I am reposting this topic,
as it was corrupted and I restored it from the database.
Attachments, if there were any were lost.
So I ask user:
mapsrg
to repost them to this thread.
Many thanks.
Here is the old thread:
========================
magnetic gravity wheel
This has potential.
A larger wheel with smaller wheels
mounted on it .
The smaller wheels are guided by fixed external
magnets into paths that unbalance the larger wheel.
12 or more, even 200 wheels,
could be mounted with only 2 being
flipped at top and bottom of rotation
lets see an animation or drawing.
thanks :)
see
magnetic imbalance wheel
for another
illustration......
The small circles,d, are
the small mounted wheel.
The areas marked 2 are the fixed external magnets.
T, at top and
bottom of large wheel are the turning points of the smaller wheels.
The areas ,1, are magnets on the smaller wheels in repelling mode.
Direction,G, is the rotation direction.
The result of the external
magnets repelling the magnets
on the smaller wheels is the rotation of the larger wheel,
W,due to unbalance......
Closeup of zone ,
T,showing fixed external magnets,
2, repelling magnets on small wheels into new path,
P........L is the direction of rotation of the smaller wheels
mounted on the larger
wheel,
W, at the bottom of rotation of the larger wheel.
Quote
This has potential....
A larger wheel with smaller wheels mounted on it .
The smaller wheels are guided by fixed
external magnets
into paths that unbalance the larger wheel.
12 or more,even 200 wheels, could be mounted with only 2 being flipped at top and bottom of rotation
What
immediately spring to attention is that
there is more magnetic attraction on the
right side than on the left, because the magnetic circle is wider.
So while there is more weight on the right,
it is
not quite as heavy because of the additional magnetic forces
pulling it in various directions.
Are you referring to figure one?
this illustration is of the paths
taken by the magnets mounted on the smaller wheels
as they travel around the larger wheel
as it rotates.
Basically the
total unbalance effect causing rotation.
Quote from: mapsrg on September 22, 2007, 11:10:33 PM
Are you referring to figure one?
this illustration is of the paths taken by the magnets mounted on the smaller wheels <br
/>as they travel around the larger wheel
as it rotates.
Basically the total unbalance effect causing rotation.
I agree that there is an unbalace of mass on one side.
However, I
am not convinced there is an unbalance of weight,
since part of the mass is being drawn up and to the side by magnets.
The left side has less mass, but fewer magnets,
while the right side has
more mass and more magnets working against gravity.
My guess is that there will be no rotation.
here is an illustration of smaller
wheels on the larger wheel,
in this case 12,
note that the shaded areas of the small wheels are mounted with magnets .
Wouldn't the gravity be equalized on both sides of the wheel?
I mean, the gravity will not do anything at all.
Or have I misunderstood the drawings?
If gravity is the only thing to add foce to
rotate the polarity if the magnets,
you probably do not need magnets at all,
as gravity is the only force needed to spin the wheel.
Br.
Vidar
Gravity will only act to find balance,
your right ,
but to maintain rotation unbalance has to be maintained.
To achieve this magnetic repulsive forces are used to turn
a small wheel at the top and
bottom of rotation.
This causes the magnets mounted on the
smaller wheels to be turned further
away from the center of rotation
(at the top) or closer to the center of rotation (at the bottom) of
the larger wheel.
The fixed external magnets are more clearly seen in the
following illustration......these are with gravity the cause of rotation.
video of smaller wheel partially mounted
with ceramic magnets being repelled to turn by large ceramic magnet.
On the gravity wheel this rotation would occur at the top and bottom.
Dimensions:
Assuming the smaller wheels have a diameter of 100mm and there are twelve then
the circumference of the larger wheel would be @ 2.4M-3.6M
depending on the spacing.
A larger spacing is required if the rotation ,
top and bottom , of the smaller wheels is
to occur one after the other
and not at the same time as shown
Hi researcher,
do you mean a magnetic imballancer like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wcy0tedYBMg
I like the principles of continous imballancing magnetic arrangements.
You
have to work with a continous changing RND to make the magnets seeking forever the point of rest.
Have look at this principle and try to point out how it works.
