New discovery suggest that permanent magnet motors might be possible

[onepower]

LowQ

I am building a very simple device that I think will "work" on the same principle, but a rotary one.
Simulations in FEMM does not provide any meaningful results, so I build one just to understand how equatorial and polar forces works together.

I have also found simulations basically useless and a waste of time vs reality.

In 5 hours the 3D printer is finished with the first parts that is supposed to support the magnets. Different tests will be done, but I cannot promise videos, but pictures would do for the initial exprriments.

I have found "what we think" is of little relevance relative to "how we think" which concerns the logic and reason behind our thinking.

So we have two magnets which supposedly repel along a vertical line while attracting along a horizontal line... now what?. Science, a method of inquiry, says we should determine "what" the real forces are between the magnets "where" they act on one another. So we should build a disk holding the upper magnet (M1) which allows it to move along a horizontal plane over the lower magnet(M2). We then measure the vertical and horizontal forces on each magnet M1 and M2 with a $3 force sensor such as this DF9-40 High Pressure Sensor Resistance-type Thin Film Force Sensor Waterproof. Next we would use a gear stepper motor to rotate the disk along the horizontal plane and measure the current input and a servo to move the plane of the disk vertically.

Now we have two magnets and one magnet M1 can move accurately along a plane and we can measure the forces... now what?. We could dork around for months or we could use our head and let a $10 computer like an Arduino Uno do all the hard stuff for us. It's a computer, it computes stuff, so we should let it do what it does best.

Now we apply some logic and reason:
Our variables are Magnet M1 forces Vertical V1 and Horizontal H1, Magnet M2 forces are V2 and H2, the disk input current is I1 and the disk stepper motor position P1, the servo position for the disk S1.

Our reason and logic:
If the current I1 to the stepper motor increases the motor is acting against a force and if I1 decreases the motor is acting with a force. Obviously the goal is to look for a force which acts with us on magnet M1 decreasing I1 more than it acts against us increasing I1.

So we rotate the disk with the stepper motor measuring it's horizontal position P1 and its vertical position with S1 within a 3D space and we measure the forces on M1 and M2. Now we follow the logic...

We are looking for a decreasing value of I1 and forces on M1-M2 as M1 approaches M2. We are also looking for a decreasing value of I1 and increasing forces on M1-M2 as M1 moves away from M2. So we measure the rate at which a variable changes by measuring the amount and direction of change from one position of P1 to the next position. So we tell the Arduino to change P1 through 360 degrees of disk rotation at servo position S1 then change the position of S1 (P1=P1+1, if P1=360 then S1=S1+S1).

As P1 goes through 360 degrees and S1 through it's range we don't record all the variables and try to graph it because that's very time consuming and absurd. We teach the Arduino how to recognize what were looking for... so what is it we are looking for again?. Decreasing values of I1, decreasing forces as M1 approaches M2 and increasing forces as M1 leaves M2. So if M1 and M2 align at P1 180 degrees then we look for decreasing forces to 180 and increasing forces after 180.

P1 (current position) = P2, P1=P1+1(next position of P1), if I1 at P2(last position) < I1 at P1(current position) then I1 is decreasing in value indicating the direction of the change. We can do this for the vertical and horizontal forces on M1 and M2 as well to indicate the direction of the change. Thus we can begin to formulate a logical plan as to how our Arduino should act. We can use the same kind of logic as MPPT, maximum power point tracking.

Our Arduino can then "look" for the path of least resistance when M1 approaches M2 at P1 180 degrees all by itself. It can also look for a path which produces the maximum force on M1 as it leaves M2 all by itself. When the current input I1 reduces to zero and the stepping motor acts as a generator more often than not then we have found our answer. Why would we spend countless hours doing experiments changing variables and countless hours trying to sort out what the data is telling us when a $10 computer can crunch all the numbers and tell us exactly what works or not and how to do it?.

This shines a new light on all our experiments doesn't it?, where we can have a computer look for patterns in the measured variables as they change and then change the variables in such a direction as to always move towards our goal then tell us how it did it. As I said how we think and the method of reasoning behind our thoughts is often more much important than any given belief or opinion which cannot be justified in reality. It's called Metacognition which is the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes... not what we think but why and how.

[ayeaye]

I said permanent magnets have overunity because their field is asymmetric, they have two poles. Every asymmetric field can do work. And i showed it with experiments here. But the overunity in them is not enough to overcome friction. I know how much overunity they have and this is not much, thus all the claims of powerful motors using permanent magnets are beyond doubt hoaxes.

[onepower]

ayeaye

I said permanent magnets have overunity because their field is asymmetric, they have two poles. Every asymmetric field can do work. And i showed it with experiments here. But the overunity in them is not enough to overcome friction. I know how much overunity they have and this is not much, thus all the claims of powerful motors using permanent magnets are beyond doubt hoaxes.

I mapped the fields within a 3D space and the fields are symmetric but non-uniform which is not the same thing. Your claim is also false because you do not know the COP, nobody does. This is true because the COP is dictated by a force acting over a distance as well as the rate at which the force or distance changes. The rate of change or field cycle rate can have almost any value thus so can the COP as a whole.

Obviously they are not all hoaxes just because you do not seem to know what your doing because that would mean your own ignorance must somehow magically affect all the other inventors dragging them down to your level. You don't honestly think your own beliefs can magically affect everyone else do you because that's a clear sign of mental disorders in my opinion.

[ayeaye]

A field that has two poles is definitely not symmetric. A typical symmetric field is spherical.

[citfta]

Definition of symmetrical:

symmetrical  (sɪmetrɪkəl )   adjective If something is symmetrical, it has two halves which are exactly the same, except that one half is the mirror image of the other.   ...the neat rows of perfectly symmetrical windows. Synonyms: balanced, regular, proportional, in proportion   More Synonyms of symmetrical  symmetrically (sɪmetrɪkl ) adverb [ADVERB with verb] The south garden at Sissinghurst was composed symmetrically.

By this definition a symmetrical object does NOT have to be spherical.