Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[4Tesla]

THIS here shown so simpel.
Pese
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xbF63Gzvtd4

This has been tried before.. I don't think it is OU.. but who knows, maybe his is more efficient?
Edit: No, not OU.. he is using batteries.. if it was OU he would be able to have a closed loop without the batteries.

Jason

[Yucca]

Hi infringer.

Thanks for the kind words.

My sketch lacks counterweights opposite the magnets to balance the wheel.

Dave Squires in post#13 stated:

For the case where permanent magnets are used the force of attraction on the magnets is the same for collapsed and expanded states of the steel elements.  This means that any motion of the magnets resolves to a integrated average force of very close to zero. My bench tests showed that these cogging forces are equal to within 2% or better.

So as the attraction going in is damn near the same as the attraction going out then even without the extra kick the wheel would spin quite a few revolutions. The seperation force between the mild steel plates should then be enough of a kick for a good self runner.

this power stroke you talk of. Would it not be better to first find the proper timing and have magnets around the entire wheel or both wheels.

you only want the steel plates to exert seperation force when the crank is moving the piston up, then that seperation force will push up on the crank and add to the wheels speed.

I think the device would be easy to time to get a self runner but to optimise the power output would require fiddling with positioning and crank radius.

System equilibrum speed would only be limited by mechanical friction and eddy current losses in the mild steel plates which I think may be able to be minimised by using lots of thin sheets layed on their sides laminated together to make the steel squares.

How about having a stationary bar magnet on one side and only one wheel say on the right side with the round neos.

That may work but it would not be optimal because some flux would remain in the steel plates when the neo had moved away, ideally you wan´t to change from full flux to no flux. But then it would be a much simpler design to build as you could have the plates hinged at the stationary magnet end and then you wouldn´t need a piston and guide sleeve to keep them parallel, so your idea has some benefits.

Cheers, Yucca.

[hartiberlin]

After looking at it I realised the sketch I posted above should have more than one pair on neos on it...

It would be better to have a few pairs of attracting neos to give a longer power stroke like this:

Yucca,
I thinkyour designwill not work,
cause you would have to move the magnets away from the
iron piston parts and that needs too much energy.

Better stay with a coil, that you energize to move the iron parts into
repelling mode and turn this way the crank.

You can recycle back the energy put into the coil
via LC resonance, if you use a cap in parallel to the
coil and have the same resonance frequency of the LC tank
as the rotation frequency of the wheel.

So you don´t need magnets with it.

Just a coil, cap and the iron piston parts.

As a parallel LC tank needs very low energy at its resonance
frequency this is the way to go.

If you then apply a load to the mechanical output,
the LC tank will not see the load and will not use
more input power.

Regards, Stefan.

[Yucca]

So is this a way we can keep say a pendulum swinging possibly?

Similar design right.

Yep similar design, but you would probably need some kind of escapement mechanism for that because every time the mags swing past the plates the plates produce an up force, so with just a rigid crank it would add to the swing in one direction but in the other it would reduce it.

[Yucca]

Yucca,
I thinkyour designwill not work,
cause you would have to move the magnets away from the
iron piston parts and that needs too much energy.

Better stay with a coil, that you energize to move the iron parts into
repelling mode and turn this way the crank.

You can recycle back the energy put into the coil
via LC resonance, if you use a cap in parallel to the
coil and have the same resonance frequency of the LC tank
as the rotation frequency of the wheel.

So you don´t need magnets with it.

Just a coil, cap and the iron piston parts.

As a parallel LC tank needs very low energy at its resonance
frequency this is the way to go.

If you then apply a load to the mechanical output,
the LC tank will not see the load and will not use
more input power.

Regards, Stefan.

Hi Stefan,

Provided the perpendicular seperation force does get around Lenz then I think it would stand as good a chance of working as your proposed electronic method:

It gets the energy required to move away from the steel for free because the flywheel will get a speed up as the magnets are being attracted toward the steel. Dave squires noted that the in and out forces were symetrical plus or minus 2 percent. So provided the plate seperation force is enough to overcome friction it should self run.

Of course as you say a self runner with electromagnets and generator as load would work well too. Once I can make a testbed with bearings I will try both.

edit:
I hope the effect is real and there's not some gremlin that nobodies seen yet!

All the best, Yucca.