Overunity.com Archives

Hello All,

The Magnetic Torque Multiplier is a patent that I found and have been sitting on for some time. It basically looks and behaves like a mechanical worm gear:


only it totally uses magnetic fields to achieve the effect. Here is a link to the patent on the device:

US Patent 4,167,684
http://www.google.com/patents?id=qv8wAAAAEBAJ&dq=magnetic+torque+multiplier

The interesting thing is that this inventor discusses many other magnet motor designs (he even references Howard Johnson and other well-known magnet motor patents) and talks about how his design greatly increases the mechanical power because of the magnetic fields doing all the work on the larger wheel.

He mentions that the device is designed such that the mechanical torque on the worm gear cylinder is virtually canceled out because of the magnet arrangement but the forces are exerted on the large disk which, interestingly enough, is in a plane that is 90 degrees to the rotational plane of the worm gear disk. I have wanted to do a replication of this since it appears to be extremely simple in construction but haven't had the time so I thought I would pass it along to everyone here.

If this works as the inventor claims, you could easily use a small weak DC motor to turn the Worm gear and connect a large generator onto the gear to produce power. Then simply use some of the electrical output to keep the small motor running. Everyone please take a look at this patent and let me know what you think.

God Bless,
Jason O

Perhaps you can draw your version you are thinking about polarity of magnets on the worm and worm wheel.
I dont like this kind drawing style many Patents used. Why to draw detailed "screw" when most important things left garbled ???
At first comprehensible CAD illustration, then we´ll discuss a little bid and then the only way to know how well it works is to build it.
I can do.
Regards,
khabe

   I'm waiting to see what happens when Clanzer gets ahold of this. ;D
If its magnets, he is usually all over it. Sure said it should nullify cogging
if the mag sets are the right distance apart. You should lose the friction
of the worm gears as well.
   I have 64 neo's with nothing to do. What the heck. Now if I just had
a CNC.

thaelin

Hi Everyone,

For anyone interested, i have already started to make some CAD drawings for a simple version of this thing that we can all build. The present version uses 1/4" x 1/8" square Neo magnets for the disks which are 1/4" thick Plexiglas 3.75" in diameter. it basically just has a bunch of notches cut in it to glue the magnets in. So to make the rotor disk, you simply need two of these disks.

I will finish up the CAD drawing I made and post it here so everyone can see how to do it. This thing is painfully cheap and simple to test so I believe we should be able to quickly prove or debunk it. it would be awesome if Clanzer could knock this up with his CNC machine. that would be quick and simple to see if this works.

If anyone else here is interested, please let me know what size magnets you have and I can make a scaled drawing to fit the magnets you have. According to the patent, you will need 56 of the same sized magnets. the 1/4" x 1/8" square magnets I was looking at using sell for $22 total if you order 100 on KJ Magnetics.

God Bless,
Jason O

Hi to All !

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
and more than this experiment

this works. this is the simplest implementation, easy to make,   push-pull

AMAAAAAAAAZZZZING !!!!!

how many workable ideas coming up as well done pop corns these days

And they said magnets can not do work !!!!! HAA ! HAAAA! HA!!!  :D :D :D :D :D

Best To All

Wiz

Quote from: Jdo300 on October 15, 2008, 09:45:56 AM
Hi Everyone,

For anyone interested, i have already started to make some CAD drawings for a simple version of this thing that we can all build. The present version uses 1/4" x 1/8" square Neo magnets for the disks which are 1/4" thick Plexiglas 3.75" in diameter. it basically just has a bunch of notches cut in it to glue the magnets in. So to make the rotor disk, you simply need two of these disks.

I will finish up the CAD drawing I made and post it here so everyone can see how to do it. This thing is painfully cheap and simple to test so I believe we should be able to quickly prove or debunk it. it would be awesome if Clanzer could knock this up with his CNC machine. that would be quick and simple to see if this works.

If anyone else here is interested, please let me know what size magnets you have and I can make a scaled drawing to fit the magnets you have. According to the patent, you will need 56 of the same sized magnets. the 1/4" x 1/8" square magnets I was looking at using sell for $22 total if you order 100 on KJ Magnetics.

God Bless,
Jason O

Please O please post THA drawing ... and make us free.

Wiz

Running such a design off of a worm gear means you will have a high ratio between worm to gear. This means, depending on that ratio, you will have to turn the straight worm anywhere from 40-100 times before the gear makes one rotation. That's why worm gears are used in very high torque applications that require 10 or 20 or 100 rpm.

This means that for the gear to turn anywhere near 3600 rpm for a 60hz generator, your drive side will have to be turning anywhere from 180,000 rpm or more.

Also, you will need a minimal torque just to start the worm gear to turn because they are usually very hard to turn.

So even if he used a magnet driven wheel or any other form of drive, you still have to contend with the worm gear ratio and the minimal rpms required to produce any decent generator output.

Added:

I would also like to point out that this patent was filed in 1977 and issued in 1979. If this device had any promise, I would think that between then and know it would have reached the market somehow, but from considering the above limitations, I can understand why.

Hi Wattsup,

I partially agree with your analysis in that it would take a pretty high input RPM to produce an output RPM compatible with most standard generators. However, I believe that this magnetic worm gear configuration is much different than its mechanical analog. But rather than explain it myself. I'll just quote the patent itself. Check out these excerpts:

"The ideal magnetic torque multiplier provides a sizable and useful torque step-up at the large wheel based on the magnitude of the magnetic force between the opposite permanent magnet sets on each of the two revolving components. An added advantage for this manner of magnetic force transfer using individual, opposite magnetic segments is that no friction is imposed between the two components as in the case of the mechanical contacting worm and worm wheel counterparts. The helical magnetic rotor can run at high speed without surface contact, with a reduced-from-normal rated input torque due to alternating attraction and repulsion of the driven magnetic wheel acting on the rotor magnet segments. It is most desirable to use large and powerful rare earth/cobalt permanent magnets for both opposite sets of magnetic components to achieve a large torque output differential between the driver and driven shafts. "

"The primary wheel torque is produced by the uniform displacement of the adjacent wheel magnet segments as they are influenced by the uniform lateral displacement of each magnet segment of the rotor's single pitch helical path."

There are more paragraphs like this but the inventor is basically saying that this device not only acts like a normal worm gear and worm wheel setup but actually increases the output torque beyond the simple mechanical  output because the magnetic fields are doing the pushing and pulling rather than the motor that is turning the input rotor.

You can also see the effect from the drawing at the bottom of page 3 of the patent. You can see that turning the larger wheel cannot impart a mechanical torque on the driving wheel because the attraction and repulsion forces cancel eachother out in the plane of the input rotor. So if this one proposition is correct, then it can be quite clear that this is stepping up the mechanical power input, and not just the torque ratio. The inventor seems to believe this because he then says the following:

"The principal object of the invention is to provide the highest torque output for the large, driven wheel from the lowest possible torque input for the small helical rotor, as a useful power step-up means for many electrical generating applications.

Another object of the invention is to provide a step-up power source which can be produced at competitive costs, requires no combustible fuel and is non-polluting while running silently, and requires a minimum of parts replacement and maintenance.

It is a further object of the invention is to provide a natural energy source which has an extremely long operating life, with a maximum of operating effectiveness and component resistance to degradation. "

Ok, now, I could be misinterpreting this here but it seems to me that the inventor is strongly suggesting that the device is not only increasing the mechanical output power from the input, but is doing so by tapping into some kind of "natural energy source" which can't be anything other than the magnets.

So if this were just a simple mechanical setup, I would concur that there isn't anything special going on, but as soon as you start to bring magnetic fields into the picture, particularly dynamic magnetic fields, then you are dealing with an open system. I believe that this device is worth a shot and if it does what the inventor is strongly implying, then it may be a simple and effective way to use a small energy input combined with the energy provided through the magnetic field interactions to generate extra power.

Also, to address your comments about the speed issue. It is very easy to get low torque, high-speed electric motors that could reach 100,000 RPMs with no problem. But this won't be necessary. If the device works as claimed and there is little to no back-torque induced on the driving disk, one could easily use a gearbox with the same gear-ratio as the setup to run the input rotor at high speed and then step it back down through the device to the same speed at a higher torque.

Normally this wouldn't make any sense from the mechanical perspective UNLESS the magnetic fields are providing input energy as the patent holder claims.

God Bless,
Jason O

Any drawing about your understanding how it works?
cheers,
khabe

Like that ???
Then I will become very sceptic about this idea >:(
Airgap changes ... and when Nr.1 and Nr.8 meets togerher what then  ::)
regards,
khabe

@Jdo300

I know it looks good but in no way is the inventor saying it produces more electric output then input. From the date, I would guess the main use of this invention up to today, which is not minimal, is to make magnetic drives for certain pumps and other rotating equipment that required a fully uncoupled drive, meaning the drive end cannot stop the driven end if either side jams up. If the big wheel jams, the drive end will not feel or take the hit.

