This is my kind of explanation. I was never and engineer, however the

books have been before my eyes since high school. Many people have trouble

with these types of entries because technical terms blow their minds.

Yes I see more now that I need to look at the calculator to determine

how much iron mass will be needed and where. The Gauss portion

of the calculation escapes me at the moment. But I will get on it. If

anyone has a link to share on these thoughts please post.

Notation: Thanks to some unknow, it was brought to my attention
that the dream was actual real. But you said that?

__________________
 

Preliminary Evaluation for Gauss/Iron/Gap Calculations


This will be the first installment for vector analysis of magnetic ramp
and magnets to find approximate ramp proportions.

__________________
 

Thanks for this great post Mack!

Yes, just by having ALL magnets in the set up pretty well balanced, that is All Stators and All Rotor Magnets, the motor exposes some kind of "moving inertia force" clearly observed by slowly rotating it...

After observing this balanced free movement force, it jumps into our minds that only the proper "imbalance" caused by the ramps will do the work.

Your explanation below is as clear as mountain spring water...

That is exactly what I have been writing and trying to explain in here for a while...

Perfect!...I can picture it in my mind...that flux dynamic movement in 3D shape caused by the rotor magnets passing by...flowing and forming the transitions from the start solid cross section to the "Y" split...then back again to the solid, straight part of the next ramp. Something -roughly- like this...but softer...more "artistic" blending with great dynamics animations...: (Rotation>>> --< --< --< --< --< --< )

I have a question that I believe others replicating here are also mentioning but some how we have not come up with the final conclusion:

After we have all magnets in the set up balanced...no ramps, we all have noticed that whenever we install even one ramp that creates some unbalance related to the modules where the ramp is installed, example if we install it on the attraction stator, we notice the repulsion starts to be dominant, and the opposite...and so on during assembly.

The question I split it in two parts for easier understanding:

1-Are we not supposed to try to re-balance the system as we install ramps, but maybe after we are finished with all of them?

2- Or are we not supposed to re-balance system at all after all ramps are on?

When I write "re-balance the system", I meant only to re-adjust stators, not ramps.

In my view, if we magnetically re-balance the whole thing again after all ramps are on...we will get back to a completely balanced system that would offer the least of possibilities to start self rotating...am I right?

IMO what I believe we should play-adjust at this stage are the distances between ramps related to stators and rotor magnets. In order not to space them either too close or too far away.


Thanks again for your disclosure and for your patience with all of Us!


Regards


Ufopolitics

__________________
 

If he doesn't get something real to happen soon, it may be too late. He needs to be mindful of the expiry date on his significant patents.

__________________
 

John B. Has magnet motors working with his SSG work, all new stuff.

Magnetic reluctance


@everyone

Here is another diagram so we may fill in the unknowns. The first unknown

to discovery will be the amount of mass needed for the iron, based on

the Gauss retention needed for 2 magnets, rotor and stator.

The next diagram should show both ramps on any known experiment

and then proceed to alter the shape of the RAMPS to overcome sticking.

I have decided to use N42 magnets because 1" X 1/2" X 1/2" N52 magnets

are not readily available at K&j nor does Magnets4less have any.

__________________
 

Ufo,

You said roughly --<--<.
More like this, roughly. Ignore the dots.
.|
.|
/ \
|||
.|
/ \
|||
.|
/ \
|||
.|
/ \
| |


or
.|
.|
/ \
|||
.|
/ \
| |

.|
.|
/ \
|||
.|
/ \
| |

Regarding your two questions. I offer this as constructive criticism, for the purpose of better understanding because I think either you guys have not understood or I have failed to communicate clearly enough. Probably the latter. So let's go through this step by step again from the beginning.
1.
Balance the magnets. This is the base preparation for the build.
2.
Construct and test one ramp that accelerates the rotor past the attractive stator pole.
3.
Remove that ramp.
4.
Construct and test one ramp that accelerates the rotor past the repulsive stator pole.
5.
Now test the two ramps together.

I haven't come right out and said this because I thought it was the logical obvious conclusion at this point. If each ramp by itself provides positive thrust at least to the stator magnet then the two together must provide more thrust than either ramp by itself. Modification of the ramps and/or any readjustment of the magnets will be done at this step in order to achieve that goal.
(Ufo, that last sentence is the answer to both of your questions.)

Has step 5 been achieved? I'm not sure as no evidence has been presented by anyone of increased combined force. Remember I spoke about a rig for measuring the pull from a ramp a long time ago?

