Pulsing a Permanent Magnet on/off
I think most of us will agree that if one could pulse or turn a PM on/off with low cost on the switching mechanism, we will have OU.
I haven't found a way to turn a PM on/off, but I think we can emulate switching a PM on and off by using a ferromagnetic material instead of a magnet. A ferromagnetic material can act as a PM in every way. We will refer to this ferromagnetic material as a metal for simplicity sake.
We can easily switch the metal between the two following options:
1) Attract a magnet and not attract another metal piece.
2) Repel a magnet and attract another metal piece.
I'll post a drawing or a video on how we can switch between the two options at little to no cost using a magnet whose only purpose is to control the switching (this could also be accomplished with a magnet and reed switch). Before I take the time to create a drawing or video, I would like to know first if this has any potential in working.
To have the metal to repel a magnet is easy. Place two magnets with the same pole's attached to the front side of the metal. With this arrangement the backside of the metal will repel another magnet at a distance and will attract metal. Now, turn one of the magnets over so a north pole is attached to the metal and a south pole is attached to the metal (both magnets on the front side of the metal). With this arrangement, the backside of the metal won't attract another metal piece and will attract a magnet.
This is not difficult to understand. All we are doing, is substituting some of the magnets with a ferromagnetic material, which can emulate a magnet, that we can control in order to simulate pulsing or turning a permanent magnet on/off. The thickness of the metal must be matched to the strength of the magnets that are attached to the metal in order to obtain the desired results. There is a simple technique to matching the thickness of the metal to the magnets, which I will share if there are those who want to build and test.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on April 16, 2009, 11:38:40 PM
Pulsing a Permanent Magnet on/off
I think most of us will agree that if one could pulse or turn a PM on/off with low cost on the switching mechanism, we will have OU.
I haven't found a way to turn a PM on/off, but I think we can emulate switching a PM on and off by using a ferromagnetic material instead of a magnet. A ferromagnetic material can act as a PM in every way. We will refer to this ferromagnetic material as a metal for simplicity sake.
We can easily switch the metal between the two following options:
1) Attract a magnet and not attract another metal piece.
2) Repel a magnet and attract another metal piece.
I'll post a drawing or a video on how we can switch between the two options at little to no cost using a magnet whose only purpose is to control the switching (this could also be accomplished with a magnet and reed switch). Before I take the time to create a drawing or video, I would like to know first if this has any potential in working.
To have the metal to repel a magnet is easy. Place two magnets with the same pole's attached to the front side of the metal. With this arrangement the backside of the metal will repel another magnet at a distance and will attract metal. Now, turn one of the magnets over so a north pole is attached to the metal and a south pole is attached to the metal (both magnets on the front side of the metal). With this arrangement, the backside of the metal won't attract another metal piece and will attract a magnet.
This is not difficult to understand. All we are doing, is substituting some of the magnets with a ferromagnetic material, which can emulate a magnet, that we can control in order to simulate pulsing or turning a permanent magnet on/off. The thickness of the metal must be matched to the strength of the magnets that are attached to the metal in order to obtain the desired results. There is a simple technique to matching the thickness of the metal to the magnets, which I will share if there are those who want to build and test.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
GB
How about reconditioning the magnet like what floyd sweet has done in his VTA.
try to search floyd sweet VTA
Hi GB
Maybe you are also aware of Naudin tests on a very similar setup you have just described. See this link:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mep1.htm
The setup you describe and that of Naudin's both surely works, (I tested Naudin's setup some years ago) the question is how to utilize them in a useful arrangement, keeping the input power at a minimum possible for operating them while making advantage of the flipping and/or increased flux lines in the arrangement,
I am all ears to seeing a drawing on your setup. :)
rgds, Gyula
Hi GB, you may already know this, but Butch LaFonte has made excellent strides in this area. Worth looking into.
Quote from: gravityblock on April 16, 2009, 11:38:40 PM
Pulsing a Permanent Magnet on/off
I think most of us will agree that if one could pulse or turn a PM on/off with low cost on the switching mechanism, we will have OU.
I haven't found a way to turn a PM on/off, but I think we can emulate switching a PM on and off by using a ferromagnetic material instead of a magnet. A ferromagnetic material can act as a PM in every way. We will refer to this ferromagnetic material as a metal for simplicity sake.
We can easily switch the metal between the two following options:
1) Attract a magnet and not attract another metal piece.
2) Repel a magnet and attract another metal piece.
