3D printing a structure for an experiment with magnets

[Low-Q]

I remember very very well several years ago, when I had my moment of EUREKA - and some time later I realized that I was wrong. Sooooo close to bust the nature of magnets, when it hit me so hard. The terrible smell of a terrible mistake.
After that I have been extremely sceptic to free energy through over unity.
However, I do now look at this more like something to believe in, even if my rational mind know I can't achieve anything for free.
My wife has her angels, spirits, and superstition. Really not a rational way of thinking, even if she too has a rational mind, but something to believe in. Persuing dreams and whishes - even if it's out of reach.


Enough preaching  - I must do some more simulations, but frankly, I do not think my computer is programmed to make over unity calculations...maybe this is all in vain


I'll be back


Vidar

[Low-Q]

I just got a crazy idea.
I think I might have solved the problem - just an idea this far, and my brain cannot simulate real world physics just by using whishes and hopes.


I made a simulation in FEMM using 5 outer magnets where all points north or south in the same direction.
The inner 4 magnets have south or north pointing outwards.
This is the basic idea I had a few years ago, wher the torque of the outer and inner gear/assambly was the same, but with different gear ratio.
That ratio of 4:5 would force the inner gear/assambly to "win" the competition between the two gears because it spun 20% faster.
As we know from physics, energy from a spinning device is torque multiplied with revolutions per second.


The problem was to keep the magnetic orientation in the same direction for the 5 outer magnets - independent of the orientation through the revolution.
I found that impossible to achieve without loosing that extra energy. Because each magnet have a counter torque, and if we add that sum of countertorque, and add counter torque of the whole outer gear/assambly, the total energy through one revolution is the same and opposite as in 5/4 revolution of the inner gear/assambly. So the output will be zero.


I will now call:
the 5 outer magnets: Outer rotor
the 4 inner magnets: Inner rotor




If the magnetic orientation of these 5 magnets on the outer rotor was held there by hand, the whole thing would start spinning - not surpricingly because you add energy by hand.


Now, what if I fix a long rod to each of the 5 magnets on the outer rotor, and put those rods through a common hole some distance away, it will be the rods that keep the magnets orientation fixed, and not the outer rotor - that was the thought anyways, and right here I might have made the mistake.


If I have not made a mistake:
At the tip of the long rods, there will be less torque per distance to keep the mangets in position than letting the outer rotor do it.


If we say the inner rotor is 4cm in radius, and with an angular force of 5N
The outer rotor is 5cm in radius, and with an angular force of 4N
Both those rotors have the same torque in N per meter, but the gear ratio will make the inner rotor stronger.


So, when it comes to the rods that is 100cm long, the sum of angular force at 100cm distance, for each of the 5 magnets in the outer rotor, would be 0.25N, not 5.
So then we got an angular force at 4cm of 0.75N to spare, and not 0. This will force the inner rotor to continue to chase the sticky spot, and continually try to escape the repelling forces


This is in my dreams only - for now. I will print out some parts, and use some carbon fiber rods I have...


Looking forward to yet another fail 


Vidar

[Low-Q]

Working on it...


First I print out the assambly for the outer magnets.

[Low-Q]

I have done some simulations using LUA-scrips (That I got from a very helpful member here - namely broli)


In the picture below, I did some simulations in FEMM. However FEMM only deal with "plane magnetic fields" not fields that come "out of the paper" like it does in by drawing, but the attraction- and repelling forces should be the same principle.


I used steps of 2 and 3 degrees for outer and inner rotor respectively. I had to do the simulation twice so I could get the results of both rotors. I put the outputs in Excel, and summarize them.


Both rotors have almost the same torque, but in opposite directions. That's fine. Because the inner rotor makes 3 revolutions while the outer rotor makes 2.


When I multiply the torque one complete cycle for each rotor, I got more energy out of the inner rotor than the outer (?!!). This is maybe a design fault in FEMM, but the computer simulates an efficiency of 150%!!!


How is this possible?


Vidar

[Low-Q]

Forget that last picture and post. My mistake was to se the sum of all measured torque readings. Each and individual was + and - 50Nm, but the sum was around 2-3Nm. Deviding this on all 72 samples, and virtually nothing is left.


So I have to stick with the alternative on the previous picture (With all the black long rods)
The individual torque of each outer magnets would normally be in addition to the torque around center of the outer rotor, but with the control-rods that keeps these outer magnets in same direction all the time, will reduce the problem to a minimum.
I will be very cautious about what I say now, because I am most probably wrong.
Just by going ahead and try something that my mind says doesn't work feels wrong, and it feels just stupid to actually go building a prototype of something that physics says isn't possible to do...but that is the reason why I will build it


I will come back and report my findings later.


Vidar