Looking. Meanwhile, an update from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)

overconfident:Al, Warmer there than it is here. Have you gotten to my whisper, back a page or 2?

Missed it earlier, darn, it would have been marginally easier at the lab.
But hacking away now, it'll take a few minutes.
Thanks.

@Al what are you still doing awake? You didn't sleep last night!


Go to bed right now young man or you'll be hopeless for school tommorrow...


Don't make me come up there!



And don't roll your eye's at me!

alsetalokin:Looking. Meanwhile, an update from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)

Well, if the math actually describes reality, he's not too far off.

@Jag, there's no :rollseyes: smiley here.

@Harvey: that's pretty darn good work for an invisible rabbit.

I'm not sure if the Bell gaussmeters we have have the dual probe option. However I could construct a dual flat sense coil and use some kind of calibrated positioner to guide the insertion into the active zone (is it getting warmer in here?)

Nice to see that the scope supports the high-speed 4-1 synch hypothesis.

I need a spectrum analyzer...

alsetalokin:Looking. Meanwhile, an update from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)

Thanks! (What the hell are those things hanging behind him? Puppets? Does he work in a kindergarten, perhaps?)

Anyway, I have found a function to log values at specified position during rendering (to a HTML, which you are supposed to load in Excel, wtf) in Vizimag and tried to get some data at similar positions as you did. I wonder if I could make it look more like your data and estimate the real motion and interactions better afterwards, even with this simple software. But first I'll have to be sure what have I actually plotted, because I have no idea - I'll think about it on my way to work.

alsetalokin:
This guy makes a lot of sense.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)

One of my primary complaints is his lack of vocabulary always reaching into his bag of vulgarity for an overused expletive.

He certainly believes adamantly that PMs cannot perform work and I disagree. Their are still a lot of unknowns regarding magnetism and to take such a proud position against it almost beckons for a fall. Your device keeps moving in a similar way that satellites keep moving. The earth accelerates in its orbit around the sun until it finds equilibrium. When the magnets were manufactured they were given the potential energy to attract each other. They accelerate in an attempt to find that equilibrium.

Don't buy into DP's skepticism - think positive. It doesn't break the laws of physics.

Cheers,

Harvey

/:
Anyway, I have found a function to log values at specified position during rendering (to a HTML, which you are supposed to load in Excel, wtf) in Vizimag and tried to get some data at similar positions as you did. I wonder if I could make it look more like your data and estimate the real motion and interactions better afterwards, even with this simple software. But first I'll have to be sure what have I actually plotted, because I have no idea - I'll think about it on my way to work.

I have some experience with Vizimag (including programatically creating a 3K line script) If you want my code let me know.

@OC
ftp> binary
200 TYPE is now 8-bit binary
ftp> put c:\windows\desktop\ocpics.zip
200 PORT command successful
150 Connecting to port 1031
226-File successfully transferred
226 57.172 seconds (measured here), 60.03 Kbytes per second
ftp: 3514218 bytes sent in 55.37Seconds 63.47Kbytes/sec.
bye

Now I'm going to bed.
(Just one more story Jag, I promise...)

alsetalokin:
Looking. Meanwhile, an update from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)

Hilarious! But come on ... you can't fool me ... I know that's really you isn't it, AL?

[quote]This guy makes a lot of sense.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)[/quote]I agree (with both points). His delivery leaves a few things to be desired (like, geez he's an irritating pedant) but his point is well taken. The performance of Al's device is certainly suspicious. He's certain it's being faked with an electric motor of some sort hidden in the machine. While that isn't quite as "f'n obvious" as the guy says in the video, it is seeming more and more likely. I'd love to trust OC and Al but trust has no place in evaluating unlikely claims. I am also suspicious about the lack of proper testing, good clear photos of the devices in bright light and from all side at once, and also an exploded view. It could be lack of time and too much effort or it could be deception, perhaps for a good purpose. Time and replication will tell.

Then there's the issue of serendipity. A lot of wonderful phenomena and devices have been discovered entirely by chance by people trying to do something completely different. Al keeps saying this device hasn't much practical value. Well, "real" or not, it may.

If it's faked, it should teach at least the start of a lesson to the gullible (hi, Babcat). If it isn't faked, and as Al says, it of course isn't overunity, it may reveal some serendipitous process or mechanism that may have a useful application-- for example in energy storage or in the the study and characterization of magnets. And even if it has no practical application ever, it's already been useful in stimulating people to learn more about all sorts of things like CAD, CNC, modeling, electronic instrumentation, computing and more.

