array of magnets + energy accumulation + skip the last magnet = it works

[happyfunball]

Some more comments on this design:

I thought that the fact that something pushes (or pull) the stator up, before reaching the sticky spot, only makes the sticky spot to relocate, to  "anticipate" itself, into the location where the stator begins to rise, moving away from the permanent magnets on the flywheel. It almost discouraged me.

But then I thought: if this was true, the flywheel would not work even with human hand. And the videos show that works with human hand.

If the sticky spot really was "anticipated" when the hand of the person in the video on YouTube begins the rising of the stator, separating it from the permanent magnets, then that "antecipated sticky spot" should decelerate the wheel. If there was really a sticky point caused by the force of attraction between the stator and the permanent magnets on the wheel at the exact point where the stator begins to distances itself from the permanent magnets, driven by the human hand, then the wheel would decelerate gradually because of this sticky point.

But we see in the videos it is not what happens. When the human hand moves the stator up at the appropriate time, the wheel does not slow down. Rather, it will gradually accelerating and gaining speed. So, there is not "anticipation of the sticky spot"...

So, I guess this means that, if a cam was used, the only force that this cam would have to face to lift the stator would be friction, and the weight of the stator, and not an "anticipated sticky spot" .

It will also face the force of the 'gate,' (sticky spot) no matter what you do. Since there is no real torque, you will quickly realize there is no real input power to hurl the stator over the beginning/end of the SMOT....

[Rapadura]

It will also face the force of the 'gate,' (sticky spot) no matter what you do. Since there is no real torque, you will quickly realize there is no real input power to hurl the stator over the beginning/end of the SMOT....

Look to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w

As you can see, the kinetic energy of the rotating wheel makes it overcome the sticky spot many times, it keeps on looping for a quite good time even with the sticky spot there.

The problem is: each time the sticky spot passes along the stator, the wheel is slightly decelerated.  After many loops, this slow deceleration will stop the wheel.

BUT, if there was a cam, that good speed of the wheel would be sufficient to hurl the stator over the sticky spot, with very few friction. In this case, at each loop, the deceleration of the wheel will not be caused by the sticky spot, it will be caused by friction between the cam and the platform of the stator.

BUT, if this friction is reduced to a minimal, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation (the cam only takes a few degrees in a rotational movement of 360 degrees).

We know that the deceleration of the wheel caused by the sticky spot in each loop is greater, not smaller, than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. It's why we have a net loss, and the wheel will eventually stop.

BUT, in the case of friction between the cam and the platform of the stator, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. So, there is a possibility that we can achieve a net gain. So, the wheel will not stop.

[happyfunball]

Look to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w

As you can see, the kinetic energy of the rotating wheel makes it overcome the sticky spot many times, it keeps on looping for a quite good time even with the sticky spot there.

The problem is: each time the sticky spot passes along the stator, the wheel is slightly decelerated.  After many loops, this slow deceleration will stop the wheel.

BUT, if there was a cam, that good speed of the wheel would be sufficient to hurl the stator over the sticky spot, with very few friction. In this case, at each loop, the deceleration of the wheel will not be caused by the sticky spot, it will be caused by friction between the cam and the platform of the stator.

BUT, if this friction is reduced to a minimal, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation (the cam only takes a few degrees in a rotational movement of 360 degrees).

We know that the deceleration of the wheel caused by the sticky spot in each loop is greater, not smaller, than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. It's why we have a net loss, and the wheel will eventually stop.

BUT, in the case of friction between the cam and the platform of the stator, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. So, there is a possibility that we can achieve a net gain. So, the wheel will not stop.

A Perendev derivitive, which also does not work. You're not seeing it accurately, the wheel has no real kinetic energy beyond what is being input by hand motion. Rickoff's ultra-low friction moving cam setup is based on the fact that the repulsive force of a magnet is very slightly more than attractive (or do I have that reversed) but it still did not work.

Anyway the best way to find out is just to build it. Perhaps you'll stumble upon something, good luck.

[petersone]

Hi Happyfunball
Is it a proven fact that there is a force difference between attraction and repulsion?
peter

[happyfunball]

Hi Happyfunball
Is it a proven fact that there is a force difference between attraction and repulsion?
peter

Yes, but I'm not an expert on the matter.