new proof that you assert without knowing what you are talking about for the simple will to denigrate.
Trial of intent.
1) quote you attempts to create magnetic motors (Among the most famous are also Minato and Yildiz) and you assimilate my electromagnetic motor to these. Do you know that there is a difference between magnetic and electromagnetic?
No ! Unbelievable ! I discover
2) you speak of a "hidden source" of energy. Malicious innuendo in accordance with your essential purpose: to harm. While I clearly announce interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity ...
Another trial of intent. By "hidden source", as the context suggests, I mean an unknown source, not a "deliberately hidden" source. Whoever does not know what the wind is and sees a windmill spinning, could think of such a hidden source, but hidden only by ignorance. And so it would be to be found if the goal is to understand why the mill turns.
Did you understand better now with a picture?
My goal is not to denigrate, it was to make a rational point on how to deal with a seemingly perpetual motion, which I was assuming. On the other hand, yours is good to create a diversion.
trying to make you believe that interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity is against the law of conservation of energy
Obviously no, another trial of intent. There is definitely a gulf between what I am saying and what you understand.
If I place two magnets some distance from each other, they can attract each other, and therefore energy will be expended to do this work of bringing them together. This energy is initially a potential magnetic energy related to the relative positions of the objects in question, similar to the potential energy of gravity of two masses which are distant from each other and which attract each other.
But when the magnets get closer, I have to spend the same energy to get them back to where they started. Ditto if instead of a mechanical action, I use a parametric change, for example by playing on the magnetic permeability. This is the reason why all the experiments with "SMOTs", which we have seen for 20 years, have failed.
At the moment I demonstrate by the videos attached to my message that by using interactive energy attraction / repulsion + electricity I have a running motor. This is the demonstration of the working principle. I do not want to publish an energy balance yet because it is not yet as satisfactory as I would like due to the fact that it is not optimized. I am looking for money in order to carry out a simulation study with Ansys software in order to perfectly determine the places of the magnets because the efficiency of the interactive energy is played out to the nearest mm, and to make new magnets with adapted shapes. (Studies having shown that this change in shape could add 30% more to the forces of attraction / repulsion)
When it comes to science, a video is proof of nothing at all, and yours even less. In the first, we see something rotating, but there are electric wires, nothing new, therefore, electric motors, we have known since Ørsted, 1820. And in the other two we see a short movement, under the effect apparently magnetic forces, so nothing new either.
And your conclusion does not make sense, it is a confusion between force and energy. The increase of a force has nothing to do with an increase in the work of the forces, and it is this work which represents the energy. Another cliché I've seen for years, like "my magnet is subjected to a greater force when it's pulled like this, than when it's pulled like that. So making it happen like this, and doing it. leave like that, I will be able to make it cycle, free energy, eureka, I discovered perpetual motion ". Well no, calculate the energy, make the product of the force by the displacement, and caramba! Still missed!
"The efficiency of interactive energy is played down to the millimeter," you said. And you haven't found the right mm yet? And are you looking for investors? I'd be the first if I saw the slightest hint of evidence that you'd hold something. But it is nothingness. And more worryingly, you slip away when asked.
Once again, what are your measurement protocol and your data, which allow you to conclude on an innovation?