Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[Butch]

Hi Butch, Look forward to the video.

P.S.
Thanks for starting this thread

Yucca.
[/quote]
Yucca,
Your welcome, I just hope that it works out as planned so that greed does not come into play and everyone ends up paying so much for the units that it's not much different than paying a power bill or gasoline bill. I would like to see kits and/or plans made available world wide as well as very inexpensive units for cars and homes. Who knows what will happen once India, China, Japan and Mexico among others get wind of this.
Butch

[4Tesla]

Those products from Shinyeon are very cool.. they have done some great work.  Does anyone know how the magnet motor works?  Could we build a simpler version of it?

Jason

[braden]

By continually exerting the washers to a magnetic field will they not become magnetized ?

[Kator01]

No Braden,

there are many materials available e.g. special iron-laminations for transformers which have no residual induction
( remanence). Oherwise transformer-technique would not be possible.
We will  not use simple washers you can buy in your hobby-shop.

Kator

[Koen1]

koen1!

1.http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2222.msg130730#msg130730
and many other experiments.
don't be affraid to call it Magnetic transistor,

So let me get this straight...
You point me toward a magnetic motor which uses a permanent magnet in the core,
and you want me to call it a "magnetic transistor"?
Why? Why don't you stop calling it a "magnetic transistor" and start calling it a "magnetic motor with a pm in the core",
a.k.a. "permanent magnet assisted electromotor"?
What is the transistor element?
I do NOT see a device where we can input a magnetic field momentarily, and that magically amplifies this field to produce
a much stronger field output.
What I do see is a more efficient and interesting electromotor.
Perhaps you pointed me toward the wrong thread?

Permanent magnet is flux capacitor, only difference is it is allmost Infinite.

Since you are so very adamant, please indicate how you think you can store additional flux inside
a magnet, hold it there, and only later extract it, leaving you with the flux you just took from the magnet,
and a magnet that is less magnetic untill you "charge" it with flux again...?
That would be a flux capacitor.
But you can't do that with a permanent magnet.

In my opinion, a permanent magnet is more like a "magnetic" Electret. Which is sort of a self-charging
capacitor, as far as the field lines are concerned. Like a magnet, an electret has a permanent static field
around it. And you cannot use an electret as a normal capacitor, just like you cannot use a magnet
as a "flux capacitor".

We all know what magnetic resistor is and how it is made.
We can allso make magnetic diode.

I must say I have some trouble with your tendency to talk about magnetic flux as if it is electric current.
I would prefer if you'd call a flux gate a flux gate and not a "magnetic diode", because a "magnetic diode"
is a term that was once used for tubes in which electrons were allowed to pass or were blocked, depending
on the direction and intensity of a circular magnetic field which was induced by coils on a ring shaped core.
A "flux gate" on the other hand is a setup that allows flux to pass only in one direction. It has nothing
to do with electron flow, and so it is not a diode at all, or perhaps it might be termed a "flux diode" at best.
Same thing with the "magnetic resistor", it is possible to increase the electrical resistance of certain (semi-)conductors
by increasing a magnetic field that passes through the material. This would be a magnetic resistor.
If you are talking about a device that restricts the passage of magnetic flux through a material, you shouldn't
use the term "resistor", as that implies electrical resistivity and not flux permeability.

Magnetic transistor can not work without filled capacitor (or battery) - just like transistor can't. the difference is magnet is Infinite,current battery and capacitors are not. soon we will have magnetic schematics of some device.

If you do not admitt to yourself magnetic transistor (or call it what you like) effect exists and that it is so, there is nothing left for you to understand. Interesting as hero member you believe in energy amplification (transistor powered by void) but can not believe in magnetic amplification (transistor powered by magnet) !?! why is it so ?

No, it is not that I deny any possibility that we might be able to somehow amplify energy and use magnetic fields in the process.
It is that your posts seem more enthousiastic than realistic. It's almost like you're shouting "gold! gold!" while all I see at the moment is something shiny.
And we all know, not everything shiny is a piece of gold.
Your simplistic view of magnetic "capacitors" and your fairly aggressive attempts to convert me instead of convincing me on the basis of logical argumentation,
strengthen my impression that you are not as superbly informed as you seem to believe. You seem to jump to conclusions and casually use incorrect terminology
now and then, and then you even manage to be surprised when I am a bit critical instead of gullible?

Anyway, you're still not making much sense in your explanation of the washer seperation.
If the flux must remain the same in the zone where the washers are, so that the magnets can be easily removed from eachothers attraction,
then your "overlapping" magnetic field will simply replace the initial field, and the washers will never really move, will they?
If they do move, there must be a period during which the washers do not experience a field. If that is so, then there must be no magnets
attracting eachother on either side of the washers. If that is so, the magnets must have been (re)moved. But that would mean moving the
magnets away from the washers and eachother such a distance that for a moment, no field passes through the washers.
And that seems to be in conflict with the idea of simultaneously moving a second magnet set in place to keep the flux the same and
thereby reduce the "drag"...
You can't use the magnetic equilibrium principle to keep the flux the same and simultaneously replace one set of magnets by another set,
and at the same time have the flux drop to zero to allow the washers fall back down. Either the flux stays, the washers stay, and the magnet
sets are switched, or the first magnet set is removed, the flux goes, the washers drop, the second magnet set is placed, the flux builds,
the washers seperate again. The first sounds like a futile magnet switching excercise, the second sounds like a useless and certainly not
energy effcient moving of magnets to make the flux come and go.
Unless you have omitted a fairly important part of the setup as you envision it, this is all I can make of your story.

Oh, and by the way, if it is possible to move pairs of magnets closer to and away from eachother without any
energy loss (which I doubt and still want to hear explained but let's just assume it is possible for now),
then would it not be more usefull to place coils directly between the moving magnets and extract the output
power directly from the fluctuations in flux intensity between the magnets? Seems like using those fluctuations
to physically move a piston which in turn moves another magnet through a coil is not the most efficient way
(physical friction in the system causing more energy loss than a still-lying coil)...?