Terry, Some follow-up comments.
> The present belief is that the whipmag was a hoax which got > way out of hand when the vid went viral. Al removed the vid > but it got copied by others. OC has since passed away and > Al seems to regret the whole incident from what little he > will say. Considering the fact that pretty much every replication attempt that I've come across failed... I'd have to conclude something fishy was probably going on as well. However, I did notice that some well constructed replications were not tested correctly. I recall one tester attempting to spin the stator magnet in the opposite rotational direction as the rotor disk, as if they were intermeshed gears. It's little irritating observations like that which lead me to conclude that some of the replication attempts were based on misinterpretation of the facts. Regarding the animated graphic purporting to represent the "whipMag" configuration in action, as shown out at: http://www.overunity.org.uk/cmps_index.php?pageid=whipmag1 this animation appears (to me) to have been assembled incorrectly. If one observes the stroboscope video of the "WhipMag" in action. See: http://www.youtube.com/v/Plzck4qSbAI&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3 http://tinyurl.com/3plyzej One will quickly notice that BOTH the rotor disk and the rotating stator magnet are rotating counter-clockwise. As previously mentioned, such a dynamic configuration where both assemblages are rotating in the same rotational direction seems counter intuitive to our way of thinking. However, such a dynamic configuration cannot help but set up a situation where a considerable amount of magnetic migration of the flux lines will result. It is precisely the dynamic qualities of such migration patterns that I'm trying to get a better handle on. However, as previously mentioned, using the free "FEMM" software simulation package will NOT be able to reveal the dynamics of these kinds of migration patterns because each measurement it would attempt to generate would pertain to static configurations assumed to be at a standstill. The results would ALWAYS show perfect symmetry - perfect balance where all the pluses and minuses add up to zero. As Stephen Lawrence stated, most software of this kind is built around a bias showing "conservative" measurements. The software package was not designed to take into consideration how dynamic migratory changes to the overall location of flux lines could theoretically end up influencing over-all torque values. What I'm trying to get a better handle on is whether such migratory phenomenon might possibly introduce an asymmetry. Probably not, but I don't know that for sure. > As far as your questions are concerned, all I can say is > we tested every configuration of magnetic motor we could > imagine and always found the cycle conservative. I can > say that we demonstrated an asymmetry between the > attractive and repellent forces between magnets. > I have never been able to explain this to my own > satisfaction. My (potentially flawed) understanding of why there appears to be a blatant asymmetry revealed between attractive and repellent forces is due to the fact that the magnetic domains pertaining to some of the atoms are flipping 180 degrees when two PMs in repulsive mode are brought closer together. My FEMM simulations clearly show the flux lines being PUSHED deeper into the PM configuration. Because these flux lines are being pushed deeper into the PMs the overall repulsive strength will appear to be weaker than if it was in attractive mode. This has lead many seekers of the Holy Grail of magnetic motor OU to proclaim to the world that they have personally discovered a mysterious asymmetry in magnetic physics. They are wrong. If one assembles careful torque measurements (aka: newton measurements) of a rotating PM as it rotates a full 360 degrees past a stationary PM one will eventually conclude that the torque measured in one direction cancel out same amount of measured torque in the opposite direction. IOW, while torque measurements in attractive mode might appear stronger, torque measurements accumulated in repulsive mode take up more spatial time throughout the entire 360 rotation. Therefore, when you add up all the torque measurements in both attractive and repulsive mode you tend to end up with a value close to zero. BTW, for the curious, here's a link to a free download of the FEMM s/w package: http://softwaretopic.informer.com/meeker-femm-heat-flow/ Once you get the hang of it, it's kind of fun to use! It was designed by David Meeker, Ph.D.: http://www.femm.info/wiki/DavidMeeker I gather David managed to piss off several vendors attempting to sell (for thousands of dollars) what he was essentially giving away for free. It's possible some of these companies finally got around to making an offer David couldn't refuse, but I dunno! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
