Oscillating sine wave LC tank magnet motor.

[synchro1]

This video shows what happens when magnetic a clutch slips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHU3oWvG9dk

[synchro1]

This video is randomly associated with the topic:

WORLD'S SIMPLEST MOTOR amazing new version of homopolar motor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPzJr1jjHnQ

Triple AAA batteries can slide in the core of a diametric tube, the end discs would be set up for a Mendicino Levitator, all that would be left would be to short the discs with a copper wire and, Voila!

[antijon]

Hey synchro1. This is a very interesting topic, regarding the magnetic cogs. I watched the video by mindfreer, and honestly, my only question is why he didn't remove the battery or replace it with a capacitor. An alternator produces 12-14 volts, and obviously a drained battery acts more like a load than a ballast (which it appears he is using it as a type of energy reserve, so to speak). So if I had to guess, I'd say it was not overunity.

If the alternator were driven by a belt, it would be turning at the same rpm as the motor, and the motor would show the load. However, with magnetic cogging, the alternator can slip and run at a lower rpm, just enough to provide 98 watts of power to aid the battery in producing 159 watts to power the bulbs.

The problem with his setup is that we have to assume and draw conclusions, like we assume the battery is mostly dead and the alternator is charging it while powering the inverter. But for that to happen we would need to know that the alternator is at full rpm, which he doesn't show, but we can safely assume it is not because the motor would show 159 watts of power.

In Lidmotor's video, the current increases because he moves the coil away from the magnet. In every motor, or AC motor, the rotor generates a back EMF which opposes the input current. It's not that the load dropped the input current, but that the rotor generated back EMF when it was in the proper position.

And I guess it may have been rhetorical, but a DC motor produces more power when you add magnets because you increase the magnetic lines. However, this is nothing special because if the manufacturers wanted the motor to be more powerful they would have made it twice as big and twice as heavy for you.

[synchro1]

Hey synchro1. This is a very interesting topic, regarding the magnetic cogs. I watched the video by mindfreer, and honestly, my only question is why he didn't remove the battery or replace it with a capacitor. An alternator produces 12-14 volts, and obviously a drained battery acts more like a load than a ballast (which it appears he is using it as a type of energy reserve, so to speak). So if I had to guess, I'd say it was not overunity.

If the alternator were driven by a belt, it would be turning at the same rpm as the motor, and the motor would show the load. However, with magnetic cogging, the alternator can slip and run at a lower rpm, just enough to provide 98 watts of power to aid the battery in producing 159 watts to power the bulbs.

The problem with his setup is that we have to assume and draw conclusions, like we assume the battery is mostly dead and the alternator is charging it while powering the inverter. But for that to happen we would need to know that the alternator is at full rpm, which he doesn't show, but we can safely assume it is not because the motor would show 159 watts of power.

In Lidmotor's video, the current increases because he moves the coil away from the magnet. In every motor, or AC motor, the rotor generates a back EMF which opposes the input current. It's not that the load dropped the input current, but that the rotor generated back EMF when it was in the proper position.

And I guess it may have been rhetorical, but a DC motor produces more power when you add magnets because you increase the magnetic lines. However, this is nothing special because if the manufacturers wanted the motor to be more powerful they would have made it twice as big and twice as heavy for you.

@antijon,

Thanks for your participation. A motor twice the size and powerful would consume more input, where-as increasing the motor weight in magnets would reduce it. This is what makes it special. 

[antijon]

@antijon,

Thanks for your participation. A motor twice the size and powerful would consume more input, where-as increasing the motor weight in magnets would reduce it. This is what makes it special.

True, it may reduce the input for a particular load, but that's only saying that the motor wasn't manufactured to be efficient. The motor law is current multiplied by conductor length multiplied by magnetic field equals velocity, or I x L x B = V. Increasing any one of these will increase rotor power. If manufacturers wanted the motor to be more efficient, they could have increased the size of the magnets.

I work with many different types of motors, mostly for fans and blowers, and I can say that what you see is not always what you will get. For instance, you can get two different motors, both rated for the same RPM and HP, yet one will consume 300W more in power. This loss of efficiency goes back to Tesla's descriptions of motor construction. Paraphrasing, but between the stator and rotor the magnetic energy will always equal 100% but the power out is the product of the stator and rotor. So if I had a stator  that was much larger than the rotor, I could say it made up 90% of the magnetic energy. The stator is 90 plus the rotor's 10 equals 100% magnetic energy. But the rotor power out is the product of both, so 90 x 10 = 900. Now if the stator and rotor were more matched in size, say 50 and 50, the magnetic energy would still be 100% but the power out would be 50 x 50 = 2500.

My point in saying that is this, don't assume that a motor is anywhere close to 100% efficient, even a DC motor with no load.

Hey, sorry for not reading the beginning of the thread, but was someone working on a tank circuit motor?