Hi guys,
I think it's possible to build a simple overunity motor. In fact I think there's potentially a whole calss of motors, operating on the same basic principle, which would be overunity, and I'd like to put these ideas into the public domain - and see if they stand up to scrutiny...
The motor would comprise of an outer coil - around a magnetic core. The magnetic core contains two parts - the rotor, and the stator. Both are made of magnetic material - i.e. iron.
When the coil is powered, the rotor and stator both become magnetised. Depending on orientation, they will repel, or attract. When the coil is unpowered, the rotor and stator are both unmagnetised (or at least much less magnetised). This allows for a continuous rotary movement as the rotor is alternately attracted to (or repelled from) the stator, then unmagnetised as it passes the stator.
What's effectively happening is that the magnetic core of the coil is being 'rearranged' - i.e. from one configuration to another - by the application of power to the coil. It relies on the magnetic properties of the materials to provide the output power - while magnetising them using as little power as possible.
With the arrangement I'm proposing there's very little possibility of any generator effect from the movement of the rotor:
- There is no axial movement of flux due to the rotation of the rotor relative to the coil.
- There is only a tiny change in the inductance of the coil as the rotor changes position (Tested - but only roughly).
Note that the mass of material within the core is constant. What changes are: the core's apparent face area and/or it's flux linkage properties.
I've got two designs to illustrate the concept. Images attached. Originally posted under this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/msg366509/#msg366509
The first is the basic rotary design, with the stator / rotor faces running axially. The second is the 'Fin Motor' design - where the faces run radially. The Fin Motor design is vastly more powerful (potentially).
If I'm right, and the Fin Motor design works the way I think it should - then you can pack a large surface-area of magnet into a relatively small volume, and power it with only a little more electricity than would be required to saturate a static iron core.
Does anyone have any info which might be relevant to this?
- Reasons why it wouldn't work?
- Existing patents of the same idea?
- Similar lines of research?
Thanks :)
Tim
Hi Tim,
You think it is possible your motor setups are able to produce more output than what is input to run them and this is fine BUT it ought to be tested and build a prototype to get evidence.
Trying to answer your first question (why it would not work?) I do think your setups are able to work and operate as you describe.
(I am also sure the inductance of the coil changes very little during the operation and this is a favorable situation to capture and reuse some part of the input energy.)
HOWEVER if your question referred to extra output over the input than the only answer is building a test setup and measure and measure and again check the measurements... :)
Existing patents on it? I have not seen such working principle in such arrangement but who knows?
Similar line of research? Sorry I am not aware of such. I mentioned to you Butch LaFonte and gave a link but his setups do not include yours... as far I can judge it.
Keep at it and build it.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: tim123 on August 03, 2013, 06:36:14 AM
Hi guys,
I think it's possible to build a simple overunity motor. In fact I think there's potentially a whole calss of motors, operating on the same basic principle, which would be overunity, and I'd like to put these ideas into the public domain - and see if they stand up to scrutiny...
The motor would comprise of an outer coil - around a magnetic core. The magnetic core contains two parts - the rotor, and the stator. Both are made of magnetic material - i.e. iron.
When the coil is powered, the rotor and stator both become magnetised. Depending on orientation, they will repel, or attract. When the coil is unpowered, the rotor and stator are both unmagnetised (or at least much less magnetised). This allows for a continuous rotary movement as the rotor is alternately attracted to (or repelled from) the stator, then unmagnetised as it passes the stator.
What's effectively happening is that the magnetic core of the coil is being 'rearranged' - i.e. from one configuration to another - by the application of power to the coil. It relies on the magnetic properties of the materials to provide the output power - while magnetising them using as little power as possible.
With the arrangement I'm proposing there's very little possibility of any generator effect from the movement of the rotor:
- There is no axial movement of flux due to the rotation of the rotor relative to the coil.
- There is only a tiny change in the inductance of the coil as the rotor changes position (Tested - but only roughly).
Note that the mass of material within the core is constant. What changes are: the core's apparent face area and/or it's flux linkage properties.
I've got two designs to illustrate the concept. Images attached. Originally posted under this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/msg366509/#msg366509
The first is the basic rotary design, with the stator / rotor faces running axially. The second is the 'Fin Motor' design - where the faces run radially. The Fin Motor design is vastly more powerful (potentially).
If I'm right, and the Fin Motor design works the way I think it should - then you can pack a large surface-area of magnet into a relatively small volume, and power it with only a little more electricity than would be required to saturate a static iron core.
Does anyone have any info which might be relevant to this?
- Reasons why it wouldn't work?
- Existing patents of the same idea?
- Similar lines of research?
