INTENTIONS IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE HAVE COMMUNICATED to HIM IN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES To the GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES OF the REPUBLICA ARGENTINA WE WANT TO PRESENT the COMMUNITY IN GENERAL WHO IS OUR DEEP MAS DESIRE TO BENEFIT To OUR DEAR PAIS, TO IMPROVE the QUALITY OF LIFE Of the HUMAN BEING, and TO COLLABORATE WITH ADVANCE CIENTIFICO and TECNOLOGICO OF OUR REGION.PARA SUCH AIM WE LEFT the DOOR OPEN SO THAT ANY NATIONAL, PROVINCIAL, MUNICIPAL ORGANISM, (UNIVERSITIES, SCHOOLS, ORGANISMS CIENTIFICOS) noncGovernmental ORGANIZATIONS, etc QUE ESTEN INTERESTED IN KNOWING WITH DETAIL OUR INVESTIGATIONS COMMUNICATES WITH US TO BE ABLE TO TRANSMIT WITH TASTE ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE to THEM. CONTACTENOS: TEL: 54 (0223)-155051220 email: ICYTI@HOTMAIL.COM WEB: WWW.ICYTI.AR.GS
Stefan, this dosn't seem to be the correct phone number. Someone answered and although he couldn't understand very well English he said that I am calling a different "familia" -- Ovedo is the family name of the person I was calling, if I heard it correctly. By the way, the zero is not part of the number.
...Heres yet another clue.. I have already dug my magnets out and am trying different versions...
Also, their "Intentions" seem honorable...very honorable:
Also in Scott Clark?s motor there are retreating magnets and
also in the Finsrud device !
All the news in his news pages are from newspapers none of them are from any technical publication or University wich makes me think that of a scam.
It appears that M4 is not pulled up again until the next round which comes up after so many magnets (I guess 15 all in all). The raising is one magnet at a time.
After reading in some other forums in spanish and looking at his pictures I have now more clear how it works "if it works"
HiJason,
it could also be a band of plastic coated ferrite powder magnet strip,
these plastic band magnets so all the North poles just stick out and
no south pole half like you have drawn !
After reading in some other forums in spanish and looking at his pictures I have now more clear how it works "if it works"
Hi Gonzo,
could you please scan the spanish forums, if Torbay has already posted somewhere a video
of his motor ?
That would really help, if we could locate the video clip.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050319053449/http://club.telepolis.com/LICYTA/DESCRIPCIONDEFUNCIONAMIENTO.htm
Omnibus,
did you try these phone numbers ?
TEL : (54) 0223-4697312
Mobile : (54) 0223-155275439
Next position of the rotor spinning clockwise.
SO you see, only one stator magnet is retreating ( going back and opening the stator circle)
Too bad the folder:
http://club.telepolis.com/LICYTA/avi
does not exist anymore.
Gonzo, maybe you can ask somebody from the Argentina forums
how the filename was so we can search for it on the web....
Or maybe someone will send the file via email or ftp ?
You can also upload it to a service like www.rapidshare.de
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Actually they have sent to hell Omnibus Grin Grin Grin as well in another post because they have not understand what he says...
I guess he was bought out by the Argentina military black projects already and has stopped
communicating with the Internet or he was bought out by a big company, who wants to
develop a better product in total silence....
Notice what ridiculous arguments against Torbay?s motor are presented in this link, at that, by people devoted to fighting pseudoscience: http://www.asalup.org/content/view/154/1/ (http://www.asalup.org/content/view/154/1/). Here is an excerpt translated with the help of BabelFish:
On 3/25/06, XXX <xxx@XXX.net> wrote:
> 1) Torbay's motor violates the laws of thermodynamics (especially the first principle). I'd like to remind you, however, that the laws of thermodynamics are only accepted because the experiment so far hasn't shown otherwise. Therefore, the role of the experiment is the primary one, not the laws of thermodynamics. I don't know the details in this particular case and whether it is at all viable. What I'm objecting to is the methodology you apply in assessing its viability. If it happens so that Torbay's motor works it would require correction of our understanding of the laws of Nature and not vice versa. Claiming that we already have the final knowledge of these laws is quite presumptuous.
>
[SB]
From a strict formal point of view, you are right. A fact is a fact,
even if it goes against a law of nature as we know it. But we didn't
argue that Walter's magnetic engine is impossible because of
thermodynamic laws, we said that Walter's magnetic engine does violate
thermodynamic laws, so this should set off some alarms on the mass
media before publish this story. I also said that if this were true,
he wouldn't be working on his basement, because this is so important
that would lead him to the Nobel price. We also believe that
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. His is showing
his "miraculous device" in TV before doing it in any respectable
scientific journal or scientific society.
He also claimed that he rejected a $350M offer to sell it, this is
also very suspicious.
As far as I know, he is paying local electric utility company instead
of using his putative invention.
So we are not objecting it based only on the fact that it is against
well established laws of nature.
> 2) Torbay hasn't included the cost of the materials when making the energy balance. This requirement, however, is superfluous. Never in any of the thermodynamic or any other scientific analyses of systems is the energy spent to make the machines taken into account. Thus, this objection to Torbay's invention should also be discounted.
>
[SB]
You may be right here. To be honest, after I wrote this several
members of ASALUP pointed this out. We are evaluating this claim with
an electric engineer, so in a couple of days we well back it up or
take it down (with an apologize if it turns to be wrong). But a bad
debunking will not make his claim true.
> I would encourage you very much to visit the inventor and personally try to verify as to whether his motor is indeed self-sustaining. This will not take much effort. The only thing you need to do is to observe the rotor turning for, say, an hour without anybody touching it and without any energy being spent from the outside.