6.
If the goal of step 5 has been achieved, then we can turn our attention to loss prevention which is what I have been posting about recently. Getting a rotor magnet to transition from one ramp to the next. However, if we haven't gotten step 5 to produce a combined gain yet then there is no point in continuing with step 6.

Regards,
Mack

__________________
 

Ramp Testing Video for beginners only, like me

No the setup is not what Mack said to use, no I don't have

what I need. Just basic tests that prove a "Y" ramp works and

how attraction forces differ from the repulsion forces.

__________________
 

Is that rig a complicated device? Or a simple weight scale attacked to a

string from rotor to scales? Something accurate of course not like my

spring loaded fish scales. I see microgram, scientific scales that

cost $1000 similar to this where it has a hook on it but it can measure

push as well as pull.




Maybe something like this will work? Goes to 50Lbs, might not work for

a big motor magnet. My magnets are strong.



This little joule is only $3, technology saves the day.



Features:

Ultra-compact design and light weight.
25kg capacity with 5g readability.
Excellent quality and accurate weight.
Stable functions and digital display.
3 selectable units: kg, lb, jin
Auto power off after 2 minute or manually power off instantly.
With a iron hook, to hang your luggage.
Easy to carry it in a pocket or handbag for weighting on travel.

Specifications:
Color: Yellow
Capacity & accuracy: 25kg * 5g
Units: kg, lb, jin
Power supply: 1 * CR2032 (not included)
Material: Plastic
Auto off: 2 minute

__________________
 

Mack
You think than i can build this motor with a diameter of 120mm? That's about the size of mini lathe.

Mickey, thanks for the comment, but adjustments are far from precise. I use round magnets, and locate outside virtual corner is very difficult, you need playing with them on your posicion.Atencion for you, because you also round magnets.
With ramps, unfortunately I can not work on metal noise, implicitly for the inconvenience
Mikey, I see you still have a problem with the bearings. Check view here. It is a suggestion, nothing more
Best regards cristian.

Attached Images

DSC_0036.jpg (149.0 KB, 46 views)

__________________
 

Yes I need square one's. The round one's don't work well. Nice bearings

and old motor parts. I think I buy roller skate bearings?

I can't find any square magnets at 1/2"(25mm) N52. They are all sold

out. So I think I buy 1" (50mm) so my bearings need 1/2"(25mm) shaft.

I think $5 for a big bearing.

Virtual corner? Round magnets no corner I need square magnets.

__________________
 

Greetings to all the aspiring Scientists

This of course is Brother Michael Rowland from central Kansas.

If you are like me you are looking for answers as to WHY. Why this and

WHY that. Therefore I am posting an answer to my own question as to

why others use certain shapes, or if they even have a ramp. So far we

have UFO, Cristian and myself who have ramps. I am enclosing a diagram.

This picture shows two ramps almost alike, except for certain modifications.

Earlier this month I did 100's of tests to confirm what I am about to say.


Some of you may ask why Mack does not just post a RAMP so we can

copy it? And the answer is that we wouldn't have to think then, and

who wants to be spoon fed every detail? Not me. Either way Mack has

opted out of giving specific details BUT Mack does express himself when

an experimenter is close to getting something like he likes it to be.



The reason I restate all of these things is that recently we who have done

many hundreds of tests, got some confirmations from Mack. Of course this

is most appreciated due to so many possible variables.


For instance, Mack has said many good things about the lower ramp

on the UFO replication repulsion ramp. Also by comparison to the top

ramp (Mack said) the upper ramp needed to be different from the lower

ramp. (Please see the two UFO video's in earlier posts)


This is not what this post is about.


I am posting this diagram to confirm a different RAMP MODIFICATION.

UFO, Cristian and myself have all built ramps and have obviously concluded

that the bent end of the ramps be more of a rounded off to a 90 degree

angle.


For a while we had tried the bends like in Fig.10 but through experimentation

clearly dictates Fig.11 bends are much better. Also you may or may not

have noticed that in the past week we have found the direction of rotation.


Keep in mind that none of these facts were verified by Mack, but rather

by experimentation. When we first started the direction was unclear to me

based on the 30 degree angle of the rotor magnet. This became as clear

as crystal after experimentation in both directions with ramps and ramp

shapes. Mack did question me as to the direct I had originally posted and so

I reversed it but I was still very unsure which direction to spin the rotor.


His diagram below does not show the rotor direction and Mack is wise to

make us do our own work. Thanks Macks for leaving some important details

up to us to find out on our own. Finding out things by experiment is very

refreshing.