Thanks :)
Tim
Tim-that fin motor design is truely excellent,and i dont believe i have seen a motor designed like that anywhere. This is one i would like to give a try,if you dont mind?.I believe i have an idea as to what to use for the core's,and would be easy to come by.
Brad
Hi Gyula, I agree it needs testing. I'm working on a CAD design in my spare time...
Tinman, please feel free to try it out - it's Open Technology as far as I'm concerned. I'd like the idea to be developed on the forum - it makes it unpatentable - at least in the UK... :-)
Quote from: tim123 on August 05, 2013, 07:58:51 AM
Hi Gyula, I agree it needs testing. I'm working on a CAD design in my spare time...
Tinman, please feel free to try it out - it's Open Technology as far as I'm concerned. I'd like the idea to be developed on the forum - it makes it unpatentable - at least in the UK... :-)
That may be the case in the UK,but i believe in America,it's first in best dressed-no mater who designed it. These are the risk's we all take when open sourcing designs like this. I have recently had one of the members on my forum email me and tell me some one took one of his design's,and is now selling kits for the device. It happened not long ago aswell,when teslatronics done some of his own take and sell-but we wont go into that. On my forum,we call these guys sleeper's.They watch in the background,and then run with anything that looks like it could make them a buck.
What you need to do is tie your name in with your designs,and post a video showing your design that carries your name. This way you have some intellectual property rights to the design.
Hi Tinman. I'd be quite happy if someone else verified the design, and started selling kits / motors. That's the ideal scenario. The only problem would be if anyone claimed exclusive rights to it, but as long as these forum pages are online - it's dated proof of the origin of the design.
I don't think the laws of man are really laws (they're always changing, and they don't apply equally to all, so they can't really be considered laws, eh...). I think the real law is something like: "give without thought of receiving", so I'll try to do that and leave the rest up to 'the Universe' / 'God' / 'the Force' etc. to sort out. ;)
Anyway, you said you maybe had an idea for the rotor? Was it a variable capacitor? If so - mine are all non-magnetic...
I'm going to do a CAD design for it, but it'll take a week or two at least. I may have to make the prototype with a square-ish core - for an easier build (bolts through center)... Will see...
It'd be nice just to verify that the iron rotor & stator would actually behave in the way predicted - before going too far with the prototyping - I'm finding it a bit difficult to test with what I have lying around though.
I'm agree with you, tim123.
If the purpose is to help Humanity by giving open source O.U. devices, I can assure you all it is not our people in our own workshops we will change the world and make a real impact. Only large, so industrial and commercial spreading could do it, cause not everybody is skill or will have the state to produce their own device.
Cheers, Khwartz.
Hi Khwartz :)
Yep, the whole point of open-sourcing ideas has to be so that someone else can make the thing for a profit, without you necessarily getting any of it. But then, money is not the only force in the universe, and this life's just a character-test anyway - that's why it's so short...
Anyway, the Fin Motor idea is still just an idea, and I don't think that using pulsed DC will produce OU in this device.
Gyula, I've been digesting the info you gave me previously about inductance, resistance & transient times...
I think I see now that pulsed-DC isn't going to work, and why Tesla went for AC - because you can get the magnetic field to vary much easier using AC. Specifically - if you use a tank circuit - you only have to supply the losses. Using pulsed DC, the time-constant for any decent sized coil is a long time - far too slow for a motor. However, given AC, (and a parallel capacitance) - things change - and we could easily get a big coil resonating at a decent speed...
One thing with AC, and this design, is that it won't rotate. It will pulse though, and that can still be used to drive things - i.e. using a ratchet gear.
There is definitely a change in inductance as the rotor moves. To the coil it looks like many small magnets in the core are moving to join up, and make one long magnet - which does have a bigger field - so there is still a means by which OU may be thwarted... This is really not easy to calculate without the training, but I guess I'll keep working on it.
I've sussed out a really easy way to build a simple version of the fin-motor - only a chop-saw and pillar-drill required (I think) - using readily available square-section mild steel, bearings on each stator, and an acrylic tube to fit it all in. Can easily be made any length.
I'm just not sure at the moment, whether it'll actually be OU or not. I'd really like to be able to do the calcs - so I know how much OU I'll get before the build, if any...
Hi tim123.
Money is an "economical energy", said the philosopher; we need it to make the production system functioning.
Did you realised by the way that profit IS the normal pratice of "O.U.": obtention of more economical energy that we put in an enterprise/compagny? ;)
Still I have to make my own indenpent activity "O.U." to have the financial to have a chance to take some weeks to make experiments too again.
Have fun with your device dear tim123 :)
Quote from: tim123 on August 11, 2013, 02:53:09 PM
...
