Just an idea I had...
So the question is:
If the two rotor magnets are forced clockwise (like in a spiral motor)
and the stator magnets are forced outward adding friction (load)
to the outer wheel but not counterclockwise force, would this device
(if properly balanced and tested) be a possible PMM?
Would the friction/load be greater then the force created by the stator
magnet trying to find the cog point???
I have about 20 animations of magnetic motor concepts like this...
I'm just putting them out there for others to comment on...
Heres a spiral motor (for those who dont know what I mean by spiral motor)
with a electromagnet to overcome the cog point. Also based on a principle
I've observed which is that two large cylinder magnets can easiley face each
other in oppisition if there is a smaller cylinder magnet placed veticaly
between them in attraction, so I assume in this animation that watts required
to accomplish this configuration is less then the watts required to negate a
magnets field.
Hello Dingus,
The first one is Very good! You're a thought reader, don't you? ;)
I also had this idea some months before. Through my short "research" about all magnet motors, I've got a conclusion, that only designs with all of the magnets in some kind of motion will possibly work.
Your animation looks very promising. It's a must try. Unfortunately I don't have the tools and equipments to make something like this... :(
If the force produced by the magnets is enough to move the weight of all the pieces together and all the mechanisms, than probably it will work. But needed to look carefully for the best configuration, with different viewpoints included, like mass, force, number of magnets, lenght to the cog point, how the rotor and the stator pieces move in time and in connection to each other, (maybe alteration needed) etc,
Have to choose very carefully. For first, perhaps it's better to try with less magnets, and perform some pre-experiments first to see what happens.
After all, the most important question remains the same: Is it possible to develop enough force to move the whole thing?
When the answer will turn to yes, you have got it. :)
Best Regards,
Gregory
Hi,
the second animation:
spiralmotordemo.gif
is exactly the way the Paul Sprain motor works.
Search for
Sprain
in the search box and you will find it.
This method works !
sprain motor
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor
just looking at mim-lrg.gif and i was just wondering couldn't you use the same kick out ring (or slightly modified version) on the torbay device and get rid of the kick up and just kick it out, is it using the same principle as torbay ??
Ive got torbay on my brain (just read that 100+ topic about it) i could be wrong, but its just a thought :)
Hi Dingus,
About the belt-type idea... In my opinion it's not the same as the others, principally different, and I don't like it too much. Mechanics plays a role in these things, and mechanically & phisically this belt thing works very different, results with different forces.
I've tested some devices, and they used similar principles (more vs. less, etc.), in fact they didn't work.
From my little experience I think this belt-type thing won't work.
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wanted to tell my observation for you.
Good luck for your experiments!
Quote from: hartiberlin on September 22, 2006, 06:48:39 PM
Hi,
the second animation:
spiralmotordemo.gif
is exactly the way the Paul Sprain motor works.
Search for
Sprain
in the search box and you will find it.
This method works !
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeswiki.com%2Fimages%2Fc%2Fcd%2FKawaii_spiral_hj85.jpg&hash=98638aa15c448071630a649a23654d1467b7d9cd)
Actually the "sprain motor" has its stator magnetics working in a attraction state (runs oppisite of the my example) and therefore can not take advantage of the configuration I used. I'm excited to hear the spain motor has achieved overunity. Has there been any attemps to close the loop yet? If we look at history many major discoveries in technology were achieved in seval places within a couple decades of each other. I honestly believe that overunity is in that phase now. ;D The inspiration behind my design was the work of Dr Minato.
As for the mim's (Magnetic Instability Motor) similarities to the torbay motor, I dont fully grasp how the torbay motors armature magnets are configured yet but I do know it uses a escapement channel for the stators like my design, allowing a stator magnets to escape the flux ring vertically rather then outward. I will do some more research on torbays motor this week.
But I must repeat that my design of the spiral motor is very different in two respects, the stator magnets of my design are in repultion mode and the EM used in my design uses 1/2 the power. The EM in the sprain design must be equal in power to each of the stator magnets or the armature magent would have no desire to pass the sticky point. Those of you with magnet collections, expirement with 3 magnets, 2 large cylinders and one smaller magnet of any geometry. You can get the two large magnets to face each other in repultion by placing the smaller magnet in attraction between them. With this in mind a EM field could be used in the same method. I'm excited to get all the great replies and look forward to further discussing much more about magnetic motors with all of you.
