hello,
I'm trying building a "perendev motor" my first model fail ( if you want i can put the photos) , but when i search on the web, the files are deleted.... why?
Can you help building the magnetic motor? he is true? free energy? there are any true video?
Tanks for the help!
Best regards
Hélio Carvalho
Helio
welcome!!
There are many working on magnetic motor techs here.
Post a pic of your work [if you like]
True experimenters are needed!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on June 16, 2009, 08:23:20 PM
Helio
welcome!!
There are many working on magnetic motor techs here.
Post a pic of your work [if you like]
True experimenters are needed!!
Chet
Quote from: helioc on June 17, 2009, 03:54:43 PM
MY pictures are too big.....
rapidshare links
http://rapidshare.com/files/201960632/desenho_pe_a1-Model.pdf (http://rapidshare.com/files/201960632/desenho_pe_a1-Model.pdf)
http://rapidshare.com/files/203946375/photos.rar (http://rapidshare.com/files/203946375/photos.rar)
this building failed... i know now, that i need shielding this magnets... but i dont have to many â,¬.... and i dont know if this will running.
I need see, or know if anyone do the magnetci motor? he is real? can you send a movie? (no the videos from youtube... :-) i just see the perendev and others.... but i need the details to building a new motor...)
I do this motor like a perendev design.
any comments ? :-\
Is it any reason why the magnets are angled? Could it work as good with pure angular (90 degree config.) magnets?
I think the idea was initially that magnetic flux follows a given path that looks like directed energy, like airpressure out of a nozzle that is looped back. Well, as magnetism isn't a moving force, it does not matter if the magnets on the wheel are angled or not. Permanent magnetism is a permanent force that isn't doing any work because it doesn't change in strength. However, you can guide magnetism wherever you want, but all magnetic flux will at the end be accounted for, so no change is done. Any influence between two magnets will be felt equally by both magnets, so their total exchange of forces will sum up in zero. With no force left, you have no force to accelerate mass, hence no energy can be carried out.
There is no point in trying to make a motor that is based on counterbalancing forces so to speak. It will ofcourse not work, because litterally nothing is happening.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on June 21, 2009, 03:51:55 PM
Is it any reason why the magnets are angled? Could it work as good with pure angular (90 degree config.) magnets?
I think the idea was initially that magnetic flux follows a given path that looks like directed energy, like airpressure out of a nozzle that is looped back. Well, as magnetism isn't a moving force, it does not matter if the magnets on the wheel are angled or not. Permanent magnetism is a permanent force that isn't doing any work because it doesn't change in strength. However, you can guide magnetism wherever you want, but all magnetic flux will at the end be accounted for, so no change is done. Any influence between two magnets will be felt equally by both magnets, so their total exchange of forces will sum up in zero. With no force left, you have no force to accelerate mass, hence no energy can be carried out.
There is no point in trying to make a motor that is based on counterbalancing forces so to speak. It will ofcourse not work, because litterally nothing is happening.
Vidar
so you think the magnetic motor don't exist?
Quote from: helioc on June 21, 2009, 04:48:36 PM
so you think the magnetic motor don't exist?
It does not exist yet.
Quote from: helioc on June 21, 2009, 04:48:36 PM
so you think the magnetic motor don't exist?
You're right. All working magnet motor proofs out there has allways got busted. And the reason is simply that you cannot get out energy from a static, unchangeable magnetic force. A magnetic force in a permanent magnet cannot change on demand without spending energy on it. All the methods used to shield magnets, has allways also affected other magnets in the system accordingly - because other magnets in the system is also magnets that is affected by the same material as in the shielding for one spesific magnet in that system. You cannot "teach" magnets to ignore a magnetic property that is used for shielding another magnet. If that was possible, you would have a system that is not in balance anymore, so it would work as a motor. You must spend energy to make a mass moving. In permanentmagnets there is only potential energy. As long this potential energy never change, no work is carried out. Very simple basics that everyone tries to deny.
How about the ktoy?
I thought it was OU.