I realize now after 30 days of spinning the rotor backwards and forwards

with the help of UFO, that the edge of the rotor magnet closest to the ramp

should lead the way first. All of these tests by experimenters and Macks

okay are showing us that we are making progress.


I can't believe how blind that I was to the direction of rotation as it is so

clear now. This just shows me how important the need for doing the tests

ourselves observing the cause and effect.

Diagram or Fig.11 shows the proper bend to the right of the figure as far

as my experimentation shows as far back as 20 days.




Also Macks diagram post did show this bend on a 90 degree angle.

Also Macks forks show tines very far away from the stator magnets as well

as very short tines so this maybe something to look into since the 90

degrees is a keeper. Also it has been pointed out by Mack that as the

motor begins to evolve from single "CELLS" into a many poled motor

ramps will become shorter. So his (Macks) diagram may be more of a

recollection of ramp dimensions of a full motor.


I will have to say that some of my ramps work really well when the tines

are spread wide apart well above the stator and ramp magnets on each

side as opposed to other ramp tines that are only a few mm away from

the stator. I think out long tines may need to be shortened in the end.


Also it has been pointed out that there are more than one way to make

adjustments on the ramps to induce a field into the FORK. One adjustment

is to reduce the mass of the tine, another adjustment is to spread the

tines out more reducing the amount of induced magnetic flows away

from the magnets.

__________________
 

Cristian,
Nice try. When you can simply let go of the rotor and see it accelerate past the magnets you will be on the right track. A 122mm rotor is too small for the 1/2” square neos that I used. I assume a rotor that small could be built with scaled down components but I think it would be difficult.

BroMikey,
Some good observations in the video. For every unwanted effect, try to find a way to minimize that effect. The split Y has some negative rotational force associated with it as the tines move apart. What will counteract that? A greater angle of descent between the tines and the rotor. You all see that as the gap between the ramp and the rotor decreases, the rotor continues to rotate. Why not use that knowledge to full effect? You also see the rotor can stop right where the ramp ends.

As for the measuring device, you could use rubber bands and measure the stretch if you wanted to.


Everyone,
I hope you all realize that this motor is the sum of separate effects. Someone elsewhere keeps insisting that you perform tests for a motor and not doing so right now is somehow proof that I am full of it and just jerking you around. I hope you are not letting him discourage you because if you are then you might as well give up now. He can't seem to get it into his head that you do not have a complete motor to test yet. We are working on the separate components. After you have the whole motor then by all means run all the performance tests you want.

I have been trying to get you all to see the individual components, the effects they must have, and how they will add up into the final motor assembly. If you are trying to get full rotation now, please wait. It would be like trying to get a 4 stroke gas engine to run without the camshaft.

I have listed 6 steps to accomplish. You guys are at step 4-5 and struggling. Just know that this is to be expected because it's the most difficult part. Don't give up now. Get the rotor to accelerate past the stator magnets having more pull toward the stator magnets with the 2 ramps vs. either ramp by itself. That's all for right now. Don't worry about any back drag as the rotor leaves the end of the ramp. That is dealt with in step 6.

Step 6 is the final step where you get the rotor to maintain its momentum after passing the stator magnet, then transition the rotor magnet from one ramp to the next ramp without loss. Transformer steel for the final ramps will be mandatory then and we will be working with 4 stator magnets. When you get this step done you will have everything you need to know to build the running motor.

Regards,
Mack

__________________
 

Thanks Mack, you are my hero. I been coming to sites for years and very
few project owners are on the level. I really thought I was on my own and was
going to have to get stock in uranium.

Yes I am pouring over your last instruction to make sureI reconsider
these words during the next set of experimental data collection. I may
narrow the tips of the tines right at the stator. My curve is not hugging the
circle so I can not get an accurate declination to the end of the ramp.(you understand)

Yeah I hear ya on bands




Look Mack I heard you the first time, you won't have to tell me twice or
defend yourself against me. I think you are one of the nicest men I have
met on these forums and anyone taking a shot at you is just plain belligerent.

Those people won't come to this forum with their "F" words and dirty language because they know I would beat them to a verbal bloody pulp.

And they can't have someone scolding them for their stupidity and dishonest
behavior in front of all of their tag alongs, now can they?

Either way I am sorry Mack, I'll apologize for these people who think they
know it all or can't believe it is so simple so they act insulted. Then they
proceed to make up lies in the middle of their temper tantrum because
they are so high minded they can't just shut up and do what they are told.

