Sorry Kent im on my work network that filters all pictures, I am done work in a couple hours so I will take a look later-i got serious lag here too. As far as building something goes here's the deal- I just want to make something work-I post it on the net for everyone-I sell some to my friends and family and im happy. but after building 60 or so crude experimental machines I have come to the conclusion that it has to show serious potential and be well though out. I run it on vizimag then the sim, then build it right the first time,I think that is what is comes down to-a precision machine,not something thrown together.

It's looking like with the LEMA it's not too hard to make an overunity device if you can create a device to use the motion of the rotor to move the shield of the LEMA at the exactly correct moments. For example, to me it's curious that Steorn has banned the link to the SteornQuest website. I in no way want to go so far as to say that Steorn is lying to us, but I think we at least know that at some point they were wanting to use the LEMA for overunity even if they have moved onto a method now that does not utilize it.

Anyone here building a simple rotor and putting a LEMA next to it? I would be interested if someone can describe how little effort it takes to move the shield manually to make the rotor move. If that takes very, very little effort the next step would be to build a mechanism to use the motion of the rotor itself to move the shield.

It's looking like with the LEMA it's not too hard to make an overunity device if you can create a device to use the motion of the rotor to move the shield of the LEMA at the exactly correct moments. For example, to me it's curious that Steorn has banned the link to the SteornQuest website. I in no way want to go so far as to say that Steorn is lying to us, but I think we at least know that at some point they were wanting to use the LEMA for overunity even if they have moved onto a method now that does not utilize it.

Anyone here building a simple rotor and putting a LEMA next to it? I would be interested if someone can describe how little effort it takes to move the shield manually to make the rotor move. If that takes very, very little effort the next step would be to build a mechanism to use the motion of the rotor itself to move the shield.

I agree... The reason I suggested 4 LEMA with 1 on the rotor, is that the distance the rotor has to move towards the next LEMA is only 90degrees, this would increase teh attractive strenght at any lema that it would move towards. (or away from in a repulsive version), also, with 4 using repulsion you have the added benefit ( from what I' can see) that you don't have to use a solenoid or any other device to instantly close the shield... having 2 partially open will still be fine up until the rotor is at 180 degrees from the first LEMA, this allows the actuator to be less on and off, and more throttled,  using this concept, the easiest way to construct is to either use a cam to control the shields of 4 lema, or even simpler using gears perpindicular to the rotor a shield actuating rod. (basically a plastic arm attached to the bottom of the gear which then connects to a shield), the whole process then is quite simple from what I can see..

Kent

Hey - where did everybody go? Have we got a group of guys that have dates on a Friday, or a group of guys that are all trying to get from the theoretical to the practical stage? 

thevorlon, I finally got some co-netic & netic shielding today from http://www.magnetic-shield.com/products/lab-kit.html . I built my first rough LEMA and "tried it by hand". Well, this puppy is going to probably run faster than 600rpm. With two magnets on the rotor that's 1200 LEMA shuttles per minute. Can't tell much when I'm only moving about 30 shuttles per minute. But here's what I did find.

Even if you completely surround the magnet with shielding at least 20% of the field still gets through. The documentation sent by magnetic-shield.com confirms that. This means that a design will need to use repulsion instead of attraction. Here's why....

With attraction the actuator magnet has to be exposed while the rotor magnet approaches because that is when all of the work gets done. But, since magnetic fields dissipate their strength rapidly over distance, 20% is probably all that is going to be available through out the 1/4 arc that the rotor magnet is moving. Once the two magnets are facing each other you then shield the actuator. At that point you still have 20% attraction bleeding through. All you've done is attract the rotor magnet with a small portion of the magnetic force, and you're stuck at that point.