/End obvious mode.

Question: What would we get if we bred Harvey with my invisible pink flying high mileage per gallon unicorn?

@ skeptical

I heard that it actually is Sean, insanely jealous because you boys beat him to the discovery.

Trying to discredit them, I guess.

Harvey:I have some experience with Vizimag (including programatically creating a 3K line script) If you want my code let me know.

Huh, how else would any sane person do it? It feels painful just to think about entering the values by hand!C:\Program Files\Vizimag 3.15\Animations>wc -l *.txt
3206 ocmpmm-v2.txt
3288 ocmpmm-v3.txt
1788 ocmpmm-v4.txt
3928 ocmpmm-v5.txt
3928 ocmpmm-v6.txt
3928 ocmpmm-v7.txt
14248 ocmpmm.txt
3568 ocmpmm100.txtGenerating the script is easy, what sucks more are the bugs, occasional crashes, stupid limitations (two decimals should be enough for everybody!), ugly design, slow computation, etc.

Speech samples on youtube. Real time spectrogram software here.

I think it's OC.

No i don't. Have you listened to any of DP's OT rants? He's a hoot.

Hey Desertphile!
Man, I love your work. You aren't afraid to speak right out and tell it like it is, that's for sure. Hey, I think I might know you. Did we meet in the Desert Tortoise Natural Area around Randsburg somewhere in the mid '80's?
Anyway, it's good to see that not everybody believes the evidence of their own eyes.
I'd send you a coach-class bus ticket to the border, but you'd have to hitchhike from there. And the way things are these days, I'm not sure they'd even let you past the border, you might have to shave and get a haircut. And I know they wouldn't let you bring me any of whatever it is you're distilling out there in the sagebrush, darnit. So what would be the point?
Keep it up, dude, you are a spark of bright light emanating from the desert.
Thanks--
--Al

Answer: A giant invisible very "horny" pink bunny, with a mane?

[quote][cite] alsetalokin:[/cite]Looking. Meanwhile, an [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJy21fXhZMQ]update[/url] from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)[/quote]
Though he doesn't realise it yet Desertphile is one of the best promoters of Free Energy one could wish for. Since you aren't adding any energy, the energy, "fucking" or otherwise, must be coming from the environment - more specifically from the decoupling of the fine scale magnetic vortices (see Scout's thread) from the large scale magnetic vortices; the Aspden (raw egg) Effect in other words. Because angular momentum has to be conserved (as in the hydraulic jump) energy has to be released (as in the hydraulic jump) and is - as the OCAL motor unequivocally demonstrates.

From my early days in a structural engineering design office I recollect a good story about decoupling.

A Pakistani engineer with a poor grasp of English came to work for a firm in Victoria Street. It was 2 years before he realised "bloodyarchitect" was two words.

Some numbers. Hopefully any mistakes here will be spotted (values are rounded) :

Al's rotor is .258 Kg with a Radius of 0.073m. He spins it by hand to 300-400rpm.

For MOI I'm treating it as a solid disc with uniform mass (not correct because of the magnets) so k=0.5. MOI=k*M*R^2 so I get an MOI of 0.00068791. At 400 rpm the kinetic energy of the rotor is 55 Joules with the stators, if they are locked 4:1 running at 1600rpm with 0.32J each. So Al's hand is able to impart at least ~56J to the system per interaction.

With the rotor at 1200 RPM, the KE is 495J - ten times the energy, and at 1904 RPM it's 1241J.

Al says it slows from 1200 rpm (without interactions) in somewhere around 120 seconds, so if the power drain were constant (it won't be) that would be 4.06 watts. In other words - to keep spinning at 1200 rpm, a motor might have to consume at least 4 watts (the actual value will be higher at high rpm because atmospheric drag is proportional to the square of the speed AFAIR).

For the rotor to spin up from 400 rpm to 1200 rpm would take 440J. If that happened over 60 seconds, the average power a motor would have to supply is 7.34 watts.

I hope someone will come along and show I've made some kind of mistake!

"It was 2 years before he realised "bloodyarchitect" was two words."


I just noticed the tiny link to / 's data.
There are some pretty spiky signals there.
That, combined with Harvey's analysis of the traces, makes me want to get out the picosecond scope and take a look. The clunker that I bought at the surplus house to keep at home is a Philips PM3233, 10 Mhz, 35 ns rise time. Which is pretty slow nowadays. The thing is bulletproof though, no ICs and all the transistors are socketed, which is an advantage for the kind of work I do. And true dual beam, not chopped.
But we've got the mother of all oscilloscope collections at the lab. It's like a Tek and HP museum or something.