__________________
 

MadMac
Cristian,
Nice try. When you can simply let go of the rotor and see it accelerate past the magnets you will be on the right track. A 122mm rotor is too small for the 1/2” square neos that I used. I assume a rotor that small could be built with scaled down components but I think it would be difficult.

Mack Thanks, as always, very helpful which indicates. I'll try to build a bigger rotor.



Everyone,
I hope you all realize that this motor is the sum of separate effects. Someone elsewhere keeps insisting that you perform tests for a motor and not doing so right now is somehow proof that I am full of it and just jerking you around. I hope you are not letting him discourage you because if you are then you might as well give up now. He can't seem to get it into his head that you do not have a complete motor to test yet. We are working on the separate components. After you have the whole motor then by all means run all the performance tests you want.



You started this thread. If you want to continue, great, if not - this is question of its strategy and its dispozicion to cope with the insult and provocation. I personally was expecting this sort of thing. My advice as an person a lot older than you, is - no more respond to provocations.
For others (everyone problem) I see will no longer goes any more. It is wrong and it does not have to end this way. UFO que te paso? ¿Se te ha estropeado el AUTOCAD O QUE?

a good day for everyone cristian alba.

__________________
 

Mack,
Not discouraged at all, just not used to metal working (ramps) so moving slow at that stage. Thank you for staying active here.
Kent

__________________
 

Mack,

It is absolutely NOT Your fault that WE, all replicators on this Thread,(and any other around) have NOT come up as of now with EXACTLY the same spec set up as you have described in your first, second and third posts.

So far I have NOT seen ONE SINGLE identical replication based on your description...
I, include Myself, of course, within that group of members here that are NOT doing the supposed work.

Assuming that it "should" work with "similar" components...IS NOT the EXACT WAY.

I assumed that 1/4 cubes as long as they would be of N-52 would work...however, the pulling force from this magnets does NOT work the same way -in scale- as the geometry does.

It is NOT the same a magnet that can pull 20 pounds as one that can ONLY pulls 3.0 pounds...

You have rendered here a motor that has work for you with certain spec's...but the actual relationship based on required pulling force to be either scaled up or down has not been established as of now...and maybe you don't even know it yourself, just because if something WORKS for you a certain way...THEN, WHY IN THIS WORLD SHOULD WE CHANGE IT BEFORE MAKING WHAT WORKS TO PERFORM ??!!

I believe You should just IGNORE all comments from the stupid People...unfortunately this world is FULL OF THEM...a MAIN REASON WHY...we are ALL still dependent of OIL, GAS and Diesel Farting Machines!!

Until someone comes up with the IDENTICAL setup you have described here...and claims it don't work...ONLY THEN...We should pay attention to...BUT no comments Till WE ALL SEE IT ON A VIDEO...Period.

Otherwise is just PURE BS.

Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

__________________
 

Not to be a yes man but I agree Ufo.

I have the 1/2" N-52 mags, same size 12" rotor made from same material as yours Madmack.

The exact fabrication of ramps has slowed me but opened understanding of how it works. No excuses, no useless comments.

wantomake

__________________
 

Hi All,

Just to let you know, that I am also still in. I have my basic setup done and am testing first ramps on repulsion side. I already get a good throwout acceleartion with one ramp (3mm thickness)but major problems with drag during entering phase. Good ramps are not that easy to build and cut. My CNC is not made for milling steel. I use 12x12mm cubes N48 magnets on a diameter of 300mm for the rotor. The stator is just two of them. Distance of rotor to stator magnet is approximately 10mm. The first step is done and works perfect with my setup, exactly like described by Mack. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to work constantly...so also only step by step It would be brilliant if we could work out a kind of To Do list or Check List for the ramps to improve them faster, means what to do, if the rotor behaves like this or that for repulsion side and attraction side.

Thanks Mack for everything you have given us until now. We have just begun and will end when this beast is running.

Best regards
Siggi

__________________
Asymmetry is the Key for free energy

Ditto here Mack. I'm not even close to discouragement. Actually quite excited. !

Randy

__________________
 

Hello Guys,



TESTING RAMPS III

Here is a video on the whole new set up am working on now...And...Idk if you guys had noticed, but I have changed the way I had the 30º angle configuration previously by the one shown by Mack on Page 15, Post 442

And not like I had it in previews build on videos as well in all my previous CAD's

Big difference there, much easier to adjust center line and mounting not so complicated (thanks Mack!)...so I had to re-adjust almost everything...and ended up remaking a new rotor...a new base and stand...plus the rest...

