Hi,
I have twisted my mind about magnet motors again, and I have been playing with Femm again.
If there is nothing wrong with Femm, I have sucessfully figured out one way to change a magnetic field in a magnet motor without using energy. A very big model in femm shows an average torque of 350 000 Nm (The rotor is 7 meters in diameter. it is however no reason why it is so big). In that model I cannot in a simple way simulate the following explanation, so the average torque is assumed correct if I'm correct about the explanations below. To you guys who don't understand it, take a quick look at the drawing attached.
Imagine this:
You have, lets say 20, narrow rod magnets. The polarity is going through length on all of them.
Take 10 magnets and put them together side by side, and let every second magnet have the oposite polarity. Now all 10 magnets will snap into eachother, but let there be a gap between them anyway. This configuration will not attract or repel another magnetic pole as every second pole is an oposite of the next one.
Take then every second magnet, 5 pcs, and push them maybe half way along the length so you now see a comb looking magnet row, where mainly the southpole or northpole are visible in both sides of the twosided "comb". Now this configuration will suddenly attract or repel another magnet.
It takes energy to make this "comb", so we need a counter force which works in an equivalent oposite way. So take the 10 magnets you got left, and place them all side by side, but now with polarity in the same direction on ALL magnets. They will feel hard to align next to eachother, but do it anyway,
Now take every second magnet and move them half way of the length - just as the first 10 magnets, and make it look just like that "comb". This time it takes energy to PREVENT the magnets from moving.
If all magnets are equal, those two forces in the two sets of magnet "combs" will work oposite of eachother. So if you mechanicly connects those two sets of magnets together, it should not take any force to alter a magnetic pole.
So now let the magnet configuration as firstly described surround a two pole round magnet (which is magnetized through diameter) as a stator magnet would do, and let the second configuration be linked to this. So now it does not take energy from the rotor to alter the magnetic pole in the "magnet comb stator". Still the rotor will chase the oposite pole in the stator, and try to escape from the equal pole behind it without any counterforce working equally against the rotor direction. That counterforce is already taken care of.
Well, attached is a model in Femm with 20 sectors of combs which is supposed to alter polarity allways 90 degrees in front and behind the magnetic pole in the rotor. Take a look at it and see what I mean about the comb-configuration on the stator (Compensator magnets are not shown). :)
The rotor in the middle is rotating counter clockwise, and I'm also looking for the very possible flaw that prevents OU in the design and idea.
Some more information, some changes from the previous post etc., + a link to a GIF-animation on the bottom of this post.
The key is to equalize the counterforce required when altering magnetic fields.
The stator magnets are altering the magnetic field by pushing and pulling pairs of magnets, which each has oposite polarity facing the rotor magnet, in order to alter the magnetic field in a way that will allways pull and push the round two pole rotormagnet, in the center, in the same direction regardless of the rotors position.
To separate two magnets in the stator this way requires a lot of force. However, the forces required to alter the statormagnet are canceled out by the oposite force 90 degrees ahead and back. So no net force, hence no energy, is required to alter the magnetic fields in the stator. Here is the key to free energy from magnet motors - at least what I have calculated.
Where the magnet pairs is ligned up side by side, it provides least torque, about 40% of the torque provided when the magnet pairs are farthest apart. The good thing is that both conditions provides torque in the same direction - and every conditions between.
The poles of the rotor is in direction of the most purple coloured stator magnets.
I have used the program FEMM4.0 to simulate the torque. This model provides about 1000Nm torque in average in one complete revolution.
So where does the motor get the energy to alter the magnetic fields from? Nowhere. To alter the magnets does not require energy because there is no force that fights against the torque in the rotor. And we know that torque- or force times distance is energy. Left there is the torque from the rotor which infenitely will try to approach the sticky spot, and escape from the slippy spot. So there you go. A perpetual motion magnet motor with a lots of energy to spare.
PS! I am sceptical to perpetual motion. So any kind of feedback regarding flaws in the design are welcome. To state that "You cannot get energy from nothing" isn't a good explanation, so find the flaw and explain why if you want to :)
Br.
Vidar
Here is a link to an animation of a simpler version - average torque is 850 000Nm in this one, but the model in FEMM is also VERY big:
http://lyd-interior.no/div/Magnet-alternator.gif (http://lyd-interior.no/div/Magnet-alternator.gif)
Quote from: Low-Q on March 08, 2009, 05:24:51 PM
Some more information, some changes from the previous post etc., + a link to a GIF-animation on the bottom of this post.
The key is to equalize the counterforce required when altering magnetic fields.
The stator magnets are altering the magnetic field by pushing and pulling pairs of magnets, which each has oposite polarity facing the rotor magnet, in order to alter the magnetic field in a way that will allways pull and push the round two pole rotormagnet, in the center, in the same direction regardless of the rotors position.
To separate two magnets in the stator this way requires a lot of force. However, the forces required to alter the statormagnet are canceled out by the oposite force 90 degrees ahead and back. So no net force, hence no energy, is required to alter the magnetic fields in the stator. Here is the key to free energy from magnet motors - at least what I have calculated.
Where the magnet pairs is ligned up side by side, it provides least torque, about 40% of the torque provided when the magnet pairs are farthest apart. The good thing is that both conditions provides torque in the same direction - and every conditions between.
The poles of the rotor is in direction of the most purple coloured stator magnets.
I have used the program FEMM4.0 to simulate the torque. This model provides about 1000Nm torque in average in one complete revolution.
So where does the motor get the energy to alter the magnetic fields from? Nowhere. To alter the magnets does not require energy because there is no force that fights against the torque in the rotor. And we know that torque- or force times distance is energy. Left there is the torque from the rotor which infenitely will try to approach the sticky spot, and escape from the slippy spot. So there you go. A perpetual motion magnet motor with a lots of energy to spare.