But anyway this scope probably wouldn't be able to follow some of those spikes that / has obtained.

However it did follow, barely, the homopolar voltages, which were nice and spiky...

Thanks especially for those efforts, folks.

Hm, when I used the H field intensity instead of B flux density, the spikes in the graph for position directly between the two pivots got lost. But the envelope still looks much differently. (the comparison)
What I have obtained is almost a normal sinusoid. On the other hand, the measured data have sharp maximums and smoother parts around zero, which would suggest some kind of wobbling rotation. (Or I am completely missing something with the coil.)

[quote][cite] pcstru4:[/cite]Some numbers. Hopefully any mistakes here will be spotted (values are rounded) :
[/quote]

Well, if you are correct Mr Structures, then following 1560 seconds of reported windown in err ... 'operating' mode we get :

Change in rotor RPM over 1560s = -11 rpm
Change in stator RPM over 1560s = -52 rpm
Chage in rotor KE over 1560s = 9.9 J
Rotor losses = 0.01w.

So compared to a run without any magnetic funny business - the system has gone from losses of over 4w to one hundredth of a watt. If 4w were expended over 1560s we would need 6240 J.

Course, there is not neccesarily anything remarkable about that since we don't have a windown time for the system in a vaccuume. That would tell us the aproximate losses that are involved in atmospheric drag..

[quote][cite] skeptical:[/cite][quote][cite] alsetalokin:[/cite]
Looking. Meanwhile, an [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJy21fXhZMQ]update[/url] from Desertphile.
This guy makes a lot of sense.
Even if he does have a wee dram too many now and again.
(language! shame on you DP! there are children and other small minds watching!)
[/quote]

Hilarious! But come on ... you can't fool me ... I know that's really you isn't it, AL?[/quote]Yeah, Al`s taken to the drink!

But, I agree, his drunken rants are a hoot!

@ maryyugo, you are correct, this has stimulated an in interest in CAD and CNC machines...

Just a couple of observations, (sorry if I'm repeating what anyone else has said or if it is not relevant)...

The anti-gearwise stator and the rotors are alternating between attraction and repulsion. Between rotor magnets you have N N poles facing the S pole of the stator and then you have the N-S of a single rotor magnet parallel to the N-S orientation of the stator as it has made a quarter turn. Moving from attraction to repulsion takes a bit of force but you get that back when the next stator quarter turn is made going from repulsion to attraction, (this is all assuming the 4:1 rotation ration).

It would be interesting to see what this looks like in a Visimag animation but I haven't had any experience animating rotational movement, only linear movement.

The gearwise moving stators will always be in attraction until the are stopped in which case they will be alternating between attraction and repulsion with the rotor magnets, (but not at the same speed as the anti-gearwise stator, I think).

alsetalokin:Now I'm going to bed.
(Just one more story Jag, I promise...)

alsetalokin:"It was 2 years before he realised "bloodyarchitect" was two words."



But anyway this scope probably wouldn't be able to follow some of those spikes that / has obtained.

However it did follow, barely, the homopolar voltages, which were nice and spiky...

Thanks especially for those efforts, folks.

You big Liar AL you didn't go to bed at all... Shame on you. Next you'll superglue yourself to your bedpost so you don't have to go to [S]school[/S] work.

Naughty Naughty.

NOW

GO

TO

SLEEP!!!!! (angry Dad voice)

WhiteLite:It would be interesting to see what this looks like in a Visimag animation but I haven't had any experience animating rotational movement, only linear movement.

Somehow like this, perhaps.

/:

WhiteLite:It would be interesting to see what this looks like in a Visimag animation but I haven't had any experience animating rotational movement, only linear movement.

Somehow like this, perhaps.

Excellent! I missed that. The only thing is that diagram is suggesting the anti-gearwise rotor is in attraction directly opposite a rotor magnet and in repulsion when between rotor magnets while my hypothosis was the other way round. It's a shame some of Al's flash photography pictures were taken down or I could confirm this although I did see this one on OU.com:

Click

If this is a still of the setup moving then it confirms my imagined setup, (and I think it is moving as I doubt it would sit in that configuration in repulsion).

Either way there is a lot of magnetic reconnection going on there.

