I'm new here and this is my first post so please don't flame me.
I've started reading up on magnet motors and found the Minato motor to be quite interesting. I think i've read somewhere on the boards that it's similar to another design, but can't remember who's. Anyway, I had a thought to eleminate the need for the electro-magnet "kicker" to get the rotation over unity.
Place 2 of the engines side by side and connect the rotors with something like a bicycle chain or pully system. Have the motors timed so that when motor 1's rotor is at unity position(when the electro-magnet kicks), motor 2 is just starting or part way thru it's cycle. Since the 2 rotors are connected the momentum rotor 2 will carry rotor 1 past unity and then vice versa for rotor 2's cycle.
Alternatively it could be done on the same shaft with the 2nd motor below or upsidedown compared to the first. Just spaced far enough away that there isn't any flux between the two motors magnet arrays. This would probably be a better setup since there would be no need for gears/chains and less loss due to friction.
I don't have the resources or space to attempt a protoype of this setup so I figured I would put it out there for the "experts" to hash out.
You should create a diagram or drawing to better detail the wheels timing differences...
Juspot
I have tried as many as 3 rotors on a common shaft and they together act as one and find a point of equilibrium.
The furthest rotation was about 340 degees with the configuration at http://theowlnest.com/kickbypage.html
Keep thinking
Tropes
Ok....what about instead of the electromagnet kicker you use one of the following:
1. Instead of a balanced wheel make it heavier near the first magnet on the wheel where the lock up occurs. Since the wheel stops due to the repulsive force of the first magnet coming back around to the starting position. If the wheel is off balance just enough, then the rotational force should be enough to carry it into another rotation. The shaft would require extra bracing and the bearings would probably wear out faster, but it could produce over unity.
2. If a weighted flywheel approach doesn't do it then what about a single set of attacting magnets. The lock up is cause by the repulsive force being too great to overcome. What if you add a rotor onto the shaft positioned above the wheel at the lockup point with an equal attraction force to a stationary magnet. That should create a "dead zone" where the repulsive force on the wheel equals the attractive force on the rotor and allow conservation of momentum on the wheel to continue the spin. By dead zone, I don't mean a way to eliminate the flux, just equalize it in both directions. Once the 2nd magnet on the wheel passes the lock up point then the repulsive force should be great enough to cause another rotation. If needed a stronger set of magnets can be used for the rotor.
We have a quite similar discusion going on here:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1535.0.html (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1535.0.html)
Including a design that has no cog point...
All but one of the designs are based on Minato's wheel design, the last design is based on TOMI track technology.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 27, 2006, 05:22:16 PM
Ok....what about instead of the electromagnet kicker you use one of the following:
1. Instead of a balanced wheel make it heavier near the first magnet on the wheel where the lock up occurs. Since the wheel stops due to the repulsive force of the first magnet coming back around to the starting position. If the wheel is off balance just enough, then the rotational force should be enough to carry it into another rotation. The shaft would require extra bracing and the bearings would probably wear out faster, but it could produce over unity.
2. If a weighted flywheel approach doesn't do it then what about a single set of attacting magnets. The lock up is cause by the repulsive force being too great to overcome. What if you add a rotor onto the shaft positioned above the wheel at the lockup point with an equal attraction force to a stationary magnet. That should create a "dead zone" where the repulsive force on the wheel equals the attractive force on the rotor and allow conservation of momentum on the wheel to continue the spin. By dead zone, I don't mean a way to eliminate the flux, just equalize it in both directions. Once the 2nd magnet on the wheel passes the lock up point then the repulsive force should be great enough to cause another rotation. If needed a stronger set of magnets can be used for the rotor.
I have though about both of these ideas...
1) If the weight is combined with gravity to pass the cog point then the device must then lift the weight against gravity to reset it, which is a loss of power. If the wheel had enough monentum to lift the weight it would also have enough monentum to pass the cog point.