Quote from: Greg & Gregory on September 24, 2006, 05:45:23 AM
I've tested some devices, and they used similar principles (more vs. less, etc.), in fact they didn't work.
Thanks for the heads up, but I'm still curious to test if enough magnets in the repultion path can drag a single magnet though the cog point. If indeed 10+ magnets in the path can not drag the last magnet through I'm curious as to the watts required to complete the work and the distance the armature cart will travel. Hopefully in the next year I'll have the time and money to built one of many variations of a repultion driven magnetic motor.
Quote
if enough magnets in the repultion path can drag a single magnet though the cog point.
Hi,
I also believe, that in a clever configuration they can. But the problem is not only a mathematic problem, with numbers and positions. The real problem is, that you have to work with
magnetic fields, not with only magnets. And all the fields are react each other continously, (change shape), and many times this interaction results in lower torque. And this is what you need, torque to go through the lock point.
Also important how your device transfer the force to the axle. What are the angles of the froces acting on the axle? This is why I think (from my experiments), that your belt type idea is not as good as the first, or the second one. In your first idea you don't need to go through the sticky spot.
Keep in mind you need to work with fields and magnets, not only with magnets and maths.
Anyway, I wish you all the bests, and good experimenting. :)
Regards,
Greg
Quote from: Greg & Gregory on September 25, 2006, 09:48:44 AM
your belt type idea is not as good as the first, or the second one.
Very true... Thank you very much for all the constructive critizism and interest. Unfortunately I probably wont have the money to build a prototype of the mim for many decades. (if ever ???) But for now I'll focus more onwheel based repultion designs. I got a new one to show but I dont know if I should just post it in this thread or if I should make a new thread for each idea. (I dont wanna flood the "Half Baked Ideas" folder)
Oh well for now here is something new to pour over...
The flux demo above is based on TOMI technology, with one major difference...
In the TOMI concept the plan was to use inertia to overcome the stick point.
(a bad idea from what I've seen in my tests)
Rather only harness the repulsive force and then have the armature magnet fall from the fields reach.
Info on TOMI tech...
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomibild.htm (http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomibild.htm)
The following animation is based on my expirements with the TOMI track design.
Things to keep in mind:
-each stator magnet is actually 2 magnets with a track between them
-the blue circles on the tention arms are cylinder magnets in top view
-the stator wheel has uniderrectional gearing so the tention arms and
repultion forces are prevented from back spinning the wheel.
(Once again only harness the repultion force)
I was thinking that if he spiral rotor had 3 arms instead of 2 would that provide more force to push it past the lock or would it just be the same net repulsion from the 2 combined arms as the third encountered the locking point?
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
|
|
|
|
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on September 25, 2006, 09:44:34 PM
I was thinking that if he spiral rotor had 3 arms instead of 2 would that provide more force to push it past the lock or would it just be the same net repulsion from the 2 combined arms as the third encountered the locking point?
Unfortunately I dont know yet... Someone will have to test the idea, but I will say there is little chance of that occuring without a EM forces helping. The reason I believe it cant be that easy is: if indeed 2 magnets in travel can pull the third in to the repulsive flux field then the device would have no mechanical resistance, meaning it would spin up to its max RPM without any introduction of force. Its just not realistic.
Hello Dingus,
What are you using to draw the models you are thinking of?
They look great!
Regards,
Eman8
Dingus,
You are a man, who don't ignore mechanics, and has some sense of combination. These are needed.
You can post here bravely anything what you want, or you can open another topic inside Magnet motors. (Maybe that will be better?)
What do you think, How much money needed to build properly something like the mim? I'm interested about that.
Yeah, this tomi based stuff also interesting. I guess, it will have some back effects at the end of the process, and right after, while the reset happens. But in this form, it is an untested idea, so far when I know right...
If my undertstanding is correct, I think it's not too important how many arms the design have. If it works, it also must work with only one flip-flopping arm. They repeat the same movement, except one case.
