Author Topic: Sabous Magnet Motor (Read 37678 times)

jeffc · « **Reply #30 on:** October 11, 2008, 09:22:47 AM »

Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 04:40:40 AM

AB Hammer, "This can be a true statement if there are no resistance. Gravity + velocity - resistance. Resistance / friction will regulate any speed. A PM device blowing apart is possible, but not likely unless it is built poorly. But all and all don't you think we need a runner first before we argue about flying apart."

I am loosing my mind trying to get you all to understand what I am saying.

For A PM to produce more energy then it consumes, it would have to continuously accelerate unless a resistance is added to limit the RPM of the PM.

You get the PM to self run, then it consumes the energy it produces and therefore will stay at a steady RPM. Once a resistance is added, it will decelerate until it comes to a halt.

Isnâ€™t that basic common sense?

Nightlife,

I see your point (or believe I do). Let me phrase it another way and see if you would agree.

If a moving device like this one is OU, then it is more than 100% efficient by definition, meaning it produces MORE energy than it needs to have continuous motion at a fixed speed. That energy above 100%, without resistance/load to remove it, HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE, so it HAS TO ACCELERATE because nothing is there to drain the excess energy from a closed system.

Is this a correct explanation that fits your argument?

If so, then even a system just barely overunity (101%) would slowly accelerate over time without some additional load to slow the acceleration. And because the acceleration would be infinite, at some point it has to surpass the stability point of the build and destruct.

In any case, just to see a Unity device would be a good start. I pure self runner would likely to have some possibilities for reduction of friction to push it overunity. And any self runner should be immediately monitored for even slight acceleration which could be harnessed to drive a load to do useful work.

Regards,
jeffc

nightlife · « **Reply #31 on:** October 11, 2008, 03:19:52 PM »

Nihilanth, "Nightlife, there is a "modify" button in the top right corner of each post you make when signed in. I'd appreciate it if you used it in the future to add-on to your posts rather then quadruple-posting."

I am well aware of the modify option. I posted what I did the way I did for a reason.

jeffc, you too understand what I said and I agree that just a self runner would be a good start. My whole reasoning for stating what I did is because this PM was said to be a self starter but for it to do that, it would have to continue to accelerate after start until it self destructed and or a resistance was added to keep it from doing so.
The video clearly shows that it is not accelerating and therefore it could not have started by it's self. It does not show enough for us to be able to tell if it is a true PM self runner and I would like to see more because if it is even close to be a self runner, I found some resistance in the design that could be taken away.

Creativity · « **Reply #32 on:** October 11, 2008, 04:14:53 PM »

Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 03:19:52 PM

Nihilanth, "Nightlife, there is a "modify" button in the top right corner of each post you make when signed in. I'd appreciate it if you used it in the future to add-on to your posts rather then quadruple-posting."

I am well aware of the modify option. I posted what I did the way I did for a reason.

jeffc, you too understand what I said and I agree that just a self runner would be a good start. My whole reasoning for stating what I did is because this PM was said to be a self starter but for it to do that, it would have to continue to accelerate after start until it self destructed and or a resistance was added to keep it from doing so.
The video clearly shows that it is not accelerating and therefore it could not have started by it's self. It does not show enough for us to be able to tell if it is a true PM self runner and I would like to see more because if it is even close to be a self runner, I found some resistance in the design that could be taken away.

i see i didn't put enough accent on a small nuance.The characteristics of a device is also important.I mean a resistance and how it behaves in function of rpm's.
To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed.

It comes form the fact, that if this device outputs any torque,it is a constant one(or constant pulses) because magnets strength is constant also.So static torque (when holding it not to turn) will be the same as at any rpm's.
At 0 rpm the drag force will be 0 ,so any surplus torque will make the wheel to spin(self start) and accelerate.As the rmp's increase also drag increase but much faster,so acceleration will be decreasing! At some rpm's all of the torque will be consumed by drag force of air.U can visualise it as a graph with a constant force of generator line approached from under by a parabole of increasing drag force.Both curves in function of rpm's,the point where they intersect is the maximum speed of this device under given resistances.

As u see it is possible to have a self starter self runner,it only depends on the character of the resistance forces.