I think I see now that pulsed-DC isn't going to work, and why Tesla went for AC - because you can get the magnetic field to vary much easier using AC. Specifically - if you use a tank circuit - you only have to supply the losses. Using pulsed DC, the time-constant for any decent sized coil is a long time - far too slow for a motor. However, given AC, (and a parallel capacitance) - things change - and we could easily get a big coil resonating at a decent speed...
...
Hi Tim,
Well, Tesla used both pulsed DC and AC, depending on his final purpose for a task, just remember he has several patents on just mechanical circuit controllers i.e. rotary switches. And with a pulse of a given amplitude and ON time, you can also keep up oscillations in a resonant tank circuit to make up for the losses, in a more precise way than by using your AC.
It is okay that for coils with higher self inductance the pulsed operation may prove to a bad choice but to solve this, you may use many smaller coils in parallel if a setup permits them, albeit if the small coils have to be positioned close to each other, their mutual inductance thus created may also increase time constant, so this would need testing. Using coils in narrow sections with a certain gap between each other and paralleling them may decrease long time constant.
I do not think you should bother too much how inductance of the coil(s) change as the rotor moves, I think the change is small. maybe a few percent. Also, it is very good you wish to calculate output / input ratio in advance, before using your soldering iron but at setups like this the calculations surely involve solving Maxwell equations and even if done correctly, the result may still not indicate more output versus input by default, inherent in the equations. I am not saying this is 100% sure but so far I am not aware of practical proofs for calculated COP>1 cases (COP = Coefficience of Performance)
So the best is to go ahead and build and test and measure.
Greetings, Gyula
Quote from: tim123 on August 05, 2013, 11:24:49 AM
Hi Tinman. I'd be quite happy if someone else verified the design, and started selling kits / motors. That's the ideal scenario. The only problem would be if anyone claimed exclusive rights to it, but as long as these forum pages are online - it's dated proof of the origin of the design.
I don't think the laws of man are really laws (they're always changing, and they don't apply equally to all, so they can't really be considered laws, eh...). I think the real law is something like: "give without thought of receiving", so I'll try to do that and leave the rest up to 'the Universe' / 'God' / 'the Force' etc. to sort out. ;)
Anyway, you said you maybe had an idea for the rotor? Was it a variable capacitor? If so - mine are all non-magnetic...
I'm going to do a CAD design for it, but it'll take a week or two at least. I may have to make the prototype with a square-ish core - for an easier build (bolts through center)... Will see...
It'd be nice just to verify that the iron rotor & stator would actually behave in the way predicted - before going too far with the prototyping - I'm finding it a bit difficult to test with what I have lying around though.
These laws are changing. You're right. They are changing in the direction where there are potential profits or som form of self interest. Profit outlaws most politics and religious directions. In other words; Profit or self interest is the very reason why politics and religions exists.
That said, if you openly share an idea that might cause a better energy/cost ratio, most industries would not be interested for as long the blueprints are available to everyone. Most people aren't nice because they want to give without asking for something back. There is allways a hidden self interest in being kind. That is our nature, and nothing will stop it from being so.
Vidar
Hi Gyula :)
Quote from: gyulasun on August 11, 2013, 05:54:52 PM
...
And with a pulse of a given amplitude and ON time, you can also keep up oscillations in a resonant tank circuit to make up for the losses, in a more precise way than by using your AC.
...
...thanks, that's a very good point, and it makes the build easier...
I have come to the conclusion that a tank-circuit is the only practical / efficient way to provide the varying magnetic field required. I know energy can be 'recaptured' from a depowered coil, but as far as I know, it's not as efficient as a resonant circuit.
I think the small change in inductance as the rotor rotates would only damp the oscillations a bit, and the magnetic field isn't going to be 'used up' in any sense by the rotor movement... So it should be possible to generate excess power from the varying field.
Note, the fin motor design generates it's rotary power at a right-angle to the magnetic field, i.e. in an orientation (dimension) which is basically invisible to the (2-dimensional) magnetic field... Perhaps this is one of the keys to OU using electromagnetics - i.e. the fact that we have access to a dimension that the magnet doesn't?
However, as I mentioned before, the motor was designed for square wave input, and it won't work as described above as part of a tank circuit. So unless anyone has any ideas, I'm going to work on the basis that it'll be a quarter-turn pulse generator. So the rotor will turn 1/4 turn into the stator at full-field, and back out again at minimum field.
Vidar, you say "There is allways a hidden self interest in being kind. That is our nature, and nothing will stop it from being so."
My understanding is that if you continue to grow as a human being throughout your life, genuine compassion / empathy is a sense that will develop naturally at some point. We all start off mostly selfish as children, and in a functional society we would all grow out of that. In this society though, arrested development is unfortunately 'normal', and most people never grow up...
