Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tugger (shortly: AMT)

[ageofmagnetizm]

Out of that large collection of sentences, you've produced above - I conclude that you have not read my publication where testing of prototypes are explained, instead you are reflecting on "watching" of supplemental videos which you have interpolated with your own experience.


Not willing to copy part of web-page here - I only explain that presented testing produced by placing of parallel magnetomotive trains so that its middles are coinciding what cause clock-wise motion of rotor, and when middles are manually returned to coincide, than clock-wise motion is produced again. If middle of rotor is manually forced count-clock-wise then rotor always  moves clock-wise, what does not occur when this middle stays oppositely. This manifest asymmetry of magnetomotive potentials produced by AMTs which produce artificial geometry of magnetic fields between rotor and stator where most vectors of forces are uniformly tangential to radius of rotor what causes generation of  torque.

[dieter]

I have to say, It seemed pretty much insulting to me how ageofm's Topic was nullified in the 2nd posting. Although I had no success in using diamagnets to obtain that imbalance, it sounds interesting. You can't just say "uh, you are unwilling to disassemble your device to do my experiment, so you must be a scammer". That's just not fair. Even tho, if a rotor does brake more in one direction than in the other does not prove OU, it is nevertheless highly interesting behaviour in a device that has only magnetical contact between stator and rotor (other than the axis).

[ageofmagnetizm]

Quote of TinselCoala from above:
<<You refuse to perform the simple experiment I described.>>


This Topic was started as supplemental to my publication, because that published


Asymmetric Magnetomotive Tuggers are explained in words supposed to be


understandable for general audience, and its very naturally that some people could need


additional explanations, such posting questions here.


Those argues with TinselCoala allowed me to realize that the web-site-explanation of


proof-of-concept devices - can be better with simple drawing-scheme representing three


different stages of experiments manifesting three different magnetomotive  potentials.


Hence I have produced such scheme attached below.
Drawing consists of three simplified representations of 4-AMTs units of train secured


stationary and 3-AMTs units train allowed to move parallel to static train. Green lines


between trains indicates directions of magnetomotive forces between trains, and arrows


indicate direction of motion resulting from attraction between trains of opposite magnetic


polarities.

The uppermost scheme of drawing demonstrates that dynamic train moves left-ward when


right-edges of both trains are aligned, and bottom scheme - demonstrates that alignment of


left-edges of trains manifest zero-magnetomotive-potential. Most important is middle-scheme


of drawing where middles of trains are aligned and dynamic train manifests motion


left-ward... During testings of numerous simplier vertions of AMTs - similar testing were


manifesting motionless trains when its middles were coinsiding, and currently achieved


results mean that it is not necessary to conduct comparative testings by revolving rotor


clock-wise and count-clock-wise, or comparing rotors revolution with- and without stator.
Comparative testing is already unnecessary because that numerous and various prototypes


have produced direct manifestations which can be perceived directly without application of


deductive methods.


U-u-h! Instead of wasting time by entertains of TinselCoala - I decide to continue on


improvements of AMTs for achieving greater inclination of magnetomotive forces and


decreasing weight of current versions... then I plan to build full-scale prototypes of different


variants of different utilities.


If someone is building or deciding to build any experimental models of constructions of


complex magnetic permeability - than I'll be glad to learn about results, and glad to share my


experience achieved through last ten years of building and measuring of thousands of


variants of said constructions.

[TinselKoala]

If what you believe about your system is true, then it would be trivial to arrange it in a circle and produce a continuously-running device. But you cannot.

All you have actually done is to place two magnets in attraction, and restricted their possible motions by your mechanical arrangement. What I say is still True: your system does not produce a continuous unidirectional thrust, it only attracts to a magnetic potential "valley" and sticks there. It returns the energy you put in by "cocking" it, and nothing more.

IF your system produced any excess energy, or created a real unidirectional thrust, you could show it very easily AND UNEQUIVOCALLY by doing the simple experiment I suggested. It would take you less time and effort to do it, than you put into your last post. But you won't... because you know that your claims are false.

Or, if you like, you could explain why my suggested experiment _won't_ show your excess energy or unidirectional thrust, even though you believe it to be there... thus giving you a reasonable excuse for not performing it.... and adding greatly to the amusement of the more knowledgeable readers here.


Ten years and thousands of constructions.... and you still haven't built a self-runner? You still haven't been able to close the simple loop, just by wrapping "P1" around into a circle? You still have not provided ANY force measurements, any energy measurements, any real data? I feel sorry for you, wasting all that time and money.

[dieter]

To be honest, Koala, I am not sure if the wheell would ever have been invented if you were around back then    . This is discouraging, where persistence is required.


Not long ago, diamagnetic levitation or the levitron was considered and declared impossible and violating eg. maxwells "laws". We are human, we change the rules. We fly, we transmutate elements, we defibrilate the dead... We change the rules. And one day we may have a working PMM. Maybe not, but we need to keep on experimenting. I don't see less sense in it than in, eg. playing with an RC Helicopter.


As I see, there are those diamagnetic elements, they may add a factor that is capable of adding a twist to the parallelisation tendency of the ferromagnetic field. And with such a twist, even a static fields arrangement may cause a torque.