Working Magnetic Motor on you tube??

[Yadaraf]

sm0ky2,

RE: Stroboscopic pics

I screen-captured the pics from Al's third video, which you can download from CLaNZeR's site:

... Al's Stroboscopic WMV vid:  http://www.overunity.org.uk/ocpm/alsetalokin/AlsetalokinsThirdVideo.wmv

Note that the strobe is set to the stator speed.  Thus, because the rotor is spinning at 4:1, there are some strobing artifacts.

I hope Al marked the stator polarity correctly.   

Cheers   

Yada..
.

by "strobing artifacts", do you mean that the video does not show the proper allignment?
- and thus these pictures do not reflect the actual occurance?

sm0ky2,

In the video you'll see multiple "shadow" instances of the large tape section that Al uses for alignment.  When viewing the video normally, it seems that there are four instances, but pause the video and notice that there are never more than three instances -- any where between two and three. 

Why never one instance?

1.  A strobe of 4620 RPM produces 77 flashes per second (4620/60 = 77).

2.  At 4620 RPM stator, the rotor is spinning 1155 RPM, or 19 revs per second. 

3.  According to the WMV properties, Al was filming at 25 frames per second.

4.  Due to the asynchronousness of the above three events, within a given frame there will be multiple exposures of the rotor.

5.  Although the frame rate was 25 fps, we don't know how long the "shutter" was open each frame.

6.  Lastly, because the ratio between the flash and the shutter is 77:25 or >3:1, we can predict there will be a max of three ghosts (if the stars line up correctly, etc.).

Al must have known what he was doing when he made the strobe video, and I believe he tweaked the strobe and possibly the frame rate to produce the best outcome.  Of course, I can't say for certain.  I hate to say this, but given that his behaviour has been peculiar, he might have fudged the video to throw us off.   

Cheers

Yada..
.

[dingbat]

I think it would be difficult to put together a simple force diagram to explain how this device could work.

It would take serious "circular reasoning" to create a force diagram that would allow this particular arrangement to work.

Concerning all of these magnet only "motors", I will pose "the dingbat corollary" as follows:

If a device has any position within it's rotation where it will remain at rest, it will ultimately stop after being manually rotated to some speed.

In other words, if the device does not have to be held to keep it from turning, it will not maintain rotation, even if it is manually rotated.

The short version of "the dingbat corollary" is:  If it can stop, it will stop.


This Whipmag device has many positions at which it will remain at rest.  I say, by reason of the dingbat corollary, this device cannot work.

I believe for any device like this to work, it would have to be under constraint or force at all positions throughout it's operating cycle to work.  In other words, it would have to be held in position by some outside means to make it not rotate.  Any time the rotor would be released, the device would accelerate into it's operational cycle.

The Whipmag arrangement does not want to accelerate from a resting position.  If you rotate it and cause "latching", there is no opposing force to accelerate the rotor, because the stators are also free to rotate.  You simply can't create a force diagram that will allow this device to work.  The rotor has to apply force to the stator, and the stator has to apply force to the rotor.  There is no way to create an imbalance in the forces that will cause acceleration, because the part that needs to push on the other part can simply rotate itself. (acceleration requires an imbalance in forces that you can't create with this arrangement.)

In my humble opinion, of course.

db

[Omnibus]

I think it would be difficult to put together a simple force diagram to explain how this device could work.

It would take serious "circular reasoning" to create a force diagram that would allow this particular arrangement to work.

Concerning all of these magnet only "motors", I will pose "the dingbat corollary" as follows:

If a device has any position within it's rotation where it will remain at rest, it will ultimately stop after being manually rotated to some speed.

In other words, if the device does not have to be held to keep it from turning, it will not maintain rotation, even if it is manually rotated.

The short version of "the dingbat corollary" is:  If it can stop, it will stop.


This Whipmag device has many positions at which it will remain at rest.  I say, by reason of the dingbat corollary, this device cannot work.

I believe for any device like this to work, it would have to be under constraint or force at all positions throughout it's operating cycle to work.  In other words, it would have to be held in position by some outside means to make it not rotate.  Any time the rotor would be released, the device would accelerate into it's operational cycle.

The Whipmag arrangement does not want to accelerate from a resting position.  If you rotate it and cause "latching", there is no opposing force to accelerate the rotor, because the stators are also free to rotate.  You simply can't create a force diagram that will allow this device to work.  The rotor has to apply force to the stator, and the stator has to apply force to the rotor.  There is no way to create an imbalance in the forces that will cause acceleration, because the part that needs to push on the other part can simply rotate itself. (acceleration requires an imbalance in forces that you can't create with this arrangement.)

In my humble opinion, of course.

db

THis was the reason why I rejected @alsetalokin's device out of hand, if you've followed the whole story. However, on a second thought, it is possible that the construction of the device which enables it to work may not be just a stationary placement of its different parts with respect to each other. For the desired additional effect of acceleration to kick in it may be absolutely essential that some of these parts are in mutual motion. Once this additional effect of acceleration appears (enabled by the initial setting in motion of some of the parts of the machine) the initial input of energy to move these parts is more than compensated further when the effect of acceleration emerges. Therefore, there may be instances whereby your corollary may not hold. That would be the case if @alsetalokin's accelerates the way it does in his first video. that is, if @alsetalokin's device isn't faked.

[Omnibus]

@Harvey,

What's the point of making these videos

http://youtube.com/watch?v=S9mYO71ZW7c

and

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ALrTuO5t9cM

These are well known effects, well understood and they cannot be used as a demonstration of CoE violation. I'm afraid videos such as these only feed the need of some very stupid people such as @Big Oil Rep to blabber nonsense in the forums.

[sm0ky2]

@ Dingbat,

This is exactly the reason i had designed my whipmags to be "synchronized".
the flux-pattern at a 4:1 ratio, compresses then expands, which does exactly that - pushes on both rotor and stator in the direction of motion.

unfortunately, this same synchronization - causes both rotor and stator to cummulatively pass a "stickyspot" prior to this repulsion, which cancels it out.

If the original video - and subsequent responses from its creator - were not "faked".
then im fairly confident now, that if this is to work at all, there is an unsynchronized relationship between rotor and stator. It would be logical to conclude, this being an Octagon, that the phases are in even numbers.  perhaps two synchronized, and two reversed? i have no way of knowing this, nor of causing it to occur, so at this point i am at a loss with the WhipMag. My synchronized versions, are no more than a Flywheel with drag...

If anyone can examine the operation of the original device, in terms of relative location between rotor and stator, at each of the 8 "monopoles" around the rotor, this may allow us to replicate the effect.