When your sense of compassion is genuinely working, then your motivations change, and it's quite normal to care about all people, animals, plants etc, and to do things for them just because you want them to be happy. It allows you a much deeper understanding of the world - you can see deeper into things when you care about them. It is the part of us that makes us human. Without empathy, you're incomplete.
According to my calcs, I can have a decent sized coil (300mm x 100mm ID x 120mm OD) - which would have an inductance of about 10 Henries... It's rated to give me plenty of magnetic field strength at 48Watts DC (i.e. 14amps, 3.4volts - ratio can be adjusted by changing wire size) to saturate any iron in the core.
BUT I can't possibly run this thing on pulsed DC, because the transient time is 3 minutes!
However... If I parallel it with a capacitor of 10 microfarads, the resulting tank-circuit should have a resonant frequency of about 16Hz (gives 1000 rpm) BTW, I'd be planning to pulse power into the circuit from a bench power supply, via a DC solid-state-relay, at 16Hz...
(http://www.deephaven.co.uk/lc.html)
In fact, I can reduce the capacitance, and increase the frequency, but it all seems far too easy, so there's probably a drawback here I don't know about... Can anyone help? Is it really that easy? What am I missing?
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2013, 07:51:55 AM
These laws are changing. You're right. They are changing in the direction where there are potential profits or som form of self interest. Profit outlaws most politics and religious directions. In other words; Profit or self interest is the very reason why politics and religions exists.
That said, if you openly share an idea that might cause a better energy/cost ratio, most industries would not be interested for as long the blueprints are available to everyone. Most people aren't nice because they want to give without asking for something back. There is allways a hidden self interest in being kind. That is our nature, and nothing will stop it from being so.
Vidar
Would better I think you not generalize your own case! Looks to me.
There are people who make profits because it is useful to make the things go right for the General Interest.
Money is the "energy" of the economy. Some use the economy for their only own (wrongly understood) profit and some others to bettering the world.
Some work hard to make the economy (= valuable exchanges between people) working so that everybody could enrich, some to enrich themselves (they think), and some just are critical.
"The purpose of any activity is the creation of the maximum of happiness"; if this was applied I think there would be less confusion, less selfishness and less ... criticism.
Quote from: tim123 on August 12, 2013, 12:25:54 PM
Hi Gyula :)r
...thanks, that's a very good point, and it makes the build easier...
I have come to the conclusion that a tank-circuit is the only practical / efficient way to provide the varying magnetic field required. I know energy can be 'recaptured' from a depowered coil, but as far as I know, it's not as efficient as a resonant circuit.
I think the small change in inductance as the rotor rotates would only damp the oscillations a bit, and the magnetic field isn't going to be 'used up' in any sense by the rotor movement... So it should be possible to generate excess power from the varying field.
Note, the fin motor design generates it's rotary power at a right-angle to the magnetic field, i.e. in an orientation (dimension) which is basically invisible to the (2-dimensional) magnetic field... Perhaps this is one of the keys to OU using electromagnetics - i.e. the fact that we have access to a dimension that the magnet doesn't?
However, as I mentioned before, the motor was designed for square wave input, and it won't work as described above as part of a tank circuit. So unless anyone has any ideas, I'm going to work on the basis that it'll be a quarter-turn pulse generator. So the rotor will turn 1/4 turn into the stator at full-field, and back out again at minimum field.
Vidar, you say "There is allways a hidden self interest in being kind. That is our nature, and nothing will stop it from being so."
My understanding is that if you continue to grow as a human being throughout your life, genuine compassion / empathy is a sense that will develop naturally at some point. We all start off mostly selfish as children, and in a functional society we would all grow out of that. In this society though, arrested development is unfortunately 'normal', and most people never grow up...
When your sense of compassion is genuinely working, then your motivations change, and it's quite normal to care about all people, animals, plants etc, and to do things for them just because you want them to be happy. It allows you a much deeper understanding of the world - you can see deeper into things when you care about them. It is the part of us that makes us human. Without empathy, you're incomplete.
Sorry I am not agree with you, tim123. I have 3 children and have observed many, unless the parents screw-up them, they are all but not selfish; all the contrary! But need to differentiate the behaviour of the body from the behaviour of the being itself. If the body is hungry, nothing else counts, but if basic organic needs provided them you have a smily baby, and what is a smile if not something generously provided to make people happy around?
Hi Tim,
Just curious on the permeability of your chosen core for your decent sized coil? Because with the sizes you wrote, inductance comes between 4 to 5 mH (from a wire OD of say 3mm) for such air core coil.
Now on your question: "What am I missing?"