I'll post a drawing or a video on how we can switch between the two options at little to no cost using a magnet whose only purpose is to control the switching (this could also be accomplished with a magnet and reed switch). Before I take the time to create a drawing or video, I would like to know first if this has any potential in working.
To have the metal to repel a magnet is easy. Place two magnets with the same pole's attached to the front side of the metal. With this arrangement the backside of the metal will repel another magnet at a distance and will attract metal. Now, turn one of the magnets over so a north pole is attached to the metal and a south pole is attached to the metal (both magnets on the front side of the metal). With this arrangement, the backside of the metal won't attract another metal piece and will attract a magnet.
This is not difficult to understand. All we are doing, is substituting some of the magnets with a ferromagnetic material, which can emulate a magnet, that we can control in order to simulate pulsing or turning a permanent magnet on/off. The thickness of the metal must be matched to the strength of the magnets that are attached to the metal in order to obtain the desired results. There is a simple technique to matching the thickness of the metal to the magnets, which I will share if there are those who want to build and test.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
GB
So you'll make temporary "permanentmagnets"?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on April 22, 2009, 04:37:18 AM
So you'll make temporary "permanentmagnets"?
Vidar
That's what I was thinking. It doesn't take as much energy to connect and separate two pieces of metal that have different poles of the magnet attached to each piece, than to physically flip the magnet on the metal.
The idea was to have a north pole attached to a metal piece and to have a south pole of another magnet attached to a metal piece for the stator. When the two ends of the metal pieces are attached together, the rotor magnet will slide pass the stator with very little to no resistance. Once the rotor magnet gets slightly pass the second half of the two attached metal pieces, then we will separate the two metal pieces to repel the the rotor. There is still a small amount of energy required to separate the metals, but I think this small amount of energy is much less than the energy gained by the temporary permanent magnets repelling the rotor magnet.
Quote from: Xaverius on April 21, 2009, 04:30:30 PM
Hi GB, you may already know this, but Butch LaFonte has made excellent strides in this area. Worth looking into.
You are right, Butch LaFonte has been studying this technique, and I will look more into it. This idea originated with me, when I was working on how to shield the magnetic field. Here's a youtube video of mine that led me to this idea,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_81SxByRNR8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_81SxByRNR8)"There is nothing new under the sun"
This is exactly what I'm working on right now in building a motor to power my Dan Quale generator replication.
It is basically a 5 inch x 1/2 inch bolt with 1/2 inch cylinder magnets channeling the North pole through the bolt towards the rotor. I put a coil around the bolt that can be pulsed to block the flux through the bolt at specific intervals and is timed by the use of a reed switch. I'm still having difficulties getting a mosfet transistor to work properly in my circuit. I think I keep frying them because I can't get them to work. Everything else has been tested and should work. Anyone know how to test a mosfet transistor? or have a suggestion for a different type of transistor?
I've discovered there's a "sweet spot" between the push of the magnetic fields and the attraction of the magnet to the bolt. It takes very little energy to swing this either way. I believe this coupled with Dan Quales generator design may make a self-running generator very probable.
Attached are a few photos of my gross testing motor assembly....
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Quote from: Golden Mean on April 22, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
This is exactly what I'm working on right now in building a motor to power my Dan Quale generator replication.
It is basically a 5 inch x 1/2 inch bolt with 1/2 inch cylinder magnets channeling the North pole through the bolt towards the rotor. I put a coil around the bolt that can be pulsed to block the flux through the bolt at specific intervals and is timed by the use of a reed switch. I'm still having difficulties getting a mosfet transistor to work properly in my circuit. I think I keep frying them because I can't get them to work. Everything else has been tested and should work. Anyone know how to test a mosfet transistor? or have a suggestion for a different type of transistor?
I've discovered there's a "sweet spot" between the push of the magnetic fields and the attraction of the magnet to the bolt. It takes very little energy to swing this either way. I believe this coupled with Dan Quales generator design may make a self-running generator very probable.
Attached are a few photos of my gross testing motor assembly....
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Thanks for sharing. I've also noticed the "sweet spot" you are referring to. I will also be experimenting with the reed switches that you mentioned. I have no idea on how to test a mosfet transistor. Please keep us up-to-date on the progress of your motor.
Quote from: Golden Mean on April 22, 2009, 02:36:11 PM
I'm still having difficulties getting a mosfet transistor to work properly in my circuit. I think I keep frying them because I can't get them to work. Everything else has been tested and should work. Anyone know how to test a mosfet transistor? or have a suggestion for a different type of transistor?
