Torque / Power magnification using permanent magnets.
And this increases torque how?
If there is no slip of the magnetic coupling,the motor and generator are still a 1 to 1 ratio.
Vineet, unless you really enjoy getting shot down out of the gate, maybe you should perform some basic analysis on these ideas of yours before presenting them.
Quote from: tinman on July 30, 2014, 06:03:10 AM
And this increases torque how?
If there is no slip of the magnetic coupling,the motor and generator are still a 1 to 1 ratio.
Torque = Force X Radius
WIth every step of magnets as shown in the figure, radius goes up hence torque goes up.
Since magnets are provided at the end of radius, force acts at the end. Hence you get magnified torque at the center. I think for same reason we use spanners, wrenches, handcranks etc., to get magnified torque at the center.
Power = 2π X RPM(N) X Torque
RPM (N) remains same for both motor and generator. Hence when torque gets magnified, you get more output
from the generator.
Quote from: MarkE on July 30, 2014, 06:09:17 AM
Vineet, unless you really enjoy getting shot down out of the gate, maybe you should perform some basic analysis on these ideas of yours before presenting them.
I don't think anybody will enjoy shooting me down at gate because it will be a mere waste of bullet. Quality bullets are expensive
nowadays. Using butcher's axe would be a cheaper method.
Anyway if it is wrong, tell me why it is wrong.
It's wrong because your holding your wrench around the part that is around the nut,and not the outer edge of the wrench.Simple mechanics can explain why this is a no win situation. Insted of spending a lot of time and money on magnets,bearings,and all those fancy free spining arms,simply replace your magnet cone array with a steel or plastic funnel. You have exactly the same thing-small radius at the motor,and large radius at the generator.
You see,you forgot one thing,and that is you have to have a disk from the generator shaft(small radius),to the magnetic cone's large radius. So if we look at it from your angle,you geared down,and now you have to gear back up to conect it to the generator. Might aswell just use a yanki coupling to conect motor to generator,and be happy with the 75% efficiency.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 30, 2014, 06:44:21 AM
Torque = Force X Radius
WIth every step of magnets as shown in the figure, radius goes up hence torque goes up.
Since magnets are provided at the end of radius, force acts at the end. Hence you get magnified torque at the center. I think for same reason we use spanners, wrenches, handcranks etc., to get magnified torque at the center.
Power = 2π X RPM(N) X Torque
RPM (N) remains same for both motor and generator. Hence when torque gets magnified, you get more output
from the generator.
I don't think anybody will enjoy shooting me down at gate because it will be a mere waste of bullet. Quality bullets are expensive
nowadays. Using butcher's axe would be a cheaper method.
Anyway if it is wrong, tell me why it is wrong.
It is wrong because once again you ignore basic mechanics and kinematics. If you believe in any of these unworkable devices that you propose; then go build one and see what happens in the real world.
Quote from: tinman on July 30, 2014, 10:12:56 AM
It's wrong because your holding your wrench around the part that is around the nut,and not the outer edge of the wrench.Simple mechanics can explain why this is a no win situation. Insted of spending a lot of time and money on magnets,bearings,and all those fancy free spining arms,simply replace your magnet cone array with a steel or plastic funnel. You have exactly the same thing-small radius at the motor,and large radius at the generator.
In a gear drive, does the bigger gear encircle the entire small gear? It transmits torque through teeth at the edge only. The equation T = F X R, holds good for force applied at any point on a circle. You hold the wrench around the nut only for grip with greater contact surface. If you use single steel or plastic funnel, the force developed at the bigger radius will be less because it will be 'force within'. When you separate individual arms and allow them to rotate, the force received by these arms will be 'external force'. ie., the bigger arm receives the same force as developed by smaller arm. Quote from: tinman on July 30, 2014, 10:12:56 AM[/font][/size]
You see,you forgot one thing,and that is you have to have a disk from the generator shaft(small radius),to the magnetic cone's large radius. So if we look at it from your angle,you geared down,and now you have to gear back up to conect it to the generator. Might aswell just use a yanki coupling to conect motor to generator,and be happy with the 75% efficiency.