2) You would just lose your cog point and gain a sticky point, both are equal in their ability to create points of equalibrium.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 05:50:03 PM
I have though about both of these ideas...
1) If the weight is combined with gravity to pass the cog point then the device must then lift the weight against gravity to reset it, which is a loss of power. If the wheel had enough monentum to lift the weight it would also have enough monentum to pass the cog point.
2) You would just lose your cog point and gain a sticky point, both are equal in their ability to create points of equalibrium.
1) I'm not talking about a gravity assist. Just a slightly off balance horizontal wheel.
2) The cog point is on top of or below the sticky point depending on how you build it. They should cancel eachother out and allow the momentum of the wheel to finish the job.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 27, 2006, 05:54:15 PM
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 05:50:03 PM
I have though about both of these ideas...
1) If the weight is combined with gravity to pass the cog point then the device must then lift the weight against gravity to reset it, which is a loss of power. If the wheel had enough monentum to lift the weight it would also have enough monentum to pass the cog point.
2) You would just lose your cog point and gain a sticky point, both are equal in their ability to create points of equalibrium.
1) I'm not talking about a gravity assist. Just a slightly off balance horizontal wheel.
2) The cog point is on top of or below the sticky point depending on how you build it. They should cancel eachother out and allow the momentum of the wheel to finish the job.
1) off balance (more mass on one side) on a horizontal or vertical wheel?
2) The next stator magnet would then become the cog point.
1) Horizontal wheel.....it would have a lope to it similar to a big block engine with a performance cam. As long as the ring of magnets lopes the same ammount you should be in good shape. Only downside is the added wear and tear of having the system unbalanced.
2) Adding a second attracting magnet should do the trick. Place them on a "V" shaped rotor almost side by side like the wheel magnets....or "Y" shape if you want to counter balance it with a dead weight on the end of the Y. Once the second attracting magnet passes the sticky point then the repulsive forces in the positive direction should outweigh the negative repulsion and attraction forces. It takes the 3rd wheel magnet passing the cog point to complete the change over for the 2 attracting magnets to be out of range and prevent negative feedback. But from what I can see, until the 3rd magnet passes all repulsive/attractive forces should be equal and allow momentum to take over.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 27, 2006, 06:29:07 PM
1) Horizontal wheel.....it would have a lope to it similar to a big block engine with a performance cam. As long as the ring of magnets lopes the same ammount you should be in good shape. Only downside is the added wear and tear of having the system unbalanced.
2) Adding a second attracting magnet should do the trick. Place them on a "V" shaped rotor almost side by side like the wheel magnets....or "Y" shape if you want to counter balance it with a dead weight on the end of the Y. Once the second attracting magnet passes the sticky point then the repulsive forces in the positive direction should outweigh the negative repulsion and attraction forces. It takes the 3rd wheel magnet passing the cog point to complete the change over for the 2 attracting magnets to be out of range and prevent negative feedback. But from what I can see, until the 3rd magnet passes all repulsive/attractive forces should be equal and allow momentum to take over.
1) I dont understand what you mean by "lope" ???
http://www.answers.com/lope&r=67 (http://www.answers.com/lope&r=67)
Do you mean unbalanced with mass or flux density?
(mass unbalance on a horizontal wheel only creates vibration and loss)
(spiral magentic wheels are unbalanced flux by design)
2) If the perpose of each attracted magnet pair is to "create a dead zone" (your words), and you only need to add "dead zone"s to the first two stators, then you would be able to just remove the first two stator magnet sets (atractive and repulsive) and it should still function without the magnetic "dead zones" right?
