New permanent magnet motor on youtube from Roobert33

[CLaNZeR]

On the pix it is some of my testing apparatus. All is mounted with ball bearing. But i have to improve the design   ough a good working day !! but very good fun

Hi Laurent

What a cool replication you have done mate, well done.

Aligning those magnets must of been a nightmare and taken ages while you taped over them.

Looking forward to seeing more.

Cheers

Sean.

[nievesoliveras]

It seems that everybody is busy replicating this one!
Nice work guys.
Maybe it will work.

Jesus

[Omnibus]

@CLaNZeR,

I think @woopy's observation is interesting -- the elements need not be magnets (save the stator bars on top and at the bottom) despite what Rob told me. Besides, go figure how to fix repelling magnets the way they're shown in the vid. Also, I haven't seen lathed surfaces of neos such as those in the pics. Seems like these are small iron cylinders glued spirally onto the outer surface of a thin-walled copper tube. When made that's attached to a copper bottom fixed to the axis. The "bearings" seem to be just holes in the wooden pillars where the axis is resting.

[exnihiloest]

There is another replication here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLwEs0iu7U&feature=related

Update:
I went to the link on the clip and found this:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10034.0;attach=48991

It is obvious it doesn't work, question of magnetic potential.
Here is an equivalent reasoning with the gravitational potential: the principle of the device is the same as to let a bowl roll down a slow downslope and when it is at the bottom, to expect it will climb a short but hard steep to the same height. Of course it fails.
The rotor here is increasingly attracted to the top horizontal magnet (1 # downslope) and then must fight the "sticky point" (2 # hard steep). As the cause of the movement is a magnetic potential difference and the work which has to be done is independent of the path (W=dU), the work for step 1 is equal to the work for step 2.
In other words, when we consider a full turn, as there is no magnetic potential difference between the start point and the end point because they are the same, then there is no cause for the rotor to rotate. It can rotate only less than 1 turn.
Additional improvements such systems to move the fixed magnet at a particular moment for avoiding the sticky point are also useless because based on the same principle of potential difference, which implies energy conservation in any way.
All permanent magnet motors based on this principle are thus flawed. And I don't hear about other types   

[Omnibus]

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=10034.0;attach=48991

It is obvious it doesn't work, question of magnetic potential.
Here is an equivalent reasoning with the gravitational potential: the principle of the device is the same as to let a bowl roll down a slow downslope and when it is at the bottom, to expect it will climb a short but hard steep to the same height. Of course it fails.
The rotor here is increasingly attracted to the top horizontal magnet (1 # downslope) and then must fight the "sticky point" (2 # hard steep). As the cause of the movement is a magnetic potential difference and the work which has to be done is independent of the path (W=dU), the work for step 1 is equal to the work for step 2.
In other words, when we consider a full turn, as there is no magnetic potential difference between the start point and the end point because they are the same, then there is no cause for the rotor to rotate. It can rotate only less than 1 turn.
Additional improvements such systems to move the fixed magnet at a particular moment for avoiding the sticky point are also useless because based on the same principle of potential difference, which implies energy conservation in any way.
All permanent magnet motors based on this principle are thus flawed. And I don't hear about other types   

Usless blabber. The device under discussion in this thread may not work but not because of the above reasons.