The Perpetual Motion Holder

Magnetic_Universe

There may be subtle differences in round vs. square, but I really don't think it matters as long as you have something with which to learn the concepts. I've always wanted to make one out of nickel.

Obviously there is more variability with the different methods of coil winding, but Ed is specific with the coil spools - brass or aluminum.

Here's a variation on theme:



The round vs. square configuration here seems to give it more of a particle accelerator type feel. Albeit self-sustaining.

Il_Pianista80

Really very interesting your version...

Although, from the writings of Leedskalnin would seem to be suggested parallel connection for Perpetual Motion Holder... Better series or parallel connection? The anti-series and anti-parallel instead do not involve any effect.

boxerlego

Are there any machinists out there that can clarify this? Ed interchanges the terms throughout Magnetic Current with the word Rod appearing 21 times, and Bar 23 times.

I know a thing or two about being a machinists. I practically Hand built my PMH along with the Aluminum Spools too. Now consider this its possible that Ed wanted us to build an array of PMH Devices of different shapes & sizes and importantly even different types of metals too. Now Round or Square, It important to remember that Ed wanted to use Iron or Soft steel bar with his writings. A good reason to use an Square bar is because it has the most Surface Area at the end of the prongs for the magnetism effect. Now I like to point out that I Hand made the Aluminum Spools that went around the Square bar instead of finding a machinists to mill a aluminum block into a spool because If I did that then I would need the PMH to be machined down as well so the "Machined" spool surface will fit with the "Machined" surface on the PMH. Does that make sense? Now by hand making the Aluminum spool I was able to create my own tolerance on the spool so it can fit nice and snug on the square bar after it is bent into the PMH and if it is to tight I just can make another one.

Another important Idea is the fact that Ed states the PMH has Four purposes, Electric Magnet, Transformer, Generator/Motor and Holder of Perpetual Motion. Now consider for a moment how different each of these device would become if each device was designed to maximize that single specific purpose which bring me to the Holder of Perpetual Motion. We recognize this devise as the PMH and brings images of the U shape bar Ed wanted us to build to display the effect but the PMH effect is automatically built in each one of those device inherently if the magnetic circuit can be established. Here is a video where I have an Electric Magnet that also displays the PMH effect along with proving Ed statements in Magnetic Current with modern semiconductor components.

Magnetic_Universe

@boxerlego
You make some good points here and I think Ed was in a similar mindset regarding his work - functionality over aesthetics. Even artistically he kept it simple with a slant toward function.

Magnetic_Universe

Il_Pianista80 said:

Really very interesting your version...

This is actually just 2 of the arcs or 1/2 orbits from the working atomic model: http://magneticuniverse.com/discussion/321/the-working-atomic-model-project-update/p1. I still need two more arcs and more work on the core before the real testing begins.

Il_Pianista80 said:

Although, from the writings of Leedskalnin would seem to be suggested parallel connection for Perpetual Motion Holder... Better series or parallel connection?

With enough amperage one coil works fine, but it seems you get more bang for the buck when two coils are in parallel...

Il_Pianista80

Congratulations for your prototype... Keep us updated on its operation...
Regarding my question I read more carefully the script of Leedskalnin that reproduce below...

"Connect the battery with the coils so that each current is running in both coils at the same time, and so that one end of the bar is North Pole and the other South Pole. Now you have an electric magnet."

The word "each current" in fact implies that the currents are two, one for each coil

"Both North and South Pole individual magnet currents which came out of the car battery and went in the transformer were direct currents. but the light in the bulb was caused by alternating currents. (Have in mind that always there are two currents, one current alone cannot run. To run they have to run one against the other.) You transformed currents in kind. Now I will tell you how to transform currents in strength. To make higher voltage you wind the coil with smaller wire and more turns and to have less voltage wind the coil with bigger wire and less turns. The difference now is that this transformer makes alternating currents from direct currents and the power line transformers use alternating currents to make alternating currents in this transformer, the iron prong ends remain the same magnet pole, but in power line transformers the magnet poles alternate."

The phrase "Now I will tell you how to transform currents in strength" is still in favor of the "parallel connection", since a series connection of the coils imply coils 3000 against 1500, and a voltage transformation...

The final connection is to think in parallel to have a higher current and consequently a greater induction...

dante

@Magnetic_Universe
" I've always wanted to make one out of nickel "

I would be curious to see the result with nickel also. I have been studying the "coupling" of metals. Meteoric Iron was used frequently in the distant past, a combination of nickel and iron. Curious if the atmosphere/pressure would have an effect on the rock. These days the cost is high to acquire materials.


@Pogi-18

Use the search button to find posts relating to your question
There are hieroglyphs in Eds pictures, the ones I have found are fragmented. Try and post pictures in another thread

Magnetic_Universe

Il_Pianista80 said:

The word "each current" in fact implies that the currents are two, one for each coil

Connected in series this would be true, however two coils in parallel would be four currents - two for each coil.

When connected in parallel on the PMH each coil has a N and S pole. They should be opposite on each pole to polarize the prongs. Accordingly, if you leave the parallel connection intact, and flip one of the coils the 'keeper' bar will not lock on with much strength.

N S
S N
vs.
N N
S S

Il_Pianista80 said:

The phrase "Now I will tell you how to transform currents in strength" is still in favor of the "parallel connection", since a series connection of the coils imply coils 3000 against 1500, and a voltage transformation...

Another way to perform this experiment is to replace one of the 6" coils with the 3" coil (with the smaller gauge wire of 1500 turns). Then apply DC to the 6" coil only, and test the output on the 3" coil. Test it with and without the "keeper". I call it natural AC. As Ed mentions, normal power line transformers don't transform currents in kind.

Gardener

...my impression was, that in a single wire, there are two currents going against each other. Also two magnets SN to SN, there are two magnetic currents/flows against each other.
Is that not the case?

Magnetic_Universe

Yes, this is the case, but to polarize the prongs and to create the flow you mentioned the North pole of one coil should opposite the other. If you envision straightening out the U it will be how you described. SNSN

Il_Pianista80

Magnetic_Universe said:

Il_Pianista80 said:

The word "each current" in fact implies that the currents are two, one for each coil

Connected in series this would be true, however two coils in parallel would be four currents - two for each coil.

You're right... I thought in a "classic" and not according Leedskalnin... I apologize...

Magnetic_Universe said:

I've always wanted to make one out of nickel.

In fact you should try. Nickel is a ferromagnetic material, but we need to see what is its hysteresis loop, and if it tends to become a permanent magnet (such as carbon steel) or if it does not remain magnetized when the battery is disconnected (such as soft iron and as suggested by Leedskalnin). It would also be interesting to know what is the value of the maximal induction (B). You already have information about it?

One question: why nickel? There are specific reasons?
I say this because it could be used as an alternative silicon laminations used in transformers... They should be easy to work with and to compose, and are subject to very high inductions before saturating...

I say this just to make a reflection...

Magnetic_Universe

I found these lying around.

Jehovajah

I have a mental block with regard to the topology.
Can anyone provide experimental data?

The question is regarding an in series connection.
Consider a single loop( or a few loops to be able to measure any difference)
If the wrapped wire is crossed in front of the starting position in a clock wise winding ( that is toward the wrapping person) is the polarity different in that loop to a loop where the wire is crossed behind the starting position( away from the wrapping person?

Secondly: if a clockwise wrap away from the wrapper I stopped and the wrap then continued away from the wrapper in a counter clock wise fashion for the same number of turns what is the polarity at each end of the coil?

The traditional explanation ignores the topology and focuses on the supposed dynamic or current. By performing this experiment in series connection I hope to learn if topology is relevant.

Il_Pianista80

Your first question: it depends. If the current flowing in the first case from the first turn toward you, and in the second case moving away from you, the polarity is the same. Specifically, the south would be on your side on the north ahead of you. In both the cases. In the second question instead, turning the current first in one direction and then the other would do so that the center between the coils give us a polarity and the opposite polarity at the ends .... N-S-N or S-N-S. Situation that would have no major effects. Like when you connect PMH wrongly ... I spoke as if it were the current one, which goes from positive to negative and not referring to the allegations of the two currents like the legendary Ed says. This is for simplicity. If you want to in the next few days I can try to post two videos that can prove what was said.

Jehovajah

@Il_Pianista80
Videos would be great thanks xxx