Dear Stirling,

 

I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself and share with you my theories of how the MYLOW magnetic motor actually may work in terms of jumping the magnetic gate. Of course these theories are based on the fact that the machine actually is legitimate and there are no other outside influences on the motor making it turn.

 Before I talk about how the machine turns, I strongly believe that for all those people who wish to “replicate” this machine, they must first understand the basic principles of how it works rather than chase parts in order to build and identical unit. If it is understood how it works then many different varieties can be made. I draw a comparison to a simple electric motor. Whilst every make of motor is usually different in its build materials including but not limited to the number of windings, guage of wiring and the strength of the magnets, the principles of how they work are the same thus giving rise to different working models. A simple comparison you would agree so therefore if we make the time to understand how Mylows motor works (V2.0) there will be a far greater chance of the rapid development of other units.

 

TM Continuos Magnetic Drive Theory

 

1.0

 

The very first thing I want to point out is that Mylow’s device is nothing more than mechanical. It is not magic, Mylow has used machine parts to make a mechanical motor that is driven by forces just like other mechanical motors are. This motor, as I will explain later is made up of a force driving a motor that drives a gear that delivers a mechanical outcome which in this case is torque through motion.

 

1.1

Magnets do not store “energy” I.E. they are not a battery or a source of free “energy” like a bore is a source of water. The ability to use a magnet to do “work” is the ability to harness the “force” of the magnet. Because of the way the force of a magnet is exploited, it is believed to be “energy” but it simply isn’t. I will now stray from this controversial area of discussion. At this stage it is not worth getting hung up over.

 

1.2

 

The device is not a perpetual motion machine assuming that perpetual is forever and not the lifetime of the builder. This cannot be argued as we know that the magnets will eventually lose their pulling or pushing power. However, we could call this a “Longevity motion machine”.

 

Taking “input” “energy” alone and not any other “force”, by definition, this device is an overunity machine. I will not get into the argument of the calculation of the total sum of energy that it took to make the magnets and the aluminium plater nor the energy Mylow has used since birth to think up and build the machine all verus the possible output energy of the device, why? Because I probably don’t have the next few hundred years to measure the energy production of the device as it winds down as the magnets lose their pulling and pushing force. This is a crazy debate for academics…You get my drift.

 

2.0

 

As a quick overview, the motor can be divided into three main parts being the stator, the rotor (platter) and the bearing unit.

 

2.1

 

The bearing unit is suitable for the application. Not only does it appear to deliver a limited amount of friction, it creates a stable base for the rotor limiting the amount of torsional vibration and flex on the rotor. I.E the machines harmonics seem to stable. I don’t believe there is much more to say about this other than over time, like any newly invented mechanical device, it could possibly be improved in terms of its efficiency.

 

2.2

 

Whilst the stator’s positioning appears to be crucial, the fundamentals of the machine’s operation in terms of “breaking the gate” I believe to be in the rotor. Having two stator magnets is important as they effectively create what is like a link in a bicycle chain where two cogs (stator magnets) are able to move through the chain (gap in rotor magnets) the same time.

 

2.3

 

The offset action (there appears to also be a gap between the stator magnets) appears to line up with the longitudinal angle of the rotor magnets, this I believe is very important. The relationship between the stator magnets and the rotor magnets’ action is like a tank track and the way the track moves across the driving cogged rims.

 

3.0

 

The construction in terms of size and materials of the rotor is what gives the machine it’s ability to “jump the gate”, not solely the configuration of the magnets. The size and materials is a direct ratio relationship between it and the track configuration.

 

3.1

 

From many different experiments, we know that different magnets, with different spacing and strength can be used to create a magnetic rail. These rails are a seen as v-tracks, x-tracks and the more traditional rail as seen in Mylow’s machine.

 

From my observation, on Mylow’s machines, the rail that in turn is attached to the platter pull’s itself and the platter towards the stator. This is due to the greater force produced by the rotor over the stator thus making the machine do “work”.

 

3.2

 

If the forces created by the stator magnets were greater than the forces created by the rotor magnets, the fluxes would create a far stronger magnetic gate for the machine to overcome. Where builders go wrong is that they try and use the most powerful magnets they can or use very strong magnets as stators because they believe the machine will function better – they immediately strive for great torque. This where builders come unstuck.