Systems with more than one minima
or maxima to rest in peace have a verry long time till they rest.
Stay tuned
kaRLfunkel
nice video karl.
The magnetic gravity wheel uses gravity to provide rotation
once magnets repell smaller wheels into a state of unbalance
on a larger wheel.
There is no rest state
or
balance state.
An illustration of states of unbalance
and rest.
The shaded areas are weighted on a wheel that is
free to rotate due to gravity forces.
HI,
you have to put in two times the work to rise the potentional energy of the excentric small rollers.
Do you understand?
You rise the weights at low and at high T-point relative to their datum (point
of rotation).
This work package should be compared with the proposed higher momentum in one direction.
It's simple to calculate the momentum in static configuration:
Sum of all momentas
arround the datum of the big disc should be zero.
In dynamic case (e.g. self exciting) The sum is not zero.
The momentas are calculated by using the points of gravity of the small disks (experimentally
detected, I can tell you how, ask me) and
the vertical distance between datum of big wheel and datum of roller wheel.
Make a sum of all of them and watch what happened, don't forget the work to
rise the weights).
Sometimes there is plus, sometimes there is minus (when you rise your weights at low and high T).
It is definately a low rpm design.
But: A good NEW DESIGN
Greatful<br
/>kaRLfunkel
NdFeB magnets are very
powerful and should provide
some impressive repelling forces to boost the output
of the design...
I would appreciate any feedback and will answer all
questions.....
hopefully this week I can get the magnets
I need to complete a working model....
The video is of a small wheel illustrating the free turning speed
The large wheel mounted and ready for repelling magnets on the backboard and small wheels to be mounted to it...
The next stage...smaller wheels/discs mounted to larger wheel ready for repelling magnets to be fixed to back board...
top repelling magnets fixed to backboard....note two smaller wheels repelled into new path and approaching wheel uneffected.
Results from experimental setup
1.In full setup with magnets repelling smaller wheels into correct positions for rotation magnetic drag is not overcome
2.In static setup with smaller wheels set in above
positions with no magnets on backboard rotation occurs.
3.the offsetting wieght to stop rotation in static mode is @that of a smaller wheel.
To correct the above more weight was added to the smaller
wheels but this seemed to only be cancelled out by more drag due to greater repelling force requirements.
From the above results a design modification is required to just turn smaller wheels at top and
bottom of rotation without continous repelling forces required around the wheel.Further the larger wheel will need to be larger diameter with a greater number of smaller wheels mounted on it.
Smaller
wheels 100 mm diameter/Larger wheel diameter 650 mm.Mounting smaller wheels 40 mm inside circumference
tryed to post video of rotating wheel with an offset weight less than that of one smaller wheel assembly but it is too big to post......working on maximising the torque of the smaller wheels with a redistribution of
weight............
here is one of the attachments that were lost.Note the smaller wheels are repelled into a new path.
picture of small wheel,100 mm diameter.This diameter is currently being increased to gain greater offset advantage.
With 200mm Diameter smaller wheels a total of 520mm leverage advantage is gained to one side of the larger wheel to facilitate rotation .
see also Magnetic imbalance Wheel for a view of one of the lost diagrams of the magnetic gravity wheel.
I made the wheel got it to work statically ,with the smaller wheels fixed in thier final guided positions.I set up the magnetic guides and they successfully repelled the smaller wheels as envisioned.The rotation points at top and bottom work as planned.The only thing that didnt work out was that the number and or size of the smaller wheels was not enough to overcome the force needed to continuously cause rotation,ie the force to turn the two wheels top and bottom of the larger wheel.With twelve 100 diameter smaller wheels it required an offset weight equal to one wheel at 3 oclock to work.I am now faced with rebuiding the whole magnetic gravity wheel with specs to handle double the number of smaller wheels and allowing for these to be larger diameter if needed.I am extremely confident this will work....
Have you thought of old lawn mower wheels? Might be able to find a bunch of them at an old scrap metal yard. their axles aren't the best but the wheels make a solid platform to mount onto.