Now, this small, 1/4 " cube magnets...are a piece of crap...N-52, N-42's from K&J Magnetics... it is about their very weak pulling force which is actually much less than what they list them for. They only Max pull in class 1 (steel/magnet) not even 3 lbs. And on top of that they have terrible differences between all...far from finding a pair that is close enough...

I bet on bigger magnets the differences would be much less, and small errors in parameters...plus the huge pulling force of 21 lbs...

However...I am going to get this Motor running even if it moves like a Clock...on low batteries...

I am still refining the bottom repulse ramp...as I make more of them to complete the next step of a second Module or Node right next to this one, (on 60º right towards rotation)...to see more and longer "continuity" of movement...

I can refinish this Ramps and make them look like they have been chromed...basically on the tracking surface facing rotors...Magnetic Fields will slow down on rough, coarse iron surfaces...so, nothing like chrome finish to slide through.

On the other thing I wanted to say is that by having just one bolt/nut, far away from magnetic interact area, ramps ends vibrate when rotor magnets passes by...this means losses...so I am building like a plastic piece to slide tight, sandwiched between stator and tines.


Regards to All


Ufopolitics

__________________
 

Great video Ufo,
I noticed you have your magnets at 30° degree opposite of Bromikey on post #583 put rotating same direction.

Just curious if you get better rotation this way?
wantomake
Or are my eyes bad........

__________________
 

Thanks UFO on the comment above, I didn't know.

Mack will be here soon enough to set the record straight on your nice

set up. You really are a good man for this job. I am not for sure on this

but I think your new rotor is backwards? I am getting mixed up. You see

the reason I say that, is because the last video was better than this one.

I see your beautiful new plastic, it is so nice and the forks are the same

but the rotor magnet has been changed so that now the 30 degrees is, I

think, the wrong way? It worked way better before.

And Mack did say it was right on the first video.



The way we get to a 30 degree angle is irrelevant. Excuse Me.


Just havin a bit of UFO, don't mind me. I am here to help so that's the

way it is going to be. I hope.



I don't know, maybe flip the rotor over? I am trying to think.

Just put the old one back on.


You see this is like the way I was doing it before and I thought we had

agreed that I was going the wrong way? I think I was going the wrong

way because now it seems to work better where the leading edge being

closet to the stator .

It is good to try it both ways. You will see that this way is backwards.

These are my thoughts and like I said Mack will be here soon enough.


One more thing. I tried what you tried on the attraction side by spreading

out the forks? Yeah and it made my rotor magnet stick.



Nice work. I am going to try it again and let you know. Try it the other way.

There is always a 30 and 60 degree angle on either side depending.

I'll check it again to see if it makes more sense in the long run concerning

the way the rotor magnet faces a ramp from a distance.



You have me thinking again. But one thing I can tell you beyond a shadow

of a doubt, your other rotor kicked out a magnet on the repulsion side

like it should be. This experiment proves it. So now you know.

__________________
 

Okay Here it is GUYS @ UFO

I made these two pictures so we can look at them to see which

direction makes the most sense. I am stumped now.

Which way does he go?

__________________
 

I decided to go into the lab for a few more tests because after
realizing I was going the right way from the beginning maybe I
am now going in reverse. Oh well Mack did say it goes into reverse.

Here is what happened. I had been going one direction for 2 weeks and
then I just recently changed direction. So I have given ample time to
both directions as far as ramping goes.

BUT I had never before set out to try both directions one after the
other with all of my ramps, with or without a stator.

This is my conclusion.

The field angle pointed at the ramp in the distance as it comes around
picks up the field much more powerfully. Once the rotor magnets get
over their stator magnets the force is cancelled leaving very little
kickback at the ramps end. So momentum from ramping over comes
what little cancellation kickback is leftover and the magnet continues
on it's way. We all know that.

The important thing is that when the fields are pointed toward the induction
ramp as it comes around, field strength is greater so the rotor magnet will
start it's run much sooner, almost twice as far away will it pick up the
ramp when using a stator magnet.

You see before when I did these tests I did use a stator so the difference
was only slightly noticeable, but upon re-investigation I must say that the
fields need to be pointed toward the ramp for best results.

It gets confusing with so many ramps and the way the ramp is angled
so I think this all takes time.

This really made a lot of sense to me after my last video where I showed
how the opposite side of the rotor magnet was sometimes interfering on
the repulsion side and now those anomalies are all gone.

So for me it is back to may original direction when Mack stopped me before
and asked me if I was really sure of that direction. So seeing how there
are only two directions I changed it.

