As you bring 2 opposing magnets together, you need more force to close the gap.
Is there a simple way to determine how much force they require at each point.
I assume if they were 10mm apart to begin with and you moved them closer by 5 mm it would not be a simple case of doubling the force that was required at 10mm, or perhaps it is that simple ?
Quote from: elecar on June 02, 2013, 12:09:58 PM
As you bring 2 opposing magnets together, you need more force to close the gap.
Is there a simple way to determine how much force they require at each point.
I assume if they were 10mm apart to begin with and you moved them closer by 5 mm it would not be a simple case of doubling the force that was required at 10mm, or perhaps it is that simple ?
In general it takes greater force to push the magnets together the narrower the distance is. The force is related to the distance between the center of magnetism. Of you have two disc magnets 50mm in diameter and 1mm thick, it takes much more force to bring them together surface to surface, than edge to edge. Even the magnets are the same. The reason is that the center of magnetism is much closer surface to surface (1mm apart), than edge to edge (50mm apart).
The relationship is square to the distance - just like gravity.
Vidar
You can use on-line repel force calculators if you search for it.
Here is one at random search: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.repel.asp
Thank you, that helps a lot, I did try to find some kind of calculator but was obviously using the wrong terms.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me or even guess. How to counter/calibrate/weaken the push/pull of magnetization/magnetism? It can be done. Also no form of NUMetal is used. There is a arrangement that everyone knows, that simulates a monopole effect. Meaning it uses the north or south magnetization only when arranged this way. Now can some one tell me how to ADD to that array, to counter, calibrate, & weaken the simulated monopole effect? So that the gate/sticky point, is weakened to almost weakness of the driving force, instead of being several times stronger? Clue; you can not cancel it out, only weaken it. Also you do not change the distance, because that will always take more energy to do so then the drive of the arrangement could ever produce. Then if you can guess that, then tell me what last mod is needed to push pass the weakened gate.
I do want to explain so bad, but it is so simple of a layout. Plus even easier to see why it works when you can see it then do the math for why it does it. That it saddens me no one has even tried to do something, or figure out how one can counter/calibrate/weaken the gate in itself, without adding any energy at all. Everyone always wants to move something. Needing work to do so. Yet there is a different way to calibrate. First weaken the gate, then use multiple dynamics to overcome it. So I'd like to see some GOOD thought experiments to figure it out. Can anyone guess how? Think simple. Though I guess every arrangement we use today, is so simple yet, took man till recently to figure out...
How do you weaken the gate Ace ?
Quote from: ace569er on June 02, 2013, 03:16:31 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to tell me or even guess. How to counter/calibrate/weaken the push/pull of magnetization/magnetism? It can be done. Also no form of NUMetal is used. There is a arrangement that everyone knows, that simulates a monopole effect. Meaning it uses the north or south magnetization only when arranged this way. Now can some one tell me how to ADD to that array, to counter, calibrate, & weaken the simulated monopole effect? So that the gate/sticky point, is weakened to almost weakness of the driving force, instead of being several times stronger? Clue; you can not cancel it out, only weaken it. Also you do not change the distance, because that will always take more energy to do so then the drive of the arrangement could ever produce. Then if you can guess that, then tell me what last mod is needed to push pass the weakened gate.
I do want to explain so bad, but it is so simple of a layout. Plus even easier to see why it works when you can see it then do the math for why it does it. That it saddens me no one has even tried to do something, or figure out how one can counter/calibrate/weaken the gate in itself, without adding any energy at all. Everyone always wants to move something. Needing work to do so. Yet there is a different way to calibrate. First weaken the gate, then use multiple dynamics to overcome it. So I'd like to see some GOOD thought experiments to figure it out. Can anyone guess how? Think simple. Though I guess every arrangement we use today, is so simple yet, took man till recently to figure out...
A drawing or scetch would help a lot.
I was hoping Ace would have returned and shown the configuration of the simulated monopole and how to "weaken" the gate.
Check back tomorrow.
Gyulasun the calculator has been very useful, do you know if the force is the same side to side ?
EG: as a magnet on a rotor approaches the "gate" Or is there another calculation used ?