On the face of it, I can see only one more possibility: To set the arms in different positions to each other, so they always stay in different points of interaction, and perhaps this can be helpful, when a single back effect happens.
And also, What do you use to make the animations?
Thanks,
Quote from: energyman8 on September 26, 2006, 02:12:51 AM
Hello Dingus,
What are you using to draw the models you are thinking of?
They look great!
Regards,
Eman8
All examples were animated in Macromedia Flash 5.0
It deffinitely assists in flushing out an idea and conveying it to others.
Quote from: Greg & Gregory on September 26, 2006, 09:42:34 AM
What do you think, How much money needed to build properly something like the mim? I'm interested about that.
Well it would be more expensive for me to build it then for others, because I no longer have access to the metal shop or tools. :'( Sadly that was all siezed by a crooked buisness associate last year. I would assume for someone with a full shop to use, it would cost about 10-100 thousand dollars US. With the first 10 thousand one could build the first linear and loop prototypes and get a feel for the potential output in different configurations. The rest of the money would be spent in R&D and proper testing to create the best possible over efficientcy for the system. If anyone gets that far, makes sure you got another 20-200 thousand dollars for legal fees and funding scientific validation.
Thanks again for all the kind words G&G. I recently came to a decision that I couldn't be disappointed in Steven Marks for not sharing designs he knew worked if I wasn't willing to share designs that I only believe will work. The only thing I care about now is making sure the technology is developed and made availible to consumers. Never again will I worry about things like patents or money. I hope that makes sense to all the other hobbiest and inventors reading this, because I want to see this revolution come with in my lifetime. Doing it outside the buerocratic system and making it free for all will be the only way that will happen. (UEC corp shows us all what happens when you worry about patents and money)
That is why I have the upmost respect for overunity.com as it is a way to publish ideas and prove they were published before the ideas were patented, thereby making all unpatented ideas posted here "open source" projects.
~Dingus
Quote from: morpheous1777 on September 23, 2006, 02:56:42 AM
sprain motor
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor
just looking at mim-lrg.gif and i was just wondering couldn't you use the same kick out ring (or slightly modified version) on the torbay device and get rid of the kick up and just kick it out, is it using the same principle as torbay ??
Ive got torbay on my brain (just read that 100+ topic about it) i could be wrong, but its just a thought :)
WOW!!! :o
After further reading of the torbay thread I now understand what you mean and will begin designing the concept soon.
While the torbay device has to use power to lift the stator magnets high above the flux ring with this slight design modification it could push them out in a pendulum type design. Thats a great way to apply the idea to other designs.
hmmmmmm....
I have a lot of animation/FEMM work to do this weekend. :-\
Thanks again for the great input...
Dingus,
If you get a spare moment can you please take a look at my "vortex magnet motor" design and see if you can do the FEMM for it too. I have no idea how to use that system but would be very interested in your feedback.
Cheers,
Dean
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on September 26, 2006, 07:29:43 PM
Dingus,
If you get a spare moment can you please take a look at my "vortex magnet motor" design and see if you can do the FEMM for it too. I have no idea how to use that system but would be very interested in your feedback.
Cheers,
Dean
Sadly FEMM only models 2d planar equations, so it would be impossiblt to model your vortex concept. As for my feed back, after veiwing the configuration of the armature spiralled magnets, it would appear that your motor can only go one cycle before energy is extracted from the system to push the top most magnet stack past the cog point. In short I dont believe the concept will work yet with out using an electromagnet =( Perhaps you should look in to Dr Minato and his spiral magnet geometry to see how you can use the same concepts in a conjuction with your design. I do like how you stacked the magnets inside the cone but I feel it would work beter it the magnets were being added 0-360 and not from top to bottom. It is a very interesting design though, that will be keeping my eye on...
Good Luck on all your tests!
Hope to hear more about your findings soon!
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on September 26, 2006, 07:29:43 PM
Dingus,
If you get a spare moment can you please take a look at my "vortex magnet motor" design and see if you can do the FEMM for it too. I have no idea how to use that system but would be very interested in your feedback.
