Ricks Pipe Dream

[AquariuZ]

TK - I see you're at it again.  Don't you have anything better to do?  Perhaps not, but I do and really don't have time for this kind of malarkey.  My remarks about force, in post # 148, were in response to a question asking about force.  Point is, you don't know me and you don't have any idea at all about what I do or do not know.  You just keep assuming that you are a know-it-all, and that I am just a back woods tunkle head who doesn't have a clue.  Have it your way, I really don't don't care what you think.  I can see that your abundantly negative attitude springs from a long line of past failures, and now you have convinced yourself that no magnetic motor can possibly work.  I'm not at all convinced of that, and I am not used to failing.  So where others, like you, have given up and admit defeat, I will keep on trying until I get it right or die. 

I won't be answering any further hostile or demeaning comments here, as I have many better things to do and little time to waste, so don't even bother responding.  If you want to know anything more about my build then you will just have to wait and see, like everyone else.

Rick

What an excellent post this was.

"until I get it right or die."

Full marks, a pat on the back and two shots of Tequila over here please...

AZ

[TinselKoala]

Failure may not be an option, but in this case (permanent magnet motors) it is an inevitability.

You are working against simple and irrefutable physical laws.

Just as you cannot add 3 plus 3 and expect to get 7 (failure is not an option, remember, so why not keep trying, you'll get the Nobel in math when you succeed!!), you cannot succeed in this particular endeavor.

It truly pains me to see creative and intelligent and talented individuals wasting time, effort and money on something that is so simple and so clearly impossible. And to see them defend their efforts while shouting out "failure is not an option" or "I am used to success" -- as if either of those things had anything to do with an attempt to break laws of physics -- is truly ridiculous.

But sure, it's your life. Do what you want to with it. But if you don't do your homework, or listen to those who just might know more than you do, you will spend a lot of time re-inventing the wheel, and then "spinning" it.

Or the SMOT, in this case.

For example, Rick, nothing you have shown so far is in the least bit new (or physically, as opposed to psychologically, even interesting). Now, your stated misconceptions about energy, power, force, acceleration, inertia and so forth betray the fact that you don't know as much as you think you do, Rick, and your arrogance and superiority complex is keeping your mind closed to real information.
But don't worry about any of that. It would be so easy to PROVE ME WRONG, if only you could. But you can't. Because you are exploring a dead end, and you can't (or more likely , won't) even read the signs that others have left for you.

Meanwhile, I note that you have not answered me: Do you have a moving-stator configuration that "works" better than mine? If so, let's see it. Please show a typical rundown from a known starting impetus, as I have done, and compare that performance with an equivalent setup with weights instead of stator magnets. Take the ratio of the rundown times. For you to have any hope whatsoever of overunity, you must at some point obtain a ratio greater than unity with this test.

[jibbguy]

Here's a Math Equation for you....

> Rick's design as intended will incorporate a MOSTAT that has an energy usage value which is a "Known Constant", and is directly related linearly to the "RPM".

> The energy output of the device, as expressed in rotational movement produced by the rotor is a "Variable" dependent on the particular configuration of the magnets.

Let's say in a hypothetical case that the energy expended by the MOSTAT is "100" (just an arbitrary figure, representing what is needed to move it for one complete revolution at a specific RPM of say "50"). And let's label the energy produced by the rotor mags at that same RPM as "X" (...Represented as the actual "spinning power" of the rotor which includes bearing friction, air resistance or any drag caused by magnetic interaction with the MOSTAT). So this Equation would be:

X-100 = ...?

We cannot possibly know until we solve for the variable "X" . 

All we know is that "X" must be "Greater Than 100" ; in order for the device to spin continually. If "X" turned out to be "99" it wouldn't spin for very long. If it was "101" ; it should...

And that's only a 2% diff in output... But it makes all the difference in the world between being right or being dead wrong  

At that "almost" point of "99".... Would anyone bet the farm that another 2% of output could not be gotten somehow by adding more magnets or changing the magnet configuration??

The device can be configured any number of ways to produce greater or lesser rotor power... "X" can be many different values. So why are we so dead-sure "X" cannot be greater than "100"... ? That adding more mags, changing the N-S configuration of the magnet groups (maybe so the MOSTAT has only "2" movements per revolution verses "4" and thus lowering that Constant value as well), would not change the solution to our Equation to a "plus" value?

Besides which, is everyone so sure that the torque output per revolution created by the rotor magnets will not actually change with RPM?... That it is indeed a "Linear" function? That this is not ANOTHER Unknown as well (another Variable to solve for)? Anyone who has ever successfully built a working all-magnet motor.. Isn't telling us if this is a "Linear" value or not hehehe  

So empirical observation will be the only possible way to know if the torque total output changes with RPM ... Or if "X" can be made to exceed the Constant at a specific RPM as well.

Luckily, the clever design of this device will allow for changes that can quickly and easily be judged for their effects on the outcome... Something very important when testing new devices; as only ONE variable must be changed at a time to properly understand results.

[lostcauses10x]

jibbguy
A simple rule of this.  Just how much forces and energy input does the wheel need with out rotor to keep it going at say 5 rpm for one hour?? At 5 PRM I bet without keeping an input force and without the stator I can stop it with out any force. Let friction do its thing.

Were as I find this amusing, I do not see any way for it to happen without external input. Which at this point is MR HAND.
So far no sign of ou in what has been shown. I hope, but have realistic doubts that such will be shown with this set up. 

[WilbyInebriated]

It truly pains me to see creative and intelligent and talented individuals wasting time, effort and money on something that is so simple and so clearly impossible. And to see them defend their efforts while shouting out "failure is not an option" or "I am used to success" -- as if either of those things had anything to do with an attempt to break laws of physics -- is truly ridiculous.

you spending $900 and 80+ hours of your time on the mylow thing makes that statement look truly ridiculous. if anyone here gave a crap about your cherry picking opinion TK, we might all go in on a 'i told you so' medal for you.

PS
he didn't answer you because he said he wasn't going to respond to your kind anymore... and you still expect an answer after reading that you're not getting one? are you mental?