Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

[sm0ky2]

@ Yada - the connection between the balls is very tiny. they're "barely" touching, in fact they are trying to push away from one another and are held only by the return flux-paths through the center.

though in observation - the magnetic "axis" running through the ball with 4 poles is actually a "twin-axis"
like a "V" thats not exactly through the center of the octahedrals top ball.
which makes the balls offset from one another slightly

[Yadaraf]

@ Yada - the connection between the balls is very tiny. they're "barely" touching, in fact they are trying to push away from one another and are held only by the return flux-paths through the center.

though in observation - the magnetic "axis" running through the ball with 4 poles is actually a "twin-axis"
like a "V" thats not exactly through the center of the octahedrals top ball.
which makes the balls offset from one another slightly

@sm0ky2,

My balls are relatively weaker than yours.  Seriously, I'm using the Erector kit from SuperMagnetMan, and the small balls are overpowered by the 0.5" neos -- especially when clustered at the North and South poles of the octahedron.

I agree with you entirely that the REPULSION is a key ingredient to long wind down.  In addition, I think two stators might be better than one -- each would "lightly tug" at the rotor, placing it in a more neutral position.

Lastly, OC is considering building a WhipMag-like device using the octahedron rotor and WhipMag stators. 

Cheers

Yada..
.

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.

[sm0ky2]

@smOky2,

I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.

your individual opinions of what IS or ISN'T "interesting" are interfering with the common goal of this forum.
i don't understand why you attempt to steer people away from experimenting with new ideas....
please cease and desist.

a frictionless bearing is quite relevant to EVERYTHING we do. If you can't see that, then you are truly in the wrong place.

[Omnibus]

@smOky2,

I have to be perfectly clear with you, if we can't make this to self-start and to sustain a non-decelerating run it is absolutely trivial and of no interest whatsoever. There's nothing "interesting" about it at all if it's just an efficient bearing.

your individual opinions of what IS or ISN'T "interesting" are interfering with the common goal of this forum.
i don't understand why you attempt to steer people away from experimenting with new ideas....
please cease and desist.

a frictionless bearing is quite relevant to EVERYTHING we do. If you can't see that, then you are truly in the wrong place.

Not at all. Frictionless bearing is of absolutely no relevance to the common goal of this forum. Some here may recall how a year or two ago Wesley Snyder was trying to divert attention towards a frictionless bearing (much better, as a matter of fact that the current one) while being unable to sustain his main claim for a self-sustaining device running on its own without him holding the stator in his hand. No time should be wasted on this fruitless pursuit (constructing of a frictionless bearing). The only thing such pursuit indicates is the weakness and the inability of the constructors to build what is desired while trying to camouflage that inability with seemingly "interesting" other directions of research. This should be stopped because it's only a useless waste of time and energy.