How else do you encabulate your Milford trunnions? Don’t tell me you use an old-style hydrodysphoric spin-stabilized macklewanie? Those things were delisted by the American Society of Avionical and Astronumerical Engineers because of the rate of occupational delocalizations resulting from miscalibration of the paravascular sybellators, leading to incorrect predictions of retrograde kinematic optical amplifinchers which was the suspected cause of the 1979 White Plains Canal disaster.
Stranger
There’s the problem in measuring torque. I can make a spinning motor produce more torque through gearing but the total output decreases, it can’t increase.
I remember that disaster. There’s still a sign on 287 that reads “No White Plains”. You can see it by scrolling down a little on that page.
Honestly, even just seeing the still frame that shows before you hit “play” on that video was enough to trigger my scamdar.
You didn’t even see the two previous videos that never get around to explaining how it’s supposed to work.
I have a buddy who developed a Linux utility that let’s the slow moving bits go through but blocks the fast ones. He’s one cool cat, that Maxwell.
This one doesn’t, either, except some gibberish about how “the magnetic lines of flux” which “just like our own planet, the lines travel from south to north, and seek the shortest lines of completion.” This is a prime example of how you can say total nonsense in a posh English accent and people will lap it up like the Word of and assume that any inconsistency with basic physics is a lack of intellectual flexibility on the part of unwashed critics who just don’t understand true genius.
Stranger
My understanding is that fleecing-rap is carefully crafted to ward off the smart people, because they are harder to reap. Put in just the right depth-of-error to filter your marks down to the ones you can take with minimal effort.
That’s not a detailed explanation of the phenomenon but that is a simplistic description of how reluctance works. I’m pretty sure that motor works even though there’s no indication of any advantage over conventional technology. It’s a reluctance motor with magnetic fields changed by an outside power source. That doesn’t make it legit either. There’s plenty of truly questionable stuff in their videos but that one describes fairly well what they have done even if they offer no justification why this would be any improvement in motor technology.
It is kind of reminiscent of the recent buzz out of Los Alamos, where they got more energy out of the thing than they put into it, but only when you measure the literal laser output, not the total energy needed to actually drive them.
The Charles Flynn motor. Charles “Joe” Flynn’s Permanent Magnet Motor Patent US 5,455,474 …
S H Susilo1,*, Z Jannah1
, L D Mustofa2 and Y Effendhi1 of Malang Polytechnic, Indonesia, has been researching these free energy machines.
See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338852628_Design_of_permanent_magnet_motor/download
They didnt find credible evidence that they work, of course. lol
Can you elaborate on what it means for this device to work?
Because, as far as I can see what we have is a device where:
An electrically powered motor rotates the handle on the near side
The far side of the device then rotates
Each rotation on the near side results in one rotation on the far side, strict 1:1 ratio.
So far, I have described a complicated driveshaft. If “works” means that it can replicate the action of an driveshaft, there’s clearly nothing special about it. If instead you mean it produces more energy out the far side than was input on the near side, the man has busted the laws of thermodynamics. Except we know he hasn’t.
Yes, it’s a working motor. It doesn’t result in any improvement in efficiency or anything else anyone can identify, but this is what you wrote:
There is nothing about the construction of that motor that defies how permanent magnets work. It is obviously extracting it’s power from an external motor and not from magnets, and uses reluctance to achieve an electro-mechanical action. That video and other ones they’ve produced are full of nonsensology, I pointed out immediately that it couldn’t be a perpetual motion machine, but nothing in the explanation of how it actually works tries to show power being extracted from magnets. It appears to show a reluctance motor that uses an external motor to change magnetic fields in the armature. If nobody can identify any advantage to that design then it is what appears to be, a pointless novelty.
I was reacting to point around 0:59 of the video where the host says:
You clearly appreciate that it doesn’t actually do that, so I don’t think we disagree about anything here.
Is this supposed to be some sort of magnetic planetary gear?
Magnetic fields instead of physical toothed gears?
That’s not how an epicyclic gear system works.
Stranger
A planetary gear system has gearing effects, where one section of the system rotates at a different speed from another section. This device seems to rotate the whole system in near unison, which is good because … because … because … (something something)
Magnetic gear systems are a thing:
You can even 3D print them:
There’s nothing wrong with the idea; it has some advantages and some disadvantages over toothed gears, like like any other engineering decision. But this guy is claiming to generate power from the permanent magnets, which is impossible.
But aren’t those lasers at least 110% efficient? I mean, the government has spent billions developing them.
Are you referring to the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore National Labs (in Livermore, CA)? This supposed positive yield (still no peer reviewed papers even verifying the yield measurement) was due to laser-driven inertial nuclear fusion which produced net power over the instantaneous power in the plasma, although still way less than all of the power that went into the lasers driving the plasma. This doesn’t violate any physical laws although whether the total efficiencies in the system can ever be improved to achieve a net overall gain is highly questionable.
Stranger
