Hi all,
I've been working on a gravity wheel design in another thread, but while working on it, I had an idea that I thought I would share. One of my older projects was a spiral motor. I couldn't get a viable method for overcoming the sticky spot. Looking back, I think the main problem was that my magnets were too strong for the amount of rotational energy that the wheel was abe to produce. It was like using hammer to crack an egg. In my current project, I've done away with magnets attraced to magnets and am working with magnets attracted to a simple ring of ferric material and the wheel run by gravity. The idea being that while attracted to the magnets, there is little or no resistance to horizontal movement.
While playing around with this, and noticing that portions of the ring are subject to an induced magnetic field. Kind of a Wesley Gray effect, I had a random thought. This could be used as a basis for a spiral motor design. The push to get over the sticky spot could be done by inducing an opposite charge just at or before hitting the point of lowest energy in the spiral. If multiple rotor magnets are used, would it be enough to push a sheld out of the way, exposing the stator to a field just strong enough to cancel or reverse the induced field created by the rotor magnet that's sitting at that point? Would the sum of the torque from all of the rest of the rotor magnets be enough to move the shield & push the single lowest one over the edge? Does anyone know of an inventor that has tried something like this? Does this deserve further research?
Here's the basic idea for the stator. Its a simple spiral of iron. The rotor can be made of a number of magnets,radially aligned on the rotor. Ideally, I only need to neutralize or reverse the field within a small area of the inside end of the spiral in order for the remaining magnets to push a single magnet over the edge My first inclination is to try a mechanical approach. I've spent this weekend dismantling quite a pile of junk to get an assortment of sheet metal, springs, shafts and bearings, so I have a good supply of machined parts to work with.
Please give feedback. Fully baked or still raw?
Hi,
I would suggest Helmut Goebkes's experiments to compensate similar sticky point you seem to defeat, see this link' attachments: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,828.msg8155.html#msg8155
Another approach is to use electromagnet exactly at the sticky point, member Honk in this forum has been working on such attempt (it is worth reading his full thread too): http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg74331.html#msg74331
Finally see attached P. Kostal's approach also with electromagnet from Stefan earlier (2003) yahoo free-energy group.
rgds, Gyula
@Gyulason,
Wow, thanks for the input. I didn't know about Goebkes. I'm surprised that he hasn't been able to tune the system so that his magnets stay below the hysteresis curve. I also saw Honks postings a while back. Sounds like he's getting promising results. I remember reading Spraig's posts here when I first joined. At the time, it seemed like a great initial idea but I didn't put much faith in his approaches to solve the sticky spot problem.
I've also seen a couple others like them too. As far as I know though, no one is taking the same approach that I am except maybe Goebkes. I don't put much faith in an electromagnetic solution. My thinking is that if you take part of the rotational energy, convert it electricity and then convert it back to an electromagnetic force, some amount of energy is lost at each conversion and ultimately, the only energy gained is equal to the torque minus the sum of the electromagnet(s) and all losses (which is quite a bit of loss).
What I want to do is to use a permanent magnet to overcome the sticky spot and only subtract that energy needed to cause a transition. I guess this is kind of like Honk's motor but with shielding instead of a coil. I want to eliminate any loss due to conversion by using a strictly mechanical approach and keeping it simple-stupid. By following this approach, I can also take advantage of other mechanical setups using springs, gravity and yes even other small magnets to minimize the torque needed to change states at the sticky point.
The whole idea of "sticky spots" needs to be debunked. IF you have a wheel of any sort that develops useful power, but has a "sticky spot" - then surely the perfect solution would be to stagger two or three or more of these wheels, so that the sticky spot would always be covered by the power-producing spots of the other wheels ...
But we all know that this doesn't work - because each wheel is a non-runner on there own. So multiple non-runner wheels add up to one big non-runner wheel.
You never have a "sticky spot" - you just have a non-runner wheel. Admit it - and then move on.
Hi @Greendoor,
I agree with you on functional grounds, but I have to disagree with you on the reason why. If you stack up a bunch of nonworking wheels, the sum of the torque on all of the unstuck ones is expended by unsticking the stuck one. When you consider that a magnetic field's strength follows the inverse square law, and that the wheels are stacked so that the one magnet at the lowest energy state (closest attraction or farthest repulsion) must be moved to the highest energy state (farthest attraction or lowest repulsion), then its going to take a pretty big stack to move.
Steven's principle and the COE law predict that in a simple wheel mock up, the amount of energy needed to overcome a sticky spot is roughly equal to the amount of energy that can obtained across the entire rest of the wheel. - Hence, your statement about the stack of non-runners holds true. The best than can be obtained is zero energy gain.
The sticky spot must be mitigated and must be done so in a way that requires less energy than the energy of the sticky spot. This scenario results in a net gain. My approach to do this is to use another permanent magnet as a controller to ease the wheel past the spot and use a very low energy method to control the "switch" on this controller magnet. At least that is the theory...
Quote from: Onevoice on July 05, 2008, 11:31:34 PM
That brings up a question that I can't answer .
Is it possible for a perment magnet to saturate a magnetic conductor like this iron ?
For example .........could the end of the iron close to the magnet be ran paralell to the magnet under the other end and be tapered to a point so it would be
Or maybe if the close end could be pounded very thin ........one side of this thin area could be close to the magnet the other could actually be connected to the start forming a loop
gary
After thinking about it a little .
I think that if you put a small coil on the start of your iron ( the part farthest from the magnets )
And you had a fairly thin iron connection in between the ends of the iron
If the coil was set up to opposite polarity to the magnet so that it pulls .......it would help your magnets flux to jump to the start
I am also pretty sure that if the iron connection was narrow enough the section that is the end now would flip polarity ,,, also helping to bump the magnets flux to the start
gary
Lets look at it a different way. What if, instead of the coil, I had another permanent magnet situated near to the stator that was aimed and matched to induce the same kind of field. In between the stator and that magnet, we have a thin sheet of steel. The steel can act as a gate to turn the field at the stator on and off. If the steel is moved perpendicular to the field, then the effects of the field itself can be cancelled out. If I can balance the steel with springs, other magnets shields etc to minimize the energy required to move it, can I lower the amount of energy needed to move it below the threshold of torque generated by the sum of the remaining (unstuck) rotor magnets? If so, then a really low tech mechanical switch can shift the shield as each rotor magnet approaches the end of the stator loop. I was also toying with alternating the poles on the rotor and building the switch as a rotating wheel. When the first magnet passes the threshold, the switch will already be setup for the next magnet's approach.
Quote from: Onevoice on July 07, 2008, 05:11:45 PM
Lets look at it a different way. What if, instead of the coil, I had another permanent magnet situated near to the stator that was aimed and matched to induce the same kind of field. In between the stator and that magnet, we have a thin sheet of steel. The steel can act as a gate to turn the field at the stator on and off. If the steel is moved perpendicular to the field, then the effects of the field itself can be cancelled out. If I can balance the steel with springs, other magnets shields etc to minimize the energy required to move it, can I lower the amount of energy needed to move it below the threshold of torque generated by the sum of the remaining (unstuck) rotor magnets?
I don't have enough experience to know if that would work
It does sound like it would be really tricky
Quote
If so, then a really low tech mechanical switch can shift the shield as each rotor magnet approaches the end of the stator loop. I was also toying with alternating the poles on the rotor and building the switch as a rotating wheel. When the first magnet passes the threshold, the switch will already be setup for the next magnet's approach.
HHHmmmm
you want a really low tech mechanical switch .
I have a very half baked idea for you .
Using the pole flipping we were talking about .
If you made a second rotor ...... with 2 magnets on it ....probably larger magnets
The second rotor would be set up to act on the outside of the same iron stator .
It would be geared to run in the oppasite direction .....at twice the speed .
The big question is ......if this was set up right could it be set up to cause the rotors to temporaraly flip the polarity in the stator for each other
Edit
My intuition tells me to focus on the stator start / end section .........45 degrees from the magnet paths .
I have a very vague image in my mind of the magnetic fields apporoching the start / stop area the fields move down the thin connection between the start / stop . ....... then the fields seem to bounce .
gary
Hi All,
I've been working on the trigger for the stator. Thanks for the ideas @Resonance et. al. Below are pictures of my first attempt to build a shielded trigger mechanism. The idea is that the shield blocks alternating N and S magnetic fields. The fields are then used to cancel out the rotor magnet's attraction to the iron stator. Also, because the trigger magnets are moving in a direction perpendicular to the shield, the trigger won't show resistance to movement. This is actually very similar to a device patented by Steorn. I don't know if their patent covers this too, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a wana be inventor..I still haven't gotten this working like I want. It has very low flux density coming through the hole The 1/4 x 1 neos also just don't pack the same punch as magnets with larger surfaces on their poles.
The bearing I'm using came from the arm of an old hard drive. Very high precision and low resistance. The ends are compatible with #4-40 screws.
Has anyone out there successfully built a device similar to this. Any ideas how close the magnets should be to the shield or how large the hole needs to be?
Hi Onevoice,
I attached a modified picture of your Picture18.jpg to indicate how big cut-out I think would be better than your present small hole to reveal any one magnet at a time. Maybe you would think my suggestion is a too big cut-out... but the hole in your picture shown seems to me too small and that explains the small flux density.
Another factor to consider is the distance between the magnets and the plate, I think what you show in Picture17.jpg is a bit big distance but this surely depends on the strength of the magnets and also the size of the cut-out. I understand that too small distance is also to be avoided because the mechanical strength of the shielding plate sets up a limit on that (it can simply get deformed by the strong attract forces when magnets are just leaving or coming to the cut-out edges of the plate).
I do not think you violate the Steorn patent, for they have magnets in one row next to each other above and around which the shielding plate moves and their magnets are not with changing poles like in your setup. Do not bother about this.
rgds, Gyula