To go even further, this self starting self runner can output usefull energy when a load is added.As long as the load + air drag is not grater than torque,the engine will operate at lower rpm's but will not stop

One more thing.When torque is pulsed, engine will not self start from every position.Here a car engine is a good analogy.Ony if the piston is at the end of compression cycle that a spark can start an engine.

nightlife · « **Reply #33 on:** October 11, 2008, 07:27:06 PM »

Creativity,

Quote

"To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed."

That is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all. The only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater.

No pm can self start without eventually self destructing or without adding a resistance to keep it at a steady speed.

If a pm can rotate past the first resistance point from the start of repelling resistance point, it will continue to accelerate because the repelling resistance is greater then the attracting resistance at each point of resistance. The drag is a resistance from the first moment it starts to move and it only becomes greater as the rotation becomes greater and the action has a equally resistance at any speed unless another resistance is added after the start.

jeffc · « **Reply #34 on:** October 11, 2008, 08:25:08 PM »

Quote from: Creativity on October 11, 2008, 04:14:53 PM

i see i didn't put enough accent on a small nuance.The characteristics of a device is also important.I mean a resistance and how it behaves in function of rpm's.
To take this engine as an example,it has stacks of magnets going through the air.Drag force on this parts will vary as the square of velocity.It is thus possible that this engine is a self starter and accelerates until it reaches steady speed.

It comes form the fact, that if this device outputs any torque,it is a constant one(or constant pulses) because magnets strength is constant also.So static torque (when holding it not to turn) will be the same as at any rpm's.
At 0 rpm the drag force will be 0 ,so any surplus torque will make the wheel to spin(self start) and accelerate.As the rmp's increase also drag increase but much faster,so acceleration will be decreasing! At some rpm's all of the torque will be consumed by drag force of air.U can visualise it as a graph with a constant force of generator line approached from under by a parabole of increasing drag force.Both curves in function of rpm's,the point where they intersect is the maximum speed of this device under given resistances.

As u see it is possible to have a self starter self runner,it only depends on the character of the resistance forces.

To go even further, this self starting self runner can output usefull energy when a load is added.As long as the load + air drag is not grater than torque,the engine will operate at lower rpm's but will not stop

One more thing.When torque is pulsed, engine will not self start from every position.Here a car engine is a good analogy.Ony if the piston is at the end of compression cycle that a spark can start an engine.

Creativity,

Do you think it is really air drag that is the limiting factor on this design? On the video it appears to be a low rpm device, which makes me question if resistance from air is such a big factor.

Also, I think friction does not increase with velocity, and in fact I think it can actually decrease (correct me if I'm wrong).

As you say, in order for a self starter, self runner, there must be some kind of resistive force which increases with velocity. Which resistive forces fit this characteristic? Air drag is one possibility, but might not be enough at these low rpms and small sized unit.

Regards,
jeffc

jeffc · « **Reply #35 on:** October 11, 2008, 08:43:06 PM »

Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 07:27:06 PM

Creativity,
That is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all. The only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater.

No pm can self start without eventually self destructing or without adding a resistance to keep it at a steady speed.

If a pm can rotate past the first resistance point from the start of repelling resistance point, it will continue to accelerate because the repelling resistance is greater then the attracting resistance at each point of resistance. The drag is a resistance from the first moment it starts to move and it only becomes greater as the rotation becomes greater and the action has a equally resistance at any speed unless another resistance is added after the start.

Nightlife,

As you know I understand your reasoning, and now have been trying to understand those who disagree with your concept.

I think that your concept would require that the PMM motion be the result of an imbalance of forces. In that way, the imbalance would be permanent and infinite. So the device would self start and accelerate until self destruction. This I think is a very logical argument.

I believe that others here view this situation differently. They see that a device such as this is tapping into an energy source as a kind of collector of energy. And the collector has a maximum ability to extract the energy from its source, based on the characteristics of its design. Think of it like a wind mill. The wind mill only rotates as fast as its efficiency to collect the wind, combined with the actual speed of the wind. If a PMM is based on extracting energy from outside the system, then it will have a maximum efficiency at collecting, and perhaps a maximum amount of energy within its collecting radius at any one time. In this case, a PMM could self start (like a windmill) and then accelerate to a maximum velocity.