Getting a larger wheel than the cycle wheel I have to mount 24 100 diameter discs with 50 mm spacing is the current focus........I may go with plywood bolted to my existing bike wheel to increase its dimensions.Thanks for your interest.
have found a way to reduce the number of magnets to roughly half the number reqiured before to produce the same effect by restricting the rotation of the smaller wheels with a fixed pin attacted to the larger wheel (one for each smaller wheel).This greatly improves overall effeciency and is being incorporated in the latest model....
You have to see the attraction between two magnets as some kind of physical connection. Whether something is pushed by a magnet
or by some kind of mechanical contact, it doesn't really matter. The energy to turn the small wheels out of their prefered angle is taken from the torque of the big wheel.
(Please excuse me for being so negative. I only offer to utilize some of my experience with similar projects)
But maybe I'm wrong and this design is going to run - I would't be surprised since this world is pretty surreal anyway.
Hate to take this thread a little off-topic, but I don't know where else to post this.
How about using a SMOT rail to deliver ball bearings from the outside of the wheel to the hub? And another SMOT rail to deliver a ball bearings from the hub to the outer rim?
If you look up the SMOT rail you will see that it can move a ball bearing up an incline. I'm wondering if, you use weak magnets on the hub and the outer rim, you would have the ability to hold the ball bearings at either the hub or the outer rim. So, you set up a SMOT rail at, say, the 8:00 position that will take a ball bearing on the rim and carry it to the hub, where it will stick to a weak magnet.
Then, you set another SMOT rail at the hub that leads to the 2:00 position on the outer rim, where the weak magnet will hold the ball bearing until it reaches the SMOT rail at the 8:00 position again.
This would put the weights on the outer rim on the right side of the wheel and on the left side of the wheel the weights would be at the hub, creating an imbalance that should drive the wheel continuously.
Each side of the SMOT rail would have to be set up with the wheel in between the rails. (The SMOT rails are in a permanent position while the wheel spins between those SMOT rails. Each time a ball bearing is brought up to the SMOT rail it should take off to either the hub or the outer rim, depending on which SMOT rail it's hitting.) If possible, this would be a way to transfer the weights on the wheel and get a wheel that turns without stopping.
I don't know if any practical work can be done with a gravity motor, but I do think it could keep turning without having to add any power other than the SMOT rails. Does anyone see any major problems accomplishing this?
I believe this idea you have outlined has been discussed here and has merit of course we all need to actually build some working examples.........
Have made enquiries as to cost of a prototype and this is @$5000 nz$.This is the the cost including the best magnetsT for the purpose and built with all the proper bearings etc...This is too much for me at the moment.
Nice approach. Is there more details somewhere showing your principles of motion a bit more clear? I do not mean for this to sound like a negative post at all, but I'm not seeing where the extra energy is "hoped" to come from? I too am thinking the loss of torque from the magnet attraction, it countering the unbalance. Maybe I am missing something though?
A simple experiment will demonstrate what i mean.Take a round piece of cardboard and sellotape some coins around its edge (24).From 12oclock to 6 oclock the coins are up to the edge of the card.From 6 up to 12 on the rising side the coins are positioned one coin diameter back from the edge.IF the card is mounted to rotate on a rod through its centre you will find it will need @3 extra coins to balance and stop rotation at 9 oclock position.These extra coins represent the rotative energy available.
further to the above post.....the same experiment with twelve coins requires @1 coin at the 9 oclock position to balance the assembly.The same energy would be reqiured in both cases to actually turn the two smaller wheels on an actual working model but as these experiments show there is an increase in energy available as the number of coins increases.
The repelling magnets used to cause the imbalance state of the assembly do not cause any locking up of rotation but of course have an effect which is @1 coin (small wheel) at 3 oclock.
So between June and now we've made so much progress that we are gluing coins to cardboard wheels?
Is this another Archer Quinn thread?
Who? Ive been openly disclosing everything.... I would of liked to have some proffessional build a prototype and had it finished by now.
The problem with that, is that most professionals like to be paid for their work. But every once in a while you do find one that will do some work for free. You might not always like what you get, though.
You really should at least make your idea interesting and new enough, and plausible enough, to attract the professional's attention. Like Mondrasek did, sort of.
You can download and watch what happens when a professional does just what you suggest, here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug