working OU of Juan Carlos Aviles Moran, unidad de repelencia magnetica (U.R.M)

[Mark]

Hello Rick

Sounds like your burning the candle from both ends. I own a operate an auto repair business and I'm also very busy but hope to at least partially retire soon. I haven't done anything original yet, built a dozen or so SG and SSG until I had a rotor come apart and blow a chunk out of the back of my chair. I'm currently waiting on a machined and balance rotor to work on a self runner idea. I have also had some ideas about experimenting with a donut shaped toriod tube filled with a gas under vacuum.

I am also very interested in one of Bedini's patent
## USP 2003/0117111 A1, Jun. 26 2003, Device and Method for Pulse Charging a Battery and for Driving other Devices with a Pulse, John C. Bedini,

esp@cenet — Bibliographic data
For some reason this link wont work either, the link does work on my last post to electric motor secrets post #1167

I tried to cut a paste the diagram but couldn't get it to post, not too computer savy. Rick I would be interested in any comments you have on this patent or if your aware of any replications and test results of it. Good luck on all your endevers.

Thank, Mark

[rickoff]

Reply to patmac:

Thanks rickoff, good info, this clearify all

But, now I'm amazed and confused about anothers experiments here in energeticforum.

pyrolytic graphite: is diamagnetic, NOT NEUTRAL, if neutral =0 this material is <0, is great and incredible, if this material is <0, then IS SUPERCONDUCTOR in apropiated conditions:

What if carbon rod on Ed Gray Tube is pyrolytic graphite?

If I'm wrong correct me and I'll redit this post to avoid change the topic. If i'm right then we can move it to Ed Gray Tube Thread.

Hi patmac,

I'm not so sure that pyrolytic graphite would be beneficial when used in the Gray Tube. First of all, the Gray Tube patent makes no mention of the use of carbon, although carbon might be assumed, however, by mention of a resistive element connected to one of the anodes. Secondly, diamagnetic materials are only effective at repelling magnetic fields under very low current conditions, which doesn't seem applicable. That holds true for superconductors too.

Superconductors can be thought of as possessing perfect diamagnetic qualities, since they expell all magnetic fields when exposed to a low current, and this is due to the Meissner effect. Superconductivity breaks down quickly, though, if the externally applied magnetic field strength is increased. It must be applied in a weak state. Scientists exploring superconductivity are just beginning to attain laboratory conditions nearing absolute zero temperature. While that isn't possible for us, we can experiment with liquid nitrogen, which will produce some interesting levitation effects by using a superconductor alloy to repel a magnet floating above it. Extreme caution must be used to protect yourself from exposure when handling liquid nitrogen. A simple superconductivity experiment can be found here, and diamagnetic levitation experiments as well:
Superconductivity Experiments

Best regards to you,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to Mark:

Hello Rick

Sounds like your burning the candle from both ends. I own a operate an auto repair business and I'm also very busy but hope to at least partially retire soon. I haven't done anything original yet, built a dozen or so SG and SSG until I had a rotor come apart and blow a chunk out of the back of my chair. I'm currently waiting on a machined and balance rotor to work on a self runner idea. I have also had some ideas about experimenting with a donut shaped toriod tube filled with a gas under vacuum.

I am also very interested in one of Bedini's patent
## USP 2003/0117111 A1, Jun. 26 2003, Device and Method for Pulse Charging a Battery and for Driving other Devices with a Pulse, John C. Bedini,

esp@cenet &mdash; Bibliographic data
For some reason this link wont work either, the link does work on my last post to electric motor secrets post #1167

I tried to cut a paste the diagram but couldn't get it to post, not too computer savy. Rick I would be interested in any comments you have on this patent or if your aware of any replications and test results of it. Good luck on all your endevers.

Thank, Mark

Hi Mark,

I hope you weren't sitting in the chair when your rotor flew apart!

