Very nice work!! looks great on a 4k monitor. and thumbs up for the translation!!! So if i understand correctly he was NOT using neodynium magnets but normal ferrite magnets, because the neodym were only invented in the 70s... which means the shield was the rotating pipe that is cut open on one side.. Luc
Question, have you tried running any of your Asymmetrical motors on radiant energy/cold electricity? It's the same energy produced in Tesla's Hairpin circuit, a Dielectric impulse displacement current that doesn't have a magnetic component to it, I call it Dielectricity, I heard somewhere it can't run a regular motor, probably because there's no magnetism, but I wonder if your motors can run on it?
Una temática interesante. Un ingeniero turco presentó, en una prestigiosa universidad germana , un motor magnético . En la demostración, se ve como ensamblan las distintas partes del motor . Una vez puesto en marcha, se realizó una prueba de fuerza del "Par motor", con la participación de varios voluntarios , pero nadie logró parar el eje del artefacto magnético. Buscar en Internet, seguro que encontraréis el vídeo de la demostración.
Vídeo interessante, não seria melhor usar a força de repulsão dos imas? Cada imã repelindo um ao outro entre o estator e o rotor,talvez esta abordagem der melhor resultado com imãs de neodímio👍
Found you channel when I came across the Asymmetrical motor concept, which really piqued my interest since I had just earlier been comparing the Symmetrical Archimedes Spiral vs the Logarithmic Asymmetrical spiral, and how the Logarithmic shows up in nature in very important areas and "feels" nicer to look at, when looking at a Logarithmic spiral it just feels like it wants to keep going forever, currently going over your content and trying to understand it, lol. However I would like to add something, I keep seeing you mention the Electron on electric topics, however the Electron particle model as depicted by mainstream is incorrect: Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview: On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science. “To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly) “My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.” - N. Tesla “In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916 “To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” - W. Russell JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” - E. Dollard “There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” - E. Dollard “Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses) The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings. Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction. “Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steven Biller Steinmetz provided an accurate model of Electricity as the conjugate of Dielectric and Magnetic fields, when these 2 mutually destructive fields intersect we get the hybrid power we call Electricity, the interaction causes disruptions and "bumps" to form in the fields and those are what are mistakenly known as the Electrons. Too further add to this we can see a more magical property of generators thanks to Oleg: "Faraday was the originator of the concept of the magnetic field, (which is described in terms of "magnetic curves" our present day "magnetic lines of force") however he never so much as suggested in his works that induced currents were a resultant of changing magnetic fields. On the contrary, he clearly associated the phenomena of electromagnetic induction with changing electrical currents. Maxwell too considered the electromagnetic induction as a phenomena in which a current is induced in a circuit, but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electric field. He clearly said that the induced electromotive force is measured by, not caused by, the changing magnetic field. Just as Faraday, he made no allusion to any causal link between magnetic and electric fields." "Maxwell too considered the electromagnetic induction as a phenomena in which a current is induced in a circuit, but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes and electric field. He clearly said that the induced electromotive force is measured by, not caused by the changing magnetic field. Just as Faraday, he made no allusion to any causal link between magnetic and electric fields." "But as we've seen neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate the existence of a causal link between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a duel entity always having electric and magnetic components simultaneously created by their common sources." "A time variable electric current creates an electric field parallel to that current. The field exerts an electric force on the charge in the nearby conductors thereby creating induced electric currents in them. This in the term “electromagnetic induction” is an actually a misnomer, since no magnetic effect is involved in the phenomena, and since the induced current is caused solely by the time variable electric current and by the electric field produced by that current." "according to these equations in time variable systems electrical and magnetic fields are always created simultaneously because they have a common causative source, the changing electrical current, once created the two fields coexist from then on without any effect upon each other. Therefore electromagnetic induction is a phenomenon in which the field creates the other, I.E energy generation is an illusion. The illusion of mutual creation arises from the facts and time-dependent systems of the two fields appearing predominantly together" -Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields by Oleg D. Jefimenko In laymen's terms, this means there is no transduction between kinetic and electric energy, no kinetic motion has ever been transformed into electric power, a spinning generator merely sets up the conditions for electricity to manifest, fascinating right?
Hola,gracias por esta magnifica restauración de la película,conozco el trabajo que supone. Podría poner links del piston neumático y la válvula neumática,supongo que son material estándar que pueden se adquirir en el mercado. Muchas gracias. Hello, thanks for this magnificent restoration of the film, I know the work involved. I could put links of the pneumatic piston and the pneumatic valve, I suppose they are standard material that can be purchased on the market. Thanks a lot.