So now I have tried it the other way for awhile.

__________________
 

Hello Guys,


@Mikey and Wantomake: Hmmm......I can see that you guys, did not read my previous post...just watched the video...

I wrote there that I was using this time the way Mack has displayed the way he gets the 30º Angle, versus the one I has been using previously...On real model plus in previous CAD Diagrams.

The difference is that the 30º is taken from different reference lines, however, for both cases the rotation is exactly the same.

Mack's previous Post:(<<<LINK TO ORIGINAL POST)

Now, below are both diagrams together, next to each others, Mack's and mine...for easier comparison:

[IMG][/IMG]

ROTATION IS EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH CASES.

Now, I find Mack's Angle "more aggressive" from the rotation standpoint benefit and based mainly on the Repulsion Thrust, besides is much more easier to set the center alignment line between both opposite rotor magnets apart by 180º.

@Mikey: I believe am getting more repulse thrust on this latest set up, but I will compare videos in slow motion...besides, like I wrote previously...I am not done modifying that repulse ramp yet...I still have to thin cross-section a bit more towards the ends, and that would add even more throw out angle. This latest repulse ramp has almost equal cross sections all the way to end...so it is somehow restricting acceleration.

Related to smooth versus coarser iron surfaces and "passing by" magnetic fields...I believe this issue must be analyzed from almost a microscopic way, where coarser surfaces have heavy grindings with deeper grooves where the field "sinks in", plus each deep streak reflects different and random angles to the field which is PERFECTLY DIRECTIONAL.

A smooth, basically even and aligned surface would be offering lesser resistance to the field rotation.

This is only my opinion...so, don't take it for "granted" until you experiment and see it for yourselves...


Well, getting back to work...got to add another module with ramps probably today.


Regards to all


Ufopolitics

__________________
 

In the private of each member of this team will be the last video uploaded by me.
Good luck

__________________
 

Hey Ufo,
No I did read your entire post. But the confusion is where your north and south poles are. Mack doesn't indicate the poles on the diagram from that post. I just assumed the pole is facing the 30° edge he shows. But your cad shows the setup you use and that clears it up.

It's easy for me to try that orientation cause my 1/2" rotor mags have the hole in them and can be turned.

Back to the shop and thanks ole friend,
wantomake
PS: Mine is set as Macks diagram.

__________________
 

@UFO

You missed what I was saying to you.

This video and the first video rotor angles are opposite. Did you hear
me that time? That is what it clearly shows in the video's you made.

I went back and looks several times. Just do a quick visual and you will
see that you first video has the 30 degree angle rotor field pointed away
from the ramp, while your new video has the 30 degree angle on the rotor
magnet pointed toward the induction ramp.

Opposite. That is what I see.

Back to the shop

I'll show you what I mean later.

__________________
 

I sent in the private space of each one of the link by my last video, but is not interested, so i will make the public, having to comment on another forum. Who will be affected? I'm not
That is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNOhuYaU1WI

Ufo estas utilizando la configuracion basica de Perendev. El angulo de 30 grados pegado en el diametro es muy rigido. El giro mas fuerte es exactamente debido a esto.No se funcionara en regimen de rampas, pero te garantizo que en configuracion de Perendev no funcionara. Yo estube con este como un par de años intentando hacerle funcionar. Ya has visto mi replica de Torian -3 que es la misma idea con la diferencia de angulo. La diferencia de 2.7 grados fuera del diametro utilizada por Mack le ofrece al rotor un arranque mas suave

Si quieres traducir eso bien, si no, no lo hagas, pero no metas esta jente en cosas mas complicadas de lo es.
Buena suerte cristian alba.

__________________
 

Hi Ufo,

nice Video again and very helpful. One question to your setup...can you adjust the distance of rotor to stator magnet and perhaps play with the distance? It is my experience that you get better acceleration when you let the rotor magnet induce a stronger field in the ramps and weaken the massive sticky point when the magnets are aligned. I think that this is one adjustment that can always very easily be done to fix imperfections of the ramp a little. Would be brilliant to get that feedback. Another nice adjustment that helps is the movement of ramp tines over the stator magnet together with the angle towards the rotor. I am still thinking of a smart ramp carrier that will allow that all to do. The third nice adjustment is the spreading of the ramp tines to a lower or higher degree of stator magnet induction. All these adjustments can be done without making a complete new ramp and helps to learn the effects.

Best regards
Siggi

__________________
Asymmetry is the Key for free energy