Its slightly above 10:1 torque amplification
Adding more weight doesn’t increase or decrease this value


Although adding more devices on a common shaft like the inventor might

Did you deduct the 6 lb-ft baseline for that calculation?
Yeah, I'm curious what that's about.
With a one-way bearing involved, I can see how on some point there will always be "torque".

Even in a zero rpm situation, you can just attach levers on both input and output shaft, say 1 foot each, and see whether the 1 or 10 pounds on the input can actually lift a multiple attached to a same length lever, while keeping an eye on level angle, start with 180º, input top right, output top left. It's NOT that hard, if the torque measurements are representative.
That Corbin setup BEGS for simple lever work. He can machine that proof of concept apparatus, he can fabricate levers to attach weights to.
If a level isn't enough, a simply pulley on each side is even better. Pulley, cord, weight, input and output.
People throw around "oooh you need to be a physicist to be able to say anything about a magnet motor", but come on, I only have highschool and all I'm doing is actually remembering the basic stuff.
Inventors are very good at finding ONE AND ONLY WAY to extract "anomalous" measurements, and they'll stick to it. I truly hope we'll soon hear that Corbin's setup is able to produce excess work in low rpm, even useful power at whatever rpm the setup can handle now.
All the focus on torque though (he's a car guy, so perhaps we need to give him a pass for that?), so that 6 lb-ft flat line is worrisome.
I'll happily take COP=5. Let a 1 pound weight on a pulley lift a 5 pound weight on the other side, on a same size pulley for the same vertical distance. With 5, we can work, 10 would be amazing.

Hi sm0ky2

That should teach people to build instead of speculate!

With a double device like your build, using the first secondary rotor to drive a second prime mover, the second secondary rotor would produce ~100 times the first primary mover’s torque?

I wonder if the second device would need magnets 10 times more powerful.

if you have 2 idential systems, and the second can still offer a 10x, then you might as well start giving the first device a 10x larger input, as the output is worth it. Half the building cost for 90% the output, a much better deal.

No inventor I've seen has done this, make two devices, one powering the other. In needs to be done, though.
An input multiplying device once working (which is the main hickup of course) will have an optimal input for greatest power multiple, and likely a higher input power (for instance in the form of rpm and resistance settings) that will product the greatest net overunity in Watts. The latter is more important, as those are the Watts get get for the kgs (cost) of the machine.
If you want more gains, you tend to need a bigger machine, or at least rated for such.

Once a few devices are linked in series at optimal net gain, the amount of output power that needs to be re-routed to the primal input become a very small percentage. You get a pyramid of devices, small to large and only the biggest one in is charge of re-routing anything to loop. Most of the output is available to exit the system.

Sorry, I was being facetious. I don't understand where the gain is observed.

...
What i see is ‘magnetic leverage’
...

Leverage is good…

Can you answer this please, if you were to tape a couple of wood sticks across all 3 sets of magnets, tying them rigidly together, would it take more effort to turn the crank than it does in your video?

What im thinking is happening here, as we apply force to the gear magnet,
the gap between the fields closes, pushing both magnets with the strength of the compressed magnetic field
This is not the same as physically pushing an object:


i can set up some linear magnetic sliders to demonstrate this if needed
or move a magnet using a solenoid (field interaction)
Then again Physically attached to the solenoid piston


We know from hydraulic control solenoids that the field has more leverage than our physically pushing a rod
The “leverage” in the electrical case, is synonymous to a hydraulic fluid system.
This is understood, and can be dismissed. Instead we measure energy into the solenoid
and output force on the magnetic assembly.
(attached and unattached, taking careful note of the distance moved)

Note: a basic set-up of the above experiment will require moving the measurement point further away during the magnetic test to account for the gap between the assemblies. Failure to account for this applies incorrect pressure onto the measuring device and will change the results.


Also important to understand is the magnetic compression ratio between the magnetic pair.
This won’t make or break the effect, but will change precise force measurements between different magnetic pairs. Meaning ratios should be used to represent input vs output, rather than sharing explicit newton measurements for every unique build. (which would just serve to convolute our understanding)

Thanks for the information! Much appreciated.

Thanks to your input here I am contemplating a build. I did notice in the video that your magnets were repelling. The patent drawing field lines indicate attraction, but skimming the patent, nowhere are the poles for the center magnet specified.

Would I be correct in assuming your magnets are all ceramic and not neos? I have neos on hand but no ceramics.

Hi Cadman,
That's because there is no center magnet in Mike's device. He clearly says a number of times that the radial director is steel. As such, it is always attracted to the magnets on the rotor. No repulsion there, or anywhere else in this device.
bi

This was over at another thread and I am placing here also because it is to do with leverage also

LOOKS like a working prototype and a genuine inventor

No claims by me as to whether it is more energy out than in but the videos and inventors claims seem to indicate that

Frustrating that many interesting inventions coming from eastern bloc countries.  Im intrigued what their common thread is


Firstly Andrey Ermola from Kharkov. Secondly, its gearbox converts the static mechanical pressure on the gearbox rod into a rotational torque. What does this mean: once you have created a force of a vector plan (for example, a jack) per unit of time and remove the torque. What is the output, connect your business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0g0FcY-7Fw0&t=173s

https://www.youtube.com/@andreyermola