This information was sent to me and many thanks to that person :) that wishes to stay anonymous , anyone got anymore information?
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSabous%2FP6100232.JPG&hash=9f365305402a9cdb0e3fe9c06fe627eebad83b87)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSabous%2FP6100235.JPG&hash=50e161f49a2f98d8913fcc0d39b16b110b039d96)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSabous%2FP6100236.JPG&hash=0f02891e6718a95ef58394ca6f850362e7e31674)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSabous%2FP6100237.JPG&hash=0d7c9b418924c115efdc5f3352d8915f286da238)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.org.uk%2FSabous%2FP6100238.JPG&hash=c464b8093ea79ebe81e77b95f480d46f52a4bbed)
Video Link:
http://www.overunity.org.uk/Sabous/p6100241_172.avi
Cheers
CLaNZeR
Clanz, did you build this??
is this thing running on its own???
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 06, 2008, 04:47:14 PM
Clanz, did you build this??
is this thing running on its own???
Sm0ky mate, if that was my arms and hands you would see my tattoos on my arms ;D don't you know me by now?
I get alot of emails and try to get through them, and this was sent to me tonight. So as usual I am just releasing to see if anyone has more info on it.
The guy who sent the details wishes to stay anonymous but is not the builder.
Cheers
Sean.
Very interesting
Seems to be a working Mot
Perhaps you can ask your secret contact about torque and so on.
Thanx for sharing
helmut
WOW !
A combinaison of this magnetic motor and the technology of Thane Hein and you have free power !
Are the ball are magnet or steel ball ?
there may be something to this...
preliminary tests DO show some sort of 'driving effect'. im focusing on the arrangement on the back side of the device. primarily the north-facing quadrapole, positioned above the north-facing oscillator.
from what i gather, the large magnetic bar on the front is simply acting as a "flywheel".
most of the rest of what you see may be non-functional, or (cosmetic?) perhaps even added for balancing/stabalization....
start with the square, like poles facing outwards. and the oscillator underneath it, like poles facing upwards to repel the square. for now, lets ignore everything else. obviously a fly-wheel is needed to sustain rotational momentum, but im not sure that it has to be magnetic. this builder may just not have had available anything else to use as weight.
my quickie-build is indeed interesting, but its non-symmetrical and doesnt rotate properly. just kicks a little for now.. i'll work on this some more when i get a chance, but if anyone else has the tools/time to look into this, please give it a shot.
i have these same rectangular ferrites shown here, i just taped 4 of them around a bearing'ed dowel
and mocked-up an oscillator, to run some simple tests. It definately seems worth more research.
just thought i would pass this on to you guys, maybe you can come up with some more useful info
if not, i'll post a follow-up when i have more time to play around with this.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 06, 2008, 08:29:18 PM
there may be something to this...
i have these same rectangular ferrites shown here, i just taped 4 of them around a bearing'ed dowel
and mocked-up an oscillator, to run some simple tests. It definately seems worth more research.
Those magnets look like the ones you get from Radio Shaft for a couple of bucks.
This design shows no free energy. It may be perpetual motion but there is no excess energy to be left for use. It does not speed up and it would take a perpetual motion design that speeds up to the point of self destruction before it can be said to be able to produce free energy.
based on the speed shown, any load would make it slow down to halt if it already doesn't do so without a load added.
Even if it shows no excess energy at this stage it is a starting point considering the 'rough' construction. With only a 13 second video it is hard to tell much. It is shown already running so you can not tell if it was spun up by hand (or motor) to begin with. Is it a self starter ? With only 13 second video it is hard to tell if it is 'running down' at all. There could also be a coil 'under the table' driving it. Not saying there is but with all the 'hoaxes' lately it is harder to start with a clear judement. Looks simple enough to replicate. More details needed such as, is the plate plastic, steel, aluminum. Are the balls in the plate attracted to the magnets ? Is the outer hoop steel or aluminum, etc...
hydrocontrol, it can not be a self starter because it does not accelerate in the video. A self starting perpetual motion design that would self start, would continue to accelerate until it self destructed.
I dissagree with the statement that a self starter motor would continue to accelerate till it distroys it's self. In my tests it only accelerates till you have reached your maximum magnetic force, like a person peddling a bike, can only travel as fast as a person can peddle.
McGiver30, "In my tests it only accelerates till you have reached your maximum magnetic force, like a person peddling a bike, can only travel as fast as a person can peddle."
Now think about what you just said. For your test to self start as you said, you would have had to have set the position of the starting point. A true self starting perpetual motion design would not be required to have the start position set. It would start at any position and if it self started at any position it would continue to accelerate until it self destructed.
McGiver30, something else to remember is that the magnetic force is unlimited with out a resistance. Only when a resistance, either negative or positive, is applied to a magnetic force will you have a maximum potential of a magnetic force.