>
[SB]
I tried to contact him, I leave a message in his answering machine but
didn't replied. I did ID myself as an ASALUP member, so this could
discourage him to call back.
> I would appreciate it very much if you could help me get in touch with Mr. Torbay and let him know that I would also like to independently verify his claims either by visiting him or by him sending his motor to me. My address is:
>
I will call him again with your offer. We have a member in the same
city and I am only 40 miles away from him, so I could arrange a demo,
but it is up to him to accept a visit.
> I look forward to hearing from you and hope that Mr. Torbay's device will get a fair assessment based on the principles of science and not based on emotions or other considerations.
>
[SB]
I fully agree with you. But to test a device based on science, we need
cooperation from the one makes the claim.
In ASALUP we are working in another article that will be published
shortly. Please stay tunned you will get more information.
Best regards,
SB.
From a strict formal point of view, you are right. A fact is a fact,
even if it goes against a law of nature as we know it. But we didn't
argue that Walter's magnetic engine is impossible because of
thermodynamic laws, we said that Walter's magnetic engine does violate
thermodynamic laws, so this should set off some alarms on the mass
media before publish this story.
I also said that if this were true, he wouldn't be working on his basement, because this is so important that would lead him to the Nobel price.
We also believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
His is showing his "miraculous device" in TV before doing it in any respectable scientific journal or scientific society.
He also claimed that he rejected a $350M offer to sell it, this is
also very suspicious.
As far as I know, he is paying local electric utility company instead of using his putative invention.
So we are not objecting it based only on the fact that it is against
well established laws of nature.
Quote> 2) Torbay hasn't included the cost of the materials when making the energy balance. This requirement, however, is superfluous. Never in any of the thermodynamic or any other scientific analyses of systems is the energy spent to make the machines taken into account. Thus, this objection to Torbay's invention should also be discounted.>
[SB]
You may be right here. To be honest, after I wrote this several
members of ASALUP pointed this out. We are evaluating this claim with
an electric engineer, so in a couple of days we well back it up or
take it down (with an apologize if it turns to be wrong). But a bad
debunking will not make his claim true.
Rather than speculating on its operation, it would be easier to just make a test model and verify it for ourselves. What would be optimal is if we could establish a direct line of communication with him and have him show us how to build one.
I understand that is dificult to see why it does not work but if you let me know were you think that the force that moves continuosluy the device I will try to explain you what fails in that...
The problem is here:
"It is also presumed that the net repulsive force in question is not only enough to turn the motor but also to lift one magnet off of the gap"
This is a presumtion, but is it true?
Magnet nunmer M4 is out of the ring.
So the rotor in theory will turn in the direction of the missing magnet, the torque that the rotor will have is equal to the repulsion force of the magnet that is missing (you have to see this point very clear if you do not see it clear you need to revise your fisiscs knowledge)
At the same time that the rotor turns have to move M5 out of the ring, but remenber this magnet has a srping that keep it on the ring, and to keep it in the ring you need the same force as the repulsion that produces M5 over the rotor.
So if M4 = M5 the repulsion forces they produce are equals as well aren't they?
So if both forces are equal witch force will make it move?
Magnet nunmer M4 is out of the ring.
So the rotor in theory will turn in the direction of the missing magnet, the torque that the rotor will have is equal to the repulsion force of the magnet that is missing (you have to see this point very clear if you do not see it clear you need to revise your fisiscs knowledge)
No, this I don?t see. I see just the opposite ? because the magnet is missing it doesn?t exert any opposing force.
QuoteQuoteMagnet nunmer M4 is out of the ring.
So the rotor in theory will turn in the direction of the missing magnet, the torque that the rotor will have is equal to the repulsion force of the magnet that is missing (you have to see this point very clear if you do not see it clear you need to revise your fisiscs knowledge)
No,, this I don?t see. I see just the opposite ? because the magnet is missing it doesn?t exert any opposing force.
I see that you have the problem here, if you do not have this clear it is imposible you understand the rest...
I think that putting formulas and such will not help you to understand it, so I am trying to find a simple sample were you can understand it...
As soon as I find something clear I will post it.
What force move magnet M4 out of the ring?
... the second law, which
is by the way no law at all, cause it
only was defined by experience, but there are
many experiments, which violate the "second law"
under certain conditions...
Stefan, could you please identify what these experiments might be, violating the second principle of thermodynamics.
So if M4 = M5 the repulsion forces they produce are equals as well aren't they?
So if both forces are equal witch force will make it move?
@orionjfOk, I?ll try to draw it this night.
maybe you can draw up your force diagram and can post it here
as an attachment ? Otherwise your argumentation is hard to understand.
Many thanks.
Yes, I agree that it would be of great interest if the device would spin continuously. But I was looking farther down the road to see if it could be made into something really useful to generate power. It is very doubtful that this device could do that on a useful level. But perhaps the knowledge of this device will lead to something that will perform better in the future?
Consider the initial state. All forces components by M3, M2 and M1 are axial (sin(alpha)=0)
but for pushing (down) the magnet you need TWO Frep*cos(alpha) from alpha 45 or greater to alpha=0 (exactly in the circle).
There is another way to see it. Using energies ... In the initial state, there are another state with less energy and rotor moves to it. The energy difference must be used for two things: to move the rotor and to create another state with less energy that allows the rotor another movement (in other words, recover the initial status energy). Then the rotor HAS to gain another kind of energy for that not only cinetic, but, for instant, potential (or whatever you want).