PS! I am sceptical to perpetual motion. So any kind of feedback regarding flaws in the design are welcome. To state that "You cannot get energy from nothing" isn't a good explanation, so find the flaw and explain why if you want to :)
Br.
Vidar
Here is a link to an animation of a simpler version - average torque is 850 000Nm in this one, but the model in FEMM is also VERY big:
http://lyd-interior.no/div/Magnet-alternator.gif (http://lyd-interior.no/div/Magnet-alternator.gif)
I had to look at your design for a while to try to understand what all was going on and when it happens. I do believe a magnet motor is possible, (so I am building one of my own design, but I do not use Femm in my calculations, just former experience from testing), however I think after looking at the animation that you have, there might be timing issues with the comb portion on this one if I understand it correctly. In order to attract, an advance timing must be used to create torque. In order to have thrust off of a repulsion field, energy input is needed with correct timing or there will be no thrust from repulsion. I don't think that the magnetic fields will provide correct timing themselves in this manner by the force of magnetic field alone to provide thrust in the real world. And if by chance the timing was right, energy input from torque else where in the motor would be needed at the correct time. In my experience, the timing may require control and some energy input. Very creative design. Please feel free to correct me if I do not understand your device correctly.
Quote from: Liberty on March 08, 2009, 08:47:50 PM
I had to look at your design for a while to try to understand what all was going on and when it happens. I do believe a magnet motor is possible, (so I am building one of my own design, but I do not use Femm in my calculations, just former experience from testing), however I think after looking at the animation that you have, there might be timing issues with the comb portion on this one if I understand it correctly. In order to attract, an advance timing must be used to create torque. In order to have thrust off of a repulsion field, energy input is needed with correct timing or there will be no thrust from repulsion. I don't think that the magnetic fields will provide correct timing themselves in this manner by the force of magnetic field alone to provide thrust in the real world. And if by chance the timing was right, energy input from torque else where in the motor would be needed at the correct time. In my experience, the timing may require control and some energy input. Very creative design. Please feel free to correct me if I do not understand your device correctly.
Hi, and thank you for your input :).
I have looked at different "snapshots" of the positions of the motor, and used vectors to calcutalte the torque required to alter the magnetic field in the stator.
The stator magnets is fixed to a crankshaft with two joints 180 degrees apart. This joints is aligned vertical if the rotor north pole is pointing to the right. The stator magnets with the north pole pointing towards center, is linked to the lowest joints, and the other magnets with the north pole pointing outwards is linked to the upper joint.
I have concidered that there is a similar magnet configuration linked to the stator magnets which is counterforceing the force required to pull the magnets apart in the stator. So there should not take energy to alter them if we had a wooden or plastic rotor we wanted to rotate by hand. So the rotor does not have to "think" about that.
I have calculated that the stator magnets at 45, 135, 225 and 315 degrees does cancel out the force on the crankshaft sideways. The magnets on the very right and left are together providing a counterforce.
The model is very big. In a new model I've made, the joints in the crankshaft is 1 meter apart which is 0,5 meters from center. The rotor is 7.6 meters in diameter. The torque of the rotor is 138 256 Nm, and each stator magnet provides an average of 96876 Nm counter torque together on the crankshaft. That is about 30% less than the torque from the rotor.
96876 / 137 256 = 0.71 = sin45
o - coincidence?
It seams that the timing and the ofset of the rotor will provides a sum of torque that will work in one direction.
I must take some more time to calculate more angles to have more samples in one revolution. My computer is so slow, so it takes a lot of time to simulate the motor with a reliable calculations.
Here is the model in Femm I'm playing with right now. (see the atached zip-file)
Br.
Vidar
I have done some modifications with my motor. The rotordiameter are the same, but now I have split it in two parts, so left half has north pointing down, and the other halve is pointing up.
See snapshot from FEMM with some explanations on where the joints are and how the links between the magnets and the joints are configured. Attached are also this motor as a FEMM simulation. For those who has time, please look into this motor. After I split the rotor like that. The force to alter the stator magnet polarization suddenly dropped to zero. Because all the north-inwards stator magnets are in sum canceling out forces TOWARDS the rotors center. The same deal with all the north-outwards stator magnets.
It seams that the sum of all forces affecting the system is only going in parallell with the tangens of the rotor surface - hence torque.
I have tried to simulate the rotor in any random angels with the stator magnets locked, and it will allways generate torque except when the poles of the rotor is pointing directly left and right.
Well. As my computer can see it, there is now no forces at all that is preventing the rotor to turn around.
EDIT: Remember that the alignment of the stator magnets are following the rotor all the time because of the crankshaft with the two joints on it is linked to the stator magnets.
There are 32 samples in this motor as there is 11.25 degrees between each stator magnet. It should be good enough for you to calculate if there is significant usable torque left in the rotor.
Any comments?
Your idea is interesting but most people (including myself) don't understand how the
motor is built and how it's supposed to work. The pictures is not very self-explanatory.
Quote from: Honk on March 11, 2009, 03:54:52 AM
Your idea is interesting but most people (including myself) don't understand how the
motor is built and how it's supposed to work. The pictures is not very self-explanatory.
OK. I will try to explain.
All the biggest stator magnets are connected to the lowest joint. The smallest stator magnets are linked as pairs, and are connected to the upper joint. This connection is made of something strong and non flexible material - rods, so to speak.
When the rotor turns, the joints will follow the rotor because the joints are fixed to the rotor, and therefor it will continously change the position of the magnets - like pistons in an engine. (or like pistons in a radial engine, for those who knows what that is)
This means that the magnets positions will follow the rotor around, means that the magnets closest to the rotor will allways be closest to the same place on the rotor all the time - except that there is allways the next magnet that is closest, or farthest off the rotor as the rotor turns. That means that the stator magnets cannot rotate - they are fixed sideways, and are therefor only allowed to move towards or away from the rotor - like a radial engine.