So UFO - I want to say I've followed your work since ? way way back and you are one of the greats - your hands alone are the testament of greatness - they work and are hard one battle hands - soldering - cutting - lathing - twisting - and a super charged brain thinking always how to solve problems and Friedrich Luling would be PROUD of you - and just looking at this type of guy I know these types - he's a REAL German -and real Germans like that DON"T LIE - not about this stuff - so.... that means for me - that it IS working - and now I need to figure out how
Please respond. So I've gone through the forum and all the videos and a lot of the images I can't access. And the forum has no activity. So I don't really have anyone I can go to for information regarding similar devices. I just had questions regarding the 3 pole motor.
Der Lüling-Motor soll Pressluft benutzt haben, um Teile zu bewegen. Damit bleibt es aber unklar, ob es überhaupt ein Magnetmotor war, oder ob die Drehung nur durch die von der Pressluft eingebrachte Energie zustande kam. Leider hat Herr Lüling nie eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung seines Motors erlaubt. Man kann deshalb nicht automatisch davon ausgehen, dass er wirklich als Magnetmotor funktioniert hat. Es gab zu diesem Motor auch nie detaillierte technische Daten wie etwa die Drehzahl/Drehmomentkennlinie.
Hello, Here is my proof...pneumatics were there just "assisting"...however, the main force to rotate motor was purely magnetic. ua-cam.com/video/ytCVQ-OZZmM/v-deo.html
@@ufopolitics Sorry, but I don't see any proof in this video that pneumatics are only assisting. A real proof that this model would work without this "assist" would be, when the movement done now by the pneumatics would be derived mechanically from the rotating disk. Or if you construct a mini-compressor for the pneumatics, which is also driven by the rotating disk.
@@ufopolitics To elaborate my comment: of course there is no doubt that the disc rotates due to magnetic forces. However, without "assist" these forces would not cause a rotation, since torques would be the same cw and ccw. The rotation of the disk means work is done. There is no explicit load in this experiment but friction and air-resistance are overcome and the pneumatic valve is activated. This means mechanical energy. This output of mechanical energy must have an equal input of energy. There is no indication that magnets are a source of energy. They deliver forces, but they don't get weaker by it, nothing gets colder, the material does not change. Thus it is most likely that the energy of the rotating disk stems from the pneumatic energy input. With your model there is no proof, that the mechanical output energy is bigger than the pneumatic input of energy. Which means there is also no proof that magnets contribute to the output energy.
Very well done! Sound is also very clear. And now we sit and wait for someone to actually build this motor. How easy is it? Just cancel the magnetic field right at the moment where attraction is at its greatest. O, and wait: the power used to perform this 'cancel' should be lower than what the motor will deliver. Hmmmm. If someone can explain this?
Hello and Thanks, I will happily answer your question: " *and wait: the power used to perform this 'cancel' should be lower than what the motor will deliver. Hmmmm. If someone can explain this?..."* Actually there is no power (externally) required to cancel neutralization... This is a type of "Action-Reaction" process here...where a mechanical system would just be in charge to move the mechanisms required (in my example, to retract the attraction magnet)...and so, the magnetic force released at canceling time would be used to activate this mechanism only once, like a starter motor... And there is actually no relation whatsoever, in the internal friction between the mechanical mechanisms, as long as magnet gets retracted the required distance. In other words...we will need a Toggle type mechanism, which uses very low force triggering, very soft, however, retract magnet at the required distance. to run motor. Then it is a matter of utilizing flywheels or counterweights in order to keep movement equalized and harmonic.
@@ufopolitics That is what I have been thinking, but my model would be a little different. There is one more way to escape the gap, where in the stator itself is designed in such a way that the rotor will seek the opposite pole Or the gap but the stator is designed such that it(gap) is farther away from the rotor. This is the secret design I have, the gap pull will be least or will be none, depending upon the stator design. I have seen that when a circular magnet(speaker type) is used as a stator with inside(hole/centre)as say North Pole and a rotor with say 2 leg having North Pole facing the North Pole of circular magnet, it will not rotate, it just stays but when we slit the speaker magnet with say just 1 mn, the rotor moves and stands at that gap, as if the rotor know it can't get the opposite Pole to stabilize at the end, when the speaker magnet is not slit. So, the above said design(secret) will run as the slit will be there to draw rotor but will be weak when the rotor reaches the gap, as it is farther away and the other rotor arms or legs as they will be in large repulsive region seeking gap will help it to pass the gap. Please give your suggestions. 🙏
Dear UFO I am a fan of your experiments. Seems you are jumping one experiment to another without producing any results. Why don't you further research and build something out of your "GATE to HEAVEN " concept ? . That would be very valuable for the nature ... Kind regards, Din
Hi Ufopolitics thanks for this nice video :) could you contact me privately if possible? It is a long time that I follow your work and I try to write you but I don't know how to do in youtube .
