My Levitators and Bearings ( and other ) Designs/inventions

guest1289 · March 09, 2016, 09:27:30 PM

guest1289

QuoteAnd that could be done by replacing the ground-plate( electret ) with an earthed-wire( or a ground-plate connected to an earth-wire ) and then opening and closing the connection to the earth

But of course, when turning-off the earthed-wire( or a ground-plate connected to an earth-wire )
, by opening the circuit, afterwards you would also have to drain of any charge remaining in the earthed-wire( or a ground-plate connected to an earth-wire ).

And, if you need to use an actual ground-plate instead of just a wire( or earthed-wire ), could you charge either a ground-plate connected to an earthed-wire, or, a ground-plate( electret ), by connecting one side of it( top or bottom, or sideways side ) to the earth, and then connecting it's other side also to the earth( and probably using a diode or something to keep current flowing in one direction ).

Of course this would all be done as a solid-state-device ( but since I still won't be able to design a circuit, I would still be sticking to my train on track, or levitating-train sliding-switch idea, for now )

conradelektro · March 10, 2016, 02:57:49 AM

Quote from: guest1289 on March 08, 2016, 12:13:36 PM
And that could be done by replacing the ground-plate( electret ) with an earthed-wire( or a ground-plate connected to an earth-wire ) and then opening and closing the connection to the earth

@guest1289:

1) Please read about the Earnshaw theorem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/levitation-possible/
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ (try to understand that)

It says that levitation with magnets (electrostatic fields or gravity) alone is not possible.

2) You mention not to move the top plate of an electrophorus and to harvest the (very small) charge by help of a switch (or circuit) to earth ground.

I tried that and will investigate further. The huge problem is the very small amount of charge. All electric components I have, for instance capacitors and diodes, lose that charge because of their practical limitations.

Greetings, Conrad

John.K1 · March 10, 2016, 09:27:14 AM

Guys, isn't better to make a Wimshurst machine, which (I guess) generate more serious voltages by applying comparable work effort? (The lift Vs push on lever)

Btw, there are lifters based on static (HV) electricity, so how is the Earnshaw's theorem precised?

Talking about levitation generaly, there is a project on my mind. I want to make a model of UFO

The idea is to print several S shaped top part (the shape will create a toroidal wortex) and the smaller bottom shaped part (also creating the wortex and together forming assymetrical capacito) Top and bottom part will rotate and by using the Wimshurst principle they will generate strong static field ,which than change to torus rotating field (due to shapes) Leading to propulsion forces

The plan for my next 5 years

guest1289 · March 10, 2016, 12:24:02 PM

conradelektro

Quote@guest1289:

1) Please read about the Earnshaw theorem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem
http://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/levitation-possible/
http://www.physics.ucla.edu/marty/diamag/ (try to understand that)

It says that levitation with magnets (electrostatic fields or gravity) alone is not possible.

Yes, I am very familiar with 'Earnshaw theorem'( and the wikipedia-page on non-powered magnetic-levitation ), and diamagnetic-levitation which easily achieves full-levitation.

But, the point is, people who have actually achieved Full-Levitation, just using permanent-magnets, do not defeat 'Earnshaw theorem', because there is always a little bit of movement down at an very small level, so it is not sufficiently stable-levitation to defeat 'Earnshaw theorem', even though it visually appears stable enough.

The only proof I can offer is the following post by sm0ky2
http://overunity.com/16295/all-permanent-magnet-complete-levitation/msg469712/#msg469712
( I created the above thread just to show some extremely simple designs that would be too simple to send to the patent-registry )

sm0ky2

QuoteI myself have had several objects levitated for vast amounts of time, purely by magnetic force, without any constraints, tethers, or framework.
all within exact accordance with Earnshaw's Theorem. There was, in fact, a motion within the magnetic field.
I cannot personally, discount any or all wind, ambient changes in the magnetic field, physical vibration of the framework or surface it sits upon.
therefore, I can't say definitively, that all motion was a result of Earnshawnian motion.
However, it becomes clear in ANY permanent-magnetic levitation situation, that there is always motion.
Motion, which can often breach magnetic barriers causing the levitation to fail, or the levitating object to move outside of the boundaries.

QuoteWhat modern-day scientists take this to mean is:: there is always an instability, that prevents perfect levitation.
This is not necessarily true. As proven by Dr Don Herbert (Mr Wizard) in the 1950's, when he invented the principals that make the MagLev Train possible.

But you would have to read all of sm0ky2's post, and sm0ky2 also said somewhere that 'earnshaw' stated that 'full-levitation' is not possible because there would always be a continual movement( however small ) which would be 'perpetual motion'( and perpetual motion is not possible ).