Does this help?
I will present another design too with only an iron rotor - that later. But first it is important to understand the mechanics. I'll wait untill someone says they understand the mechanics. :)
Br.
Vdiar
2D program cant calculate magnetic field problem - only 3D ( Maxwell 3D, JmagStudio ets)
Quote from: jonifer on March 11, 2009, 04:14:55 PM
2D program cant calculate magnetic field problem - only 3D ( Maxwell 3D, JmagStudio ets)
As long as the problem is 2D Femm will do.
What I miss in 2D programs is the ability to see the magnetic lines if I have for instance a ringmagnet where the poles was pointing towards center. Meaning that I cannot see the magnetic lines which is angular to the 2D surface. And Femm cannot calculate whith it then. However, In these experiments I dont need 3D.
If you have a copy of Maxwell 3D, I would like to have a copy of it too :)
Br.
Vidar
Since I like ideas that are based on 'chasing tails', I started with a small proof of principle, first only to find out if the forces in 2 opposite magnet "combs" are giving a sum of zero force for gliding i and out. I already found out that it is not so easy to build a construction that handles these forces.
Eric
Quote from: Low-Q on March 11, 2009, 06:38:42 PM
As long as the problem is 2D Femm will do.
What I miss in 2D programs is the ability to see the magnetic lines if I have for instance a ringmagnet where the poles was pointing towards center. Meaning that I cannot see the magnetic lines which is angular to the 2D surface. And Femm cannot calculate whith it then. However, In these experiments I dont need 3D.
If you have a copy of Maxwell 3D, I would like to have a copy of it too :)
Br.
Vidar
The reason why software can't do this is because this is a monopole in 2d ;D.
Hi again. I have made a drawing based on the simulation in Femm. It shows all the magnets and polarization. There is small green arrows on the stator magnets that is showing which direction these stator magnets are going if the rotor goes clockwise. Again, the stator magnets DOES NOT ROTATE together with the rotor. :)
The rotor is made of a permanentmagnet and two pieces of iron.
Practical info:
Where the stator magnet is attracting angular to the rotor (directly towards the center), it will also push away the joint it is connected to.
Where the stator magnet is repelling angular to the rotor (directly away from the center), it will also pull the joint it is connected to.
"Statormagnets 1" is working opposite of "Statormagnets 2", as they are connected to each joint on the opposite side of the shaft.
Torque of the rotor is negative - means that the rotor spins clockwise. Two long green arrows shows the direction of the rotor.
The statormagnets closer to the top and bottom has acute angle to the joints angular alignment. Acute angle therfor means less counterforce. The stator magnets are also most attracted or repelled at this acute angle. So these forces has to be multiplied with the Sinus of the angle.
Example: If the attracting force towards center at 11.25 degrees are 100N*, the force acting as counterforce on the joints is:
100 x sin11.25 = 19N.
If the joint is 1 meter from the shaft, this represent 19Nm torque acting on the joint.
*The forces in Femm goes in X and Y direction. To find the force towards center you must take square root of X2 + Y2
The radius of the crankshaft is 1 meter (1 meter between the shaft and the joints), to easier calculate the torque caused by the force required to change the statormagnet positions.
This motor is therefor VERY big, but never mind the size - just focus on trying to compare the force required to alternate the statormagnets, compared to the torque of the rotor.
So you now have to consider a lot of variables, calulating vectors like z2 = x2 + y2. But also have the "Sin" function on you calculator. This is important to have some knowledge to, in order to find the exact forces working on the joints - as the magnets are positioned with different angles. They are all 11,25o apart.
You must download the Femm simulation attached. Replace the material in the statormagnets with air, except the one you want to calculate the force for. To spend less time, you can also keep the magnetic material in the stator magnet on the oposite side. IMPORTANT: Never change the rotor materials during these calculations.
I have also tried to reduce the rotor in Femm 10% - 50% - just to smooth the forces and torque to make a better calculation. Regardless of what I do with the rotor in size, the rotor spends relatively very small forces to alter the statormagnets positions in and out.
So here you go. A magnetmotor that actually works regarding torque and forces. Torque and forces accellerates mass. A mass in a given velocity represent a given kinetic energy. And that kinetic energy do I hope there is possible to extract from this motor as energy.
I'll keep dreaming, but I really need help with this last one. Anyone? I feel very alone here - the replies are few :'(
:) :) :)
Br.
Vidar
Low-q the main problem is that the design is very complex to build. You need to use the same principle on something simpler. Then people might give it a try :p. There's one thing I learned lately, everyone will ignore you unless you show them a real or faked running design. I don't understand this mentality.
Quote from: broli on March 13, 2009, 08:41:46 AM
Low-q the main problem is that the design is very complex to build. You need to use the same principle on something simpler. Then people might give it a try :p. There's one thing I learned lately, everyone will ignore you unless you show them a real or faked running design. I don't understand this mentality.
I see. I was hoping that someone could give it an eyeball, and try to figure out how it works, if it works, why it doesn't work etc. This is a forum with hope for free energy. Ther isn't for nothing most posts and visits in this forum is related to magnet motors. So I do expect someone with a bright brain have some interests in looking at this - even if it is a simulation.
PS! I do not claim anything, I just want to know anyones opinion. As allways, I'm very sceptical to OU devices ;)
Edit: I will make a much simpler version. But the version above is complex because of all the stator magnets. It a reason why it's many, and that is to increase the number of angles to better determind the average torque of the rotor. I'll be back with a four pole sets motor - not 32 stator sets with 96 magnets in total as above. The only thing required is basicly not to let the stator magnets do anything but going in and out.