With repulsion the actuator magnet is shielded while the rotor magnet approaches. 20% of the repulsive force is bleeding through to act as a break on the rotational torque. But, when the two magnets are facing each other you remove the shield and 100% of the repulsive force now is applied to the rotational torque as acceleration. As the rotor magnet moves past the actuator the shield is closed - once again 20% bleeds through, but this time the rotor is past dead center so this bleed through accelerates, cancelling the earlier breaking effect.

Also, I think that the sheild has to move ONLY when the two magnets are dead center to each other, not before or after. Take a look at a motor using an electromagnetic actuator. The reed switch closes the circuit that energizes the electromagnet. You can adjust how long the reed switch is closed (and how long the electromagnet is energized) by moving the reed switch closer or further away from the magnet that is closing it.  If you increase the length of time, you decrease the speed of the motor. Maximum speed is achieved with the shortest pulse, not the longest. But, if you lengthen the pulse, and also adjust the position of the reed switch so it closes exactly at dead center and remains closed until the rotor magnet has cleared the circumference of the actuator magnet then you can slightly increase speed.

This observation is why I prefer using something like a reed switch to activate the shield shuttle on a LEMA. I don't see how yopu can get that kind of timing using gears or cams. I totally agree with your point that having an external power source involved just totally messes things up for demonstration purposes. But, I have a couple of ideas for doing that with power from the device itself. The device's rotating shaft is a good place to mount a second set of magnets within a coil producing a dynamo-type electric current.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that hearlds the most discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny,,,' " ISSAC ASIMOV (1920-1992)

Hi,

I have just seen a reference to a Russian magnet motor here on the Forum
( http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1621.msg16034.html#msg16034 )

and seeing the picture animation (I attached it below) it immediatly cries for perhaps the simplest and still a good mechanical solution to combine it with the LEMA.
I would replace the top magnet in the picture with the three magnets of the LEMA in an appropiate way and everything else can remain the same! 
For more shaft torque you can place several such arrangements next to each other on the same shaft.
I don't think any exotic shielding material would be needed: just the good old transformer laminations can be used, experimenting / testing for the correct thickness. Another material of interest is ferrit, but it is probably more expensive than lamination.  The mass of the rotor can also be of significance of course.

Regards
Gyula

   

...But, I have a couple of ideas for doing that with power from the device itself. The device's rotating shaft is a good place to mount a second set of magnets within a coil producing a dynamo-type electric current...

Could you incorporate the magnet(s) into a flywheel somehow?
Mount an inductive pickup near the circumference and use the induced pulse to compensate for the 20% that gets through the shielding.

Another coil (feed-forward) near the 'sticky' point could provide the inductive kick you require. see attachment

Gyulasun

Interesting design... at its current drawing it wont work as the force to remove the shield shown would be proportional to the magnets attracted to it...

But with Lema tech that could work... the rail sliding a magnet in and out of the 'piston', however when the lema pulls back you're still going to get fields leaving from the balancer magnet, which i think would greatly hinder performance...

I don't show the shields. I was just indicating how you could add a 'feed-forward kick coil' to your existing motor.

Gyulasun

Interesting design... at its current drawing it wont work as the force to remove the shield shown would be proportional to the magnets attracted to it...

But with Lema tech that could work... the rail sliding a magnet in and out of the 'piston', however when the lema pulls back you're still going to get fields leaving from the balancer magnet, which i think would greatly hinder performance...

Hi Kent767,

Yes I agree with your notice on the original design, though Anatoliy, the inventor, wrote here ( http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,880.msg5513.html#msg5513 ) that he has had some manufacturing secrets...   

Regarding the usage of LEMA in place of the upper magnet, I was thinking on putting 3  cylindrical magnets vertically in a line instead and the shield would never go beyond the middle and the right side magnets but would cover or uncover only the left side magnet (and the one on the right side but it would not matter much, being further away) and only this latter would be really positioned just above the piston and repel it down when in the uncovered state, the other two would be mounted further to the right (but the distances between the three magnets would be equal just like in the LEMA patent).

Regards
Gyula