The person that is peddling a bike simply cannot go any faster because of two elements.
1.He cannot supply more energy into the system, he has reached the point of maximum output.
2.Resistance , Like the wind and the friction in the system, it will work against him, thus lowering maximum output.
Please remember that magnetic fields are stationary in space.
It is the external input action that is being converted into electricity and/or the external electricity that is being converted into motion, this is the source of the energy.
Therefore magnets alone are not able to drive something without an external element that creates a disturbance between the powering and resisting forces.
When you create a disturbance between these two elements, nature will force them back into balance.
(Gravity excluded in this simple example)
So you have to keep putting energy into the system to keep the disturbance or it will come to a state of balance again and thus it stops.
Marco.
nightlife, you don't know what you're talking about and are polluting this thread. I suggest you and the others replying would post in the thread he made.
As for the this motor. Interesting indeed, the only way to get an accurate description of the philosophy behind it is to contact the inventor.
Quote from: nightlife on October 06, 2008, 09:47:52 PM
This design shows no free energy. It may be perpetual motion but there is no excess energy to be left for use. It does not speed up and it would take a perpetual motion design that speeds up to the point of self destruction before it can be said to be able to produce free energy.
based on the speed shown, any load would make it slow down to halt if it already doesn't do so without a load added.
If this design really works, it shows free energy. This free energy is used to overcome the loses due to friction of the rollers or the air, thus leading to a maximum speed. Even with such a simple prototype it is possible to add a charge slowing the speed but recovering energy.
The remaining problem is just that there are hundreds of such "fe motors" on the web but nobody can duplicate them: probably 100% scam.
i dont know if this is a scam or not, the short video, and obscure photographs of its construction don't tell us a whole lot.
all im sayin is, that quadrapole in combination with the oscillator DOES show some interesting results, and might be worth looking into.
@ nightlife - your assumption that ALL PMM's "must" accelerate to self destruction is absurd.
SOME do just that, im not sayin' you're "wrong", but its rediculous to think that ALL such machines must behave this way.. ONLY if they accelerate infinitely (or beyond their capacity) will they accelerate to self destructoin. in ALL other cases, the device would (or should) reach a maximum velocity.
@CLaNZeR
Good string to start. I find it interesting and can see what he is doing. The larger stack of ceramic magnets cause a larger magnetic field and on the avi there are other magnets on the rim. This has fallen in some things I have tried. But if it was running for real, it should be running a bit faster, but sticky spots will slow it down, but may take awhile. In a video I want to see one at the start, not just spinning. I want to see it accelerate.
broli,
Quote"you don't know what you're talking about and are polluting this thread."
I know exactly what I am talking about and everything I have posted on this thread has to due with this thread as well as others like it.
exnihiloest,
QuoteIf this design really works, it shows free energy.
I should have clarified my statement a bit better. It does not show any excess free energy and can not unless it was to speed up to the point of self destruction.
sm0ky2,
Quote@ nightlife - your assumption that ALL PMM's "must" accelerate to self destruction is absurd.
Oh is it? If they are designed to produce more energy then they need to operate, then yes, they must be able to accelerate to the point of self destruction when no added resistance is presented.
QuoteONLY if they accelerate infinitely (or beyond their capacity) will they accelerate to self destruction. in ALL other cases, the device would (or should) reach a maximum velocity.
A maximum velocity can only be accounted for when a resistance is added. The maximum velocity is based on the resistance. If there is no resistance to a acceleration, the acceleration will accelerate to the point of self destruction. The point of self destruction would depend on the materials used in the design.
We are talking about true magnetic fields here. All perpetual designs are designed to work off true magnetic fields. True magnetic field centers have no limits when they are introduced to a pull or a push. They will always pull to the center or always push from the center when another same magnetic field is presented depending on the magnetic fields pole position.
If a perpetual motion design can not accelerate to the point of destruction with out a added resistance, it will never produce more energy that it needs to operate. Any resistance would slow it down until it stops.
The only way a perpetual motion design can produce more then it requires to work is for it to be able to accelerate to the point of self destruction or it is able to accelerate to the point where it creates it's own resistance. The only way to keep it from self destructing is by adding a resistance.
Are those the same magnets as the ones from Radioshack?
I think we need to get some of the dimensions of those parts, and replications going to see if we can get any real empirical evidence, and possible improvements.
You probably should have left "Sabous" out of the subject name if you really had wanted him to be anonymous. :P
will nice if it really works, but unfortunately the video does not show the start like many other videos.
The flywheel has a lot of mass, so once started and then the video taken it is hard to tell if the unit is slowing down or not; I wish we could see the start of the motor.
HEY NIGHTLIFE - you have a puny mind unable to comprehend more than one concept of PM.
Your 'statement of fact' is a more a statement of ignorance!