WhiteLite:The only thing is that diagram is suggesting the anti-gearwise rotor is in attraction directly opposite a rotor magnet and in repulsion when between rotor magnets while my hypothosis was the other way round. It's a shame some of Al's flash photography pictures were taken down or I could confirm this although I did see this one on OU.com [...]

Actually, when I created the animation script for this, there had been only one detailed picture shot with flash, so it could even be moving gearwise and I wouldn't know. I'll try to revalidate the rotation synchronization from the more recent material.

What I'd love to see (but would be a difficult thing to convince Al to do) is for Al to create a whole new -exact- copy of the original, this time using known rotor magnet part numbers and see if the thing works, and take it to any other location than where it is (I know it was moved once anyway) for a run. This is not really anything trying to get the part numbers (though that would be helpful), it is to prove that the thing can be made from blueprints and actually work. All attempts-in-progress that I've seen appear to have artistic license.

edit: oh, and the 'copy' could be messed with to try all kinds of weird configurations and experiments without stopping the original from working - that'd be another great benefit.

edit 2: and regardless of people's thoughts of everyone else trying (which they are), who better to try a replication attempt than someone who knows how the sync feels?

soz wrong thread!

/:Actually, when I created the animation script for this, there had been only one detailed picture shot with flash, so it could even be moving gearwise and I wouldn't know. I'll try to revalidate the rotation synchronization from the more recent material.

Thanks, that would be fantastic!

WhiteLite:

/:Actually, when I created the animation script for this, there had been only one detailed picture shot with flash, so it could even be moving gearwise and I wouldn't know. I'll try to revalidate the rotation synchronization from the more recent material.

Thanks, that would be fantastic!

So, from what I saw now, it's still quite unclear, but more likely in your direction. I've left it to render in Vizimag and we'll see if it looks any better.

Perhaps I'm not up to speed with all the peculiarities, but here's my amateur analysis, for what it's worth:

1)When you first spin the rotor you are storing energy in the rotor and the 3 stators act as loads.

2)When you sync the middle stator in AGW rotation, you are adding energy to the system, and the rotor and middle stator act as a combined flywheel. This removes almost 1/3 of the load, so the rotor will accelerate. The outer 2 stators still act as loads.

3)Finally, you stop the 2 outer stators, removing almost 2/3 of the original load and causing the rotor to accelerate considerably. You end up with both the rotor and the middle stator with stored energy and very little load other than bearing friction and air friction.


The only thing not apparent to me is why AGW rotation would act as a combined flywheel. Did I missing anything important?

(at least you can't blame me for overanalyzing)

Wicked:Perhaps I'm not up to speed with all the peculiarities, but here's my amateur analysis, for what it's worth:

1)When you first spin the rotor you are storing energy in the rotor and the 3 stators act as loads.

Stored as what? L? B? Doesn't seem possible to stash away that much PE without invoking hidden variables or somesuch...

2)When you sync the middle stator in AGW rotation, you are adding energy to the system, and the rotor and middle stator act as a combined flywheel. This removes almost 1/3 of the load, so the rotor will accelerate. The outer 2 stators still act as loads.

But he stops the middle statmag in the process of reversing it. So he removes some energy, then returns it in the opposite direction.

3)Finally, you stop the 2 outer stators, removing almost 2/3 of the original load and causing the rotor to accelerate considerably. You end up with both the rotor and the middle stator with stored energy and very little load other than bearing friction and air friction.

The acceleration of the main rotor seems to present considerably more than the combined L of the two idlers.

The only thing not apparent to me is why AGW rotation would act as a combined flywheel. Did I missing anything important?

CoE.

(at least you can't blame me for overanalyzing)

Heh. Keep at it eh...

@wicked - yep, i agree, that's one of the more rational guesses that come to mind... but IMHO it doesn't quite fit with what we've been told.

particularly, that the rotor spins down in a couple of minutes without 'stator' magnets present, but runs for a couple of hours or more with them... it's just not plausible that they could contribute that much 'flywheel' effect, even if you could think of a mechanism by which it could happen at all.

plus, looking at the video, it just doesn't feel right. alsetalokin is perhaps adding energy by spinning the 'stator' magnet, but it doesn't seem to quite relate to the acceleration of the rotor.

and even if the other two stators are loads - drag - then removing that drag won't cause the rotor to accelerate unless it is somehow powered, rather than a free spinning flywheel. think about eg bicycle brakes. if you brake when you're freewheeling on the flat the bike doesn't accelerate when you release the brake.

so, to me, it looks like there is extra power coming from somewhere. and, again IMO, that is most likely either from some unicorn-related anomaly in the magical ether, or as a gentle (and perhaps literal) wind-up on mr. tesla's part.