Br.
Vidar
Hi Low Q
Hi Low Q
I can build your engine in my workshop but as Broli said we need
something simpler to check if your idea is working.
To be honest I dont understand exactly how your engine works therefore I am not able
to do any experiments based on your idea.
I have built two magnetic motors on principle of cancelling attractive and repulsive
force with no success so I am a bit cautious.
I wish you get it.
Quote from: kadora on March 15, 2009, 08:25:10 AM
Hi Low Q
I can build your engine in my workshop but as Broli said we need
something simpler to check if your idea is working.
To be honest I dont understand exactly how your engine works therefore I am not able
to do any experiments based on your idea.
I have built two magnetic motors on principle of cancelling attractive and repulsive
force with no success so I am a bit cautious.
I wish you get it.
It can be made very simple. I used so many magnets just to easier see the average torque and average counter torque. You need basicly only one statormagnet or maybe two in the real test machine. So it is very simple to build. I can make a drawing for you on how to build it.
Br. Vidar
Quote from: eavogels on March 13, 2009, 07:51:06 AM
Since I like ideas that are based on 'chasing tails', I started with a small proof of principle, first only to find out if the forces in 2 opposite magnet "combs" are giving a sum of zero force for gliding i and out. I already found out that it is not so easy to build a construction that handles these forces.
Eric
Hi,
Engineering problems has never stoped engineers making things. However, in a 2D software I needed a comb to simulate two "solid" magnets side by side in "depth" of the drawing. Femm isn't 3D, so I had to simulate with combs. The same thing with the last design.
br.
Vidar
Some additional information about the way of working:
Look at Statormagnets 1. All these are spread around in a ring. The difference in the top an the bottom is that they are closer to eachother on the top. That means that this side has the dominating mass of magnets, and therfor also the dominating magnetic field.
This density of mass can be moved around in advanced of the rotormagnets polarization direction without actually move the magnets with the rotor direction. This means that the rotor actually doesn't chase the tail - because the tail isnt moving at all - just virtually so to speak because the statormagnets isn't moving physically sidways with the rotor. If the "tail" was moving too (Like if I fixed the rotor to the statormagnets), this would represent a counterforce equal to the torque in the rotor, so it wouldn't work.
In the design on the drawing, there is only the dominateing magnetic field that is moving and not the magnets itself. And with the statormagnets itself physically standing still sideways, the rotormagnet can be able to cross the magnetic fields - just what I want. Just as what happens when a magnet is moving towards equilibrium between two magnets apart, it is crossing magnetic fields.
I am so full of thoughts, so this explanation maybe more confusing than guiding....
Br.
Vidar
How to build your own over-unity generator.
So, in effect, one might produce a spin polarized current (read that: dense, coherent electricity) by implementation of a unique form of alternating current (RH, LH, Perpendicular RH)
In effect, a kind of 'halbach induction'. Now imagine RH, LH, perpendicular RH, LH for massive increases in current density/coherence.
Seems to me that you are looking at things from the Right angle, LowQ
Quote from: lumen on March 15, 2009, 02:33:03 PM
How to build your own over-unity generator.
Hi,
Good idea! I haven't spent time yet to discuss your design with myself, but I will. However, I think your idea should be in a new thread so it maybe got more attention, than being in the middle of another thread about something quite different - and this thread would also stay more clear :)
br.
Vidar
Quote from: SomedayIsle on March 15, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
So, in effect, one might produce a spin polarized current (read that: dense, coherent electricity) by implementation of a unique form of alternating current (RH, LH, Perpendicular RH)
In effect, a kind of 'halbach induction'. Now imagine an RH, LH, perpendicular RH, LH) for massive increases in current density/coherence.
Seems to me that you are looking at things from the Right angle, LowQ
Hi,
What do you mean by RH, LH and Perpendicular RH. I lost you there - well most everything... :)
br.
Vidar
Hi Low Q
Can your engine work if magnets1 would be in the form of pistons
and magnets 2 in the form of cylinders ?
I still dont understand how you overcome point where attractive and
repulsive forces are balanced.
Would engine works if the stator contains only four magnetic 1+2 arrays
devided 90 degree apart from each other ?
Quote from: Low-Q on March 10, 2009, 04:03:06 AM
The model is very big. In a new model I've made, the joints in the crankshaft is 1 meter apart which is 0,5 meters from center.
The rotor is 7.6 meters in diameter. The torque of the rotor is 138 256 Nm, and each stator magnet provides an average of 96876 Nm
counter torque together on the crankshaft. That is about 30% less than the torque from the rotor.
I have a question for you regarding the torque.
What would the torque be if re-modeled to a 60cm diameter rotor? Total outer diameter may be 70-80cm.I'd like to compare this to my own design and besides that I think 7.6meters is to big for most people to care about.
If presented in a smaller and easier to comprehend design it might catch replicators interest some more.
And it won't be as costly as a nuclear plant..... ;D
Quote from: Honk on March 16, 2009, 03:20:43 AM
I have a question for you regarding the torque.
What would the torque be if re-modeled to a 60cm diameter rotor? Total outer diameter may be 70-80cm.
I'd like to compare this to my own design and besides that I think 7.6meters is to big for most people to care about.
If presented in a smaller and easier to comprehend design it might catch replicators interest some more.
And it won't be as costly as a nuclear plant..... ;D
I scaled it down to 60cm in diameter rotor, and 10cm deep, and the torque on the rotor alone is then about 95Nm. That is with 40 grade neos. If I have right about the countertorque I got about 30Nm in average for one revolution. If I have luck, I have all 95Nm. I tried to remove all the Statormagnets 2, and checked the force acting on the crankshaft. I marked all the Statormagnets 1 (I had deleted Statormagnets 2 to see what forces affecting Statormagnets 1 separately) and found that the total counterforce is only 5000N for the big model - compared to the 750 000Nm torque from the rotor. That is only 7 per thousand spent on altering the magnetconfiguration.