You thinking the ONLY way to get OU from PM is self-destructive acceleration and it MUST BE SO is.... your opinion. A stupid, idiotic one - but hey - you are entitled to it. To state your 'opinion' (as fucked-up as it is) as LAW further demonstrates your inferior intellect.
:P
@nightlife
Accelerate to the point of destruction. This can be a true statement if there are no resistance. Gravity + velocity - resistance. Resistance / friction will regulate any speed. A PM device blowing apart is possible, but not likely unless it is built poorly. But all and all don't you think we need a runner first before we argue about flying apart. ::)
PS Bessler's wheels didn't fly apart either.
The problem came up because both sides speak about the different basic case.Nightlife takes frictionless environment as a basic case and then his words are true all the way.He is also right about any generator with resistance that is constant or slower growing than speed.
Some examples to clarify:
1)If we would have no resistance at all a bicycle wheel made to turn would turn for ever creating a perpetum mobile.It would not slow down,nor would it accelerate because no extra energy is put to it once started.we have a self runner
2) now 10 times at every turn of this PM wheel we it adds a constant impulse of force.With every impulse the speed of the wheel will increase accordingly.we have a self runner with higher speed
3)the wheel impulses infinite many times with the same constant force,obtaining infinite speed and destroying the wheel.A generator.
in case 1 no energy is added nor lost (no resistance).If this PM would produce any surplus energy for long enough time it will self destruct as in case 3.
With introduction of resistance situation would look like this:
4)case1 but bicycle wheel will eventually stop,as with every turning its speed is lost due to extracted energy(normal everyday case)
5)
a)if the impulse of force at every turn is smaller than resistance ,then wheel will stop eventually but it will take longer than in case 1 to do so
b)if the impulse is equal to the resistance we have a self runner with constant turning speed
c)if the impulse is greater than the resistance we obtain self destructor
As we have always resistance only 5a and 5b are important to us.As u see in resistanceless theory any generator should self destruct like in case 3.This is exactly as nightlife said,because at every turn energy is added but never taken away....
In real world we can have a generator outputting just enough power to self sustain its movement-a self runner with a constant speed as in case 5b).Clearly 5b is not producing any usefull work and addition of any load will make it to stop eventually.So in fact it is a PM and can be called a generator only in resistanceless circumstances(because it outputs no usefull energy and in definition generator is outputting surplus energy).
A real generator like in case 5c should self destruct as the force impulse is constant and it implies constant acceleration.Only extra load equal to surplus output can save the generator and make it to operate at constant speed.extra load can also come in a form of increase in resistance with increasing speed.In case when resistance grows faster than speed at some point the generator will reach constant speed because the resistance will mug it out of all surplus energy-becomes case 5b.It can be that this speed is enough to self destruct(poor design).If resistance grows slower than speed u have a self destructor.
Did a little searching and found a non english board with more info with diagrams and pics on that motor (first link).
The second link has actual blueprints for a SIMILAR motor. Hopefully someone can get enough info to build a demo model. Might want to use a page translator for the links.
http://www.upramene.cz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=718&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
http://www.elektroworld.info/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=173
Quote from: yoyo on October 10, 2008, 02:05:55 AM
HEY NIGHTLIFE - you have a puny mind unable to comprehend more than one concept of PM.
Your 'statement of fact' is a more a statement of ignorance!
You thinking the ONLY way to get OU from PM is self-destructive acceleration and it MUST BE SO is.... your opinion. A stupid, idiotic one - but hey - you are entitled to it. To state your 'opinion' (as fucked-up as it is) as LAW further demonstrates your inferior intellect.
:P
If you wish to call me names and disrespect me, please do that in person. My comments are facts and if you took the time to think about it, you would know I am right. If you would like to talk about what I posted, then we can do that provided it is done respectfully. I will not stand for being disrespected and anyone is more then welcome to sit down and talk to me in person over a cup of coffee but please note that I am not very nice to those who disrespect me in person.
AB Hammer, "This can be a true statement if there are no resistance. Gravity + velocity - resistance. Resistance / friction will regulate any speed. A PM device blowing apart is possible, but not likely unless it is built poorly. But all and all don't you think we need a runner first before we argue about flying apart."
I am loosing my mind trying to get you all to understand what I am saying.
For A PM to produce more energy then it consumes, it would have to continuously accelerate unless a resistance is added to limit the RPM of the PM.
You get the PM to self run, then it consumes the energy it produces and therefore will stay at a steady RPM. Once a resistance is added, it will decelerate until it comes to a halt.
Isn’t that basic common sense?
Creativity, thank you. Finally we have someone else with some common sense here. Now if we can get the others to understand this. Common sense is becoming hard to find in people these days. LOL
The more I look at the pictures and watch the video, I find there to be a lot of unnecessary resistance in the design that would just add to the loss of energy that could be left to be added to the over all efficiency.