In example 1, it takes no energy to let the small magnet enter the big south face of the other magnet.
In example 2, it takes energy to rotate the big magnet clockwise because the small magnet ends up eccentric to the big one in a mode wher it wants to be pushed left, and the big magnets wants to go to the right.
The force that moves the mass, hence the energy, that interacts between those magnets will ofcourse be the same for both magnets but oposite, so it must take the same energy to move the one magnet or the other. The sum is zero.
No OU.
Vidar
Low-Q, I have been doing some measurements on a similar setup and found a condition that looks like a possible OU condition.
I do not want to say to much at this time, but the data shows significant energy gain. I may actually be on the same path as STEORN so I should not say too much unless I develop a fully operational device. Something they have not done.
(I have indicated the NS polarity incorrectly in the example)
Quote from: lumen on June 23, 2009, 07:46:45 AM
Low-Q, I have been doing some measurements on a similar setup and found a condition that looks like a possible OU condition.
I do not want to say to much at this time, but the data shows significant energy gain. I may actually be on the same path as STEORN so I should not say too much unless I develop a fully operational device. Something they have not done.
(I have indicated the NS polarity incorrectly in the example)
There are of course good reasons to keep something to yourself, the chief one being profit potential. However, the downside is you waste the collaborative potential of this website. And in this case, since there is a 99.999999% chance that you simply missed something, sharing your idea would probably just save you a ton of time.
Actually, It's because I have only tested the data twice and until I can confirm the entire cycle I thought it best not to waste everyone's time.
If your interested in doing your own testing, I have no problem posting the configuration scheme that I believe (at this time) yields OU results. It's very interesting but I will first need to do a sketch so it can be easily understood.
Quote from: lumen on June 23, 2009, 10:11:52 AM
Actually, It's because I have only tested the data twice and until I can confirm the entire cycle I thought it best not to waste everyone's time.
I think you are doing the correct thing, lumen. It is insufficient to show
energy gain over part of a cycle. We need to show how the parts of the
cycle can be put together to retain excess energy around the whole
loop. Despite claims, the energy balance over the rest of the cycle
is never very obvious.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Well, I've done all the testing and collected several levels of data and it still looks to be OU.
I believe the next step is to build a device that uses this principal and verify if this can actually function as the data suggests.
I will first do a sketch that shows the process so anyone interested can verify it also. It should be easily replicated since the data suggests a very high yield of output. Yes, I am skeptical also, but the data tells me otherwise so now I will build it!
Maybe I should start a new thread?
Lumen
Thank you for your great attitude and willingness to share your work!
Releasing an idea to scrutiny is not easy
IMHO a release in this thread for said scrutiny,would be a good start!
Then of course a dedicated thread
Chet
Ok, This is the concept I have been testing. All tests indicate it is actually OU and even though the data shows this, I will remain skeptical.
It appears to be easily implemented in several different types of devices so building something should be easy. It may be simplest to build something that just makes a single movement and resets and re triggers itself. Or even rotary like a "V" track motor only maybe something more like an "S" track or "V" track with a skip in it.
Well anything running non stop would prove the concept.
The small magnets I used for testing this principal indicate that each transaction would have the output energy to lift 1kg .05 inch. This is a result of about 15 to 20 percent efficiency.
The large magnets were .125 x .5 x 1.5 N45
A device using 10 configurations operating at 3000 RPM would have the ability to lift 1kg 25 inches each second. That would be a useful output even using these small magnets.
LOL
and now??? hem?? :D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJncWgvW5ro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJncWgvW5ro)
I am quite sure that video is not working as suggested. It looks more like it requires an exact speed to sync to an AC line nearby.
Quote from: lumen on June 24, 2009, 05:57:28 PM
I am quite sure that video is not working as suggested. It looks more like it requires an exact speed to sync to an AC line nearby.
so, this rotor moves.... and you, who get this rotor move? there are energy?
Its my point...