It is electric motor driven item (12) in the patent.

It may be a very effecient design for such a drive, but it will not provide you with any overunity, simply because of slippage. You see, the inventor says it has no friction, but he does not say it has slippage. When you have a generator on the other end and start plugging in a lamp or two, you will realize it and then you will start on a vast system compensating endeavor.

But I am curious about an idea or a slant on this design. What if you took just the two magnet wheels, but doubled the quantity making two big wheels and two worm wheels then position them as two opposing forces on each other to turn without an electric motor. Or if you took three of these pairs and made a triangular self-turning thing. Or four of these in a square design.

What I mean is if you are doing this for the OU, I would advise against it, but if you plan to try it as a perpetual motion thingy, hmmmmmmm, maybe.

@khabe

Nice drawings.

Simple Push/Push design I like more. N always -> to N and S always -> to S  ... holds and keeps like lubricant, like the best grease ::)
Regards,
Khabe

And hereby my very simple push-push version of magnetic worm gear,
This is one-thread, also two-thread is possible.
To save the time I did not place magnets under better angle on the worm wheel ...
cheers,
khabe

Quote from: wattsup on October 15, 2008, 01:25:35 PM
Running such a design off of a worm gear means you will have a high ratio between worm to gear. This means, depending on that ratio, you will have to turn the straight worm anywhere from 40-100 times before the gear makes one rotation. That's why worm gears are used in very high torque applications that require 10 or 20 or 100 rpm.

Correct. And we all know that getting really high rpms is not really easy...

Quote
This means that for the gear to turn anywhere near 3600 rpm for a 60hz generator, your drive side will have to be turning anywhere from 180,000 rpm or more.

OK, you can use multiphase low rpm generators, or a pulley, gears,.. up conversion... Still, additional losses and no OU.

Quote
Also, you will need a minimal torque just to start the worm gear to turn because they are usually very hard to turn.

Indeed. Worm gears are rather inefficient, usually driven with a small power (motor). The friction between the gears can eat up most of the power delivered.... (Look at the car windshield wipers). With all the leverage, they still look very powerfull.

Quote
So even if he used a magnet driven wheel or any other form of drive, you still have to contend with the worm gear ratio and the minimal rpms required to produce any decent generator output.

Added:

I would also like to point out that this patent was filed in 1977 and issued in 1979. If this device had any promise, I would think that between then and know it would have reached the market somehow, but from considering the above limitations, I can understand why.

Interesting, eh?  :D No FE here. What I see is a rather complicated and more expensive mechanical setup, the main advantage is arbitrarily lower mech. friction (under strict conditions).

@khabe

Hello! Nice pictures! Yes, something like this... Still, the real source of power (or energy) or any conversion calcs remains the same as with a classical snail gear. No OU, surprisingly...

Seems none interested about Magnetic Gear I built my tiny version,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5810.0;topicseen

I have looked this desigh http://www.infolytica.com/en/coolstuff/ex0106/ long time,
Finally decided to try - and was very disappointed - too hard cogging.

Also I have several couplings and  gears based on  eddy effects.

Regards,
khabe

@khabe

Your last two designs look great but will not work since this is a magnet to magnet design, if whatever you are driving decides to stop, the magnets will smash together. The design cannot have any interleaving of the magnets since this will be exposed to some slippage and bang.

Quote from: wattsup on October 17, 2008, 12:39:06 PM
@khabe

Your last two designs look great but will not work since this is a magnet to magnet design, if whatever you are driving decides to stop, the magnets will smash together. The design cannot have any interleaving of the magnets since this will be exposed to some slippage and bang.

You mean worm gear? of course I have not probed, just drawed out few hours ago. But simple two wheel bush/bush magnet gear works well, nothing smashed together ...
the rest of your prophecies I just dont understand what you are speaking.
I try to explane:
If you put few or more ring magnets on to rod SN NS SN NS SN NS ... they will stay with distance. Its hard to press two magnets together and rod keeps it stable on line,
The same story when my bush/bush gear. When right geometry then magnets never touch together. Each wheel has axis of course - axis and wheels keeping all stable :-*
Of course it is not meant as car reductor - max torque hang on about strenght of magnet ;)
The only question is why and when to use stupid magnetic gear when common gear is much more simple, sure and more light-weight ::)
Mmmmh ... sometimes/somewhere it could be useful ... for example when low torques and flexible vibration-isolation gear system is welcome  :o
These draws are simplified and robust. Just ideas. I have several more designs I hope you´ll not angry - some of theses I do ascribe as my properties.
Im sure you own somes as well ;)
cheers,
khabe

Good idea, but I this is the problem I see:

Mh-mhh,
I never spoke its selfrunner or OU,
This is just magnetic gear.
At that simplified draw,
Oh dear ...
cheers,
khabe

@wattsup,

Yes, I know the inventor is not saying that it produces more electrical output than input, but he is saying that the device produces more mechanical torque than normal because of the magnetic force interactions. Yes I realize that part of this is because of reduced frictional losses because the parts are not in contact with each other. I also realize that the design will have slippage which is why the inventor stresses the importance of using strong magnets.