I'm not trying to knock your ideas but I've been studying magnetic motors/PMM's for many years, and I'm simply passing on things I have observed already. Maybe if you created some rigid models of your ideas in FEMM/Paint/flash to test/show the ideas in a more complete thought. At this point though you've modified your original concept 2 or more times and it seems more like grasping at straws then conveying acurate information... no offense.
http://femm.foster-miller.net/ (http://femm.foster-miller.net/)
http://isohunt.com/torrents/flash?ihs1=5&iho1=d&iht=5 (http://isohunt.com/torrents/flash?ihs1=5&iho1=d&iht=5)
Juspot
Your idea of an attracting force to overcome the "stick spot" is one that has merit. Check out the Bowman file at http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/default.asp. The Bowman wheel used an "actuator" and a "helper magnet". I think this is a necessary part of any successful PMM.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on September 27, 2006, 08:36:49 PM
Juspot
Your idea of an attracting force to overcome the "stick spot" is one that has merit. Check out the Bowman file at http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/default.asp. The Bowman wheel used an "actuator" and a "helper magnet". I think this is a necessary part of any successful PMM.
Tropes
http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/follow-up.asp?URL=follow-up.asp (http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/follow-up.asp?URL=follow-up.asp)
The replication of Bowman's motor was not successful but there is knowledge to be gained from both success and failure.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on September 28, 2006, 12:38:49 AM
The replication of Bowman's motor was not successful but there is knowledge to be gained from both success and failure.
Tropes
My point was that the 'helper magnet' alligns with the plantary gears cog points and creates a "dead zone", the result being just a modified cog point created between the original cog points and the next stators "dead zone". In addition to this point, it has no relivency to Minatos work, it was just conjecture. Repeling magnetics are the only force harnessed in Minatos design, and I believe that is a quality that time will reveal as being the key...
If you study the eary Minato video you will see that he used a hand-held magnet (actuator) to rotate the wheel.
Tropes
Quote from: tropes on September 28, 2006, 09:12:41 AM
If you study the eary Minato video you will see that he used a hand-held magnet (actuator) to rotate the wheel.
Tropes
Indeed he did... it was in a state of repultion... I dont dispute that...
What does that have to do with "dead zones" being usefull in PMM's?
By the way heres an new idea for a variation of the minato motor:
Things to consider while viewing this design:
Rollercoasters/penulums always have enough energy to almost reach they're original drop point. The single input magnet sets on a cart that acts like a coaster would, meaning it stores enough kinetic energy in its decline to incline to near its start point. Now if the wheel also gathers kinetic force from gravity pulling down on the input magnet, this addition of energy to the system has the potential to help the cart reach its original fall point.
Happy experimenting!
Good idea, and has some merit to try.
I think it's better to place horizontally this design. When it stands in a vertical fashion, it must lift the weight of the flip-flop magnet faster, than it descend. This type of movement don't help in wheel roatation by gravity.
In my opinion it's better to place this wheel horizontally in the table, and replace the roallercoaster machanism with a piston mechanism, which has less friction and more momentum. One end of the piston will drive the magnet in a straight line, like pistons in a gasoline engine.
If alteration needed in time, so the speed of the piston must be varied to has different velocity rates in different positions, in this case you must develop an additional mechanism which can do the trick and control the movement of the piston or use a specially developed device which do that all in one. Although It is not easy, It can be difficult, but possible when needed.
Dingus, can you animate this device with an usual piston mechanism designed for the same movement as your roallercoaster? It will be good to see in an animation...
Quote from: Greg & Gregory on September 28, 2006, 04:34:24 PM
Good idea, and has some merit to try.
I think it's better to place horizontally this design. When it stands in a vertical fashion, it must lift the weight of the flip-flop magnet faster, than it descend. This type of movement don't help in wheel roatation by gravity.
In my opinion it's better to place this wheel horizontally in the table, and replace the roallercoaster machanism with a piston mechanism, which has less friction and more momentum. One end of the piston will drive the magnet in a straight line, like pistons in a gasoline engine.
If alteration needed in time, so the speed of the piston must be varied to has different velocity rates in different positions, in this case you must develop an additional mechanism which can do the trick and control the movement of the piston or use a specially developed device which do that all in one. Although It is not easy, It can be difficult, but possible when needed.
