The Steorn Permanent Magnet Motor Replication Project: It's FLUX time.

[canam101]

Take a look at the Steorn forum and the thread at http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=22133&page=1

a1trips and Feynman pretty much spell out what the 'secret' of Steorn's overunity is,
in their opinion.

The remaining bit is something that Feynman (Frank Grimer) said a month ago: that,
according to his gamma-atmosphere theory, OU should occur if a rotor magnet
approaches a stator magnet quickly, and pulls away slowly.

Maybe that implies that pulling away a shield as the rotor magnet approaches
the stator magnet is equivalent to a quick approach.

I don't really know; but the people here seem to include a lot of talented builders.
Check out the Steorn link above and see if you can put it all together.

[gyulasun]

gyulasun,

That sounds logical to me. Basically, what I'm trying to think about in my mind is how we can configure a rotor so that at every sticky point there is enough force being produced by another arm/stator to push past them. It's all about making sure that we can generate a pattern of "pushes" at the right time so that in every cycle at the right moment there is enough force to push past the sticky points.

But for any of my ideas to work the KEY must be that more force is produced after getting past the sticky point than is taken to overcome the repulsion to get to the point a pushing force is generated.

For example.

Lets say this line represents the length of motion of a magnet traveling to a sticky point while facing resistance from it's magnetic field.

_________

The X will represent the sticky point at which the magnet stops.

________X

The Y will represent the exact point that must be reached for a propulsive force to take over.

________X Y

The elevated line will represent the

The elevated line represents the length of motion when the magnet is being repelled away.

_______X Y ------------

Ok, now let me ask a few questions.

1) Do you get more or less energy after hitting the Y point than you do getting to the Y point?

2) How much further do you have to push past X to reach the Y point for acceleration to occur? Does acceleration occur if you push a tiny, tiny bit past X or is there a significant ammount of physical space between X and Y?

3) What is the resistance curve like pushing through X until you hit the Y point? Is the ammount of resistance steady, increasing, or does it start to decrease as you get closer to Y? Is there a curve of resistance?

I have some ideas of how to get past the sticky point in my mind, but really need to solve the above before I progress any further.

Hi,

Thanks for asking but I am afraid your questions can only be answered by considering a practical setup/arrangements of magnets and experience the forces at the crucial points. Usually at a sticky point the unwanted flux can be reduced by shielding, by electromagnet (whose coil has got air core) but unfortunately in most of the cases these points can be shifted away only and they will still exist elsewhere. A good solution to ease the effect of a sticky point is to use a robust rotor which can utilize flywheel effect with its appropiate mass.
Perhaps the combination of all these 'tricks' is still not enough, sorry for this but I am not a wizard unfortunately.
If there were a definite answer for your question(s), we would all have a working pm motor already...

The shielding method by the Steorn patent you refer to is a very clever one because in that arrangement the shield INHERENTLY needs very little force to move it back and forth due to fact I mentioned with the fridge example.
If Steorn really deleted your letter with your question, it may also mean it is a 'sticky' topic for them... obviously they have to cover things.  Anyway, I think if someone could find a clever mechanical setup for building the shielding principle of the patent, it would bring a working overunity motor. I think this is what 'cache' is trying to point out.  And this OU motor can be either the one Steorn has now or be a completely different one, we can have at least one of them (or I say both) and this is a promising situation.

Regards
Gyula

[cache]

And what makes you think that the "device" in the youTube videos have anything to do with the Steorn device? Those were news broadcasts. The images are probably stock "clip art" from a library under the category - mechanical devices.

I know Sean has said at http://www.steorn.net/en/faq.aspx?p=4 that

1) "The technology does not use a magnetic shield." That was in reference to a question about the Cheng device. lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/museum/unwork.htm#cheng and the answer is technically correct.

2) Question: "Is the patent for magnet shield relevant to your invention?" Answer: "No". Technically again Sean is correct. Why? Because the claims in application WO 2006/035419 A1 are too narrow. Once you understand the role of the balancing magnet in the claims, anyone skilled in the art can see how to "design around the claims". This is a common error inventors make, they zero in on what they've discovered, design claims to cover only the scope of what they saw wearing those blinders, and then stand by helplessly while industry "designs around their narrow claims". Sadly that is the fate of most patents. If the claim says you use a red blot to connect the molenshrig to the frebenzabble then anyone using a green bolt is not infringing on your patent rights. My guess is, that within a couple of days of the Economist Challenge someone brought the deficiency of their claims to light and they have now amended the application - so technically application WO 2006/035419 A1 is not relevant to the invention, probably WO 2006/035419 A2 IS but we wont see that for months.

The L.E.M.A. patent is NOT about magnetic shielding. It is about the balancing magnet in the drawing. Read the claims. Patents are granted only on the claims made. Steorn is not claiming to having invented magnetic sheilding, their claims are centered on the balancing of magnetic fields between a multiplicity of magnets contained within an enclosing environment, not necessarily a "magnetic shield". The term "magnetic shield" technically refers to a mu-metal, which is not necessary to their claims, any substance which is measurably permeable to a magnetic field could be substituted and remain within the scope of the claims. That's just one (the least important) deficiency in that application, there's more.

The day that Steorn published their challenge in The Economist it used the URL steorn.com. Five days later the steorn.com website disappeared and became a redirect to steorn.net. The two sites were similar EXCEPT all reference to the L.E.M.A. patent was missing in the Our Technology section. On the missing steorn.com site they not only made reference to that patent, you could view the patent application on the site. There was also a link to an article published in a newspaper in India in March where the reporter even referred to a company in Ohio as the source for Steorn's magnetic shield in the device he saw at Steorn's offices in Ireland.

[cache]

The shielding method by the Steorn patent you refer to is a very clever one because in that arrangement the shield INHERENTLY needs very little force to move it back and forth due to fact I mentioned with the fridge example.

Wrong. Let's take your fridge magnet. It takes less force to slide the magnet accross the fridge than it takes to pull the magnet off the fridge because you are not escaping the magnetic attraction by merely sliding the magnet around. We need to escape the magnetic field.

Look at their drawing in the patent application. There are TWO magnets, but the shield is only wide enough to cover one magnet at a time. Consider, as the shield moves far enough to expose 1/4th of magnet 1 it simultaneously moves enough to cover 1/4th of magnet 2. Throughout the entire motion from covering magnet 1 to instead covering magnet 2 the attraction of one magnet is replaced by the attraction of the other "balancing" magnet. Long story short, the magnetic attraction exposed to the shield remains constant while it is moved from magnet 1 to magnet 2. The result, it takes less energy to move the shield to expose magnet 1 than magnet 1 exerts in attracting the shield.

This url explains the concept. http://www.steornquest.com This url was on steorn.net's forum for a few days before they removed the posts containg the url. An enterprising poster there named Spartane0 posted the url with spaces between the letters to keep Steorn's censor from finding it. Don't take my word for it, go to http://www.steorn.net/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=13112&page=3 it's the 6th post from the bottom of that page. Spartane0 claimed they wiped out two other posts he made before he tricked them with the spaces.

[pinestone]

Yes. It takes the same amount of force to 'get past' the 'sticky part'. You will always have 'zero'.

A couple of ways to avoid 'stick-sion' is to rotate or shunt the fields.

Remember folks, people have been trying to make OU with magnets for a hundred years or more.
The key to discovery is to make your own rules and not follow in the footsteps of others.
(you will just find the 'crumbs' they dropped).

Think 'out-of-the-box' and try everything ! (even if someone says you're crazy).

∞