That's the wrong number for the Bedini patent. It is actually 6,677,730 and can be found here: United States Patent: 6677730

A thread was started here by Aaron, in 2007, that deals with Bedini solid state oscillators. You can find that here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa....html#post1396

You might also research the Tesla Switch: OS:Tesla Switch - Geovoltaic Energy Pump (GVEP) - PESWiki

A very good pdf document on the Tesla Switch, written by Patrick Kelly can be found here:
http://www.freeenergynews.com/Direct...itch_PGFED.pdf

All of this is interrelated with what you are interested in. Hope this is a help to you,

Rick

[sucahyo]

@Broli, would the torroid give any polarity? I can't imagine where the north and the south part. If north and south rotating at the speed of light I don't think the magnet would response.

@rickoff, after doing some magnet experiment today, I found out that size do matter. Maybe there is a special rule for ratio of rotating part magnet length and the distance between magnet in static part.

about magnetic shield, can't we use nickel metal like annealed/evenly heated up SS306L? or Aluminum?

[rickoff]

Reply to sucahyo:

@Broli, would the torroid give any polarity? I can't imagine where the north and the south part. If north and south rotating at the speed of light I don't think the magnet would response.

@rickoff, after doing some magnet experiment today, I found out that size do matter. Maybe there is a special rule for ratio of rotating part magnet length and the distance between magnet in static part.

about magnetic shield, can't we use nickel metal like annealed/evenly heated up SS306L? or Aluminum?

As I pointed out in post #13, Perendev uses stainless steel shields and an inner layer of pyrolytic graphite that surrounds the magnets. This applies to both the stator and rotor magnets. The magnets have a length to diameter ratio of about 2 to 1, and are placed at an angle of 34 degrees to a tangent line drawn on the outer circumference of the rotor, or inner circumference of the stator. In the Perendev PMM, the spacing between the rotor and the stator magnets is controlled by adjusting the stators inwards or outwards. An inwards adjustment will increase the repulsion effect, and thus increase speed and torque. At some point, though, it is possible to bring the magnet faces too close together, making the revolving motion jerky. If the Juan Moran unit could be scaled up to the size of a Perendev rotor, I don't think it would operate. The fields are so strong that it becomes very difficult to get past the "sticky point," or point of equilibrium that any PMM encounters. To get past that, you need an additional force to drive the rotor past the sticky point. This could be done with the addition of an electromagnet in the stator, such as has been used in the Minato motor, but then you don't have a true PMM in the purist sense. Another means of overcoming the sticky point is to use mechanical leverage, as was done in the original Brady motor. That design used devices similar to large ball point pens which alternately stored and then released mechanical energy to drive the rotor past sticky points. You can view the patent pdf here:
Old style Reed Magnetic motor.pdf - Windows Live

Shielding does help in overcoming sticky spots, to some degree, but is less effective in strong magnetic fields where large neo magnets are used. The Perendev method uses three rotors, and there is a very good reason for this. The second rotor is rotated 20 degrees from the first, and the third is rotated an additional 20 degrees from the second. This causes the rotor magnets to be in an offset alignment wherein there are always two magnets in repulsion to help a third magnet past a sticky point. Obviously, at least three rotors are needed to accomplish this. Additional rotors could be installed if desired, and the angle of offset reduced accordingly (13.333 degrees for 4 rotors, or 10 degrees for 5 rotors, for example). Those configurations would probably work even better, but would of course make the build far more expensive than it already is.

The expense incurred in constructing a Perendev style PMM puts it out of reach for most experimenters, mainly due to the need for a great many powerful and large neo magnets. That's why I feel it does not make for a good replication project. I feel that it would be far preferable to utilize a different approach that would require a much smaller number of magnets, and a different solution to the "sticky spot" problem. This solution has to do with entirely avoiding the sticky spot problem in the first place, and is accomplished by using a stator magnet that moves, rather than remaining stationary. There are two ways to do this, basically.
1. In the first method, the stator magnet can be made to pivot somewhat, so that it alternately attracts, then repels an approaching magnet within the rotor. For example, the north pole of an approaching rotor magnet is attracted towards the south pole of the stator magnet. When near to the stator magnet, the stator magnet is pivoted away in order to lessen the attraction and thus eliminate a sticky spot. Further pivoting, after the rotor magnet has passed by, allows the rotor magnet's north pole to be repelled by the stator magnet's north pole. Just one stator magnet, preferably stronger than the rotor magnets, is all that is needed, and only two or three rotor magnets are required, with no more than four suggested.
You can see a close to working attempt of this principle here:
YouTube - 04 - Magnetic motor prototype parts descriptions
The only thing that held this design back was that the stator magnet had to moved, with proper timing, and by the operator's hand. An attempt was later made to achieve this movement mechanically, but the necessary movement and timing was not perfected. The experimenter moved on to other projects. I think that we could devise a solution without much difficulty if some of you are willing to give it a try.