Well, when you make a parallel resonant tank circuit (10 H, 10 uF at 16 Hz) it will certainly have an impedance maximum at 16 Hz and you can calculate it by assuming a certain loaded Q for the tank. Say the loaded Q would be only 10, so the resonant AC impedance would be Z=Q*XL i.e. 10*2*Pi*16Hz*10H=10048 Ohm cca 10 kOhm. If the loaded Q were only 1 (very unlikely, surely higher in practice), then Z=1 kOhm.
Now if you pulse this tank circuit at its resonant 16 Hz frequency and say the rotor would be already spinning at 1000 RPM, the input current would depend on this estimated 1 to 10 kOm impedance AND on your SS relay ON time of course, so if you adjust your supply voltage to say 14V DC, then in the moments of ON time the peak current draw would be 14V/1 kOm=14 mA and average current would be less.
When you feed this tank circuit from a pure 16 Hz sinusoid AC source, the rms AC current draw would be about 0.7*14 mA or less when Q=10.
Of course the current inside the tank circuit would be Q times that of the input current, as usual for parallel LC tanks. Say your loaded Q is 100, and input current would be 10 mA, then the current via the coil or via the capacitor would be 1 Amper.
If you attempt to make an impedance matching between your LC tank and the AC input source, by using either a tap on the coil or using a coupling coil, then your loaded Q could be increased perhaps indeed towards the 100.
You can estimate your unloaded Q for the LC tank by considering the DC resistance of the coil and its inductive reactance at 16 Hz: Q=XL/r i.e. roughly 1000/0.3 or so but this is surely lowered by the actual core eddy current and hysteresis losses to maybe a Q of some hundred in practice. Say Q=300 remains with the core inside the coil, this gives a huge AC impedance at resonance of course and you wish to transform the AC input source impedance to be as high as this huge impedance to get a match and highest power transfer. This match would decrease the Q=300 down to 150 or so, this would mean that to have your 14 Amper current via the coil, your input current should be roughly 14/150=94 mA...
This sounds very favorable but it all depends on the real Q with the core and correct impedance matching and then you have to feed the down-transformed loaded tank impedance with the initial 48 W input. This may involve further losses due to the lower input impedance.
One more thing you have not indicated yet to consider: this 14 Amper current may influence and toss the core towards magnetic saturation and this means that its calculated 10 Henry inductance may get reduced significantly, causing the resonant frequency of the tank to increase. Should it decrease to say 3 Henry, the frequency would go up to 29 Hz from the 16 Hz.
There still be some other issues I am not aware of yet... ::)
You may learn on matching LC tank to a H bridge switch and some other useful hints here: http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html (http://www.richieburnett.co.uk/indheat.html) and a possible frequency control circuit (PLL= phased lock loop) which is able to follow the change in the tank resonant frequency here:
http://uzzors2k.4hv.org/index.php?page=ihpll1 (http://uzzors2k.4hv.org/index.php?page=ihpll1) Unfortunately this must be adopted to your 16-30 Hz or whatever range because it is shown working in the 70-120 kHz frequency range. Maybe such frequency tracking precision circuit is not yet needed for your prototype though.
This link may also be useful in general: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_6/5.html
Greetings
Gyula
Hi Gyula,
thank you for that. :)
So that's what Q means? Wow, cool. At the moment, I just don't get most of what you said, but I'm going to add all this to my coil-calculator program, and learn it. It might take a few weeks... The inductance of the example coil at 10 Henries - was with a core half-filled with iron - as that's more or less the proportion it'll be with the rotor & stator parts.
In the meantime, this is an update for the fin-motor idea. It's designed to provide continuous rotary motion from the changing field inside a coil, in a tank-circuit, but with minimal damping of the resonance.
The magnetic field strength in the core is proportional to the slope of the sine-wave, generated by the tank-circuit. It's plotted as a cosine. As our iron rotor is attracted equally to either polarity, the field strength looks like a rectified cosine wave.
This design works on the following principles:
- The rotor is attracted to the stator at full-field - because:
a) the common surface area between rotor and stator fins is greater than between the rotor and PMs, and
b) the magnetisation of the iron stator is more than the permanent magnets (1.5 Tesla vs maybe 1 Tesla).
Full-field is the main power-stroke. It's power is derived from the rotor & stator being fully saturated by the coil - and doing what magnets do...
- When the field strength of the coil drops below that of the permanent magnets, the rotor is attracted to the PMs.
a) The PMs attract the rotor at it's ends - the arrangement shown provides an almost complete magnetic circuit through the rotor, from one side to the other. (could close the circuit easily enough)
b) Note that the direction of the field of the internal PMs is at right-angles to the coil's field... This means there should be no generator effect from the presence of the PMs, or from the rotor when it becomes magnetised by them.