Since the part of magnetic cone fixed on generator shaft receives external force, it will not be geared down. It magnifies the central torque as per lever rules. Quote from: tinman on July 30, 2014, 10:12:56 AM
It is wrong because once again you ignore basic mechanics and kinematics. If you believe in any of these unworkable devices that you propose; then go build one and see what happens in the real world.
You are singing the same song again and again. It will not work, it will not work, it will not work. Why don't you tell why it will not work? I don't know the basic mechanics. Please explain me why it will not work using basic mechanics. If I had proper resources I would have built a OU device long time back. I am coughing up all my ideas here only because if some intelligent person sees it, he may improve the idea and make it work. I never thought you people are so dull headed. I need a wise guy to tell me why it will not work.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 30, 2014, 10:01:55 PM
You are singing the same song again and again. It will not work, it will not work, it will not work. Why don't you tell why it will not work? I don't know the basic mechanics. Please explain me why it will not work using basic mechanics.
If I had proper resources I would have built a OU device long time back. I am coughing up all my ideas here only because if some intelligent person sees it, he may improve the idea and make it work.
I never thought you people are so dull headed. I need a wise guy to tell me why it will not work.
You object to the comments, yet the comments are correct. You make such fundamental errors as describing objects that move at different velocities simultaneously.
Quote from: vineet_kiran on July 30, 2014, 10:01:55 PM
I never thought you people are so dull headed. I need a wise guy to tell me why it will not work.
OK! I am a wise guy! I understood your 'theory' and agree with your argument of 'internal' and 'external' forces.
But the torque equation given by you is incomplete. It is actually,
Torque = Radius X Force X Sinθ
Where 'θ' is angle between applied force and radius. Force acting on radius will be same as applied force only when θ = 90
0 which is , only when you apply force tangentially on radius, it will experience Maximum force and develops maximum torque.
From your figure it is obvious that force is not acting at 90
0 due to angle of the cone. So, radius will not experience full force. It experiences only a component of force depending on angle 'θ' . So, you don't get maximum torque at the centre.
Also from your figure, the central shaft need not be through out. Just keep the fixed magnets on motor shaft and separate the balance shaft because it need not rotate.
Quote from: Newton II on July 31, 2014, 01:29:07 AM
OK! I am a wise guy! I understood your 'theory' and agree with your argument of 'internal' and 'external' forces.
From your figure it is obvious that force is not acting at 900 due to angle of the cone. So, radius will not experience full
force. It experiences only a component of force depending on angle 'θ' . So, you don't get maximum torque at the centre.
You are wise enough to understand my 'theory' but not wise enough to analyze it.
The angle 'theta' comes into picture only when rotating magnets are not parallel. Since all rotating arms have magnets facing with parallel arrangement, and they rotate parallaly with respect to one another, force acts at 90 degree (tangentially) only. The angle established by the cone with central axis doesnot reflect on driving angle of the magnet.
Quote from: Newton II on July 31, 2014, 01:29:07 AM
Also from your figure, the central shaft need not be through out. Just keep the fixed magnets on motor shaft and separate the balance shaft because it need not rotate.
Agreed. The individual rotating arms can be kept on separate stands or even on a series of cantilevers using bearings.
Hello Vineet,
I think you belong to a class of people who argue that they saw a Pythorhombus monkey which had tail in the front and genital on the ass. God is not so cranky to create such an animal.
I think it is right time to pray Lord Perpeculum for your success.
Wish you goodluck!
Quote: The angle 'theta' comes into picture only when rotating magnets are not parallel. Since all rotating arms have magnets facing with parallel arrangement, and they rotate parallaly with respect to one another, force acts at 90 degree (tangentially) only. The angle established by the cone with central axis doesnot reflect on driving angle of the magnet.
Oh Dear ::)
Here is one word that may help you understand why your setup will achieve nothing(except for slip)-triangle
Quote from: tinman on July 31, 2014, 08:10:17 AM
Here is one word that may help you understand why your setup will achieve nothing(except for slip)-triangle
If magnets are strong enough, they won't slip in triangle. That is only a design problem. If magnets slip when you use only one arm, you can introduce another arm at right angles with additional two magnets, one on each end or several arms in star shape. Which requires lots and lots of magnets.
Anyway I agree that practically it is a difficult device to build.
Thanks for all the inputs.