Working Attraction Magnet Motor on Youtube!?

[Pirate88179]

@klickUK:

For what it's worth, I agree with you.

Bill

[Omnibus]

@klicUK,

Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8).  Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.

[Low-Q]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg

it is a hand held magnet that power the wheel. However, if the stator was really static, the wheel would stop.
In your demonstration with the rail, I can see that the acceleratoion slows down half way. I look forward to see the test result from your rotating V-gate.

Vidar
[/quote]

Thanks Vidar.  Yes. I've seen that one and I agree that if he didn't manually move the stator, it would not work.  The main difference is that I'm using 6 stators (3 per V-gate).  For each stator that hits the gate, there are 2 more to pull/push it through.  I've built another model based on this same concept with only one V-gate and four stators.  It'll be interesting to see what happens.
I know the multiple stator works in the linear model as I've tested it myself.  The question is if this does work, will we be able to extract any useful energy from it?  I'll have to build it and find out!

Peace,
Will
[/quote]
With several stators you'll just even the forces. In addition each magnets magnetic field is altered to do less work on the rotor. So in theory, the forces woud be the same with one magnet or with more. But as you said, you should build one to see how it works. It should also be quite easy to simulate your motor in Femm.

Br.

Vidar

[klicUK]

@klicUK,

Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8).  Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.

Not to be controversial, but the guy is pushing the pendulum several times to increase the swing. Imagine pushing a kid on a swing you don't give one almighty bang to get your little one up to the highest point. Lots of little pushes just enough to get a bit higher - same thing here. Now also look at the angle of attack, roughly 45 degrees and he slides the hadle down the pendulum, increasing the time of the push.
To me a fair test would be calibrate the device correctly by weighing the pendulum and then letting it go from a preset hieght. Way to much human intervention on this one for me to see any thing of significance. Easy for him to change the experimental setup though to make the whole thing measurable.

[Omnibus]

@klicUK,

Not to oppose your finding, since I've no idea what that guy has actually done but let me mention this, recall that Veljko Milkovic claims violation of Newton's third law with his device (http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHln0xczRk8).  Still isn't clear to me whether it really does. To understand that the backward problem for his device has to be solved (there have already been attempts to solve the forward, more obvious problem: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Pendulum/Mathematical_analisys_Tosic_english.pdf), Of course, this analysis must be rigorous and not based just on opinions and feeling as some have already expressed in their positive or negative analysis and criticism.

Not to be controversial, but the guy is pushing the pendulum several times to increase the swing. Imagine pushing a kid on a swing you don't give one almighty bang to get your little one up to the highest point. Lots of little pushes just enough to get a bit higher - same thing here. Now also look at the angle of attack, roughly 45 degrees and he slides the hadle down the pendulum, increasing the time of the push.
To me a fair test would be calibrate the device correctly by weighing the pendulum and then letting it go from a preset hieght. Way to much human intervention on this one for me to see any thing of significance. Easy for him to change the experimental setup though to make the whole thing measurable.

I was referring specifically to the claim for Newton's third law violation. Whether or not more energy is obtained than the input is a separate discussion.

What is demonstrated is that when swaying the pendulum the other side of the lever starts moving up and down. On the other hand, when moving up and down that other part of lever doesn't cause swaying of the pendulum. This is claimed to be an apparent violation of the Newtons third law. Whether or not there's indeed such violation hasn't been understood well yet. Like I said, a proposal for the forward problem has already been given. No analytical solution exists yet of the reverse problem. I really mean analytical solution--writing the proper differential equation and solving it and not just expressing hunches (I don't mean what you did but what others have expressed both positively or negatively).