(I?ve built a similar machine several years ago using gravitatory and magnetic energies, as a pendulus forced, transforming one in the other in a cycle). It seems a perpetual machine, and works, but if you extract a very little portion of energy, the system fall down.
Then, the problem is not to create a state with positive energy transition (initial state to the next). The problem is to recover it (opposite cycle). I?m sure magnets HAS TO do it, but how?Huh My best wishes to who find it, maybe this device if I wrong (that is possible, of course).
You?ve put it very mildly. If the device spins continuously on its own, without energy input from the outside, it will be a revolution in science of unknown proportions. Revolutions ins science, not to speak about revolutions of such proportions, would cause such profound changes in society which go well beyond anybody?s imagination.
Quote@orionjfOk, I?ll try to draw it this night.
maybe you can draw up your force diagram and can post it here
as an attachment ? Otherwise your argumentation is hard to understand.
Many thanks.
if there is no energy coming from outside, where does the generated energy comes from?
QuoteYou?ve put it very mildly. If the device spins continuously on its own, without energy input from the outside, it will be a revolution in science of unknown proportions. Revolutions ins science, not to speak about revolutions of such proportions, would cause such profound changes in society which go well beyond anybody?s imagination.
if there is no energy coming from outside, where does the generated energy comes from?
OK I just thought another way to look at the device.
just think and try to give me an answer:
What force move magnet M4 out of the ring?
If the answer is your hand: sorry but you are adding energy to the system so no overunity...
If the answer is the mechanical sistem of the device: sorry again, but the strength of the spring is the same or bigger that the repulsion it creates if not the magnet will move away from the ring...
Quoteif there is no energy coming from outside, where does the generated energy comes from?
The energy comes from cooling down the magnets and thus colling down
the air around the magnets.
Just a another "second law" violation, nothing more.
It is a closed loop circle process, the light bulb running of the generator again
produces heat so heat is just going around in a circle,
in the motor it is extracted via the magnets from the air and the surrounding
and in the loads it is again fed back to the environment.
This is the optimal "green" energy cycle with no bad pollution.
This is something IÂ’m not sure of. Even if we suppose that heat is turned into useful work more efficiently than we know now, that work would be much less than the work produced by the motor to light up a lamp. DonÂ’t forget that even production of power on the order of 2 kW is being claimed.
If this indeed is a self-sustaining device it will demonstrate a violation of the first principle of thermodynamics, not of the second.
What force move magnet M5 out of the ring?
M5 is the next magnet, so to move M5 away you need a force bigger than the repulsion of M4, becasuse M5 spring force sholud be equal or bigger than M5 repulsion force.
And again we are with the same problem M4 and M5 are the same strength...
Hi Omnibus,
the first law is always correct, otherwise the universum
would have been collapsed.
It is really just a conversion of 2nd law energies, that means
heat is converted to mechanical energy and then into electrical energy
and in the load back to heat, so it is just a cycle of heat being used very
efficiently.
Torbay claims to be producing approx. 2000J every second. If his motor produces that much energy at the expense of cooling the air then in 1h it would cool down the air of good sized room by 10 degrees. Think about if that?s true what Mike Brady?s motor (if he really produces the claimed 300kW and that really is at the expense of cooling the air) will do to the air in the room.
I wonder how much time some guys here will need to see that this is just another hoax...
As far as I understand Torbay claims to be pretty open about it and wants to disseminate it widely.
Warning: this is a skeptical site !
http://www.asalup.org/content/view/156/27/
that site may shake the faith of many here....
I?m sensing a lot of envy and aggressive incompetence in these Spanish forums. That should be ignored. The facts are making them look like fools.
Mr. Bassi,
you have not seen yet the motor and just title it as a scam.
That is very unscientific !
We have an eye witness over here, Mr. TheHyperT from gnn.tv
and he and his friends have seen it running and have investigating it.
I think that it make a lot more sense NOT to ignore those forums, and to think about who is realy the fool in this story....
Your idea about the torrents and the many people to send motors to is interesting but it needs some more thought, I think. Probably it is not unimportant who these motors are sent to. Unless you want to help directly the poor in Africa by supplying them with energy bypassing the official channels of help (probably because you don?t trust them too much). I think it wouldn?t do much to convince society by convincing just the powerless, be they students or professors. This device has somehow to get through the brick walls of the media and for that matter it has to somehow get across to the official publications of Academia (not just students and professors) ? I still entertain the hope that there are parts of Academia which care for the truth in science and to whom science is not just a job scheme which you maintain through protecting a certain official doctrine.
probably because Argentina has already sold its oil first ...
Thanks for the link. That sounds curious but not as amazing as Torbay's. By the way, Russian government may be hiding this "wonderful discovery" but the Argentinean government isn't ... probably because Argentina has already sold its oil first ...
... I seriously believe there have been at least half a dozen working designs just since Tesla's time. It could be helpful taking your Africa idea and quietly setting up dozens of communities over there before invovling the more advanced countries but you need money to do that.
How come, no luck with the video? I gave you a link to a video.
If you want real solutions, let's talk about Biodiesel/vegetable oil, Stirling motors, wind power, tidal power...
...? I seriously believe there have been at least half a dozen working designs just since Tesla's time.? It could be helpful taking your Africa idea and quietly setting up dozens of communities over there before invovling the more advanced countries but you need money to do that.?
**working** designs or **APPARENTLY working** designs... that is a ****H U G E**** difference. Do not forget the almost countless amount of hoaxes/frauds, even before Tesla.
If you want real solutions, let's talk about Biodiesel/vegetable oil, Stirling motors, wind power, tidal power...
