what I have so far. I made it so I can adjust pretty much everything and expand if needed. Everything is still to loose and the Neo's are still yanking everything together while I'm working with the gap. I also have only worked with one set of magnets so far so all the pull is on one side as well. I don't have any numbers to report yet until I get things tightened better. I will hopefully strengthen everything up this weekend and make it more reliable to get some numbers. I will keep at it and update as soon as I can. A lot to do still, but it's starting to come along.
Quote from: captainpecan on January 08, 2022, 04:54:04 AM
Here is what I have so far. I made it so I can adjust pretty much everything and expand if needed. Everything is still to loose and the Neo's are still yanking everything together while I'm working with the gap. I also have only worked with one set of magnets so far so all the pull is on one side as well. I don't have any numbers to report yet until I get things tightened better. I will hopefully strengthen everything up this weekend and make it more reliable to get some numbers. I will keep at it and update as soon as I can. A lot to do still, but it's starting to come along.
Good solid design! The Russian "Magnet Shield" videos are the best. It should come as no surprise if you produce the same COP.
This looks like another cat is out of the bag.
Way to go guys.
Just another small update. I'm getting there. I've got things tightened up pretty good now. Now the only issue I have is that the magnets still like to slide side to side on the slick surface of the metal. Was hoping the strength of the magnets would hold them down. But they are so strong, it's a bit hard to control them without gluing them or something. I'm working on it. If I get the gap closer, they break free from their seated position and jump to the rotor. But everything is tight and not flexing anymore. I am using N52 1/2 by 1/2 cylinder magnets. The metal I used is 1/8 inch by 3/4 inch steel.
I can't seem to get back into my old youtube account. I just made a new one. Here is a tiny video of the gap and rotor. As you can see, the magnets still want to slide a tad.
https://youtu.be/FnJ4QljQpK4 (https://youtu.be/FnJ4QljQpK4)
Captainpecan,
You can use Goop glue to hold the magnets in place. It will strongly resist the magnet movement but when you later decide to remove the magnet you can use a pair of pliers and give the magnet a twist and it will come right off. I've been using it for years for this kind of work. You could also add some flat washers between the nuts and the metal plates to stiffen the metal plates even more. The forces of this setup are pretty strong as you are finding out. How do you plan to go from a test of forces to a working system? You will need to replace one of each pair of magnets with an electromagnet. How will you mount the EM? Just some ideas to pass along to you. You're looking good so far.
Carroll
PS: One other thing. After you are done with your forces test you might want to consider a different flywheel. Those of us that had the most success were all using a cast iron or steel flywheel. We think it may have something to do with connecting the magnetic fields from one magnet to another. My flywheel for instance is a 10 pound cast iron pulley removed from an old air compressor and rebored to take bearings in the center.
Edit: Looking at your pictures again I see you do have washers on one side of your metal plates. I would add them to the other side also.
In the engineering process of any industrial rotary device of this nature:
Measurements are often taken directly from the shaft, at 1-arc radian per measurement
around one full cycle. Where all of the +'s and -'s can be summed.
The ratio of diameters between the point of force and the shaft size
are then used to calculate the torque differential to the shaft.
We can then use a metered torque applied to the shaft, and measured therefrom.
and almost everything we need to know about the design
(inside the magnetic black box)
comes to light.
While knowing peak force values is important,
and should be measured from each direction
this alone tells us little about the total energy involved.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on January 09, 2022, 09:48:25 AM
In the engineering process of any industrial rotary device of this nature:
Measurements are often taken directly from the shaft, at 1-arc radian per measurement
around one full cycle. Where all of the +'s and -'s can be summed.
The ratio of diameters between the point of force and the shaft size
are then used to calculate the torque differential to the shaft.
We can then use a metered torque applied to the shaft, and measured therefrom.
and almost everything we need to know about the design
(inside the magnetic black box)
comes to light.
While knowing peak force values is important,
and should be measured from each direction
this alone tells us little about the total energy involved.
I agree fully. I will be doing measurements of force every 1 degree of movement from dead center where there is no force. As of now I plan to use a pull scale or pressure against a mini scale. It's just what I have to work with. I want to make a prony brake to use since I need one anyway for my other projects. I will doing my best to get good measurements so we know what is behind this whole concept.
Quote from: citfta on January 09, 2022, 07:31:23 AM
Captainpecan,
You can use Goop glue to hold the magnets in place. It will strongly resist the magnet movement but when you later decide to remove the magnet you can use a pair of pliers and give the magnet a twist and it will come right off. I've been using it for years for this kind of work. You could also add some flat washers between the nuts and the metal plates to stiffen the metal plates even more. The forces of this setup are pretty strong as you are finding out. How do you plan to go from a test of forces to a working system? You will need to replace one of each pair of magnets with an electromagnet. How will you mount the EM? Just some ideas to pass along to you. You're looking good so far.
Carroll
PS: One other thing. After you are done with your forces test you might want to consider a different flywheel. Those of us that had the most success were all using a cast iron or steel flywheel. We think it may have something to do with connecting the magnetic fields from one magnet to another. My flywheel for instance is a 10 pound cast iron pulley removed from an old air compressor and rebored to take bearings in the center.
Edit: Looking at your pictures again I see you do have washers on one side of your metal plates. I would add them to the other side also.
Thanks for your response. I was kicking around what to use on those magnets and your suggestion is exactly what I need. I plan to use these magnets on my next project that took a back seat because I got interested in wanting to test this whole concept first.
