Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.08.06, 16:42:37
"By overwhelming the countering force (lenz) with the same derived spin direction"

can you elaborate on that? 

mags

Give it more lenz..... it can only be one of two wiring directions to counter a known coil and polarity. Lenz shrinks, but adding the same field, Lenz grows... awkward situation for equilibrium.

"By overwhelming the countering force (lenz) with the same derived spin direction"

can you elaborate on that? 

mags

Quote
So where does the energy come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By overwhelming the countering force (lenz) with the same derived spin direction, which in turn forces equilibrium to see itself as the force that needs countering.

What's the difference between a magnet and an electromagnet? You can wind an electromagnet in both directions...

there seems to be an error on the calculated TT motor turn ratio,, so those conclusions are wrong.  Sorry for the confusion.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.08.03, 05:39:17
That's because Mike is something we call an "inventor".  I have the same defect as Mike does.

Think of it this way... give one man a potato peeler then ask him to improve it and he sees nothing other than that which is in front of him. Ask another man and he could talk for hours detailing the countless ways we could improve upon the process, this is an inventor.

Mike is an inventor like myself and our "potato peeler" if you will changes in design and action by the minute. By the time you emailed him and asked for an update the possible iterations could have changed countless times. When I was younger and brighter, my creative period, I got frustrated because as I was writing all my notes on the latest experiment I had 20 new ideas rendering the notes I was writing pointless. Why takes notes if what were writing is obsolete?, so I stopped taking notes and burned them all to great satisfaction. The fact is, if when working on something if the possible number of variations or ideas doesn't start snowballing on us we are no inventor we are a follower.

Ask yourself this question, if you were making an obscene amount of progress on a daily basis and everything is changing by the minute what would you think of someone asking questions about some process you had already moved past weeks ago?. I mean it's in the past and already rendered obsolete, do we give the person we suppose to help now obsolete information or wait?, what would you do?.

It begs the ultimate question of how much progress we make per unit of time?. At the end of each day I ask myself how much progress was made?. Not money that's BS, anyone can make money. I mean the progress of science, an idea or technology. To improve something to a better state in which we found it. Personally I feel like shit unless some kind of improvement on some level is made in a day. It's not an ego thing it's a being useful and feeling good about ourselves thing...

Thank you Don.

Yes we both have the same problem but over the years we use it to our advantage.

For example :- I found out how you can run a car on water, I thought I knew before I actually got my hands on the orginal material, it then confirmed my thoughts.
The funny thing is all previous "OU" inventions all work on the same basis which was found by Tesla and patented but under a coverup name of a transformer. Yes it was there infront of us all this time.
I do not supply a complete kit of material and construction drawings, neither did Tesla, but there it is.
Floyd was the other who used the same.
All are variants to produce excess energy from the same base.

So where does the energy come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote from: Thaelin on 2026.07.12, 06:11:39
  I was in the group with Mike, have the schematics at the time. That seemed to change with the wind.
I am under his NDA so doubt he would like me to post things. I did up a sequencing circuit that did exactly
what he said and then he changed it. So I was back at square one again. Ask for help and got crickets.

Left for that reason.

That's because Mike is something we call an "inventor".  I have the same defect as Mike does.

Think of it this way... give one man a potato peeler then ask him to improve it and he sees nothing other than that which is in front of him. Ask another man and he could talk for hours detailing the countless ways we could improve upon the process, this is an inventor.

Mike is an inventor like myself and our "potato peeler" if you will changes in design and action by the minute. By the time you emailed him and asked for an update the possible iterations could have changed countless times. When I was younger and brighter, my creative period, I got frustrated because as I was writing all my notes on the latest experiment I had 20 new ideas rendering the notes I was writing pointless. Why takes notes if what were writing is obsolete?, so I stopped taking notes and burned them all to great satisfaction. The fact is, if when working on something if the possible number of variations or ideas doesn't start snowballing on us we are no inventor we are a follower.

Ask yourself this question, if you were making an obscene amount of progress on a daily basis and everything is changing by the minute what would you think of someone asking questions about some process you had already moved past weeks ago?. I mean it's in the past and already rendered obsolete, do we give the person we suppose to help now obsolete information or wait?, what would you do?.

It begs the ultimate question of how much progress we make per unit of time?. At the end of each day I ask myself how much progress was made?. Not money that's BS, anyone can make money. I mean the progress of science, an idea or technology. To improve something to a better state in which we found it. Personally I feel like shit unless some kind of improvement on some level is made in a day. It's not an ego thing it's a being useful and feeling good about ourselves thing...

the yellow motor was not going to cut it so I changed it out to a Blue all metal gear TT motor,, then I got carried away running some tests.
The pdf explains all of that fairly well.
It is nice when the math matches the bench,, lower draw.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.07.28, 16:44:27
A permanent magnet can probably be exploited, but only as an accessory, not in its true nature.
The laws of nature are such that translations or rotations that are invariant over time require no energy to be sustained.
Whether it be electron spin or the current in a superconducting coil, as no energy is required for the motion, we cannot extract this hypothetical energy that would sustain the motion – it does not exist. Energy is only required to set something in motion, or to bring it to a halt. We can only recover the energy from the cessation of motion.
That said, slowing down or stopping electron spin is a grand undertaking; we would surely recover energy, but from where – really, at no cost? And I suspect that some version of Murphy's Law will prevent us from doing so.

I agree for the most part but make an important distinction. If we read the literature and prior art of many of these FE inventors we find a divergence in their perspective from others. We find they are less concerned with science and more concerned with the result. They build weird stuff to see what happens.

For example, when someone says "permanent magnet" I suspect we both see a picture of a classic PM in our mind. The PM is rectangular with a red north pole on one end and a blue south pole on the other end just like our textbooks. This bias was programmed into us at an early age in school which is why we can all relate to the subject. As well we almost always take the purists view due to our bias and tend to reject anything different. I'm no different and when someone say's PM I see the same thing. However it took me about 40 years to understand I am biased and try to work around it.

For example, I heard a guy named Howard Johnson was doing a lot of stuff with magnets and magnet motors about 30 years ago but he seemed like a bit of a quack. On the surface this seems to be the case until we look deeper. So I did the research and found Johnson was doing something most of us cannot even imagine. Johnson was making his own permanent magnets which are nothing like the ones you and I presume to be normal.

Here is the AI version of how to make a PM,
"Permanent magnets are made through a process called Powder Metallurgy, which involves melting raw materials, compacting them into a fine powder, and then aligning the particles to create a magnetic field. After compaction, the magnets are heated in a vacuum to densify and then finished to achieve the desired shape and strength."

However what Johnson was doing was very different and some areas of the magnetic powder(s) were compressed to a higher density than others at a lower density. As well he used different materials in different areas which may have been diamagnetic. As such our purists view of what a magnet should look like and act is not accurate. Do you know what happens if we were to dope any area of a permanent magnet with a variable transition of material(magnetic/diamagnetic) and density?. I don't, I have no freaking idea because the complexity of the possible number of variations compound on one another. So the field could act normally as expected until it meets some threshold then it could be opposed, could turn, could expand, it could do any number of unexpected things.

It could be as simple as, if we always make our magnets the same way we get the same results. If we make them unlike anything else the results may differ...

thats fair. if it didnt move, but it seems like it should have, what do you think is happening here vs 2 hanging wires close to one another as described earlier. have a vid.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1JZLKvWO0ks
im at home.  its raining cats and electrons.  see if i can get to my shop to do some things later.

mags

Quote from: Verpies on 2026.08.02, 06:22:29
I was certain that your statement referred to the secondary because it mentioned a "deflection".   I answered about the current induced in the secondary because I thought that is where the "deflection" took place.
My answer is not applicable to the primary current.

I will not provide a reply about the current induced in the primary because the current in the primary can be anything that the power supply (i.e. bridge) pushes into it.

OK, I understand your explanation above.   

Thank you.

Pm