How is your project coming along? any news?
Ufo, do you have any updates on things you've been working on?
Very nice work!! looks great on a 4k monitor. and thumbs up for the translation!!! So if i understand correctly he was NOT using neodynium magnets but normal ferrite magnets, because the neodym were only invented in the 70s... which means the shield was the rotating pipe that is cut open on one side..
Luc
Question, have you tried running any of your Asymmetrical motors on radiant energy/cold electricity? It's the same energy produced in Tesla's Hairpin circuit, a Dielectric impulse displacement current that doesn't have a magnetic component to it, I call it Dielectricity, I heard somewhere it can't run a regular motor, probably because there's no magnetism, but I wonder if your motors can run on it?
Una temática interesante. Un ingeniero turco presentó, en una prestigiosa universidad germana , un motor magnético .
En la demostración, se ve como ensamblan las distintas partes del motor . Una vez puesto en marcha, se realizó una prueba de fuerza del "Par motor", con la participación de varios voluntarios , pero nadie logró parar el eje del artefacto magnético.
Buscar en Internet, seguro que encontraréis el vídeo de la demostración.
very good, can you get a link to the website?
@@EmusicIA cherche "motor magnético Muammer Yildiz"
@@EmusicIA ua-cam.com/video/-V09JC35I18/v-deo.html
Vídeo interessante, não seria melhor usar a força de repulsão dos imas? Cada imã repelindo um ao outro entre o estator e o rotor,talvez esta abordagem der melhor resultado com imãs de neodímio👍
Found you channel when I came across the Asymmetrical motor concept, which really piqued my interest since I had just earlier been comparing the Symmetrical Archimedes Spiral vs the Logarithmic Asymmetrical spiral, and how the Logarithmic shows up in nature in very important areas and "feels" nicer to look at, when looking at a Logarithmic spiral it just feels like it wants to keep going forever, currently going over your content and trying to understand it, lol.
However I would like to add something, I keep seeing you mention the Electron on electric topics, however the Electron particle model as depicted by mainstream is incorrect:
Nikola Tesla November 1928 interview:
On the whole subject of matter, in fact, Dr. Tesla holds views that are startlingly original. He disagrees with the accepted atomic theory of matter, and does not believe in the existence of an “electron” as pictured by science.
“To account for its apparently small mass, science conceives of the electron as a hollow sphere, a sort of bubble, such a bubble could exist in a medium as a gas or liquid because its internal pressure is not altered by deformation. But if, as supposed, the internal pressure of an electron is due to the repulsion of electric masses, the slightest conceivable deformation must result in the destruction of the bubble! Just to mention another improbability...” - Nikola Tesla
Article: “A Famous Prophet of Science Looks into the Future” (Popular Science Monthly)
“My ideas regarding the electron are at variance with those generally entertained. I hold that it is a relatively large entity carrying a surface charge and is not an elementary unit (particle). When the ‘electron’ leaves an electrode of high potential and in a high vacuum it carries an electrostatic charge many times greater than normal.” - N. Tesla
“In the theoretical treatment of these electrons we are faced with the difficulty that electro-dynamic theory by itself is unable to give an account of their nature.” “For since electrical masses constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.” - Einstein on electrons; “Relativity”, by Albert Einstein, Random House Publisher, 1916
“To describe an electron as a negatively charged body is equivalent to saying that it is an expanding-contracting particle. There is no such condition in nature as a negative charge, nor are there negatively charged particles. Charge and discharge are opposite conditions, as filling and emptying, or compressing and expanding are opposite conditions.” - W. Russell
JJ Thomson developed the “Ether Atom” ideas of M. Faraday into his “Electronic Corpuscle”, this indivisible unit. One corpuscle terminates on one Faradic tube of force, and this quantifies as one Coulomb. This corpuscle is not and electron, it is a constituent of what today is known incorrectly as an “electron”. (Thomson relates 1000 corpuscles per electron) In this view, that taken by W. Crookes, J.J. Thomson, and N. Tesla, the cathode ray is not electrons, but in actuality corpuscles of the Ether.” - E. Dollard
“There is no rest mass to an ‘electron’. It is given here the ‘electron’ is no more than a broken loose “hold fast” under the grip of the tensions within the dielectric lines of force. They are the broken ends of the split in half package of spaghetti. Obviously this reasoning is not welcome in the realm of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.” - E. Dollard
“Unfortunately to a large extent in dealing with dielectric fields the prehistoric conception of the electro-static charge, the ‘electron’, on the conductor still exists, and by its use destroys the analogy between the two components of the electric field, the magnetic and dielectric. This makes the consideration of dielectric fields unnecessarily complicated” - C.P. Steinmetz (Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses)
The idea of electricity as a flow of ‘electrons’ in a conductor was regarded by Oliver Heaviside as “a psychosis”. This encouraged Heaviside to begin a series of writings. Also consider the J.J. Thomson concept of the "electron" (his own discovery). Thomson considered the electron the terminal end of one unit line of dielectric induction.
