Print

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

Custom Search

[magnetman12003]

Hi Brad,

What you saw demonstrated  was a David Hamel spinner device.

You need a very slight hand movement "all the time" to keep the spinner moving.  I experimented with this in great detail and have made a pendulum device that works and keeps the spinner magnet rotating.   I still am fine tuning my device but as of yet I still have not reached the hands/fingers off stage and see a complete self runner. Presently its a one finger from time to time to keep everything going.

 I have it all posted in the HALF BAKED IDEAS listing to keep away skeptical remarks.

Tom

[fritz]

@fritz,

Is the method you mentioned above capable of providing a quantitative picture of the field around a magnet?

The mentioned sensors KMZ10A/B have a detector area of about 1 sq mm, and allow
quantitative measuring. They are too sensitive for this application - so you need some
steel cap or  measure the field - 30cm appart of the magnet (gives even more precise picture).
One bad behaviour of the sensors is that due to their operation principle - they flip polarity
if you exceed the maximum field strength - but thats so obvious - no problem.

By operating the sensor manually or with x/y/z or polar stage - it should be possible to
get a nice picture of the field, nice stuff.
Maybe there are sensors available with less sensitivity - which better fit to this job.
- will have a look.


rgds.

[Yadaraf]

Ok, i will quit posting any information to the Group.
I will leave it up to the Group  to decide?

Bill

Bill, I think you should continue to post your observations.  If you were the only one reporting any degree of success, then I think Shirikawa's skepticism would be more founded.  But there are several others reporting a degree of success here, beginning with CLaNZeR.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:MPMM:Replications

My count is five, holding CLaNZeR's as being foremost in being convincing, showing accelleration, albeit for only a couple of seconds.

That's from what has been reported here at OverUnity on this thread, which is really the only place I've been watching as it seems to be the most comprehensive while being minimal in fighting and rudeness that I found at the Steorn forum (primarily from Al and OC).

Perhaps this will be a good way for you to redeem yourself and show your credibility.  I personally still tend to believe that there is something to the Joe Cell phenomenon, and I do not doubt that you had what you claimed to have a couple of years ago.  It has been disapointing that others have not been able to replicate this to a point of stability and reproducibility.

Sterling D. Allan

@ sterlinga

There is another replicator who is not listed at PES:

Andrea Ganora
===========

     Part 1:  http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ICLJKshPdCg

     Part 2:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWJwkqjcxdQ


Cheers,

Yada ..
.

[Omnibus]

@fritz,

I have a gaussmeter and have tried before to attach its sensor to a 3D support (it was a milling machine actually). Not only it was a tedious job (I don't mind doing it) but I don't have the machine itself. Would be nice if I can find a 3D table with micrometric screws but don't know where to look. I was thinking there may be something like a chamber with an array of sensors where you can put the magnet and see at once the distribution. That would be very helpful in all of these efforts to build magnetic motors. Because it's the invisible fields that are at play here and no matter how precise the mechanics of a setup is the incorrect fields ruin everything and one can only rely on a miracle when hoping that blind adjustments may fix the problems.

[fritz]

@fritz,

I have a gaussmeter and have tried before to attach its sensor to a 3D support (it was a milling machine actually). Not only it was a tedious job (I don't mind doing it) but I don't have the machine itself. Would be nice if I can find a 3D table with micrometric screws but don't know where to look. I was thinking there may be something like a chamber with an array of sensors where you can put the magnet and see at once the distribution. That would be very helpful in all of these efforts to build magnetic motors. Because it's the invisible fields that are at play here and no matter how precise the mechanics of a setup is the incorrect fields ruin everything and one can only rely on a miracle when hoping that blind adjustments may fix the problems.

To topic before http://www.nxp.com/acrobat_download/datasheets/KMZ10C_2.pdf - is a nice thing.

I think for matching the rotor - a fixed, sensor with adjustable position is quite enough.
By turnin the rotor (maybe some sync mechanism would be nice then) - you
can look at the scope - this should give a nice picture.

Anyway - I think measuring the resulting forces is from operation point of view the more
direct way.

rgds.