Thank you
The force side to side depends on first of all the shapes: just think of a cylinder - cylinder or a cube - cube surface 'facing' each other from sideways, so it can be much different.
For such side forces I am not aware of online calculators and in fact such situation can be rather complex math-wise. I would suggest to get acquanted with electromagnetic simulator softwares, the best 3D simulators in this field cost a fortune but there are 2D for free. See this link on the Finite Element Method Magnetics (FEMM for short) software: http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage (http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage) And here is another link to see what animation can be done with (its included) Lua script: http://usuaris.tinet.cat/sje/femm/acgen.htm (http://usuaris.tinet.cat/sje/femm/acgen.htm)
I have not used this software, some members here already did, you may have seen pictures on some FEMM models uploaded, like here where a toroidal core with a coil on it is simulated in Figure 1 in the center: http://www.overunity.com/13481/maquina-movida-pela-forca-da-gravidade/msg362016/#msg362016 (http://www.overunity.com/13481/maquina-movida-pela-forca-da-gravidade/msg362016/#msg362016) (you can see several photos of the rotor and stator involved there by scrolling above in that thread.)
By the way, I think any such calculation (if you knew how to) may give only a rough approach to such problems, the best is to build a setup and feel the forces with your hand or as TinselKoala describes below... 8)
Even if you buy magnets manufactured from the same 'batch', their strength are not at all the same, there surely are differences between them. Some manufacturers provide service for selecting magnets with gauss meter out of many magnets, for extra money of course.
Back in the Steorn Orbo days I did some very precise measurements of just how much the core's attraction did reduce, when a toroid coil is given a certain current enough to saturate it. It turns out that only a tiny reduction in attraction is enough to make an Orbo-type core effect motor run quite well.
I used a micrometer-adjustable height stand to suspend an accurate force gauge with a magnet in its tip, and mounted this over the toroidal coil, then put a known current thru the coil and plotted the force on the gauge as I changed the distance to the toroid core using the micrometer. Then I would test the toroid on the Orbette 2.0 testbed for performance. Just a few milligrams reduction in attractive force, out of many grams total, was enough to make the Orbette rotor spin well.
The point is, you still have to put energy in to shield or neutralize some attraction, but it doesn't have to be very much at all, and the amount can be so small that it's hard to notice. You would never feel the little force difference I noted above by hand, but it would make that Orbette rotor spin at hundreds of RPM.
Thank you both, I did take a look at the software but it is beyond what I am capable of dealing with. I have built several models and trialed them in the past, but last year I suffered a stroke and now I find myself with time on my hands to start playing again.
I am trying to get by without using any electricity/electrical components in the motor, so a true PMM.
I will construct a model based on my new design but I still fear the cogging and gate will be an issue and I may have to resort to electrical components later.
@elecar:
It's sounds like you have some interesting experiments ahead of you. I hope you share what you discover here! :)
You identified the "cogging" as a potential problem, let me suggest you get in contact with "robur" over at Energetic-Forum as his post suggests he has a work-around. . . (Link: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/14107-magnetic-motor.html ).
Wish you the best!
truesearch
Thank you, I took a look and it seems he had the same problem "needing 2 shafts" I have got it down to one and will be starting a build in the next 2 weeks.
Here is an earlier one I was playing with.
The drawing interests me. Though it also confuses me...Anyways you can get a monopole effects, by two ways. At least, that I know of. One way is to use something paramagnetic(something magnetic) That contains ether the north or south flux completely. While having the opposite partly contained. The attraction can be made weaker than the repulsion. Not that that has anything to do with what I was talking about. The other way is to simply use a V-gate drive.
Which is (if center perfectly in the gate) uses only the repel or attract. Even though both poles stay active. They compliment each other instead of countering each other. Like most other arrangements. So instead of canceling each other out and not moving, the V-gate drives to the weakest/strongest point of the flux field. Depending on if using repulsion or attraction. Which is called the gate, sticky point, or lock.