The zip ties, the placement of the three magnets around the top and the pivot point are just a few things that I see that could be designed better to eliminate some of the resistance.
Nightlife, there is a "modify" button in the top right corner of each post you make when signed in. I'd appreciate it if you used it in the future to add-on to your posts rather then quadruple-posting.
Quote from: nightlife on October 10, 2008, 10:40:40 PM
AB Hammer, "This can be a true statement if there are no resistance. Gravity + velocity - resistance. Resistance / friction will regulate any speed. A PM device blowing apart is possible, but not likely unless it is built poorly. But all and all don't you think we need a runner first before we argue about flying apart."
I am loosing my mind trying to get you all to understand what I am saying.
For A PM to produce more energy then it consumes, it would have to continuously accelerate unless a resistance is added to limit the RPM of the PM.
You get the PM to self run, then it consumes the energy it produces and therefore will stay at a steady RPM. Once a resistance is added, it will decelerate until it comes to a halt.
Isn’t that basic common sense?
Nightlife,
I see your point (or believe I do). Let me phrase it another way and see if you would agree.
If a moving device like this one is OU, then it is more than 100% efficient by definition, meaning it produces MORE energy than it needs to have continuous motion at a fixed speed. That energy above 100%, without resistance/load to remove it, HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE, so it HAS TO ACCELERATE because nothing is there to drain the excess energy from a closed system.
Is this a correct explanation that fits your argument?
If so, then even a system just barely overunity (101%) would slowly accelerate over time without some additional load to slow the acceleration. And because the acceleration would be infinite, at some point it has to surpass the stability point of the build and destruct.
In any case, just to see a Unity device would be a good start. I pure self runner would likely to have some possibilities for reduction of friction to push it overunity. And any self runner should be immediately monitored for even slight acceleration which could be harnessed to drive a load to do useful work.
Regards,
jeffc
Nihilanth, "Nightlife, there is a "modify" button in the top right corner of each post you make when signed in. I'd appreciate it if you used it in the future to add-on to your posts rather then quadruple-posting."
I am well aware of the modify option. I posted what I did the way I did for a reason.
jeffc, you too understand what I said and I agree that just a self runner would be a good start. My whole reasoning for stating what I did is because this PM was said to be a self starter but for it to do that, it would have to continue to accelerate after start until it self destructed and or a resistance was added to keep it from doing so.
The video clearly shows that it is not accelerating and therefore it could not have started by it's self. It does not show enough for us to be able to tell if it is a true PM self runner and I would like to see more because if it is even close to be a self runner, I found some resistance in the design that could be taken away.
Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 09:19:52 AM
Nihilanth, "Nightlife, there is a "modify" button in the top right corner of each post you make when signed in. I'd appreciate it if you used it in the future to add-on to your posts rather then quadruple-posting."
I am well aware of the modify option. I posted what I did the way I did for a reason.
jeffc, you too understand what I said and I agree that just a self runner would be a good start. My whole reasoning for stating what I did is because this PM was said to be a self starter but for it to do that, it would have to continue to accelerate after start until it self destructed and or a resistance was added to keep it from doing so.
The video clearly shows that it is not accelerating and therefore it could not have started by it's self. It does not show enough for us to be able to tell if it is a true PM self runner and I would like to see more because if it is even close to be a self runner, I found some resistance in the design that could be taken away.
i see i didn't put enough accent on a small nuance.The characteristics of a device is also important.I mean a resistance and how it behaves in function of rpm's.
To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed.
It comes form the fact, that if this device outputs any torque,it is a constant one(or constant pulses) because magnets strength is constant also.So static torque (when holding it not to turn) will be the same as at any rpm's.
At 0 rpm the drag force will be 0 ,so any surplus torque will make the wheel to spin(self start) and accelerate.As the rmp's increase also drag increase but much faster,so acceleration will be decreasing! At some rpm's all of the torque will be consumed by drag force of air.U can visualise it as a graph with a constant force of generator line approached from under by a parabole of increasing drag force.Both curves in function of rpm's,the point where they intersect is the maximum speed of this device under given resistances.
As u see it is possible to have a self starter self runner,it only depends on the character of the resistance forces.
To go even further, this self starting self runner can output usefull energy when a load is added.As long as the load + air drag is not grater than torque,the engine will operate at lower rpm's but will not stop :)
One more thing.When torque is pulsed, engine will not self start from every position.Here a car engine is a good analogy.Ony if the piston is at the end of compression cycle that a spark can start an engine.
Creativity,
Quote"To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed."
That is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all. The only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater.
No pm can self start without eventually self destructing or without adding a resistance to keep it at a steady speed.
