Miller Colson Magnetic Motor

[mike_kilroy]

Wait.... you said it was!



20#-ft constant at 125rpm doesn't imply a full 360° rotation? That's less than half a second... but not continuous? So your definition of constant is for less than a forth of a second. And just in case somebody wanted to do the math... for what? The power output for a partial revolution?

O.K.

bi

OK. inertia wheels don't work. 10-4. whatever u say

[gotoluc]

Thanks for the reply Luc.

And of course the 20#ft torque is not continuous throughout the whole 360 degree rotation: I do not believe anyone ever said it was. That is why ICE engines have fly wheels, just like Sonny's machine had a flywheel...

Agree

It is a shame you could not put your 4 channel scope on his machine when the timing was correct...

We tried to help them but we did not have days to work it out.
Sonny knowing we were coming form a distance, should he not have warned us the device was not in ideal working condition, before we did the trip to measure it?

Shame so many folks are working against each other to be the "first" to come up with the greater than unity machine.... but that is a politically incorrect comment...

Not sure what you are trying to imply here?

I have looked at the stuff you and floor have done - very good. Ya'all understand that the greater than unity - excuse me, torque multiplying stuff, is done by exploiting the fact that the magnetic attraction can be larger than the un-attraction of the same equal but opposite motion by devious means. Ie., by exploiting using attraction (or revulsion - it does not matter which you do) and making a SMALLER force on reverse stroke by either TURNING magnets 90 degrees from each other, AND/OR (no one has yet to try to use BOTH to get reduction in 1/2 again!!!!), as you saw Sonny do, SLIDE them sideways off each other. In either method, the magnet strength of the "return" stroke can be made LESS than the "forward" stroke and thus torque multiplication. Pretty basic stuff, but it requires the wizardry and out of box thinking such as Mr. Sonny Miller has shown so many of you.

What floor was originally working on is not the same magnet orientation as the Sonny Miller device. Floor uses the sides of the magnets and not the faces of the magnets as the Miller device. Big difference!
Also, just so you know, floor never heard of the Sonny Miller device till someone brought it to his attention several months after he had started his topic.

You really should give Sonny his due: he has shown that this is possible, and then you guys are now expanded on what he taught you.

That is not correct!
Sonny Miller's device failed to demonstrate OU. In fact, as soon as the prony brake (20 ft/lb load) was engaged the power input to the device would go up by around 110 Watts.
The only credit I would give Sonny is, when I came back from the failed trip, I decided to build floor's device to see if it was a better solution since I had been following floor's topic months before knowing of Sonny's device.

It is my opinion too that Sonny may not understand the electronic excitation side of this enough to have taken his design AT THIS TIME to the next final step, but he certainly led you guys in the direction you need to go to finish it.

As you say, this is your "opinion" and has nothing to do with facts.

I have high hopes that Mr. Miller will hire a LOCAL electronic wizard (God knows I have tried to make it so!) to take him through his timing issues; to date that has happened. If he had LOCAL DAILY electrical servo guidance I believe he would in 2 months have the finished product that is a true torque multiplier. But of course that is just my opinion, having supplied the servo and controls to date.

The newest (v.2) of the my test device which is a variation of floor original design and a design of my own, will not need servo motors to make it work. That should tell you it's not based on Sonny's design. It looks nothing like it!... see below picture to compare.
My device then Sonny's device. Anyone see any resemblance?

Good luck to you sir, and floor, in furthering the use of this magnetic force no one knows the source of. Perhaps if the three of you wizards were to work together...

I did send Sonny an email after returning from testing his device. The email contained links to my videos of old magnet motors I designed.
Never got a reply.
So we need to ask our self's, why the fuss now?

Sincerely

Luc

[RAMSET]

additional clarity and an error mentioned

from here TD replications

Luc

quote

I now see a terrible error!... the 16.125 inches was for each section of disengage then engage. So the 16.125 inches would have to be multiply by 2 = 32.25 inches of outer rotor traveled for 180 degrees, making the rotor 20.53 inches in diameter and the device under unity from the calculated math.

So the input rotor traveled 6.45 times the distance of the output. So input average is 1.1Kg x 6.45 = 7.1Kg input to 6.25Kg of output so under unity by about 12%

I'm so sorry for your trouble and expenses.
Please accept my apology.

At everyone, please accept my apology for the trouble my over site may of caused

Kind regards

Luc
end quote
so for Clarity
this experiment is considered underunity

however
*also to note
Butch Lafonte has been researching these interactions for many many years

someone playing with his work below ,as well as his you tube Channel



for consideration ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG3sVLw_WDw

and Butch's channel

https://www.youtube.com/user/LaFonteResearch/videos

[rstergar]

replication

here si my simple replication of this motor... but for now it is not working... i will try some adjustments and add flywheel...

YT video

see ya