Overunity.com Archives

Hello everyone:

Occasionally found in You Tube.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Inventor----I ,Wendell Ray Walker, am the sole inventor of the electric generator which, not only, produces enough electricity to run itself, but, produces extra electricity as well, I apologize for any confusion that may have been caused in this video. This is the end result of 25 years of work and this video was filmed after an exhausting day's effort to finally reduce it to practice.

Video Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhEUD4kdjrY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9ktD7kAI7Y&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EK07Nv8E8&feature=channel

True? Or false?
A replication of success? If true, perhaps true to cause confusion???
-----------
Xu Yuan

A replication should be possible very easy, as you see there is nothing complicated to it. He claims he has overcome Lenz Law by using the disc shaped magnet which can rotate freely and that the Back EMF from the coil can be avoided because the magnet can simply rotate away. Btw. the magnet is magnetized back/tail and not top bottom (I guess this is important for replication).
I think it should be investigated further...

Hello everyone:

I'm ready to Replication, However, structural details have not yet fully understand, Does not seem simple.

----------
Xu Yuan

These are only magnet bearings. However you don't really need them and can use other good ball bearings instead. The whole point of this device is, that the magnetic discs can rotate freely and easily in order to evade Back EMF. The inventor suggests one can use more than 2 magnets/coil e.g. the same arrangement crosswise as well: the more the greater the power.

The current induced into the coils is an alternating current. He shows in one of the clips a sketch in which he leads this AC into a rectifier each one (he uses simple diodes for that). He smoothes it out with a capacitor and there is the power output -at least that's the way I interpreted it. Sounds logical though...

Hi Gauschor:

Thanks Reply, Do you think that the correct polarity of the magnet is in the image (A) or (B) ?
---------
Xu Yuan

Good question: I think it is the first one, because I asked him on the first video if the magnet is magnetised "top/bottom" but he answered that the magents are magneized "head/tail". I can only guess though.

In one of his videos he also shows an electric drill and has attached a disc magnet, he says that the magnet was magnetized ... erm back/front or left/right? something like that... was it this video: "New Generator Video Part I: 2-14-2010"... unfortunately when I checked his channel today it has been removed  :(

From the inventor his replay on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y&feature=channel


Quote:
@darcchen Exactly totally correct! You really made my day! What can I say - you get it. The magnets are magnetized heads and tails. Please check out my latest generator "New Generator Video Part IV" Its running off a battery because no one believes me anyway.
Th3Generat0r 18 uur geleden
End quote.

And I also am convinced he mentioned it in his video So i think it is A

Ah...heads and tails like in a coin flip. It also makes sense based in his
mounting protocol. The 1/2 circular "D" pole magnetization would
probably work in this application but the output voltage would be
randomised based on the RPM of the disks. The coil could easily see one
pole coming towards it and the opposite pole going away. That is not
what the coil wants to see. What he is trying to do is cancel the back
emf current effect from the coils by not giving the back current's reverse
magnetization anything to repel against. So I vote for "B".

:S:MarkSCoffman

Yes Mscoffman and i also think the swingarm effect, the mass helps it past it.  By diverting the centerpoint of the rotation from the centerpoint of the magnet ..

Well somhow it makes sence.

Quote from: Arthurs on May 18, 2010, 12:54:23 PM
Hi Gauschor:

Thanks Reply, Do you think that the correct polarity of the magnet is in the image (A) or (B) ?
---------
Xu Yuan

Magnet manufacturers say the magnet in case A is magnetized DIAMETRICALLY and in case B it is magnetized by the THICKNESS or by the LENGTH, both terms are used.

Just to name and refer correctly to the two different magnetization directions.  I also think "head and tails" means case B

The coin example sounds reasonable, I must admit. Head or Tails == Top/Bottom. I must have misinterpreted it. Still I could swear there in the removed video he used a magnet with other polarization...

Thank you for comments:

I have video contact the author, his reply is as follows, Attention to his reply that the "wings" , Rotor profile shaped similar to aircraft wing.

Author the return e-mail:

The wings are very important and there could be multiple wings.
But with the 8 magnets and 8 coils the downward force of Lens' Law would start the rotor bouncing.
Even under tremendous magnetic pressure above and below.
That's why I invented the "wings" to replace the round flywheel.
If you will study the later videos you will see that one wing is going up and one is going down.
Thereby holding the rotor in a stable position using atmospheric pressure.
Multiple wings could be usedã€,
There's a saying in Kung-Fu, "Tie to two birds together and although they have four wings they cannot fly."
The wings are just like an airplanes wing only half of the wing is facing one direction and the other half the opposite direction.
So that as the wings spin lift is being created on both sided.
The top wing is like a normal airplane wing the bottom wing is the same only the wing is upside down.
Therefor both together cause the rotor to be in a fixed position not going up or down but "flying in place".
Also the entire rotor is floating on a magnetic field.

----------------
Xu Yuan

so diamagnetic field passing through copper wire has no cogging effect? and the electrons flows freely?

must the diamagnetic be unfixed free to spin opposed to a fixed diamagnetic? if there is no cogging than it probably should not matter then no?

Quote from: gauschor on May 18, 2010, 02:25:20 PM
The coin example sounds reasonable, I must admit. Head or Tails == Top/Bottom. I must have misinterpreted it. Still I could swear there in the removed video he used a magnet with other polarization...

Hi, 

Yes, in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_EK07Nv8E8

from about 1:19 he speaks about the magnetization of the  magnet in his hand and it becomes clear when he say heads and tails it means for him magnetization lengthwise and when he says magnetization for that magnet is side to side, it means a diametrically magnetized magnet.

When he turns the magnet by the motor and holds the Alu piece against it, it is the eddy current which warms up the Alu piece and also the counter magnetic flux A of the eddy current tries to keep a small distance between the magnet and the Alu, this is mainly the explanation why the magnet cannot warm up; and there is the ventillation effect for cooling the magnet body while it is rotated. I just say this for those who may not understand that part of the video.

rgds,  Gyula

EDIT: maybe I missed it but I have not seen his looping back the output DC to his input DC motor. Has anyone seen that video or it was removed?

Thanks Gyula, for clearing that up. I thought this was shown in clip1 but in fact it was shown in clip4, as you said. Now it's clear he means B on his device and not A.


Btw. he has not yet shown any video in which he feedbacks to the source. Anyone trying to replicate it already?

Edit: I think in clip3 he shows a feedback of DC to the motor but you can't really determine if the device then spins faster or not, although his daughter claims it. At least he didn't disconnect the 6V battery fully, so it's not running by itself only yet ;) .

On the polarity of the magnet,Video author the return e-mail:

(B) is correct. I will double my efforts to up load a new video for you. This is a very difficult machine. It only looks easy.


What place is not easy?
--------
Xu Yuan

Xu

A master can make the most difficult task look easy!!

After 25 years I am sure this man is a "Master" at making this work,
probably a lot of "tuning" and ever changing parameters to deal with.

Chet

PS
I hope he is a good teacher!

I was always under the impression the side magnets were diametric in his setup.  Otherwise what good would it be to make them able to rotate?  I guess if they end up spinning it might add more power to the coils.  I was even more sure they were diametric when he showed the one with the drill motor as it was clearly diametric.  It seems it might be worth trying both ways.  Do we know if these large magnets are Neo's or are they ceramic or as it appears somewhat like speaker magnets? 
   I think Skywatcher tried replicating this a month or two ago but I haven't seen any updates lately from him (energeticforum)

Oh dear what a mess.... ;D

Ok I have just done an experiment to see what's going on.
I used a rotor that turns very easily.
Then I set up a magnet the same as "B" on the side of the rotor.
The magnet could also spin freely about its own axis.
Then I spun up a large copper disc over the edge of the magnet.

Result.
With the magnet the same as "B" the EMF generated in the copper disc CAUSED THE MAIN ROTOR TO START REVOLVING.

The magnet itself did nothing. It did not rotate on its own axis.
It was a normal speaker magnet.
-------------
So now I have to say that the magnet should be as "A" which makes sense according to the drill test that was shown in the videos.

If it is as "A" then the magnet is not rotating on its own axis so the coil will push it away and the force will not be directed to the main rotor as I saw in my test.
Hope this helps.
Scotty.

Experiment No 2.

This time I replaced the speaker magnet with a stack of Neo's to make it like "A" more or less.
This time when I spun up the copper disc THE MAGNET STACK ROTATED.
It actually flew off my rotor.... ;D
The EMF in the copper disc caused the Neo's to rotate but not the main rotor.
So there you have it.
Scotty.

I assumed it would be A,  If it is arranged as B how is it different from a stationary magnet
If its A reminds me a little of this old vid, in which you can easily see the magnets rotate.

http://www.youtube.com/user/theoneagain#p/u/9/jYcjjSfiNNE
Stupid ?, If Th3Generat0r system used the "A" polarity, it would be similar to the "theoneagain's" idea,if the magnets in the rotor were replaced with coils (probably need to be the same size as the magnet, so the outer spinning mags can spin, half a rev, between poles, not sure if its true but looks like there is a relationship of the length of the magnets in the rotor, compared to the diameter of the outer rotating magnets),
add a motor to the rotor, which is now self powered, similar to  Th3Generat0rs.
Now if there was any possibility that this could work, wouldn't it be possible for "theoneagain's" device to work as it is

Quote from: scotty1 on May 19, 2010, 08:13:11 PM
Oh dear what a mess.... ;D

Ok I have just done an experiment to see what's going on.
I used a rotor that turns very easily.
Then I set up a magnet the same as "B" on the side of the rotor.
The magnet could also spin freely about its own axis.
Then I spun up a large copper disc over the edge of the magnet.

Result.
With the magnet the same as "B" the EMF generated in the copper disc CAUSED THE MAIN ROTOR TO START REVOLVING.

The magnet itself did nothing. It did not rotate on its own axis.
It was a normal speaker magnet.
-------------
So now I have to say that the magnet should be as "A" which makes sense according to the drill test that was shown in the videos.

If it is as "A" then the magnet is not rotating on its own axis so the coil will push it away and the force will not be directed to the main rotor as I saw in my test.
Hope this helps.
Scotty.

But: Why does the video author told me, (B) is correct?
Author of deliberately misleading me? 

I hope he uploads the new video soon, as promised. Maybe it gets clearer then.

Quote from: Arthurs on May 20, 2010, 10:04:21 AM
But: Why does the video author told me, (B) is correct?
Author of deliberately misleading me?

I personally think that (B) is correct, it does seem to be how he described it and even though it seems like it would not necessarily rotate if north was along the top face it may be something to do with the magnet trying to repel itself from the center of the disk which may cause rotation while the rotor was spinning

this idea is actually quite exciting to me, and over the weekend I hope to knock up something to test the idea... although I don't have any large magnets like that size... so I will have to try and make one from smaller neo disc magnets... I heard that if you glue them onto some iron you can create a large magnet that way, I tried it but only used very thin sheet metal and I could still feel the individual magnets as bumps when I passed another magnet over the otherside, thicker metal may smooth it out to allow me to experiment but if it doesn't work I'll just buy some larger magnets

for now I'll just be working on testing the idea for the spinning magnet on the rotor, but I was wondering if something like a bedini circuit to spin the main motor could work better than that motor on the top...

Quote from: Arthurs on May 20, 2010, 10:04:21 AM
But: Why does the video author told me, (B) is correct?
Author of deliberately misleading me?

Arthurs,

Is it possible video maker misunderstood your question and meant the bearing magnet, like what he demonstrated in his 4th video with the Alu piece? 
The best would be to repeat your question, maybe show him the "schematic" picture of the previous page, and mark the magnets with an arrow,  lol

I think my tests show there is something wrong with the inventor's claims.  ???
He says the magnets that pass the coil are suspended by magnetic force from above and below and spin freely, but if that was the case my tests show that the coil will act on the main rotor as Lenz Law.

The inventor claims the magnets rotate away from the coil but if they are as "B" then they cannot rotate according to my tests.

If the magnets were as "A" then they will spin away from the coil but how are they magnetically suspended to rotate freely according to the inventor's claims.  ???

I see some contradictions here for sure.
Scotty.

2Blainiac
never use 2D software

Hi Scotty,

Suppose the cylinder magnets are suspended by magnetic bearing as the inventor says.  Then consider case "B"  where only one pole will approach, face and pass the coil, I think we can all agree there will be Lenz law effect as usual. It does not matter if the cylinder magnet is freely able to rotate around its axis, the main rotor rotation will move it as if it were fixed. And the magnet will  not rotate away to any direction, as an interaction due to induction.
Now consider case "A" with the diametrically magnetized rotor magnets, also freely rotatable by its axis. On approaching the coil and suppose you have a closed circuit on the coil, the magnet will try to turn into a position where its Bloch wall line direction will be as the direction of the main rotation (putting it otherwise: Bloch wall will be perpendicular to the radial direction of the main axis of the main rotor). Of course the magnet can approach the coil with any pole but the moment its pole starts inducing the same pole, this interaction has to rotate the magnet towards the less resistance direction but it can rotate only as far as the next pole would start inducing,  and do not forget this magnet is forced to move by the main rotor too. Unfortunately I have  not seen a scope shot on the induced voltage a diametrically magnetized magnet has in an air core coil but I think it would be similar to an induction done by two unlike poles just one after the other when the magnet is fixed and not rotatable.
I also think Lenz law would be in effect in case A too, unfortunately.

Do you agree with my "ramblings', Scotty?

Thanks,  Gyula

@all

Really interesting motor , it make me think about Otis Carr , but if the solar system revolves in a familiar way , i think the spinning magnets are north and south vertically , to hold between 2 magnets .

The guy is cleaver magnet can break gravity and friction , free of charge  :)

That is work  ;D.

I can't wait to see more ...

 

this needs more attention from the open source community!

just a thought* what if you have the magnet(s) fixed and the coil(s) unfixed free to spin. same results?

Quote from: gyulasun on May 20, 2010, 04:10:53 PM
The best would be to repeat your question, maybe show him the "schematic" picture of the previous page, and mark the magnets with an arrow,  lol

I fully agree with that, no matter how noobish it sounds, this thing is too interesting to let it pass. We must know for real and it needs to be confirmed again how the magnet is polarized. I don't know though if Arthur has already sent him a message, therefore I don't want to spam the inventor (last time, I was just about to type an email, while Arthur posted a response from the inventor in this topic ;) )

Quote from: gauschor on May 21, 2010, 04:35:27 PM
I fully agree with that, no matter how noobish it sounds, this thing is too interesting to let it pass. We must know for real and it needs to be confirmed again how the magnet is polarized. I don't know though if Arthur has already sent him a message, therefore I don't want to spam the inventor (last time, I was just about to type an email, while Arthur posted a response from the inventor in this topic ;) )

I sent an email to the video author the issue should be very clear

I sent an e-mail:
In the e-mail attachments in the picture, Do you think that the
correct polarity of the magnet is in the image (A) or (B)?
Video author reply:
(B) is correct. I will double my efforts to up load a new video for you. This is a very difficult machine. It only looks easy.
----------------
Xu Yuan

Just wondering how many of the guys replicating this and reporting failure are actually using magnetic bearings - none I bet!  My limited experience playing with these taught me that while they are a b1tch to set up, 'normal' bearings seem stuck in treacle by comparison! So if there is an 'effect' here, I don't think normal bearing will do.

I have been playing for a while with motor-driven magnet wheels, mainly as a means of seeing if various stator/rotor magnet configurations would supply an appreciable boost by monitoring the motor current.  So this caught my attention.

On first viewing I thought just the rotating magnets on the rotor used magnetic bearings but it appears that the whole rotor is levitated as well - that's one big wheel!  His video with the drill, magnet and aluminium block was particularly intriguing, if what he claims here is for real then true magnetic bearings are simple to make - for a vertical rotor, 2 opposing magnets, one above one below, the top one encircled by a fixed loose-fit circle of aluminium to keep it in place.  Once the revs build up, magnet should move away from aluminium and spin freely.  At least according to Th3Generat0r - my own playtime has shown eddy currents will come into play, though they were far weaker than what I was expecting.  So maybe even with this drag, the performance could be far better than normal bearings.

So, can anyone confirm/refute what Th3Generat0r says about the magnet/aluminium?

Quote from: Arthurs on May 21, 2010, 06:26:57 PM
I sent an email to the video author the issue should be very clear

I sent an e-mail:
In the e-mail attachments in the picture, Do you think that the
correct polarity of the magnet is in the image (A) or (B)?
Video author reply:
(B) is correct. I will double my efforts to up load a new video for you. This is a very difficult machine. It only looks easy.
----------------
Xu Yuan

Personally, I think he has been quite clear about this - it's 'B', top/bottom, or "heads/tails" as he himself said.  Just an observation, the rotor magnets seem to pass directly under the stator coil, not in 'front' of it...

Well if the magnets is as "B" then there is nothing to the machine.
It is subject to Lenz like anything else and his magnets cannot spin as he claims.
I agree with Gyula, and to take it further if the magnets were as "A" the coil would output a voltage but then the magnet would be repelled and the voltage would reverse making the coil core at the magnet side a S pole, which would repel the side of the magnet that would be approaching it from behind.
So as Gyula said the coil would want to keep the magnet in a certain position.

I think the contradictions remain.
Tell this guy to make a clip showing the motor being powered by the currents from the coil.
Let him spin the rotor by other means and show the motor in his hand being powered by the coil.

Maybe I will make some clips of my tests.
Cheers.
Scotty.

Thanks everyone

The focus of my analysis of this device the following three, My analysis is not necessarily correct:

1) Can easily rotate the magnet, Maximize the elimination Lenz's law.
2) Role of magnet suspension, Maximize the elimination of gravity and friction.
3) The wings of a plane profile shape rotor, Generation rising force, Elimination rotor of gravity and friction.

My English is not good, Hope that we can understand what I mean.

Quote from: Sprocket on May 21, 2010, 07:41:47 PM
Just wondering how many of the guys replicating this and reporting failure are actually using magnetic bearings - none I bet!  My limited experience playing with these taught me that while they are a b1tch to set up, 'normal' bearings seem stuck in treacle by comparison! So if there is an 'effect' here, I don't think normal bearing will do.

Our idea is very similar!
If you do use the three focus my analysis,  Maximum to avoid, Lenz's law,gravity and friction, This device perhaps really can produce miracles.