Liberty, so you think the rotor is made such that it in fact starts lifting the fourth magnet even before the three rotor magnets are fully aligned with the corresponding three stator magnets? When they are fully aligned the fourth magnet is fully lifted and thus it doesn't obstruct the further motion of the rotor which in its part starts lifting the fifth magnet while lowering the fourth. That's interesting. Could you sketch it somehow?
In the picture you posted Liberty,
the rotor magnets are beneath the upper plate,
which isprobably the plate to lift up the next stator magnets.
Maybe Gonzo can again translate these things please ?
Many thanks.
(http://overunity.com/torbay/prototipo_piezas.gif)
If I were talking about **APPARENTLY working** designs I would have said hundreds. Unfortuantely the majority are hoaxes. I do believe a few I've read about work. I'd say Tesla had a working system. As well as the group in Switzerland, Minato, Ed Gray, etc. I've not seen enough about this design.
Here's the link to the video: http://overunity.com/snyder/ (http://overunity.com/snyder/)
By the way, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a working "torbay" motor.
The second video, shows a rotor with magnets, holded by hand with rotates at a constant speed. if the device can generate energy, the speed should increase with time. It seems to me that there is a hidden battery somewhere (constant voltage, constant speed) probably in the white ring, which they do not show in the inside.
If I were talking about **APPARENTLY working** designs I would have said hundreds.? Unfortuantely the majority are hoaxes.? I do believe a few I've read about work.? I'd say Tesla had a working system.? As well as the group in Switzerland, Minato, Ed Gray, etc.? I've not seen enough about this design.
see, there is your problem: believing is for God, life after death, and such things. Not for motors, engines, tools and such devices.
Here's the link to the video: http://overunity.com/snyder/ (http://overunity.com/snyder/)
if the device can generate energy, the speed should increase with time.
QuoteBy the way, I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a working "torbay" motor.
I don?t think you need to be shown a working Torbay motor. Why? Because you?re like the people who live in the villages in the outskirts of Sofia, Bulgaria. This is a community of its own ? very nice people, laborious, with a unique culture, but quite set in their ways. Here?s what Shops say:
?There? nothing higher than Vitosha (Vitosha is their mountain) and nothing deeper than Iskyr (Iskyr is their brook, hardly a river).
?Why should I worry since even if I worry it will soon pass.?
?I hate to think. When I think it feels like I?m wrestling a bear.?
One day a Shop found himself in the zoo facing the giraffe. He kept watching and watching and in the end concluded: ?There is no such animal?.
Proof that your reaction doesn?t differ much from that of the Shop is the following conclusion you make regarding second Snyder?s video:QuoteThe second video, shows a rotor with magnets, holded by hand with rotates at a constant speed. if the device can generate energy, the speed should increase with time. It seems to me that there is a hidden battery somewhere (constant voltage, constant speed) probably in the white ring, which they do not show in the inside.
First, the device does generate energy because it obviously rotates which means that a body with a mass is being driven by a force to cover distance, becoming greater and greater. This energy, generated by the body, is at the expense of no energy input from the outside.
Notice, the device is generating energy even if its speed isn?t increasing with time. Have you ever seen a motor turning at given rotations per minute without external input of energy? I haven?t. Until Snyder?s video.
Your comment about the hidden battery is so ridiculous and offensive that needn?t even be mentioned. Here me out well ? there is no hidden battery in Snyder?s device. Period. Also, seeing Snyder?s working, you don?t need to see Torbay?s device to convince yourself that self-sustaining magnetic motors are real.
Plus there is definately evidence of coverup in the US. Tells me something is definately going on.
In hundreds of years of **serious** scientific work, nobody has found a single machine able to do "perpetual motion" or in other words, the ability for generating energy from "nothing", and I (or any other skeptic) are the one who has to come with evidence that such devices are frauds??? I'm sorry to dissapoint you, but the system works in the other way. If you find something like this, it has to be reproducible again and again by independent investigators in order to be considered serious.
That's all, I haven't seen any **serious** evidence of a working perpetual-magnetic motor here. SUre I've seen evidence of rotors/wheels turning **apparently** without external energy, but I can find many other more plausible explanations.
About your last phrase, why is so ridiculous to comment about a hidden battery?? why is it offensive?? is'n it more ridiculous to say that the device breaks phisic's laws tested and retested over and over again by thousands of much more intelligent scientist, experts in phisics and with lot of resources, than saying that there there is some hidden trick?
I come again to the same point: if it works, just prove it!! it should not be so hard, to build such a machine isn'it? if "self-sustaining magnetic motors are real" I should be able to build one don't you think?
Like i said berore.. Please keep this post only about information on the motor... If you want to discredit it, do it in your head and don't post. I'm no Moderator of any kind, but i'm very interested in this device. Besides if you think things like this won't work.... What the hell are you doing reading a site like this? ???
As for myself I would say I've got a pretty good understanding of the engine. There is only one thing at the moment which i do not grasp yet and that is where the springs are exactly and how are attached to the rest of the stator construction.
Anyone here that understand the mounting of the spring exactly?
Dutchy
The rotor arm (that gyrate) have 4 magnets with their north poles oriented to the external raising arms, the raising arms have magnets in their inner extrems with theirs north poles oriented to the rotor arm, then, thera are 8 magnets that are under the efects of magnetic same poles repulsion. This energy is much greater than necessary to raise one external raising arm. Wheb we raising one arm we get that the magnetic repulsion is lesser in that zone and the rotor arm tend to gyrate to the zone of lesser repulsion, in this position the raising arm is released and it go down for the action of a spring while the next arm is raisinsg. Then we get a continuos circular movement.