I don't think the stator magnets would count as a load. When the rotor is spun up it moves the gearwise rotors too so you are adding KE to both rotor and stators, (and the anti-gearwise stator is given KE by hand as well). The only things that would kind of count as loads would be bearing friction, air resistance and lenz effects in the dampners and other bits of metal. I'm suprised it spins so long with these factors to be honest.

.

[quote][cite] Wicked:[/cite]Perhaps I'm not up to speed with all the peculiarities, but here's my amateur analysis, for what it's worth:

1)When you first spin the rotor you are storing energy in the rotor and the 3 stators act as loads.
[/quote]
I think you or I misunderstand what a "load" is.

If you are coasting in your car at 60mph and put the brakes on, it 'loads' the brakes and the car slows down (kinetic energy from the car is turned to heat in the brakes). You slow to 30 and release the brakes. Now, unless you have your foot on the accelerator or are going downhill, the car will not accelerate just because the load is removed.

If Al's hand is the only thing feeding energy into the rotor and stators, then strictly speaking, the system should only accelerate when he flicks the rotor or stator. After those flicks, the system can only store energy and gradually lose it to friction etc. Energy could bounce around the system - so a fast moving stator could slow and in doing so accelerate the rotor - or the rotor could slow and accelerate a stator. For both to accelerate, there needs to be energy stored in the system and being released to the system.

There's some potential to store some PE as potential between the stator and rotor magnets - I've prattled on about it vaugley so won't repeat it. However, having run some preliminary numbers I'm starting to get dubious about it's ability to explain what is apparently being observed.

Al's says he can spin his rotor by hand up to about 400rpm, I'm presuming one good flick will do that. At that point, the rotor has 55 Joules of kinetic energy. 1 joule represents the energy to move 1Kg 1meter - so methinks Al really does have sore fingers.

And another thought strikes me at this very moment - if the energy is supposedly being stored, the when Al is winding it up he should be able to feel resistance to his pushing. So if you are reading this Al please report on how it 'feels' when you flick.

After the rotor accelerates to 1200rpm, it has 495 joules of KE wrapped up. So if there is an energy store, it's able to store 10 times the energy Al is able to impart with a single flick. Does he always have to flick it 10 times or more?

WhiteLite: So, here is the result.

The main difference to me is that in the previous version, the rotor magnet was repelled when it's was coming close, then catched in the closest proximity on both poles and finally attracted quite long on its way away. All this would probably slow the device down fast.

With the stator magnet flipped, as you suggested, this is of course different. The rotor magnet is attracted when it's approaching, then repelled during the closest encounter and again attracted on the other side when retreating. If the distance is the main factor, it could have big effect.

But it's still only a dumb simulation, we don't know how the interaction really looks like nor how it work.

WhiteLite:I don't think the stator magnets would count as a load. When the rotor is spun up it moves the gearwise rotors too so you are adding KE to both rotor and stators, (and the anti-gearwise stator is given KE by hand as well). The only things that would kind of count as loads would be bearing friction, air resistance and lenz effects in the dampners and other bits of metal. I'm suprised it spins so long with these factors to be honest.

I don't agree. The prop does the same thing and we're calling that a load.

zeropointe:and even if the other two stators are loads - drag - then removing that drag won't cause the rotor to accelerate unless it is somehow powered, rather than a free spinning flywheel. think about eg bicycle brakes. if you brake when you're freewheeling on the flat the bike doesn't accelerate when you release the brake.

Ya, something funny is happening there. If the system can only move into a lower energy state. Since the rotor accelerates, I'd have to say that the magnets are being degaussed, or it's the jacuzzi, or something else.

The bowman magnetic motor supposedly ran for 3 months until the magnets were completely degaussed.

(http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/MagneticMotors/Bowman/index.html)

Well done /. It's a pretty good simulation in my opinion and helps analyse what is pushing and pulling what at any one time.

Between rotor magnets the stator is being attracted to both rotors and as they move a bit it has to pull away from one rotor magnet but is attrated more to the next one. I think those factors cancel each other out. As the next rotor is getting close they have to overcome the attraction and move into repulsion which takes quite a bit of energy but then this is regained when the rotor moves away.