In this arrangement, the magnetisation of the rotor plates moves through 90 degrees in each quarter - so it's actually rotating around the x-axis - i.e. into the page. I think that's kinda cool, but have no idea if it's significant. Maybe the motor will levitate too ;)
The rotor - at full-field will be fully saturated by the coil - in the axial direction. So it won't be attracted to the PMs at all. With careful selection of the PMs, the resulting force on the rotor could be balanced so 50% of the time it's attracted to the stator, and 50% to the PMs - thus rotating.
It's a bit more difficult to build, but not much. The PMs could be lots of little ones...
Hi folks, it's a rainy day here in the UK, so I've nothing better to do... ;)
Quarter-Turn-Pulse Fin-Motor.
Attached is a pic of the simple version of this that I intend to build as soon as... It's still designed to run as part of a tuned circuit. It provides pulse power - with a 1/4 turn action.
The idea being to hopefully harvest a large amount of mechanical force from the changing magnetic field, while causing minimum disturbance to it... Hundreds of horsepower out, for a few watts in, would be nice.
- The rotor & stator fins are all identical - cut from half-round mild steel.
- The fins are all attached to the shaft before it's inserted into the housing.
- The rotor fins are firmly attached to the shaft - i.e. welded or bolted.
- The stator fins are attached to the shaft via pillow-block bearings bolted into the rectangular face.
- The stator fins are attached to the casing by bolts.
- The casing could be made of acrylic tube for the prototype.
- The stator fins are aligned vertically.
- The rotor fins are free to move, and return to the bottom under their own weight, though it would probably be beneficial to add return springs too.
- PTO would be via a ratchet gear, and a flywheel.
I'm aiming to test a small version of this ASAP, but I'm still working on the workshop. Almost done, it's taken months...
Things to test: get the tank circuit running, and see if a) the core actually moves, b) whether it destroys the resonance, or not.
PS: PTFE washers between all the fins & a drop of oil - to act as spacers. The fins have to be centered...
:) nice to see you keep going on your idea :) Good luck and ideas!
How is it going, tim? :D
Hi Khwartz, it's going slowly, as usual... Thanks for asking. :)
I've attached before & after pictures of what I've been working on below. My workshop... I'm just waiting for the new doors to arrive.
I've wanted a proper workshop for years. You need the space, and the tools, to do decent development work, and the living room's just not good enough any more.
The fin-motor is my top priority, although I may get distracted by Tinman's 'Rotary Transformer' a bit...
Wow! What difference! :) for sure you have spent time on it!
Indeed, a true good workshop is a must for good easy experimentations :)
I look forward for your progresses, "lentement mais sûrement" ("slowly but surely") we say in french ;)
Cheer, Khwartz.
Fin-Motor: Test of Principle...
I've done a few tests to see if the fin motor design above will work.
The pics below show the apparatus. Hopefully all will be clear.
Pic 1) Shows the coil I used, and the power supply. The coil is a spool of wire - as bought from the shop - with part of the spool cut away.
Fin-Motor Arrangement:
Pic 2) Shows the apparatus used to test the fin-motor design as shown above...
- Made from meccanno parts. Cut with an angle grinder.
- The central semi-circle is mounted on a bearing, so it can rotate freely
- The 3 parts were placed close together for the test - moved apart to show the bearing, for the pic.
- The shaft was held inside the coil by hand, and moved around to see any variation in the effect throughout the core.
Results: Fin Arrangement
The effect expected was that the central semicircle 'fin' should line-up with the 2 fixed outer fins, when the power was applied.
The arrangement was held so the stator fins were vertical, and the rotor fell to horizontal under gravity. So they overlapped as shown the previous post.
When the power was applied, the effect was not observed. There was some attraction between the fins, but there was no rotary movement at any position within the coil. When I rotated the shaft, and the stator fins would 'carry' the rotor fin away from horizontal, but the force was weak, and it would fall back.
Parallel Plates Arrangement:
Pic 3) Shows a pair of meccanno plates, joined at one end, used to test the strength of the repulsion force when inserted lengthways into the coil.
As expected the 2 plates repel each other, and the force is quite strong. However, I can't really see an easy or practical way to make use of the force in this arrangement...
Rotating Cores
Pic 4) Shows a pair of rotating 'cores' on a plate, that can be inserted into the coil core.
When the power is applied they line up along the axis of the coil. The effect also works with a single 'core'.
The force in this arrangement is the highest. The mini cores are very strongly attracted to the axis, and to each other.
It looks like a practical arrangement that could be quite easy to build. It still conforms to the basic principle of 'core-rearrangement'.
I'll do some more work based on these new findings later on.
:)
Tim
Another test. Pic attached.
In this arrangement, I used 2 sets of small magnets as springs to hold the core off-axis.
Power on - core aligns with coil axis
Power off - core aligns with PMs
It works very well, and I think I can use this mechanism to get continuous rotation - even if the coil is part of a tuned circuit.
I would have liked to put enough PMs on it to get the core to go across the coil axis completely, but there's not room inside the coil.
Hi Webby,
thanks for the input. :)
I don't really have any alternatives ATM... I was a bit suspicious of the holey plates but - if I turn the shaft round and put it against the opening of the coil - so the 3 fins are half-in the coil, and pointing down the coil - the central fin is firmly repelled, and comes out of the stators.
So the fins do behave like ok magnets when they can.
It really does look like there's very little attraction between the fins in that arrangement.
I still have an arrangement that works well, it's just not the original one. I'll have to give it some more thought, and see where it takes me next...
Hi Webby,
that sounds interesting. It sounds like that could be useful info for Butch's Pseudo solid designs too. I know there's something in it. Just waiting for my subconscious to figure out what:
http://www.overunity.com/13783/proof-of-overunity-from-magnets-fixture-no-negative-work-aspect-lafonte/new/topicseen/#new
I've been playing a bit more - to see if I could replicate the effect you described, I have previously noticed a kind of 'dead spot' between 2 attracting magnets:
- If i place a steel disc exactly half way between 2 attracting magnets - it only very slightly magnetised, if at all.
- If I move it closer to one or the other magnet - it is more strongly magnetised.
- (tested by touching the disc with an iron nail)
- With a 'pinch' field as you describe - the central steel disc is *very* strongly magnetised.
- So my experiments confirm exactly what you describe. Nice one. :)
We've been discussing this a bit here:
http://www.overunity.com/13788/roy-davis-and-rawls-magnetism-discoveries/new/topicseen/#new
I've been playing with the coil a bit more. There are a couple of possibilities. I get good repulsion between loose iron bars in the coil - and I think I *can* design a mechanism to make use of it - similar to one i posted originally.
I like the idea of using PMs to provide the 2nd 'phase' too. Their field is perpendicular to the coil, so i don't think they affect it.
Perhaps this design could be applied to a pulsed V-gate type of motor...
Hi!
When you speak of "magnetic gate", do you speak of something like this (a side the coils to harvest the energy):
http://www.overunity.com/12555/g-e-a-m-gacnacrateur-a-accran-antimagnactique/dlattach/attach/127067/ (http://www.overunity.com/12555/g-e-a-m-gacnacrateur-a-accran-antimagnactique/dlattach/attach/127067/)?
It occurred to me yesterday, that it's maybe possible to do something like the pic attached...
In this arrangement:
- The output coil's fields can't react against the main coil - because they're perpendicular.
- I think the output coil's core must be fully saturated by the main coil for there to be any power output...
Notes:
- I tried to test it, with a small transformer, with a neo magnet at each end
- Trafo was held firmly in place by hand
- when I powered up the main coil - I got Zero volts out of it.
- I'm assuming that this is because I can't even get close to saturating the core with my coil & power supply.
- If the core did get fully saturated by the main coil, I would expect the PMs to fall off the ends. They didn't.
- When I say >50cm below - I mean in length. Longer coils are more efficient: less amp-turns per unit-length required.
PS, I realise it'd be better to complete the magnetic circuit - i.e. have a steel tube inside the main coil...
Quote from: webby1 on September 20, 2013, 08:10:47 AM
Magnets also play an "ownership" game,, as in the one that is closest to the object will interact with it but to change that the "new" field must be stronger to overcome that attraction...
Yes. I think the Main coil will have to produce a strong field to affect the pre-magnetised Output core. I think a full magnetic circuit will actually help - as shown in the diagram below.
The real question is this:
In a tuned circuit, can the magnetic field do work - i.e. re-align the magnetic domains of the cores - without being 'used up'? :-\
Quotealways think this way,, a north pole coming is the same thing as a south pole leaving as viewed from the same end of a coil,, a north pole leaving one side is the same as a north pole coming towards the other side.
Very interesting viewpoint imho, webby1! Very thanks for sharing :)
Quote from: webby1 on September 20, 2013, 10:31:42 AM
...When I look at your drawing I see one pole getting enhanced and the other being diminished.
Hi Webby,
I think the main coil's effect will be to make both poles 'disappear' as the core becomes saturated by it. I don't think it should enhance one, and diminish the other because the fields are perpendicular to each other...
BTW, I've decided I need to do more tests on the fin-motor design - but using longer fins, that don't overlap when it's unpowered...
I think the flat, semi-circular fins are too thin, and I think Gyula was right, and there is a shielding effect of the central fin by the outer ones...