But what remains to be seen in my mind is the torque canceling effect because of the layout of the magnets. I believe that there is more to this cancellation than the simple fact that the gear ratio is so high from the worm gear configuration. From studying the diagrams, it appears that ther would be little to no mechanical force transmitted backwards from the large gear to the small worm wheel. And likewise, there would be minimal torque exerted on the worm wheel to turn the large disk. and this is not just because of the high mechanical gear ratio, but because the magnets are physically attracting and repelling the disk as the worm wheel magnets are moved into the plane of rotation of the large gear. Also, looking again at the second diagram on page 3 of the patent, it appears that when the worm wheel is in the position shown that the torque forces on the worm wheel are canceled out because the top magnet is attracting the wheel, but the bottom magnet is repelling. the magnet in the center would be the one exerting all of the force to physically move the large disk, and this force woud, of course not be transmitted to the worm wheel because the two wheels are at 90 degrees to each other.

However, I will admit that this canceling condition may not apply through 100% of the rotation cycle as the worm wheel magnets transition from one to the next. But the inventor does address this issue in the document. I still believe that there is something to this because I have been studying one of the basic principles that I believe can make magnetic systems function. It's called the Tri-Force principle and i outline it in this document here: http://www.fdp.nu/free_energy.asp?book=90

The only way I can see this arrangement working is IF the magnetic cancellation is taking place as I mentioned before. Otherwise I agree with you that there is nothing special about the design. But this can only be confirmed by a replication.

@khabe,

Great drawings you have there! I started to make some myself but I havent finished them yet. You definitely have the basic concept. Since I don't have any completed drawings to show everyone, I'll just describe the construction details. My idea was to construct two identical rotor disks using 1/4 in thick Plexiglass that anyone can get from the hardware store. If you buy some 1/4 in thick Neo magnets from K&J Magnetics, these would fit perfectly on the perimeter of the Plexiglas disks. You could just file flat spots onto the disk edges to glue the magnets on or file shallow slots into the disk to more securely fix the magnets. The ones I was looking at getting are 1/8" thick but they also have 1/16" thick ones as well.

For the worm gear, I was thinking of using a short length of PVC pipe which I could file flat spots on to glue the magnets down. Another option would be to simply drill holes into it and use round magnets but I'm not certain if this would compromise the performance of the design or not. From there one could glue PVC pipe ends onto the pipe and drill holes for a threaded rod to go through. Then you can just spin it by hand to observe the effects of the forces to see how it woks. L-brackets and roller skate bearings could be used to constrain everything to a base like shown in the patent.

God Bless,
Jason O

Quote from: khabe on October 17, 2008, 09:42:57 AM
And hereby my very simple push-push version of magnetic worm gear,
This is one-thread, also two-thread is possible.
To save the time I did not place magnets under better angle on the worm wheel ...
cheers,
khabe

This is an interesting design, but there would be no OU effect here. There is no way for the magnets to work independently to force the gear to turn. Also, the force on the large gear can easily be reflected back onto the worm wheel since there is no force cancellation. This cancellation of force is what I believe makes the original design unique compared to a standard magnetic gear (worm wheel or otherwise).

God Bless,
Jason O

Quote from: Jdo300 on October 18, 2008, 10:01:41 PM
This is an interesting design, but there would be no OU effect here. There is no way for the magnets to work independently to force the gear to turn. Also, the force on the large gear can easily be reflected back onto the worm wheel since there is no force cancellation. This cancellation of force is what I believe makes the original design unique compared to a standard magnetic gear (worm wheel or otherwise).

God Bless,
Jason O

Correct, Jason - my sketches are NOT OU  - are  just magnet gears.
Do you believe that mentioned Patent has OU effect?
I dont believe this patent works, I did draw my understanding about this Patent just for suport discuss about, Im not sure I did it right ...
Im not sure it works well even just as gear - thats because I did carry out my own thoughts.
Anyway interesting,
regards,
khabe