Now most try moving the drive magnet. Moving it out of the lock range, is useless. Because you must use more energy to move it out of range. Then more to put it back and even more, to keep it there. Which is equal to or more than, it would take. To just push through the lock. An even smarter approach is the add more drive points to push the stuck arm passed the lock/gate, but the lock is 10x plus stronger than the gate's total drive. Depending on the distance, and degree of change over that distance, of the gate. So to test would need too many extra drive magnets which would have to be at the proper degrees yet far enough away so that there flux fields do not overlap. Meaning that it most be made very large. Also not practical for a test. So one only way is to weaken the gate in itself instead of trying to overcome it. By modifying the gate one can archive calibration.
Now combine both types of issues. Which gets both the simulated mono pole effect of a V gate. As well as the counter push and pull,(non-single pole drive) to weaken the gates sticky point(lock). Making the lock no longer ten times, plus, stronger than the gates push, but instead, far, weaker than it. While keeping the simulated monopole effect that drives(and locks) the movement. While at the same time increasing the drive force.
Making the locking point calibrate-able. Weakening the lock, or if overdone relocating, the lock. So that 11 armatures pushing the 1 can be far stronger than the 1 in the gate/lock. Also to get those degrees, wider then the flux field. It had to be 8 foot around, not good enough. Unless....I could calibrate the lock, without weakening the drive. Then I figured out how.
Even though it is 10 times plus stronger then the drive. Depending on the the degree it opens within the length of the gate. After so much, the drive weakens. So Calibrating the lock is the only way to overcome it. Without going very, very large. To make sure there are no two armatures, are in a lock's field at the same time. While keeping the degree separating to achieve The same drive at all 12 points. At all times. So can anyone guess how to calibrate the sticky point? I have almost spelt it out completely...
Then Just for fun,.... add a overbalance and use Finsrud's design, to till it as it moves. As well as ,some other use of springs, pendulums, & a few other ideas. Of which I have never seen, any of these ideas I have, even partly combined. If even thought of, to hopefully make a beautiful, working, work of art. That has more power then just barely moving. So that some work may be taken from it. I'll tell more if anyone can guess what I mean, with my vague riddle like statements.
P.S. I repeat myself because I made this mostly from cuts & pastes. I don't like writing the same stuff twice. Sorry if it's harder to understand because of that...
Quote from: Low-Q on June 02, 2013, 04:47:06 PM
A drawing or scetch would help a lot.
I do have that... In very good detail. In sketchup & Cad(which I used to have a friend 3-Dprint it), But..... that would take a way from people using there minds to figure out a rather simple arrangement. I'm curious if people can see what I saw as the problem, and how to counter that issue? I have broke it down to a point were, I know for a fact, I would come quickly to the conclusion. It just took me till I had the info I gave. Before I could even see the real problem that had to be overcome, & how to do it. Now I need to figure out how to make it stronger. Because equal unity is not to useful, as kool as it is....
Yeah drawing is not a strong point of mine, the air gaps are exaggerated to show the principle. Both motors are in attraction mode and turn in opposite directions.
The rotors will stop at the end of the spiral and as the cam strikes the stationary cam it knocks the rotor into a spin and the process repeats.
Basically using the force of the moving rotor to knock the stationary rotor into action.
I am not great at riddles, but would be interested in your gate weakening method.
The only issue I see is that the point of greatest attraction is to strong to be pushed through by one extra cam. 10 extra, would still be to weak. Plus you could achieve the same by dividing the gate on the same rotor/stator. With multiple armatures making the gears to drive the other cam. Just to achieve different positions on the gate at the same time. No longer needed, greatly reducing friction. That's if I'm understanding you properly. Here's a drawing for 10 armatures pushing 2 on a 4 gate stator. You can do up to 11 pushing 1. Without having to built to large to separate the flux each armature. While keeping the same degrees. It's is all useless, because it is still not strong enough without calibrating the stopping/sticky point, to overcome it. With the force of added armatures. All designs have the same issues. The sticky point has to be weakened while not weakening (yet increasing) the drive. Without changing distance or adding any form of work what so ever to do so.....ask yourself what can do that? I more or less already told you.........
I like your V gate design, although if you rotate the rotor there comes a point where you have 4 of the rotors magnets at the gates. That means the other 6 have to be doing "work" greater than the forces at the 4 gates combined.
