Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 25, 2023, 10:59:28 PM
Its slightly above 10:1 torque amplification
Adding more weight doesn't increase or decrease this value


Although adding more devices on a common shaft like the inventor might

Interesting, thanks for the video too. It got me hunting around for bearings.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 25, 2023, 10:59:28 PM
Its slightly above 10:1 torque amplification
Adding more weight doesn't increase or decrease this value


Although adding more devices on a common shaft like the inventor might

Did you deduct the 6 lb-ft baseline for that calculation?
Yeah, I'm curious what that's about.
With a one-way bearing involved, I can see how on some point there will always be "torque".

Even in a zero rpm situation, you can just attach levers on both input and output shaft, say 1 foot each, and see whether the 1 or 10 pounds on the input can actually lift a multiple attached to a same length lever, while keeping an eye on level angle, start with 180º, input top right, output top left. It's NOT that hard, if the torque measurements are representative.
That Corbin setup BEGS for simple lever work. He can machine that proof of concept apparatus, he can fabricate levers to attach weights to.
If a level isn't enough, a simply pulley on each side is even better. Pulley, cord, weight, input and output.
People throw around "oooh you need to be a physicist to be able to say anything about a magnet motor", but come on, I only have highschool and all I'm doing is actually remembering the basic stuff.
Inventors are very good at finding ONE AND ONLY WAY to extract "anomalous" measurements, and they'll stick to it. I truly hope we'll soon hear that Corbin's setup is able to produce excess work in low rpm, even useful power at whatever rpm the setup can handle now.
All the focus on torque though (he's a car guy, so perhaps we need to give him a pass for that?), so that 6 lb-ft flat line is worrisome.
I'll happily take COP=5. Let a 1 pound weight on a pulley lift a 5 pound weight on the other side, on a same size pulley for the same vertical distance. With 5, we can work, 10 would be amazing.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 25, 2023, 10:59:28 PM
Its slightly above 10:1 torque amplification
Adding more weight doesn't increase or decrease this value


Although adding more devices on a common shaft like the inventor might

Hi sm0ky2

That should teach people to build instead of speculate!

With a double device like your build, using the first secondary rotor to drive a second prime mover, the second secondary rotor would produce ~100 times the first primary mover's torque?

I wonder if the second device would need magnets 10 times more powerful.

Quote from: Cadman on March 26, 2023, 07:21:19 AM
Hi sm0ky2

That should teach people to build instead of speculate!

With a double device like your build, using the first secondary rotor to drive a second prime mover, the second secondary rotor would produce ~100 times the first primary mover's torque?

I wonder if the second device would need magnets 10 times more powerful.

if you have 2 idential systems, and the second can still offer a 10x, then you might as well start giving the first device a 10x larger input, as the output is worth it. Half the building cost for 90% the output, a much better deal.

No inventor I've seen has done this, make two devices, one powering the other. In needs to be done, though.
An input multiplying device once working (which is the main hickup of course) will have an optimal input for greatest power multiple, and likely a higher input power (for instance in the form of rpm and resistance settings) that will product the greatest net overunity in Watts. The latter is more important, as those are the Watts get get for the kgs (cost) of the machine.
If you want more gains, you tend to need a bigger machine, or at least rated for such.

Once a few devices are linked in series at optimal net gain, the amount of output power that needs to be re-routed to the primal input become a very small percentage. You get a pyramid of devices, small to large and only the biggest one in is charge of re-routing anything to loop. Most of the output is available to exit the system.

Sorry, I was being facetious. I don't understand where the gain is observed.