So either there is 30Nm or 95Nm to spare for pure torque in a 60cm rotor 10 cm deep....
However, I do not guarantee that my calculations are correct. There might be something i have overlooked, but I have only trusted the simulations and my math skills (Which I hope is a bit over the average ;D ).
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: kadora on March 16, 2009, 03:01:35 AM
Hi Low Q
Can your engine work if magnets1 would be in the form of pistons
and magnets 2 in the form of cylinders ?
I still dont understand how you overcome point where attractive and
repulsive forces are balanced.
Would engine works if the stator contains only four magnetic 1+2 arrays
devided 90 degree apart from each other ?
Well, all the statormagnet is connected via a crankshaft. If you try to separate two magnets like they do in the stator, they will each take force to slide them apart and away from the sticky spot. But there is allways a magnet set that is going together somewhere else - doing the very oposite. This force is equal, so the net force to separate two sets of magnets are therfor zero. If the rotor was made of a non magnetic material, you could use you little finger to rotate the rotor in a 7.6meter model - so to speak.
There is no point in using one magnet as piston and one as cylinder, but that will ofcourse work in the same way.
However, you do not need both Statormagnes 1 and 2 in the stator - only 1 or 2. So you could use magnets as pistons, and used a nonmagnetic material as a fixed cylinder. Now it really looks like a radial engine, and it is now easy to guide the magnets in the right directon. The main thing is however to let the most densed magnetmass (Where the magnets is at its closest to eachother) be in place where is makes the most unbalanced position in proportion to the rotor.
I have made another alternative that is easier to manufacture. I have used the original design as template, but removed the Statormagnets 2 and replaced the rotor with a pure magnet aligned 45 degrees.
I will put this design out here as son as I'm finished with it.
br.
Vidar
Thank you for that fast reply of yours.
It's pretty similar compared to my own design but I have stickyspots to overcome.
My design is 80cm wide (statormagnets and mounting steel included) and 10cm deep (15cm with mounting).
The stall torque is varying between 160-200Nm in my calculations, somewhat less in real life due to some design circumstances.
Taking the sticky spot in aspect I might hit 80-90Nm. I have yet to carefully measure the total torque accessible.
Quote from: Low-Q on March 16, 2009, 04:02:13 AM
I scaled it down to 60cm in diameter rotor, and 10cm deep, and the torque on the rotor alone is then about 95Nm. That is with 40 grade neos. If I have right about the countertorque I got about 30Nm in average for one revolution. If I have luck, I have all 95Nm. I tried to remove all the Statormagnets 2, and checked the force acting on the crankshaft. I marked all the Statormagnets 1 (I had deleted Statormagnets 2 to see what forces affecting Statormagnets 1 separately) and found that the total counterforce is only 5000N for the big model - compared to the 750 000Nm torque from the rotor. That is only 7 per thousand spent on altering the magnetconfiguration.
So either there is 30Nm or 95Nm to spare for pure torque in a 60cm rotor 10 cm deep....
However, I do not guarantee that my calculations are correct. There might be something i have overlooked, but I have only trusted the simulations and my math skills (Which I hope is a bit over the average ;D ).
Br.
Vidar
Over Under sidesways down
thay ;D
Quote from: Low-Q on March 15, 2009, 04:28:04 PM
Hi,
What do you mean by RH, LH and Perpendicular RH. I lost you there - well most everything... :)
br.
Vidar
QuoteOver Under sidesways down
thay Grin
LOL!
Yeah, something like that. Alternating current merely reverses polarity. The real fun happens at induction.....at which point, more options are readily available. I've seen a handful of setups which seek to utilize the "90 degree principle" to supply motive force. Missing forest for trees.....
To me, the impressive thing about the "90 degree principle" is that one can get all those field transitions, or 'field changes' for next to nothing.
Magnets make great levers.
Levers with
long, 'magic arms' that go right through all sorts of stuff......
Thanks for the explanation :)
Here is some calculations. These are based on a simpler verstion with 45 degree rotormagnet, and not 90 degrees.
There is 12 magnets in total. I have paired them as shown in the pictures below. There are 6 pictures with the 6 possible different calculations of torque, and forces. If I sum up what all the statormagnets represent in forces separately, and sum up the torque affecting the rotor in these 6 steps, I get more torque than countertorque.
For the oo picture, only the X-force is representing the countertorque all alone.
For 30o, and 150o picture you calculate normally with cosinus for X and sinus for Y.
For the pictures 60o, and 120o the Y-force represent a countertorque equal to Y x (1 - sin60) or Y x (1 - sin120). Else normal cosinus for X.
For the 90o picture, no forces are affecting the torque at all as it works angular to x-direction.
Here is the results for these angles separately without influence from other statormagnets.:
1. 0 degrees.
Torque = -17 650Nm
x-component: -121610 N
y-component: 565835 N
Countertorque: 121610Nm
2. 30 degrees.
Torque = -15 500Nm
x-component: 184817 N
y-component: 340430 N
Counterforce: (184817 x cos 30) + (340430 x sin 30) = 330271Nm
3. 60 degrees.
Torque = -12 800Nm
x-component: 339211 N
y-component: 186645 N
Counterforce: (339211 x cos 60) + (186645 x (1 - sin 60)) = 194611Nm
4. 90 degrees.
Torque = -475 000Nm
x-component: 580705 N
y-component: -99619.1 N
Counterforce: 0
5. 120 degrees.
