.
MY INVENTION : A 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' INVENTION, that only uses 'Permanent-Magnets' ( No Superconductors ), and requires 'NO ELECTRICITY'.
______________________
This invention is also :
- A NEW-TYPE OF MAGNETIC-BEARING
- A Levitating-Object which can move around a 'Track', very similar to the 'MEISSNER-EFFECT' demonstrations on Looped-Tracks , but mine 'Does-Not' require superconductors .
- A Levitating-Object-Display-Case. For Example, people could insert the 'Levitating-Object' into their model-planes or model-cars and they would levitate in the Display-Case or be moved along the above-mentioned Looped-Track.
______________________
HOW IT WORKS
Very simply, in the case of a 'MEISSNER-LIKE EFFECT-ON-A-CIRCULAR-TRACK' , the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface' has the shape of 2 O's( or 'O O' ), so that the field between the 2 O's( or 'O O' ) cradle the Levitating-Object( to attract it, and/or to repel it ).
Although the 'Levitating-Object' could contain magnets to attract it to the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface', and seperate magnets to repel it from the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface', I think it would be better to have AN-INNER-CIRCULAR-MAGNETIC-TRACK to attract the 'Levitating-Object', and an OUTER-CIRCULAR-MAGNETIC-TRACK to repel the 'Levitating-Object', OR Visa Versa' .
_____________________________
HOW MY INVENTION OCCURRED TO ME
When I realized the reason why my magnetic-toy-car-invention would not propel itself along the toy-circular-track, I was slightly amazed that one end of the car would just levitate without moving, so obviously I thought to just keep the levitating part of the magnetic-toy-car, and turn it into the above invention.
_____________________________
CONTACT ME, IF YOU KNOW OF A COMPANY THAT IS INTERESTED IN THIS INVENTION
- john.backerwww@gmail.com
- One Corporation is interested ( but they require me to sign a 'Special-Document' with them, just to talk to them ), but I cannot decipher their document.
- I have filed Provisional-Patent-Applications for this invention.
______________________
CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD LINK BELOW, TO DOWNLOAD OR VIEW THE 'DOCUMENT I HAVE ATTACHED' DESCRIBING HOW MY INVENTION WORKS ( it also contains a cross-section diagram of my magnetic-circular-track )
I do not see how you have dealt with Earnshaw's Theorem. There have been passive magnetic bearings developed that get around Earnshaw's Theorem once the bearings are in motion. See for example: http://www.magneticsmagazine.com/main/channels/magneticsassemblies/passive-magnetic-bearing-prototype-testing-results/.
.
I have not built a working model of this invention. ( I can not build anything )
I think that the configurations and spacing of the magnetic forces in my invention, may get around the problems associated with 'Earnshaw's theorem'.
________
- 'Earnshaw's theorem' - I assume( 'I only assume' ) that that 'Theorem' says that an object 'between' two 'permanent-magnets' will not levitate 'stably' between two 'permanent-magnets', OR, in the case of a magnetic-bearing, that the inner-bearing-object will not levitate 'stably' .
MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' IS NOT BETWEEN TWO 'PERMANENT-MAGNETS', MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' IS ALWAYS ON TOP OF THE 'PERMANENT-MAGNET-CIRCULAR-TRACK' , OR, ON TOP OF THE 'TWO' 'PERMANENT-MAGNET-CIRCULAR-TRACKS' , ONE 'TRACK' FOR ATTRACTION, AND ONE 'TRACK' FOR REPULSION.
SUITABLE SPACING BETWEEN ALL THE MAGNETS
- All the separate magnets in my invention have suitable spacing between each other, so as not to interfere with each other ( suitable spacing between the magnets that are not intended to interact with each other ).
( MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' can be on top of, or underneath, or in any direction away from the 'magnetic-track' or 'magnetic-tracks' from which it being 'Levitated' .
____________________
QUOTE : ""There have been passive magnetic bearings developed that get around Earnshaw's Theorem once the bearings are in motion""
- I had that idea years ago ( it seemed similar to the overall 'balancing out' effect of a gyroscope ), but I assumed that I was not the first to think it up, and that it probably already existed, and back then I could not find a suitable way to 'claim it as my invention' .
What have you done to establish that your idea could work?
Obviously, I'm relying on anyone interested in this invention, and the companies I present it to, to build a prototype, to prove, or disprove it's ability to function .
At the moment, I do not know that anyone has built a prototype of it .