As far as the flywheel. I agree, I need something better. I just don't have anything yet and have been looking for something. I designed this so I can ad a flywheel to the protruding shaft easily. I honestly have not even given a thought to the possible magnetic properties of the flywheel being paramagnetic as well. Mostly because I don't even have a metal flywheel to try anyway at this time. I'll find something I can use if needed. I want something to use anyway, just haven't found a good candidate yet.
I may ad more washers when I open things up again. I made it the way it is so I can easily loosen one nut on one side to adjust the gap, as I simultaneously tighten the nut, washer, and lock washer on the opposite side to keep all the tension on it so the magnet doesn't jump on me. Just my initial design ideas. I will evolve of course as needed.
I have predrilled the needed holes to ad 7 more bolts with magnets so there is one every 45 degrees. It's ready to expand out that much if tests go well enough to keep moving forward. That's some of how I designed it for expansion anyway.
As far as the electromagnets. I plan on replacing the top magnet with a vertical electromagnet. That way if all tests go well and there is reason to move forward with the design, it will be very easy to ad a second rotor to use the opposite side of the electromagnet and it's own opposing magnet above it as well. That way I could effectively double the output with the same single pulse of the electromagnet. The shaft protrudes a good 14" outside the unit there is plenty of room to expand it outward and ad longer bolts and more rotors if needed.
Its all of course a work in progress. And I keep changing things on the fly. I basically just want to test the whole concept and see if it is something I want to continue trying to improve since others have been working on it as well. My intuition tells me my other concepts are of more interest to me for a better motor generator design all together. But the entire underlying concept here I want to understand better and may be useful to use in other ways as well. So I will be trying my best to give this concept it's due diligence and trying to understand it all from experience.
@ captianpecan / all builders.
While some of you all ready know how to do this, any, might benefit
from a review of the files.
Attached below are two PDF files "Force Graphing 2-2c.pdf"
and
"Diminishing Return 2-2e pn.pdf"
Together they describe some of what is behind / the whys of, and the how,
of measuring the work done as
the interaction of two magnets and the motion due to magnetic forces.
thanks
and
regards
floor
P.S.
The second pdf "Diminishing Return 2-2e pn.pdf" should give some idea
as to how fine the increments of displacement and / or of weight, one might
want to use during a give set of measurements.
One often finds that even crude measurements will yield more nearly accurate
results than one has anticipated.
In this the "tinman" set, it will be important not to miss the rapid / dramatic change
in force per distance that occurs when the torque plate is near to or between the magnet
/ magnets.
Farther from the magnets, the force to distance will become more nearly a straight
line and therefore, the use of either larger increments of weight and / or distance will
hardly affect the outcome.
One more (small pdf) file "Magnetic Force Measurement.pdf"
Quote from: Floor on January 09, 2022, 05:44:17 PM
@ captianpecan / all builders.
While some of you all ready know how to do this, any, might benefit
from a review of the files.
Perfect, thank you.
Food for thought. Here is a theory I will be adding to my testing.
This 1+1=3 concept, seems others who tried replicating it, were no longer successful after switching a magnet for the electromagnet. Or at least from what others have said in here, they were less successful to transfer the effect into getting extra out while running. Or possibly they are but not able to really see what they were hoping for.... taking this into account brings up a few questions for me I would like to test as I go along.
1. Has anyone been able to actually show the effect is still present when both a permanent magnet and an electromagnet are used at the same time? Does the effect of getting more than double increase and decrease according to how much power is sent to the coil as one would assume, or does it not duplicate, and just increase linearly.
2. Following the assumption that the entire effect is due to magnetic field alone, and not whether or not it is a permanent magnet or an electromagnet, then why use a permanent magnet at all? Why not 2 electromagnets? Just a theory of course, but having both electromagnets, you may be able to get the same effect but the ability to turn off both magnetic fields so we do not have to pull the rotor from the permanent magnet. Possibly a quick pulse through both getting more than double pull into the gap, and near zero while leaving. Therefor being able to actually use all of the increase from the effect.
3. Why not now move the permanent magnets to the back side of the 2 electromagnets. Both electromagnets are facing each other with repulsive pulses exactly like the permanent magnets, but the permanent magnets are still used, just attached to the opposite sides of the electromagnets. From my experiments prior, simply sticking a permanent magnet to the back side of the electromagnet will magnetically assist the electromagnet greatly. How much I've never actually measured. But I do know increasing the strength of the permanent magnet does in fact increase the strength of the electromagnet field for no extra power input.
Maybe we can make that single pulse magnetically assisted to really increase its power, while at the same time getting the benefit from the 1+1=3 effect???
I'm just getting my thoughts out here. What do you think? I plan on testing all this as soon as I get the electagnets made.
@captainpecan
First order of business, the force over the course of travel measurements.
Second order of business ....
Did anyone test to see or demonstrate that their electromagnet was equal to
the neo. magnet ? I mean something simple like a lifting test out side of the
tin man fixture ?
Quote from: Floor on January 10, 2022, 05:49:50 PM
@captainpecan
Did anyone test to see or demonstrate that their electromagnet was equal to
the neo. magnet ? I mean somthing simple like a lifting test out side of the
tinman fixture ?
Exactly... see, I haven't heard of anyone stating that they have. I intend to do just that. It may be a huge factor, who knows. We should at least be able to rule it out as being crucial or not with a fairly easy test.
Yep, that would be a big factor all right.