Cheers,
Dean
Sadly FEMM only models 2d planar equations, so it would be impossiblt to model your vortex concept. As for my feed back, after veiwing the configuration of the armature spiralled magnets, it would appear that your motor can only go one cycle before energy is extracted from the system to push the top most magnet stack past the cog point. In short I dont believe the concept will work yet with out using an electromagnet =( Perhaps you should look in to Dr Minato and his spiral magnet geometry to see how you can use the same concepts in a conjuction with your design. I do like how you stacked the magnets inside the cone but I feel it would work beter it the magnets were being added 0-360 and not from top to bottom. It is a very interesting design though, that will be keeping my eye on...
Good Luck on all your tests!
Hope to hear more about your findings soon!
Hi Dingus,
Can your FEMM model the "neutral plane" or "line" in your case since it is a 2d model?
The plane exists at a certain distance away from the permanent magnet, where a soft iron is attracted but no polarity is induced on it. I've tested it experimentally and it works as per Gary's Patent. I was just curious on how do the flux lines look around that area.
thx for the animations too.
Also a question to all the coilers in the forum ( I'm not sure which is the best thread to post). Is there a way to crate a coil that has a zero or extremely low drag EMF or is it back EMF? I read up on the Mobius loop design, can it be incorporated so when an outside magnetic flux is removed, the coil offers minimal or very low magnetic drag to the source (if metallic) that is removing the magnetic flux? Or to the magnetic flux source itself?
I assume the coil has to be coreless to begin with?
Thx
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 27, 2006, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on September 26, 2006, 07:29:43 PM
Dingus,
If you get a spare moment can you please take a look at my "vortex magnet motor" design and see if you can do the FEMM for it too. I have no idea how to use that system but would be very interested in your feedback.
Cheers,
Dean
Sadly FEMM only models 2d planar equations, so it would be impossiblt to model your vortex concept. As for my feed back, after veiwing the configuration of the armature spiralled magnets, it would appear that your motor can only go one cycle before energy is extracted from the system to push the top most magnet stack past the cog point. In short I dont believe the concept will work yet with out using an electromagnet =( Perhaps you should look in to Dr Minato and his spiral magnet geometry to see how you can use the same concepts in a conjuction with your design. I do like how you stacked the magnets inside the cone but I feel it would work beter it the magnets were being added 0-360 and not from top to bottom. It is a very interesting design though, that will be keeping my eye on...
Good Luck on all your tests!
Hope to hear more about your findings soon!
Hi Dingus,
Can your FEMM model the "neutral plane" or "line" in your case since it is a 2d model?
The plane exists at a certain distance away from the permanent magnet, where a soft iron is attracted but no polarity is induced on it. I've tested it experimentally and it works as per Gary's Patent. I was just curious on how do the flux lines look around that area.
thx for the animations too.
Also a question to all the coilers in the forum ( I'm not sure which is the best thread to post). Is there a way to crate a coil that has a zero or extremely low drag EMF or is it back EMF? I read up on the Mobius loop design, can it be incorporated so when an outside magnetic flux is removed, the coil offers minimal or very low magnetic drag to the source (if metallic) that is removing the magnetic flux? Or to the magnetic flux source itself?
I assume the coil has to be coreless to begin with?
Thx
About the models being 2d, that statement was a little misleading, You can assign a static depth to the simulation and it is a top or side view of the flux density. If you could send me more info on the model you would like to see (sizes of iron stator and magnet, distances, Magnetic materials used) I would be glad to model the expirement for you.
I have also wondered many nights about removing drag or back emf from magnetic inductance. I have often wondered if superconducting materials at threshold temperature are able to do this since they are able to transmit power without any heat loss, RF, or resistence... Just a thought I've had... (too bad I can possibly afford superconducting wire huh) :D
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 27, 2006, 11:38:28 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 11:05:53 AM
Quote from: dean_mcgowan on September 26, 2006, 07:29:43 PM
Dingus,
If you get a spare moment can you please take a look at my "vortex magnet motor" design and see if you can do the FEMM for it too. I have no idea how to use that system but would be very interested in your feedback.