The drawing I posted was one I was playing with before, I have now got it down to a single rotor and changed the layout.
I did play with the configuration of the stators and rotor to include extra layers, but my best guess told me that for every extra one added to a single rotor I halved the force available to move the next cam.
Whereas in the configuration shown each rotor makes a full rotation before transferring its energy to the next. Those exaggerated air gaps do not help, but as an example if the air gap at the stationary rotor was 1mm and the attractive force was 9lbs, by time the moving rotor was in the impact position it would have an approximate 2mm gap that may have an attractive force of 7lbs. So the impact of the cam needs to be worth an extra couple of pounds. Then you have to figure the torque of the moving rotor at impact. The cams running outside of the rotors arc should provide some extra leverage to move the stationary rotor enough to move it beyond the sticky point and back into rotation.
I only have my current drawing on paper, I shall transfer it to the computer and post it when I get chance. It has changed considerably, but as I mentioned before I still think cogging or the gate will be an issue.
Quote from: elecar on June 07, 2013, 01:03:42 PM
Thank you, I took a look and it seems he had the same problem "needing 2 shafts" I have got it down to one and will be starting a build in the next 2 weeks.
Here is an earlier one I was playing with.
Hi elecar,
I have edited your drawing a little to show what I think may help defeat or reduce the sticky point and also eliminate one of the shafts from your draw. The idea is not mine, you can see it here http://www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/fig8.jpg (http://www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/fig8.jpg) from this link: www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/werjefelt.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/werjefelt.htm)
The principle is to compensate the sticky point somewhere else and not inside the setup which directly creates the sticky point. The "somewhere else" place has no magnetic interaction with the setup that causes the sticky point, they are connected only by the common and single shaft.
What do you think? I have not tested this, sorry and surely the shape, size and strength of the magnet pair compensating the sticky point should be chosen by testing the forces.
rgds, Gyula
Thinking about it, the best explanation for the method of the movement in the twin set up is Newtons cradle. Where kinetic "potential" energy is stored in the balls. In this case the cams. The major difference is that you only impart the initial energy into the Newtons cradle by physically moving the first ball yourself and adding no additional or equal force each time eventually due to losses it comes to a stop.
But in the case of the twin motor the magnets repeat the work "force" on each rotation and at the collision point the potential energy is transferred to the next cam, which then becomes the next source of potential energy. Newtons cradle with an engine !!!
Gyulasun, that could well help in the twin set up where less kinetic energy would need to be transferred to set the stationary rotor into action.
But on a single shaft it can only do 1 of a few things. Be equal to, greater than, or less than. Weaker sticky point, new sticky point.
So it still requires some interaction.
On the twin motor that interaction comes from the work being done by the rotating half each time. Like in the Newtons Cradle example, instead of two fingers releasing the balls once, the two fingers are there every rotation doing the same amount of work each time.
So the torque can be used for work, and the kinetic "potential" energy can be transferred at the impact at the end of each rotation.
Quote from: elecar on June 08, 2013, 08:16:47 AM
...
But on a single shaft it can only do 1 of a few things. Be equal to, greater than, or less than. Weaker sticky point, new sticky point.
So it still requires some interaction.
Well, I see it a bit differently. Suppose you have a single rotor facing the 'ramping' attracting circle around and the rotor arrives at the 3 o'clock positin as the drawing just shows. And you hold a small repel pole magnet against the also small sized magnet pole fixed onto the other end of the shaft. The fixed magnet rotates together with the shaft and encounters with the stationary repel magnet only at the 3 o'clock position. IT requires interaction but the sticky point at the attraction point of the main rotor - stator is weakened by the repel 'sticky' point, so as a result no sticky point from the shaft point of view. No?
I only have a hobby interest but I would have thought that the repelling magnets would have a gate all of their own to deal with ?
Perhaps there is a way to balance them so that they at least help reduce the lock on the rotor.