If a pm can rotate past the first resistance point from the start of repelling resistance point, it will continue to accelerate because the repelling resistance is greater then the attracting resistance at each point of resistance. The drag is a resistance from the first moment it starts to move and it only becomes greater as the rotation becomes greater and the action has a equally resistance at any speed unless another resistance is added after the start.
Quote from: Creativity on October 11, 2008, 10:14:53 AM
i see i didn't put enough accent on a small nuance.The characteristics of a device is also important.I mean a resistance and how it behaves in function of rpm's.
To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed.
It comes form the fact, that if this device outputs any torque,it is a constant one(or constant pulses) because magnets strength is constant also.So static torque (when holding it not to turn) will be the same as at any rpm's.
At 0 rpm the drag force will be 0 ,so any surplus torque will make the wheel to spin(self start) and accelerate.As the rmp's increase also drag increase but much faster,so acceleration will be decreasing! At some rpm's all of the torque will be consumed by drag force of air.U can visualise it as a graph with a constant force of generator line approached from under by a parabole of increasing drag force.Both curves in function of rpm's,the point where they intersect is the maximum speed of this device under given resistances.
As u see it is possible to have a self starter self runner,it only depends on the character of the resistance forces.
To go even further, this self starting self runner can output usefull energy when a load is added.As long as the load + air drag is not grater than torque,the engine will operate at lower rpm's but will not stop :)
One more thing.When torque is pulsed, engine will not self start from every position.Here a car engine is a good analogy.Ony if the piston is at the end of compression cycle that a spark can start an engine.
Creativity,
Do you think it is really air drag that is the limiting factor on this design? On the video it appears to be a low rpm device, which makes me question if resistance from air is such a big factor.
Also, I think friction does not increase with velocity, and in fact I think it can actually decrease (correct me if I'm wrong).
As you say, in order for a self starter, self runner, there must be some kind of resistive force which increases with velocity. Which resistive forces fit this characteristic? Air drag is one possibility, but might not be enough at these low rpms and small sized unit.
Regards,
jeffc
Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 01:27:06 PM
Creativity,
That is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all. The only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater.
No pm can self start without eventually self destructing or without adding a resistance to keep it at a steady speed.
If a pm can rotate past the first resistance point from the start of repelling resistance point, it will continue to accelerate because the repelling resistance is greater then the attracting resistance at each point of resistance. The drag is a resistance from the first moment it starts to move and it only becomes greater as the rotation becomes greater and the action has a equally resistance at any speed unless another resistance is added after the start.
Nightlife,
As you know I understand your reasoning, and now have been trying to understand those who disagree with your concept.
I think that your concept would require that the PMM motion be the result of an imbalance of forces. In that way, the imbalance would be permanent and infinite. So the device would self start and accelerate until self destruction. This I think is a very logical argument.
I believe that others here view this situation differently. They see that a device such as this is tapping into an energy source as a kind of collector of energy. And the collector has a maximum ability to extract the energy from its source, based on the characteristics of its design. Think of it like a wind mill. The wind mill only rotates as fast as its efficiency to collect the wind, combined with the actual speed of the wind. If a PMM is based on extracting energy from outside the system, then it will have a maximum efficiency at collecting, and perhaps a maximum amount of energy within its collecting radius at any one time. In this case, a PMM could self start (like a windmill) and then accelerate to a maximum velocity.
So I think there are two theories here, each impacted by similar resistive forces but very different in terms of where the energy actually comes from. If you are correct and a PMM source of motion is due to imbalance, then it has to indefinitely accelerate. If others are correct and the source of motion is tapping a stream of energy like the wind, solar, or a river, then an overunity PMM would not have to self destruct.
Now, if only we had a working Unity or OU PMM to test with then we could solve this puzzle!
Regards,
jeffc
jeffc,
Quote"They see that a device such as this is tapping into an energy source as a kind of collector of energy. And the collector has a maximum ability to extract the energy from its source, based on the characteristics of its design."
That may be but then what they are thinking of would not be a perpetual motion motor.
"The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance, or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance. According to the law of conservation of energy, such a device cannot exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
A PMM operates in a closed system which would not require and or seek any outside energy source for its movement.
@nightlife
QuoteThat is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all.
well u just repeated in ur own words what i said,just ur conclusion is wrong :) at the beginning there is no drag of air as the speed is 0,there is only static friction.Engine will not start if it can not overcome this static friction.In this example i assume the engine outputs enough torque to overcome this static fricion(and then the kinetic one when it is in motion already).If u reread what i wrote u will see that i said that it will accelerate from the start.Acceleration will be finite as the torque is finite.Acceleration will decrease (untill it reaches 0) with speed because of the air drag
QuoteThe only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater."
Drag of air gets added as the speed raises.Static/kinetic fricion is always there but not the drag of air(absent when rpm's =0).U can see it in the graph i attached.Parabolic curve represent air drag.Without friction it would allow to run an engine at the speed r2,because curve intersects the torque at point 2.Analogically for point 1 and r1.self starter self runner with constant speed voila ;)
@jeffc
QuoteDo you think it is really air drag that is the limiting factor on this design? On the video it appears to be a low rpm device, which makes me question if resistance from air is such a big factor.
Also, I think friction does not increase with velocity, and in fact I think it can actually decrease (correct me if I'm wrong).
As you say, in order for a self starter, self runner, there must be some kind of resistive force which increases with velocity. Which resistive forces fit this characteristic? Air drag is one possibility, but might not be enough at these low rpms and small sized unit.
no i don't think that air drag is limiting factor in this slow motion state.I brought air drag as an illustration to support explanation how a self starter self runner is possible to exist and how it works without destroying itself :).I don't know any other resistance than fluid drag that behave this way.
Statatic friction is greater than kinetic one and from what i found on the internet ,it seams that sometimes friction does decrease with speed.
There is also one more possibility.If there is no air drag and only fricion.If dynamic friction is equal to the torque of engine,then engine will not start by itself but will spinn at steady speed when started by hand.Initial push would have to be greater than static friction.It will look like a PM then.
Finally i think that no generator creates energy it only transforms it from one form to another.PM is for me only a theoretical machine,totally possible if frictionless condition can be achieved(and they aren't ),then it needs no energy transformation to run,just one initial push(case 1 in my first post).
Clanzer,
Sup bud interesting motor...
So the question remains could it be ????
I would love to make a working magnetic motor it would be radical man.
Anyhow more info any build plans or input from folks with some technical knowladge?
I've ruined quite a few magnets already messing with other things would love to make something run though I must say.
Any reproductions? Youtube vidz?
-infringer-
@Creativity
Quote
@jeffc
no i don't think that air drag is limiting factor in this slow motion state.I brought air drag as an illustration to support explanation how a self starter self runner is possible to exist and how it works without destroying itself :).I don't know any other resistance than fluid drag that behave this way.
Statatic friction is greater than kinetic one and from what i found on the internet ,it seams that sometimes friction does decrease with speed.
There is also one more possibility.If there is no air drag and only fricion.If dynamic friction is equal to the torque of engine,then engine will not start by itself but will spinn at steady speed when started by hand.Initial push would have to be greater than static friction.It will look like a PM then.
Finally i think that no generator creates energy it only transforms it from one form to another.PM is for me only a theoretical machine,totally possible if frictionless condition can be achieved(and they aren't ),then it needs no energy transformation to run,just one initial push(case 1 in my first post).
It would be great to see a complete video of this device including startup. Then also some more information about the build and measurements. The probably would not be hard to replicate.
Regards,
jeffc
Quote from: infringer on October 11, 2008, 04:41:30 PM
Clanzer,
Sup bud interesting motor...
Hey Infringer
Will tell you what's up mate.
Any post I place these days just gets filled with shit that ends up talking about the laws of physics as we know it and if we all just went along those lines, then nobody would post any crazy ideas, because they are too worried about thinking out of the box and what people would think of them for doing do.
A few years ago it was not like this and the whole point of having forums discussing Overunity is because we are told that it does not exist and the point was too try prove it does, by luck or by playing and ignoring mainstream science. That is the whole point, a bit of fun and a bit of a laugh as such.
People post reasons why it will NOT work, like we are all idiots because we did not listen in science/physics Class while in school. The truth is we DID listen, but are still hoping something has been missed and may be discovered.
I can visit over one hundred mainstream forums to debunk Overunity ideas, but the idea of these Overunity Forums is too let us nutters talk about and try alternative ideas, while ignoring mainstream Physics as such.
So will let this calm down and then post some results when the mainstream guys have got bored.
This Sabous wheel is a Smot config and hence the Steel balls BTW.
Cheers
Sean.
Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 03:00:15 PM
jeffc,
That may be but then what they are thinking of would not be a perpetual motion motor.
"The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance, or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance. According to the law of conservation of energy, such a device cannot exist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
A PMM operates in a closed system which would not require and or seek any outside energy source for its movement.
I never saw a claim that this was a perpetual motion motor. Only that it was a magnet motor. I respect your thoughts here, but I don't think you can rely on a quote from Wikipedia to define a device that it says cannot exist. Also, PMM can be "permanent magnet motor".
No matter what the definition, most people viewing this site would like to see a system producing energy in a way that doesn't rely on the arcane concept of combustion of hydrocarbons. If someone uses magnets to create a motor and it actually can light a bulb, then who cares what some definition on a web site says?
This is a shift of your original argument about acceleration which I can understand as a legitimate fundamental concept to discuss.
Regards,
jeffc
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 11, 2008, 07:10:25 PM
Hey Infringer
Will tell you what's up mate.