For whatever reason, people do not put their 'full-levitation' devices which just use 'permanent-magnets' and no-electricity, onto the internet, and it must be the same or similar reason why I have not been able to find a company that would be interested in my 'all-permanent-magnet-full-levitation' designs'.
( And my possibly 'very new invention' electric-motor designs have also not gained any interest, although, I think due to circumstances( and to something I posted ), they were lost to other people )

( My more advanced designs, posted in the first post of 'this thread', are designed to work at any angle in relation to gravity, and work on principles having the same effect as the 'inverter-magnet'( or 'tractor-beam-magnet' ) which are demonstrated working on table tops in youtube-videos, but my designs use that effect as part of full-levitation.
( When I designed the first one, I didn't know about the 'inverter-magnet' and the similar achievements )

Quote2) You mention not to move the top plate of an electrophorus and to harvest the (very small) charge by help of a switch (or circuit) to earth ground.

I tried that and will investigate further. The huge problem is the very small amount of charge. All electric components I have, for instance capacitors and diodes, lose that charge because of their practical limitations.

- Maybe it's possible to temporarily move the static-charge from the 'ground-plate( electret )' to somewhere else, and then put it back, moving the static-charge backwards, and forwards ( but I assume that could quickly deplete the charge )

- The idea I typed was to connect one side of the ground-plate to the earth, and then also connect the other side of the ground-plate to the earth, and include some type of diode, and charge it up like a capacitor. BECAUSE I am sure I have read of claimed-overunity generators that claim to do this, and I thought it would provide 'at least' enough power for the electrophorus.
( And maybe base it on the idea of a cathode and anode, in the same way you can get electrical-current from organic things like lemons etc, but there must be more advanced materials for cathodes and anodes, to get energy from the earth, things I know little about, like ferroelectric's /piezoelectric's etc, )
---------------------
The Reason I Have Started Posting My Ideas On My Own Thread First
Recently I remembered that 'Moderated-Threads' exist, it worried me, because if I post something important on someone elses thread, it could be deleted by a moderator, and they could submit my idea to a patent-registry etc.
You're a much higher level member than I am, and for all I know, you could be granted permission to moderate your thread at any time. I know very little about how this site works.
I intend to post summarized versions of my ideas onto your thread, because I do start waffling on about things which don't help.
( I can't remember the symbols for components on circuit diagrams, but of course I should look them up.
I'm not in a position to think about advanced things like circuits/electronics, so I avoid them as much as possible, which is almost impossible. I try to stick to the simplest things .
( I would be inspecting and designing circuits, if I was in different circumstances )

I will continue checking your thread, and if I think of something that actually helps, I will post it on your thread ( after I have posted it on mine first )
-------------------------
John.K1

QuoteGuys, isn't better to make a Wimshurst machine, which (I guess) generate more serious voltages by applying comparable work effort? (The lift Vs push on lever)

conradelektro has a reason for focusing on the electrophorus, as far as I understand it's as a more powerful or efficient replacement for processes which utilize the piezoelectric-effect , I read that the piezoelectric-effect is used in big-industry processes, but the only device I have ever actually seen is shoes designed to generate electricity directly from the piezoelectric-effect.

I have read about a well known 'Wimshurst machine'( or Wimshurst like machine ) which is claimed to be overunity and generates a lot of power, and no one knows how it actually works.
conradelektro's reason for starting with the electrophorus is because it is the very simplest electrostatic-generator, and he posted that just moving the plate 2mm generates 1000volts
He has studied all these Wimshurst like machines, and intends to move onto them.
But of course, if it's possible that the electrophorus can be further evolved, then something significant could be invented, and maybe how some other machine works, could be discovered.
( Things like, could it be possible that a wimhurst-like-machine could extract power from the earth, and, or the atmosphere, via a pump-like effect, by an imbalance in the system somewhere )

QuoteBtw, there are lifters based on static (HV) electricity, so how is the Earnshaw's theorem precised?

Is it anywhere near stable-levitation.
The closest thing I have seen is youtube videos of hoops made of extremely fine grocery-bag type plastic, levitated by a single statically-charged-piece-of-plastic, and I assume they have to continually move the statically-charged-piece-of-plastic under the hoop, to keep it from falling, but I don't know if that is the case.
( You don't mean the lifters that require the continual direct input of 1000's of volts )

The wikipedia pages for earnshaw's-theorem and magnetic-levitation says there is no still-design( a design with no moving parts, and no electrical-current input ), or combination of static-electricity-charges or permanent-magnets that can achieve continual full-levitation, but they include the term 'stable', and that where there is debate.
At the beginning of this post, is a quote by just one member who says he had made some devices which functioned successfully.

QuoteTalking about levitation generaly, there is a project on my mind. I want to make a model of UFO The idea is to print several S shaped top part (the shape will create a toroidal wortex) and the smaller bottom shaped part (also creating the wortex and together forming assymetrical capacito) Top and bottom part will rotate and by using the Wimshurst principle they will generate strong static field ,which than change to torus rotating field (due to shapes) Leading to propulsion forces
The plan for my next 5 years

And if it worked, would it be posted and publicized, are things that function, publicized, or has nothing ever worked, you'll only know if it works

John.K1 · March 10, 2016, 03:47:01 PM

Hi Guest, it is not a long time somebody was showing some machine which prints "arbitrary patterns" of magnet, and If I good remember the stable levitation has been shown?? What the theorem says about secondary magnetic field??