@ Arthurs
The wing to eliminate the forces actually needs eergy to create the lift to overcome the air resistance. Otherwise planes would not need motors. the faster it spins he more energy it needs.
Mark

don't understand why he uses wings in the design, goes through all the trouble, in using frictionless bearings
wouldn't the air resistance on the wing be greater than the bearings friction.

@Arthur: Great detailed sketch/investigation, this must be it!

One needs appropriate magnet parts though, especially the magnet bearings, because as Sprocket said...

Quote from: Sprocket link=topic=9188.msg242078#msg242078  date=1274485307
Just wondering how many of the guys replicating this  and reporting failure are actually using magnetic bearings - none I  bet!

...I'm afraid with common ball bearings (which I'd have at home though...) the experiment would probably fail.

@helicoil: Th3G3nerator says he uses wings, because it stabilizes the spinning of the rotor. Otherwise it would stutter etc.

O.k.,
The big ? is, does it stutter due to the device sitting on magnetic bearings or levitating on  a magnet, and then feeling the the back emf of the coil, thus causing a wobble or imbalance,
if its the back emf, i thought it was designed to avoid this effect.
If its simply due to an unbalanced rotor, a proper balancing would solve this and be more efficient.

ch ch che ch ch chee chee cheer cheer cheers

I'm looking at this thread and cannot believe my eyes. You guys can destroy even the perfect designs. You don't listen to people, telling they are wrong without even making some experiments. This is not a simple machine but you guys are making this a NASA project ;] I'm working on this project for over 2 month now. What I've done so far is just thinking about it and ordering materials for the prototype. So do the same. Think. Don't write those nonsenses. As for me, I will not write anything here about this thing because you will simply destroy all the thought that's behind it - as it's done all over this forum. If it works, you will see it. If it doesn't, I will also write about it. Remember only one thing: materials used here are VERY important. And forget about magnetic bearings.

Hi Sprocket,

What Th3Generat0r shows with the Alu-magnet test is that the eddy current induced in the Alu (by the changing magnetic flux of the diametrically magnetized magnet) also creates a magnetic field that works against the magnet's flux, in fact fact repels it, hence a certain distance, a gap is created between the Alu and the magnet's body. So mechanical friction is none but there is 'magnetic' friction as you also noticed, which eventually slowly breaks the rotor's rotation.

There are better magnetic bearing solutions which do not use Alu or other nonmagnetic metals for keeping the distance but use other magnets instead in repel mode. Here are some videos on magnetic bearings, from the very simple towards the more involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5NrqN6gDFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9uYhZYOEPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vzzbxMIITE

The last video above shows the best case when the whole rotor levitates, as the case seems to be for Th3Generat0r too, and his inducing magnets also has magnetic bearings.

One  notice on magnetic bearings: because of the extremely small residual friction they have (even with eddy current breaks) it is very difficult to observe by the naked eye if the rotor starts decelerating in a certain setup or just keeps its speed or start slowly accelerating. So a dependable tacho meter for checking the RPM of the rotor is strongly recommended, otherwise the experimenter can easily "amaze" himself (and others) by making false conclusions.

rgds,  Gyula

Quote from: Sprocket on May 21, 2010, 07:41:47 PM
Just wondering how many of the guys replicating this and reporting failure are actually using magnetic bearings - none I bet!  My limited experience playing with these taught me that while they are a b1tch to set up, 'normal' bearings seem stuck in treacle by comparison! So if there is an 'effect' here, I don't think normal bearing will do.

I have been playing for a while with motor-driven magnet wheels, mainly as a means of seeing if various stator/rotor magnet configurations would supply an appreciable boost by monitoring the motor current.  So this caught my attention.

On first viewing I thought just the rotating magnets on the rotor used magnetic bearings but it appears that the whole rotor is levitated as well - that's one big wheel!  His video with the drill, magnet and aluminium block was particularly intriguing, if what he claims here is for real then true magnetic bearings are simple to make - for a vertical rotor, 2 opposing magnets, one above one below, the top one encircled by a fixed loose-fit circle of aluminium to keep it in place.  Once the revs build up, magnet should move away from aluminium and spin freely.  At least according to Th3Generat0r - my own playtime has shown eddy currents will come into play, though they were far weaker than what I was expecting.  So maybe even with this drag, the performance could be far better than normal bearings.

So, can anyone confirm/refute what Th3Generat0r says about the magnet/aluminium?

@Airstriker:
Wait.... you first suggest we must listen exactly to what the inventor said (which is e.g. using magnet bearings) and now you say we can forget the magnet bearings  ??? If you have more detailed instructions on what parts are critical and which not, feel free to add in :)

Just use the "B" magnet configuration and don't use magnetic bearings. Magnetic bearings are not stable (at least not this type) so it's just stupid to use them. You're also missing one VERY important fact, that's even more crucial than minimizing lenz law effect here and this is why this design is so good and promising. Hope you will get it. If you do, I have some vidoes for you;>

Quote from: Sprocket on May 21, 2010, 07:41:47 PM
Just wondering how many of the guys replicating this and reporting failure are actually using A bearings - none I bet!

Who has replicated this so far ? I haven't seen anybody.

Quote from: Airstriker on May 22, 2010, 01:07:37 PM
Just use the "B" magnet configuration and don't use magnetic bearings. Magnetic bearings are not stable (at least not this type) so it's just stupid to use them. You're also missing one VERY important fact, that's even more crucial than minimizing lenz law effect here and this is why this design is so good and promising. Hope you will get it. If you do, I have some vidoes for you;>

Hej Airstriker,

Please do not tease us and tell that VERY important fact and also show those videos too.

Thanks,  Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on May 22, 2010, 08:31:03 AM
Hi Sprocket,

What Th3Generat0r shows with the Alu-magnet test is that the eddy current induced in the Alu (by the changing magnetic flux of the diametrically magnetized magnet) also creates a magnetic field that works against the magnet's flux, in fact fact repels it, hence a certain distance, a gap is created between the Alu and the magnet's body. So mechanical friction is none but there is 'magnetic' friction as you also noticed, which eventually slowly breaks the rotor's rotation.

There are better magnetic bearing solutions which do not use Alu or other nonmagnetic metals for keeping the distance but use other magnets instead in repel mode. Here are some videos on magnetic bearings, from the very simple towards the more involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5NrqN6gDFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9uYhZYOEPo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vzzbxMIITE

The last video above shows the best case when the whole rotor levitates, as the case seems to be for Th3Generat0r too, and his inducing magnets also has magnetic bearings.

One  notice on magnetic bearings: because of the extremely small residual friction they have (even with eddy current breaks) it is very difficult to observe by the naked eye if the rotor starts decelerating in a certain setup or just keeps its speed or start slowly accelerating. So a dependable tacho meter for checking the RPM of the rotor is strongly recommended, otherwise the experimenter can easily "amaze" himself (and others) by making false conclusions.

rgds,  Gyula

@Gyulasun, great info, thanks!  What got me excited was the thought that although there would be some magnetic braking, the magnet surrounded by aluminium might outperform normal bearings by a wide margin.  It is a revelation (to  me) their would be no physical contact-induced losses with this set-up.  I managed to cobble together a very crude version of the German video at one time and while greatly impressed with the result, but I still had some physical friction from the axle (as does the German) - I hoped the aluminium would eliminate this...

In fact, all the videos you listed have this 'flaw', the requirement for a physical anchor to stabilise the rotor in the magnetic field!  In the Youtube messages of the last video, the creator of the magnetic bearing stated that there is some theorem that suggests that this is mandatory.  It's something I intend to experiment with nonetheless...

Quote from: Airstriker on May 22, 2010, 01:11:00 PM
Who has replicated this so far ? I haven't seen anybody.

Yes, no true replication it seems, just elements of the idea...

@Athurs - excellent pic!  The wing-idea just doesn't ring true to me though.

@Airstriker: That's the problem, the inventor says it's not as easy as it looks, and now you are telling us too about a very important feature of it though not an obvious one. The thing is, if we try to replicate the device and we miss this feature, it is likely the attempt will fail.

Airstriker, I tested the principals of the machine and the Lenz force was directed to the main rotor when the magnet was as "B", a normal speaker magnet. The magnet will not spin as it passes the coil.

I also set up magnets as in "A" and as the magnet passed the coil it spun around with great force and no bearing would have any resistance to the force acting on the magnet.

The inventor has made false claims and my tests prove it.
Faraday would have to be wrong if the magnets can spin as they approach the coil in this machine.  :o
I even moved the magnet relative to a spinning copper disc and no rotation was imparted to the magnet.
Please people, this inventor is caught in a Platonic contradiction.
Let him explain his way out of it before wasting time trying to prove Faraday wrong.
Has anyone even asked how that coil can power the motor?
Scotty.

Hi again.
Here is a clip I made.
I'll do one more as well.
@Gyula, I gave you a mention too.  ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

Here is the second clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

Quote from: scotty1 on May 22, 2010, 09:13:55 PM
Here is the second clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

The magnet is too far to see the effect bring it as close as you can .

I can stop my generator wheel with either alu or steel .

The clips are only to show that the round magnet will not rotate due to any EMF made by the coil.
The inventor claims his magnets spin as they approach the coil and actually give the main rotor a kick from behind, which is exactly what I posted yesterday in response to Gyula.

How on Earth can a magnet like a speaker magnet rotate on its own axis and ALSO GIVE THE MAIN ROTOR A KICK to assist its motion.

Poor old Faraday is rolling in his grave!!!!!!

You can see this "Kick" in my second clip but only with the neo mags...not the speaker magnet as the inventor claims.
I also explained the kick earlier in this thread.
Scotty.

Thank Scotty for your video and explanation
mark

(edit: -  deleted previous)

Thanks for demonstration, scotty  :)

Quote from: Sprocket on May 22, 2010, 07:11:29 PM
@Gyulasun, great info, thanks!  What got me excited was the thought that although there would be some magnetic braking, the magnet surrounded by aluminium might outperform normal bearings by a wide margin.  It is a revelation (to  me) their would be no physical contact-induced losses with this set-up.  I managed to cobble together a very crude version of the German video at one time and while greatly impressed with the result, but I still had some physical friction from the axle (as does the German) - I hoped the aluminium would eliminate this...

In fact, all the videos you listed have this 'flaw', the requirement for a physical anchor to stabilise the rotor in the magnetic field!  In the Youtube messages of the last video, the creator of the magnetic bearing stated that there is some theorem that suggests that this is mandatory.  It's something I intend to experiment with nonetheless...

Hi Sprocket,

It is the Earnshaw theorem and it is not written in stone...  see the bottom part of this link on the Exceptions / Rotation: http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/PhysFAQ/General/Levitation/levitation.html

Also have a look at this video and see how stable the horizontal shaft rotates over 10000 RPM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8Z_tyzda4
He speaks Spanish but there are English subtitles in the video. It is worth watching his earlier videos too.  I think the mechanical symmetry of the rotor is also of importance for minimizing instability during rotation.

I think you could make the shaft vertical by using four more mirror imaged ring magnets like the ones under the shaft as shown and at the shaft's bottom end two more repelling rings for the support of the total weight of the rotor.

rgds, Gyula

EDIT: here is another magnetically 'suspended' rotor, see the instability at startup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLbxFdQDLqI

Quote from: scotty1 on May 22, 2010, 08:37:16 PM
Hi again.
Here is a clip I made.
I'll do one more as well.
@Gyula, I gave you a mention too.  ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

Hi Scotty,

It very kind of you, thanks!  Nice video and hopefully we learn something useful from all the efforts made on this setup in this thread, either pro or con.

Cheers,  Gyula

Quote from: scotty1 link=topic=9188.msg242179#msg242179 A=1274575036
Hi again.
Here is a clip I made.
I'll do one more as well.
@Gyula, I gave you a mention too.  ;D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

thanks for posting the demo I wanted to see how you had it set up

could you try passing a small magnet (attracting) over the half of the rotating speaker magnet (quite close to the edge)...

my only speaker magnet is not north/south so I cant test that other than with individual magnets all north stuck on a rotor (which do rotate)

ps. your second video link shows the first video I had to view your username to find the new vid

OOPS, sorry about that.
Here is the link for my second clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-OLNMG3UTE)
And here is a clip I did ages ago showing 2 speaker magnets in attraction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
I can tell you all that even if one speaker A is spun at 90deg to the stationary one....the stationary magnet will not move on its own axis even though it has 2 poles rotating above it.

Don't forget that if a speaker type magnet could rotate on its axis then we could just spin the magnet over a copper disc and make power....but we all know it doesn't work BECAUSE THE FIELD WON'T ROTATE!

Cheers.
Scotty.
"The metal is not the real magnet....the real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal" Ed. L  ;)

Quote from: scotty1 on May 22, 2010, 09:13:55 PM
Here is the second clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)
Scotty.

It's the same as the first one. And it's not a good video at all. First off all You have no relative motion between a magnet and a disk. Secondly, You cannot compare an aluminium disk to the coil. It acts completely different. Hope you know why.

Quote from: scotty1 link=topic=9188.msg242185#msg242185 A=1274580113
How on Earth can a magnet like a speaker magnet rotate on its own axis and ALSO GIVE THE MAIN ROTOR A KICK to assist its motion.

That's the problem. You've just erased the main point of this machine from your mind ! Without it you have nothing. And that's what my video is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te8Anp8xeyw

Sorry for poor quality.

Hi all, I have asked the inventor some questions and mentioned the discussion going on here in this thread. Although some questions are not answered as detailed as I hoped, I am thankful for every hint received  :) (bold text is from inventor)


first of all, thank you for a very polite civilized respounce.  Anything you what to know I'll tell you if you just ask nicely.

1) Is your pickup/induction coil using a ferrit core, or  is it only an aircoil without any core at all?
Air coils
         
2) Some users say that the disc shaped magnet can neither  evade Lenz Law, nor rotate away from the copper coil if the magnet is  polarized heads/tail - yet you claim it does so in your video. They  posted a video in here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdesjiXt_Ig)  showing that a disc shaped magnet will not rotate/evade at all. This  makes it difficult to understand because it is contrary. Can you explain  the mechanism in your device regarding this issue?
I saw the videos and cannot believe anyone could do such a bad  job. It is all wrong so, it is of no use at all. I am not working for  him or anyone else. If he wants to bet me some money, I'll prove him wrong.

3) What is it exactly that produces the excess energy?
There is nothing making excess energy. Energy cannot be created  OR destroyed but, it can be moved around. I have made an electric  generator (and this is very important to me) not an overunity machine.  The term is not a real word but, slang and I have nothing to do with  that.

4) On your very first device (the clip you uploaded 1 year  ago) you used plexiglass discs instead of wooden aeroplane wings. From  what you have spoken in your later videos these wings are very necessary  to stabilize the rotor. Still you used the plexiglass discs before  which had no wing-shapes. What is the difference between these 2  versions?
The wing is very important
         
5) Do the wings have another function as well, aside from  stabilizing the rotor?
Yes
         
6) Do you have any data or measurements gathered with  multimeters? Unfortunately it is difficult to determine the values on  the multimeter on clip #2.
My multimeter is burnt out and I have no way to get another at  this time. Especially, just to prove something I already know.
         
7) Can you attach a motor (preferable the same type which  powers the rotor) on the power output which spins faster than the rotor?
On the first video it is running itself, thats what I said and  that is what I mean. I fixed the problem it had with the wings. 

As long as you never call it an overunity machine I will tell you  everything. Overunity is voodoo science to me.

_______________________________________________

Ok, these answers get me into thinking. Regarding answer #2 I think there is definitely something to it. Also Airstriker seems to have realized what it is about in his own experiments and watching the above video (thanks for demonstration btw.), I find it really strange that the Rotor accelerates *because* of Lenz Law and not slows down, how come that?

Quote from: gauschor on May 24, 2010, 05:20:21 AM
Ok, these A get me into thinking. Regarding answer #2 I think there is definitely something to it. Also Airstriker seems to have realized what it is about in his own experiments and watching the above video (thanks for demonstration btw.), I find it really strange that the Rotor accelerates *because* of Lenz Law and not slows down, how come that?

Well, as you can see I had to post this video as you people would go off the rails - as always unfortunatelly and that's sad ;[ There is nothing against physics as for the rotor's acceleration. Pretty easy to explain using law of conservation of angular momentum and Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions. Here you are:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3UsrfHa4MQ

Hi Airstriker and ALL,

I saw the importance of this man's work before this thread was started and posted it here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6116.msg238870#msg238870

I asked Stefan to make it a "sticky" which he did.  I will also ask him the same for this thread.  That is how important this is.

You all would do well to listen to Airstriker.  I believe he is correct and that this is a path towards using Lenz law and the law of angular momentum and Newton's third law: law of reciprocal actions to work FOR us.

I also really enjoyed the little simulation.  Notice that the two closest to the axle ran the fastest.  That would be a great set up.  Make the larger rotor small and light weight to gain even more speed!  Really great stuff and I hope that some will take it to heart.

I have been actively planning to adapt this to my unipolar generator I am building and now I have even more ideas.  Thank you Airstriker!

Cheers,

Bruce

@Airstriker,

In the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3UsrfHa4MQ ) it is not shown that the wheel the man holds in his hands was speeded up first, the wheel had to be speeded up by an input energy, ok?

Now I ask if the inventor's rotor is at a total standstill, cylinder magnets are at a standstill too  and he starts the main rotor shaft spinning by switching the top electric motor on, then why will the cylinder magnets also start rotating around their own axis?  So far you have not proved it, sorry.

Because it does not turn out from your computer simulation that the magnets will start rotating.  It is your assumption, you assign a constant acceleration to the magnets. IF you think that the magnets start accelerating, when the main rotor is started to rotate, then please prove it in practice.

And from the inventor's videos we cannot see the magnets are speeding up when the main rotor is started, it is not shown, unfortunately.

Respectfully,  Gyula

Quote from: gyulasun on May 24, 2010, 08:47:14 AM
@Airstriker,

In the video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3UsrfHa4MQ ) it is not shown that the wheel the man holds in his hands was speeded up first, the wheel had to be speeded up by an input A, ok?

Now I ask if the inventor's rotor is at a total standstill, cylinder magnets are at a standstill too  and he starts the main rotor shaft spinning by switching the top electric motor on, then why will the cylinder magnets also start rotating around their own axis?  So far you have not proved it, sorry.