Any post I place these days just gets filled with shit that ends up talking about the laws of physics as we know it and if we all just went along those lines, then nobody would post any crazy ideas, because they are too worried about thinking out of the box and what people would think of them for doing do.
A few years ago it was not like this and the whole point of having forums discussing Overunity is because we are told that it does not exist and the point was too try prove it does, by luck or by playing and ignoring mainstream science. That is the whole point, a bit of fun and a bit of a laugh as such.
People post reasons why it will NOT work, like we are all idiots because we did not listen in science/physics Class while in school. The truth is we DID listen, but are still hoping something has been missed and may be discovered.
I can visit over one hundred mainstream forums to debunk Overunity ideas, but the idea of these Overunity Forums is too let us nutters talk about and try alternative ideas, while ignoring mainstream Physics as such.
So will let this calm down and then post some results when the mainstream guys have got bored.
This Sabous wheel is a Smot config and hence the Steel balls BTW.
Cheers
Sean.
Sean, Thank you! I am very impressed with your work!
I also am sick of people posting that these devices won't work (unless the person that started the thread asks for an opinion if this will work). We all know that 99% of these devices don't work.. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do research and give up! If you think OU is impossible.. then why are you here???; go somewhere else!
Jason
jeffc,
QuoteI never saw a claim that this was a perpetual motion motor. Only that it was a magnet motor.
Any motion that operates in a closed system is perpetual motion.
QuoteNo matter what the definition, most people viewing this site would like to see a system producing energy in a way that doesn't rely on the arcane concept of combustion of hydrocarbons.
I agree and I too am one of those but it frustrates me to see so many wasting time without properly reasoning first. I look at the designs and or think about the concepts I take the time to reason with it and I post what my conclusions are. Some agree and some disagree and that is where the debates come about from but the more we debate, the more we learn provided we keep open minds when doing so. Some debates don't really affect me for a few days or in some cases, even longer. But as time goes by and the more I think about them, the more I realize that I am either right and or wrong and that is where true learning comes from and they are lessons that will stick with me for ever.
Quote"If someone uses magnets to create a motor and it actually can light a bulb, then who cares what some definition on a web site says?"
I agree but we have yet to see this happen and therefore the definition fails to be corrected. Some think that because the earths rotation acts as a perpetual motion that we can create a perpetual motion but the fact is that even the earths rotation works off a controlled pulse that is created by the energy's that both the sun and earth create.
4Tesla,
QuoteI also am sick of people posting that these devices won't work (unless the person that started the thread asks for an opinion if this will work).
All designs and or concepts posted are at the mercy of being dissected and criticized. This is good to do and or have done because it helps us stay in touch with reality and it helps keep us on the right path. It also helps find flaws and inspire others to find a way to utilize what has been discussed.
QuoteWe all know that 99% of these devices don't work.. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do research and give up! If you think OU is impossible.. then why are you here???; go somewhere else!
We are all here to try and find ways to produce what is costing us so that we do not have to rely on others to get what we want and or need. Producing over unity is impossible but finding ways to utilize the natural energy's that surround us isn't. Everything emits energy but the earth and the sun emits the most and we just have not found the best way to utilize them yet. Once we do if we ever do, people will think of it as over unity but the fact is that both the earth and the sun's energy is created and it can be destroyed and if it is not destroyed, it will still eventually fade away.
The design this thread was started about has left many unanswered questions and most comments here are based on what has been shown thus far. I would like to see more of it, not to discredit it as much as to see why it was thought to be able to work in the first place. Every new design I see and or read about, makes me think of new ways to utilize the energy's that we are trying to utilize. They actually inspire me to keep thinking of ways. I myself have posted several ideas that I thought would work but after much reasoning, I found them to be nothing more then a more efficient way to utilize energy that has already been created. I am now sticking to finding ways to utilize natural produced energy's as a way to produce a usable energy. Some may think the results would be over unity but the fact is that the energy's that would be used to create the energy is more vibrant then the energy created and therefore is not over unity. Over unity is the production of more then what is used to produce it.
I am honestly a very busy person and I am not here to argue and or upset anyone. I am here to help, get help and to learn just as I hope everyone is here for. If we didn't need the help and or the lessons, why would we be here?
I am all for people debating and giving their opinion, but when a thread gets started and gets taken off topic then it just ends up a mess and takes the focus away from the original idea.
A good example is the Roll on 20th thread with Archer Quinn, that just turned into a nightmare :)
CLaNZeR, I agree and I too have seen that happen and that is why I try to bring up the threads topic at least every couple of postings as I did in my last post.
@Sean
So back to the threads topic.. do we have any more details of the build of this device?
Thanks,
Jason
Looks like a few variations on gravity-magnet combo.