( Part of the problem has been, that I had some big problems in filing my 'Provisional Patent Applications' , and most companies in the 'European-Union' won't talk to you until you have been issued a 'Patent Filing' number, and I had to fix up a lot of problems with my 'Provisional Patent Applications'.
The Patent Laws outside of the European-Union( US, Canada, Asia etc ) are much better, they allow you to first 'Publish' your invention in 'Public', so that you can present your invention to companies, and if they think your invention is viable, you can ask them to properly write and draw your Patent-Application , and pay the associated costs.
NOTE : I have lost my right to Patent my invention in the European-Union, I already new that would happen when I published my invention . But I can still Patent in the US, Canada, Asia etc )
Definitely, don't start a discussion on Patent subjects, you'll get dizzy and ill. )
One big US company replied to me, and asked me to 'Sign A Waiver' of disclosure of information in order to discuss my invention with me, the 'Waiver' looks OK, but since I'm not a lawyer, I do not really know what I would be signing.
_________________________________________
If anyone knows of any US company, or any company anywhere else ( that doesn't mind I have lost my right to Patent my invention in the European-Union ), and does not require me to sign anything just to talk to me, then put them in contact with me john.backerwww@gmail.com
If you have not even done hand calculations, then odds are that this is not going to work because it is going to run smack into Earnshaw's Theorem. As you probably know, the attracting or repelling force between two magnets or in a reluctance gap tends to be very non-linear. What Earnshaw's Theorem asserts is that you cannot come up with a stable static magnet configuration. The system will have positive feedback which will either drive the magnets off of each other, or snap together. You can think of it as trying to balance a marble on the top of a cone.
If you have come up with a way to get around Earnshaw's Theorem or to prove it wrong, then you probably have something valuable. If you just have a raw idea and haven't done any calculations to check the idea's viability, then chances are the idea doesn't work.
Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 11:41:23 AM
MY INVENTION
Hi. I'm trying to visualize your idea. Are these images correct?
MagnaProp , no, that's not actually the same as my invention
IN MY FIRST POST FOR THIS THREAD, I ATTACHED A DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS A 'CROSS-SECTION-DIAGRAM' OF MY MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, BUT, YOU WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY CLICK ON THE LINK TO THE DOCUMENT, TO OPEN IT.
( But all sorts of different versions and configurations of my invention could exist, I don't know if yours would work or not )
THE 'MAGNETIC-CRADLING-EFFECT' OF MY INVENTION IS MORE BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE, IN THE IMAGE BELOW ( PASTE THE ADDRESS BELOW INTO YOUR BROWSER SITE ADDRESS FIELD ), OR CLICK ON THE LINK
( NOTE : IF I CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW, MY BROWSER JUST DOWNLOADS THE IMAGE, AND THEN I HAVE TO CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD TO VIEW IT )
http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image//
Hopefully, the picture will still be there when you go to it
__________
At the moment, one of the other members has been having me a little bit worried about 'Earnshaw's Theorem', which I'm about the post a reply to , BUT, I HAVE JUST REALIZED, THAT THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT FULLY REALIZE THAT MY INVENTION IS BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE IN THE ABOVE PICTURE.
.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE : - MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF 'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE' OF MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.
BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, I.E. TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .
THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST', COULD BE DONE WITH THOSE PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS 'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER' ( such as plastic food containers for the freezer ) .
( THIS PARTICULAR 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' WOULD BE USEFULL TO 'MAYBE' 'DISPROVE' 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM', AND IT ALSO CONTAINS A 'CRADLING' EFFECT, WHICH MY INVENTION CONTAINS, BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS )
( Unfortunately though, these containers are slightly flexible, so ............ )
_________________
SCENARIO 1
On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are the same strength as the magnets used for 'repulsion' )
In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
In this scenario, I'm not actually sure what would happen .
________________________
SCENARIO 2
On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are 'WEAKER THAN' the magnets used for 'repulsion' )
In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a 'STRONGER' strength than the magnets used for attraction above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
In this scenario, again, I'm not totally sure what would happen .
________________________
SCENARIO 3 - THE SPECIAL SCENARIO
THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO, IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE 'DISTANCE' BETWEEN 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER' , AND, 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' .
For this scenario, repeat 'SCENARIO 1', but now either 'INCREASE', OR 'DECREASE' , the distance between either 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER', OR, between 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' , BREAKING THE 'SYMMETRY' OF THESE TWO DISTANCES.
In this scenario, I really cannot work out what would happen.
________________________
Unfortunately, I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.
Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 08:56:45 PM
.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE : - MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF 'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE' OF MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.
On what basis do you believe that your arrangement gets around Earnshaw's Theorem?
Quote
BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, I.E. TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .
What is the "Meissner-like" behavior that you claim your arrangement of conventional permanent magnets exhibits?
Quote
THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST', COULD BE DONE WITH THOSE PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS 'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER' ( such as plastic food containers for the freezer ) .
( THIS PARTICULAR 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' WOULD BE USEFULL TO 'MAYBE' 'DISPROVE' 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM', AND IT ALSO CONTAINS A 'CRADLING' EFFECT, WHICH MY INVENTION CONTAINS, BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS )
( Unfortunately though, these containers are slightly flexible, so ............ )
_________________
SCENARIO 1
On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are the same strength as the magnets used for 'repulsion' )
In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
In this scenario, I'm not actually sure what would happen .
________________________
SCENARIO 2
On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are 'WEAKER THAN' the magnets used for 'repulsion' )
In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a 'STRONGER' strength than the magnets used for attraction above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).
In this scenario, again, I'm not totally sure what would happen .
________________________
SCENARIO 3 - THE SPECIAL SCENARIO
THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO, IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE 'DISTANCE' BETWEEN 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER' , AND, 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' .
For this scenario, repeat 'SCENARIO 1', but now either 'INCREASE', OR 'DECREASE' , the distance between either 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER', OR, between 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' , BREAKING THE 'SYMMETRY' OF THESE TWO DISTANCES.
In this scenario, I really cannot work out what would happen.
________________________
Unfortunately, I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.
Why don't you explain why you believe any of these tests should work the way you hope.
Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 08:54:16 PM
MagnaProp , no, that's not actually the same as my invention...
I'll give it one more shot. Is one of these it?
Yes, the first picture in your last post( 3_V magneticTrack.jpg ), is basically the best embodiment ( version ) of my invention, although I have not checked the actual poles( but different configurations of the poles can exist )
And, the concept of your second picture ( 4_V magneticTrack.jpg ), is also mentioned in my Patent-Description.
( Obviously, the quality of your images, is what I should have submitted to 'The Patent Office' in my 'Patent-Description', but I don't care too much )
For the member asking how my invention could get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .
In the worst scenario, in which my invention could fail, 'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION' if it was just functioning on a steady tabletop, check the post by MagnaProp ( Today at 06:33:51 AM ), and examine the picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg , the 'Levitating-Object' could be pushed 'BY HAND' around the 'Magnetic-Circular-Track', like the 'Meissner Effect' demonstrations on looped tracks.
And the second picture 4_V magneticTrack.jpg , may be easier to manufacture .
But Picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg could be made out of numerous small flat round magnets.
( Keep in mind, all types of different 'magnetic-pole' configurations and combinations could be used to make this function.
_________________
However, my invention is intended to function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated, but it is still an incredibly simple invention.
It is only in this 'AGAINST-GRAVITY' functionality that I do not actually know if my invention can get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
To make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY' , I have described two possible options :
1 - The 'Levitating-Object' could have some magnets to attract it to a single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track', and other magnets to repel it from the single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track'
2 - The second option would be to have two 'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks', one 'track' being used to repel the 'Levitating-Object', and the other 'track' being used to attract the 'Levitating-Object' .
If no other solutions would work to get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' to make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', I was thinking of 'SCENARIO 3' in my post 'Today at 02:56:45 AM' , or a modification 'SCENARIO 3'
______________________
I should add, that 'ANOTHER' way to achieve a totally 'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case', could be simply to put the levitating-object between a field above it, that repels it, and a field below it, that repels it, using the magnetic-cradle field designs in my invention, but my full invention has many more applications than just a 'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case'
Quote from: guest1289 on August 11, 2015, 11:07:35 AM
For the member asking how my invention could get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .
In the worst scenario, in which my invention could fail, 'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION' if it was just functioning on a steady tabletop, check the post by MagnaProp ( Today at 06:33:51 AM ), and examine the picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg , the 'Levitating-Object' could be pushed around the 'Magnetic-Circular-Track', like the 'Meissner Effect' demonstrations on looped tracks.
And the second picture 4_V magneticTrack.jpg , may be easier to manufacture .
But Picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg could be made out of numerous small flat round magnets.
( Keep in mind, all types of different 'magnetic-pole' configurations and combinations could be used to make this function.
_________________
However, my invention is intended to function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated, but it is still an incredibly simple invention.