Torque = -1 470 000Nm
x-component: 77815.8 N
y-component: -1.06873e+006 N
Counterforce: (77816 x cos 120) + (-1068730 x (1 - sin 120)) = -182090Nm
6. 150 degrees.
Torque = 854 000Nm
x-component: -1.04384e+006 N
y-component: 65234.4 N
Counterforce: (-1043840 x cos 150) + (65234 x sin 150) = 936608Nm
Tota torque:
(SUM:Torque 1->6) - (SUM:Countertorque 1->6)
-1136950Nm + 1103766Nm = 0
Here is the result for the last picture with all the magnets in place:
Rotor torque: -1.10836e+006 N*m
x-component: -14629.3 N
y-component: +13575.4 N
So where did the countertorque go when all the stator magnets is in place?
br.
Vidar
Now that you're close to a radial field, you can inspect what I have been saying in my thread ;). Just put a magnet which has a magnetic field that is tangentially to the radial field, although the field is far from radial you could always try. I currently waiting on very strong neodymium magnets I bought as speaker magnets are far too weak then I'll show my little toy I have been working on.
Quote from: broli on March 16, 2009, 02:01:52 PM
Now that you're close to a radial field, you can inspect what I have been saying in my thread ;). Just put a magnet which has a magnetic field that is tangentially to the radial field, although the field is far from radial you could always try. I currently waiting on very strong neodymium magnets I bought as speaker magnets are far too weak then I'll show my little toy I have been working on.
Yes, the field is almost radial. I made a model similar to my model above, but where all statormagnets had the same distance. I put the rotor excentric inside that arrangement and the simulation didn't find any torque at all.
the difference between mine and yours is that there is allways a stronger field on one side and a weaker field on the other side of the rotor magnet. In your design there is equal magnetic field on both sides. Not that it probably would make a difference. I still believe neither mine or your design will work, but I have had some hard time finding out why my motor doesn't work :) Why your design doesnt work is for me quite obvious because the rotormagnet does never have a sticky spot it wants to go to.
Take a look at the design below, where all statormagnets have equal distance. The torque here is litteraly nothing even if the rotormagnet is excentric just like the designs above.
br.
Vidar
Low-q stop being ignorant and educate yourself. Magnets are not electric charged dipoles. I agree with you if my idea was using charged electric dipoles then it would never work. The force causing the torque on the dipole would then be radially if we assume an electric charge was in the middle making a radial field. Then what is the difference? The difference is huge. Magnets are made of trillions upon trillions of small current loops which are said to be either orbital electron spin its axial spin. These loops all have radial TANGENTIAL forces to them this is called the Lorentz force. Whether you have one big loop (electro-magnet) or trillions of small loops (permanent magnet). The Lorentz force stays the same. When I get my neodymium magnet I'm going to prove it with an electro-magnet.
It seriously pisses me off when people act like they know what they are talking about when they are instead making fools out of their selves. If you respect my knowledge I will respect yours.
Quote from: broli on March 16, 2009, 04:04:31 PM
Low-q stop being ignorant and educate yourself. Magnets are not electric charged dipoles. I agree with you if my idea was using charged electric dipoles then it would never work. The force causing the torque on the dipole would then be radially if we assume an electric charge was in the middle making a radial field. Then what is the difference? The difference is huge. Magnets are made of trillions upon trillions of small current loops which are said to be either orbital electron spin its axial spin. These loops all have radial TANGENTIAL forces to them this is called the Lorentz force. Whether you have one big loop (electro-magnet) or trillions of small loops (permanent magnet). The Lorentz force stays the same. When I get my neodymium magnet I'm going to prove it with an electro-magnet.
It seriously pisses me off when people act like they know what they are talking about when they are instead making fools out of their selves. If you respect my knowledge I will respect yours.
I am verry sorry for offending you or anyone else, but what is the problem actually? I really respect your work and your aproach to magnet motors. I just said it is for me obvious that your design doesnt work - also because I actually built it yesterday to test your particular design. Wasn't it you that had these drawing of the ringmagnets with the outer rotormagnet on it?
If so, I also told you that my own design probably doesnt work too, but my lack of knowledge couldn't at the moment see why my design doesn't work. We all know that magnets are conservative, they will allways get back what they give - in one way or another. My approach is more like a quiz - find 5 errors sort of type. As I couldn't find the error that stops my design from working, I asked all you guys to maybe find out something that I have overseen. Maybe it works - I don't know really.
br.
Vidar
Nevermind broli, he's just a bit frustrated with himself....you are obviously a creative person, perhaps he's just a wee tad jealous.
Low-q all I'm asking is to use pretty basic electro-magnetic concepts. If I showed you a working prototype then wouldn't you be asking yourself what was wrong with yours? Use common sense, it's not rocket science but simple things that were known for 150 years. I believe I already told you to look up the Faraday motor and the rail gun concept. If you understand those then you will understand where I'm coming from.
SomedayIsle if you can't contribute with anything positive leave your negativity for yourself.
broli.....you're one to talk, you jumped on the guy for no valid reason whatsoever.
take a chill pill and lighten up.
It seems like it would be the same design if the outer magnets were just placed stationary in a circle and the inner bar magnet rotated around the point you have marked "joint".
This would still maintain the magnetic relationship only you don't need all the rods.
Just a thought.
Hi Low-Q
Do you have any means possible to build a small simple test version of your design?
Using of shelf magnets and some small necessary custom made magnets
might cost you 500-600 USD. This way you could build and test your motor.
Sometimes a theory is not enough. You actually need to feel the hardware.
This place can provide you with both regular and custom made magnets: http://www.magnesy.eu
They are not expensive but if you wan't it cheap you could go for their selection of ferrite magnets.