2. In the second method, the stator is not pivoted, but rather is moved laterally away from a rotor magnet after repelling it, and into a position where it can repel an adjacent rotor magnet that is offset from the first one. Several rotor magnets are used for this method, each one being offset a like amount from an adjacent rotor magnet. The rotor magnets are installed on an elongated cylinder. The cylinder can be mounted vertically or horizontally. The stator magnet keeps moving in a straight line direction parallel to the length of the rotor, and then reverses direction where appropriate to continue a repelling action. The layout of the rotor magnets is such that no matter which direction the stator magnet is moving in, there is always a rotor magnet available for repulsion. The trick to using this method in a PMM is to somehow move the stator magnet with a mechanical linkage, rather than moving it by hand, as shown in a very simple demonstration of the principle here:
YouTube - Perendev Jalapeno magnetic motor
As you can see, the motion required is somewhat similar to the stator magnet movent in the prior example. In this example, though, the stator magnet continuously repels. It is also important that there be a crossover point. When the rotor magnets are sloping upward on the cylinder, the stator magnet must be below the rotor magnets, and conversely must be above the rotor magnets when they change to a downward slope. Thus, the need for a crossover point in each rotor revolution, where the stator magnet must cross over the rotor magnet line. I believe that this second method may produce even better results than the first. The constant repulsion (other than at the crossover point), and the increased number of magnets, will provide for a smoother and more powerful rotation. Does this interest anyone?

I like these principles, since they do work and require very modest investments to experiment with. They also lend themselves well to larger builds that will be capable of producing usable power. Fabrication does not require expensive machining or materials, and absolutely no shielding is required.


Whatever you do, stay away from aluminum when constructing a PMM as it has a strongly negative impact due to the eddy currents that it produces when subjected to magnetic fields. It will slow or stop the rotor. The interaction between moving neo magnets and aluminum is quite interesting to observe, as in the following example, but is not something desirable in a PMM.
YouTube - Neodymium Magnet against gravity

Best to you,

Rick

[sucahyo]

Many thanks for the explanation and link . The last video looks very interesting. Overcoming sticky part seems similar to gravity/pendulum wheel. Maybe once either of them work it can be transfered to one another.


A couple of question:
- do the magnet has to be neo? the magnet will have short live if it isn't?
- it seems all design assume that magnet flux only goes from north to south, unlike Howard Johnson recent finding. I wonder if we can get better design by linking the north to make the flux go from north to north, see attachment.
- would it be possible to utilize magnetic flux transporter? we place a couple of coil to convert magnetic to electric and we use it to power one coil to lower the magnetic field in some place. we use diode to make it work at one direction.

[rickoff]

reply to sucahyo:

Many thanks for the explanation and link .

- do the magnet has to be neo? the magnet will have short live if it isn't?

You don't have to use neo magnets, and weaker magnets will work much better with shielding than neos do. The problem with using weaker magnets, though, is that they do lose considerable force over time when used in repulsion mode. Also, they can't develop the high torque and rpm that is possible with neos. That's why I would prefer a design that uses neos, but does not require shielding, such as either of the two PMM types I pointed out in my last post. Shielding helps, but is not that effective when using neo magnets. So why even mess with shielding when you can build a PMM that doesn't require any? Simplicity of design and construction should be the ultimate goal. Once you try a few PMM experiments, with and without shielding, I think you will agree.

Best regards,

Rick

[darkwizard]

The problem with the models of PMM that requires a force to drive the magnet stator and turn the rotor magnets , is that will require energy, it is not the same energy input that of a pulse electromagnetic motor?