You guys are assuming that a lot of things weren't done that were actually done. In the instructions for building the device it was stressed several times that the pull force of the electromagnet needed to be matched as close as possible to the pull force of the neo magnets. Since neos are so strong that is why it usually meant the core of the electromagnet needed to be about 1/3 of the distance from the torque plate as the distance of the neo from the torque plate. And yes the 1+1=3 was demonstrated many times using an electromagnet and neo combination.
As far as your idea captainpecan about using two electromagnets, I found that to be far superior to using a neo and electromagnet. I won't say any more than that. But your assumption that the torque plate would leave from between them with no back drag is entirely correct.
Good luck.
@ citfta
No assuming of any thing. The fact is, these things were not previously
discussed here .
But since citfta makes no mention of it, I'm guessing that no force measurements
over the course of travel were made ?
... ... ... ... ... ...
if 1neo. + 1neo. = +3
and 3 - 1 neo. (magnet drag) = +2
and electric power into 1 electro magnet = 1
then power out = 2 - 1 = +1
if 1 + 1 = 3 (electro magnets)
and 3 - 0 neo magnets = 3
and electric power into 2 electro magnets = 2
then power out = 3 - 2 = +1
if this kind of torque plate(permanent magnet / electro magnet) is more efficient
than conventional motor designs then cool !
if this kind of torque plate(all electro magnet) is more efficient
than conventional motor designs then even cooler !
If the all electromagnet performs better, instead of the same.
then
1. one's permanent magnet motor version is not performing correctly
or
2. 1 + 1 is not = 3 here
Partial quote
Quote from: citfta on January 10, 2022, 06:42:50 PM
In the instructions for building the device it was stressed several times that the pull force of the electromagnet needed to be matched as close as possible to the pull force of the neo magnets. Since neos are so strong that is why it usually meant the core of the electromagnet needed to be about 1/3 of the distance from the torque plate as the distance of the neo from the torque plate.
Good luck.
1 permanent magnet and 1 electromagnet
1. the electromagnet being closer is only good while the torque plate
is still between.
2. if 1 + 1 does not = 3 over the course of the travel then the electromagnet being
closer can't improve things.
3. still it remains that, building the motor and testing the input to output ratio
is a valid course to pursue as well.
best
wishes
floor
if 1 electromagnet + 1 electromagnet = 3
then
very cool
even if this is only while the torque plate is between,
or
possibly
even if only during a brief portion of the time during which the torque plate
is between.
if 1 electromagnet + 1 electromagnet = 3 through out the travel...
then coolest of all ?
again
best
wishes
GREAT TO SEE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKc390NRuBA
Another video today !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn5zwPGO1lE
I have some numbers to report finally. A bit rudimentary but it's a start. I am seeing some of the effect here. I will try and shrink the gap a bit and run the tests again.
@ citfta
Oh I fully assume much of this has been done. I just don't have access to that info here and am learning the hard way. I do appreciate the info you and others have been dropping here. Looks like I am finding very similar to what others have so far.
Nice builds, kudos to you both.
A slight decrease in gap really increased the numbers. So much so, I went over limit fast on my crappy little scale when trying 2 magnets with smaller gaps. It feels way over double with the smaller gap but I can't test it unfortunately. Certainly appears exponential to gap decrease.. Here is a recap of my numbers so far.
edit
Four questions for clarity.
0 degrees on the graph is the point where the torque plate is centered
before the magnet or magnets, correct ?
so then ..
The approach of the torque plate, would be to the left of 0 on the graph and
should be a mirror image of the graph ?
or
The exit of the torque plate, would be to the left of 0 on the graph and
should be a mirror image of the graph ?
etither way ?
Very cool indeed.
I'm sorry, I wasn't real clear there. There is a few degrees of travel in which the movement of the plate shows zero pull force due to the plate being 3/4" wide and the magnet being 1/2". Zero is set to where the tiniest movement begins to show pull force. To visualize it, it would be exactly where the two edges line up. The magnet and the plate while still being overlapped. 1 degree is beginning to pull the plate out from under the magnet.
No worries, thanks.
I think this kind of explains it better.
Here is my final video on brads motor with the torque plates. The electromagnets are the key.
https://youtu.be/D1lEQGVD1lk (https://youtu.be/D1lEQGVD1lk) good luck to you all
Thanks ! Jimboot
captainpecan measurements
work done as torque plate is pulled from one magnet.
two magnet calcs. not done yet.
A text file is attached below.
It's very good that's what.
With tweeking 1 + 1 = 3 I think is a yes.
> 2 to 1 now
New tinman video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sb_fsuyHcU
Get this dialed in and citfta's all electromagnet version
would be da bomb.
@ floor,
Thanks for the calculations. I do see where there could be a small variation that could cause the results to be less than 1+1=3 but still good. I did not have a great way to measure the gaps when I did that test. So there is a possibility of a slight difference in gap between top magnet gap and bottom magnet gap. I finally got my brass feeler guage in today. As well as my new scales that will measure more force. So I will line things up with smaller and exactly same gap top and bottom and run the test again. Because it felt like my 2nd test was way stronger but I maxed my scale out so I couldn't tell for sure. But I think another test to make positive all measurements are correct before I move to a total electromagnet design is warranted. I've got some other thoughts to try as well that I haven't seen anyone try and I'll get the next pieces in Tue to try that as well. I'll keep posted.
Quote from: Jimboot on January 15, 2022, 12:29:55 AM
Here is my final video on brads motor with the torque plates. The electromagnets are the key.
https://youtu.be/D1lEQGVD1lk (https://youtu.be/D1lEQGVD1lk) good luck to you all
Thanks for sharing. I really appreciate seeing what you have all concluded so far with this design. I've learned a lot from the short time working with it. Doesn't look to be the total answer everyone wants, but it sure is a concept well worth understanding. It could be the stepping stone that eventually opens things up for us, who knows.
My wonderful new nonmagnetic brass feeler gauge I ordered specifically so I can measure magnet gaps showed up. And guess what? It is silver in color and sticks right to the damn magnets, lol. Guess you get what you pay for.
Anyway, here is what I came up with this time. The numbers seem pretty consistent with what I got before, but I haven't worked with them much yet.
Captainpecan,
Instead of using feeler gauges I used cardboard stock like business cards are made from. i let the magnet pull until it is against the torque plate and then tighten the magnet in place. If your system is strong enough only one or two thicknesses of cardboard should do the trick.
Your test results are looking good.
Take care.
PS: let me clarify that . You let the magnet pull against the cardstock that is against the torque plate so the gap ends up being the thickness of the cardstock.
I think I figured the numbers correctly.
1st test... (original)
2214 ... 1 magnet
5342 ... 2 magnets
5342 / 2214 = 2.41
2nd test... (smaller gap)
3176.5 ... 1 magnet
7658.5 ... 2 magnets
7658.5 / 3176.5 = 2.41
Still less than 1 + 1 = 3. But greater than 2 to 1 again. The effect is confirmed by this setup. And by the same ratio both times. I will now move on to the next stage and only use electromagnets.
GREAT WORK CAPTAIN. THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
I found having the TP as close to the EM as possible and the PM about 3mm distance worked best FWIW. Nice documenting Cap.
Great work .
Hi Everyone.
I apologize for my long absence.
Well as you have guessed now, I am making this motor public, as I now have in place all the things needed to insure that this does end up in the public domain, and also protections toward my rights as the designer, in that no company or entity can take it, patent it, and shelve it/hide it.
Watching my own videos, I can see that I could have done a much better job at going through the design and workings of this motor.
But as the video's were made for a group already quite versed in it's workings, I left the videos as they were.
In regards to the other private group, and my reason for leaving that group/forum, well there was more than one reason at play.
I myself do feel bad for leaving, and I know the guys over there are also disappointed in me as well, and for that I am sorry.
But as i said, there were many reasons for leaving, and not just 1.
1- one of my children needed my complete attention and time. I won't go into details, but for those that knew what the late Ernie went through with one of his children, then you know what I had to deal with. Thankfully, for now, that child is on the mend.
2- Now don't get me wrong here, the guys in that group were doing what they thought to be the best. But as we have seen many times, most started to stray from the precise design of the motor, and could not achieve the desired results. The 1 person that did stick to the design very closely was Jimboot. He was also the only one that started getting close to the desired outcome. Variations started coming out before the original was even achieved, regardless of my efforts to try and keep it on track.
3- As some of you may know, I own my own business, and when this covid bullshit fest hit, my work load went through the roof-oddly enough. The reason i did so well while other collapsed, is because of my particular line of work, which is fitting lithium off grid systems to caravans and mobile homes ( I think my American friends call them trailers and RVs). So rather than being locked down at home, by our idiotic government and premiers, many decided to go free camping along the coast of Western Australia, and avoid all the drama taking place in the cities and major towns. But in order to do that, you need to be off grid capable. So that is why my work load went up, and many other companies went bust.
4- At the other forum, we started to see a form of censorship taking place, where threads were being closed down due to members having a difference of opinion. There were strong opinions, but it never got to the stage of full on fighting like we have seen here on this forum--but the threads were closed down anyway, regardless of whether or not those in those threads wanted it to continue on or not.
The one thing i will never tolerate is being silenced for my beliefs-like i will not be silenced from disclosing this motor. And this time i have put in measures to make sure that does not happen-again.
Anyway, over the course of the next month or two, I will be redoing my videos that will explain exactly how this motor works, as well as showing you how to build it. So feel free to copy all my videos, and share the links here if you wish.
(CAVEAT--> I cannot and will not guarantee you will succeed at achieving a self runner, as I cannot insure that anyone will stick to my strict build instructions.)
Over the past months, I have been trying to come up with a very simple base- a simple way to build this motor, so as all can achieve there goal, and i have found a way to do it. What you will need is an old broken down brush cutter that has the geared angle drive head- like one pictured here on ebay--> tinyurl.com/2p9fz728 . Or see pic below.
You will also need either the 3/4/5/or 6 blade steel brush cutting disk to go with it--see second pic below
This will give you your torque plates, flywheel, and a means to couple up your small generator via the input of the right angle drive of the gear box, which will become the output shaft that drives your AD/DC generator. This is the simplest and cheapest way i could think of for building this motor.
But this must be done bit by bit, so as we all understand how it works, why it works, and give you your best chance at achieving a self running motor-with power to spare. The more precise you make your build, the better the chance of achieving your goal.
There are some critical tolerances that !must! be had in this build. 1/2 of a mm can make a 100% difference in performance, and this we will see in the coming videos.
The first video i will make will be all about the coil/coils-depending on how many you wish to have.
I will tell you now that you need only 1 to succeed.
The coil is one of the most important components of this motor, and must be built right.