I have myself ordered custom made NdFebs from Magnesy in the past, delivered in excellent quality.
Quote from: Honk on March 17, 2009, 03:52:14 AM
Hi Low-Q
Do you have any means possible to build a small simple test version of your design?
Using of shelf magnets and some small necessary custom made magnets
might cost you 500-600 USD. This way you could build and test your motor.
Sometimes a theory is not enough. You actually need to feel the hardware.
This place can provide you with both regular and custom made magnets: http://www.magnesy.eu
They are not expensive but if you wan't it cheap you could go for their selection of ferrite magnets.
I have myself ordered custom made NdFebs from Magnesy in the past, delivered in excellent quality.
Thanks for the info, Honk. I have in fact a lots of neomagnets. Maybe 20 -25 in total of 70mm x 5mm x 5mm, and 70mm x 5mm x 2.5mm. They are all magnetized through thickness and has been used in ribbon tweeters. I also have a defective Fountec tweeter with four big block neos inside, but that tweeter I use for test purpose (I also engineering loudspeaker drivers as a hobby). So I have all the magnets and it will not cost me anything, but I have no tools for making the actual motor, so I need help for that.
If anyone is interested, just send me a PM so I can ship my neos for a small desposit + shipping. The neos is not for sale so I want them back so I can use them for loudspeaker test purpose.
Br.
Vidar
CLaNZeR might be able to build this quickly. Here is his profile.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=profile;u=3471
You could contact him and ask if he's interested in building it.
He's got a NC milling machine and here's a couple of links to his results.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCVri4R31gU&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYk9oxZV-9E&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJaPZngacek&feature=PlayList&p=036A662613A53733&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=14
Quote from: broli on March 16, 2009, 05:42:02 PM
Low-q all I'm asking is to use pretty basic electro-magnetic concepts. If I showed you a working prototype then wouldn't you be asking yourself what was wrong with yours? Use common sense, it's not rocket science but simple things that were known for 150 years. I believe I already told you to look up the Faraday motor and the rail gun concept. If you understand those then you will understand where I'm coming from.
Hi,
I know how a faraday disc is working, and a rail gun, but I just cannot see what these concepts has to do with a magnet motor, or how you ar going to close a loop using magnets in stead of electric supply in your construction, and make those work as OU. So could you please make a drawing of your design with an explanation. There is obviously something I have missed in your previous explanations. You also mentioned electromagnets - are you also using those in your design?
Br.
Vidar
@Honk, you reminded me of wondering where Clanzer is. He hasn't been active for quite a while
@Low-Q, Take a linear rail gun and bend it into a circle, that is pretty much the idea. Experiments show that the rail gun has a significant recoil that can compress the rails carrying the current themselves this is what ampere kept calling the longitudinal magnetic force that acts ALONG instead of PERPENDICULAR to the current carrying wire. Now instead of making your own magnetic field with current like the rails do here I use permanent magnets in repulsion to obtain the same field as a rail gun. Because that's what a rail gun is as well. Two rails with opposing current direction repulsing each other.
Now I'm suggesting two things. One is to have a stationary piece of wire (in a rail gun this is what gets shot out) and allow the actual rails themselves to rotate due to that longitudinal force. In my design this means that the magnets are rotating while the wire is stationary. As the magnets rotate the wire sees no change or is not moving so no lenz effect or back emf arises. This means that the magnets can rotate as fast as they want and can. My other suggestion is instead of a current carrying wire one could even use a permanent magnet for either the same exact setup or to let everything rotate. The magnets in repulsion that provide the field will rotate due the longitudinal force while the magnet on the sides inside this field will rotate due the Lorentz force.
Quote from: broli on March 17, 2009, 06:35:58 AM
@Honk, you reminded me of wondering where Clanzer is. He hasn't been active for quite a while
@Low-Q, Take a linear rail gun and bend it into a circle, that is pretty much the idea. Experiments show that the rail gun has a significant recoil that can compress the rails carrying the current themselves this is what ampere kept calling the longitudinal magnetic force that acts ALONG instead of PERPENDICULAR to the current carrying wire. Now instead of making your own magnetic field with current like the rails do here I use permanent magnets in repulsion to obtain the same field as a rail gun. Because that's what a rail gun is as well. Two rails with opposing current direction repulsing each other.
Now I'm suggesting two things. One is to have a stationary piece of wire (in a rail gun this is what gets shot out) and allow the actual rails themselves to rotate due to that longitudinal force. In my design this means that the magnets are rotating while the wire is stationary. As the magnets rotate the wire sees no change or is not moving so no lenz effect or back emf arises. This means that the magnets can rotate as fast as they want and can. My other suggestion is instead of a current carrying wire one could even use a permanent magnet for either the same exact setup or to let everything rotate. The magnets in repulsion that provide the field will rotate due the longitudinal force while the magnet on the sides inside this field will rotate due the Lorentz force.
I see, so you want to use permanentmagnets instead ofthe supplied energy to create the same field in a coil?
But doesnt the projectile accelerate because of a sudden and brutal change in magnetic field - from nothing, to destructing amount of magnetic fields? I cannot see how a permanent magnetic field can do the same unless you mechanicly move them to change the field - or something. A railgun works pretty much like a squirrel cage induction motor which is working by changing a magnetic field that will, as it change, induce a similar magnetic field in the conductors in the rotor that force the rotor to turn. These motors are like a railgun, but in a closed loop. But these motors doesnt work with DC current or a static magnetic field.
Just some thoughts.
Br.
Vidar
Of course a rail gun works with DC power it's not the sudden burst of magnetic field that causes the acceleration it's the presence of the magnetic field, when will you get this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
Low-q I think I'm going to stop posting in your thread or else people will call me jealous again ::). You keep making up these pointless remarks that I'm starting to think you are deliberately selling your disinfo. I asked you to do some research and you didn't do squat. But you act like you know what you're talking about while you clearly don't. Maybe one day you will go "aha now I see what he meant". But that day isn't going to be soon it seems.
Quote from: broli on March 17, 2009, 07:24:33 AM
Of course a rail gun works with DC power it's not the sudden burst of magnetic field that causes the acceleration it's the presence of the magnetic field, when will you get this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun
Low-q I think I'm going to stop posting in your thread or else people will call me jealous again ::). You keep making up these pointless remarks that I'm starting to think you are deliberately selling your disinfo. I asked you to do some research and you didn't do squat. But you act like you know what you're talking about while you clearly don't. Maybe one day you will go "aha now I see what he meant". But that day isn't going to be soon it seems.
You're right, I was confusing this with a coil gun or something.
But anyway, if you bend the rails around to make a rail circle, the projectile will loose its magnetic reference bacause the magnetic forces that is pushing the magnetized projectile away, will in a closed rail loop be pushed equally from both sides.
The projectile just want to escape from the magnetic field built up in the straight rail- and projectile conductor. And it can because there is no magnetig field in front of the projectile that stops it. In other words, the magnetic field only occour in the closed current loop, but as there is no current flowing through the rails in front of the projectile, no magnetic field is made there. The current loop is limited by where the projectile is present, so to speak. maybe you can almost close the rail loop, and hope that the projectile is jumping over for a new round. If you can do that with permanentmagnets, it might be worth trying it. Looking forward to your results.
br.
Vidar
Read this thesis and open you mind...
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/LongitudinalMSc.pdf
Quote from: broli on March 17, 2009, 08:27:32 AM
Read this thesis and open you mind...
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/LongitudinalMSc.pdf
Interesting reading, and I try hard to be open minded.
The thesis is however not very related to permanentmagnets, and how you can utilize the properties of a railgun by using permanentmagnets instead. The rail and the projectile is a coil, an equivalent of one permanentmagnet that expands - not more. A long permanentmagnet magnetized through thickness, like a railgun is, if you break it in two, those two parts will be forced apart - almost like the railgun works. In fact a permanent magnet want to pinch in the direction of magnetic lines, and expand angular to the magnetic lines, so to speak. So if you are going to make a railgun-motor with permanentmagnets, i really don't know how you are going to make that working as the projectile in a railgun works like a monopole in the circuit. And as far as I know there is impossible to make a monopole with magnets.
You can allways try to close a magnetic loop in the rotor or stator, so you get all the lines in a circle in order to simulate the magnetic field around a wire with current flow, and put that circular magnetic field between two magnets attracting eachother. In my mind it would work, but after an experiment with that, it didnt work at all.
I once did an experiment like in the picture below.
Anyway, I feel we are going quite off topic now, and I blame myself for it - even if it is interesting discussing motordesign with you :)
Br.
Vidar
Go ahead a build your idea like an aircraft radial piston engine. I like your concept and have my own I am in the middle of building using the radial concept, but not with your "cancelling" idea. Just build it! Good idea.
Thanks,
Jeff
LowQ.....got to hand it to you....
You 'suffer the fool' well.
8)
I guess I have to build it. I will figure out a way to build it. :)
Vidar
Hello Juraj,
Please check your messages . :)
Your Good Friend Ian
Wow, I went through a lot of hassle to say:
broli, don't be so sensitive! It seems like Low-Q is making reasonable counter argument. Now with that out of they way, I have to say, I don't understand one bit of this except your (broli) simplified explanation of the railgun. I was excited to hear that because I have been thinking the same thing for six months after I saw a railgun. After that I became aware of the fervor against this idea but I am not satisfied why it won't work.
I can't tinker with parts to find out if a complete circle can be made because it's expensive (machining needed). I do however, want to model it with software. But it seems like such software would exist. I know about Maxwell, but I wasn't able to figure out how to create such a motor with it.
It seems to be proven that the thing can go around nearly full circle. The problem seems to be the jump past full circle. Even though I'm not convinced it won't work with the stated or similar design, I'm willing to use electronics or gravity to complete the circle.
So we need a fixed, spinning stator and a circular rail (wheel). Does software exist to test this in an animated model, or do we need to write some?
You right on track with your suggestion of making a circular smot.
The only problem you have is that it has already been made.
And yes, it's well overunity according to sources.
http://freenrg.info/Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi
That's cool. I have seen that design before. That's the first time I saw it keep going though. However, it's not like the railgun design. But a greater question I have is, does software exist to model this stuff? I guess 3d software is what I'm talking about.
Suppose we want to find out if we should use big magnets, or needle magnets and how far apart to put them; And then watch the result of the action: Does software exist that allows such mechanical action to be modelled?
I mean, suppose I want to use software to place a magnet and then another magnet next to it. I want to press "start simulation" and watch what happens. So I guess it's simulation software.. I want to find out if such a program exists or if we need to create it.
There is no such public program but I bet the Sprain group
has developed such a tool to help them design these motors.
Btw, here's a guy that seems to have found a way to calculate this.
Read point 3.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3456.msg55584.html#msg55584
Quote from: Ergo on April 09, 2009, 05:44:18 PM
You right on track with your suggestion of making a circular smot.
The only problem you have is that it has already been made.
And yes, it's well overunity according to sources.
http://freenrg.info/Sprain/Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor.avi
SMOTs are not OU. It looks like it because the ball is visually higher at the end of the track, and therfor visually contains greater kinetic energy. But the ball is affected by more than gravity - namely magnetism. The magnetism will during one revolution counterforce the ball as well as forcing it to move. These forces adds up in zero. As both gravity and magnetism is conservative, there is no net change made in kinetic energy within a SMOT.
Vidar