[sucahyo]

I understand that we should use design without shielding .

The problem with using weaker magnets, though, is that they do lose considerable force over time when used in repulsion mode.

Do you know who mention this? since Tom Bearden said different.

The Tom Bearden Website

Tom:

In reading through your Patent # US 6,362,718 B1, you comment (on Pg 11) that "Continued operation of the MEG causes demagnetization of the permanent magnet.". I would expect this (although some others claim that there is no demagnetization in similar PM uses) in that the magnetic fields generated in the output coils would pass, in part at least, through the PM and could be expected to cause some demagnetization.

My question is this: Have you run the MEG at some constant input power for an extended period of time and measured the total watt-hours of over-unity energy delivered up to the time that the COP had dropped to 1.0, and then compared this total energy with the energy initially used to magnetize the PM? I.e., does the PM simply store magnetic energy?

If so, I would appreciate seeing your figures just to satisfy myself that we are truly into "energy from the vacuum".

If a PM does lose magnetism with use, one would expect that the magnets in PM motors and generators would also become weaker with use. I've never heard of this happening. (?)

Jim W

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:52:12 -0600


Jim,



In early experiments we obtained some measurements that indicated slightly weakened magnets, so we included that in the patent application. However, later we found we had a difficult-to-find instrumentation problem (defective transistor in one instrument), and repaired it. New readings with correct instruments then showed no deterioration of the magnets at all, over time nor have we seen any since then in any running since then.



Best wishes,

Tom Bearden

The problem with the models of PMM that requires a force to drive the magnet stator and turn the rotor magnets , is that will require energy, it is not the same energy input that of a pulse electromagnetic motor?

Isn't PMM motor should be able to run without other external input if configured in some unique way like what some invertor already done (COP=∞)? It turn only with the magnet force attraction and repulsion?

[rickoff]

Reply to darkwizard:

The problem with the models of PMM that requires a force to drive the magnet stator and turn the rotor magnets , is that will require energy, it is not the same energy input that of a pulse electromagnetic motor?

Hi darkwizard,

Yes, a certain amount of force is required to move a stator magnet mounted in a moving magnet cradle, but if the PMM is designed well then the force required is minimal and can be derived from the repelling rotation of the rotor. I do believe this is possible without need of introducing an electromagnet pulse. I will post a diagram later, along with an animation I am working on, that will show how this might be done.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to sucahyo:

Hi sucahyo,

Tom Bearden is talking about the MEG, which is an electromagnetic device that interacts with a permanent magnet. Any permanent magnet can become weaker if exposed to a strong current, or a strongly opposing magnetic field. Therefore, if the MEG did not weaken the permanent magnet then the above factors did not come into play. In other words, any current passing through the magnet was minimal, and the switching was probably accomplished with relatively weak magnetic fields.

What I was referring to in my earlier post is the observed fact that non-neodymium magnets gradually lose some amount of magnetism when used in repelling mode. It is assumed that neos probably also lose some magnetism in repellency mode, but that it would occur over a very long period of time and so would not be problematic. That's why neos are preferred for projects where magnets are placed in a repelling orientation.

Best wishes,

Rick

[sucahyo]

I see many thanks .

I currently came accross
Barkhausen effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the material magnetizes neither gradually nor all at once, but in fits and starts.

Do this means ferromagnetic get magnetized in chain reaction?

[rickoff]

I see many thanks .

I currently came accross
Barkhausen effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do this means ferromagnetic get magnetized in chain reaction?

Yes, the magnetic domains can and will suddenly avalanche during a magnetizing process, and that is like a chain reaction. The domains within the ferrite material can be thought of as being like many tiny individual magnets.

[rickoff]

Re: Moving stator design

As promised, I am posting a description and illustration of a moving stator design to demonstrate how this concept would work. I decided to post it in a separate thread, since it really is not related to the concepts proposed by Juan Moran. If your are interested, you can go here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/48790-post1.html


I do hope that Juan will come into this thread and share some further insight as to whatever working models he has built. Some construction details, and higher resolution photos and video would be very helpful to anyone wanting to replicate his design.

Best to all,

Rick