The rotor arm (that gyrate) have 4 magnets with their north poles oriented to the external raising arms, the raising arms have magnets in their inner extrems with theirs north poles oriented to the rotor arm, then, thera are 8 magnets that are under the efects of magnetic same poles repulsion.
?I think the springs would keep a constant force DOWNWARD on the magnet levers... these levers need to be positioned at just the right place (a little above mid-center) of the rotor (all in repel)...the repel force of the rotor and magnet lever would try to force the magnet lever up, (with the fulcrum at the rear), but the lip-edge on the rotor-cover would not allow this until a "sweet spot" (notice the Up-Turned lip edge) allows it to...the spring may only "help" the magnet lever as it works its way back down to a steady repel-repel mode.
liberty, I think we should already consider established that the rotor has magnets immovably attached to it. The picture we discussed shows three rotor magnets while in this new text by Torbay the rotor magnets are four. Torbay speaks of 8 magnets because he counts the four rotor magnets and the corresponding four magnets of the stator facing them. This is a peculiar way of explanation which was present still in Torbay?s first text which we were struggling to translate and discuss. There, in that previous text, Torbay was talking about 6 magnets ? three rotor magnets facing three stator magnets. And, based on this picture he wrote also equations with which he tried to explain where the driving net force comes from.
This part, as I said, I take as already established and it does not comprise the problem. The problem, as I see it is, what is the concrete mechanism of lifting and lowering the stator magnets? Also what are exactly these cuts in the magnets which Torbay mentions, that are hard to attain uniform?
I still don't understand how the device work.
The fourth stator magnet is going down wile the fifth is going up.
Thers no spring in the construction thers only a spring effect when the arm is lowerd
against the rotor magnet.
"AL ALCANZAR ESTA POSICION EL BRAZO ELEVADO ES LIBERADO Y BAJA POR EFECTO DE UN RESORTE MIENTRAS EL BRAZO INMEDIATO POSTERIOR ES ELEVADO"
When REACHING THIS POSITION The HIGH ARM IS RELEASED And LOW BY EFFECT OF MEANS WHILE The LATER IMMEDIATE ARM IS ELEVATED
The arm thats going downvards is pushed down by a ramp abowe it.
take a look att the picture
Sist. de descenso controlado =? downward controle system
Do you see it?
Its so simple.
So the sentence goes like this : When REACHING THIS POSITION The HIGH ARM IS RELEASED And LOWERED BY THE EFFECT OF A SPRING WHILE The LATER IMMEDIATE ARM IS ELEVATED
That's exactly what isn't quite clear -- exactly how the stator magnets are going up and down.
thers no magnet in the picture the black dots are weels have a look att the picures off the device it may come to you.
Please, explain ...do you see the triangle in the picture?
OK, but these triangles are in fact attached to the stator magnets, aren't they?
Also, in your picture you've shown the different stages (four stages) of lifting and lowering of one only magnet, correct? At that, in the direction from lower left to upper right, correct?
Triangle in yellow.yes
~D
Yes, I see the triangle ... where are the stator magnets ...well were did he atached them?
So, the photo shows only the triangle attached immovably to the rotor, correct? The photo doesn't show the stator magnets or the ramp? Where are the wheels? Are the wheels part of the stator magnets?not the rotor the triangle is on the leveres ,the big weel are attached to the rotor the smal weels on topp of the leveres.
Another thing which seems to be clear already is that there are no springs but because of the repulsive forces among the stator magnets, when lifted they stay where they are until the moment the motor cap ("sist. de descenso controlado" attached to the rotor) starts pushing them sloping down.
But i also think that there still will be a spring in play. It should keep the stator magnet down once it has descended. If there isn't one then the stator magnet might pop back up because it's head on with the rotor magnets (which cant move up). So i guess there might be a spring alongside with the controlled descending system. How else would the stator magnet stay down?
QuoteBut i also think that there still will be a spring in play. It should keep the stator magnet down once it has descended. If there isn't one then the stator magnet might pop back up because it's head on with the rotor magnets (which cant move up). So i guess there might be a spring alongside with the controlled descending system. How else would the stator magnet stay down?
dutchy1966, see the last picture of Feb2006. That construction takes care of descended magnets popping up without springs ? it appears that the motor cap holds down most of the stator magnets all the time, except for these two stator magnets that have to be raised and lowered.
I didn't mean the arm has repulsive forces. What I meant was the repulsive forces among the stator magnets. Anyway, these are details. I guess the main idea is already pretty clear. What remains is to figure out the concrete dimensions of the details so that they can be machined, put together and tried.
the rotor cap is the ?sist. de descenso controlado? in the general view of the motor (prototipo en corte.jpg on page 25) and not the ?tapa? as you?ve indicated in your schematic.
I think it's a good idea to agree on a size and come to a building plan together. That way everyone has the same info and at the sametime the information is spread around the world. (Just in case it is as good as claimed for!)
Lets work together here....
? ? ? ?I am proposing a nice round 4 or 6" inch diameter figure.
clutchy1966, I suggest that we express all dimensions in metric system. Also, there are two CD formats -- 8cm and 12cm diameter.
Also I think that we should first concentrate on the stator levers/magnets. Maybe make some working samples of them so we can test the lifting and descending of the magnets.
We can also work out then if it needs springs or not.
A proposal on how to use the rotor cap to also lift
the stator arm (see picture) .
Lowering the arm in the presence of the rotor may still be difficult. Spring will help a lot. But what about lowering it before rotor even reach it? It is like timing it a little ahead.
Feb2006, the three rotor magnets will keep the opposing three stator magnets down in your construction. How about the rest of the descended stator magnets, how are they gonna be kept steadily down without a motor cap or springs?
Honestly, I?m still debating as to whether Torbay?s solution for keeping the stator magnets down through motor cap and lifting them through a wheel pushing on a triangle wouldn?t be the simplest so far. I like your and dutchy1966?s solutions too but which ones would be easier to make and most efficient still is unclear to me.
Feb2006, the three rotor magnets will keep the opposing three stator magnets down in your construction. How about the rest of the descended stator magnets, how are they gonna be kept steadily down without a motor cap or springs?
That seems the opposite of the construction we're discussing. What is the advantage, though?Yep, that's exactly the opposite, i don't think it's a good idea to go for that at this stage. Too far off from Torbay's prototypes....
Feb2006, the three rotor magnets will keep the opposing three stator magnets down in your construction. How about the rest of the descended stator magnets, how are they gonna be kept steadily down without a motor cap or springs?
I think Feb2006 has a point here, the rest of the descended stator magnets will just stay down because of gravity. Remember there is no opposing magnet? that might make them move up! So if we can agree on the slightly tilted stator magnets to keep them down then I'm ready to give up on the springs.
Feb2006, How far you think we have to tilt the stator magnets? Few degrees should do i think....
dutchy
Feb2006, if it's for simplicity, wouldn't it be simpler to use Torbay's design with stationary magnets, each one supplied with a small wheel to be pressed by the motor cap? Each of these stator magnets (or the piece they're embedded in) would easily be beveled to allow raising the magnet by an easily attachable large wheel. Seems to me that would be easier to manufacture.I think my design in Reply #305 is simpler, only one wheel on each stator piece to do the lifting and down puch
I think there is a way to build one without using lathes and milling machines.
Every time the wheel traverses
from the rotor holddown to the upramp, and again from the upramp to the downramp, the wheel
is instantaeously obliged to reverse ITS direction of rotation. This effect will certainly act as a
brake to the whole motor?
QuoteEvery time the wheel traverses
from the rotor holddown to the upramp, and again from the upramp to the downramp, the wheel
is instantaeously obliged to reverse ITS direction of rotation. This effect will certainly act as a
brake to the whole motor
Sooner or later you will discover that the force of that brake is exactily the same as the torque force created by repulsion of the magnets over the rotor...
Why not lifting the stator magnets with a little repelling magnet ?
( below the stator magnets )
(sorry to post off topic)
i am really wanting to join in on topics such as this but you people are so far beyond me its not funny... could anyone recomend a way for a newby to these things some way to "catch up" a good conprehendable book to bring me up to speed? i am afraid i am to far behind to catch up this way but i will attempt anyhow. thanks
danny
Let me mention also about the HD which I prefer before the CD 'cause it's sturdier. My HD has aluminum casting which is very hard to do anything with and is surrounding the disc - disc is simehow dipped in this aluminum shell. Anybody with exerience with these HD's? Probably we should agree on a certain diameter of the HD disc as well.
Hey guys, I think we may be putting the wagon in front of the horses...
We may need to find the MAGNETS (size and shape) we need first, THEN design the sizes accordingly. I am looking now.
Also, we may want to design the first out of soft wood, even balsa...so that it can be worked easily, and parts can even be cut without expensive tools (even hand tools)...when we get a design that works (or close) we can progress to a metal design.
Jay
dutchy1966: I'm not sure about the balsa wood. Isn't it better to start with a readily available U frame (aluminium) ?
Potential problem?
Just trying to stay ahead of the problems...what do you think? We can find rectangle magnets that are correct, but they won't be shaped the way we need them to be.
PS: do we need to start a new thread? If we are intruding on this thread, we can start a new post...sorry for hi-jacking this?
EDIT: should say "may be too close and CAUSE the rotor to stick"
Hey guys, I think we may be putting the wagon in front of the horses...
We may need to find the MAGNETS (size and shape) we need first, THEN design the sizes accordingly. I am looking now.
Also, we may want to design the first out of soft wood, even balsa...so that it can be worked easily, and parts can even be cut without expensive tools (even hand tools)...when we get a design that works (or close) we can progress to a metal design.
Jay
So, Omnibus, what is the FINAL design, the final theory, that we are to replicate then?
I didn't see any one post where everyone agreed, maybe I missed it. Please help, thanks!
Were gonna do this guys!!
Awesome...
Tao
Alrighty, lets get this thing licked...
Just imagine it working... The smiles on our faces, the black helicopters above our houses, lol
Final design in my opinion is the one suggested by Torbay. Eight (or sixteen as in the patent) stator magnets with levers, beveled at the bottom and with small wheels on top. Three rotor magnets attached on a 9.5cm HD disc, a larger wheel attached appropriately ahead of the three rotor magnets and a motor cap attached to the rotor with an appropriate opening and a sloping ramp.
As far as I can tell none of the proposed slight modifications can beat original Torbay's design so far.
liberty: I wish you well in your attempts and bid you farewell.
omnibus: Like I said, the thread is overburdened and there's no place especially for tasteless jokes.
I think my design in Reply #305 is simpler, only one wheel on each stator piece to do the lifting and down puchU can use two weels on the stator.
no wheel on the rotor no bevel on each stator piece only a up ramp a down ramp and hold down on the rotor (motor) cap.
Tommy,
Sorry, my previous response fired off prematurely.