[Omnibus]

@fritz,

I agree, measuring the actual forces at play is the important thing here. Now we really have to find out what exact magnets were part of @alsetalokin's machine. I think it's crucial for the replication effort. He was saying here and there things, the importance of proper ring magnet-bearing pair (which he only found by trial and error), that the rotor magnets have to be weaker than the stator ones etc. However, he never really gave a specific information about the concrete magnets used. He could've at least measured their induction at the surface and posted these data to really help the replication efforts go in the right direction. Building this machine isn't just lathing and milling parts and putting in some magnets that appear to be the right ones. Jason did a great job drawing the schematics but now another very important step must be undertaken--find out the specific details about the magnets and trying to match them. Like I said, this particular contraption seems to make these adjustments easier compared to some others. Otherwise,  the principle all magnetic motors are based on is the same, despite the differences in design.

[sterlinga]

There is another replicator who is not listed at PES:

Andrea Ganora
===========

     Part 1:  http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=ICLJKshPdCg

     Part 2:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=jWJwkqjcxdQ

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  I've added it to the replications page.

I wouldn't include this in the "successful" category yet, though.  I still count five who have exhibited some kind of success, either in the form of accelleration or maintenance of speed.  I don't know that decreased deceleration speed can be attributed to any possible overunity effect.

Sterling

[g4macdad]

Why would you say" two"? I am defending people's right to replicate/investigate this concept. I am pointing out these obvious people with an agenda. What would anyone gain by discouraging this? Think about it!

I'm not discouraging anyone, just warning people that while Bill's efforts in replicating the MPMM may be genuine, his claims may be not. If you didn't know, in 2006 he claimed he successfully replicated the Joe Cell (more details here: http://joecellhydra.com/) and managed to install it in his car which had as a result "tremendous power" while consuming absolutely no fuel, just "orgone". Too bad that a few days later, when people were starting to ask for some more proof and details (somebody also wanted to personally see the Joe cell powered truck) some "MiB"s conveniently threatened Bill forcing him to destroy his plans and his replications and disappear from the Yahoo forums where he wrote about his progresses. As of January 20, 2008, nobody has yet managed to show proof of a working cell despite countless replications attempts (and money spent), Sterling Allan can confirm this. Many people are still wasting money on the Joe Cell hoax because of Bill's "successful" replication in 2006.

Now, how can one manage to replicate something that could solve the oil crisis, completely get rid of it, forget about it and then attempting other OU-like replication projects as if nothing happened is beyond my comprehension. Please allow me to have some doubt in what Bill writes in his posts.

You can doubt all you want. But let the rest of us make our own assumptions, please.

[foxpup]

I noticed that some of the writers here have been talking about acceleration/deceleration of the stators in their MPMM replication.  Based on what I've observed and read, I really think people may be on to something by thinking about rotational inertia of the stator(s).  The two extremes are illustrated below

High rotational inertia (flywheeling) :  Easy to get it to get it to spin AGW in sync with Rotor but with no noteworthy phenomenon present

Low rotational inertia :  Difficult to keep spinning AGW with the Rotor, but demonstrating noteworthy phenomenon (sometimes)

I'm very much a newbie here and have enjoyed reading many of your postings (nearly everyone's)

It just seems that the "nimbleness" or the stators is very critical to get it right.  It might only work in a narrow range.  Since we did see OC's MPMM machine accelerate, I think pursuing the right nimbleness of the stator would more likely bear fruit than playing with different angles.  Try what you want (of course), but I think the vein of Gold is towards the matter of rotational inertia.  Time will tell.

Additionally, the whole Steorn saga that started more than a year ago probably started when superstrong magnets became readily available and people started playing with them.  This kind of strength is almost certainly necessary for the MPMM machines to work.  That being the case we may never have been able to make stators that are "nimble" enough to work well until just recently.  Otherwise our grandfathers would have made the MPMM decades ago and everything would have been different. 

I think it may be all about rotational inertia vs. magnetic strength of the stators

Well, theres my $0.02

Keep up the great work everyone.