So many of us are trying to find a sweet spot where the gravity pulls the wheel down and magnets restore it back to its starting position, which falls again.
These wheels (in pics) obviously don't seem to be working, but I'm not sure. And why would someone want to remain hidden with non working wheels ? Does he want to give an impression that he is hiding because he has working versions?
Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 11, 2008, 07:10:25 PM
...
People post reasons why it will NOT work, like we are all idiots because we did not listen in science/physics Class while in school. The truth is we DID listen, but are still hoping something has been missed and may be discovered.
...
Hi Seans,
The problem is the wasted time in trying again and again wrong tracks in which many others have already failed. It is due to ignorance so people posting reasons why it will not work are right. Remember that nobody has yet presented an OU device that everybody can duplicate.
The typical example is magnetic (or gravitational) OU motors. It is a question of potentials. Magnets move to reduce their mutual magnetic potential energy. If there is no potential difference, they is nothing to let them move.
In order a system to be sustaining, it must be looped, i.e the initial and final positions must be the same to repeat the cycle. It follows the potential difference along a looped path is globally null, thus no OU can be expected: there is always a "sticky point" in a segment of a looped path with a potential gap equal (but with a reversed polarity) to the potential gap of the other section.
"It will NOT work" because there is no potential difference, or differently said, the work done does not depend on the path. You can imagine complicated setup with versatile path and many magnets, it will NOT work. It will not work except if...
Except if the main stream science is wrong and the work done by magnets is path dependant. In this case, complicated setups are not required. You just have to do precise measurements in basic experiments on the distances and forces applying to magnets when moving them carefully from one point to another using different paths, and then to compute the work.
I saw only one smart person (if I remember, he was an electronic engineer) who claimed that the work to separate two facing magnets was 10% less when pulling them away while keeping them facing than when sliding them away side by side. The only reason I did not try myself is because I estimated that his experimental setup was far outside a 10% precision but this guy applied the good method.
99% of OU magnet motor builders are not only wasting their time but also wasting the time of others by making stupid claims when they have nothing: "just the sticky point to pass and my motor will work" :-))). They mask the 1% of valuable people who suggest rational methods, point exactly the possible holes in the main stream science or would present a real duplicable proof of concept. And I do not even speak here about scams which add even more noise in FE energy.
The conclusion is that FE is not a question of blind faith or egocentric conviction but a question of imagination, reason and work. It can be done neither by neglecting all the actual scientific knowledge nor by reproducing by ignorance all the errors of the past. People who remind us "why it will not work" are essential and welcomed.
...or much shorter: PMMCNPW!
anyone building?
I can......got about 30 odd of those exact magnets.......
Hi all,
I find that magnetic motor ingenious, the things that tell me it works is the round magnet used in the rotor and the horseshoe shape of the stator. Very well done video that shows there is no tricks and it works.
Many thanks to this person for spreading the word.
Take care,
Michel
Just followed the defunct you-tube video reference here and watched the Avi.
That unit appears to be slowing down in a serious way.
We don't see it start or continue beyond the momentum range of the rotating parts.
As interesting as the assembly is, I don't see a flux interaction capable of sustaining the motion showed - in fact, the arrangement seems to do just the opposite - take the kinetic energy of the rotor and convert it to oscillatory action of the fulcrum balance.
:(
Quote from: nightlife on October 07, 2008, 09:34:03 PM
broli,
I know exactly what I am talking about
It does not show any excess free energy and can not unless it was to speed up to the point of self destruction.
sm0ky2,
Oh is it? If they are designed to produce more energy then they need to operate, then yes, they must be able to accelerate to the point of self destruction when no added resistance is presented.
A maximum velocity can only be accounted for when a resistance is added. The maximum velocity is based on the resistance. If there is no resistance to a acceleration, the acceleration will accelerate to the point of self destruction. The point of self destruction would depend on the materials used in the design.
We are talking about true magnetic fields here. All perpetual designs are designed to work off true magnetic fields. True magnetic field centers have no limits when they are introduced to a pull or a push. They will always pull to the center or always push from the center when another same magnetic field is presented depending on the magnetic fields pole position.
If a perpetual motion design can not accelerate to the point of destruction with out a added resistance, it will never produce more energy that it needs to operate. Any resistance would slow it down until it stops.
The only way a perpetual motion design can produce more then it requires to work is for it to be able to accelerate to the point of self destruction or it is able to accelerate to the point where it creates it's own resistance. The only way to keep it from self destructing is by adding a resistance.
Suppose for an instant, that a given device had a varying resistance factor by design, that increased with velocity.
Such that the faster it goes, the more resistance it recieves to its own motion, and it will eventually reach a velocity at which the resistance counters the driving force that is making it spin, thus no further acceleration. When a load is applied, velocity decreases, as does the self-resistive component, and the machine powers the load.