“Electrons as a separate, distinct entity…doesn’t really exist, they are merely bumps in something called a ‘field’.” - Dr. Steven Biller
Steinmetz provided an accurate model of Electricity as the conjugate of Dielectric and Magnetic fields, when these 2 mutually destructive fields intersect we get the hybrid power we call Electricity, the interaction causes disruptions and "bumps" to form in the fields and those are what are mistakenly known as the Electrons. Too further add to this we can see a more magical property of generators thanks to Oleg:
"Faraday was the originator of the concept of the magnetic field, (which is described in terms of "magnetic curves" our present day "magnetic lines of force") however he never so much as suggested in his works that induced currents were a resultant of changing magnetic fields. On the contrary, he clearly associated the phenomena of electromagnetic induction with changing electrical currents. Maxwell too considered the electromagnetic induction as a phenomena in which a current is induced in a circuit, but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes an electric field. He clearly said that the induced electromotive force is measured by, not caused by, the changing magnetic field. Just as Faraday, he made no allusion to any causal link between magnetic and electric fields."
"Maxwell too considered the electromagnetic induction as a phenomena in which a current is induced in a circuit, but not as a phenomena in which a changing magnetic field causes and electric field. He clearly said that the induced electromotive force is measured by, not caused by the changing magnetic field. Just as Faraday, he made no allusion to any causal link between magnetic and electric fields."
"But as we've seen neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate the existence of a causal link between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a duel entity always having electric and magnetic components simultaneously created by their common sources."
"A time variable electric current creates an electric field parallel to that current. The field exerts an electric force on the charge in the nearby conductors thereby creating induced electric currents in them. This in the term “electromagnetic induction” is an actually a misnomer, since no magnetic effect is involved in the phenomena, and since the induced current is caused solely by the time variable electric current and by the electric field produced by that current."
"according to these equations in time variable systems electrical and magnetic fields are always created simultaneously because they have a common causative source, the changing electrical current, once created the two fields coexist from then on without any effect upon each other. Therefore electromagnetic induction is a phenomenon in which the field creates the other, I.E energy generation is an illusion. The illusion of mutual creation arises from the facts and time-dependent systems of the two fields appearing predominantly together"
-Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields by Oleg D. Jefimenko
In laymen's terms, this means there is no transduction between kinetic and electric energy, no kinetic motion has ever been transformed into electric power, a spinning generator merely sets up the conditions for electricity to manifest, fascinating right?
Hola,gracias por esta magnifica restauración de la película,conozco el trabajo que supone.
Podría poner links del piston neumático y la válvula neumática,supongo que son material estándar que pueden se adquirir en el mercado.
Muchas gracias.
Hello, thanks for this magnificent restoration of the film, I know the work involved.
I could put links of the pneumatic piston and the pneumatic valve, I suppose they are standard material that can be purchased on the market.
Thanks a lot.
it's not about changing the angle of the magnets before the momentum ?
I'd like to know how the next test went, there must be a paper or write up on what happened next?
Excelente trabajo Ufo, gracias por recordarnos que sí se puede...👍👍
So UFO - I want to say I've followed your work since ? way way back and you are one of the greats - your hands alone are the testament of greatness - they work and are hard one battle hands - soldering - cutting - lathing - twisting - and a super charged brain thinking always how to solve problems and Friedrich Luling would be PROUD of you - and just looking at this type of guy I know these types - he's a REAL German -and real Germans like that DON"T LIE - not about this stuff - so.... that means for me - that it IS working - and now I need to figure out how
Please respond. So I've gone through the forum and all the videos and a lot of the images I can't access. And the forum has no activity. So I don't really have anyone I can go to for information regarding similar devices. I just had questions regarding the 3 pole motor.