It is only in this 'Anti-Gravity' functionality that I do not actually know if my invention can get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
To make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY' , I have described two possible options :
1 - The 'Levitating-Object' could have some magnets to attract it to a single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track', and other magnets to repel it from the single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track'
2 - The second option would be to have two 'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks', one 'track' being used to repel the 'Levitating-Object', and the other 'track' being used to attract the 'Levitating-Object' .
If no other solutions could be found to get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem', I was thinking of 'SCENARIO 3' in my post 'Today at 02:56:45 AM'
______________________
you are onto something there.
i too have questions about this being possible.
one thing that seems to convince me is when looking at how a linear permanent magnet rail gun seems to work.
though this is not involving using magnets to levitate, a levitating bearing system that remains stable enough for a added rotor could be possible to reduce wear and friction.
arrange the stator magnets as shown to work already in linear arrangement this way exactly, though making the proper diameter remain within the passing rotors magnet's( magnet rail guns projectile, projectile(s) now attached to a rotor) angle of approach.
could it be that simple?
or does it need help from either a combination of a few other possible considerations?
such as a clutch that works with a tensioning coil / torque converter that can store the built up force that occurs during the movement past the stators magnets, to help it complete revolutions.
or a flywheel included with the torque converter, maybe a flywheel without a torque converter even.
or electro magnets placed at the right location fed power from the rotation of other sets of magnets passing wire coils that are either attached to the rotor and the stator, to help cancel out the cogging effect that the rails rotor and stator magnets run into.
these things make me wonder.
have not seen any arrangement of magnets anywhere yet that conforms to this concept, yet seen many other different ones.
there is also slow self charging capacitors being developed, batteries that can run for years without needing recharging, and still more than those above mentioned, and combinations thereof.
so if one idea alone does not work, using more than one idea to help make another one possible would make the next logical step before giving up and moving onto something else should any other working proof of concepts become more useful for ones invested time and just waiting to find out if some working design is developed somewhere else.
the goal is to be more efficient than using solar or windpower and be of reasonable build cost.
until that happens, if it happens, these test projects can end up being expensive if no recycled
components are to be found.
a important thing is that the person working on their projects enjoys what they are doing, even if there is no winning the lotto by that person who is making such attempts.
and knows at least just enough about the safety of working around their projects materials!
HAS 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' BEEN VIOLATED
Now I'm wondering if the part( principle ) of my invention which has already been proven to function, violates 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .
Below you can examine this principle in it's purest form ( 1 ), and how it is implemented in my invention ( 2 ) .
( 1 ) - http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image// ( this principle has existed for many years )
( 2 ) - And the above principle implemented in my invention ( Look at the post on August 11, 2015, 06:33:51 AM , and examine 3_V magneticTrack.jpg )
Has 'Earnshaw's Theorem' been violated, or is this some sort of special exception from the theory( and mentioned as an 'exception' in the descriptions of 'Earnshaw's Theorem' ) ?
Quote from: guest1289 on August 12, 2015, 03:11:36 PM
HAS 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' BEEN VIOLATED
Now I'm wondering if the part( principle ) of my invention which has already been proven to function, violates 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .
Below you can examine this principle in it's purest form ( 1 ), and how it is implemented in my invention ( 2 ) .
( 1 ) - http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image// ( this principle has existed for many years )
That depends on whether the shaft always stays clear of the posts on the left, and the post on the right.
Quote
( 2 ) - And the above principle implemented in my invention ( Look at the post on August 11, 2015, 06:33:51 AM , and examine 3_V magneticTrack.jpg )
Has 'Earnshaw's Theorem' been violated, or is this some sort of special exception from the theory( and mentioned as an 'exception' in the descriptions of 'Earnshaw's Theorem' ) ?
Have you performed any kind of mathematical analysis on how you expect your proposal will function?
Just to make it simpler to answer the question, LETS TOTALLY FORGET ABOUT MY INVENTION , only to simplify this particular question.
You can see the 'PRINCIPLE' actually functioning without any noticeable problems( visually noticeable ) in the image below :
http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image//
( your browser may only download the image, and then you have to click on the download to view it )
This 'magnetic-bearing' in the above photo has been replicated in hundreds of youtube videos, and functions without any noticeable problems .
SO, in the image at the URL above, and in the hundreds of youtube replications, has 'Earnshaw's Theorem' been violated ?