Dingus, can you animate this device with an usual piston mechanism designed for the same movement as your roallercoaster? It will be good to see in an animation...
A horizontal design would remove gravity from the equation though. My key component in this design is the kinetic energy of a roller coaster. In roller coaster physics a cart dropped from 100 feet should always be able to release its energy and reachive a height of 90 feet on a straight low friction track. Now when gravity pulls down on the magnetic cart the mass adds kinetic energy to the cart and the field accecerates the wheel. My hopes are that the extra energy gathered by the spiral starors will allow the cart to reach its drop height or higher.
About the piston concept: The friction involved in maintaining the timing of the piston would be greater then the enerergy required to coast a cart on bearings. I have animted the concept as per your request.
@ Tropes
The Bowman wheel was way too complicated. The simpler you design it the better.
@ Dingus
Your new wheel idea is interesting, but it seems to me that the incline to push the "piston" back up is too steep. You might end up with the piston resting half way up the slope unless the flux is strong enough to push it higher. I'm not sure the momentum of the wheel would be enough to push it thru either.
Also....if you are relying on the weight of gravity alone to bring the piston back down and it is resting on the "tracK" to keep proper distance from the magnets on the wheel, then you don't even need the wheel magnets. The downward force of gravity on the track would be greater than the repulsive effects of the magnets unless it doesn't touch the track.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 29, 2006, 11:27:38 AM
@ Tropes
The Bowman wheel was way too complicated. The simpler you design it the better.
Occam's razor.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 27, 2006, 09:50:57 PM
Quote from: tropes on September 27, 2006, 08:36:49 PM
Juspot
Your idea of an attracting force to overcome the "stick spot" is one that has merit. Check out the Bowman file at http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/default.asp. The Bowman wheel used an "actuator" and a "helper magnet". I think this is a necessary part of any successful PMM.
Tropes
http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/follow-up.asp?URL=follow-up.asp (http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/follow-up.asp?URL=follow-up.asp)
Amazing!!! I was laying out a design like the one by Thomas Goerz (VaporWings)
http://www.fdp.nu/bowman/follow-up.asp?URL=follow-up.asp
Thx for the link
Almost identical but with one exception and that was also the reason recently I took interest in Gary's motor patents and shields/shielding materials etc.
So take the exact setup as the one shown by T. Goerz and add the following:
A shield placed vertically between the two magnet mounting disks, The shield starts at the base and is up to and slightly above the center line level of the rotating disks. It is placed between the magnets and it is stationary. It is also placed at the Neutral Plane that the opposing magnets would define as they face each other. (The distance between the disks and/or magnet positioning on them may have to be adjusted so the neutral lines match)
The idea is, as the magnets rotate the maximum repulsion will be when they both face each other above the shield?s top edge. While they are bellow the shield?s top edge they are ?shielded? from each other effectively reducing the slowing down forces as the disks rotate.
BTW Does anyone know how to contact Thomas Goerz?. There is no contact info on that site.
TIA
Mikestocks
I'm glad to see some good come from the many hours of work that went into the Bowman project. I have done some work using Mumetal as a shield on an actuator that I built a few years ago. The diagram and the wheel I used it on can be found here:http://www.fdp.nu/otherwheels/default.asp .I am still working on the same cam setup as is posted here but now I am using a pulse motor as the actuator. I have a photo of the actuator as well. If you are interested I will upload it to one of my sites.
Tropes
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on September 28, 2006, 11:13:00 PM
A horizontal design would remove gravity from the equation though. My key component in this design is the kinetic energy of a roller coaster. In roller coaster physics a cart dropped from 100 feet should always be able to release its energy and reachive a height of 90 feet on a straight low friction track. Now when gravity pulls down on the magnetic cart the mass adds kinetic energy to the cart and the field accecerates the wheel. My hopes are that the extra energy gathered by the spiral starors will allow the cart to reach its drop height or higher.
