For many years, there have been numerous attempts to build a self-sustaining PMM ? to date, none successful.

Many of us keep trying though, as in building models we?ve often seen devices that *almost* work.

Don?t you find it strange that with the powerful modelling software (FEMM et al) that?s now available to us all, that we?ve not cracked this yet?

I?d like to suggest that our failure is actually *caused* by our use of software ? as that software assumes a flawed model of the magnetic field.  All of the packages that I?ve seen operate on the assumption that the magnetic field of a PM adheres to the idealised picture shown in textbooks.

However, back in 1970, Howard Johnson published a book, recently reprinted by Cheniere Press [1] that suggested a different view of the field ? one that was composed of a double vortex at each magnetic pole.  More recent topographical field mapping experiments conducted by JL Naudin [2][3] lend support to Johnson?s view.

If PM magnetic field topography is in reality different than the accepted model (which modelling software utilises), is it any surprise that we still don?t have a self-sustaining PMM?  The traditional model may be a good enough approximation for general engineering use, but sufficiently flawed to cause our PMM models to fail...

My intent in posting this is to start a discussion; if, however, you want to treat it as flame-bait, so be it.  All I?d ask is that you read the provided links first...  If anyone is aware of other field mapping experiments ? supportive or otherwise of Johnson and Naudin ? I?d love to have the links.

Patrick

[1] http://www.cheniere.org/books/HoJo/index.html
[2] http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/magmap.htm
[3] http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/ringmap.htm

The software sure makes pretty pictures though! 

But I would have to say, if you really want to get somewhere and make a magnet motor, you must be an experimenter.  That is how I was able to get my motor to run.  By learning about how magnets interact and work.  Then apply what you have learned and build it.

Liberty

Exactly the point. Read all you want most of it is conceptual. Play with magnets and get a feel for how they react what the fields are doing. You will become astonished at some of the results probably totally different from what you have read or what you may think they do.

Hope to have a simple piston mag motor working soon which will show that playing about with magnets allows us to achieve things which have so far been allocated the too hard or no it can 't be done senario.

I agree reading up on things is great but do not take it all as gospel is all i am saying.

The result of a simulation is at least as flawed as the model it uses. You can simulate every behavior you like, and you can get any result you like. This does not mean it has anything to do with reality. All models used are simplified in some way. We just don't have the universal equation that would be necessary. When you enter the world of nonlinear and nonconventional physics, our model are no longer valid. This is a known fact, also among professional scientists.
The final prove remains the experiment. If it works, you can come up with a theory and a model, not the other way round.

I agree, modeling software is like a scratch pad, it allows you to visualize a concept  one might have. But when it comes time to use your hands and build what is conceptualized then things change, this I know from experience.   

Camster