Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[Omnibus]

I'd like to reemphasize the points @fritz made and my reply there:http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3871.msg71709.html#msg71709 Proper form of the magnetic fields is of crucial importance in all these motors. Very hard to achieve. I'm looking now at one of my ostensibly (on the face of it) exact replicas of @alsetalokin's motor. Supposedly, when slowly turning the rotor the pattern one observes when the rotor is let go form a maximum to maximum (one feels these maximums when turning the rotor slowly by hand) should be of the same form repeated four times. Not so in my case. I'm observing the stator equally outstanding from the other two. If I start with a rotor magnet facing that stator the rotor bypasses the next magnet and bumps into the barrier formed by the third one. If I, however, continue and let go the rotor, further clockwise, from that barrier on the rotor stops at the fourth while it should bypass it if the pattern is to be preserved and so on. There's only one other place where the initially described pattern is observed, although slightly different (intermittent accelerations appear different). Now, that may be a significant problem. I've ordered more of these cylindrical magnets and will try to find matching ones to see whether this picture will improve. Of course, the stator magnets should be matching too. Wonder if someone else would be willing to check his rotor in this fashion.

[sveinutne]

Hi,
This might be very good news.

If my latest FEMM simulation is for real, it might give us the information we need.

It shows how we can get a positive torque for both the rotor and the stator.

Before I get too carried away here, we need to wait with the champagne till this has been triple checked.

It shows that the stator needs to deviate from a constant speed to get a gain. In this simulation this is taken to the extreme where the stator almost stops at the close passing of the rotor magnet, and gets maximum acceleration. As speed picks up the momentum of inertia increase and the torque from the magnets will give less change in speed. This will give less extra torque, and the power gain will be less.

So with a stator with high mass or momentum, it will be more easy to get into AGW locking, but the inertia will soon be too high for further increase in power. With a lighter stator it might be difficult to start, but at higher speed it will still fluctuate and give better torque.

Personally I thought my stator was too light, so I put lead inside it. It helped in getting a more easy AGW lock, but I do not see the OU any more. The first day before I added the lead, I had a gleam of what Al might have felt when his rotor started to spin by itself.

So maybe I will remove the lead and see if I still can get an AGW lock.

Svein

[Omnibus]

@sveinutne

When looking at my device it appears that all the conditions you found favorable are in place. The stators indeed come to a stop at some points and then accelerate thus deviating from constant speed which should make them get a gain. Also, the weight of the stators is according to the specifications outlined by @alsetalokin. Thus, as I already said, it seems to to me now the focus should be on ensuring proper fields.

[sveinutne]

@Omnibus

Maybe there is a limit to how much ?OU? you can take out of one stator, and if your system got more friction than that it will never sustain itself.
But to me most of the friction is in the fast turning stator, so the first thing I will do is going for two bearings on the stator to keep it more in place and hopefully reduce the friction.
Svein

[Omnibus]

@sveinutne,

I was thinking of that too. It seems to me, though, first the fields have to be fixed. Even with smooth bearings and lessened friction wrong fields won't bring success. Mind you, your FEMM is based on idealized field forms.

[sveinutne]

To All Replicators and Group
Today after reconfiguration of the Stator magnets to a dual bearings I had a approximately. "one minute" self operation of the device and maintained a constant RPM once Stator Sync occurred. Note: What I mean by " Self Operation' is NO outside added input to the device. I added the second bearing to the stator due to instability to each arrangement. The instability induced friction and consequently drug down the rotor speed. Also with the device i am able at any time during spin up to latch any of the three Stators at any given time. In addition this allows me to have any combination of the stators running in synchronization.
My next step is to spend the necessary funds to Source totally all Non magnetic parts i.e. Bearings, Fasteners, Rotor center support shaft, etc. to construct a higher quality device.
I also understand that this is a variant of the original concept, but basic Engineering dictates that this is the next step.

Happy testing and may Your Rotors Rev up 

Bill

Hi Bill,

This is good news.
I am thinking about using dual bearings on my stator too, to reduce friction.
From your video you got three stators in AGW lock. It is a very impressive achievement. If you replace the bearings on one more stator, it might run by itself. More that just one min. But one minute at constant speed is very good.
Svein

[PolyMatrix]

This maybe of interest concerning the whipmag effect

Valone further mentioned that Alexander Feigel is the first physicist to use ZPE to satisfy energy conservation. Feigel proved that virtual particles can be induced to travel in a preferred direction and transfer momentum, if they are in an electric field of at least 100 kV and a perpendicular magnetic field of 17 Tesla (10 kG), thus proving that the ZPF can cause motion of a dielectric fluid of 50 nm/sec (Feigel, A. 2004. ?Quantum Vacuum Contribution to the Momentum of Dielectric Media,? Physical Review Letters, Vol. 92, p. 020404).

Full article found at http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2598

[Omnibus]

This maybe of interest concerning the whipmag effect

Valone further mentioned that Alexander Feigel is the first physicist to use ZPE to satisfy energy conservation. Feigel proved that virtual particles can be induced to travel in a preferred direction and transfer momentum, if they are in an electric field of at least 100 kV and a perpendicular magnetic field of 17 Tesla (10 kG), thus proving that the ZPF can cause motion of a dielectric fluid of 50 nm/sec (Feigel, A. 2004. ?Quantum Vacuum Contribution to the Momentum of Dielectric Media,? Physical Review Letters, Vol. 92, p. 020404).

Full article found at http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=2598

This is to be ignored outright. Trying to explain away violation of CoE with virtual particles is travesty of science. Explanation should be sought along the lines presented here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tknwdltnB6s

[PolyMatrix]

If you care to work your way carfully through all Tom Valone has said you will find that he is not violating the CoE with this explanation as radiant energy dissipates back into ZPE.

[Omnibus]

If you care to work your way carfully through all Tom Valone has said you will find that he is not violating the CoE with this explanation as radiant energy dissipates back into ZPE.

ZPE is a problem in Quantum Mechanics and not something to be celebrated. This isn't the place to discuss that, however.

[PolyMatrix]

I think you missed the point of the quote I posted.

[Omnibus]

I think you missed the point of the quote I posted.

The point is that violation of CoE proven beyond doubt already and now possibly finding a more practical application in some devices such as that of @alsealokin has nothing to do with ZPE and the problems Quantum Mechanics has. Let's, however, not continue with this. This isn't the place for such discussion. Here we're trying to figure out the technical aspects and the reality of a claim for a motor spinning for 7.5 hours with no energy input, that is, producing energy from nothing.

[sveinutne]

Hi,
This might be very good news.

If my latest FEMM simulation is for real, it might give us the information we need.

It shows how we can get a positive torque for both the rotor and the stator.

Before I get too carried away here, we need to wait with the champagne till this has been triple checked.

NO IT WAS NOT FOR REAL
OK,
When I run 180 degrees as I should in stead of 360. It all went back to normal. No OU:_|
Svein

[PolyMatrix]

Moment of Inertia "is us coming up against ZPE" from Tom Valones lecture.
Magnetic gradient gives a force that dependent on distance between two magnets.
We have two spinning discs and a sinusoidal force locking with another sinusoidal force.

To accelerate the discs the moment of inertial must 'harmonise' with the sinusoidal force.

The quote gives a possible quantitative value to help resolve this equation.

[rice]

hey omni.  show us where coe has been violated beyond a reasonable doubt.  not in your bulshit words but in practical experiment.
oh yea how about a small vid of your setup.  oh thats right you have not built anything and you lie.  you say you see acceleraion, i would say that is good reason to make video and help others.