Cheers,
Dean
Sadly FEMM only models 2d planar equations, so it would be impossiblt to model your vortex concept. As for my feed back, after veiwing the configuration of the armature spiralled magnets, it would appear that your motor can only go one cycle before energy is extracted from the system to push the top most magnet stack past the cog point. In short I dont believe the concept will work yet with out using an electromagnet =( Perhaps you should look in to Dr Minato and his spiral magnet geometry to see how you can use the same concepts in a conjuction with your design. I do like how you stacked the magnets inside the cone but I feel it would work beter it the magnets were being added 0-360 and not from top to bottom. It is a very interesting design though, that will be keeping my eye on...
Good Luck on all your tests!
Hope to hear more about your findings soon!
Hi Dingus,
Can your FEMM model the "neutral plane" or "line" in your case since it is a 2d model?
The plane exists at a certain distance away from the permanent magnet, where a soft iron is attracted but no polarity is induced on it. I've tested it experimentally and it works as per Gary's Patent. I was just curious on how do the flux lines look around that area.
thx for the animations too.
Also a question to all the coilers in the forum ( I'm not sure which is the best thread to post). Is there a way to crate a coil that has a zero or extremely low drag EMF or is it back EMF? I read up on the Mobius loop design, can it be incorporated so when an outside magnetic flux is removed, the coil offers minimal or very low magnetic drag to the source (if metallic) that is removing the magnetic flux? Or to the magnetic flux source itself?
I assume the coil has to be coreless to begin with?
Thx
About the models being 2d, that statement was a little misleading, You can assign a static depth to the simulation and it is a top or side view of the flux density. If you could send me more info on the model you would like to see (sizes of iron stator and magnet, distances, Magnetic materials used) I would be glad to model the expirement for you.
I have also wondered many nights about removing drag or back emf from magnetic inductance. I have often wondered if superconducting materials at threshold temperature are able to do this since they are able to transmit power without any heat loss, RF, or resistence... Just a thought I've had... (too bad I can possibly afford superconducting wire huh) :D
The strength If I recall from the package was not more than 1000 gauss. probably a bit less.
Keeper bar is soft iron Length 1-1/4", Width 1/4", Thickness 3/32"
Magnet is Horseshoe 2" Long, 1-1/4" Width, 1/4"Thick (uniform thickness), Poles width 7/16"
Using the procedure as in Gary's Motor Patent http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
The neutral plane appears to be around 1/16-3/32? away from the poles.
Thanks for your time and offer to model this. Curious how the flux looks around there when the keeper bar even though is magnetized it has NO POLARITY! And that?s a very interesting phenomenon imo.
To see the effect graphically scroll down the above link/page.
Thx again
Ps: Al Francoeurs actually has repeated the experiment and apparently got it to work. Pics and wording:
Al Francoeurs Gary Motor Replication
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gary2001.htm
I dont know if this is what you were asking for but rexresearch was down and I felt like doing some sim's anyways. (bored...)
I hope this is accurate to your design request:
(the results were inconclusive)
I say inconslusive because there is a small lateral magnetic field in the soft iron bar.
I will now see how that field will interact with a stator magnet at the other end while in all positions.
(I attached a pic of the field in switch "null" position)
In the first animation, if you turn the rotor magnet on its end, to expose both poles, it will give you a repulse and attraction to over come the constant repulsion as the stator magnets try to come back into their original position. Reversing the rotor pole directions can give you 'forward and reverse'. ??
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 28, 2006, 07:51:16 PM
I dont know if this is what you were asking for but rexresearch was down and I felt like doing some sim's anyways. (bored...)
I hope this is accurate to your design request:
(the results were inconclusive)
Hi Dingus Mungus,
I attached a hand drawing of my understanding on how the keeper is positioned wrt the horseshoe magnet. It is intended to place for equal distance from both legs of the horseshoe magnet regardless of being put in front, or above or below of the legs. And by varying the distance of the keeper is the way to find the neutral line, see Figs 1 - 4 at link http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gary.htm from his patent. The keeper never touches the horseshoe magnet and its ends should be kept at equal distances from both legs. The thickness and a little bit the length of the keeper depends on the strength of the horseshoe magnet.
Notice that there is no need for the L shape endings of the horseshoe's legs. Or you think it is better to have that shape?
rgds
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on September 29, 2006, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 28, 2006, 07:51:16 PM
I dont know if this is what you were asking for but rexresearch was down and I felt like doing some sim's anyways. (bored...)
