My purpose in this video is to clear up a common misconception held by several viewers of my videos, which is that I should be employing some method in order to counter the effects of so-called “sticky points.” I start by once again explaining what a sticky point is, and demonstrate how this – as well as undesired repulsion forces – can cause rotation to stop in a stationary stator setup. I then go on to explain and demonstrate why there is no need to employ methods to negate or weaken these forces with my moving stator setup. Quite simply, my MOSTAT (moving stator) method entirely avoids these counter rotational forces by moving in such a way as to turn them into productive, additive accelleration forces.
30. May 2009 at 2:41 pm
What you are failing to grasp is that these folks you are calling “nay-sayers” may have thought it through and really proven that this whole idea is a blind alley. In this machine the person is providing the energy by moving a magnet with his hand. If you actually make measurements of the forces involved, you will discover that the results match what you can calculate and that there is no net energy production.
30. May 2009 at 2:49 pm
You are giving advice based on your mistaken idea about what is going on here. Obviously you haven’t made any actual measurements to see what the torque vs angle is when you set up some magnets on a wheel and move them past some stationary ones. You don’t need to actually do it, just think carefully about the case of just one pole on each and then think about the graph of torque vs angle and then think about adding a pole and thus adding two graphs together. If you are careful you will see.
30. May 2009 at 3:39 pm
The nay-sayers have thought it through and really proven the idea is blind alley? O rly? I seriously doubt it, and “thinking through” is not the same as proving something through experimentation.
Nobody does experimentation anymore; all people do is blindly believe what they’ve been taught and call everyone else fools for not accepting their received wisdom.
If you haven’t personally done or witnessed this type of experiment, then I say shut up and watch and see what happens.
30. May 2009 at 7:09 pm
I have done experiments and made calculations and they agree to the accuracy of the measurements. Experiments never “prove” they “disprove”. When you design an experiment to test your theory, you design it to try to disprove your theory. You design the experiment and make your measurements and then examine your data.
It only takes a little knowledge of physics and math to show that magnetic poles on a rotor and others on a stator can never create an average torque.
31. May 2009 at 5:06 am
Enlighten me Knowledgemoger, post a video of such experiments. I look foward to to u posting a video for every comment you make. shit in = shit out
31. May 2009 at 5:10 am
Whats ur average torque, do u have a video to prove this?, IMHO u mean well, prove it with a vid response
31. May 2009 at 2:21 pm
Videos basically prove nothing as Mylow has demonstrated quite well.
Proving that there is no arrangement of poles that can work obviously can’t be done with a video because that would take an infinite number of examples. I can prove it with a little bit of logic that covers all cases and will do so. I will take more than 500 characters so look for multiple comments:
Start off by assuming that there is just one pole on the rotor and one on the stator. This situation is its own mirror….
31. May 2009 at 2:25 pm
…image. Obviously, if you make a graph of the torque vs angle for the simple case. the graph must also be its own mirror image. This means that in this very simple case, the average torque has to be zero.
Now imagine we remove the pole on the stator and put a new one at some other location. We will get a different graph of torque vs angle. The place along this new curve where the mirror goes will be different but again the average torque is zero.
We know that the total torque is the…
31. May 2009 at 2:32 pm
… simple sum when you have multiple torques. This means that when we put both poles in place on the stator, the graph will be just the sum of the two graphs we already have. Since both of those graphs average to zero, the sum must also average two zero.
If we add a third, 4th etc pole to the stator, we just add up more curves.
Now if we take away the pole on the rotor and replace it, the same argument applies. The average torque comes out to zero.
This proves that no combination …
31. May 2009 at 2:40 pm
.. of fixed poles can produce a non-zero average torque. If you have followed the argument, at this point you will agree that this proves the case for all things like the Mylow wheel.
Notice that the argument does not change when the poles are attracting and repelling. I don’t require than any pole be in any specific location. This means that it covers all possible combinations of permanent magnets attached to the machine.
31. May 2009 at 11:10 pm
it wood b reely nice 2 c a video proof dem,
1. June 2009 at 12:24 am
The force required to move the stator is quite negligible at a stator height of 1.75 inches or more above the rotor magnets, while the magnetic interactions propelling the wheel are still quite good at that height. As the stator is lowered, it does require additional amounts of force to move it, but the magnetic interactions are also much stronger, providing additional thrust.
1. June 2009 at 12:29 am
Thanks gazzaka, you are one of the truly observant ones.
1. June 2009 at 12:40 am
Hi jbignes5, Certainly a servo could be employed efficiently, but my aim is to operate this with no external energy supplied. Magnetic and mechanical energies only.
1. June 2009 at 12:42 am
TheRickoff (5 seconds ago) I will see what? I am showing the pitfalls of a stationary stator, and how I overcome those with a moving stator. No need to plot and graph when a visual demonstration shows exactly what occurs except to those who are wearing blinders.
1. June 2009 at 12:44 am
Arnd2it – I know that others have tried and failed, although they were attempting this with different builds, materials, and methods, which cannot be directly compared to what my setup or plans entail.
1. June 2009 at 12:49 am
o.t.c.e. – Yes, and that is the case with my moving stator method. But are you saying that a stationary stator can work as well as a MOSTAT? If so, give us a link to show your stationary stator build in action.
1. June 2009 at 12:55 am
jblough666 – you have hit the nail squarely on the head, and are quite right. And if the 2 accellerative forces (F2) at each 90 degrees of rotation, plus the force imparted by the flywheel momentum (F3) are greater than the force required for each movement of the stator (F2) then the game is won.
1. June 2009 at 1:10 am
k.m. – “This proves that no combination of fixed poles can produce a non-zero average torque.” You are entirely missing the point, and have simply wasted your time in describing the inefficiencies of fixed pole configurations. They don’t apply to a moving stator.
1. June 2009 at 1:14 am
k.m. – “In this machine the person is providing the energy by moving a magnet with his hand.” That is a false assumption and is proven false in video #19.
1. June 2009 at 3:43 am
Ordinary Magnets are made of Stable Isotopes, their fields are very stable and do not fluctuate on their own without some constant input. however, Unstable Magnetic Isotopes are radioactive, when ever a radioactive magnet decays or excepts a particle its magnetic field will expand or collapse back to ground state, Radioactive magnets can act as a constant moving stator field because of their fluctuating magnetic fields. regular magnets need a constant input of energy of some kind.
2. June 2009 at 12:49 am
If you actually made the measurements of what onthecuttingedge2005 was suggesting and made the graph you would see.
2. June 2009 at 12:53 am
The point about the fixed stator does apply to the moving stator case also. Go back through the argument with the pole on the stator moving and you will see that it still holds with the added complication that you must account for the energy needed to move the stator pole. Without the energy you provide by moving the pole, the wheel will come to a stop. I will comment further on this last bit on the video #19 comments.
10. July 2009 at 8:45 pm
Hi rick I am very interested in your design and magnetic kinetic energy in general. I have been thinking if you use a coil that can produce the power to a magnet to give it the pull then shut off thus = not opening the chance to have a negative pull. You must have this motor a generating factor too supply the kinetic energy for the movement of the sticky point..
10. July 2009 at 9:32 pm
Again I must point out that there are no sticky points with the moving stator design. A moving stator avoids these. Your suggestion of using a pulsed coil electromagnet would certainly work, but the object here is to build a magnetic motor that requires no electrical input. The only question, really, is what method of moving the stator will prove to work best. Methods acceptable in this project include mechanical, magnetic, and gravity movements, and any combination of these.