About the piston concept: The friction involved in maintaining the timing of the piston would be greater then the enerergy required to coast a cart on bearings. I have animted the concept as per your request.
Dingus,
Thanks for the anim, good. You may very right in your explanation about the coaster vs. piston designs. In fact, I don't know to much about roller costers. I more believe in the "piston" design just for some unknown reason, and intuition. The why is even not clear for me.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 29, 2006, 11:27:38 AM
@ Tropes
The Bowman wheel was way too complicated. The simpler you design it the better.
I concure.
Quote from: juspot82 on September 29, 2006, 11:27:38 AM
The downward force of gravity on the track would be greater than the repulsive effects of the magnets unless it doesn't touch the track.
Exactly...
It is this fact I am counting on in the design. Gravities effect on the carts momentum is what gives it characteristics of a pendulum or rollercoaster. Its not the angle of inclination that really matters (with in reason of course) its the kinetic energy it has stored (drop height). The spiral stator magnets are required to generate additional
unidirrectional force to the cart and wheel in equal and oppisite sums. If this added unidirrectional force is equal or greater then the lacking kinetic energy required to reach its starting fall height then this design is overunity.
http://www.learner.org/exhibits/parkphysics/coaster/inspection.php3?m1=1&m2=4&m3=7&m4=14&m5=27&part1=1sthill1&part2=shape1a&part3=exit_a&part4=2ndhill1&part5=loop_c (http://www.learner.org/exhibits/parkphysics/coaster/inspection.php3?m1=1&m2=4&m3=7&m4=14&m5=27&part1=1sthill1&part2=shape1a&part3=exit_a&part4=2ndhill1&part5=loop_c)
So in this demo the cart is placed at a 80m height, it stores kinetic energy in the curved decline, then expends the energy in the sharp incline. The cart can reach a return height of 70m. If the coaster wasn't touching the track, lets say its floating on a magnetic field, the return height would be even closer to the fall height due to less friction. I hope this analysis makes sense to my fellow members and other readers.
Thanks for your continued research and interest.
~Dingus
Quote from: tropes on September 29, 2006, 06:50:48 PM
Mikestocks
I'm glad to see some good come from the many hours of work that went into the Bowman project. I have done some work using Mumetal as a shield on an actuator that I built a few years ago. The diagram and the wheel I used it on can be found here:http://www.fdp.nu/otherwheels/default.asp .I am still working on the same cam setup as is posted here but now I am using a pulse motor as the actuator. I have a photo of the actuator as well. If you are interested I will upload it to one of my sites.
Tropes
Sure go ahead with a link,
Thx
Mikestocks
I placed a couple of photos at the bottom of http://theowlnest.com/kickbypage.html .
The actuator is geared to the main wheel. There are two rotors on the actuator shaft. The neo magnets are placed in attract mode and the mumetal shielding covered the back half of these neos. Using this actuator was as close as I got to 360 degree rotation. A schematic drawing can be found at the Flying Dutchman site under "Other wheels"- "Peter".
Tropes
Hi tropes, Vaporwings if you still follow the forum, as I posted earlier
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1548.msg13201.html#msg13201
the following schematic is what the design modification is about
The two disks are counter rotating (gears in the the back etc like T, Goerz ?Vaporwings? setup.
Possibly the trick is to select proper thickness shield (soft iron per Gary's patent) and position the shield at the proper distance, actually position the wheels so the magnets are at the proper distance. It may need some experimenting.
Maybe The next step is to use the LEMA (Steorn?s patent) and have 2 shields at the lower 2 quadrants and more magnets to assure a plurality of magnets under the shields so the effect takes place....