( NOTE : For my own purposes, I should type that a new type of magnetic-bearing could be based on the above principle in the image at the aboce URL , and instead 'flattish-round magnets', magnetic-tubes/pipes could be used, for example, 4 pipes arranged in a circle, and the 'bearing' or moving-part spins in the middle of the circle )
Quote from: guest1289 on August 12, 2015, 03:55:36 PM
Just to make it simpler to answer the question, LETS TOTALLY FORGET ABOUT MY INVENTION , only to simplify this particular question.
You can see the 'PRINCIPLE' actually functioning without any noticeable problems( visually noticeable ) in the image below :
http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image//
( your browser may only download the image, and then you have to click on the download to view it )
This 'magnetic-bearing' in the above photo has been replicated in hundreds of youtube videos, and functions without any noticeable problems .
SO, in the image at the URL above, and in the hundreds of youtube replications, has 'Earnshaw's Theorem' been violated ?
It looks to me like the suspended shaft is up against the front post on the left. So no, it does not look to be violating Earnshaw's Theorem. Rather it seems to be an example of it.
Yes, that has answered the question.
While you were typing, I may have invented a new-type-of-magnetic-bearing, and I put it into the post containing my question, as a modification of the post.
I have pasted it below :
( NOTE : For my own purposes, I should type that a new type of magnetic-bearing could be based on the above principle in the image at the aboce URL , and instead of 'flattish-round magnets', magnetic-tubes/pipes could be used, for example, 4 pipes arranged in a circle, and the 'bearing' or moving-part spins in the middle of the circle )
The following is fairly useless, but it would look great
Imagine boats floating on a large-flat-magnetic-field ( the field would be curved up at the edges so the boats don't fall out ), and the boats could have little weights hanging from their keels to give them stability
Now I can't work out why the following idea would not work .
( I would have thought this idea would have been possible for well over a century, and that if it was possible, I would already have seen it sometime )
( Obviously the large-flattish-magnet providing the magnetic-field for the boats to float on, would have an unusual shape to successfully achieve the effect )
Idea :
'Imagine boats floating on a very-large-flat-magnetic-field ( the magnetic-field would be curved up at the edges so the boats don't fall out ), and the boats could have little weights hanging from their keels to give them stability'
The easiest way to achieve my idea/invention below, would be for the boat containing permanent-magnets, to be repelled/levitated above a flat-surface made of a diamagnetic-material like bismuth
Idea/Invention
'Imagine boats floating on a very-large-flat-magnetic-field ( the magnetic-field would be curved up at the edges so the boats don't fall out ), and the boats could have little weights hanging from their keels to give them stability'
I red and saw a video from a russian clever inventor,shows a way to link to magnets without contact...interesting indeed.
(+++)(-) (+-)
You could use that to achieve a way to tracht(traction) two bodies linked witout contact...i don't remember the name of the linkage---
Below, are 3 diagrams showing 3 different methods for this toy levitation idea .
( NOTE : This is not the 'Invention' for which this thread was created, check the original posts )
( I cannot build anything , and I don't have any diamagnetic materials , etc, etc )
Quote from: Gabriele on August 27, 2015, 02:53:57 PM
I red and saw a video from a russian clever inventor,shows a way to link to magnets without contact...interesting indeed.
(+++)(-) (+-)
You could use that to achieve a way to tracht(traction) two bodies linked witout contact...i don't remember the name of the linkage---
Sigh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUihboGkJnE
Can be done with flat magnets too, as detailed in Nikolayev's Russian book.
Quote from: guest1289 on August 27, 2015, 07:03:59 PM
Below, are 3 diagrams showing 3 different methods for this toy levitation idea .
( NOTE : This is not the 'Invention' for which this thread was created, check the original posts )
( I cannot build anything , and I don't have any diamagnetic materials , etc, etc )
I can build things, and have built things, and I can tell you _once again_ that your idea does not and will not work. But don't take my word for it... figure out some way to get around your "can't build anything" meme and do some experimentation of your own, if you don't believe those who can and do build things.
You need a point of rigid contact like the Mendocino system, or spin-stabilization like the original Levitron, or active feedback-controlled electromagnetic stabilization like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkiGTWODERo
or superconductivity and flux pinning, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRby1Wilv-Q
Not only do I believe you when you say my inventions won't work, but I can see much more obvious proof supporting what you say.
My inventions are so incredibly simple and obvious, that they would have been invented over a hundred years ago, and if they worked, I would already have seen working examples.
( I know you did read that the little floating-objects in this toy-invention, would have weights extending down from their bottom, to prevent them from flipping , to give stabilize them, a combo of gravity and magnetic-levitation )
( my only experimenting is with little flat-disc shaped magnets, the shape of watch batteries, I cannot do more than that )
As you can see, whatever you type, can't quite stop my slight doubt and curiosity, but at the same time I know everyone here with your experience knows my inventions cannot work
Quote from: guest1289 on August 27, 2015, 09:58:19 PM
Not only do I believe you when you say my inventions won't work, but I can see much more obvious proof supporting what you say.
My inventions are so incredibly simple and obvious, that they would have been invented over a hundred years ago, and if they worked, I would already have seen working examples.
( I know you did read that the little floating-objects in this toy-invention, would have weights extending down from their bottom, to prevent them from flipping , to give stabilize them, a combo of gravity and magnetic-levitation )
( my only experimenting is with little flat-disc shaped magnets, the shape of watch batteries, I cannot do more than that )
As you can see, whatever you type, can't quite stop my slight doubt and curiosity, but at the same time I know everyone here with your experience knows my inventions cannot work
it is sometimes good to be stubborn.
you may or may not be onto something, after you do some tests of things on your own, the value in hands on education will prove itself at least useful.
it is wise to allow considerations of others as constructive criticism, those with a strong working knowledge about how things that do work, do work.
it can seem non constructive, though maybe their insights are worth considering too should any of it be helpful with your being able to succeed, or even to prove their usually valid points.
have a idea of a design myself, still going to work on developing it until which time i hit too solid of a wall, or break through it.
safely though.
Here's some incredibly simple levitation-methods ( Diagram Below ), I can't see why something based on these types of principles would not work
A big enough repelling-surface on the bottom of the floating-object would overcome/ignore the individual merge-points on the ground-repelling-surface
Quote from: guest1289 on August 29, 2015, 02:29:14 PM
Here's some incredibly simple levitation-methods ( Diagram Below ), I can't see why something based on these types of principles would not work
A big enough repelling-surface on the bottom of the floating-object would overcome/ignore the individual merge-points on the ground-repelling-surface
that seems probable, provided there is multiple magnets held using a mounting frame in series that is shown in the diagram.
the floating object would need some sort of railing to operate inside of, or its floating direction would be difficult to control.
the hoverboard that works on this principle has not been able to compare to a regular skateboard for directional control.
perhaps extra magnetic fields placed at sides can become rails to regulate drift pattern the same way that the tracks ground surface fields do, without needing to make contact with the floating object. or even better, if possible using a gyroscope to control objects directional movement.
i wonder, do those high speed maglev trains ever make contact with the track it travels over, or is that friction removed using something like what is mentioned above..
This has a lot of potential ( but mainly as toys/novelty-items/decorative-items )
( My original idea for this was boats/planes floating on a large lake etc )
BISMUTH IS A SIMPLER SOLUTION
A much easier solution would just be a flat sheet of a 'Diamagnetic material' like 'Bismuth' , then the magnets on the boats/planes could just float above with fewer problems, the boats would have small weights hanging from the bottom to stabilize them, or they could be catamarans .
But I like the challenge of an all 'permanent-magnet' solution .
( Remember, the little individual magnets on the GROUND, could be also be set on THEIR-SIDES, so that they could point NORTH-TO-SOUTH horizontally, THEREFORE, they could be placed in four ADDITIONAL possible different directions, creating even more diversity in the GRID.
So there would be a total of 6 possible orientations for the individual magnets on the GRID . But there could be more if you started setting magnets at diagonal positions( and some very interesting effects/positions/results exist at diagonal positions )
Maybe a GRID like this could be designed to be a MAGNET-MOTOR , and the LEVITATING-OBJECT could be the rotor .
But, assuming an object you make will float on this GRID, and you then circle( corral ) the LEVITATING-OBJECT with some more magnets so that it will stay in one place , WILL THIS GET AROUND 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' .
If you can make any working prototypes of this, that would be great ( I cannot make anything unfortunately ).
Quote from: guest1289 on August 29, 2015, 10:54:15 PM
This has a lot of potential ( but mainly as toys/novelty-items/decorative-items )
( My original idea for this was boats/planes floating on a large lake etc )
BISMUTH IS A SIMPLER SOLUTION
A much easier solution would just be a flat sheet of a 'Diamagnetic material' like 'Bismuth' , then the magnets on the boats/planes could just float above with fewer problems, the boats would have small weights hanging from the bottom to stabilize them, or they could be catamarans .
-i am thinking gravity would prevent the use of diamagnetic material if used to try to resist a magnet.
the magnets would not hover over it, unless super cooled, cooling would not be cheap or able to reproduce itself.
diamagnetic materials are useful for shielding areas of magnet surfaces to help resist other magnetic fields from other magnets, if i'm correct about that.
But I like the challenge of an all 'permanent-magnet' solution .
( Remember, the little individual magnets on the GROUND, could be also be set on THEIR-SIDES, so that they could point NORTH-TO-SOUTH horizontally, THEREFORE, they could be placed in four ADDITIONAL possible different directions, creating even more diversity in the GRID.
So there would be a total of 6 possible orientations for the individual magnets on the GRID . But there could be more if you started setting magnets at diagonal positions( and some very interesting effects/positions/results exist at diagonal positions )
Maybe a GRID like this could be designed to be a MAGNET-MOTOR , and the LEVITATING-OBJECT could be the rotor .
But, assuming an object you make will float on this GRID, and you then circle( corral ) the LEVITATING-OBJECT with some more magnets so that it will stay in one place , WILL THIS GET AROUND 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' .
-breaking the laws of electro mechanical physics is allowed, providing it does not interfere with any radiowave based telemetry and guidance systems of vehicles, pacemakers, DBS implants or even this that uses gamma radiation in conjunction with magnetic materials. http://shg.sheffield.ac.uk/news-articles/mri-scanners-can-steer-tumour-busting-viruses-to-specific-target-sites-within-the-body/
If you can make any working prototypes of this, that would be great ( I cannot make anything unfortunately ).
if you can make your own low powered magnets, (magnetizing materials) this might be more affordable, though it might not be enough magnetic force, unless making electromagnets.
modifying preexisting magnets shapes are possible too if non spherical results are expected, if you find some you can recycle.
adhering ferro magnetic material onto surfaces of other materials might be of use.
i am much thinking about a rotor stator configuration lately.
based on a concept from a linear permanent magnet rail gun that is known to work in linear.
perhaps in non linear mode of operation it too can work, not sure yet until reasonable testing shows i'm wrong as i suspect it could.
there is alot of force though being generated with properly aligned permanent magnet rail gun, and that is what makes me wonder.
should i source out some more magnets eventually, levitation experiments will also be conducted such as the one you believe bismuth would be used in. though i still do not understand why you chose dielectric materials for a track surface, and will try just working with magnets being fastened in place with non conductive material insulators such as wood or plastic.
.
yes, the linear Permanent-Magnet-Rail-Guns is exactly the reason why so many people still wonder if a rotating-magnet-motor could be made to work successfully .
And, Permanent-Magnet-Rail-Guns is a bigger subject than it seems, because so many different designs of Permanent-Magnet-Rail-Guns can exist .
There are also devices very similar to rail-guns, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy
And, some of these devices have unusual methods of ensuring that the metal-ball does actually leave the end of rail-gun / track ( instead of getting stuck in the end ) .
If the Track/Gun moves a metal-ball up a hill, then you can put a hole in the track near the top of the hill, and this will allow the metal-ball to leave the device.
Look at the Simple_Magnetic_Overunity_Toy( SMOT ) in the wikipedia-page above, at the end of the track , they have made one edge of the track slightly longer than the other edge ( breaking the symmetry ), which will allow the metal-ball to leave the device .
NOW, Imagine, if there was a perfectly-round-planet( no hills , just as smooth as a table ), and then you placed many of these SMOTS ( or other rail-guns ) all in a single line, right around the planet, then the metal-ball should continue moving right around the planet until something breaks ( achieving perpetual-motion, overunity ) .
( NOTE : I think that the devices like SMOTS are intended to move the metal-ball up a hill, instead of just along a flat/horizontal surface, so, they also involve gravity, which may be different to rail-guns , but I think they are the same thing )
ALSO, don't forget the V-Gate devices and designs .
NOTE : I can not( will not ) be building anything at all , the reasons are not important.
( I assume the easiest way to make a magnetic-lake to have magnetic-boats floating on it, is to use Diamagnetism, a flat surface made of Bismuth( or other diamagnetic material ), and the boats/panes would contain small magnets to float over the flat diamagnetic surface.
Note : But, I assume that Magnets levitating above other Magnets, would levitate much higher, than Magnets levitating above Bismuth ( or other commonly available diamagnetic materials ).
But , one ADVANTAGE of trying to achieve the levitation by just using Permanet-Magnets , is in case a perpetual-motion effect is would be discovered , some configuration/pattern that could cause the floating-object to rotate perpetually .
