Permanent Magnets

[Dean2]

rotor

Hi Gyula, Sorry - my quick drawing was not very detailed. I was imagining bearings on the three contact rotor positions, where they meet the larger hub. Allowing physical (rolling) contact of the brass with the dual aluminum surfaces, along with conventional center shaft and bearings (stainless balls and plastic housings). I'll assemble some more images.

In the linear design; the rotor needs physical contact with the aluminum or copper rails, it needs to rotate at a reasonable RPM (tests indicate 1600-2200range or more) through the magnetic fields.

A different consideration was to have a fixed outside housing, allowing the stator portion to "rotate" in the opposite direction of the spinning rotor. In some of my early attempts, problems were created by "conflicting" magnetic fields. Fields that were "spread out" in linear and not an issue.

I am considering building another semi "linear" design, more like a "roller coaster" with full 360 degree loops to study the concept more in depth.

[C Rosenkreutz]

Rotor/Stator Polarities

Hi Barry,

In early posts of this thread (#29 & #30) you share your polarity design and show photos with the rotor and stator marked as follows:

• Rotor: North poles out (to the track exterior) and South poles in (to the track interior)
• Stator: South poles out (to the track exterior) and North poles in (to the track interior)

In later posts (#64 , #68, #97) you share additional design details, and show the opposite:

• Rotor: South poles out (to the track exterior) and North poles in (to the track interior)
• Stator: North poles out (to the track exterior) and South poles in (to the track interior)

Did you indeed experiment with both sets of arrangements, and if so, did you find one more advantageous than the other? I wouldn’t think it would make any difference, but am curious to know if in your myriad of iterations you found one more optimal.
Thanks!
CR

[Dean2]

polarity

Hi CR, Yes, both polarity sets work the same. As long as the balance is maintained. There are also many minor variations that work as well in the magnetic layout. As you probably can see from the five or six different tracks shown in videos and images.

The layouts that are the most desirable, are the ones that provide the most speed. For example, a copper set of rails (better conductor) was faster than aluminum (more expensive too). There was also a small track I made with additional PMs parallel with the track, that had an extra "snap" to it.

I suspect that the "unipolar dynamo" effect is one of the more significant apsects - which seems dependent on the rotor RPMs reached (min 1600 - 2200) range from what I have learned - so far. It's only speculation (and 10,000 hours practice) that this specific action dominates (versus the several others).

If I recal, I read somewhere that this "action", like others in Particle Physics, seems insignificant yet has a dramatic effect in the equations. I'm auditing some particle physics courses at the moment, considering we are not getting any input from the people in that field. You have a keen eye, I'm glad someone is paying attention!

[C Rosenkreutz]

Asymmetry / Broken-Symmetry

I'm auditing some particle physics courses at the moment, considering we are not getting any input from the people in that field.

Hi Barry,
Unfortunately I'm not a Physicist, so I cant help you with the technical feedback you seek in that realm. As it is, I've had to brush up on my basic Physics just to better understand the research I've undertaken in permanent magnets and their potential to perform work with no outside power source.

I'm hoping you can clarify something for me with regards to terminology in this area......

Throughout your work (and others like Johnson, Bedini, Bearden, et al) I see the phrase "broken symmetry" or "asymmetry" regularly used. However, I can't seem to locate a clear definition as to exactly what this means (or refers to). [i.e., a plain-English definition that can be understood by a non-physicist garage-experimenter/armchair-researcher.]

After several weeks of digging, I think I have a pretty good idea on what's meant, but in some instances the terms seem to be used in a slightly different manner.

1) In most uses of the terminology it seems to refer to the creation of an imbalanced set of electromagnetic fields (flux) due to specific geometric arrangements of the stator & rotor magnets. Something along the lines of:

• Symmetry = stability = balance = magnetic lock
• Asymmetry = instability = imbalance = overcoming magnetic lock

So.... in essence, it refers to the imbalanced energy fields themselves of the PMs due to physical arrangement. (asymmetry as a cause)

2) Other times it seems to refer to the dynamic actions themselves, that are a result of that imbalanced geometric arrangement. Referring to something akin to "opening a window" or "gate" for tapping the Universal-Environment's quantum energy. (asymmetry as a result)

3) And at other times (particularly Bearden), the term seems to be used to refer to sub-atomic interactions --- a sub-atomic imbalance/asymmetry. (asymmetry as a fundamental/micro source for the macro result)

(I hope I described those such that they can be understood, and I apologize if my understanding of these concepts is convoluted. )


---> From your perspective, what do you mean when using the terms "asymmetry" or "broken symmetry"?


I appreciate your help in clarifying this for me (and for all those who may benefit when reading this thread in the future).

Thanks for your help!
CR

[C Rosenkreutz]

Copper Stator = Best; Copper Rotor = Poor?

I tested brass and aluminum rotors, both worked, brass performed better. I also tested copper which was very poor. I tested steel, also very poor. Plastic does not work at all.

Hi Barry,
Since you've determined through your trial and errors that this whole track assembly acts as an electric conductor while in motion, I'm very surprised that copper was a poor performing material for the rotor!! (Particularly since you found that copper was best for the stator rails.) Why do you think that is?
CR

[Dean2]

Breaking Symmetry...

CR, That’s an excellent question – anyone care to answer? Actually, your explanations on symmetry are quite good. All are correct, in my opinion as well, pending on the use and application. Perhaps, because it does exist at all levels, from the atomic to the macro it entangles itself with both cause and effect. First, in just making simple sense of it all…

Symmetry, as defined in physics can be generalized to be a lack of change during any form of transformation. Usually referred to as an “invariance” or the property of a system that remains unchanged. The concept is very broad across theoretical physics, as it has become evident that practically all laws of nature originate in symmetries.

Symmetries exists on a variety of scales (all I would imagine); global and local, from the molecule to the universe, theoretical and tangible, in mathematics, in physics, and in magnetic fields. Oh yeah, in ink blots too. A global symmetry is simply the same transformation at every point in space, in contrast to being a local symmetry that is transformation dependent on point in space-time.

In Theoretical, Particle, and even Dense Matter Physics, the discussion typically rotates around endless equations that are typically lost on me. You can often find me wandering somewhere behind the Lagrange equations, looking for the Field equations that are often gauge dependent. I respect this, and as a theorist they’re always motivated by the math.

From an engineering point of view, we have for well over a century built only symmetrical Maxwellian systems. We must contribute “work” to get “work” in return, at a high cost.

When I use the term, “breaking symmetry” or “asymmetry”, (unless otherwise noted) I’m referring specifically to the altering of the magnetic balance. It is generally understood that, ”The Permanent Magnet overall net force sums to a Vector Zero. Hence, no work can be performed.” It’s all in “balance”, same pull, same push, attraction, repel – factor in friction and you walk away with less than zero.

We alter that balance (that symmetry) in motors with the application of other forces like electromagnets, the effect of coils, by the input of power from a secondary source like a battery – we turn forces on and off. We PAY for that change in the form of applying energy. The goal here is to introduce a change, in that balance by using the existing forces. This is accomplished by changing the magnitude of one or more potentials. Change of a single potential is an asymmetrical change, and it also changes the net force field.

In the general sense, most of the changes in this example have contributed to the forward torque of the rotor. Using the induction of multiple secondary magnetic fields as I have explained throughout. I view countering a magnetic field with another as “breaking”, I also consider the addition of a magnetic field as “breaking” symmetry. Anything that changes the balance of forces of the “permanent magnet” and/or the “electromagnetic” fields induced by the PMs is breaking symmetry.

I believe we have for too long, concentrated on minor things like the juxtaposition, or angles of a PM - when clearly the answer is simply in harnessing the other forces that are all present. I have just grazed the surface, opening up the possibilities - there are endless ways to manipulate magnetic flux and put it to work.

Now, I have a question for you that’s been nagging at me. Why is charge quantized; that is, why it only seems to come in neat little packets of about 1.602×10–19 coulombs, the charge of an electron or proton? Why is that?

Video and Theory at:Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

Copper versus Brass

Hi CR, The brass is available with very thin walls, the copper is a bit thicker. It's very possible that copper could make a better rotor than the brass. In this case, where the brass performed better, could be due to mass.

[Dean2]

Regauging magnetic potential... breaking symmetry

The following is a statement by Tom Bearden (edited). Is anyone familiar enough with his work, and this concept of re-gauging magnetic potential to relate it to what is occurring in the magnetic gates we are discussing? It appears to me, to define much of the actions in a general sense.

"To regauge a magnetostatic scalar potential on a stator, we must create a stator magnetic pole in such a manner that the magnetic field H from the suddenly injected pole strength cannot cause tangential translation acceleration of the rotor in the regauging region itself. Further, if the injected pole strength creates an accelerating tangential field from the regauging region to the next most stator region, that can be highly beneficial and it can be utilized to enable overunity.

Hence the regauging quenches the back-drag field portion. Regauging is best accomplished by creating the magnetic field H of the injected pole oriented radially with respect to the rotor pole in the regauging sector, as that rotor pole moves along its tangential path. In that case, no radial work on the rotor system is required in order to regauge the magnetic scalar potential. Thus the rotor can actually be strongly boosted through a region that would otherwise produce back-drag if regauging were not accomplished.