I'm going to try it with 1 inch long pieces of 12mm round mild steel bar...
Update:
- I cut some 12mm mild steel round bar into 20mm lengths.
- I fixed 2 in place at the ends of the coil - as stator pieces.
- I held the central rotor piece by hand
- When the coil was powered, the rotor was attracted strongly to the stator pieces.
Conclusion: Long pieces of iron make better magnets. :o
Diagram attached. This is my current working model for the Fin-Motor - although it doesn't really have fins any more - so I need a new name...
I still think the basic principle is a good one. I'm just trying to get the tools I need to build a prototype...
Hello Tim123.
It amaze me how fast you improve your system and have new ideas to go through the problems you meet.
Good work! :)
Quote from: webby1 on September 26, 2013, 05:33:36 PM
Have you stuck a magnet on the end of the stator pieces yet?
As far as 90 degrees goes,, Franken Motor used that arrangement very well,, O.K. the magnets were in pinch, or stress field, mode but still,, they pointed 90 degrees to the coil and core.
..I don't know but I do know that a motor can run for very little input that way,, not much output however.
Hi Webby,
Not sure if this is what you mean, but for the motor to rotate with the coil in a tuned-circuit, I think magnets would be needed as shown in the diagram below.
Franken Motor. Lol. good name... I found it - it's interesting... :)
The output power of the fin motor will depend mainly on the size of the rotor / stator poles. More surface area = more power. Max force between two 1m2 magnets is 100 tonnes...!
Quote from: Khwartz on September 27, 2013, 01:43:44 PM
Hello Tim123.
It amaze me how fast you improve your system and have new ideas to go through the problems you meet.
Good work! :)
Hi Khwartz, Thanks! :)
Hi! Tim123, how is going your set-up? Having no more news since a while :/ cheers.
Hi Khwartz, thanks for asking, I hope you're well... :)
I decided I want to test putting a transformer inside a coil - as in 'Solid-State-Gen1.gif at top of page...
I decided that the best arrangement was to use cone-shaped coils - to provide a big working area, and a strong field.
I realised that this is like Walter Russell's cone-shaped coils. So I decided to combine experiments... I'm now planning on building 4 cone coils out of 6mm copper tubing - so I can do my experiment, and then try the double spiral of Wallace...
I'm not sure about the proportions the coils should be, I'm tending towards either the Great Pyramid shape, or perhaps a base of 1 unit to a height of Phi (1.618 - golden mean).
I've bought (I know, I should have built, but too busy...) a very nice ZVS driver:
http://www.rmcybernetics.com/shop/cyber-circuits/pulse-generators/induction-heater-circuit
But I've been getting distracted with:
a) Learning how to make wind-chimes. One tuneful set :) made from instructions here:
http://arneberg.com/harmonet/threads/windchimes.html
b) Writing a sound synthesiser in PHP, generating scales & chords mathematically, and calculate (chime) tube-lengths for a given pitch. (3/4 done)
c) Building a HHO welder. (1/3 done)
d) Building a VAWT to heat the workshop. (planning stage)
:) See you keep busy in various domains ;)
I know nothing about the cone-coils but could be intetesting indeed for you to try.
Good experiments and creations, tim123!
Cheers.
I have a little progress to report on this...
I bought a ZVS (Zero Volt Switch-over) driver circuit - for testing some of the ideas I put forward in this thread - from these folks:
http://www.rmcybernetics.com/shop/induction-heater-circuit
I've successfully run it on a 12v / 240v toroid transformer, and had some fun with that.
I've made a couple of test coils - for induction heating and other tests. One is pictured below. They work really well. For example: With an input of 16v, and 0.6a, there's about 120v and 15a flowing in the tank circuit. :)
As regards the 'core rearrangement' idea, I have one thing interesting to report:
- Placing any iron in the coil increases the amp-draw considerably. Due to eddy currents... This is the essence of induction heating...
- But, a ferrite rod inserted into the coil *reduces* the amp draw on the power-supply...
So the ferrite becomes magnetised, and improves the efficiency of the coil too... It looks encouraging... If I can set parts of the ferrite core in motion using their own magnetic field - as described before - then perhaps it will be possible to extract power from the changing field - without reducing it....
Current problems:
1) The strength of the magnetic field is not very large - even at full power
2) The 'Q' of the tank-circuit seems to change with applied voltage - I.e. it gets (much) less as voltage goes up, and the amps go up too much...
3) The ferrite rod doesn't develop much magnetic field - only enough to pick up a pin.
4) The frequency is far too high to run a motor...
I need more tank-driving practise... Lol. ;)
Still looks very promissing, tim123 :) Happy Successful New Year In The Free Energy Quest! 8)