Quote from: lumen on June 23, 2009, 07:46:45 AM
Low-Q, I have been doing some measurements on a similar setup and found a condition that looks like a possible OU condition.
I do not want to say to much at this time, but the data shows significant energy gain. I may actually be on the same path as STEORN so I should not say too much unless I develop a fully operational device. Something they have not done.
(I have indicated the NS polarity incorrectly in the example)
When you do measurements you must look at the force versus distance in any possible configuration. It is easy to be fooled by a great force versus a weak force when you do not consider the "active area" where the force is present. A weak force over a great area, can represent as much energy as a super force within a very small area. In the same magnetic setup, these two alternatives are allways the same.
To make a magnet motor working, you must remove and add magnetism so you can alter the flux density without altering the active area the flux is working within. To add or remove magnetism, will require energy in one or another form - like altering the current through a coil.
Anyway, God bless the person who finds a way to make these magnetmotors working :-)
Vidar
Quote from: helioc on June 24, 2009, 03:45:27 PM
LOL
and now??? hem?? :D
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJncWgvW5ro (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJncWgvW5ro)
I have seen this video before. Permanent magnets does not have to sync in order to work in a regular DC motor. As the magnetism is present all the time, permanently, this motor should not be possible to stop - it would keep going as soon as the inventor release the rotor. The RPM should increase untill the energy spent to overcome friction and air resistance are met. But this motor is rotating with a constant speed. It is very possible this is a fake. Not only because magnet motors can't work.
Vidar
Take any two like magnets and use a meter to measure the gauss of each magnet.
Then tape both magnets together in a REPEL mode and keep them that way for a month.
Untape them and measure the gauss of each magnet now.
This should tell you about how long any REPEL based permanent magnet device will keep on working.
Do the same as above but use an attraction mode and see what the gauss reading is after a month.
So much for the Perendev motors longevity.
QuoteWhen you do measurements you must look at the force versus distance in any possible configuration. It is easy to be fooled by a great force versus a weak force when you do not consider the "active area" where the force is present. A weak force over a great area, can represent as much energy as a super force within a very small area. In the same magnetic setup, these two alternatives are allways the same.
I have already tested this setup using two different methods and each test involved reading the force at .05" through the entire range of both sets of moving magnets. The data is valid and does show OU by 15 to 20%. This is enough to lift 1kg .05" at every transaction.
If a rotary device was built using ten setups around a track then at 3000 RPM it would generate enough output to lift 1kg 25" each second. This would be using only small .5 x 1.5 x .125 magnets.
Quote from: lumen on June 25, 2009, 07:30:46 PM
I have already tested this setup using two different methods and each test involved reading the force at .05" through the entire range of both sets of moving magnets. The data is valid and does show OU by 15 to 20%. This is enough to lift 1kg .05" at every transaction.
If a rotary device was built using ten setups around a track then at 3000 RPM it would generate enough output to lift 1kg 25" each second. This would be using only small .5 x 1.5 x .125 magnets.
Hi,
I am just very sceptic. Are you sure you haven't missed anything? So you have measured the force and counterforce at every 0.05
o? I assume you have done that in a simulator. If so, what simulator have you used?
Vidar
I agree! magnet motors are impossible so there is good reason to be skeptical.
I am skeptical myself, but I will continue to attempt to build a device that would run on this principal.
The testing was not done in a simulator. I use a digital scale and a mechanical setup to test any principals or concepts that I believe have merit.
I also have CNC machines so it's not a problem for me to build testing devices at nearly no cost.
Quote from: lumen on June 26, 2009, 10:38:20 AM
I agree! magnet motors are impossible so there is good reason to be skeptical.
I am skeptical myself, but I will continue to attempt to build a device that would run on this principal.
The testing was not done in a simulator. I use a digital scale and a mechanical setup to test any principals or concepts that I believe have merit.
I also have CNC machines so it's not a problem for me to build testing devices at nearly no cost.
At least it is very funny to engineer things. I look forward to see your gear when you're finish. Then we can give it an eyeball, and figure out why it don't work. ;)