I like your design, but there's only one part of it that troubles me: Every time the wheel traverses
from the rotor holddown to the upramp, and again from the upramp to the downramp, the wheel
is instantaeously obliged to reverse ITS direction of rotation. This effect will certainly act as a
brake to the whole motor, analogous to turbine RETROjets utilized in commercial jet aircraft immediately after
touchdown which contribute to deceleration.
I am convinced that the motor works/looks like this:
The rotor has three magnets(N pointing toward stator magnets) on it like the pictures and patents show, and all around the stator are magnets (N pointing toward rotor) that are on wood or metal pieces with a triangle formation on their bottoms so they can be lifted by the rotor as it moves.
The KEY to this motor and the reason it works is due to the fact that a stator magnet if LIFTED. This lifting happens BEFORE the three rotor magnets get near that lifted magnet and the magnet if lifted ABOVE all the stator magnet so that there isn't any interactions.
The reason the magnet lifting is the KEY is detailed below:
Just as Jason O pionted out with one of his pictures, when you have a complete circle of magnets with all N poles facing inward and you place one rotor magnet inside with N pole facing the stators, nothing happens!
BUT, when you take out one of those stator magnets what you have now if a semi-circle of stator magnets pointing N poles inward and if you place that same rotor magnet inside with N pole facing the stators that magnet will move QUICKLY TO THE GAP that was created by lifting that one stator magnet, because it has a way out from the N<->N repulsions!
So in the Argentina motor, we have a situation where a cat is chasing it's tail and can NEVER catch it.
It is the act of CONSTANTLY lifting a stator magnet that makes the three rotor magnets MOVE TO THE GAP (AKA THE MAGNET YOU JUST LIFTED). I think it would be safe to say that you could lift the stator magnet that is TWO MAGNETS away (as opposed to the exact next magnet as the patent shows) from the rotor's current position and the device would still work, becuase those rotor magnets would want to get to that gap point.
Also, as long as you don't put down that lifted stator magnet BEFORE you lift the NEXT one then the device will keep on "chasing it's tail!!"
So all the design requires it a stator with liftable magnets, the rotor with the two/three rotor magnets, and the RAMP that is on the rotor that lift the oncoming stator magnets one by one. That is oversimplified, but shows the basic and main features that are needed!
f the rotor lid-cap turns every next stator magnet will pop up
due to the repelling forces and the ramp on the lid-cap will
force the already lifted statormagnet to go down again under the lid-cap.
This way there need not to be any wheel or springs, just stator magnets
on a fullcrum, that go automatically uo due to the reppeling forces
when the lidcap hole reaches them.
Omnibus, you need to lay off my back man, what is your problem? You keep attacking me and only me.
I refuse to listen to you, period, this thread is for all, and I put on two VERY informative posts, so back off.
if the rotor cap ( lid-cap) is able to hold down all the stator magnet
and only one stator magnet is automatically lifted by the huge repelling forces, where the
lid-cap has a hole (break) in it.
If the rotor lid-cap turns, every next stator magnet will pop up
due to the repelling forces and the ramp on the lid-cap will
force the already lifted statormagnet to go down again under the lid-cap.
This way there need not to be any wheel or springs, just stator magnets
on a fullcrum, that go automatically up due to the reppeling forces
when the lidcap hole reaches them.
Quoteliberty: I wish you well in your attempts and bid you farewell.
Liberty, please don't be offended and leave, we will need your help....
After doing about 100 FEMM simulations and FORCE calculations on the rotor I have determined that the rotor has only ONE MAGNET and that magnet is a disc/ring magnet that is MAGNETIZED THROUGH ITS DIAMETER!
I am going to provide a complete visual communication with calculations I did in FEMM for magnetic analysis of the two rotor ideas. The 3/4 magnet rotor idea DOES work, but I am of the mind, RIGHT NOW, that the disc magnet magnetized through its diameter might be better.
Tao: After doing about 100 FEMM simulations and FORCE calculations on the rotor I have determined that the rotor has only ONE MAGNET and that magnet is a disc/ring magnet that is MAGNETIZED THROUGH ITS DIAMETER!
Whats causing the non rotor magnets to retract again? Just force from the opposite polarity rotor magnets?
how does the wedge system work.... i wonder if a magnet fixed to the bottom of the rotor n side out running under the lip of the stator magnet "elevating magnet" (i hope i understand what the stator is)........ wouldn't this push the elevating magnet up as well only without friction.
So, to get 1 HP out of hartiberlin's design (where the rotor has 5Nm or torque on it) the rotor would have to spin at 1419.46 RPM
T
Tao
Also, with the kind of torque we have seen in the FEMM modeling it is very hard to believe that this motor wouldn't work. .
Tao
Are you talking about the conclusion that a particle?s mass increases with velocity?
movie won't play in WMP
tjanzer,
Per attached drawing. N2 is on the way up. N3 is up and on the way down.
As N2 rises, it is helped by N1 and opposed by N3.
As N3 lowers, it is opposed by N2 and then opposed by N4.
Once N2/N3 are past midpoint, they will help each other but N3 is still opposed by N4.
(oops, I think the direction arrow is the wrong way).
This is why I think you may require springs to return the stator in line.
TJ
Seems the simple "tidder todder" device being shown in various documents would
be the very easiest to attempt understanding and building"...
and if It can be proven to work... then one could develop this further to
produce motive force to drive a wheel.
There are some experimental setups that one should probably do as described
to understand the priniciples -- and then on to the perpetual version of that
tidder todder. (which is my nickname for that contraption)...
But that darn tidder-todder (if it can be made to work) // would actually be a form
of perpetual-pendulum...