You are going to need to forget about what you have learned about inductance and resistance when it comes to building this coil, as this motor works like no other, and present day inductance and resistance theory does not apply with this motor, which is why we can achieve what is though to be impossible. I will tell you now, regardless of whether you choose to believe it or not--a higher resistance coil is much more efficient that a coil with a lower resistance. Most will think that a coil with higher resistance will be less efficient due to higher resistive losses, but that simply is not true, and when you see what happens in this motors workings, you will understand why.
I will post that video here when it is done, which should be by friday night-my time.
Brad
WELCOME BACK TINMAN. I SEE A NEW BRILLIANT APPROACH TO YOUR INVENTION.
LOOKING FORWARD TO FRIDAY UTUBE. SORRY, I AM JUST AN ARMCHAIR SPECTATOR.
BUT BELIEVE YOU ME I AM IN SPIRIT WITH ALL YOUR GREAT ENDEAVOURS.
Looking forward to it all coming out, Tinman. Thanks for all of your hard work over the years.
@ all readers
I think that using a broader torque plate (a long pass between two electromagnets)
can give more power out. The magnets would need to remain energized for a
longer period of time but then higher RPM s will reduce the electromagnet on time
as well.
There is a limit to how broad the torque plate can be while still giving an output
power increase.
P.S.
The use of electromagnets which are broader along the direction of the plane of
rotation should also be profitable.
@ Tinman,
Great to see you in here dropping info. I have done the best I could to see the effect your motor appears to work with. My device is a bit ghetto, but I have seen some promising tests already. I have had very little info to go on. All I know is the small amount in this thread. I have been very grateful for the bits of knowledge and breadcrumbs getting dropped in here. I look forward to hearing and seeing much of the missing info I've been wanting to see. I've chosen 30 awg wire I was winding my electromagnets with but I will hold up for a couple days to see what you put out. Maybe even thinner is better? Thanks again for all you do. Can't wait to see what's ahead.
Quote from: Floor on January 21, 2022, 01:27:36 AM
@ all readers
I think that using a broader torque plate (a long pass between two electromagnets)
can give more power out. The magnets would need to remain energized for a
longer period of time...
I'm trying to understand your reasoning on this one a bit better. Are you thinking with a wider plate, you may get a slightly longer peak on the torque curve? I'm holding up a bit on my electromagnets to see what Tinman has to say. But if I understand your thoughts, I may be able to put together a quick test for you with my existing setup if just permanent magnets would work. I would just have to go find me a wider plate to put on the rotor. My magnets and stuff are still in exact positions as my last tests so comparisons would be very close.
Quote from: captainpecan on January 21, 2022, 02:16:54 AM
I'm trying to understand your reasoning on this one a bit better. Are you thinking with a wider plate, you may get a slightly longer peak on the torque curve? I'm holding up a bit on my electromagnets to see what Tinman has to say. But if I understand your thoughts, I may be able to put together a quick test for you with my existing setup if just permanent magnets would work. I would just have to go find me a wider plate to put on the rotor. My magnets and stuff are still in exact positions as my last tests so comparisons would be very close.
Yes exactly and testing with the permanent magnets would work.
With a wider plate, I'm thinking that....
you may get a longer nearly at peak force on the torque curve.
If you don't mind / are so inclinde to do that test.
Much wider, maybe 6x. This might not be the optimal width but it will still give
an indication as to wether or not this is correct.
P.S.
Zero degrees would then be with the magnet/s centered along the torque plate.
Hi guys.
Sorry, but running behind time again--the joys of owning a business.
Also been doing some video's on this covid shit show over here.
Our premier went from ok to an absolute ass, and now has decided to discriminate against those that refuse the clot shot.
So i have been giving him shit as well.
Anyway, here is the first video on measuring an applied torque over distance, where we use a standard attraction type pulse motor as an example.
I would strongly advise those that are going to build this motor, to set up a good test bed, so as you can get everything spot on.
This will help greatly with matching all your components, so as you have the best chance at success, as there is many variables that must be matched to the equipment you are going to use for your build.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQfMEJT7G1g
Brad
Ok, so here is the same test, but with the TP motor-or Torque Force motor design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KIub44uIs
Brad
GREAT WORK TINMAN. PERSEVERANCE WILL SURELY DESTROY ALL RESISTANCE.
CLOT SHOT. NEVER HEARD AS SUCH, BUT WILL KEEP IT IN MY CLOUD FOR FUTURE
USE. I HAVE BEEN STUCK HERE IN SEYCHELLES FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND I CAN
NOT COME TO VISIT MY SON IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA DUE TO A DOUBLE MANDATE.
ONE FROM MY DARLING WIFE, NOT AND THE OTHER FROM THIS TYRANT DICTATOR
WA MINISTER. THE REASON IS I AM AN ANTI-CLOT SHOT. GOD BLESS KEEP UP THIS
GREAT WORK.
@Tinman,
Great stuff, love to see the extra time to explain a bit more deeply in these videos what you are looking for and how to achieve it. I would like just a little more clarity on one thing if you will. The difference in the test between the two experiments. You mention grabbing the wrong torque plate when you did the test at your shop and that the one at your home performed better. I believe you stated it was 5 mm wider plate that you had best results with? To clarify, the test that you graphed the best results was in fact done with the "worst performing" of the two torque plates? Meaning that if you had been able to test with the material you wanted, it would have been even better difference between the two tests. Just making sure I understood you correctly.
So, if one was to perform your test exactly, would it be a torque plate 30 mm wide, and how thick? I have seen others mention getting best results with 1/8" thick. Do you concur? Your's LOOKS thinner, maybe 2mm thick? Or did you prefer thicker? Also, since I think you said the wider plate worked better, did you notice a width that seemed to no longer work any better? Was it the 30 mm plate?
