Hi Jeffery, ...
One big frustration I had with Brady's video was that it was not detailed enough. The resolution sucked. Downloading video "demo" clips like this off of the Internet is indeed amazing, but if the image resolution is smeared, as it often was, it really become difficult to make precise measurements. I would imagine that in this game, the devil really is in the details. I want to make it clear, again, that I'm not endorsing the video clip. Brady's device may or may not be the genuine article. At this stage of the game I simply don't know. > By cranking the stator magnets closer to the rotor magnets, > he's putting energy into the system--since the system of > rotor + stator has to conserve energy, and since the rotor > with its offset magnets is free to rotate (duuh), much of > this added energy gets stored as kinetic energy in the rotor. > If you leave it alone at that point, it will continue to > rotate until frictional losses eventually bring it to a stop. It's too bad Brady's video demonstration didn't show if the speed of the rotors was or was not slowing down (due to friction) after the stators had completed their repositioning and no more kinetic energy was being supplied to the configuration. I would have thought a very simple test to prove the kinetic energy hypothesis would have been to paint black radial bars equidistant from each other on the side of the rotor. All one would then have to do is shine a strobe light on the rotating horizontal bars, adjust the frequency of the strobe light until the individual bars pop out in the illusion of being in a stopped position. Then, all one would have to do is watch to see if the bars begin to start rotating in the direction that proves the disk is slowing down. Such a test would have immediately proven or disproven whether the rotors rotational speed was constant - or not if the case may be. Of course, if one waited long enough the rotors should eventually come to rest if the hypothesis about kinetic energy and friction is correct, but that might be considerably longer than the video demonstration would allow. And of course, if fraud was the actual intention... Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems to me that another test would have been to simply hold on to the rotor disk with one's hand while the stators were being cranked to the inner position. Don't allow the stored kinetic energy a chance to cause the rotor to rotate. After the stators had completed their repositioning one should then be able to take their hand away from the rotor and it should NOT move. I think the strobe light test would have been a better experiment as simply holding on to the rotor wheel until the stators are in the inner position might unintentionally introduce inherent problems that might potentially mask the alleged asymmetry of forces involved. > Also, > > >At first glance the video footage does not appear to be faked, but of > >course, that is not to say that fakery hadn't been employed. > >What I'm trying to say is that fakery, if there is any, is not obvious. > >My gut feeling tells me the video demonstration may very well be > >authentic. > > Oh, it could easily be authentic--there's no new physics > here--it is a very nifty demonstration of a simple > principle--cranking the stators together is like wwinding a > magneto-mechanical spring, which makes the wheel spin. > > >this device appears to be incredibly LOW TECH, almost too LOW TECH to > >believe. > > It is--the patent office has patents for motors of every > conceivable configuration--like I said, this is basically a > Minato motor---of the low tech variety--everything that some > garage inventor could put together without knowing too much > about state-of-the-art matters. If simple low-tech magnet > configuration motors really worked, we'd have seen it years ago. > > I don't deny O-U motors are possible--this just isn't one of them. > > Cheers, > > Jeffery D. Kooistra The $64 question that will probably remain unanswered is how close in design was the Minato device you built for Mallove to the Brady device. Again, I suspect the devil, if there is one, may be in the details! Fraud and scams are often suggested as the motivational force behind these "demonstrations." I would imagine that this fact is unfortunately all too true. And if not fraud, unintentional deception is the next most likely reason, meaning the inventor really didn't know what he/she was doing. Regarding Brady's device, I personally find it hard to believe that this might be a scam. A scam means bilking people and organizations out of a lot of money and then getting away with the proceeds. Where could Brady possibly go with his "winnings" without eventually being hunted down like a rabid dog? Sure, he could assume a new identity, have facial reconstruction performed, etc... but I think ultimately it would fail. He would eventually be found, tar and feathered... This would seem to leave the alternative conclusion that, Brady, honestly believes he has built an OU device regardless of whether he has or has not. Again, at this stage of the game, I certainly don't know that answer to that. Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