Der Lüling-Motor soll Pressluft benutzt haben, um Teile zu bewegen. Damit bleibt es aber unklar, ob es überhaupt ein Magnetmotor war, oder ob die Drehung nur durch die von der Pressluft eingebrachte Energie zustande kam. Leider hat Herr Lüling nie eine wissenschaftliche Untersuchung seines Motors erlaubt. Man kann deshalb nicht automatisch davon ausgehen, dass er wirklich als Magnetmotor funktioniert hat. Es gab zu diesem Motor auch nie detaillierte technische Daten wie etwa die Drehzahl/Drehmomentkennlinie.
Hello,
Here is my proof...pneumatics were there just "assisting"...however, the main force to rotate motor was purely magnetic.
ua-cam.com/video/ytCVQ-OZZmM/v-deo.html
@@ufopolitics Sorry, but I don't see any proof in this video that pneumatics are only assisting. A real proof that this model would work without this "assist" would be, when the movement done now by the pneumatics would be derived mechanically from the rotating disk. Or if you construct a mini-compressor for the pneumatics, which is also driven by the rotating disk.
@@ufopolitics To elaborate my comment: of course there is no doubt that the disc rotates due to magnetic forces. However, without "assist" these forces would not cause a rotation, since torques would be the same cw and ccw. The rotation of the disk means work is done. There is no explicit load in this experiment but friction and air-resistance are overcome and the pneumatic valve is activated. This means mechanical energy. This output of mechanical energy must have an equal input of energy. There is no indication that magnets are a source of energy. They deliver forces, but they don't get weaker by it, nothing gets colder, the material does not change. Thus it is most likely that the energy of the rotating disk stems from the pneumatic energy input. With your model there is no proof, that the mechanical output energy is bigger than the pneumatic input of energy. Which means there is also no proof that magnets contribute to the output energy.
Very well done! Sound is also very clear. And now we sit and wait for someone to actually build this motor. How easy is it? Just cancel the magnetic field right at the moment where attraction is at its greatest. O, and wait: the power used to perform this 'cancel' should be lower than what the motor will deliver. Hmmmm. If someone can explain this?
Hello and Thanks,
I will happily answer your question:
" *and wait: the power used to perform this 'cancel' should be lower than what the motor will deliver. Hmmmm. If someone can explain this?..."*
Actually there is no power (externally) required to cancel neutralization...
This is a type of "Action-Reaction" process here...where a mechanical system would just be in charge to move the mechanisms required (in my example, to retract the attraction magnet)...and so, the magnetic force released at canceling time would be used to activate this mechanism only once, like a starter motor...
And there is actually no relation whatsoever, in the internal friction between the mechanical mechanisms, as long as magnet gets retracted the required distance.
In other words...we will need a Toggle type mechanism, which uses very low force triggering, very soft, however, retract magnet at the required distance. to run motor.
Then it is a matter of utilizing flywheels or counterweights in order to keep movement equalized and harmonic.
@@ufopolitics That is what I have been thinking, but my model would be a little different. There is one more way to escape the gap, where in the stator itself is designed in such a way that the rotor will seek the opposite pole Or the gap but the stator is designed such that it(gap) is farther away from the rotor. This is the secret design I have, the gap pull will be least or will be none, depending upon the stator design. I have seen that when a circular magnet(speaker type) is used as a stator with inside(hole/centre)as say North Pole and a rotor with say 2 leg having North Pole facing the North Pole of circular magnet, it will not rotate, it just stays but when we slit the speaker magnet with say just 1 mn, the rotor moves and stands at that gap, as if the rotor know it can't get the opposite Pole to stabilize at the end, when the speaker magnet is not slit. So, the above said design(secret) will run as the slit will be there to draw rotor but will be weak when the rotor reaches the gap, as it is farther away and the other rotor arms or legs as they will be in large repulsive region seeking gap will help it to pass the gap. Please give your suggestions. 🙏
@@ufopolitics ua-cam.com/video/X9dOm4ORvkY/v-deo.html
@@ranaji99 i like to add you to my telegram group about this project , best wishes and happy new year
i like to add you to my telegram group about this lüling project , best wishes and happy new year
Dear UFO
I am a fan of your experiments. Seems you are jumping one experiment to another without producing any results. Why don't you further research and build something out of your "GATE to HEAVEN " concept ? . That would be very valuable for the nature ... Kind regards, Din
Where can i buy one
Men in black will suicide you if you have one.
Buy what? the Video?...sure, I will sell it to you...LOL
@@lostinthemoonlight man in black can't kill unrecognized flying objects.
Pls be my mentor am ready to read. And follow your teachings.
Hi Ufopolitics thanks for this nice video :)
could you contact me privately if possible? It is a long time that I follow your work and I try to write you but I don't know how to do in youtube .
:thumbs up emojie: