Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[sm0ky2]

Once again, my lack of artistic talent inhibits my ability to convey the message, but what the heck, 
The Green arrows are the direction of rotation, The red arrows are the direction of repulsive force.

the grey area with black lines is supposed to represent the Flux Compression.
when the rotor/stator are lined up just before the north poles pass, the lines of flux are pushed in the direction of the rotor, bending them outwards, but the force at this moment, is a vector in the ouward direction - basically on the stator shaft, away from the rotor - not on the stator itself,which would prevent it from spinning. this is important

now, as the poles come together, the flux is already compressed (like a spring) and the force in in the direction of rotation, pushing both rotor and stator away from each other.

As i understand, making this happen was a pure accident,..  replicating it continiously has proven to be quit a task.  one that i have failed at myself.

[Yadaraf]

Once again, my lack of artistic talent inhibits my ability to convey the message, but what the heck, 
The Green arrows are the direction of rotation, The red arrows are the direction of repulsive force.

the grey area with black lines is supposed to represent the Flux Compression.
when the rotor/stator are lined up just before the north poles pass, the lines of flux are pushed in the direction of the rotor, bending them outwards, but the force at this moment, is a vector in the ouward direction - basically on the stator shaft, away from the rotor - not on the stator itself,which would prevent it from spinning. this is important

now, as the poles come together, the flux is already compressed (like a spring) and the force in in the direction of rotation, pushing both rotor and stator away from each other.

As i understand, making this happen was a pure accident,..  replicating it continiously has proven to be quit a task.  one that i have failed at myself.

Sm0ky2,

Below are properly sequenced stroboscopic pics of Al's device at 4620 RPM operating in AWG (co-rotation).  Do these agree with your drawing?

Cheers 

Yada..
.

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

The compression you're talking about requires external energy input and therefore isn't spontaneous as it should be if the acceleration we see is real. If you disagree explain how what you're depicting happens spontaneously.

[Grimer]

@ Omnibus

> So we left the conversation at the point where we both agreed that the H and B
> you?re talking about are not the H which induced the B to begin with. Therefore,
> the H-B hysteresis you talk about is not the hysteresis usually understood,
> inferred when the behavior (in terms of its induction B) of a ferromagnetic
> material is observed under the action of an external magnetic field H. In the
> case you?re observing you?re treating the B of the already produced magnet as
> the H which changes the B of another already produced magnet.

Spot on. In the case of the traditional stress-strain relation for a material for example, one can view the stress as an environmental strain, the test machine being the environment and the test machine plus specimen as a closed system where energy is being lost by one part and gained by the other, the direction depending on whether the specimen is being tested in tension or compression obviously.

I achieved this insight of the complete inverse symmetry of stress and strain when we were testing concrete 12 x 6 x 6 inch prisms with a 12 x 6 x 6 inch steel block as a load cell.
Both were instrumented with strain gauges, internal for the concrete external for the steel.
I could see that though we were treating the steel as the stress and the concrete as the strain we could have just as well done it the other way around. Or we could treat both at strain in which case areas of the strain-strain diagram would represent stain², strain energy in other words, which is a perfectly acceptable and familiar way of viewing energy.

Now with the BH diagram we are already half way there because both B and H have the same dimensions using the term in the dimensional analysis sense. So we can see immediately that which we call H and which we call B is arbitrary. Also, we don't have to use the varying field of a static electro-magnet to drive B around its BH loop, we can instead use the unvarying field of a movable permanent magnet to drive the B around its loop.


> You should agree, however, that if such a picture is to be adopted then both
> magnets exert influence on each other and either one can be pronounced as H,
> not only the stronger one, as you insist, especially when they are so close
> in properties (supposedly, because one is N38, the other is N42).

I do agree, absolutely. The magnets could be the same strength in which case it is arbitrary which we designate B and which we designate H. Indeed one can go even further and designate a weaker magnet as H if we want to, though obviously the weaker magnet could only drive the stronger magnet around an, what shall we call it, an internal loop?, and not get it up to the same level as a more powerful magnet ( it should be pointed out, however, that there is no such thing as a complete loop since one would need a infinitely powerful H for that. All the loops are partial but some are more partial than others  ).


> Let?s, however, adopt the picture you propose, that is, that the stronger magnet
> (the stator) produces the H field while the weaker magnet (the rotor) is the
> receptor and we?re studying its B.

> First off, I think we should designate these new H and B as deltaH and deltaB or
> H? and B? to distinguish them from the genuine H and B.

I'm easy with that provided the word "genuine" is replaced by "conventional".


> Then we?ll observe how B? changes with changing H?, to and fro. This will form a
> nice little hysteresis loop within the inherent (the one it came to us from the
> factory) hysteresis loop of the rotor magnet.

Not necessarily a maximum loop. One can be working within a particular quadrant, the second say.


> The area enclosed by this nice little hysteresis loop will give us the energy
> spent to carry out this whole exercise, that is, to move the stator closer and
> closer to the rotor and then remove it away from it, thus varying the H.

Again, not necessarily a complete loop but say a partial loop in the second quadrant.


> Now, again, the main question arises?how was that energy supplied that energy
> spontaneously? Mind you, for this to be a perpetuum mobile said energy must come
> out of no energy source. Is that the case?

Ah now we get to the essential question. Where does the energy come from?

People see charge as positive and negative above a zero, a nothing.
People see magnetic potential the same way.

But they don't see temperature like that unless they are non-scientific laymen and regard ambient temperature as neither hot or cold and ambient as an imperceptible sensation; as a "no sensation", a nothing in other words.

I recognise that the flux pattern between the two poles of a magnet as being the same as the flow pattern between a source and a sink at the bottom of a deep ocean because in hierarchical system terms that is exactly what it is. Likewise with charge.

So where does the energy come from. It comes from the magnetic equivalent of the deep ocean pressure.

Though that Gestalt Switch may be too much for you, I'm sure you can understand what it is that I am claiming.

How one visualises the medium that exerts that pressure is down to one's scientific predilections. Virtual photon pressure? Aether pressure? Space distortion pressure? Zero-point-Energy pressure? Take your pick. I have chosen to designate it Gamma-atmosphere pressure in line with my Iterative Hierarchical Mechanics view of things.

[Omnibus]

@Grimer,

Although I don?t see why your, no doubt, unusual picture of what you refer to as the pressure of the gamma atmosphere should be better than the field picture and why they should give different results in the energy balance I?d like to skip discussing this and get to the central problem?the spontaneous production of energy causing the device to accelerate without the intervention of the researcher.

Using your idea for the non-conventional hysteresis in the second quadrant I should again emphasize that there are in fact two such hysteresises, depending on whether the weaker or the stronger magnet is chosen to be the H? field.

Applying this picture one may suggest that to achieve the desired acceleration a condition has to be realized whereby these two hysteresis loops would enclose different areas. This would be a natural difference due to the properties of the magnets and that natural difference would spontaneously provide the needed extra energy from within to cause acceleration. Thus, we have been unsuccessful so far because we haven?t attained that condition and all we?ve done is cause symmetric non-conventional hysteresises while @alsetalokin has somehow inadvertently hit upon the desired asymmetry.

The above explanation, although based on your non-conventional H?-B? hysteresis, differs from yours but seems to provide a way to explain the excess energy through these H?-B? loops. It would be interesting to study this mutually induced hysteresis in concrete magnet samples and see whether the discussed difference really exists and the conditions for its appearance, if it does.