Because it does not turn out from your computer simulation that the magnets will start rotating.  It is your assumption, you assign a constant acceleration to the magnets. IF you think that the magnets start accelerating, when the main rotor is started to rotate, then please prove it in practice.

And from the inventor's videos we cannot see the magnets are speeding up when the main rotor is started, it is not shown, unfortunately.

Respectfully,  Gyula

All in it's time...
However, it's not that easy to be shown on the video. Note, that if you stop the main rotor suddenly, then by doing this you will accelerate the magnets and they will start to rotate in the same direction as the rotor used to. So, if they were rotating counterclockwise, now they are rotating clockwise (all according to the said laws).
The only way to show, that it really is how I'm saying it is, is to stop the main rotor without apllying any back torque on it.
You can ask - why not show the whole rotating thing during the motor action ? Well... I cannot see it by my eye, but If you possess any high speed camera...

Quote from: scotty1 on May 19, 2010, 08:13:11 PM
...
So now I have to say that the magnet should be as "A" which makes sense according to the drill test that was shown in the videos.

If it is as "A" then the magnet is not rotating on its own axis so the coil will push it away and the force will not be directed to the main rotor as I saw in my test.
Hope this helps.
Scotty.

You are right. In case B, the magnet would rotate about its magnetic axis which is the same as its geometric axis. When a magnet rotates about its axis of magnetic symmetry, its field remains static therefore there would be no effect with the coil.

@All,

I agree with the results shown for A and B as tested here, but I think we are overlooking a lot of issues that Wendel has pointed out.

In his first video (self runner), he states that the motor runs on magnetic pressure.

He has magnetic compression bearings on both the magnet rotors and central rotor. All rotors have adjustable nuts for alignment.

Some have said that the magnetic compression bearings are not needed, but is that true. What if the magnetic compression bearings are required for the effect?

In the jpg below, I've shown a very simplistic scenario of what may be occurring.

1: The magnet has come under and charged the coil which will push the magnet down, which is allowed by the magnetic compression bearings.

2: The magnet downward movement causes the coil to reverse polarity.

3: The reverse polarity causes the Magnets upward movement which causes the coil to change polarity and push the magnet down again.

The polarity changes would allow for the spinning of the magnets.

Any constructive comments appreciated.

Regards, Larry

Hi LarryC,

That is a very good thought, it makes sense of the magnet getting pushed down. That could also be the reason for the importance of the wings.

Without the wings I believe he is running into a large amount of vibration setup by the pushing of the outside magnets. If this is occurring because Lenz is creating a push down on the magnets supporting rod which would cause the entire frame to vibrate. At high speed this will cause eventual destruction, since it starts to become an off balanced spinning lever.

A idea to counter this is to remove the wings and replace them with two flywheels, sandwich the magnets between the outer rims(of flywheels) on magnetic bearings and extend the shaft upwards. This would create a both a gyroscopic and flywheel effect that "may" improve the design and remove the tendency for the magnet support structure to vibrate.

Too bad he doesn't have a scope shot we could also see if a snap back from the magnet is creating an impulse spike in the coils, which could also be giving it a kick.

First - in no way has anything been shown that would indicate a 'self-runner'.

LarryC - The up/down push/movement of the magnets would not be as large/strong an effect as that of the rotor travel meaning the coil polarity will still sync with the rotor IMO.
And given a good construction that doesn't/shouldn't allow for the rotor 'bounce', the magnets should then see some spin imparted as that 'down push' has nowhere to go but as a transfer to spin.

However, allowing the rotor magnets to 'spin' is an interesting idea.

My take on the process in following pics with 'B' config top/bottom polarity:
(Edit: changed pic)

Quote from: gauschor on May 24, 2010, 05:20:21 AM
         
6) Do you have any data or measurements gathered with  multimeters? Unfortunately it is difficult to determine the values on  the multimeter on clip #2.
My multimeter is burnt out and I have no way to get another at  this time. Especially, just to prove something I already know.

Data? Waaht?
:P

Hi all.
I see I am asked to make a bet with this inventor to be proved wrong?
Have I done anything but ask a legit question?
I'll bet the inventor the O.U prize money to disclose this secret.  ;D

@Gyula, I noticed the same as you in AirStriker's sim.
The magnets are given a power source that is assumed to exist, yet my own tests show it should not.

@Capthook, in you drawings you say that the coil causes the disc magnet to rotate on the way in but not the way out.
I've tested it and nothing happens either way other than drag on the main rotor.

The inventor has given no answers at all.

The magnet as "B" could only rotate to get to a lower resistance state, but because it is fixed on its own axis and it is round it has no where to go except....even if it did rotate it would be under the same energy state, so it doesn't rotate. IT HAS TO MOVE ITS OWN AXIS!
It was shown earlier that the coil will make the magnet vibrate, and that is because of the changing energy states between the coil and magnet, in the vertical up/down direction.
Then there is Lenz to go with that which resists the horizontal wing rotation.
--------------------
The inventor has seen my clips so he can respond if he wants.
I have used coils and moved things relative to each other to no avail.
-------------------
Scotty.

Comments from the inventor on youtube:

1. 'I am shorting out the generator coils. The first time that I thought I had beat "load" I had fixed magnets. Using rare earth magnets I did not have any steel in the cores of my coils because the magnets were powerful enough not to need the steel which, canceled out the the magnetic conflict. My volt meter was reading 24 volts. I thought I'd won and called a physicist who told me to short the coils out by wiring them together. That was full load. When I did that the machine stopped immediately.'

So it stopped under load when he had fixed magnets.

2. 'I started out w/ 12 magnets and 12 coils. When all the magnets were under the coils the fly wheel would be pressed down because of Lenses Law causing it to bounce up and down until it tore itself up. Finally down to 2 magnets and 1 coil. I thought what the heck and there wasn't too much power to to tear it up. Please check out the other video. 1 wing going up & 1 wing going down. No more bouncing. Please ask questions. Thank you.'

It does bounce up and down. The wings keeps the rotor from bouncing, but would still allow the magnets to bounce.

3. 'By the way my address is 2969 Dry Branch Rd Dixon Springs, TN 37057. I don't have much but my casa is your casa. If you are in the neighborhood drop by or call at 615-633-4298. "Everyone has something to hide except for me and my monkey".'

Seems like a nice guy and is willing to share. Does anyone with a Oscilloscope and others meters live near the inventor? A scope shot and other test, would produce a lot of answers.

Regards, Larry

@ Larry
I will be donating a spare scope to him I have here in Australia. I will take it overseas with me in a couple of weeks (possibly 3) and post it in the USA. (wil be faster than sending it from here) It is a portable duel trace. However in the mean time if anyone does live nearby would be good to get the scope shots.
I was going to give it to another developer but he alread had one earlier in the year.
Mark

Quote from: LarryC on May 24, 2010, 06:29:11 PM
@All,

I agree with the results shown for A and B as tested here, but I think we are overlooking a lot of issues that Wendel has pointed out.

In his first video (self runner), he states that the motor runs on magnetic pressure.

He has magnetic compression bearings on both the magnet rotors and central rotor. All rotors have adjustable nuts for alignment.

Some have said that the magnetic compression bearings are not needed, but is that true. What if the magnetic compression bearings are required for the effect?

In the jpg below, I've shown a very simplistic scenario of what may be occurring.

1: The magnet has come under and charged the coil which will push the magnet down, which is allowed by the magnetic compression bearings.

2: The magnet downward movement causes the coil to reverse polarity.

3: The reverse polarity causes the Magnets upward movement which causes the coil to change polarity and push the magnet down again.

The polarity changes would allow for the spinning of the magnets.

Any constructive comments appreciated.

Regards, Larry

Hi Larry,

Unfortunately I did not do any test in the past where a rotor (or a stator) magnet is not fixed but could move away a little when a force acts on it.  Here this force is the Lenz counter force and the magnet can react on it by first moving away then 'bouncing' back from the reaction force of its bearing magnet. 
I am still uncertain if this action-reaction manifests in the cylinder magnet's rotation,  this is an open question.
Also I am still uncertain if this 'unfixed' rotor magnet positioning has the big difference in reducing Lenz law versus the fixed motor magnet case. 

Experimentation is needed and I think we have to give Wendell the benefit of doubt.

Thanks,  Gyula

Quote from: markdansie on May 25, 2010, 01:14:56 PM
@ Larry
I will be donating a spare scope to him I have here in Australia. I will take it overseas with me in a couple of weeks (possibly 3) and post it in the USA. (wil be faster than sending it from here) It is a portable duel trace. However in the mean time if anyone does live nearby would be good to get the scope shots.
I was going to give it to another developer but he alread had one earlier in the year.
Mark

Hi Mark,

This is very kind of you indeed. 

Regards,  Gyula

?, did he try a system with  coils suspended on magnets, and rotor on bearings, seems an easier build,
do the magnets of the bearings affect the rotor bearings in any way?
what happens if a mechanical system is used to move the magnets, down/up at the coil? 

Thanks, interesting comments from all on my bounce example.

Mark, you are very generous, but just a note of caution.

Wendell has only recently learned from a viewer how to do the test measurements requested by other viewers with a multimeter. The multimeter has since expired. It may only need a fuse replacement or a battery.

So for 20+ years he has attempted to create his self-running device without much or any test equipment knowledge. This may have been an advantage and may have resulted in a self-runner. I've seen, as I'm sure many of you have, self-runners on youtube that only worked because the inventor held the magnet in his hand. The vibration of the hand supplied the energy. 

I feel it would be better if someone with testing and building knowledge could go with any test equipment. If someone with scope experience, but no scope, lives close, then maybe you can send them the scope.

Other information like coil inductance, rpm, amperage, etc. would be helpful.

Regards, Larry

   

@Larry
Wise words. As far as the scope goes it has been unused for a while so it is of little value to me. I was going to give it away. I think an RPM meter would be essential.
I have travelled the world and seen many devices that for whatever reasonwere not self runners. Often (more often than not0 it was because of mis measurement, self delusional or some external force (like hand). I have also run into many scam artists. I like Wendel for his perserverance and passion so if it helps him or gives his some pleasure out of figuring how it works then its worth it.
I actually give him more credability than steorn
I think we all remeber Mylow last year.
In saying all that he has some original ideas..if not simplistic and I do feel fuether investigation worthwhile. I have written to him privately and feel he is a decent and honourable person. he has forwarded some information howlong the first video model did run and my aim is to see if that can be reproduced.
i will not be rushing into this and many here who kno me know I am the biggest sckeptic there is. However in the early stages I always like to give the beifit of the doubt.
One thing he is not is a scam artist and I have run into far to many of them over the years..often at other people great expense.
Thanks and I do enjoy your posts
Kind Regards
Mark

@Mark,

I was somewhat aware of your good work for the OU cause from your previous post on other subjects. Glad you're still doing it and wish the best for your success. I live in Slidell, La., north of New Orleans. I'm not a traveler like you, but let me know if I can be of assistance in my area. 

Your comments give me additional confidence that this is not a intentional scam.

I agree with the non-spin using N/S head/tail replications of others, as I have also tried. But it seems that we should attempt additional spin replications, but with a unit that allows a magnetic pressure bounce. I have no neos that qualify (center holes), but I'll look into getting some. helicoil suggestions may be helpful with this test.

If anybody else has the right neos and can replicate, please let me know.

Regards, Larry

 

My experiments certainly made him mad....He sent me a nasty letter  ;D
He claims to be a genius on you tube...and we don't understand how his mind works, ect ect....see his comment reply's to people....not so nice at all.

To let the magnet spin you will need to let it move off its axis....maybe his can move a little, but the magnet will still not spin if it can vibrate up and down at all so there is still a stalemate there.
-----------------
I have made a test rotor that has the magnets mounted on small D/C motors set into the ends of the rotor.
Theoretically I could put wires on the motors and slip rings on the shaft....then I could mount a coil and spin up the rotor.
If the D/C motors made some current then we could tell that the magnets were spinning. But I don't think they would.

I'm an Engineering Patternmaker by trade so I can knock up models fairly quickly, but in this case I have many doubts.
Scotty.

Unfortunately I see again the well known pattern in this case:

- no self runner
- tall claims by the inventor
- mysteries instead of clear answers

I also see the well know psychological pattern that the inventor does not know himself whether he wants to give the idea away or to become rich by protecting its alledged secrets. Like in so many cases the inventors "will" and "wishes" seem to change from day to day, but drift torwards "I do not give away my hard worked for secrets for free". This keeps up the illusion and gives a purpose in life.

The folks who communicated with the inventor for sure asked the straight forward question "Does the machine run two hours without a battery?" ("Closed loop without a battery, yes or no?") and did not get a clear answer?

It is also strange (and telling) that the inventor does not defining clearly where the poles are on his little disk magnets and everybody has to speculate.

It seems to be the age old missconception that 25 Volt spikes on the pick up coils deliver more energy than the continuous current from the 6 Volt battery into the DC motor turning the machine.

My comments do not help and sound pessimistic, I just wanted to say what I felt after going through this thread. It is so sad to see it all over again.

May be, the folks who can talk or write to him just ask this two simple questions again in a very friendly and clear way:

1) Does the machine run longer than an hour without any battery (closed loop)?

2) Please explain the poles on your magnets, specially on the little (may be rotating) disk magnet or magnets passing by the pick up coils or coils?

If there is no useful answer forthcoming, everything humanly possible has been done. Game over!

It is very nice to give the inventor a scope, why not. From my own experience I know that using a scope needs a lot of learning. So I see no immediate benefit besides charity and a way to open up more conversations with the inventor (in case someone has the patience of a Ghandi).

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on May 27, 2010, 04:45:31 AMIt seems to be the age old missconception that 25 Volt spikes on the pick up coils deliver more energy than the continuous current from the 6 Volt battery into the DC motor turning the machine.

That is my fear as well, when I saw the demonstration with the voltmeter, that it might only be voltage spikes which are of no use at all  :-\ . Well he says on the very first video when he starts to spin this device by hand that the rotor "does not choke down". He had connected the output of the coil to a rectifier and then back to the motor. Yet it seemed to me that rotor was slowing down slowly by watching the white spot on the rotor.

Since he does not ask for money however and he offers to invite anyone to inspect this device, he seems very honest. I guess we need some replication to verify :s

edit: I wrote him an email, including the 2 questions posted above  :)

Quote from: scotty1 on May 27, 2010, 03:35:58 AM

To let the magnet spin you will need to let it move off its axis....maybe his can move a little, but the magnet will still not spin if it can vibrate up and down at all so there is still a stalemate there.

For my testing, I used a 1" diameter neo on a free spinning rotor and another small ceramic (repulsion) being manually passed over one side. No spinning when the neo was centered on the rotor, but if it was off center more than 1 MM, slight spinning would occur and would increase as the offset increase. This should be expected as the push is not balanced to the center of the rotor with an offset.

So if he has spin, wobble and bounce, there is no wonder why he speaks of the unit tearing itself apart. It also makes it extremely difficult for us to build a reliable unit.

Regards, Larry

Quote from: conradelektro on May 27, 2010, 04:45:31 AM
Unfortunately I see again the well known pattern in this case:

- no self runner
- tall claims by the inventor
- mysteries instead of clear answers

I also see the well know psychological pattern that the inventor does not know himself whether he wants to give the idea away or to become rich by protecting its alledged secrets. Like in so many cases the inventors "will" and "wishes" seem to change from day to day, but drift torwards "I do not give away my hard worked for secrets for free". This keeps up the illusion and gives a purpose in life.

The folks who communicated with the inventor for sure asked the straight forward question "Does the machine run two hours without a battery?" ("Closed loop without a battery, yes or no?") and did not get a clear answer?

It is also strange (and telling) that the inventor does not defining clearly where the poles are on his little disk magnets and everybody has to speculate.

It seems to be the age old missconception that 25 Volt spikes on the pick up coils deliver more energy than the continuous current from the 6 Volt battery into the DC motor turning the machine.

My comments do not help and sound pessimistic, I just wanted to say what I felt after going through this thread. It is so sad to see it all over again.

May be, the folks who can talk or write to him just ask this two simple questions again in a very friendly and clear way:

1) Does the machine run longer than an hour without any battery (closed loop)?

2) Please explain the poles on your magnets, specially on the little (may be rotating) disk magnet or magnets passing by the pick up coils or coils?

If there is no useful answer forthcoming, everything humanly possible has been done. Game over!

It is very nice to give the inventor a scope, why not. From my own experience I know that using a scope needs a lot of learning. So I see no immediate benefit besides charity and a way to open up more conversations with the inventor (in case someone has the patience of a Ghandi).

Greetings, Conrad

Yes, I too see an all too familiar and counter-intuitive psychological pattern. One that I have witnessed in myself at times. We work hard at something and in our eyes it becomes far more than it really is. Perhaps good people, sensitive people, are even more prone to this. We have a mothers protective love for our brain-child.

If we invented a machine that could possibly change much of the negative dynamics of the world to positive, wouldn't we want to do everything possible to clearly prove its validity and perhaps even improve on it? But subconsciously we know that what we have is not what we so very much want it to be, and so we become defensive and vague rather than invite the examination and scrutiny that could prove us right.

Even though it may appear to, no one can say yet if this dynamics is at play here. Often I am mistaken about things.

Hi Folks,

While I agree with most that you have written, I think we have to step forward from this and for instance somehow persuade the inventor in a polite way to run his setup for a longer time than a few minutes in the self run mode etc etc as Conrad suggested.
Of course the other way is trying to reconstruct his setup, Larry's test on the cylinder magnet's slow turning sounds promising and may justify an attempt in building it.

rgds,  Gyula

After playing around with aluminium and spinning diamagnetic magnets for the last few days, I'm left in no doubt that what he shows with the drill is a non-starter - the magnetic field strength needed for this to work produces far too much drag.  Also, using lead sheeting to form a 'sleeve' around the spinning magnet, the drag was so great I was able to increase its temperature by 10 deg.C using just a small 12V DC drill motor.

I also knocked up a similar motor setup, minus the spinning magnets, ('cos I don't have any!) using normal bearings, just to see how they compare in the torque-required department.  Although my cross-sections are a lot heavier and not wing-shaped, the torque needed seems considerably more - there's no chance I could leave my motor dangling precariously like he does, as it would quickly strangle itself with the power-cables!

Anyway, fun to play with... 

I have a feeling the following line of thought might be a clue to what we are dealing with here.

First of all, there is no need for any academically attempts to explain what Mr.Walker, the inventor, is onto,
since it is clearly beyond orthodox knowledge.

If it was only an example of harnessing known electromagnetic parameters, it would not be such a mystery to us all.

I believe we have to think out of the box in this case.


Regarding  pure observations of the videos, one of the critical parameters in gaining the extra torque out of this invention
is directly linked to a certain minimum of rpm before shorting the coils.

Another critical parameter, which the inventor himself stresses, is the magnetic bearings, which I believe are there for more
crucial reasons than just minimizing friction.

So what happens to the freely rotating head/tail magnets is obviously something beyond predictable electromagnetic knowledge.

It makes me think about the strange and academically unexplained magnetic oscillation technique used by the Terawatt group in California,
where a magnetic wheel on a drive shaft indirectly induces 150 % torque in another unconnected freely rotating axis also equipped with
a magnetic wheel and additionally a set of strong magnets on the other end of the shaft, creating strange magnetic field oscillations
at certain minimum rpms.

What is really interesting in the Terawatt concept in relation to the invention of Wendell Ray Walker is the neccessity of freely rotating
magnets.

According to the Terawatt group, the magnetic field oscillation created on the passive shaft would not exist if this shaft was connected
to a direct drive. The indirect induction of rotation by a physically unconnected magnetic drive is according to the Terawatt group essential
in creating the 150% effect in the adjacent shaft.

Below is two images depicting the basics of their invention.

The only way to study and finally get to understand the workings of Mr. Walkers invention is to create an exact replica of his model,
and start from there. Any deviation of parameters in a construct like this will lead us astray.

Gwandau

For the record, though I had no magnets with a hole in them for my rotor, I improvised a bit, using 2 tacks on either side of 40mm N42 neos, both held in place with glue & a circle of aluminium (from a beer can!) - rough-and-ready but it worked.

My 'replication' is unworthy of the name as there's no magnetic bearings and my shaft & rotor magnet supports are iron-based, but thought it worth a shot!  Nothing exciting to report.  My 'coil' was just a reel of 0.27mm enamelled copper wire. (95 Ohms, 125mH)  My motor is a small 12V DC 5:1 ratio, sacrificing revs for torque.  (rated 995 rpm no load, about 200 loaded)  Full-wave rectification from coil at a few 100 rpms yields a paltry 5V, just enough to power a flickering led.  Seeing as 'he' (sorry can never recall his odd user-name) was generating over 25V, his setup must be well over 1000 rpm.  So no magic to be see...

Yep, I think magnetic bearings are the way to go and I need to order some ring-magnets if I want to play some more 'cos nothing I have is suitable...

Hi all.
I have done some tests with my setup and I noticed that when I put a brake on the rotor to slow it down the magnets will spin in the direction of the rotor, so it seems that any Lenz on the rotor would do the same and the magnets will not rotate.

The coil will act on the magnet and cause the rotor to slow, and the slowing of the rotor causes the magnets to spin, but in the direction of the rotor and not against it.

So if the coil did try to push the magnet back, the slowing of the rotor would send a force to spin the magnet ahead, so again I saw a stalemate.

The magnet spins because it has mass, so even on a mag bearing it would still spin in the direction of the rotor as the rotor slowed due to any external forces.

Something else I wonder about.
In one clip he shows a light and resistor as a load.
I'm sure that light is a neon with an 82v strike rating.
In my book the resistor is 270k in series with the neon, at 240v operation.
So in the U.S it is different but you can see what I mean....they need 82v to make light.
Does he use a stepdown transformer?
Scotty.

@ scotty & everyone.
Thanks for sharing your results.
I am looking at taking a step backwards to the original design where it di self run without a battery.
I wrote to the inventor who confirmed hat was the self running one and did so for more than an hour. They left it running when they went to bed and it self destructed.
With the following video's appart from the effects I saw a lot of problems making any conclusions given the measuring. You need a scope and someone who really knows what they are doing. If you remember Winsoli (who I have a lot of time for) when we did the measurements with a scope we found that what he acieved at that stage was actually due to some mis measurement or miscalculations. I am not sure what he has nowday.
So what I hope to do is go back to the basics of the sef runner without the battery. if that could be demonstarted or recreated then we really have something.
So its back to video one for me...one step back for hopefully a few steps forward.
Mark

Quote from: scotty1 on May 29, 2010, 09:21:32 PM
Hi all.
I have done some tests with my setup and I noticed that when I put a brake on the rotor to slow it down the magnets will spin in the direction of the rotor, so it seems that any Lenz on the rotor would do the same and the magnets will not rotate.

The coil will act on the magnet and cause the rotor to slow, and the slowing of the rotor causes the magnets to spin, but in the direction of the rotor and not against it.

So if the coil did try to push the magnet back, the slowing of the rotor would send a force to spin the magnet ahead, so again I saw a stalemate.

The magnet spins because it has mass, so even on a mag bearing it would still spin in the direction of the rotor as the rotor slowed due to any external forces.

Something else I wonder about.
In one clip he shows a light and resistor as a load.
I'm sure that light is a neon with an 82v strike rating.
In my book the resistor is 270k in series with the neon, at 240v operation.
So in the U.S it is different but you can see what I mean....they need 82v to make light.
Does he use a stepdown transformer?
Scotty.

Hi Scotty,

I've been in the background reading the development of this topic.

Great work on all your tests and thanks for sharing the results.

I agree with you that the bulb load seems to be a Neon which would indicate a voltage of 80 volts or more.

I also noticed in the self runner video that he has a wall wart step down transformer on the floor.

Luc

Wendell Ray Walker has written me a very long email (including covering some basics which is nice to have for beginners in this matter) which I would like to share with you for further investigation. He also answers previous question on what exactly happens when the magnet passes the coil (starting in the middle of the text somewhere):

Thank you so much for doing a little research. I'm sure you must  be wondering why I must want you to. Because I needed you to understand  that to someone looking at this simple machine I can totally see why the  complex science that's behind it would not be apparent. To someone knowledgeable and educated it would seem "toy-like". But  it's simply not. 
           
          People see a picture of even a hydrogen atom and they think "well how  simple is this thing"? I understand it fully. Neutrons', protons, and  electrons. So they move on to something more complex in electronics. But  understanding atomic structure and especially electron flow, otherwise  known as a "Quantum Leap" is extremely difficult. And the simple fact of  the matter is that any serious physicist will admit that even modern  science doesn't fully understand it. 
           
          Please trust me. I'm going to tell you the workings of this  generator. Just as you wanted step-by-step. But the only way to do that  is to give what would be much more difficult and complex answers than  you would expect. I almost want to apologize that the answer is so  simple (which it is) but you'll finally see it for what it is. You have  to understand that it is just not that easy. I hope I'm not boring you and I hope you're not  thinking that I'm just trying to avoid the questions.
           
          When a positive pole of a magnet passes a copper coil it causes the  electrons to run in one direction (let's say to the left). When a  negative pole of a magnet passes a coil it causes the electrons to flow  in the opposite direction (let's say to the right). But whether pos. or  neg. when the electrons are moving away from the magnetic pole their  magnetic force is always pushing against whatever magnetic field is  affecting them. Just as a positive pole repels a positive pole on a  magnet.
           
          With air coils you really lose nothing except you may have to add  more coils than a normal generator. Because with iron cores you could  use less copper as the cores become an electro-magnet, thereby causing a  stronger magnetic field causing more electrons to flow. When my magnet  is coming close to the coil it starts the electrons to flow just like  any other generator and as Lenz's Law states "the magnetic field coming  from the electrons is pushing back on the magnet". 
           
          If the magnet didn't move it would be just like hitting a wall. But  the magnet is able to spin backwards for the simplest of reasons "every  action has an equal and opposite reaction". A body at rest tends to stay  at rest unless acted upon by some outside force. A body in motion tends  to stay in motion unless likewise acted upon by some outside force.  Maybe not exactly what Newton said but almost, a concept not as simple  as people seem to think.   
          The magnet turns away not being stopped there. Then the next point of  force is when the magnet is fully under the coil. Lenz's Law once again  wants to tremendously push it down. This is where the wings come in.
           
          Once again, a scientific discovery as important as flight is taken  for granted by the modern scientist. But this is modern science. One  wing is being push upwards by atmospheric pressure. The bottom wing is  being pushed downwards by atmospheric pressure. These not only solve the  problem of stable magnetic levitation, but also counter acts the force  wanting to be push downwards on the magnet. Then when the magnet is  emerging on the other side of the coil unlike a magnet that would repel  it on onside and then pull it back on the other side with equal force,  it is also repelled on that side, too. 
           
          Of course I'm not the first one to ever try to achieve stable  magnetic levitation. But I am the first one to affectively solve it.  Also I'm the first one to ever have a configuration to where a magnetic  field is repelling on one side and the other also. 
           
          Let's address what is commonly known as "load" and why if you light a  light it wants to slow a generator down.
           
          The more lights the more "load" and the more mechanical energy so to  speak is needed to turn the generator. It's because the "load" is  causing the electrons to be "dammed up" so to speak. Because it's harder  for them to get through the "load" the more the electrons are held back  the more magnetic force pushes against the magnet, simply because there  is now many more electrons in the coil. 
          But it must now be clearly understood that in no way are the  electrons being pushed by the magnet. As we would push a row of marbles,  because we have now entered into the atomic realm and quantum physics  and this is truly entering another universe. Where up is not up and down  is not down, but operates on a completely different set of rules. We  are not splitting atoms here as in a nuclear bomb. But we must remember  we a manipulating atoms. And I need not remind you of the tremendous  force that can be released by a very small amount of atoms in nuclear  fission. 
           
          I hope I'm not being too redundant even with our simple magnet and  our copper coil. Those are the forces we are dealing with. 
           
          The common terminology is that mechanical force is turned into  electrical force. But this is simply incorrect. Because the mechanical  force truly never touches the copper wire. The mechanical force is only  being used to pass a magnet by a coil. I think the best example I can  give of mechanical force being turned into energy is when primitive man  would take a flint and strike it with a harder rock, using the  mechanical force of their arm. 
          The resulting energy produced by that collision caused sparks to fly  from the flint to light a fire, tremendous heat, etc... being created on  the atomic level. And there is an electrical component to this. But  there truly is no mechanical component for electrical generation. 
           
          The electrons are being "excited" for want of a better word by the  magnet. Not pushed. A spinning magnet affects the electrons the same as a  fixed magnet. And I think possibly more.
           
          Let's address conservation of energy. 
           
          If you make a generator and you use twenty pounds of copper wire and  let's say four pounds of permanent magnets. You must have a pos. and  neg. (output and input) because if one electron leaves the generator it  must be replaced by another electron that has traveled through the  circuit and returned to its place in a copper atom. One could not come  out unless one was coming in. Therefore you can run that generator for  twenty years and even if you have burnt ten thousand gallons of  gasoline, coal or whatever you still have the same twenty pound of  copper.
          Can you see that obviously this needs a little more thought? And can  you see that if you could utilize Lenz's force you could (in the real  world) generate more power than it would take to run the machine?
          But I don't think it's free energy at all.
           
          I think that neutrinos and a whole lot of other complicated stuff are  involved. Please correct me on anything where you think I'm wrong. The  sooner I'm shown my mistakes the sooner I can move on. If you want me to  I will gladly go into more detail.

After reading that I am still not 100% clear, why this magnet should be repelled when "emerging" from the coil. I may ask again, because I have another theory to it. But everything else seems correct from point of science. Feel free to add in your thoughts too, for I really don't think this guy makes it up.

Hi gauschor,

Well, lots of text as the 'answer' but little or no fact on his setup. I think if he could be politely asked to make a new video when his output coils feed the upper electric motor and he starts it by speeding the rotor up by hand, no input battery and then show it self runs without decelerating, this would be the best proof, and ask him to make the video for 10 minutes what youtube limits.  Maybe a 10 minute long youtube video is still not convincing?  possibly will not slow down to a full stop if it happens to decelerate but probably some members here could analyze his video by certain methods as for instance in Mylow's case... whether the rotor keeps its speed or accelerates or decelerates.

And of course tests are needed to do by those members who can build his setup.

Thanks,  Gyula

Yikes, after reading Mr. Walker's email, I'm even more confused! ???

I forgot to mention that as most seem to contend, my rotor magnets do not 'appear' to spin - not at low speeds anyway, and as Scotty1 noted, the magnets will start to rotate when the rotor is braked, confusing things further...

There are too many unknowns that Mr. Walker could easily answer;

1: are both rotor magnets orientated the same way?
2: the make-up of his coil, is it air-core, what gauge wire, turns etc.?
3: the all-important 'magnetic-bearings, a break-down on how exactly he makes them?
4: rpm's, what's the minimum speed for the 'effect' to manifests?
5: current measurement of motor when in self-runner mode?

It's very hard see how his one coil could provide the hundreds of milli-amps of current needed to power the motor - unless it's not 'conventional' current being produced, or else the there is some kind of coil-magnet 'kick' interaction taking place.  Motor current usage when self-running would clarify things... 

I can understand your points, for I am also not a 100% clear. I believe he wrote this mail first so that we have a "base" to build upon, and now is the time for precise questions. I will write a new email today/tomorrow and bring these additional questions to attention  :)

Hi all.
I also have trouble with the letter?

When the magnet approaches the coil the coil wants to repel the magnet field...ok...but when the magnet is directly under the coil, then the coil is at zero voltage! And if there was an iron core the core would be attracted to the magnet at that time. Then as soon as the magnet begins to leave the coil in any way the current is reversed instantly....there is no stopping it.

So if we cancel out other forces with wings ect, the magnets would still be able to vibrate.
Let's say they don't vibrate but move up and down smootly......if on the approach the coil pushes down on the magnet it will change the field strength in the coil and the coil will change, now the magnet can come back up but as soon as it does the coil changes again. The magnet exits and the coil changes again!
From the letter,
Then when the magnet is  emerging on the other side of the coil unlike a magnet that would repel  it on onside and then pull it back on the other side with equal force,  it is also repelled on that side, too.  ???

I just don't see it.
I think a scope would show multiple current reversals relating to magnet vibration.
Scotty.

Hello,

I just discovered this thread last night and am a bit concerned about some of
the replies I have read. Let us remember our history. Nikola Tesla never divulged the secret of his box that powered a vehicle for many days without charging because someone ridiculed his genius. This inventor, Wendell Ray Walker, is graciously giving us all something new to discover. He has stated that this deal looks easy to build but is actually not that easy at all.
I applaud the efforts of the individuals that will try and get the man some equipment so that we may all understand better what the equipment tells us.  Keep in mind though that equipment does not yet exist for devices such as Walters.  The readings can only give indications.  Listen carefully to everything Walter says as he will let us know how this deal works... Patience and experimentation is what is needed.  Now if only I had some of them magnets that spin like Walters...  Maybe another delve into the world of Ed Leedskalnin will help me understand them and lead me to how I can make me some of those there  magnets of Walters.

Sean

I exchanged some mails with Wendell lately and asked again what exactly happens when the magnet passes the coil and if it only works on aircoils (which he used on his clips) or with iron cores as well:

First of all, the magnets upon approaching the coils are spun  backwards by the induced current. Then moving under the coils are spun  backwards and forced downwards by the induced current. As they begin to  move past the coils because they are spinning they are also inducing  current once more because as they are moving away they are also moving  towards the coil because of the spin therefore, inducing current once  again and are repelled. 
          It works the same with an iron core. The best I found was actually my  wife's idea to use steel wool, which gives it a good boost in current  without such a dramatic magnetic effect.

We found out that digging deeper into theory of working (which I requested but eventually confused myself because of multiple magnetic fields and applying Lenz Law on them within nuclear dimensions make it difficult to determine what really happens) will not be that helpful, therefore we moved the focus onto the working of the device itself. Theory can easily applied afterwards if you have a selfrunner  ;)
Unfortunately he does not seem to have a working device for now, but he says the prototype will be finished soon and then he will upload the new video with the requirements requested some posts before.

Quote from: gauschor on June 08, 2010, 08:25:26 AM
....
Theory can easily applied afterwards if you have a selfrunner  ;)
Unfortunately he does not seem to have a working device for now, but he says the prototype will be finished soon and then he will upload the new video with the requirements requested some posts before.

Hi,  Thanks for your efforts, I also think it is not fruitful to theorize with Wendell further on so hopefully he can have the proto running soon and we can have a chance to see it too and receiving more practical infos.

rgds,  Gyula

My v2 is still a work-in-progress, (v1 didn't show anything interesting) but I'm getting there.  Finally got some ring-magnets to play with so it's magnetic bearings throughout, even if there is massive room for improvements in their implementation.  Still, they're a huge improvement over the bearings I used in v1.  This is also an all-non-magnetic affair - brass and aluminium.  I'll keep you posted...

I like it, looks very clean. Keep up the good work  :)

I am trying myself a replication, but it's somehow messed up, because I got no magnet bearings etc. Therefore my attempt will eventually fail. Though I will post a picture when it's done... if it doesn't work, at least I could teach how to not build this device.

One problem I see with this setup is the diameter of the rotor. I don't know why the inventor used such a huge diameter on his rotor - the larger the diameter, the lower is the frequency of induction :/

Thanks!  Also, for the info from the man himself, particularly on the iron-core.  I tried an iron core on v1 and as expected saw an increase in output, but nowhere near what would be needed so self-sustain - so no magic...

I am also wondering how Wendell can be so specific regarding the magnets spinning.  There is no way you could see that they spin given the speed the rotor turns at - so unless he is deducing this from scope-shots, seems to me more like speculation than anything else.

But hey, you replication has as much chance of working as mine has.  Considering how little concrete info we have on the device, the term 'replication' may be a wee bit optimistic! :) 

Quote from: gauschor on June 08, 2010, 07:25:52 PM
I like it, looks very clean. Keep up the good work  :)

I am trying myself a replication, but it's somehow messed up, because I got no magnet bearings etc. Therefore my attempt will eventually fail. Though I will post a picture when it's done... if it doesn't work, at least I could teach how to not build this device.

One problem I see with this setup is the diameter of the rotor. I don't know why the inventor used such a huge diameter on his rotor - the larger the diameter, the lower is the frequency of induction :/

He may have been trying to make sure there was little magnetic interaction
between the two permanent magnets and make the magnetic approach
somewhat linear. But you are correct the bigger the rotor size the
lower the average electrical energy.

By the way I don't think magnetic bearings are all that critical if you set the
downward rotor thrust against some sort of glass or mirror or something. Any
ball bearings should be cleaned out and marginally lubricated with a very thin
viscosity oil. This is for an experimental rather than a perpetual set-up.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Quote from: mscoffman on June 09, 2010, 06:03:41 PM
By the way I don't think magnetic bearings are all that critical if you set the
downward rotor thrust against some sort of glass or mirror or something. Any
ball bearings should be cleaned out and marginally lubricated with a very thin
viscosity oil. This is for an experimental rather than a perpetual set-up.

:S:MarkSCoffman

Why not use another stator 180^o from each other with rotor magnets 180^o.  This way the downward thrust would be canceled.  The rotor will be pulled down on each side at the same time and there will be no net up/down movement of the rotor, assuming both sides are pulling on it with an equal force throughout the interaction.  This can be used with magnetic bearings or with conventional bearings.  Having 4 or 6 stators would be even better.

GB

I finished my attempt to replicate, however since it was not exact, I had no magnet bearings, no special wings, my results were bad too, I guess. I used a plexiglass disc with a diameter of only 12cm, put in 4 holes crosswise on the outer ends of the disc, put in an axis each and onto them 4 magnet discs of 3cm diameter each one (could rotate, but with friction...), 2 pickup coils only (400 windings each, 0.15mm diameter wire). This rotor was driven by a motor powered by 4x1.5V batteries. With aircoils my result was very bad, with using a core the result was still bad: my amperemeter showed only a current of 23 µA...
I must have made something horribly wrong, because I didn't even get my average red 5mm LED to work at all - although the inventor Wendell showed in his video that a white LED flashes brightly on his setup.

I guess I'll need to wait for the final demonstration of the inventor... which is approximate in 2 weeks, he wrote in his last mail.

@gauschor - You know what they say, the only way to learn is through failure!

And if that's the case, I must be on a fast-track learning curve - my v2 has also proven to be a monumental disaster,  far far too flimsy! Whereas v1 was too heavy - gotta find an in-between...

For the record, although my rotor would rotate for several minutes with just a hand-twist, once I took it above about 600rpm vibration sets in, the main brass shaft starts flexing, and the smaller brass shafts that support the rotating magnets start to bend due to CF.  As I said, way too flimsy...

  All: 
  Flimsy or not, you might be on your way to one of the most usefull devices ever.  As you've seen, even the sole inventor will quickly tear it all apart and start over, so... best of luck, and don't give up, as many have tried and fail.  We are all for you.
                                                                                NZ

Unfortunately as has been pointed out, the inventor has been very very sparing regarding specifics!  One point he did discuss regarded rotation of the magnets due to the Lenz effect (as he understood it) - and this I have been able to investigate a little.  Unfortunately (or fortunately perhaps!) I do not have proper videoing hardware but I will try to upload a crappy mobile-phone 3gp file showing my findings.  Having watched it, I can say in advance the quality is really dire!

Anyway, what I did.  Simply, I shorted the coil, marked one of the rotating magnets with some aluminium tape, aligned it to point in a known direction, and from a standing-start slowly increased the voltage to the small DC motor(s) (2 tiny 3.5v motors back-to-back 'cos 1 on its own is too weak) driving the rotor until the main shaft was doing at least 200rpm.  Then slowly decreased the speed again until rotation had ceased and observed the marked-rotors position.  Result: at least at these slow rpm's, the magnets do not rotate, that I'm quite sure of!  btw, at this speed I have no problems lighting LED's.   The result seems the same up to about 400rpm so I'm dubious about the whole rotating magnets scenario...

I also decided to play around with the current-build a bit before moving on.  I've tried driving the motors from 2 * 1.2V batteries and switching the pulse from the coil to alternate batteries every half-cycle via a Reed-sw->D-type Latch->6V Miniature Relay combination - in the hope they might charge.  No such luck...

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=390 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=view;down=390)

 ;D @ video quality. No problem though, most things I could recognize and thanks a lot for sharing  :)

Interesting, I got the feeling you are much closer in your attempt to replicate the device than me, therefore I got some questions for you:

1) I am assuming that your "thandar" power supply shows on the left side the voltage drawn by the motor and on the right side the amperage. Therefore your motor draws about 3V and 260mA on about ~400 rpms if I got it right? (just for confirmation purpose)

2) How many windings did your big copper coil have (or if you don't know, then what's the approximate full length of the wire) and whats the diameter of the wire?

3) Did you use any iron/ferrite core?

4) Did you use 1 or 2 coils when powering an LED?

   
     I would think that if the magnets are not spinning there is  a problem there, unless solved the rest won't work, as I see it.  That was the whole point of this. Spinning magnets or the whole thing goes thump, and stops,  motors are just to get it going, once going you don't need the motor. Right?  The magnets magnetic bearings working properly may be the main key to unlock this door. They have to spin.
                                                                             NZ

NickZ,

Exactly!

This isn't about some academically explainable effect overlooked by conventinal science.

This is something totally off the road happening here.

What we know is that there is an unexpected Electro-Motive Force created when the main rotor
reaches a certain rpm.

Look at his videos. He always waits with shortening the air coils until a certain rpm is reached.

This strange EMF related effect may be an intricate electromagnetic vortex geometry manifesting
and resulting in the spinning magnets, or it may be caused by something altogether different.

So I stress again, anyone into the quest of duplicating this discovery has to keep absolutely
rigidly to the original settings, any deviation is bound to result in no effect whatsoever.

And if we don't have the exact parameters needed to construct an exact replica, any attempt will be a waste of time.

First after a successful experiment with an exact replica will there be windows available for deviation experiments.

This is my own experience as a product developer and this is also common knowledge in any type of research.

Gwandau

Quote from: gauschor on June 15, 2010, 01:35:41 PM
;D @ video quality. No problem though, most things I could recognize and thanks a lot for sharing  :)

Interesting, I got the feeling you are much closer in your attempt to replicate the device than me, therefore I got some questions for you:

1) I am assuming that your "thandar" power supply shows on the left side the voltage drawn by the motor and on the right side the amperage. Therefore your motor draws about 3V and 260mA on about ~400 rpms if I got it right? (just for confirmation purpose)

2) How many windings did your big copper coil have (or if you don't know, then what's the approximate full length of the wire) and whats the diameter of the wire?

3) Did you use any iron/ferrite core?

4) Did you use 1 or 2 coils when powering an LED?

Correct on the PSU current, not the RPM's - it's actually half what the tachometer shows 'cos rotor-blades cross twice per revolution, so 200rpm.

No idea of the length, it's basically a full reel of 0.25mm enamelled copper wire I salvaged from an old TV.  The inductance comes to 125mH though.  I did try an iron core with v1 and saw the expected increase in inductance, so more power from the coil.  No ferrite to check with.

One coil.  Just giving the rotor a good hand-twist will cause the led to come alive, so I'm not sure why you are having problems.  I tried full-wave rectification with a FWBR & smoothing cap - works as expected but it's actually more effective to just tie the led directly to the coil (it is after all a diode!)

@NickZ - We have just got Wendell's word that the rotating magnets behave this way.  As I mentioned earlier, short of using stroboscopic lighting, there seems no way he can be so precise about their behaviour.  And my limited experimentation shows no sign of the effect.  Maybe at higher rpm's it manifests or maybe his magnetic bearings are leaps-and-bounds better than mine (which imho aren't bad!) - that's basically the problem, there are too many unknowns about this!  For instance from the very get-go we are told that magnetic bearing are essential, but we are never given a proper demonstration of how good his bearings are!  Personally, judging from the second or so where he spins one on camera, I think mine are at least equal in performance.  And let's not forget about the aluminium-block bearing he demonstrates.  After being quite enthusiastic about this initially and spending several hours testing the idea, imo this is a non-starter - you end up basically with a magnetic brake of sorts...   

Quote from: Gwandau on June 15, 2010, 06:53:26 PM
.....
So I stress again, anyone into the quest of duplicating this discovery has to keep absolutely
rigidly to the original settings, any deviation is bound to result in no effect whatsoever.

And if we don't have the exact parameters needed to construct an exact replica, any attempt will be a waste of time.

First after a successful experiment with an exact replica will there be windows available for deviation experiments.

This is my own experience as a product developer and this is also common knowledge in any type of research.

Gwandau

With respect, deviate from what?  We have almost no definite info at all on doing an exact replication!  On the surface, this 'simple' setup looks easy to either prove or disprove (as the 1'st post of this thread suggests) - that is until you start trying to replicate it!   So, lack of information is the main problem...

   @All: 
  You should be able to see the magnet spin back as you manually pass it by the coils like is shown in the video. If they don't spin back and out of the way, thus altering the effect of that magnetic kick, they aren't working. Since that is what has to happen. Besides that, yes, very interesting the speed up effect as resonace kicks in, works just like magic.   
   Magnetic bearings are not an optional in the operation.  That's my feeling, the key may not be in how smooth or friction-less they run, although important, but what happens when  All the magnets get working together, in perfect harmony along with resonace. Magnetic resonance is what is making up for the friction, and making it run with gain (entropy).  Airfoil of the wings,  keeps it in place, so it won't vibrate as much, since the flat disks won't work.   If it weren't for those videos, of the working device kicking in... who would of believed it?  My question is:  HOW LONG will it Run?  Magnets hang on the refrigerator for a long time, but, it seems like everything reaches an equilibrium after a while. 
  Resonance might may not happen without the pick-up coils working together as a magnetic team, with the spinning magnets.  Follow the same method, as it took the guy quite a while to get to that point.
                                                                                                NZ
                                             
 

Thanks Sprocket, this helped me a lot. I think I found the reason why the LED did not work on my setup: my small coil has only 450 windings and therefore after calculating with the formula L = (µ*N²*A)/l I get only 0.005 Henry, which is much less than your 0.125 Henry. Using this formula and judging the length and diameter of your coil from your picture shows me that you have approximately 2035 windings. Thus I need to make a new coil with equal or more windings.

- sorry, doublepost -

Quote from: NickZ on June 16, 2010, 02:36:17 AM
   @All: 
  You should be able to see the magnet spin back as you manually pass it by the coils like is shown in the video. If they don't spin back and out of the way, thus altering the effect of that magnetic kick, they aren't working......

There is no video showing this effect taking place, only Wendell's descriptions of what he thinks occurs while playing with the machine!  Moreover there is video evidence posted suggesting that it does NOT occur - Scotty1 I think posted it.

@gauschor - Hee, hee, yes I have a full role of wire there, so quite a bit of inductance.  Also, whatever about voltage, I don't think you will have any hope of seeing  rotating magnets unless you beef up your coil a bit! ;)

  @ All:
   Although I don't know the exact location on the video, I will look for it.  But, I do remember that it was shown that as the round magnet on the magnetic bearing is by hand moved close to the coil, it was repulsed backwards, compared to the direction of the wing direction.  If that does not happen, then it's because the polarity of the magnets is not allowing it to, and therefore not doing what it was designed to do.  A similar effect of magnets spinning in opposite directions, has been shown (although not very succesfully) in other videos and attempts.  My feeling is that the magnetic bearing set up can not be overlooked. Until that is replicated as shown we may never see any real self running effect generation.
  In any case I don't think that it's going to stop here, and hope that more proof will be shortly forthcoming.
  My question remains:
   NOT HOW,  BUT,  HOW LONG WILL IT RUN!
                                                                                 NZ

Quote from: gauschor on June 12, 2010, 07:12:07 AM
....
I guess I'll need to wait for the final demonstration of the inventor... which is approximate in 2 weeks, he wrote in his last mail.

Hi gauschor,

Do you still have some contact with Wendell?  I wonder how he is going with his final demo...  If you could write him again, would be nice.

Thanks,  Gyula

I received the last mail 29th of June he was still working on it and told me he will finish in a few days (it should have been finished already...), however I've looked into his youtube channel there was a reply by him posted 2-3 weeks ago in which he claimed that he would upload the new video within 1 week. Well that week has passed again and nothing up yet. I am getting tired of this now... maybe his device doesn't even work as expected and he tries to fix something where nothing can be fixed anyways. Sorry for me being pessimistic, but there is no other way I can explain the delays. I am however subscribed to his channel as are many others. Therefore if he updates we would get to know it and I would of course update this topic.

Ok, thanks for the info. Sorry for nagging you...

Gyula

It's okay to nag me  ;) I wrote him again an email a week ago but no answer yet. Usually he always replied very quickly. But I've seen see he has recently answered some video comments a few hours ago. So he is still active :) :
Presently I have to rebuild my generator. It got to going so fast it  made a sonic boom sound torn apart hitting me in the chest with magnets  and parts flying everywhere. I am now in the process of recontructing  it. I still have not found all the smaller magnets and I have to have  new parts made, as well as, designing a box or something else for  safety. Please don't try to replicate this it is much more dangerous  than I thought possible. I need a little more time.

Sounds quite dangerous. Sonic Boom? Then it must have rotated quite fast. Unfortunately this message again let us keep waiting. I really do wonder if the rotation was caused by self-acceleration... which would be amazing.

Hi gauschor,

Thanks again for the infos on him. While it is strange how he got so high speed, out of the setup we had a chance to see many weeks ago maybe he still deserves the benefit of doubt...

Gyula

WOW!!!   a quick note:

for the record i repeat, for newcomers to this thread: i traveled to tenn. to meet this guy and see his machine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y

quite a lovable guy.  i used this bike   round trip: 1000 miles + (end copy)

i just now got the message of this thread   sorry i haven't been here on this site for a long time   it is going to take alot of time to explain and or answer questions.

i have said and apologized for not understanding the structure of this type of message board.

later today i will go over the 9 pages of messages and see what has, and what has not been explained or answered and will give my 2 cents worth. 

thank you gyulasun for bringing this ?thread? (correct terminology?) to my attention.

joe

Hi Joe,

Thanks and take your time as convenient to wade through the posts...

No problem on the threads, do not worry on the structure of them.

rgds,  Gyula

These statements I believe to be accurate. Mags are as in pic “B”

gauschor,  the attached disc magnet to the electric drill was a demonstration of another type of “frictionless bearing.  It is diametrically polorized to get the electric current effect against the alum. Wendy has a tendency to skip around to different findings, and or discoveries he has made.  It must be said that this man is pure genius, genuine, can play a guitar like no-one I have ever seen,  and he has a heart of gold (or perhaps platinum).  He has no reason to balsheet. 

Xu Yuan , I can attest the email about tying the wings into the design is important to him.  One can argue with him on that matter and I have not been able to prove otherwise, but it seems the only reason “wings” are needed is to help keep the rotor from bobbing.  I think the bearings as stated by gauschor, is the way to go for stability reasons.  But what do I know, I have discussed this with wendy and it dosnt seem to register.  He worked hard on them wings, and for hand whittlin'  they are a damn good job.  I have seen, and touched them wings, aside from not having enough lumber at the ends they are a viable way of reducing the bobbing of the rotor while using the opposing magnets bearings he uses.

I have never felt a more free wheeling bearing, (no resistance) however one will notice how it keeps going to the point of falling apart, be that because of structure as I believe, or inevitability because of the design with no governor.  it seems to me a good bearing will suffice.  That being said, the mag bearings will last longer with much less maintenance.

On reply 13 “EDIT: maybe I missed it but I have not seen his looping back the output DC to his input DC motor. Has anyone seen that video or it was removed?

He stated he uses the battery because people wont believe him anyway. He told me why he removed the vid, but I cant remember the reason.  The removal was irrelevant anyway.

In my research I have found that there is always someone who doubts and wants to apply flawed old laws as to why “it cant work” rather than try it themselves. be it laziness, or mislead brain power, or attempts at suppression. (this is something wendy does not think exists:  suppression) .  Wendy stated to me he believes any talk of suppression by an inventor is a sign (red flag, if you will) of fraud.

He does not feed back to the motor,  he short circuits the coils, therefore creating fullest of load, which creates fullest of back emf.  This I believe is the (joe quote) “slingshot, or cracking of the whip” that creates the increase in rpm of the rotor in the generator.

Oh my god!!   as I read more of these posts I see it is just like in school where people are asking questions that have already been answered. 

Scotty  on reply 18 you are correct.  The magnets spin at will , absorbing back emf and possibly using the  back emf  to help rotor spin.  This is the only purpose of the free “spinning” magnets.  Getting around the  back emf.

Arthurs  reply # 21   he must have thought you were asking about the drill demonstration of another frictionless bearing he discovered.

Ok for now I will post this and then read more through this thread.  I may reply more later.
Lets see how it goes from here.

Remember,,,  It must be said that this man is pure genius, genuine, can play a guitar like no-one I have ever seen,  and he has a heart of gold (or perhaps platinum).  He has no reason to balsheet.

Oh brother,, what have I gotten myself into?  Lol  I have decided to reply to questions as they appear from here on in   it appears there may have been questions already answered. So I will not reply anymore until I have read the whole thread, and will only reply to questions asked after this post. I  am up to reply # 22

Good work folks, god bless, peace out, live and let live,
joe

reply 63  gauschor asks,  I find it really strange that the Rotor accelerates *because* of Lenz Law and not slows down, how come that?

I believe the answer is:  BACK emf  This is the (joe quote) “slingshot, or cracking of the whip” that creates the increase in rpm of the rotor in the generator.

i tried to bring this to someones attention months ago,, but noone wanted to even look at this device, because the idiot behind the camera has no clue what hes talking about.
[edit: not to imply that hes "stupid", but hes just not educated on these things. i didnt buy that he came up with the thing he was trying to talk about...]
i half suspected his genius-daughter was behind the actual machine, but thats neither here nor there.

the fact of the matter is, hes "free spinning the back torque"
instead of the coil causing drag on the magnet,
it spins right off of it.
the field still causes induction. but the "back EMF" is on a free-spin rotating magnet, and has nothing to "grab on to".
its a phenominally interesting concept.
if it holds true, then i would think this changes the entire way we generate electricity... i haven't had the time/materials to give this a go yet, but its definately on my list.

instead of the magnetic bearings, i was just going to use needle-points on the spinning shafts,
divide the circle by 3, have 3 magnets and 3 coils.
3 rectifiers, or you can run them series/parallel
with an adjustable feed (potentiometer)  back to
the drive-motor.

we could potentially place several magnets/coils
around the disk

Hello Joe (mijdtr),

great that you could go and see Wendell.