I do not know why but this let me remember of US3992132
S
dL
do not know why but this let me remember of US3992132
S
dL
US3992132 ;William Putt : Energy Conversion System
Sincerely
de Lanca
ps tjanzer - no more jokes omnibus is likely to get mad :) (pokes omnibus in the ribs) sorry can't help but get excided about this project. :)
Quoting Lynxis, from another thread:QuoteSeems the simple "tidder todder" device being shown in various documents would
be the very easiest to attempt understanding and building"...
and if It can be proven to work... then one could develop this further to
produce motive force to drive a wheel.
There are some experimental setups that one should probably do as described
to understand the priniciples -- and then on to the perpetual version of that
tidder todder. (which is my nickname for that contraption)...
But that darn tidder-todder (if it can be made to work) // would actually be a form
of perpetual-pendulum...
The Gary Magnet motor is what I WAS replicating when I came across this very thread...I believe the same forces are in play here, or are very related... I guess time will tell.
And , I am still going to finish my Gary rep also...
PS: Keep up the GREAT work Tao! and thank yous go out to everyone working on this, and Stefan also for the bandwidth and website...
hartiberlin - can you do a femm sim on a settup using 1/8 inch thick neos standing virticle on the stator. (flat side pointing at rotor)
thanks
danny
Then we have the first issues:
- NdFeB magnets only
- Distant between rotor and stator as a important design parameter.
- Different magnetization power between rotor and stator.
The last issue is a problem: if you have similar rotor and stator magnets, the work you need to push down stators looks like similar to torque (experiments seem to confirm it). If different (rotor bar for instance), we would have a "better net torque" (simulations and experiments confirm it) but a potential demagnetization proccess can be done. I think it is very important to model demagnetization versus field stress.
PD. A "better net torque" doesn?t mean a positive net torque that means the device works. It is not confirmed yet.
I think it's safe to say though that Torbay has DONE IT, all those newsparper articles and TV recording and eyewitnesses, so all we need worry about is how exactly to replicate his design. Wink
anywho, my wife is having contractions so i am headed to the hospital in a minute. will be back in a few hours to check on the thread. good luck with all your replications! Smiley
question - i have been storing my magnets stuck together (s/n natural atraction, so on) ...... will this hurt the magnets? i am not familiar with demagnitization at all.
thanks
danny
One more thing, to everyone, the idea of degaussing the magnets isn't really that much of an issue as long as you use matched magnets for the stators and rotor like ceramic 5s, ceramic 8s, NdFeb magnets. They are quite prone to not degauss. Look at Bedini's clarifier device, it has two ceramic magnets glued together in a repulsion S<->S and they don't degauss themselves, because they have LIKE fields.
Anyway, good work.
Tao
You are right, it takes energy to put the stator back down, but, that stator in Torbay's design goes down BEFORE the rotor magnets get to it...not after
This means that the 3 rotor magnets never reach that GAP point that is made by the lifted stator, for as they approach that stator that is lifted, it is brought down before they reach AND at the same time the next stator in line is lifted, so now the rotor wants to move to that NEW GAP point, and the process continues.
So the question of energy is if the rotor's force it uses to reach that GAP is greater than the force needed to lower that stator. And, it is...
Tao
I have been comtemplating the easiest way to setup a prototype considering I don't have a band saw or drill press.
Articles 0005/0006 in his publication mean:THINK BIG !!!THINK GLOBAL !!!
Sincerely
de Lanca
....That?s right. It was happen in my model. Also I agree that the main issue is the "recover" cycle that has two actions: lifting (no problem and a very small interaction with rotor) and pushing down (all problems). This cycle involves z component mainly, that is just not calculate by FEMM, unless we simulate z-x plane and z-y plane separated. The "torque cycle" has not problems and works: holding by hands the rotor and stators in the ideal point, the torque is good. The problem is to recover this ideal point ... by itself.
But- if you look at the interaction of the stator magnets with the rotor, because the rotor has moved, it is resisting the stator magnet's return more strongly
than it was assisting its elevation.? You will find that the amount by which those two forces differ is the same as the forward force on the rotor.
There is always more than one stator magnet down in the gap,If I may add to what Stefan is saying, if you can imagine a stator ring with 10 magnets in it, if they all have the north poles facing in, then naturally if you rotate one of them up out of the ring, the repulsive force from all the other magnets will want to force it out; and naturally, it would be hard to reset the single magnet back into the ring. It's like releasing a compressed spring and then trying to push it back again. But if we go with the idea Stefan is presenting, then imagine not one but maybe three stator magnets lifting at a time in a sort of wave fashion, where the middle magnet of the three would be lifted the highest (crest of the wave) while the two on either side of it would be half-lifted up, that way the total repulsive force is divided between the three magnets instead of just one.
so it is easy to lift the old one up.
If you want to lift the old stator magnet the next
one is already half way down, so it requires less force to lift
the old up.
So all in all the lifting back into the stator circle requires
less energy than you get from the rotor magnet torque.
I will show this in a few FEMM simulations soon.
So all the skeptics have not yet understood the motor concept.
Regards, Stefan.
What would happen is, there would be 2-4 stators ALWAYS LIFTED at their maximum height wtih no other stators lifted, so the 'loop' is broken.
Then one of the stators would go down and one would come up to this maximum position, and it is at this time that there 'might' be a 'loop' situation, BUT what happens in a loop situation?? The rotor is TORQUE-LESS, BUT it isn't MOMENTUM-LESS! So the enormous torque on the rotor would easily guide it through IF there was a momentous 'loop' situation, which I don't think will occur.
OR (the prefered condition) etc. etc.