New permanent magnet motor on youtube from Roobert33

[tbird]

hi neptune,

@tbird . I do A lot of biking ,and wether the hills are long or short , I get no help from any friends ! OK I know you did not mean that litterally . Work=force times distance , so if you lift the magnet a given distance , the work required remains the same . Think of me biking up a steep hill . If I use a lower gear , pedalling is easier , speed drops , and the climb takes longer . But I still burn the same number of calories .Gearing is just a continuous form of leverage . By the use of leverage in this machine , you could lessen the force needed to lift the magnet , but the lifting would need to happen over a longer time period .{more degrees of rotation] and this may upset the timing of the machine and would also extract the same amount of momentum from the rotating wheel . So, how about an opinion from some of you mathematicians instead of leaving it to an old retired truck driver like me.

this is exactly why i posted reply #399.  maybe no one could relate to the machine at hand, but no one tried to answer the question.  maybe no one knows.

maw2432's (bill) design is basically the same thing.  the power to work the lever at the bottom comes from the circumference of the drum (top end of segment a in my pic).  cam, trigger device, whatever you want to call it, will still be determined by how long and how high you want the stator magnet assy. to be effected (or is it affected?).  granted, if the desire is to raise the stator magnet 6mm, then the cam will have to be (at 4 to 1) 24mm further out than the circumference of the drum  and have to get there in the allocated dwell angle.  i must be getting real confused now.  i'm using mm......??

in Roobert33's machine, you actually have a higher (worse) ratio (5 to + or - 6).  this can't be the best, can it?

[mscoffman]

@All,

A couple of things I noticed about Roobert33’s motor;

The lift-bar mechanism seems to be stiff and *balanced* near the upper
right hand corner where the two wood pieces join up. The cam bearing weight
is also located near there. This means that the left hand slider has to support
or direct very less force (vectors) and has little tendency to jam. It’s kind
of a center of gravity consideration for the entire lift mechanism.

---

The lift support spring near the base appears double acting and works in
both compression and contraction mode, making it somewhat of a resonant
system. A resonant system will require less net total input energy, since some
energy is recycled and not totally lost, But at the same time may make the lift’s
operation a bit probabilistic.

---

A better way might be to attach the V-bar to a pendulum and let very small
energy loss increment take place as pendulum energy friction while the V_bar
cycles regularly. The pendulum would need to synchronized with the drum rotation
very similar to an escapement mechanism in a clock â€" which are known to be very
low energy loss devices.

Here is a Web link to the graphics of V-gate motor where the V_bar moves
comparitively continuously; 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFiQ6fy_6EE

FYI, Web Link to neat possibly useful Magnetic bearing;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0DRY7VsL-8

:S:MarkSCoffman

[maw2432]

hi neptune,

this is exactly why i posted reply #399.  maybe no one could relate to the machine at hand, but no one tried to answer the question.  maybe no one knows.

maw2432's (bill) design is basically the same thing.  the power to work the lever at the bottom comes from the circumference of the drum (top end of segment a in my pic).  cam, trigger device, whatever you want to call it, will still be determined by how long and how high you want the stator magnet assy. to be effected (or is it affected?).  granted, if the desire is to raise the stator magnet 6mm, then the cam will have to be (at 4 to 1) 24mm further out than the circumference of the drum  and have to get there in the allocated dwell angle.  i must be getting real confused now.  i'm using mm......??

in Roobert33's machine, you actually have a higher (worse) ratio (5 to + or - 6).  this can't be the best, can it?

Tbird, 

Glad you are still thinking of leverage.   I think it is the way to go.   Sorry but I have to wait until this weekend for magnets and time to do some experiments with my simple rig.   As to my design,  I think there may be enough leverage to move the rotor past the sticky point......... but many adjustments may be needed.  There are a lot of factors involved.  As to your comments, I think the closer to the shaft the cam is, you will also have less distance on lift of the stator and less control for adjustments for a novice garage developer like me.    Yes the stator arm at the top moves strait up and down even with some weights from the limited testing that I have done.  I hope the leverage will be enough to over come the friction.    I have to work during the week and family needs, so it may be later this weekend for an update.   

[TinselKoala]

So, there are lots of ways for power to be dissipated in this system. Cams, sliders, bearings, noisy thumpy interactions, all taking power away and turning it into waste heat, sound vibrations, and air motion.

But as far as I can see it's just an arrangement of permanent magnets moving past each other. We already know -- or should know -- that there's nothing about systems like this that PROVIDE power: there's no way for power to get INTO the system to replace the power that's dissipated in all that heat and wasted motion.

Unless of course it's supplied externally, or is coming from an onboard storage source.

You can actually calculate, based on some simple assumptions, how much power has to come from SOMEWHERE to keep your Roobert motor spinning at, say, 60 RPM. It's not going to be much, but it's still a lot more than you can get from moving magnets past each other.


Test your replications by taking out the "stator" magnet and replacing it with an equal weight dummy. Compare the rundown times, giving the rotor the same starting push, with the stator magnet in place, or with a non-magnetic weight substituted for it.

In this way you will be able to tell if your improvements or modifications are having any effect, helping or hurting.

You can give the rotor a repeatable starting push in many different ways, depending on the sophistication of your equipment.

[Omnibus]

We already know -- or should know -- that there's nothing about systems like this that PROVIDE power: there's no way for power to get INTO the system to replace the power that's dissipated in all that heat and wasted motion.

On the contrary, we know and we should know that there is something in these systems that provides power. We know (you don't, but that's your problem) that the magnetic propulsor generates such power. The device at hand is a magnetic propulsor of sorts and all that needs to be done is proper machining and tweaking it. We know that it is possible in principle to build a working device like the one shown by @Roobert33's but we don't know yet to proper engineer it.