Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[klicUK]

Hi people,

Just the 2cents of an unfortunate 'OU' handyman ...
Actually, I have also built my own xpenzif's magnet motor replication.
OK:
The screws gluing is crude.
The rotor is not so well balanced.
I'm far from a machinist. 
However:
The ball bearing comes from a recovery of a (professional) Meteorological drifting buoy wind speed sensor and is very efficient.

Guess what : it (unfortunately) does not work (at all)!

Of course, you can blame the shabby craftsmanship (that's what I do).
But I do not feel any hope having this @#& rotor moving.
I mean : with a mere single small magnet glued on another (slightly leaning) drum-like rotor, an initial small impulse, a quick tuning, I can get this rotor making 2 or 3 revolutions.
That Ain't 'OU'! Of course! But it is turning. Paltry consolation.

So? Is the xpenzif's motor faked?

Just a (twisted) idea:
Why not tyring to 'smart' deceit/false this very motor with a fan, an hair drier, a minuscule tamed hamster or whatever you want?.

That's my next project.

Remember: the (in)famous Mike's window Motor was also made self running on a mere capacitor (and an hidden 9 volts bat. ).

My window motor is also running very well with a small bat.

Best   

@NerzhDishual:
thanks for posting the results. Gathering data of results is important. So far ALL replications give the same result. So you are helping to expose the prank / scam / potential serious fraud.

klicUK

[NerzhDishual]

Hi crowd,

It does not work [Rice]. This definitive statement does not disturb me.

I just want to check it out more accurately by tyring to deliberately fake this device as subtlety as Xpenzif might have done it.

This could be another evidence of any "potential serious fraud" [KlicUK]

To advocate the Devil:
Should I, according to my age, be keeping on repeating myself:
In the Xpenzif's device (some of) the screws could actually be small magnets. That could be the trick (if any). You can build your own magnets. Ask Google.
-------------------
BTW: Xpenzif (the well named) claims are going to be expensive
time/money/(interminable)discussion-wise. Are they not?

Best

[shruggedatlas]

By the way, for my analysis to be scientifically sound it is absolutely not necessary to have a self-sustaining device. You should understand this one and for all. I've been repeating it over and over but who to listen.

OK, I have been reading your explanations and familiarized myself with the terms involved.  I do not understand where the excess energy is.  Here are the terms as I understand them.

h1:  Vertical distance between A and B
h2:  Vertical distance between B and C
Ma: Magnetic potential at A
Mb: Magnetic potential at B
Mc: Magnetic potential at C
m: mass
g: gravitational constant

Let's look at what happens at each stage:

Stage 1: A to B

Researcher lifts ball.  Energy spent is what is required to lift a ball from A to B, subtracting for magnetic assistance, which can be expressed as the difference in magnetic potential between A and B.

mg(h1) - (Ma - Mb) = mg(h1) - Ma + Mb

Stage 2: B to C

Magnets pull ball to C.  Magnet does work equal to energy required to lift a ball from B to C.  The cost is the decrease in magnetic potential.

mg(h2) - (Mb - Mc) = mg(h2) - Mb + Mc

Stage 3: C to A

Because the ball is no longer on the ramp, the magnets do not have the mechanical advantage needed to resist gravity, so the ball falls from C to A.  Here the gravitational energy returned is equal to the energy of the ball dropping from the sum of heights h1 and h2, but is tempered by the magnetic forces involved (difference in magnetic potential between A and C).  In essense, the magnets are taking back what they gave.

-mg(h1 + h2) + (Ma - Mc) = -mg(h1) - mg(h2) + Ma - Mc

Summary:

If we add all these up, we get:

+mg(h1) - Ma + Mb + mg(h2) - Mb + Mc - mg(h1) - mg(h2) + Ma - Mc = 0

So, no excess energy.  This is confirmed by the fact that when the ball drops from C to A, it has insufficient kinetic energy to get back to B.

**********

Anything wrong with the above?

[Pirate88179]

@ Shruggedatlas:

So, you are saying that nasty word "equilibrium" due to the fact that any "excess" energy can be explained by the potential energy stored in the ball by the researcher lifting it to the starting point?  I don't want to put words in your mouth so correct me if I am wrong.  So, this would be like saying that "hey, once I lift this weight inside this clock, it runs for a week on free energy."  I see your point and don't disagree.  I am not a physics expert and don't claim to be.  I think you have raised a valid question that should be answered, or at least, looked in to. I am still experimenting with the SMOT as it relates to a rotating wheel but I have not progressed far enough to voice an opinion either way.

Bill

[nightlife]

  shruggedatlas, which design are you referring too?

One thing I can say for the one this topic is about is that the spring loaded magnets gives this design the power to keep it's self going because it limits the draw back affect.

The power that could be used would depend on the distance achieved after going through the first set of screws and where the next one would be placed if there was a fifth in place. So if it goes a inch past the last screw and the screws were 1/8 inch apart from the attraction points, that would mean it would have a bout a 80% over unity efficiency making it about 180% efficient. This is just an example because I don't have the actual motor to test it but the concept is still the same.