Any thoughts welcome
Thanks
Mike
The diagram makes it much easier. As I told you, I found that with this configuration the magnets repelled before they passed the shield ( soft iron, two types of Mumetal ). When I extended the shield, the magnets were attracted to the shield. It may be a matter of adjustment but I would also consider going with a rotor and a stationary magnet. Grinding an angle on the magnet might also help, as per diagram.
Ok I see what you?ve done.
Here's what I tried:
In the following configuration the magnets do not get attracted to the shield.
2 disk magnets 1/8? thick by 5/8 Dia
Facing each other N-N
Shield: common steel sheet very thin about 4-5 copy paper thickness
Placed the shield about 3/32? using balsa wood for spacer between the magnets
Npole ? 3/32?spacer ? Shield ? 3/32?Spacer-Npole
The magnets do repel but not as strong repulsion. When I remove the shield the repulsion is much greater, cant even hold em aligned.
Also the thickness of the shielding material seems to be important for the above type of configuration. BTW, I also tried 1/6 thick plate and 1/8 and both magnets were attracted to it! I think there must be a relation between type of material, thickness and magnet strength. The magnets were from the local craft store, they had a label print of 2000 gauss on the box.
Vaporwing's setup (two counter rotating magnet mounting disks) would be great to test the addition of a vertical shield and few different spacing, thickness, material configurations.
Peter,
Your feedback is much appreciated.
Mike
There is a fine line between attraction and repulsion when you use shielding. You say,"The magnets do repel but not as strong repulsion." but there must be some force which overcomes this repulsion to force the magnet to the point where the repulsion rotates the wheel. BTW, I think the Vaporwings design crowds too many magnets into a small space. I think your design is better. Now you must commit to construction and don't be fooled by animation.
Peter
Quote from: tropes on October 11, 2006, 12:43:42 AM
Mike
There is a fine line between attraction and repulsion when you use shielding. You say,"The magnets do repel but not as strong repulsion." but there must be some force which overcomes this repulsion to force the magnet to the point where the repulsion rotates the wheel. BTW, I think the Vaporwings design crowds too many magnets into a small space. I think your design is better. Now you must commit to construction and don't be fooled by animation.
Peter
While it is true that animations can fool the eyes, but magnetic simulations have math to back them up.
http://femm.foster-miller.net/ (http://femm.foster-miller.net/)
Download it, use it, love it!
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on October 11, 2006, 04:28:45 AM
While it is true that animations can fool the eyes, but magnetic simulations have math to back them up.
http://femm.foster-miller.net/ (http://femm.foster-miller.net/)
Download it, use it, love it!
Animations may be fooling and simulations may have math to back them up, but there is an issue with both of them. They are 2D and we live and experiment in a 3D world. The FEMM simulator may be good for a few things, but there's always the 3rd dimension that it can't handle. I just don't believe a 2D simulator can properly demonstrate a 3D problem. The only real way to know is to build it, that's something no simulator can compare to.
If you build it in a simulator and it doesnt work, that's no reason to give up on the idea. If it works in the simulator, there's no guarantee it will work in the real world no matter how accurate the math is.
Does this overlap with the Zirbes device? Also a strange wheel discussed in the free energy YahooGroup run by Stefan Harti with spoon shaped wings and a mu-metal shielding feature?
Paul.
Quote from: tropes on October 11, 2006, 12:43:42 AM
Mike
There is a fine line between attraction and repulsion when you use shielding. You say,"The magnets do repel but not as strong repulsion." but there must be some force which overcomes this repulsion to force the magnet to the point where the repulsion rotates the wheel. BTW, I think the Vaporwings design crowds too many magnets into a small space. I think your design is better. Now you must commit to construction and don't be fooled by animation.
Peter
Yes that's the general idea when talking about differential net repulsive forces, with and without shield. We need to break the symmetry even if the break is small.
Basically we want lower repulsion when the magnets are shielded and higher when they are not as the test I posted above demonstrates.