[Omnibus]

@CLaNZeR, @Craigy, @vipond50 and everybody else who has the replica of the motor, could you please check what the strength of your rotor magnets is with respect to the strength of the stator magnets? Also, is the movement of the rotor exhibiting a uniform repetitious patterns (four for a full turn) when you turn it by hand?

[Bruce_TPU]

@ All

From the Steorn Forum.

       MeggerMan:
        @Al, one question/test for you, if you stack two of the rotor magnets in a plastic tube in repulsion, what is the gap that seperates them?
        I know the gap from a N42 1/4"x1/2" rod.

        Regards
        Rob


Al:
    I would really like to know the answer to that one also.

Good test.
Almost exactly 3 cm, maybe a rch more, like 3.05 or so.
Of course, density is unknown.

Meggerman:
Hi Al,
Thanks ... 30.5mm sounds very close to the results for a N42:
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m25/kingrs/DSCN5262.jpg

31.5mm by bouncing the magnets and looking at the average.
The tube is Kapton, so its difficult to see through.

Perhaps its N40?
[edit] by adding another 1/4" x 1/4" rod (total = 1/4" dia x 3/4") to the bottom magnet increases this to about 33mm [/edit]

Regards
Rob

Al:
@Rob--maybe, I just don't know. I don't think so though, they certainly don't seem as strong as the 834DIA stators.

(I have highlighted the important points that I see.)

Figure this out and we will have working replications.  IMHO.

Cheers,

Bruce

[vipond50]

@CLaNZeR, @Craigy, @vipond50 and everybody else who has the replica of the motor, could you please check what the strength of your rotor magnets is with respect to the strength of the stator magnets? Also, is the movement of the rotor exhibiting a uniform repetitious patterns (four for a full turn) when you turn it by hand?

Hello
I did a count by hand a found that the stators rotate four(4) rev's/ one(1) rotation of the rotor. Has there been a standard for determining the magnet gauss? Read about various methods, but no standard that everyone can follow to get accurate results when compared.

Need to develop a procedure for this
Thanks
Bill

[Omnibus]

@btentzer,

I think that's crucial to know. As I said my rotor magnets are N42 the same as the stator magnets (these were recommended: part#'s D48 and R834DIA). It appears that the D48 cylinder is stronger than it should be. I found this site where they sell weaker (N38) 1/4" x 1/2" cylinder magnets: http://www.engconcepts.net/List_Of_Cylinder_Magnets.asp. See part# CYL0175. Do you have any other suggestions?

Matching of the magnets is another important thing to do but we'll worry about this later. Let's find out first what these darn magnets are.

[Omnibus]

@CLaNZeR, @Craigy, @vipond50 and everybody else who has the replica of the motor, could you please check what the strength of your rotor magnets is with respect to the strength of the stator magnets? Also, is the movement of the rotor exhibiting a uniform repetitious patterns (four for a full turn) when you turn it by hand?

Hello
I did a count by hand a found that the stators rotate four(4) rev's/ one(1) rotation of the rotor. Has there been a standard for determining the magnet gauss? Read about various methods, but no standard that everyone can follow to get accurate results when compared.

Need to develop a procedure for this
Thanks
Bill

Please try the following--adjust by hand the rotor at one of the larger maximums and let it go. It should skip the next rotor magnet and will bump into the maximum formed by the third. That's the pattern that should be repeated. See if it is indeed repeated four times per full turn.

As for the procedure of measuring just place the probe on the face of the magnet pole and compare the readings with what you'd get by placing the same probe on the same place on the face of a pole of another magnet. That's very rough estimate but will give you some idea.

[Yadaraf]

Concerning Sacred Geometry and the WhipMag

OC's original design called for 13 stator magnets.  AL's device consisted of 8 rotor magnets and 3 stator magnets.

Using Sacred Geometry as a reference, a better system might be achieved using the following:


       8 rotor magnets + 5 stator magnets = 13 TOTAL magnets


I contacted an expert in sacred "systems," and he provided an "8-5-13" inference in the link below.

     http://www.neweaglesforum.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=display&thread=1192185297&page=40#1200827437

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m60/MarciaMcD_2006/13gon.jpg)


Cheers,

Yada ...
.