So, once the regauging jump of the magnetostatic scalar potential is accomplished, the tangential back drag on the rotor in a permanent magnet motor arrangement can be eliminated or materially reduced, or even reversed so as to aid the rotor's operation, with the expenditure of very little energy in creating the regauging jump."
Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

Don't overlook the obvious...

It is my belief that spatial energy can be extracted with and through Permanent Magnets, as shown in the demonstration. It can be used without the associated problematic magnetic lock-up or back-drag experienced by current conventional means. The Coefficient-of-Performance in excess of One (COP>1), as it’s currently represented is possible.

The magnetic Photon does possess “effective” mass and energy. Symmetry can be broken and replaced with anisotropy. The Vector Zero can be overcome. Work can be performed without the violation of Thermodynamic Laws. Nor is it in violation of the Energy Conservation Law, a current assumption is simply incorrect.

Equal and opposite actions can be nulified and modified. Within the realm of physics definitions; useful work can be performed such as displacement of a rotor in respect to a stator, to produce unidirectional propelling forces to drive a tracked vehicle, improved conventional motor efficiency, conversion of electrical power, performance of work as a prime mover, or the production of linear and rotary motive power.

The structures of electron, proton and atoms are a continuously rotating system at the very basic level of the universe. The active universal-environment (vacuum) is the most fundamental dynamic entity. Therefore, achieving self-sustaining motive force through magnetic methods is achieved, since the ratio of energy out versus energy input has already exceeded unity.

It is possible to produce a net gain of energy, with no apparent input of energy by the operator. The Universal-Environment is all around us, one does not normally see or feel it. Only when we distort this space does its presence become apparent.
Video demo and theory at: Green Energy 211

[Iotayodi]

The Universal-Environment is all around us, one does not normally see or feel it. Only when we distort this space does its presence become apparent.

That statement reminded me of John Hutchisons work.
SmartLINK

You probably already know this but a challenge I see in a closed loop is centrifugal force and whether it could be utilized. Also a section of track that is totally non-magnetic like plastic with enough forward momentum of the roller to continue the cycle.
I envy you geniuses who can calculate things out like this.

[C Rosenkreutz]

Now, I have a question for you that’s been nagging at me. Why is charge quantized; that is, why it only seems to come in neat little packets of about 1.602×10–19 coulombs, the charge of an electron or proton? Why is that?

Thanks Barry for the explanation on broken symmetry. It's much appreciated!

As to your question above.... that's something far beyond my capacity to answer! I'll have to leave it to those with more background in physics to address it.
CR

[Dean2]

Great News!

A major Rare Earth magnetic materials mine is re-opening in California USA. This should have a significant impact bringing the PRICE DOWN on Neodymium magnets worldwide.
For demo Video and Theory see: Green Energy 211

[Dean2]

Defining a unique Gate

The magnetic field merely has a magnitude and direction at every point in space, and is only defined relative to an inertial (non-accelerating, non-rotating) frame of reference. A rotating conductive magnet is however, detectable by the electric field produced when its free charges separate radially, as described by the Lorentz force produced by (absolute) rotation of the conductor within its own magnetic field.

[Dean2]

The Electron and "energy"...

An electron, regardless of high-speed interactions with electric and magnetic fields and other particles of matter, remains unaffected structurally, keeping its mass, charge, inertia, and locality after the interactions, just as these were before. How is that?

This single fact itself is enough to suggest the existence of some unique universal entity constituting the electron. Such that the structure explains the known properties and behavior of the electrons to how it sustains the collisions with the other particles and, remains permanently indestructible without any reduction in the quantities of its basic properties. Amazing.

The electron is an everlastingly rotating system, a space-vortex that through the process of motion in electric current, and interaction with an external magnetic field can also lead to the development of a system partially violating Lenz’s law and, capable of achieving everlasting motion in a device. Why not?

[Dean2]

Yours to Harness...

It was decades ago, I picked up an ordinary magnet and wondered, how the power “inside” of it could be harnessed. Now I know of course, there is no energy inside a permanent magnet. Actually, it’s even a more wondrous thing than I first imagined – it’s a conduit for an endless amount of energy, flowing everywhere within our vast Universe. It’s a perfectly balanced power that only Nature’s symmetry could create. However, it is one that I am absolutely sure, we can harness. The elusive power is there, one cannot deny it! One only need to understand it, to enlist its energy.
Video demo and theory:Green Energy 211