I guess, everybody wants to know whether you saw there a "self running device"?

Are we talking about a "so far unsuccessful attempt to build a self running device" or "is there really a self running device"?

This is not an attack on the inventor, just the wish to clarify the situation. Whatever the "situation" is, Wendell`s device is interesting. But we should know exactly where we stand.

It is of course up to the inventor, whether he wants to fully disclose his machine or not.

According to your personal opinion, Joe, have you seen there an "over unity machine"?

(I prefer to call it a "self runner", because we would not know where the energy comes from, it could be an "energy converter".)

Please do not go into a discussion about "what is over unity, what is a self runner", I just want to know whether you saw there a device that turned for a longer time without an obvious input of energy?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: mijdtr on September 04, 2010, 08:39:21 PM
...
Oh brother,, what have I gotten myself into?  Lol  I have decided to reply to questions as they appear from here on in   it appears there may have been questions already answered. So I will not reply anymore until I have read the whole thread, and will only reply to questions asked after this post. I  am up to reply # 22

Good work folks, god bless, peace out, live and let live,
joe

Hi Joe,

Many thanks for your time devoted to this topic, I guess when you were writing on your visit to him you did not know you were opening a can of worms  but just take it easy...  :)
I think the important thing is that your impressons are good on Wendell and if you can keep in touch with him further on, then we may all benefit from his further activities provided he is coming along with a rebuilt device sooner or later that is going to be much more robust.

rgds,  Gyula

This device is very simple.
take away all the crap on the magnetic bearings
thats unrelated to the device. YES - it helps, low friction, yada yada, but its not part of the machine.

you have only 3 things.
a rotating mass
a free-spinning magnet
a pick-up coil

the only difference between this, and any other generator of its kind (Bendini probably is the most popular example)
is the free-spinning magnet.
Its alleged purpose is to eliminate back-torque during induction. All losses aside, If the machine does this, to ANY degree, the energy balance equation is thrown off, and the device would be considered "overunity".
If it does this to a large enough degree to offset the losses,
the device would be considered a "self runner".
Wether science ultimately derrives some theoretical "source" of the energy is irrelevant. The fact would still remain that the generator coils produced more than the input motor required.

The declarations that it keeps blowing up on him, indicates that he may be onto something.  The drive motor runs directly off of the rectifier, with no limitation. If producing more power than consumed, the device would accelerate to the point of no return....

This is solved by adding a potentiometer (variable resistor) before the drive motor. Then you can control its speed and find the perfect RPM to exploit the device's potential.

I encourage everyone to grab their "magnetron rings", wind up a coil or three, and check this thing out.
theres nothing "hidden", or some "secret" this guy is keeping from us. its all there plain as you can see.

That being said, i also Echo the inventors caution. Having experienced self-accelerating devices explode, i can confirm the danger of such a thing. The above mentioned variable-resistor to the drive motor does greatly improve the safety of the device, but one should still build it securely, and use it with caution.

it seems simple enough that a child could build one.

As you all know I've been quite excited about this project. However, at the moment I have some doubts. First, and the most important thing, whatever I do, I cannot see the magnets spinning, not even a bit. They seem to be totally stationary. Maybe too small BEMF - will try different coils.
Second thing - the theory here has a small flaw. When the magnet is leaving the coil, the coil attracts the magnet - that's ok, as it should cause additional spinning. But... There is a point when the magnet wants to totally leave the coil (get out of it's attraction) and this is causing a drag. This would slow down the main rotor and stop the magnet's rotation (or slow it down, if the magnet's torque is greater than the attracting force). The best way to avoid this disadvantage would probably be to use only half wave rectification (only for the entrance part of movement - the magnet moving towards the coil). But this makes this machine a bit more complicated. Maybe somebody can do some tests with this as I don't have any spare time right now ? Maybe that's the reason why I cannot see the magnet rotating ? Should really do some more experiments.
And remember - the most important thing in this concept would not be the Lenz law avoidance, but it's utilization - the magnets should spin faster and faster and in this way accelerate the main rotor endlessly. The question is - can we really do that ?
PS. If you don't use magnetic bearings here, use only plastic ones (or ceramic but they are not cheap). Otherwise you will have quite a big drag on the bearing (magnets attracting the bearing's balls).
Have fun ;)

airstriker,  your quote: “And remember - the most important thing in this concept would not be the Lenz law avoidance, but it's utilization- the magnets should spin faster and faster and in this way accelerate the main rotor endlessly. The question is - can we really do that ?”


i think this is the issue: utilization of Lenz law.  i don't think it was an intentional attempt at that outcome, just an added bonus. the freewheeling magnets i believe was an attempt at avoiding  Lenz law. not that they have to spin  but that they can if needed.  he did not know about lenz's law until he beat it and a utuber brought it to his attention.  he told me that.


there also is the delay issue.  i can explain the delays.  however it is not my place to do so. just know there are viable reasons for the delays that are beyond wendy's control.


as conrad so eloquently stated : “ It is of course up to the inventor, whether he wants to fully disclose his machine or not.”  i feel it important to state this:  i am no way paid to do this, and i am not here to take away any glory from wendy, and glory is not what wendy is wanting. it appears from what i have read in this forum, wendy is giving full and honest disclosure. i think anyone who thinks otherwise, is perhaps trying to read between the lines instead of actually absorbing the lines.  wendy and i have talked on that subject. i think we concurred.


the only thing i am here for is to defend wendy's honor from people who want to say he is up to tricks or fraud.


i have a questions for the people of this forum or elsewhere,,,,is anyone here paying wendy?  is he selling anything?  is anyone here or anywhere offered to invest, or invested in wendy device? 


i can answer this question: does wendy have any reason or incentive to fool or trick me? my answer is not that i can see. 


upon my visit, i found he has some backing from a small and honorable group of people.  his “backers” do it out of love for him and his family, and perhaps for a bit of money after things go into production.


i found he is somewhat weary after working on this project.


most important,,, i found it an amazing, wonderful, miracle, that he has gotten this far with the project.


if there is anything i am able to do for wendy, (as long as it is legal, and moral) i will do it.


and last but not least it is time for the subject of conrad's question to me: “ According to your personal opinion, Joe, have you seen there an "over unity machine"?   

what i have seen is: A: no hidden wires or batterys.  B: the two devices, one with the disks for a rotor, and and one with the “wings” in the rotor design. C: no deception or misrepresentation of him or his surroundings, no deception or misrepresentation from him, or his surroundings,  D: no deception or misrepresentation.  E: a generator that, i believe, has taken the cogging effect perhaps caused by BEMF and utilized it.  by design or accident,, it makes no difference to me. from what i have learned before and after finding that generator and wendy that is what i saw.

Smokey 2,  thank you for that post.  well said.  perhaps the comment: “it seems simple enough that a child could build one” is accurate.  however i have to add the child would have to know about balancing a rotor, engineering structural strength, and finding a strong enough governor.  perhaps the VR is a solution, could be you know more about these things than i.  however, i think  a mechanical load (perhaps the powering of a conventional electric generator) is needed to keep the generator ( i call it a “wendy-way”) from flying apart.  seems to me it is the load on the coils that create the BEMF that kicks the rotor.


so, in this post, i have taken the risk of saying too much, and perhaps getting a bit out of line.  may God, and wendy, forgive me if i have.

peace out, God bless, live and let live,
joe


So, in this post, I have taken the risk of saying too much, and perhaps getting a bit out of line.  May God, and wendy, forgive me if I have.

Peace out, god bless, live and let live,
joe

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

thanks in advance.

peace, love, live, and let live,
joe

oh my god!!!   just reading this thread to reply #88.  I am sorry I even wrote to this forum.  I am not sure I can read on any further.  Perhaps I need to remember these posts are months old.  I will try to read repliers from last to first.

now sprocket has hit on the exact point at which I see the wendy-way as amazing.  He states “there's no chance I could leave my motor dangling precariously like he does, as it would quickly strangle itself with the power-cables! “ talking about an conventional generator.   

that is the whole point!!!!!!  so it not only reads more voltage on the meter that reads the coils ( 25 v or more) than the battery can produce, the rotor speeds up.

Yet few people see the significance in this fact: his powering motor is not “mounted” and yet rotor speeds up under load.  I hear an electric engineer say short the coil, to produce full load.  And someone else says that is no indicator and states it is a false indicator.  Which is it?   Does it represent full electrical load or not?

Perhaps I will read more before I post this.

My experiments with this type of subject matter, show the analogy of electricity being like water in plumbing to be accurate.  Push generator to feed  electric motor.  Add in the resistance of the wire and friction of the generator and motor and one needs more energy in the generator than what one needs from the motor to get the desired results from the motor. This goes along with conventional teachings of electricity.  So how can a shorted coil be like no coil at all?  The copper is still there. That in itself will create drag, won't it?

Are some of these people for real or just ballseeters??  I am lost and reminded why I got away from the internet for a few months.  Who to believe?   I have replicated the bedini.  I have replicated electric production of hydrogen. And the chemical production of hydrogen.  And because of lack of money, have not been able to precisely replicate wendy's way in what I feel is a stronger design.  Then I remember,, I dont have to replicate the wendy-way,  I have seen it work.

So it is time for people with a common cause to get together and pool the needed stuff to build a home sized generator before we are all 6 feet under water from global climate change!

I gotta get busy,  enough of this “he's fooling us, he's not fooling us crap that is only there because of all the fraud that has been, and still is out there.  The one viable amongst perhaps a few others wind up waiting to be developed.   

Which one of the people are the “new york” people that was giving wendell hope only to turn into a farce?

Are they part of this forum?

(end rant)

Peace, love, live, and let live,
joe

Hey welcome and thanks for this new input. Great idea to visit this man  :)
Btw. I don't remember any people in here claiming that Wendell is a fraud or con man. Always had the feeling he was honest, but gave up hope lately that he will post his final selfrunner video and maybe something didn't work out as expected. It has been delayed for 3 months now, although he repeatedley claimed to have it ready in 2 days starting from day 1. I guess I need to be more patient and forgiving  ;)

Regarding the device I think my own experiments failed because I didn't have big enough disc magnets and also I didn't know the recommended size of the copper coils. I think the size is very important. With small disc magnets unto a certain dimension it will not work. I'm not an electrical engineer therefore it's not so easy to guess by rule of the thumb which combinations of sizes of magnet/coillength/diameter of wire are necessary so the device will work as expected. That's where other new information is needed. Also how many of these wings / magnets and coils are necessary in order it self accelerates.

This issue with dimensions remembers me of an invention made 60 years ago (I guess it was the Mazenauer rotor): although it was replicated exactly in its shape and properties - only restriction it was scaled down half the original size - it didn't work anymore. The same problems we are encountering with Wendells construction.

I hope we will one day see a full demonstration of the capability of this device or get enough information about this seemingly "simple" device to replicate successfully.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone keen to replicate it?  ;D

Quote from: mijdtr on September 07, 2010, 01:16:42 PM
i forgot to ask airstriker,,, you mention an attraction of the magnets to the coil.  with an aircore coil there should there be no "attraction" to it?  am i missing something?  are you shorting the coils to represent what i call "a full load".  and am i mistaken in the thought: the shorting of the coils creates the fullest of possible electrical load?

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

Quote from: NTesla on September 07, 2010, 08:58:52 PM
After more closely viewing the videos, here are some points I noted:

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

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

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

1. Which video? What timestamp ?

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

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

@mijdtr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: sm0ky2 on September 08, 2010, 05:04:02 AM
Draw it out, take the area of the passing magnet
and draw a series of perpendicular lines between magnet and coil as is passes. there is more force spinning it comming towards the coil, then there is pulling backwards on it as it leaves. and the force pulling backwards is NOT against the rotation of the device, but in the opposite direction on the spinning magnet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, maybe this device will work.

This is my understanding of the device:

Looking at the path of a small part of the magnet (treat the magnet as a set of many smaller magnets), you see that the relative rotational (tangential, not angular) speed between magnet and rotor are the key for this motor.

When the rotational speed of the magnet is greather then the rotor in a given point, that point will move into the coil from the backside. The BEMF/Lenz Law generates a force at that point on the magnet with one direction component directed in the rotor rotational direction. This force acts on the rotor via reaction forces in the magnet/rotor hole/axle, creating a positive turning momentum that accelerates the rotor. The same principle is valid when the magnet point has passed into the coil and also on return out of coil.

The law of conservation of angular momentum gives that the magnet will increase in speed if the rotor increase in speed and the BEMF is overcome.

When the rotational speed of the magnet i lower than the rotor, then the forces generates a negative momentum on the rotor. EDIT: Thus, to start, a motor is needed to overcome this "drag" and somehow speed up the magnet in opposite direction than the rotor. Maybe the coils can be powered/pulsed at startup to spin up the magnet.

So the trick is to give a large portion of the magnet a rotationall speed that is larger than the rotor speed.

To optimize and get the effect at a lower speed, the magnet diameter should be as large as possible compared to the rotor.

Agree, a picture would help ;).

Quote from: rogla on September 09, 2010, 04:46:26 AM
Wow, maybe this device will work.

This is my understanding of the device:

Looking at the path of a small part of the magnet (treat the magnet as a set of many smaller magnets), you see that the relative rotational (tangential, not angular) speed between magnet and rotor are the key for this motor.

When the rotational speed of the magnet is greather then the rotor in a given point, that point will move into the coil from the backside. The BEMF/Lenz Law generates a force at that point on the magnet with one direction component directed in the rotor rotational direction. This force acts on the rotor via reaction forces in the magnet/rotor hole/axle, creating a positive turning momentum that accelerates the rotor. The same principle is valid when the magnet point has passed into the coil and also on return out of coil.

The law of conservation of angular momentum gives that the magnet will increase in speed if the rotor increase in speed and the BEMF is overcome.

When the rotational speed of the magnet i lower than the rotor, then the forces generates a negative momentum on the rotor. EDIT: Thus, to start, a motor is needed to overcome this "drag" and somehow speed up the magnet in opposite direction than the rotor. Maybe the coils can be powered/pulsed at startup to spin up the magnet.

So the trick is to give a large portion of the magnet a rotationall speed that is larger than the rotor speed.

To optimize and get the effect at a lower speed, the magnet diameter should be as large as possible compared to the rotor.

Agree, a picture would help ;).

First of all - hello and nice to meet you ;)
Interesting concept. But this would mean, that the magnetic bearings are a must have - low friction. We really have to build some prototype to see what happens there at different circumstances.

First and formost: Thank You Mr. Walker for sharing your wonderful Idea with the world, although after reading some of the comments on this and other threads you probably wish you had kept it to yourself! Keep up the great research and out of the BOX thinking!!!! Hats off to you sir.

Quote from: Airstriker on September 08, 2010, 03:59:18 AM
1. Which video? What timestamp ?

Upon closer inspection of "New Generator Video Part II 2-14-2010" (2:19) and more clearly the first video "Free Energy Generator- The real deal!" I realise I was wrong! In the the second video the obvious movement (later on from 2:19) is most likley inertia as a result of Wendall stopping the main rotor. But to me the greatest evidence that NO rotation of the disc magnets occuring is the first video. I slowed it down frame by frame and used the reflective part of one of the disc magnets to track any rotation in relation to the centre hub, for a time period when the camera position was relatively stable. When I measured changes from the first frame to the last, their was NO movement, down to the millimeter level. If the disc magnets DO rotate, they don't at slow speeds!

Therefore this design is nothing more than a simple magnet motor not capable of overunity. Yes?

@N Tesla: So you have made an exact replica? It makes sense that the magnets would spin at higher rpms, higher RPMs would create more flux buildup in the coils, and as soon the magnet entered the domain of the coil, the stronger of the two would grab the other. And the exit would have the opposite affect. It would be like trying to cut a hardened steel bolt with a pair of scissors, the scissors would have a tendency to move in the opposite direction!!!

Quote from: Dr on September 09, 2010, 09:54:29 PM
@N Tesla: So you have made an exact replica? It makes sense that the magnets would spin at higher rpms, higher RPMs would create more flux buildup in the coils, and as soon the magnet entered the domain of the coil, the stronger of the two would grab the other. And the exit would have the opposite affect. It would be like trying to cut a hardened steel bolt with a pair of scissors, the scissors would have a tendency to move in the opposite direction!!!

No I haven't made a replica - I am considering it but need enough evidence to justify the time, effort, and money to do so. If not enough proof exists that the disc magnets rotate (i.e this is fundamental positive aspect of the design) then isn't the design just a simple magnet motor?  If you remember the Mylow saga then you know what I mean :). You could be right about the flux in relation to the RPMs. If I had the correct size magnets sitting around I would definitely attempt a replication.

I was just wondering, perhaps the disc magnets DO rotate but the torque of the MAIN rotor results in an opposite effect so they end up 'switching' only when they pass the inductor?

@ NTesla: Yes I too would like to know a few things, Like the size of the air gap between the magnet and the coil,   the size of the coil, how many turns and size of wire,  and diameter of air core, and of course exact size of magnet, they look to be about 3" dia. 1/2" thick with an ID of 1" I looked at " Applied magnetics.com" but they didn't have anything close to that size.

Quote from: Dr on September 09, 2010, 10:47:22 PM
@ NTesla: Yes I too would like to know a few things, Like the size of the air gap between the magnet and the coil,   the size of the coil, how many turns and size of wire,  and diameter of air core, and of course exact size of magnet, they look to be about 3" dia. 1/2" thick with an ID of 1" I looked at " Applied magnetics.com" but they didn't have anything close to that size.