So I think there are two theories here, each impacted by similar resistive forces but very different in terms of where the energy actually comes from. If you are correct and a PMM source of motion is due to imbalance, then it has to indefinitely accelerate. If others are correct and the source of motion is tapping a stream of energy like the wind, solar, or a river, then an overunity PMM would not have to self destruct.

Now, if only we had a working Unity or OU PMM to test with then we could solve this puzzle!

Regards,
jeffc

nightlife · « **Reply #36 on:** October 11, 2008, 09:00:15 PM »

jeffc,

Quote

"They see that a device such as this is tapping into an energy source as a kind of collector of energy. And the collector has a maximum ability to extract the energy from its source, based on the characteristics of its design."

That may be but then what they are thinking of would not be a perpetual motion motor.

"The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance, or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance. According to the law of conservation of energy, such a device cannot exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

A PMM operates in a closed system which would not require and or seek any outside energy source for its movement.

Creativity · « **Reply #37 on:** October 11, 2008, 10:10:22 PM »

@nightlife

Quote

That is imposable because that would mean that it would have to accelerate from the start to achieve any speed at all.

well u just repeated in ur own words what i said,just ur conclusion is wrong

at the beginning there is no drag of air as the speed is 0,there is only static friction.Engine will not start if it can not overcome this static friction.In this example i assume the engine outputs enough torque to overcome this static fricion(and then the kinetic one when it is in motion already).If u reread what i wrote u will see that i said that it will accelerate from the start.Acceleration will be finite as the torque is finite.Acceleration will decrease (untill it reaches 0) with speed because of the air drag

Quote

The only way it could self start and achieve a steady speed it to add a resistance after it reached the speed desired. The drag (resistance) will always be there and it will only become greater as the speed becomes greater."

Drag of air gets added as the speed raises.Static/kinetic fricion is always there but not the drag of air(absent when rpm's =0).U can see it in the graph i attached.Parabolic curve represent air drag.Without friction it would allow to run an engine at the speed r2,because curve intersects the torque at point 2.Analogically for point 1 and r1.self starter self runner with constant speed voila

@jeffc

Quote

Do you think it is really air drag that is the limiting factor on this design? On the video it appears to be a low rpm device, which makes me question if resistance from air is such a big factor.

Also, I think friction does not increase with velocity, and in fact I think it can actually decrease (correct me if I'm wrong).

As you say, in order for a self starter, self runner, there must be some kind of resistive force which increases with velocity. Which resistive forces fit this characteristic? Air drag is one possibility, but might not be enough at these low rpms and small sized unit.

no i don't think that air drag is limiting factor in this slow motion state.I brought air drag as an illustration to support explanation how a self starter self runner is possible to exist and how it works without destroying itself

.I don't know any other resistance than fluid drag that behave this way.
Statatic friction is greater than kinetic one and from what i found on the internet ,it seams that sometimes friction does decrease with speed.

There is also one more possibility.If there is no air drag and only fricion.If dynamic friction is equal to the torque of engine,then engine will not start by itself but will spinn at steady speed when started by hand.Initial push would have to be greater than static friction.It will look like a PM then.

Finally i think that no generator creates energy it only transforms it from one form to another.PM is for me only a theoretical machine,totally possible if frictionless condition can be achieved(and they aren't ),then it needs no energy transformation to run,just one initial push(case 1 in my first post).

infringer · « **Reply #38 on:** October 11, 2008, 10:41:30 PM »

Clanzer,

Sup bud interesting motor...

So the question remains could it be

?

I would love to make a working magnetic motor it would be radical man.

Anyhow more info any build plans or input from folks with some technical knowladge?

I've ruined quite a few magnets already messing with other things would love to make something run though I must say.

Any reproductions? Youtube vidz?

-infringer-

jeffc · « **Reply #39 on:** October 12, 2008, 12:57:49 AM »

@Creativity

Quote

@jeffc
no i don't think that air drag is limiting factor in this slow motion state.I brought air drag as an illustration to support explanation how a self starter self runner is possible to exist and how it works without destroying itself .I don't know any other resistance than fluid drag that behave this way.
Statatic friction is greater than kinetic one and from what i found on the internet ,it seams that sometimes friction does decrease with speed.