All the magnets on the two disks have the N poles out and the wheel rotations are synchronized (gears of equal Pitch Dia and number of teeth in the back)
I can?t tell if Vaporwings model has too many or too few magnets. But he has build a ?wheel? already and it would be easier to adapt minor modifications to it rather than build the whole thing from scratch, as a starting test at least.:) As the old saying goes, why try to reinvent the wheel, focus on improving it.
I fully agree with all the posters about modeling theory and reality. Modeling on paper greatly assists the visualization process and helps debugging most of major issues. But the proof relies on actual physical working models. Theory is great to get to the ballpark but not always agrees with practice/reality. I recall way back when using FEA on SunSpark2 and the results, graphics and numbers for certain models looked ?great? but it was just about impossible to physically manufacture, mass produce the parts even with state of the art technology.
A side point on modeling.
Another issue about mathematical modeling when it is used for research close to the fringes of our knowledge base:
Modeling of any type is in essence a set of mathematical formulas using user input and providing some output. The premise is, these formulas are true and based on physics laws as we presently know them. History however, has shown repeatedly that many times we had to revise the laws in order to fit new discoveries observations and understandings. By default then, any present mathematical model may not be the best way to predict a new discovery.
Back to the project at hand, precision construction and friction minimization are also key factors
Construction at this very moment is much easier said than done, but viable.
I'm also exploring the idea of using ring magnets so gears and synchronization is not an issue. It may make the construction easier, build and test. Instead of discreet impulses it ?should? be a continuous smooth rotation
if it works.
Let?s say, ring magnets with the N pole on the outside wall and S pole on the inside. !
Thanks
Thanks
Quote from: juspot82 on October 11, 2006, 10:20:31 AM
I just don't believe a 2D simulator can properly demonstrate a 3D problem.
It will simulate the opposing wheel concept with a third dimension accurately, the only thing it can not simulate overlapping objects. Since there are no overlapping parts and all components share a common depth, it should be a very accurate way to find the best angles and magnet ratios to produce the torque needed for self start. You can go in blind on assumptions, but simulations can be quite useful in flushing out ideas like this.
But if a true third dimension is necessary you can work in Solidworks. I dont have a way to give you a free copy though. Its kinda expensive and super hard to teach ones self, but well worth the price for engineers who need proof of concept before dumping thousands in to a prototype.
Quote from: juspot82 on October 11, 2006, 10:20:31 AM
If it works in the simulator, there's no guarantee it will work in the real world no matter how accurate the math is.
Ummmm... yeah it does.... o_O
It can simulate all AC/DC motors, it'll even simulate static charge simulations like the testatica ML. If you would just download it, install it, read the tutorials, and work with the samples, you will find out it can easily and acurately calculate: angles of force, torque around a point, transformer outputs, induction, back EMF, and so much more...
All I'm trying to do is help out other members the best I can, and I really do believe this software could be useful to anyone experimenting in this field.
I reconstructed one of my old designs which didn't act as I hoped but might work better with shielding (weekend project). I uploaded video and photos to http://theowlnest.com/kickbypage.html . My early attempts with 2 shielded rotors didn't work well but ther is much to be learned by failure.
Peter
Dingus Mungus
?All I'm trying to do is help out other members the best I can, and I really do believe this software could be useful to anyone experimenting in this field?
Agreed, modeling software definitely has a very helpful place in the development process, as it helps focusing thoughts and visualizing the designs.
tropes
?My early attempts with 2 shielded rotors didn't work well but ther is much to be learned by failure.?
..as the ole saying goes, the greatest inventors have failed their way to success. Yep many if not all had to find all the ways that it doesn?t work first before the one that works became apparent. :)
We can only keep on trying...
I added a strip of Mumetal shielding between the rotor and the stators but it doesn't seem to make a difference. I uploaded a photo to http://theowlnest.com/kickbypage.html . I would like to hear from anyone who has tried to design a magnetic engine using the attraction force of magnets.
Peter