Candidate disc magnets I have found that look suitable are from HKCM (Magnet monster). I chose these ones because they are a large enough diameter and have a 6mm centre hole (the non-magnetic shafts I have are 6mm). One could get fancy and have custom sizes made, but for a proof-of-concept thats very expensive:

https://www.hkcm.de/product_info.php?hkcm=engineering&products_id=3710&mwst=on&des=off&dna=2&adia0=&idia0=&hig0=&amass=&bmass=&hig1=&arad=&irad=&hig2=&wink=

https://www.hkcm.de/product_info.php?hkcm=engineering&products_id=7369&mwst=on&des=off&dna=2&adia0=&idia0=&hig0=&amass=&bmass=&hig1=&arad=&irad=&hig2=&wink=

Holy shhhhhhh... yeah that's expensive. I experienced that myself whenever ordering magnets. If it is larger than 3cm the price raises exponentially.

But let me tell you that is only because you choose to use Neodym magents! I am not sure that Wendell uses Neodym, because his magnets are most likely dozens of years old and you wouldn't get Neodym magnets at that time anyways. I found out that you'll get usual Ferrite magnets quite cheap. For example http://www.magnet-shop.net/Ferrit-Magnete:::27.html As you can see these magnets have a diameter of 10cm or more and still cost only a maximum of 20â,¬.
The shape of the listed magnets does not fit for Wendells device because of the inner hole too large, but there surely must be a shop somewhere or the possibility to order custom magnets.

Anyways but again we should know how strong the magnets from Wendell were. If they were only medium I'd think that simple ferrite magnets would work too. But can't say for sure.

Quote from: NTesla on September 09, 2010, 06:27:01 PM
Upon closer inspection of "New Generator Video Part II 2-14-2010" (2:19) and more clearly the first video "Free Energy Generator- The real deal!" I realise I was wrong! In the the second video the obvious movement (later on from 2:19) is most likley inertia as a result of Wendall stopping the main rotor. But to me the greatest evidence that NO rotation of the disc magnets occuring is the first video. I slowed it down frame by frame and used the reflective part of one of the disc magnets to track any rotation in relation to the centre hub, for a time period when the camera position was relatively stable. When I measured changes from the first frame to the last, their was NO movement, down to the millimeter level. If the disc magnets DO rotate, they don't at slow speeds!

That's unfortunately also what I've seen in my tests and in the videos :( But I still hope, there is a way to make them roll ;)
As for tests - I don't think you need such big and strong magnets. Waste of money. I'm using these:

http://www.magnesy.eu/mp_50_x_7_x_5__n38h_-_magnes_neodymowy-t-599.html

Strong and big enough. And have a hole just fitting my shafts.

One more important thing - don't use iron or any other magnetic material shafts. I'm using brass shafts which I had rifled (to mount the magnets on the shaft using brass or plastic srews). This way you won't have any unnecessary flux leakage. Unfortunatelly these shafts are not cheap. I've tried plastic ones but they are not stable enough.

Quote from: Airstriker on September 10, 2010, 05:12:58 AM
That's unfortunately also what I've seen in my tests and in the videos :( But I still hope, there is a way to make them roll ;)
As for tests - I don't think you need such big and strong magnets. Waste of money. I'm using these:

http://www.magnesy.eu/mp_50_x_7_x_5__n38h_-_magnes_neodymowy-t-599.html

Strong and big enough. And have a hole just fitting my shafts.

One more important thing - don't use iron or any other magnetic material shafts. I'm using brass shafts which I had rifled (to mount the magnets on the shaft using brass or plastic srews). This way you won't have any unnecessary flux leakage. Unfortunatelly these shafts are not cheap. I've tried plastic ones but they are not stable enough.

Nice find. I bought a couple of non-magnetic shafts a few years ago for some magnet motor experiments, and your right they are not cheap! When it comes to replication attempts, I generally favour higher rated (and thicker) neodymium magnets over cheaper but lower gauss alternatives unless the magnet type and gauss is important - hence why I would not normally consider ceramic magnets. Plus I have a child like wonderment of the power of an N52 neo :). Sounds like you are well on your way to a replication - feel free to post your progress here! :)

Quote from: NTesla on September 10, 2010, 06:05:38 AM
Nice find. I bought a couple of non-magnetic shafts a few years ago for some magnet motor experiments, and your right they are not cheap! When it comes to replication attempts, I generally favour higher rated (and thicker) neodymium magnets over cheaper but lower gauss alternatives unless the magnet type and gauss is important - hence why I would not normally consider ceramic magnets. Plus I have a child like wonderment of the power of an N52 neo :). Sounds like you are well on your way to a replication - feel free to post your progress here! :)

Remeber that this wonderment can be harmfull ;) And always use some plastic spacers between the magnets when you stack them one onto another - it's easier to manage them this way. If I build something usefull I will share. But first I need to clear my theoretic doubts.

@gauschor: I believe Mr. Walker said in his first video that his magnets were high strength neos, I found some 3" odx 1/4 id x1/2 " thick NdFeB N42  with 165 lbs of pull force magnetized through the thickness for 19.99 at Applied magnetics. com . got  them on order :)

I've understood he used "rare earth magnets". This term was not clear to me. However I just did a Wikipedia search and found: "rare-earth magnets are the strongest type of permanent magnets made. There are two types: Neodymium magnets and Samarium-Cobalt magnets"

Guess you are right then :) He definitely uses very strong magnets / neodymium. I wonder though how it can be so cheap because most shops here in europe are very costly...

hello.

the magnets are neos,   approx 2-1/2 to 3 in x 1/2 to 3/4 in thick.   

coil size needs to be within the area of the magnet as it passes,  many winding small gauge wire.  i am thinking coils from an automotive relay will do the job as long as it is not any longer than the magnetic field will reach. coil spacing from magnet is as close as possible without it getting hit by a passing magnet.  this is where i find it important for stability of the rotor and mags attached to the rotor.

some "tuning in " of the coils will be necessary to find the best placement to the rotor.

magnets are expensive, they can be found, overstock, secondhand or magnet clearinghouses?

i'll check out the links of suppliers.  thanks guys  i have found a place here in michigan that will make them custom for a one time tool-up fee and then after that a per magnet price very reasonable.

peace, love, live, and let live,
joe

Quote from: Airstriker on September 10, 2010, 11:44:37 AM
...If I build something usefull I will share. But first I need to clear my theoretic doubts.

From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y):

3:17  The next part of a generator is, that you can't overcome what is commonly known as load.
3:34  When you put it under load, that is, get it to do work, you notice what is the choking down of the generator; what is commonly known as load.
3:44  What I have found load to be is dia-magnetism.

5:05  If this magnet [one of two 'coil' magnets] were in a fixed position, as all generators are, when it would come around here [by the pick-
up coil] it would stop the entire machine, "bump," when you put it under load.
5:26  Instead of choking the machine down the force, the dia-magnetism, causes it to spin in this direction going past [loaded coil drags on outboard side of 'coil' magnet.]
5:40  A spinning magnet generates the same amount,... or causes enough electrons to flow, as a fixed magnet. [TO BE TESTED.]

Test it.  Generator shafts could be catalysts, not just conveyances.  ;)

http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/What+s+He+Building+In+There+/20l6Xk (http://listen.grooveshark.com/#/s/What+s+He+Building+In+There+/20l6Xk)

Completed assembly of my replication attempt V1 as shown below  ;D Will commence testing it hopefully next week.

Initial notes:

- Horizontal setup used instead of vertical due to bearing wear (bearings are conventional). This is why the device is standing on it's side!

- Magnets used (http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?cPath=13&products_id=857) combined with the distance from the centre shaft results in substantial weight and angular momentum. Testing with a 9VDC alkaline battery had to be stopped because of excessive vibration in the base.

- Have yet to test efficiency.

- All fittings with exception of centre shaft bearings are brass or 303 stainless steel.

Nice setup. A lot better than mine ;) Anyway in my tests I was not able to make the magnets rotate. I have tried using a half or full wave rectification. The half wave rectification was used in either entry point of coil or exit point of coil. In all cased the magnets did not rotate. I've also tried to break the uniformity of the magnetic field of the magnets by adding very small magnets on top of them. Also no success in either half or full wave rectification. The magnets did want to rotate at some point but they immediately stopped at some other point. I've also tried to give the magnets an initial spin. Also without success ;[ However in all cases I've used the coils with ferromagnetic cores. Maybe air coils will show something different. How is it in your case? Any success ?
By the way, I think your ordinary bearings are affected by the magnets. They simply make the rotations slower. Try using plastic bearings.
And one more thing... The rotation of the magnets should be easily seen - you don't really need any special cameras to capture that movement. I can tell that, as I've seen some momements, where the magnets did want to rotate and rotated a bit but failed some miliseconds later. So if you don't see the rotations by your eyes, the magnets don't rotate.

Watched the video and it is interesting. Could have been presented a little better. Im just wondering how he came to the conclusion that Einsteins formula of E=mc2 was wrong.

Quote from: scotty1 on May 22, 2010, 07:52:12 PM
Airstriker, I tested the principals of the machine and the Lenz force was directed to the main rotor when the magnet was as "B", a normal speaker magnet. The magnet will not spin as it passes the coil.

Scotty.

Tell me how in the hell can the Lenz force be directed to the main rotor, without it also being directed to the magnet if the field always remains stationary and can't rotate with or without the magnet.  The magnet is attached to the main rotor, so any force directed to the main rotor must be transferred from the attached magnet.  If there is no force on the magnet to cause it to rotate, then there can't be a force transferred to the rotor. Or, in other words, if the Lenz force is directed to the main rotor, then the Lenz force must have also been directed to the magnet.  The reason why the magnet doesn't rotate as it passes the coil is due to the magnets rotation being cancelled by oppossing forces.

The applied field of the magnet induces an EMF in the coil, due to relative motion between the conductor and the moving magnet.  This EMF induced in the coil creates a pressure against the magnet's field and causes the magnetic field of the magnet to rotate.  Please note, the magnet will also try to rotate with it's field, but the magnet's rotation is canceled at a later stage and will cause the field to rotate independantly from the magnet.  Also note, the field rotating independantly from the magnet will have no force on the main rotor or prime mover, which allows the main rotor to have a net force against it at a later stage, while the magnet has no net rotation.  This rotating field of the magnet now induces an opposing, but equal EMF in the coil due to relative motion between the rotating field and the stationary conductor. 

Our coil now has both a north and a south pole, or a negative and a positve, thus current can now flow.  One pole or EMF is created by the approaching and departing magnets, while the opposite pole or opposite EMF is created by the rotating field and stationary conductor.  Allowing current to flow in the coil reduces the above pressure which will cause the field of the magnet to rotate at a slower rate while increasing the pressure against the moving magnet and prime mover, thus there will be a drop in the voltage according to Ohm's law.  This increase in pressure against the magnet cancels out the rotation of the magnet, while allowing the prime mover to have a net force against it.  When the magnet approaches the coil, the field will rotate CW, but as the magnet departs from the coil then the field will rotate CCW, or vice versa.  Thus, the magnet's field is oscillating back and forth to produce AC, while the magnet itself remains stationary.

This anaylsis explains Ohm's law, it explains how a coil is induced with two opposite but equal EMF's (positive/negative, north/south), it explains Lenz law, and it also explains why there is no net rotation of the magnet.  If the field of the magnet always remains stationary in space, as according to you, then none of the above can be explained.


GB

Quote from: Airstriker on October 10, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
Nice setup. A lot better than mine ;) Anyway in my tests I was not able to make the magnets rotate. I have tried using a half or full wave rectification. The half wave rectification was used in either entry point of coil or exit point of coil. In all cased the magnets did not rotate. I've also tried to break the uniformity of the magnetic field of the magnets by adding very small magnets on top of them. Also no success in either half or full wave rectification. The magnets did want to rotate at some point but they immediately stopped at some other point. I've also tried to give the magnets an initial spin. Also without success ;[ However in all cases I've used the coils with ferromagnetic cores. Maybe air coils will show something different. How is it in your case? Any success ?
By the way, I think your ordinary bearings are affected by the magnets. They simply make the rotations slower. Try using plastic bearings.
And one more thing... The rotation of the magnets should be easily seen - you don't really need any special cameras to capture that movement. I can tell that, as I've seen some momements, where the magnets did want to rotate and rotated a bit but failed some miliseconds later. So if you don't see the rotations by your eyes, the magnets don't rotate.

I agree the magnet should have no net rotation due to oppossing forces cancelling each other, but there will be a net force against the main rotor or the prime mover as mentioned in my previous post.  I don't think this device defeats Lenz.  It would be interesting to know if the coil is allowed to freely rotate also, if this would cause the coil and magnets to oscillate back and forth with their fields.  Example, coil rotates CW and magnet rotates CCW on approach, then the coil will rotate CCW and the magnet rotates CW on departure.  I'll have to give this some more thought.  Thanks for sharing your experiments.

GB

Quote from: Airstriker on October 10, 2010, 05:50:59 PM
Nice setup. A lot better than mine ;) Anyway in my tests I was not able to make the magnets rotate. I have tried using a half or full wave rectification. The half wave rectification was used in either entry point of coil or exit point of coil. In all cased the magnets did not rotate. I've also tried to break the uniformity of the magnetic field of the magnets by adding very small magnets on top of them. Also no success in either half or full wave rectification. The magnets did want to rotate at some point but they immediately stopped at some other point. I've also tried to give the magnets an initial spin. Also without success ;[ However in all cases I've used the coils with ferromagnetic cores. Maybe air coils will show something different. How is it in your case? Any success ?
By the way, I think your ordinary bearings are affected by the magnets. They simply make the rotations slower. Try using plastic bearings.
And one more thing... The rotation of the magnets should be easily seen - you don't really need any special cameras to capture that movement. I can tell that, as I've seen some momements, where the magnets did want to rotate and rotated a bit but failed some miliseconds later. So if you don't see the rotations by your eyes, the magnets don't rotate.

I am using air coils - as per Wendall's videos. The bearings/fittings I am using are austenitic (non-magnetic) with the exception of the centre bearings which are unintentionally magnetic - however the rotor magnets are far enough away to have negligible drag.

I have detected rotation of the magnets (tested in South - South magnet configuration) however it is difficult to determine a) if the rotation is caused by interaction with the generator coils or inertia as a result of the main rotor's rotation and b) How much rotation is occuring. The test I used was to mark off a position on a magnet prior to starting the motor, then noting the position again after the rotor had slowed to a stop. As I stated in an earlier post, my investigation of Wendall's first video shows that NO rotation of the magnets are occuring - contrary to his audio.

Thus far in my testing, I have hooked up full wave rectification with a small LED as a load. As to be expected the rotor slows under load. All reasonable (i.e power generating) permutations of wiring to the generator coils result in slow down under load. This occurs using North - South magnet polarity (i.e left magnet North points to generator coil, right magnet's South points to generator coil) and also South - South.

Thanks for this nice contribution, NTesla. Your setup looks very professional and clean, like a real clone of Wendells device :)

Hmm so you experienced a slow down after attaching loads... Have you tried to feedback the generated power to the motor yet (maybe trying with/without a capacitor)? And then disconnect the main power source? I think it was that what Wendell claimed, that it is a self runner even without battery attached. I'm very interested in your results, please keep up the good work.

Quote from: gauschor on October 11, 2010, 07:25:11 AM
Thanks for this nice contribution, NTesla. Your setup looks very professional and clean, like a real clone of Wendells device :)

Hmm so you experienced a slow down after attaching loads... Have you tried to feedback the generated power to the motor yet (maybe trying with/without a capacitor)? And then disconnect the main power source? I think it was that what Wendell claimed, that it is a self runner even without battery attached. I'm very interested in your results, please keep up the good work.

The output from the coils is not enough to power the motor (6-12VDC @ 0.8A). My rectification circuit is a diode bridge with some smoothing capacitors enough to constantly light a small LED. In Wendall's YouTube video "New Generator Video Part II  2-14-2010" he shows a multimeter measuring the DC output  (I think) and it allegedly peaks at around 25V - and it's not under load. It is also interesting to note that in the "New Generator Video Part IV" video, the generator coils are lighting a small LED, very similar to my output. If he were generating 25V at any substantial current that LED would be blown very quickly. One can generate 10s of KV with a Wimshurst machine for example but the current is miniscule, and even if you step down the volts the resulting current is never going to be substantial.

@NTesla:

Thanks very much, that's some good and valuable data. Too bad the device doesn't produce enough current to power a motor. I also recall that I saw something about 25 Volts in Wendells video. As it seems these were voltage peaks only. Yeah, and you are right, if the current had been higher and more consistent the LED would have been blown. The analogy with the Wimshurst fits right in here. Tested this beast myself extensively. High voltage but miniscule current. Too less even for a toy motor.

I can see in your picture that you have carved out crosswise wings. Did you test the device with 4 magnets yet? Maybe the current is a bit larger with 4 magnets instead of 2? (however slowly I'm doubting it changes that much, you may better spare your money for something else).

Ah I got another experiment for you left: Wendell claimed that his devices accelerates more and more when he just feedbacks the power produced by the coils to the motor. Of course he did not remove his main power source (the battery). In one of his last comments he wrote that his device accelerated so fast then a sonic boom happened.

You could try to test if this incrementing acceleration is true. Be careful though, no need to let it accelerate too much.

Quote from: gauschor on October 11, 2010, 06:58:18 PM
@NTesla:

Thanks very much, that's some good and valuable data. Too bad the device doesn't produce enough current to power a motor. I also recall that I saw something about 25 Volts in Wendells video. As it seems these were voltage peaks only. Yeah, and you are right, if the current had been higher and more consistent the LED would have been blown. The analogy with the Wimshurst fits right in here. Tested this beast myself extensively. High voltage but miniscule current. Too less even for a toy motor.

I can see in your picture that you have carved out crosswise wings. Did you test the device with 4 magnets yet? Maybe the current is a bit larger with 4 magnets instead of 2? (however slowly I'm doubting it changes that much, you may better spare your money for something else).

Ah I got another experiment for you left: Wendell claimed that his devices accelerates more and more when he just feedbacks the power produced by the coils to the motor. Of course he did not remove his main power source (the battery). In one of his last comments he wrote that his device accelerated so fast then a sonic boom happened.

You could try to test if this incrementing acceleration is true. Be careful though, no need to let it accelerate too much.

No I have not tested it with 4 magnets. I deliberately built the rotor 'wings' so they could have 4 magnets in case testing showed promise.

Outputting the generator coils to the motor has no discernable effect on the RPM, which is to be expected given the low output. The generator coils are 3mh Crossover inductors (air cores) using 0.8mm wire.