Quote from: gyulasun on June 08, 2013, 08:35:23 AM
Well, I see it a bit differently. Suppose you have a single rotor facing the 'ramping' attracting circle around and the rotor arrives at the 3 o'clock positin as the drawing just shows. And you hold a small repel pole magnet against the also small sized magnet pole fixed onto the other end of the shaft. The fixed magnet rotates together with the shaft and encounters with the stationary repel magnet only at the 3 o'clock position. IT requires interaction but the sticky point at the attraction point of the main rotor - stator is weakened by the repel 'sticky' point, so as a result no sticky point from the shaft point of view. No?
You are very close to understanding what you need to do. Note use can't cancel a force. One will be stronger, even if slightly or only in a give point. So the sticky point will always be there. Also you need to make it so that it can gradually reduce. As a new force gradually increases, or it will still be far too strong. So it not that simple of a mod. You are for the most on the right track. Also the sticky point will ALWAYS, mathematically, be a greater or equal to, in force. Then the drive form it's gate in itself. So a longer drive adds to a stronger gate lock always. After so far of an increase the drives acceleration is to weak and the drive weakens. While the lock still gets stronger. So a long gate is more hurtful then good.
Also For the last two layouts I showed. At no point is more than one arm in the sticky point. At any degree of rotation. They always equal to same at all points. When you set magnets in a inclined configuration (like the V-gate) they are both contributing to the movement as much as they are against it, this means that for each next magnet that is closer to the center pushing/pulling. There is also another magnet before pulling/pushing it back, if only with a smaller force. In the end you are adding and subtracting force from each magnet and the total result of all forces is actually smaller or equal to the last magnet (the one at the sticky point). So for the last pic even though there is an 11 to one push at ALL points, of degree, of rotation. It is not strong enough. Even a 15 to 1 push, is to weak for the same reason. You just have to build larger to make the the degree distance between arms larger then the flux of the last locking magnet. To get 15 to 1. But like I said before you must increase the drive while weakening the sticky point.(last magnets effect.) Then use something else to overcome the the sticky point. Because even calibrating it alone, still will not make the increased drive of the gate stronger then the last magnet. It will just put them next to equal. Though that in itself is priceless.
Also what I'm talking about cant not be achieved easily with a spiral design..... Unless modded to halve v-gate mini spirals. Halbach array could be used, (I think)but the V-gate is the simplest inclined configuration that works with this mod, with the best drive to sticky point ratio.
Seance you almost more or less halve way figure out the first problem. You get the easy acknowledgement of it anyway. I'll give you a clue to the second problem. Overcoming a weaken gate, needs gravity. (I think)Now remember I stated distance is not changed so then the whole unit must tilt equally. This is not so easy, like the first issue, of a too strong sticky point, but easier than it may seem. Which is were I am stuck. At equal unity. Just pretty art...So I look to the only other thing I've seen with equal unity.
Finsrud's device holds all the answers to that. If you think about it.(Or so I think, still testing[building]) Most of his design is just to get a 120 degree drive rotation, so that it can tilt the center & platform. Seance you already have that drive for a partial rotation in the gate. Must of his devise is not needed at all.
Also I drew this and uploaded a 90% complete, Finsrud's device to the site awhile back. So seeing what is not needed is easy. I drew some of it wrong at the time, but that was just a quick rough sketch. I have a far better version I did more recently. Fixing several of the flaws I had in how the main shaft tilted. Plus some measurement issues. Which I can most likely upload, if I can find them.
If you plan to build and test anything. The cheapest way to make, smallish, custom, metal parts, I found, is to 3-D print them. Then have a jeweler's rubber mold ($30), & wax cast them. Then concrete cast the wax, then pour in your hot metal. Annealing Oven it Cool, break, enjoy. Cheap metal castings.
please , magnetical principal square/triangle is very importante
tubes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLzyLqchwUw
if use 4(rotor) >>>>> use 3*3*3* (multiples of 3 in STATOR)
but see photo
Very nice Linoavac, but I do not want to use any electrical components at all.
Here's the sketch I refereed to...
Hi ace569er,
thanks for your kind comments. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to build and test such setups nowadays, I have a kitchen table corner only at home, not a mechanical lab. :( But sooner or later I may get some mechanical help.
The file you uploaded: which software opens the skb extensions,
EDIT, ok, I found the file opener.