Last thing I was wanting to clarify. It appears that the 1st video simply has the difference of raising the electromagnet up and out of directly in front of permanent magnet behind the plate. Am I correct in understanding that with that test, the permanent magnet is still 1 mm gap from the torque plate and still pulling the plate into the gap in both experiments, and that the ONLY difference in the test (except for grabbing different size plate) is the electromagnet is simply raised a bit higher and out of direct center alignment with the permanent magnet?
Thank you for your videos and clarification so far. I hope my questions are not annoying, as I have been working on the bench myself to fully understand what you are presenting to everyone. It's great work and I have learned so much already. Thanks again.
Quote from: tinman on February 02, 2022, 07:08:04 AM
Ok, so here is the same test, but with the TP motor-or Torque Force motor design.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KIub44uIs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6KIub44uIs)
Your force gage is not always tangential to the flywheel. Therefore your torque measurements are subject to the cosine error.
To fix this, pull on your force gage with a strong thread (blue) attached to the flywheel's perimeter further away (brown fastener), so the line that passes through the center of the flywheel (green) and through the point where the thread
stops touching the flywheel (red), always forms a right angle with the straight thread. That red point, the force gage and its anchor point should always be colinear.
Quote from: verpies on February 02, 2022, 01:39:18 PM
Your force gage is not always tangential to the flywheel. Therefore your torque measurements are subject to the cosine error.
To fix this, pull on your force gage with a strong thread (blue) attached to the flywheel's perimeter further away (brown fastener), so the line that passes through the center of the flywheel (green) and through the point where the thread stops touching the flywheel (red), always forms a right angle with the straight thread. That red point, the force gage and its anchor point should always be colinear.
While i agree with what you say, the point of the experiment was to show the difference between the two in way of a %.
As we carried out both tests in identical ways, then we can safely assume that the results show an accurate difference between the two in way of a %.
If we were after an accurate torque graph, then the way you show to carry out that test would be the way to do it.
Brad
Quote from: captainpecan on February 02, 2022, 01:07:39 PM
@Tinman,
Great stuff, love to see the extra time to explain a bit more deeply in these videos what you are looking for and how to achieve it. I would like just a little more clarity on one thing if you will. The difference in the test between the two experiments. You mention grabbing the wrong torque plate when you did the test at your shop and that the one at your home performed better. I believe you stated it was 5 mm wider plate that you had best results with? To clarify, the test that you graphed the best results was in fact done with the "worst performing" of the two torque plates? Meaning that if you had been able to test with the material you wanted, it would have been even better difference between the two tests. Just making sure I understood you correctly.
So, if one was to perform your test exactly, would it be a torque plate 30 mm wide, and how thick? I have seen others mention getting best results with 1/8" thick. Do you concur? Your's LOOKS thinner, maybe 2mm thick? Or did you prefer thicker? Also, since I think you said the wider plate worked better, did you notice a width that seemed to no longer work any better? Was it the 30 mm plate?
Last thing I was wanting to clarify. It appears that the 1st video simply has the difference of raising the electromagnet up and out of directly in front of permanent magnet behind the plate. Am I correct in understanding that with that test, the permanent magnet is still 1 mm gap from the torque plate and still pulling the plate into the gap in both experiments, and that the ONLY difference in the test (except for grabbing different size plate) is the electromagnet is simply raised a bit higher and out of direct center alignment with the permanent magnet?
Thank you for your videos and clarification so far. I hope my questions are not annoying, as I have been working on the bench myself to fully understand what you are presenting to everyone. It's great work and I have learned so much already. Thanks again.
Hi captainpecan
The electromagnet was set in each test so as the core of the electromagnet was centered with the PM.
The extra width of the TP from 25mm to 30mm makes a big difference-about 30%. But this also depends on other factors as well, which is why it is important to make a good test rig, so as you can try different width and thickness TPs, and see which one gives you the best results.
The thinner TPs shown in the video are on the verge of magnetic saturation, which reduces the pull force. If you are too small with your TPs, it can actually have the opposite effect, and push the TPs away from the field gate. The 5mm wider ones offer that slight increase in mass, and decrease magnetic saturation of the TPs. The saturation point will also depend on thickness of your TPs, and the distance of free TP to the flywheel mass. You must use a steel or iron flywheel (a magnetic flywheel) for best results, as the flywheel will also carry the magnetic field, and reduce TP magnetic saturation.
The TPs i used for that particular motor are made from 2 inch exhaust tube, at 2mm thick.
Brad
Stephan, will you please make Tinman the admin on this thread before it goes the way it always goes... Hopefully, he just posts everything ASAP.
Quote from: tinman on February 02, 2022, 06:43:32 PM
While i agree with what you say, the point of the experiment was to show the difference between the two in way of a %.
As we carried out both tests in identical ways, then we can safely assume that the results show an accurate difference between the two in way of a %.
If we were after an accurate torque graph, then the way you show to carry out that test would be the way to do it.
Brad
Good point verpies.
but
I think that Tinman's point is valid here. The conditions being the same in the two sets
or even very nearly so, should result in a very good approximatioin of the ratios and
that is what he is looking to demonstrate in this case.
I edited this post. Answered my own question.
Thanks again, great work!
@ the general readership
Let me point out from experience. Conducting this kind of experimentation while nearly
simultaneously responding, to queries, alternative ideas and even non critical observations
is an order of magnitude more difficult than is quiet experimentation on ones own. It is
common occurrence that an over crowding of the experimenters personal space and
an over taxing of their mental focus occurs. As I said, I know what this is like from personal
experience. It takes time from the experimenter to absorb, reflect, and respond.
It can be quite over whelming at times.
The best tack for we on the side is / are,
1. get every thing done and out of the way right at the very start.
2. request all details and information immediately
3. answer all of one's own questions. This is, believe it or not,
possible most of the time.
4. do one's own tests.
5. don't rush the experimenter.
6. inquire only after exhausting all other options.
7. be very clear in stating any question. Often this in itself reveals the answer.
It is quite common that questions are so poorly composed, that it takes two or three
times, back and forth just to clarify what is being asked. Bummer !
8. re read the topic for anything one may have missed.
9. request of other users other than the builder to give information.
This can back fire !
10. don't give information on behalf of the experimenter that you do not for a certainty
know came from the inventors own mouth. Do only quotes ?
11. Realize the experimenter does not have all the answers,
is working in / upon assumptions(is experimenting).
needs to be able to adjust his assumptions on the fly,
needs to be able to adjust his variables on the fly,
may rapidly proceed through any number of his own assumptions
may rapidly proceed through any number of variables
may already be testing at several points ahead in the experimentation than any
follower is aware of and so on.
12. will probably report / update, do Q and A.
13. If you get inspired, have brilliant flashes and so on, write them down.
Brain storming while good, does not mean ideas should be presented
during the course of an experiment. But may be some times/ briefly.
Hey guys.
Be back with you all as soon as possible.
We have a covid shit show going on over here ATM, and i can't even get to my workshop.
Seems that half our cities businesses have been shut down due to a !so called! outbreak.
Over here, an outbreak is 32 cases it seems. ::)
Had to do a RAT test, and they recon it came back positive, which is bullshit, as i have 0 symptoms.
I did another one 2 days later, and it came back negative--what a joke this shit is.
Not a happy camper ATM.
Will get back into it as soon as i can actually get to my workshop.
Brad
Quote from: tinman on February 14, 2022, 07:14:32 AM
Had to do a RAT test, and they recon it came back positive, which is bullshit, as i have 0 symptoms.
One reason why you antivaxxers have so signally failed is that you do not have the professionalism to learn the basic fundamentals.
It is well known that people can be covid positive with no symptoms. It is one of the great problems. But then you will call this "Fake News" along with, if I recall correctly from your posts at another place, the idea that the damge done on 9/11 was done by aircraft.
It is also well known that most of the tests are made in china and are known for false positives. Moderna CEO just dumped 400mil in Mrna stock. J&J just suspended making the shots anymore. Most of the sick are in the vaxxed lot.
Oh, well, What ever.
Quote from: Thaelin on February 14, 2022, 09:04:20 AM
... and are known for false positives....
Yes, it's a problem along with some false negatives.
THE HIDDEN CONNECTIONS WITHIN AUSTRALIA'S POWER ELITES - "IT'S A BIG CLUB AND YOU AND I, ARE NOT IN IT"! (Copied from Stephen Andrew MP member for Mirani Facebook post)
Many people, like me, are starting to wake up to the fact that things are not what they seem in Australia. For years now, we have all been fed the line that Australia is a democratic 'meritocracy' where those who reach the top, do so as a product of their own gifts, talent, intelligence or hard work – none of which is even remotely true.
Most people operating at the top of Australia's elite circle of power are part of a far more nepotistic and insidious system altogether – one where hard work and talent matters much less than who are connected to, or even who your father, mother, or sibling was, or who you are married to.
Take Boris Johnson in the UK, whose father, Stanley Johnson, was an influential Conservative Party politician and later, a member of the European Parliament, European Commission and World Bank.
Justin Trudeau's father, Pierre Trudeau, was of course the famous Prime Minister of Canada, whose two administrations bridged the 1960, 1970s and 1980s.
Jacinda Ardern is the daughter of Ross Ardern, a NZ High Commissioner to Cook Islands and more recently, Administrator of Tokelau. His brother, Ian, is Head of the Mormon Church in New Zealand and Pacific region.
Scott Morrison's Great Aunt was Mary Gilmore, who once founded a utopian socialist colony in Paraguay with the socialist William Lane. Morrison's older brother, Alan, serves as Chair of AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) Committee on Paramedicine and Chair of the government's Health Services Working Group.
Then there is Jane Halton, who Morrison appointed as head of the government's National Covid-19 Co-ordination Commission.
Jane is the daughter of Charles Halton, a British Military Scientist brought to Australia in 1973 by Gough Whitlam to overhaul the country's transport system, and who served as Secretary of Defence and Secretary of the Department of Communications under Hawke and Keating. Daughter Jane is now the CHAIR OF CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), set up and funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and World Economic Forum in 2015.
Jane was part of Event 201, a pandemic exercise organised and funded by John Hopkins, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations and the World Economic Forum in October 2019. Jane's husband is Trevor Sutton, Deputy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Chair of the Governing Council of Statistics for the Asian and Pacific region.
Trevor heads the Statistical Business Transformation Group which received a $256 million investment program to radically transform how ABS collects, processes and disseminates information, data and statistics. In 2016, ABS data collection and survey systems were awarded to Accenture, a partner of ID2020 and GAVI.
Trevor is a Member of the Institute for Health Metrics & Evaluation of which Jane Halton is also a Board Member, and which receives funding from the Gates Foundation and WHO. Trevor Sutton's brother is Dr Brett Sutton. Dr Sutton is the Chief Health Officer of Victoria, who advises Dan Andrews Government on public health and pandemic response measures.
Interestingly, Jane Halton also has a brother, Philip Halton, who is Deputy Commissioner of QBCC, Queensland's building and construction regulator.
These are just a few examples but there are many more - some are well-known, while others are tightly guarded secrets.
.
Hi Johan:
Totally too many peeps have been fed the proverbial blue pill so long that they think that is how it is. Those who have taken the red one, a lot would love to go back but now there is no return to the norm. Posts like this just boost the game as to what is really going on. For those who stead fast fight change, it is still on the horizon and is a storm strong. The infiltration of our very gov's so as to totally control everything is the final goal. It will never worked before, so how do they think it will work this time. No one took Rome down, it took its self down just as any self serving one world gov will.
Be strong and stay vigilant, many stand with you.
I think all governments are evil and they want to control their populations. I started to post here since around 2010 and I thought some people exagerated when they spoke about governments but not at all, now I know it's worst than they said and less than I could imagine.
2 GAP coils with backing magnets facing each other in opposition and a stator of a monopole should deliver the additional attraction advantage and allow for a full release from the neutralization pulse as well. Tinman shows the bucking fields add the attraction of an additional Phantom Flynn magnet. Francouir has a radial stator sandwiched between coils.
A radial flux GAP magnet attraction neutralization motor with stator magnets assembled as monopoles coupled by a magnetizer material or just forcibly glued together holds promise. The field Amplification shares Halbach array dynamics.
Two high perm ferrite core coils like this with powerful backing magnets in opposition positioned to attract the monopole stator.
Look at the field distortion as shown in the sketch below: The attraction field power is definitely magnified between and outside the opposite poles. The field balloons.
Very importantly, magnets will not saturate like the metal stator. This supplies a considerable Torque advantage to this kind of attraction motor. A recovery circuit would return 100% of the input power. That would leave the powerful attraction tourque as overunity output.
Compressing opposite magnetic fields balloons them. The magnification works the same way with the rotor monopole as it does for the stator sandwich. Both the compressed rotor monopole and the stator fields are enlarged and amplied by the bucking fields. This involves the appearance of a second phantom magnet in the rotor. Double the advantage!
It's interesting that the Adam's Motor focused four N poles on the power pulse: 2 from the rotor and the 2 from the opposing side stator coils. It could run off a simple contact if the neutralization coils were in series and parallel. One Mosfet could run a radial flux GAP magnet attraction neutralization motor with 12 coils and 6 monopole rotor magnets.
Spring scale attraction force test results on a siamese monopole and bucking field stator magnets would be welcomed.
Attaching a Torque arm to a spring and drive shaft could spin a heavy flywheel with a ratchet release action in the zone of maximum attraction with a simple solinoid crank mechanism. This design can scale up to a Radial to compete with the axial flux concept.
Hello synchro1,fine experiments offering :
to #126 the theoretical assumption in image kind we can use in real ferrit powder which gives us a physical visual magnets circuit orientation and distance approach
like to see here : https://web.archive.org/web/20160227140906/http://geminielectricmotor.com/ (https://web.archive.org/web/20160227140906/http://geminielectricmotor.com/)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160227141156if_/http://geminielectricmotor.com/Image2.gif
similar : flux detector
https://www.magnet-shop.com/office-education/school-education/flux-big-sheet-magnetic-field-viewer-150-x-150-mm (https://www.magnet-shop.com/office-education/school-education/flux-big-sheet-magnetic-field-viewer-150-x-150-mm)
beside the often forgotten LNaudin demonstration : http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm)
axial repulsive force versus tangential repulsive force
to # 127 : what are/what is a " siamese monopole " ? Never heared ! (~ mirror monopole ?)
Thanks for the public view !
Sincerely
by save and successfull weekend wishing
OCWL
Take a look at this Magnet Beam amplifier :
The Magnet Beam has 4 axial cubes compressed by pipes all with N pole pointed in and a 5th on the perpendicular N pole in. The 5th coil could be replaced by a GAP coil that current reversed. Imagine the attraction field strength of 2 beams of 5 magnets in opposition to a mirror monopole rotor magnet. Like compression from 2 Halbach arrays.
Shielding the 5th coil neutralizes the magnet beam entirely. Projecting the magnet bubble requires the GAP coil to polarize in sympathy with the N pole. The shield field drops to zero.
I'm having some trouble understanding for-sure what the "pipes" are that appear on the ends of the magnets?
Do you have a clearer diagram of how to build this "Magnet Beam" configuration?
And this part gets my interest
QuoteShielding the 5th coil neutralizes the magnet beam entirely.
How do you "shield" it for sure?
4 axial magnets same pole faceing in on the 4 spokes of a cross. The 5th magnet of equal strength is positioned like an axle to the cross hub. This pushes the 4 magnet cross field to the side. Everything else you see is the frame needed to press the magnets together forcibly. The side beam dissapers when the perpendicular magnet is removed. An H bridge would need to amplify and Neutralize a GAP coil to power and mask the beam. The dividends come from masking 5 magnets for the cost of masking one!
Imagine the power of the attraction field between 2 magnet beams faceing each other in close opposition.
#131 : https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Magnetischer_Barkhausen-Effekt?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Alternatively to Halbach-array ,if not known :
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/pat-sankar
https://patents.justia.com/patent/8514045
wmbr
OCWL