Utilising larger/more generator coils does not seem justified to me because I have not been able to replicate Wendall's claims thus far. I had designed the housing mechanism to accept a large wooden (MDF) 'ring' upon which I could mount lots of coils.

My replication differs from Wendall's in a few - possibly crucial - aspects, properties of the inductors (generator coils) which are unpublished, and his use of passive magnetic bearings. Perhaps the use of magnet bearings on the magnet rotors is crucial in terms of reducing friction IF the key aspect of the design is rotation of the magnets.

If anyone else has a replication using magnetic bearings I would be interested to know their findings! I wonder if the compression that results from the opposing inductor force on the magnet could translate to rotation of the magnet when magnetic bearings are used in the horizontal plane? With conventional bearings it is likely friction would just disipate the force.

Wendall's 'sonic boom' claim sounds (no pun intended) like hyperbole. However I know from my own experience that a rotating magnet setup like that would make a hell of noise when it came apart - especially if you have the magnets being attracted to each other at high speed! I often wear safety goggles when working on or near a magnet motor for this very reason.

Xu Yuan

Are you a Chinease ? I am also very interested in researching OU device. Currently I am make Flynn Magnet Motor and motor could rotate.

May I have your contact mail? BTW, my QQ is 529844239 and my mai is 529844239@qq.com.Thanks.

XJ

I have just ordered some suitable magnets and sleeve bearings with the intention of making hybrid passive magnetic bearings to more closely reproduce Wendall's design. Frankly I am not optimistic that this device has potential, however the parts I have ordered will come in handy for other experiments I have planned.

If anyone else has made a replication attempt I would be interested in your findings  ;D

Incidentally, Wendall has not posted any new videos for his device and last visited his youtube site (http://www.youtube.com/user/Th3Generat0r#p/u/8/etFCzIe-D2Y) 2 weeks ago. It's been a year since he posted his first video about this device.

Quote from: NTesla on October 11, 2010, 05:39:50 AM
I am using air coils - as per Wendall's videos. The bearings/fittings I am using are austenitic (non-magnetic) with the exception of the centre bearings which are unintentionally magnetic - however the rotor magnets are far enough away to have negligible drag.

I have detected rotation of the magnets (tested in South - South magnet configuration) however it is difficult to determine a) if the rotation is caused by interaction with the generator coils or inertia as a result of the main rotor's rotation and b) How much rotation is occuring. The test I used was to mark off a position on a magnet prior to starting the motor, then noting the position again after the rotor had slowed to a stop. As I stated in an earlier post, my investigation of Wendall's first video shows that NO rotation of the magnets are occuring - contrary to his audio.

Thus far in my testing, I have hooked up full wave rectification with a small LED as a load. As to be expected the rotor slows under load. All reasonable (i.e power generating) permutations of wiring to the generator coils result in slow down under load. This occurs using North - South magnet polarity (i.e left magnet North points to generator coil, right magnet's South points to generator coil) and also South - South.

a) inertia - tested.
b) if the magnets had rotated because of interactions, you would have clearly seen it and heard it - no need to place any marks on the magnets - tested.

Can you also try half wave rectification ? If so, please test two current directions.

Quote from: Airstriker on October 14, 2010, 06:58:46 AM
a) inertia - tested.
b) if the magnets had rotated because of interactions, you would have clearly seen it and heard it - no need to place any marks on the magnets - tested.

Can you also try half wave rectification ? If so, please test two current directions.

Will do  ;D Note that at the start of Wendall's YouTube video "New Generator Video Part  III  2-14-2010" he shows a full wave rectification circuit. It looks like each coil has a corresponding bridge rectifier that then goes through to a single smoothing capacitor.

Quote from: NTesla on October 14, 2010, 01:56:39 PM
Will do  ;D Note that at the start of Wendall's YouTube video "New Generator Video Part  III  2-14-2010" he shows a full wave rectification circuit. It looks like each coil has a corresponding bridge rectifier that then goes through to a single smoothing capacitor.

I really wouldn't care much about Wendell's sonic booms ;] I don't really think he has anywhing working like he says he has, but the idea on it's own is very good. The question is - is there ANY way to make it run like we want it ?

Quote from: Airstriker on October 15, 2010, 07:22:52 AM
I don't really think he has anywhing working like he says he has, but the idea on it's own is very good. The question is - is there ANY way to make it run like we want it ?

I agree.  I don't think his device works "as is", but the concept shouldn't be abandoned.  The concept is really brilliant.  The only way there can be any opposition to the prime mover is if there is a cancellation of forces on the magnet which prevents it from rotating while allowing the prime mover to experience a net force against it's rotation.  Below is a modified image from Arthurs previous drawing showing how the forces on the magnet can be cancelled while there is a net force against the rotation of the prime mover.

In the below image, the magnet experiences a CW and a CCW force which cancels out the magnet's rotation, but the CW and CCW force against the magnet are both pointing in the same relative direction in regards to the prime mover, which allows a net counter force to work against the prime mover. I hope this makes some sense.  In short, the rod running through the floating magnets is transferring a counter torque against the prime mover's rotation.

GB

Quote from: Airstriker on October 15, 2010, 07:22:52 AM
The question is - is there ANY way to make it run like we want it ?

What about two free floating magnets on each rod in repel mode.  Each magnet will be seperated by a distance equal to the length of the coil plus a few millimeters.  The top magnet will be shielded on the left half of the magnet's radius, while the bottom magnet is shielded on the right half of the magnet's radius.  The shielding material will be attached to the rod, and will not be attached to the magnets.  Please, I don't want to hear how shielding doesn't work.  There is a way to divert the magnetic field where it will follow the ferromagnetic material instead of passing through it, if done properly.

Assuming a CW rotation of the prime mover, then the bottom magnet will interact with one end of the coil during it's approach.  After TDC, then the top magnet will interact with the other end of the coil during it's departure.  Since the floating magnets are in repel mode, then the departing top magnet will induce the same polarity in the coil as the bottom magnet did during it's approach because the top magnet faces the opposite end of the coil as the bottom magnet.

Here's another way to look at it.  Let's say a south pole of a magnet approaches a coil. At TDC, we switch the polarity of this magnet at no cost, where it's north pole is now facing the same end of the coil.  This departing north pole will induce the same polarity in the coil as the approaching south pole did (I hope I got this part right). In this setup, the magnets should be opposed during it's approach to the coil, which will be against the rotation. Likewise, the magnets should be repelled during it's departure from TDC, which will be with the rotation.  Lenz won't work for us in this situation, but it's force may be cancelled out.

This idea hasn't been fully thought through or experimented with, but I see no reason not to throw this idea out here so you guys can kick it around a little.  Maybe this will inspire better ideas on how to make it run like we want it.

GB

Hi NTesla:

    Very much looking forward your experiment results!

Xu Yuan

Quote from: Arthurs on January 09, 2011, 07:01:35 PM
Hi NTesla:

    Very much looking forward your experiment results!

Xu Yuan

Unfortunately due to other commitments I have been unable to experiment further. I also recently visited Wendall's YouTube site and he has no new videos of his device available. At this stage I am yet to be convinced such a device can achieve overunity.

Quote from: Airstriker on May 22, 2010, 01:11:00 PM
Who has replicated this so far ? I haven't seen anybody.

  I have replicated it!! Look at TheRealdealinlife on youtube.

Quote from: zapjosh on April 15, 2011, 03:12:56 PM
  I have replicated it!! Look at TheRealdealinlife on youtube.

Hi zapjosh,

I have seen your video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6gaN8gRs5A  and I guess it is Wendell's setup which was serving as the "sample" after which you built this present setup.

It would be very good if you made input power and output power measurements. You mentioned the regulated power supply for driving the input motor so measuring the average DC input current at the DC output voltage coming out from the supply when the motor is running would give the input power WHEN you apply a load for both output coils.

Regarding the output power measurement it would be better to rectify the AC output from your coils and smooth it with a puffer capacitor, this way you could also measure the DC output current a power resistor draws from the capacitor. The DC voltage across this capacitor multiplied by the measured load current taken by the load resistor would give the output power so it could be compared to the input power.

Could you show a closeup picture from your rotor where the rotating magnets are fixed? It cannot be seen clearly in your video because it "always" turns.  By the way if you start your rotor from a total standstill, by giving the main rotor a small push as in the video, how the small rotors with the magnets on them start also rotating?

Thanks,  Gyula

I have some what read throught the hole thread and I know the hole story about Wendell.
I would like you to know I will try to do anything I can to help all of you out there.
    For one, I am upload a video right now about the generator And It has some  measurements in it. And I will try to do anther video about what you explanded In one of your 2 paragraph. And I know you are all trying to build one but it is a pan in the but to Build. It looks like a child's toy but it is not, There is more then that. And the magnet do not start spining until the coil are underload.

Hello,

  Here is the video of the generator lighting the light!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmAQ26iTXRE

Ah, this topic is still alive. Very nice replication of Wendells build.

Unfortunately I am missing the most important thing: the device shows no sign of being a selfrunner or overunity, it's just generating power while on the same time drawing more power from the grid. As soon as the source power is cut off, the machine is dead. Therefore I wonder what really is the special effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

edit: have you tried to feedback the power from the 2 other coils to the motor or is the power too weak?

@gauschor

How can you know that it draws more power from the grid? His power regulator is just  connected to the battery.

Dude, what's the point in your videos ? You are not showing anything, just a nice toy. Show us the rotating magnets. If the magnets are not rotating, there is nothing in this machine. Nothing. And as a matter of fact, if the magnets were rotating, you would see the rotor speed up, not slow down. There is nothing unusuall in the slow rotor's angular speed increase. You just added the load, which your rotor's motor has to overcome and it's actually doing it. But so what ?

What's more, you've mentioned something about patent pending. Patent on what ? I don't see anything new here, that would be different from Wendell's machine ?

Airstriker: he replicated it and is now able to perform maybe experiments we request hopefully ;). The only patent which is pending is the one from Wendell. I think that's what zapjosh mentioned in the video. Also I seem to remember that the device should only speed up if the power from the coils are fed back to the motor - while on the same time cutting off the main power source (battery/grid). This is actually what I would like to see.

Quote from: gauschor on April 18, 2011, 12:26:54 PM
Airstriker: he replicated it and is now able to perform maybe experiments we request hopefully ;). The only patent which is pending is the one from Wendell. I think that's what zapjosh mentioned in the video. Also I seem to remember that the device should only speed up if the power from the coils are fed back to the motor - while on the same time cutting off the main power source (battery/grid). This is actually what I would like to see.

This is why the rotor has to accelerate when the coils are under load. But this only happens if the magnets rotate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te8Anp8xeyw

Show me rotating magnets, nothing more. This is the only proof I need to state this is OU machine. No other measurements are needed, no feed backs etc.

@Airstriker: true, but zapjosh has told in one of his two videos that the magnets definitely start to rotate (don't know how he determined this) but also said that they do not start rotating until a certain RPM has been reached. I can't recall how much RPM are needed, but I thought he mentioned it. I would have to check his videos again.

Thanks gauschor for speaking up, it is very encouraging. Airstriker PLEASE look at the hole video, if you have not did so already. It is slow down because the magnet have to start spining and then after they get going the rotor startes to speed up. And if Airstriker went to see them spin when the rotor is going that fast then he can buy a high speed camra and tap it!
 

Quote from: zapjosh on April 19, 2011, 03:12:26 PM
Thanks gauschor for speaking up, it is very encouraging. Airstriker PLEASE look at the hole video, if you have not did so already. It is slow down because the magnet have to start spining and then after they get going the rotor startes to speed up. And if Airstriker went to see them spin when the rotor is going that fast then he can buy a high speed camra and tap it!

Ok, let's make it clear:
- Do the magnets start to rotate immediately when you put the coils under load ? If they do please spin the rotor slowly by hand (make sure that you don't give the magnets rotation doing so, or just wait some time so their rotation stop), and then put the coils under load. In this case we can all see the magnets starting to rotate - no super druper speedy camera is needed.
- If the magnets don't start to rotate immediately when you put the coils under load, give me a single reason why they should start to rotate after some time (so that we cannot see them rotate ::) ) ?
- I have performed the tests mentioned above. Not only I. The magnets don't rotate although I would really like them to do so ;]

-No
-They do not just start to rotate(I saw that some people on the from trying to see them rotate).
This is my reason that the magnets should turn. When it get up to a certain speed, I put the coils under load. They Just don't spin immediately, they have to build up speed. I would like to see you spin an 30 pd flywheel with 1 finger and gut to go 120rpm. You can not do it in one stroke. It takes a few stokes to gut it to going. This is the same thing that is going on with the magnets. Your finger is the coil and the 30 pd flywheel is the magnet. I hope I made myself clear!

Quote from: zapjosh on April 19, 2011, 06:28:06 PM
-No
-They do not just start to rotate(I saw that some people on the from trying to see them rotate).
This is my reason that the magnets should turn. When it get up to a certain speed, I put the coils under load. They Just don't spin immediately, they have to build up speed. I would like to see you spin an 30 pd flywheel with 1 finger and gut to go 120rpm. You can not do it in one stroke. It takes a few stokes to gut it to going. This is the same thing that is going on with the magnets. Your finger is the coil and the 30 pd flywheel is the magnet. I hope I made myself clear!

Ok so give the magnets some time when turning the wheel by hand. What's the problem? You have good bearings - it should make a couple of turns without any problem. Or whatever - just show me a rotating magnet or give me a good physical reason why they should spin. Otherwise, I don't see any reason for wasting more time on this project.

Quote from: Airstriker on April 19, 2011, 08:48:32 PM
Ok so give the magnets some time when turning the wheel by hand. What's the problem?

Like I said the rotor has to go a certain,Like at least 300 rpm, I do not know what is the lowest be is fast enuff so you can not see them spining.
  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This statement I think to good physical reason.

Quote from: zapjosh on April 19, 2011, 10:52:52 PM
Like I said the rotor has to go a certain,Like at least 300 rpm, I do not know what is the lowest be is fast enuff so you can not see them spining.
  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This statement I think to good physical reason.

Actually according to physics the magnets shouldn't spin ;] And yes the reaction exists - the magnets act just as stationary ones. And I wonder how you can say, that the magnets start to spin at 300 rpm, if you cannot see them spin ;]

@zapjosh:

1) I would like to know if you can feedback the generated power from the coils via a rectifier or cap depending on the type of current the motor needs to the motor and then cut off the power source.

2) Or can you remove the power source completely (without feeding back the generated power to the motor) since the device will accelerate on its own due to the magnets?.

Can you try these?

How can you say that "according to physics the magnets shouldn't spin ;] And yes the reaction exists - the magnets act just as stationary ones."?

When I said 300 rpm (referring to the rotor) ,meaning that you can not see the magnets start to spin. And I can say the magnets spin Because I have done a few experiments on it.

Quote from: zapjosh on April 20, 2011, 12:50:59 PM
When I said 300 rpm (referring to the rotor) ,meaning that you can not see the magnets start to spin. And I can say the magnets spin Because I have done a few experiments on it.

That's what I want. Show my these experiments.
We've already made a couple of experiments in this thread. Everything has been said, including physics. Just read 14 pages of posts.

I have read all 14 pages of this post. What experiment do you went to see?

Quote from: zapjosh on April 20, 2011, 06:26:46 PM
I have read all 14 pages of this post. What experiment do you went to see?

Oh dear. I've already said that X times. Show me rotating magnets ;]

Quote from: Airstriker on April 21, 2011, 05:37:47 AM
Oh dear. I've already said that X times. Show me rotating magnets ;]

Showing you the magnets is not a experiment!!!! The only way I can show you rotating magnets it to spin the magnet with me finger and tape it. Like a sad you can not see them rotate.One of the only ways is by experiments. And the outher way is by get a high spped camra. Who is your dear? ???

Quote from: zapjosh on April 20, 2011, 06:26:46 PMWhat experiment do you went to see?

Please, don't ignore this:

Quote from: gauschor on April 20, 2011, 08:17:50 AM
@zapjosh:

1) I would like to know if you can feedback the generated power from the coils to the motor and then cut off the main power source (batteries).

2) Or can you remove the power source completely (without feeding back the generated power to the motor) since the device will accelerate on its own due to the magnets?.

Can you try these?

Why am I asking this? Because Wendell has claimed that he can remove the main power source completely at least in a way question (1) suggests.

This sort of a replication of the Kromrey converter, of John Bedini's videos.  There is no reason not to believe the current inventor could not also come up with it himself.  If you watch the video and compare there are many similarities.  I do not believe that one can remove the primary motor power and tie it into the coils.  This would then cancel out the overunity effect by achieving balance.  One might be able to use a large capacitor and some switching.  Or just use it to charge some batteries and hook up a switching device using optical switches.  Grounds can't be tied together on the switches as this will cause balance. 

Quote from: gauschor on April 20, 2011, 08:17:50 AM
@zapjosh:

1) I would like to know if you can feedback the generated power from the coils via a rectifier or cap depending on the type of current the motor needs to the motor and then cut off the power source.

2) Or can you remove the power source completely (without feeding back the generated power to the motor) since the device will accelerate on its own due to the magnets?.

Can you try these?

This can not be done yet because it has to be build better and it can not run that long Because there are some thing that need to be lubed!

Quote from: zapjosh on April 21, 2011, 08:07:26 AM
Showing you the magnets is not a experiment!!!! The only way I can show you rotating magnets it to spin the magnet with me finger and tape it. Like a sad you can not see them rotate.One of the only ways is by experiments. And the outher way is by get a high spped camra. Who is your dear? ???

Sorry man but I don't really get you. I'm outta here.

@ Airstriker  ... the rotating magnets are the round ones that are suspended.  When the arm rotates it also causes the magnets to rotate .... the magnets will also rotate from the coil but not as much due to the vortex spin on the achieved center line.  Hope that helps.

To let you all know, I will be doing a video in a few day. Thanks for Hanging in there.

Where is an update on what I have been doing. When I was make a video on the input and output,
my regulator got shorted out and stoped working. :-[ I order some part to fix it!

Hey,
Th3generator and I are going to build a model that is going to run for a long time. But we do not have the money,if you know anyone that can help we build this that would be great. And by the way I am waiting on a part to fix it.

  Thanks,
  Josh
352 754-2894