I hope this is accurate to your design request:
(the results were inconclusive)
Hi Dingus Mungus,
I attached a hand drawing of my understanding on how the keeper is positioned wrt the horseshoe magnet. It is intended to place for equal distance from both legs of the horseshoe magnet regardless of being put in front, or above or below of the legs. And by varying the distance of the keeper is the way to find the neutral line, see Figs 1 - 4 at link http://www.keelynet.com/energy/gary.htm from his patent.
Notice that there is no need for the L shape endings of the horseshoe's legs. Or you think it is better to have that shape?
rgds
Gyula
I can not simulate two materials on top of each other so I used the fulcrum example instead. The principles are the same though. When in the 'null' position a nail on the nonmagnetic end of the iron stator would have no attraction, but in either of its toggled states the stator iron could act as a stator magnet of either polarity and attract the nail.
By using extension of the lever one could use the fulcrum to change the iron stator from attract to repulse (like a dc motor) with minimal mechanical or electromagnetic input. This magnetic toggle switch has hit a chord with me, and I will be designing another animation that incorporates this concept. Excellent find, and sorry if I can not simulate what you were looking for.
~Dingus
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 29, 2006, 01:16:43 PM
I can not simulate two materials on top of each other so I used the fulcrum example instead.
Hi Dingus,
Ok but can you simulate two materials that are next to each other? like I show you in the picture below.
Notice that the keeper's endings should be kept at equal distances from both legs. The thickness (and a little bit the length) of the keeper depends on the strength of the horseshoe magnet. The material of the keeper is soft iron that loses its magnetivity when moved away from the fluxfields. The keeper has no poles when exactly in the neutral line (and its mechanical sizes are "matched" to the stregth of the horseshoe magnet) but will have poles if you place it nearer to the horseshoe magnet and CHANGES these poles when you place it a bit away from the neutral line.
rgds
Gyula
Dingus, thanks for taking the time.
The Layout I had in mind was like the link I posted before and also gyulasun's above.
Yes it's very interesting phenomenon, the keeper bar it self is attracted but there is no polarity at the Neutral Line (or Neutral Plane) as also explained in the patent, and the keeper bar does not attract anything behind it. That part of the experiment can also be easily replicated as I?ve done so using a pin as the patent describes.
I was curious to see if you could model it and if the flux becomes completely "absorbed" into the keeper at that position, or "deflected" around the edges and not effecting objects behind it? or some kind of another arrangement that is self canceling?
Is the phenomenon effectively a magnetic gate? or a magnetic on/off switch so to speak?
Either way, it maybe useful in the quest for an OU magneto-mechanical device.
Quote from: mikestocks2006 on September 29, 2006, 04:58:08 PM
I was curious to see if you could model it and if the flux becomes completely "absorbed" into the keeper at that position, or "deflected" around the edges and not effecting objects behind it? or some kind of another arrangement that is self canceling?
Is the phenomenon effectively a magnetic gate? or a magnetic on/off switch so to speak?
I simulated the first deisgn I posted with a steel nail at the end of the iron bar and 99% of the flux is diverted straight to the oppisite pole in any position. Only a small ammount of flux is intoduced to the steel at the oppisite end. I am now doing extensive remodeling to see if I can find a way to use this as a magnetic gate, but outlook is poor currently. I will post any interesting results later.
TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
http://femm.foster-miller.net/ (http://femm.foster-miller.net/)
Download a free copy of FEMM today!
If I get enough requests for a FEMM tutorial I will create a new thread with step by step instructions for modeling *BASIC* magnetic and electromagnetic simulations with attached demos. With more people searching the more we will find.
Quote from: gyulasun on September 29, 2006, 01:52:13 PM
The keeper has no poles when exactly in the neutral line
Here is the demo of the keeper moving from .25" away from poles to 2" away from poles.
I have also included zoomed in and amplified flux images to show the keeper's poles at 2".
Hi Dingus,
Thank you very much for your simulations. The tendency of poles appearing at the keeper's endings as it is moved away gradually from the horseshoe magnet can be seen a little and it is enough performance from a free software. I wish a true 3D EM software were available for free...
Best Regards
Gyula