Clasically all this would cancel itself out anyway so there's no real explanation so far. There's certainly a lot of flux line shearing but I don't think that exactly means anything. Interesting though.

Wicked:

WhiteLite:I don't think the stator magnets would count as a load. When the rotor is spun up it moves the gearwise rotors too so you are adding KE to both rotor and stators, (and the anti-gearwise stator is given KE by hand as well). The only things that would kind of count as loads would be bearing friction, air resistance and lenz effects in the dampners and other bits of metal. I'm suprised it spins so long with these factors to be honest.

I don't agree. The prop does the same thing and we're calling that a load.

Prop = propeller? A propeller moves air and air has viscosity so the Kinetic energy of the propller is being lost to the air and converted into heat, unless you can contiunally supply energy to the propeller to keep its Kinetic energy intact. Magnets have no equivelant, (unless your talking about mangetic viscosity but that is something else entirely ), except for maybe air resistance on the moving stator but I don't think we're counting that.

Ya. There's gotta be bearing resistance on the stator. That makes it a load. Although, that still doesn't explain the acceleration when removing the load.

It sure would be nice with some more videos, so there is no doubt no external power was used. And a dismantle afterwards. All done in one shot.

Wicked:Ya. There's gotta be bearing resistance on the stator. That makes it a load. Although, that still doesn't explain the acceleration when removing the load.

OK yes, if the stators are stopped then that's a bit less KE lost to bearing friction but that just means the rotor will decelerate less rather than accelerate?

I just took another look at Harvey's numbers, and mine. I think there must be at least 2 errors: one his and one mine.
The data was taken with the stator magnet spinning near 5000 rpm, so its frequency must be close to some multiple of close to that number.
So I did some math and I think I misstated the scope timebase setting. I just went and looked at the scope and it is currently set on 5 ms/cm horizontal. So I think it likely that the freqs should be calculated based on that number, instead of the 2 ms/cm I "recalled" earlier.
If anybody has the original ning captions the for-sure correct settings were there.
And I think there may also be a misplaced decimal in there somewhere.

Thanks for doing the math, I know it's a drag.

And I just saw pcstru4's excellent energetic analysis. I'm not sure about the decimals here either but it's probably completely right.
But say, just for grins, that the power dissipation was a factor of ten lower. Would it be possible for a nearby EM source to provide even that much?

(edited to correct the mistake that fergus pointed out.)
Good doggie!
(no offense, fergusthepup... )

From PaulLowrance, "People are beginning to catch on to what is occurring in the alternative energy community-- thank the Universe for that. ... IMO the passive debunkers can only play this card so many times before people catch on. Then such people will be far more determined to succeed. Negativity is merely a stepping stone for Positivity.

Never give up! Ambient Energy (more energy than humanity could ever use-- vibrating molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. as sustained by the Sun) is freely available energy."

This is a well used mantra a couple of hundred years old and nothing changes, the physical laws still hold.

And as I have repeatedly said, this is NOT the primary OC MPMM design. It is a subset of a much grander and much more likely to "work" design that will eventually perform, I hope but don't fully believe, as OverConfident intended.
There is no possible way that this particular demonstration device is over-unity in any way. It is doing something with angular momentum and field synchronization, and that's about it.
The replicators should study up on OC's complete design, and work towards implementing that, once they have learned all they can from the 3Ax8 testbed.

alsetalokin:
But say, just for grins, that the power dissipation was a factor of ten lower. Would it be possible for a nearby EM source to provide even that much?

Maybe it's time you told us about that mobile phone mast in your back garden.

.

/:WhiteLite: So, here is the result.

The main difference to me is that in the previous version, the rotor magnet was repelled when it's was coming close, then catched in the closest proximity on both poles and finally attracted quite long on its way away. All this would probably slow the device down fast.

With the stator magnet flipped, as you suggested, this is of course different. The rotor magnet is attracted when it's approaching, then repelled during the closest encounter and again attracted on the other side when retreating. If the distance is the main factor, it could have big effect.

But it's still only a dumb simulation, we don't know how the interaction really looks like nor how it work.

That's the closest thing yet to the images in my head. It's still not quite there, though. I think we might need some additional dynamics. Those fields are more like mini-hurricanes. In fact that's all I'm seeing. There's no magnets, just whirling vortexes. In my initial vision, there were 5 spinning vortexes rotating inside 8 stationary vortexes. I never drew it that way, except for a couple rough pencil sketches, because it looked too complicated to construct.

Do we have any surrealist artists out there?