Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[CLaNZeR]

That's interesting. If you repeat it do you get the same result?

Will get my fingers sore one more time for you Frank  and do the NO AGW for all 3 again.

Interesting the difference of the 6061-T6 on the AGW charts compared to NO AGW.

[Grimer]

@ Omnibus

> Both the stronger and the weaker magnets are at their remanences when left on their
> own (energy equal to the area enclosed by the respective genuine H-B loop has already
> been spent to create them as permanent magnets), in absence of external field.
> That's why they are permanent magnets to begin with.. If they are of low coercivity
> even weak counter fields can upset them both and get their flux even down to zero.

Absolutely. 

> So, it's not obvious that the stronger magnet must always be treated as H when
> the two magnets are interacting, while the weaker as B.

Not at all obvious. But if we assume that it is so,  then we can begin to get some idea where the extra energy might be coming from. It means we have a hypothesis with certain implications. For example, that one set of magnets should be strong and the other weak, etc.

> Note, this H we're using to describe this interaction isn't the H that created the permanent magnets.

Quite so.

> There may be mutual influence and one may arbitrarily choose one to be H and the other
> to be B and vice versa. Here in this case the magnets are of the same material but their
> remanences are obviously different but maybe their coercivities are practically the same
> at that they are not low. Thus, although your theory (requiring the stronger magnet to be
> always treated as H) doesn't seem to be applicable in general.

Which is perhaps why people are finding it difficult to get the same result as Alsetalokin, eh! 

> ... you have to show it applies in this concrete case.

Do I indeed, Professor. Well since I have no idea of the properties of Al's magnets we obviously can't proceed any further at this point and have to leave the idea as Grimer's Hypothesis.

But if anyone has any better hypothesis as to where the energy might come from I would love to hear it. 

[Grimer]

That's interesting. If you repeat it do you get the same result?

Will get my fingers sore one more time for you Frank  and do the NO AGW for all 3 again.

Interesting the difference of the 6061-T6 on the AGW charts compared to NO AGW.

Yep. Considering there's not that much difference between them in chemical composition.


                                                    6061 T6
                                       Chemical Composition %

      Al             Cr              Cu              Fe        Mg          Si           Zn
                                                         Max                   Max       Max
Remainder   0.04-0.35    0.15-0.40        0.7    0.8-1.2    0.40-0.8    0.25

... which is why I was interested in seeing a replication. 

[starcruiser]

Been following this thread since the beginning, I was wondering if anyone followed up on the florescent light interaction? I ask this since the ballast is nothing more than a Tesla coil of sorts and since it was not functioning properly (bulb being bad) it could have been radiating a pulsed magnetic field which influences the motors magnetic field. I am sure the position of the fixture would need to be considered in this but do you think this might have an impact on the results?

I would think this filed would modulate the motors field thus creating the required energy to make it spin. If you think I am off base please explain to me why, I am willing to learn.

[Omnibus]

@Grimer,

See, we know that @alsetalokin's stator magnets are N42 neos while his rotor magnets are N38. Probably there are H-B diagrams for these concrete magnets and if we find them we can ponder a little bit whether or not your hypothesis (pronouncing that the stronger magnet must inevitably be H) is valid or not. That'll be interesting.