There is also one more possibility.If there is no air drag and only fricion.If dynamic friction is equal to the torque of engine,then engine will not start by itself but will spinn at steady speed when started by hand.Initial push would have to be greater than static friction.It will look like a PM then.

Finally i think that no generator creates energy it only transforms it from one form to another.PM is for me only a theoretical machine,totally possible if frictionless condition can be achieved(and they aren't ),then it needs no energy transformation to run,just one initial push(case 1 in my first post).

It would be great to see a complete video of this device including startup. Then also some more information about the build and measurements. The probably would not be hard to replicate.

Regards,
jeffc

CLaNZeR · « **Reply #40 on:** October 12, 2008, 01:10:25 AM »

Quote from: infringer on October 11, 2008, 10:41:30 PM

Clanzer,
Sup bud interesting motor...

Hey Infringer

Will tell you what's up mate.

Any post I place these days just gets filled with shit that ends up talking about the laws of physics as we know it and if we all just went along those lines, then nobody would post any crazy ideas, because they are too worried about thinking out of the box and what people would think of them for doing do.

A few years ago it was not like this and the whole point of having forums discussing Overunity is because we are told that it does not exist and the point was too try prove it does, by luck or by playing and ignoring mainstream science. That is the whole point, a bit of fun and a bit of a laugh as such.

People post reasons why it will NOT work, like we are all idiots because we did not listen in science/physics Class while in school. The truth is we DID listen, but are still hoping something has been missed and may be discovered.

I can visit over one hundred mainstream forums to debunk Overunity ideas, but the idea of these Overunity Forums is too let us nutters talk about and try alternative ideas, while ignoring mainstream Physics as such.

So will let this calm down and then post some results when the mainstream guys have got bored.

This Sabous wheel is a Smot config and hence the Steel balls BTW.

Cheers

Sean.

jeffc · « **Reply #41 on:** October 12, 2008, 08:36:44 AM »

Quote from: nightlife on October 11, 2008, 09:00:15 PM

jeffc,

That may be but then what they are thinking of would not be a perpetual motion motor.

"The term perpetual motion, taken literally, refers to movement that goes on forever. However, the term more generally refers to any closed system that produces more energy than it consumes. Such a device or system would be in violation of the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy can never be created or destroyed. The most conventional type of perpetual motion machine is a mechanical system which (supposedly) sustains motion despite losing energy to friction and air resistance, or while avoiding losing energy to friction and air resistance. According to the law of conservation of energy, such a device cannot exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

A PMM operates in a closed system which would not require and or seek any outside energy source for its movement.

I never saw a claim that this was a perpetual motion motor. Only that it was a magnet motor. I respect your thoughts here, but I don't think you can rely on a quote from Wikipedia to define a device that it says cannot exist. Also, PMM can be "permanent magnet motor".

No matter what the definition, most people viewing this site would like to see a system producing energy in a way that doesn't rely on the arcane concept of combustion of hydrocarbons. If someone uses magnets to create a motor and it actually can light a bulb, then who cares what some definition on a web site says?

This is a shift of your original argument about acceleration which I can understand as a legitimate fundamental concept to discuss.

Regards,
jeffc

4Tesla · « **Reply #42 on:** October 12, 2008, 09:12:50 AM »

Quote from: CLaNZeR on October 12, 2008, 01:10:25 AM

Hey Infringer

Will tell you what's up mate.

Any post I place these days just gets filled with shit that ends up talking about the laws of physics as we know it and if we all just went along those lines, then nobody would post any crazy ideas, because they are too worried about thinking out of the box and what people would think of them for doing do.

A few years ago it was not like this and the whole point of having forums discussing Overunity is because we are told that it does not exist and the point was too try prove it does, by luck or by playing and ignoring mainstream science. That is the whole point, a bit of fun and a bit of a laugh as such.

People post reasons why it will NOT work, like we are all idiots because we did not listen in science/physics Class while in school. The truth is we DID listen, but are still hoping something has been missed and may be discovered.

I can visit over one hundred mainstream forums to debunk Overunity ideas, but the idea of these Overunity Forums is too let us nutters talk about and try alternative ideas, while ignoring mainstream Physics as such.