( and one possible configuration/pattern to achieve that could be rail-gun( or SMOT or V-Gate ) designs which are shaped and adapted to move in a circle )
Guest1289, you don't do anything yourself, but evidently thinking you are also no good. V-gate cannot provide more force than its closest magnet. While a field line chain provides real propulsion, like in my experiment https://archive.org/details/Flcm3 (https://archive.org/details/Flcm3) . Well that is, you understand it if you think, but you don't think, you only talk what comes to your mind.
One may try my experiment with magnetic bearings. i don't know, i have not tried magnetic bearings, but maybe it can be just as the drawing below. Again sorry for bad drawing, and you may think that the box around is transparent. The magnet on the axis and the bearing magnets face each other with the same poles [edited]. Hope you get an idea, the bearing is just so that, the magnet on the axis "sits" between the magnetic fields of the two magnets, thus cannot move sidewise. And it cannot move towards the bearing magnets, because of repulsion. So the axis is held between between the bearings, should well stay in place. Just a wild idea that came to my mind, and i have not thought it through at all, so i could get it wrong, don't argue it's any good.
Guest1289, but anyway, you get the magnets, like buy from supermagnete, or ebay or anything, but i have not tried other stores. And get some cardboard and adhesive tape, and maybe mounting tape, maybe some pencil, too. And try it out, do something, do at least something.
.
Yes, that has a chance of working
And, those extra two magnets you have attached to the middle of the axle, could be replaced with a large-diameter magnetic-disk .
But, of course, the thing that has to be overcome , is the following thing in brackets, which you have highlighted .
( In the normal version of this type of bearing, the rotating magnet is always being repelled in one direction along the axis of the axle. But, I would have thought that that could be largely or partly addressed by correct configurations of all the magnets involved . )
Your design( or replacing it with a disc ), could overcome it. But the increase in weight, could be to heavy to levitate.
( Yes, unfortunately I can't build anything. There's nothing I can do about that .
But I do play with small watch-battery shaped magnets. )
( Drawing diagrams by hand and posting the photos is what I would do too, but for me that involves too much hassle with cables and things. Doing everything using Paint makes me very tired etc.
You could crop your photos more.
I wonder if you resized your photos , if it would make some details/lines invisible, it probably would )
Why don't they start a competition, to see who will be the first person to properly get around 'Earnshaws Theorem' .
________________
( I have already posted 2 solutions to make my toy/novelty idea of magnetic-boats/planes floating above a magnetic-lake, function successfully .
( 1 ) Easiest solution is, make a flat surface of Bismuth( or other Diamagnetic material ), and the magnetic-boats/planes should float above it with minimal difficulty. The boats could have little weights hanging from their keels for stability, or they could be large flat catamarans.
BUT, I doubt that the boats/planes would float very high above the GROUND-MAGNETIC-SURFACE 'if' it was made of Bismuth( or other commonly available Diamagnetic materials ) .
( 2 ) SO, The GROUND-MAGNETIC-SURFACE could be made of numerous individual magnets very slightly spaced from each other, and then the magnetic surface area of the floating boats/planes would be so large that it would not notice the individual merge-points of the GROUND-MAGNETIC-SURFACE
________________
Quote from: guest1289 on August 30, 2015, 03:54:35 PM
.
Yes, that has a chance of working
And, those extra two magnets you have attached to the middle of the axle, could be replaced with a large-diameter magnetic-disk .
Thank you, i feel better :)
Then why cannot you do anything, these watch-battery shape magnets may be all you need. If they are neodymium, they are strong, and several on each other, makes them even stronger. Believe me, you don't need anything but cardboard, and some adhesive tape. Cardboard you can get from some cardboard boxes, everyone has some of these. Be creative, and you can make things almost out of nothing.
Scissors are the maximum cutting tool i have ever used for projects like these, i never go so far as using knife. And i never use glue, adhesive tape and mounting tape should do. Just think through the forces, sticking force, repulsing force, tying force. And the strength of the material, like cardboard is very strong side wise. And make everything as simple as possible, of course.
It appears that 'My-Levitating-Object-Invention' that I started this thread for, may actually be possible . ( this invention intends to levitate an object above 2 separate circular-magnetic-tracks, but it may be possible using just one circular-magnetic-track , amazing )
( Imagine a Light-Dimmer-Switch/Dial which floats in mid-air away from its wall-mounting ( that it levitates at any angle relative to gravity )
No need to comment about this, I'm just posting this to post it