Gyula
It's a 3-d Google Sketch up file. Easily converted to a STL, or any other CAD file. If you separate the components, first. Double click to enter a component, to be able to highlight deeper components & individual parts.
I dont have any software to open the file, is it a pure permanent magnet motor ?
Quote
At equal unity. Just pretty art...So I look to the only other thing I've seen with equal unity.
Ace, you have to build the rocket before you go to the moon, a self runner is more than I have seen evidence of anywhere. When you get proven OU you would have turned the world of physics on its head and they will have to rewrite the book, even for a self runner.
lol you make it sound like I was trying to prove or even cared to prove anything. I respect knowledge and learning.... I said I want to see what people can figure out for themselves. People's desire, or lack of to find knowledge, for themselves, interests me greatly. Those who want to learn will guess, test, ask the proper questions, & learn. While others ask for the answers. They may receive them, but don't even understand or even care to learn why something works. Then there are, yet, others who what to learn but just are not quite knowledgeable, in what they may need to know to start. Then can't find anyone to help them. The list goes on...I like seeing different mind set.
If you found what I have and were doing it for the fun of learning & engineering.(plus my partners are not happy, with my comments to date) You would not just give up your work so that someone else can finish and take credit for it. For just finding the final aspect. I will take help in looking for my next step, but I need not disclose what I know to do so. I'm working on a patent with my uncle in law a patent attorney. If I say much more than I have, than I can't follow through. I can not be specific. O'Yeah, more importantly is you can't patent perpetual motion or over unity too easily, but a free spinning, entertaining, novelty, toy. Can be done easily. As well as copyrighted, or so my uncle in law tells me. I have yet to cross verify.
Then all will be free to see, for all who want to, & allot of people with the proper skill sets can build there own, or for someone else, for free. Just no one could profit off it. I was just being nice telling what I did. Because people view things, with out knowing engineering or physics well enough to look at things right. Most who do have degrees relating,(or are very, very well self taught) do not bother to even look theses days. Plus most important if someone figures out the last step while using my design to get there. Must give it out for free, to the world. Keep it to themselves, or take a license deal with me. Take from that what you will, I don't care what people think about me. Just what, why and how they think in general.
Ace:
I have been working on a magnet motor utilizing gravity for 3 years. I wonder if we are working in a similar direction? I will only publish if it works. Limited funds and time make it a long road to even be able to test a theory.
I wish you the best of luck.
Bill
Quote from: elecar on June 10, 2013, 07:12:25 AM
I dont have any software to open the file, is it a pure permanent magnet motor ?
...snip...
The software is freely downloadable here, unless you choose professional version you do not have to pay for it: http://www.sketchup.com/
I made a screen shot from the file ace uploaded above, opened by Sketchup, see attached. It seems to be utilizing the combination of magnetic and gravitational forces., you can study, rotate etc it in 3D if you open it with Sketchup. You can read other useful info on the Finsrud device on this forum, posted some years ago if you search for it, there were personal visits to Finsrud too.
Gyula
Here is a old version of Finsrud's. Were the platform is not tilted by 1 degree at it's axis. The first model of 3, has 2 (left) tilting proper moving everything at once. Were as in the one to the right, just the center pendulum is tilted. Offsetting the weight. In which I was corrected to change it to the left 2. This model is like the right one, but older and without many corrections one most likely won't see. But might shown in a way, that is easier to understand. Plus the pieces that are missing form the first one(the drive magnets) are in the older one(this one). They were removed from the other because, I know, I don't need them in my design. As well as they are in the way.
Also still curious to see people's drawings, showing different magnet arrangements...Sketchup is an easy means to show your ideas. Far easier to use than any other 3-D program, I feel. You can export to all to any form of CAD file with plug-ins(There's countless bad ass FREE plugins for drawing too!!!). As well as 2-d JPEG exports. Everything is free. All pro aspects, plus much more, can be achieved through free plug-ins. Even a RUBY script import. To do more or less anything. For more advanced users. I almost feel like an add spokesman for them.........But I do love the software, and I'd like to see people put there idea's in a easy to view form. Most can equally understand(for the most part, in most drawings)