So will let this calm down and then post some results when the mainstream guys have got bored.

This Sabous wheel is a Smot config and hence the Steel balls BTW.

Cheers

Sean.

Sean, Thank you! I am very impressed with your work!

I also am sick of people posting that these devices won't work (unless the person that started the thread asks for an opinion if this will work). We all know that 99% of these devices don't work.. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do research and give up! If you think OU is impossible.. then why are you here???; go somewhere else!

Jason

nightlife · « **Reply #43 on:** October 12, 2008, 10:28:57 AM »

jeffc,

Quote

I never saw a claim that this was a perpetual motion motor. Only that it was a magnet motor.

Any motion that operates in a closed system is perpetual motion.

Quote

No matter what the definition, most people viewing this site would like to see a system producing energy in a way that doesn't rely on the arcane concept of combustion of hydrocarbons.

I agree and I too am one of those but it frustrates me to see so many wasting time without properly reasoning first. I look at the designs and or think about the concepts I take the time to reason with it and I post what my conclusions are. Some agree and some disagree and that is where the debates come about from but the more we debate, the more we learn provided we keep open minds when doing so. Some debates don't really affect me for a few days or in some cases, even longer. But as time goes by and the more I think about them, the more I realize that I am either right and or wrong and that is where true learning comes from and they are lessons that will stick with me for ever.

Quote

"If someone uses magnets to create a motor and it actually can light a bulb, then who cares what some definition on a web site says?"

I agree but we have yet to see this happen and therefore the definition fails to be corrected. Some think that because the earths rotation acts as a perpetual motion that we can create a perpetual motion but the fact is that even the earths rotation works off a controlled pulse that is created by the energy's that both the sun and earth create.

4Tesla,

Quote

I also am sick of people posting that these devices won't work (unless the person that started the thread asks for an opinion if this will work).

All designs and or concepts posted are at the mercy of being dissected and criticized. This is good to do and or have done because it helps us stay in touch with reality and it helps keep us on the right path. It also helps find flaws and inspire others to find a way to utilize what has been discussed.

Quote

We all know that 99% of these devices don't work.. that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do research and give up! If you think OU is impossible.. then why are you here???; go somewhere else!

We are all here to try and find ways to produce what is costing us so that we do not have to rely on others to get what we want and or need. Producing over unity is impossible but finding ways to utilize the natural energy's that surround us isn't. Everything emits energy but the earth and the sun emits the most and we just have not found the best way to utilize them yet. Once we do if we ever do, people will think of it as over unity but the fact is that both the earth and the sun's energy is created and it can be destroyed and if it is not destroyed, it will still eventually fade away.

The design this thread was started about has left many unanswered questions and most comments here are based on what has been shown thus far. I would like to see more of it, not to discredit it as much as to see why it was thought to be able to work in the first place. Every new design I see and or read about, makes me think of new ways to utilize the energy's that we are trying to utilize. They actually inspire me to keep thinking of ways. I myself have posted several ideas that I thought would work but after much reasoning, I found them to be nothing more then a more efficient way to utilize energy that has already been created. I am now sticking to finding ways to utilize natural produced energy's as a way to produce a usable energy. Some may think the results would be over unity but the fact is that the energy's that would be used to create the energy is more vibrant then the energy created and therefore is not over unity. Over unity is the production of more then what is used to produce it.

I am honestly a very busy person and I am not here to argue and or upset anyone. I am here to help, get help and to learn just as I hope everyone is here for. If we didn't need the help and or the lessons, why would we be here?

CLaNZeR · « **Reply #44 on:** October 12, 2008, 12:33:10 PM »

I am all for people debating and giving their opinion, but when a thread gets started and gets taken off topic then it just ends up a mess and takes the focus away from the original idea.

A good example is the Roll on 20th thread with Archer Quinn, that just turned into a nightmare

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Sabous Magnet Motor (Read 37678 times)

jeffc

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

nightlife

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

Creativity

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

nightlife

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

jeffc

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

jeffc

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

nightlife

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

Creativity

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

infringer

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

jeffc

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

CLaNZeR

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

jeffc

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

4Tesla

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

nightlife

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor

CLaNZeR

Re: Sabous Magnet Motor