 

When using strong magnets, the spacing between the magnets and the distance between the rotor and the stator has to be expediently increased. Mylow has chosen his magnets correctly for the size of the platter. If neodymium magnets had been used at the same sizes and spacings, the machine would not work and would jam on a strong magnetic gate.

 

Mylow’s rotor magnets whilst not as strong as neodymium magnets have enough force to pull their own mass as well as the mass of the platter.

 

3.3

 

The most crucial element of Mylow’s machine is the mass of the rotor magnets and the mass platter. When in motion, the combined mass of the platter and the mass of the magnets produce another force called “Inertia” which when added to the forces of the rotor magnets are greater than the force produced by the gate. (TM gate theory)

 

Practical examples are seen time and time again when builders experience the magnetic gate and to demonstrate the physically push the track through using hand. Imagine if their had was replaced by inertia!

 

3.4

 

The events leading up to this moment can be summarised as follows:

 

1. The rotor magnets “pull” themselves towards the stationary stator magnets. 
2. The combined mass of the platter and magnets now in motion create “inertia” no matter how small this force may be.
3. The force of the magnets plus the force created by inertia push the platter through the gate by “brute” force. This is why this machine is mechanical.
4. The interaction of the rotor magnets and the stator magnets begin creating a magnetic gear that drives the platter through the rail system providing torque. Whilst this torque may be small, it is still there and in more efficient future models can be exploited for other means.
5. The rail passes through the stator until it is free.
6. Inertia drives the platter further until the next rail begins to pull itself towards the stator.
7. The process then begins again.

 

 

 4.0

 

In order to build other machines, some fundamental things need to be established with those being:

 

1. The individual weight of the magnets and the weight of the rotor in kg or pounds.
2. The individual pulling force of the rotor magnets in kg or pounds.
3. The individual pulling force of the stator magnets in kg or pounds.

 

4.1

 

IMPORTANT

 

Why do we need to know this? Because once you ascertain how much work can be done by the rotor magnets, you can work out the direct ratio relationship between potential work and weight.

 

By way of example only, if we knew the above individual weights, it may be determined for every 1 gram of pulling force the rotor magnets have, the combined mass of the pallet and the mass of the rotor magnets must be no less than or no greater than 10 grams expressed as a ratio of 1:10. Sorry if this is confusing.

 

This ratio is important because it governs the inertia force needed to overcome the gate. If the pallet is too heavy per part thereof of pulling force, the magnets will not have enough pulling force to create the speed needed to use the inertia force to overcome the gate (mass in motion). If the pallet is too light per part thereof of pulling force, there will not be enough mass to create the inertia that will use the brute force to overcome the gate and the rotor will get stuck or “bounce back”.

 

4.2

 

The same applies for the stator magnets. When we know how much pulling force they have, we will understand the direct ratio relationship between the rotor magnet’s pulling power and the stator magnet’s pulling power.

 

Why? Because if the stator magnets are to strong they will create a stronger gate that the combined pulling force of the rotor magnets and the force of the rotor’s inertia will not over come. If the stator magnets are too weak, this in turn will slow down the rotor because there is less attraction again affecting the force of the inertia not giving it enough momentum to break the gate.

 

5.0

 

So where to from here? Builders need to start understanding the concept of why the machine works before they embark on just simply trying to build replicas of the device. At face value without understanding the concept, self-starting replicas will not be achieved. Once we all understand the concepts of how this works armed with the ratio relationship information, we will not be bound by the shape, size and cinfiguration of Mylow’s design.

 

 

Stirling, I am not an expert, no one is or otherwise we wouldn’t be paying for our energy. Either way, despite a very broad layman’s overview, it is definitely food for thought! These observations are no way intended to cause heated debate in our community about who is wrong and who is right, they are just observations that may trigger the next person to actually build one of these machine in a different configuration with greater efficiency or more usable torque.

 

The aforementioned information forms the basis of the machine I am now constructing I feel I am close. You are most welcome to publish or share this information.

 

Regards,

 

EOM

Empire of Motion