Hi,
Here is a link on how to test a MOSFET with a digital multimeter, in its separate diode test range:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~antoon/gadgets/mostest.htm
If you do not have a meter with a separate diode test, no problem, you could use a simple 9V battery to switch the MOSFET on: connect the positive pole of the battery to the gate (if you have an N-Channel FET) and the negative pole to the source, just for a few seconds while the few nanoFarad capacitor inherent across the gate source charges up. (With the meter in the diode test range you do this same by the meter's internal battery but with a reduced output of course.)
So the FET is switched on now (because you connected a higher than its treshold voltage level across its g-s) and you can measure across its drain source legs a near short circuit with the multimeter in the normal Ohms range or in its diode test range. The resistance you see is the MOSFET static DC on resistance, normally specified in its data sheet.
Now if you discharge the g-s capacitor, the drain-source path switches off and should go over several MegaOhm values (ideally open circuit). The discharge can be done with a piece of bare wire or a srewdriver.
You will find you cannot control a faulty or fried MOSFET in the above ways, most of them give a perpetual short circuit between any two of their legs.
@gravityblock Would you mind drawing your setup you referred to in your first mail?
rgds, Gyula
Edit: Golden Mean: probably your MOSFET you using has a lower breakdown voltage than the flyback pulse created at switch off. IF you specify your present type I could suggest some other types or if you could draw even a handmade schematics on you pulsed setup I could overview it, ok?
Quote from: gravityblock on April 22, 2009, 01:13:48 PM
That's what I was thinking. It doesn't take as much energy to connect and separate two pieces of metal that have different poles of the magnet attached to each piece, than to physically flip the magnet on the metal.
The idea was to have a north pole attached to a metal piece and to have a south pole of another magnet attached to a metal piece for the stator. When the two ends of the metal pieces are attached together, the rotor magnet will slide pass the stator with very little to no resistance. Once the rotor magnet gets slightly pass the second half of the two attached metal pieces, then we will separate the two metal pieces to repel the the rotor. There is still a small amount of energy required to separate the metals, but I think this small amount of energy is much less than the energy gained by the temporary permanent magnets repelling the rotor magnet.
I think there is an overlooked issue in the explanation. If the metal piece is easy to magnetize, it will also be easy to magnetize it with the passing magnet. The passing magnet is also a attracted to the metal piece itself in addition to ita magnetized condition, where the distance will determine how much influence there will be between those two. That distance and the relationship will also be a loss accordingly in addition to the energy required to break free the temporary magnetic field. If you include that loss (energy requirement) too, and still got energy to spare, this will work. But I have a small doubt that the whole picture is easily seen. All those small, but important details that follows a solved problem, will often be an obstacle to get the machine to work.
You can try it and experiment a little, and you'll probably see that there is much more unexpected details to a magnetmotor than the intention and the idea on how it might work.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on April 22, 2009, 06:54:21 PM
I think there is an overlooked issue in the explanation. If the metal piece is easy to magnetize, it will also be easy to magnetize it with the passing magnet. The passing magnet is also a attracted to the metal piece itself in addition to ita magnetized condition, where the distance will determine how much influence there will be between those two. That distance and the relationship will also be a loss accordingly in addition to the energy required to break free the temporary magnetic field. If you include that loss (energy requirement) too, and still got energy to spare, this will work. But I have a small doubt that the whole picture is easily seen. All those small, but important details that follows a solved problem, will often be an obstacle to get the machine to work.
You can try it and experiment a little, and you'll probably see that there is much more unexpected details to a magnetmotor than the intention and the idea on how it might work.
Vidar
I've already taken all of this into account. I haven't seen any evidence of the metal being magnetized by the passing magnet. The "sweet spot" that was mentioned in previous posts avoids the magnet being attracted to the metal and still allows it to be repelled with plenty of force.
This may not work....but I do know that trying to brute force your way pass the sticky spot will never give the results we're looking for.
I'll try to make a drawing and video of this soon. I want to investigate the reed switches and other options for completing and breaking the circuit between the two metal pieces first.
Quote from: gyulasun on April 22, 2009, 05:54:32 PM
Edit: Golden Mean: probably your MOSFET you using has a lower breakdown voltage than the flyback pulse created at switch off. IF you specify your present type I could suggest some other types or if you could draw even a handmade schematics on you pulsed setup I could overview it, ok?
Thank you for your excellent reply and offer to assist. Attached is a PDF schematic and brief explanation of the pulse motor setup.
I am uncertain about the direction of current flow from the 3 volt power supply to the gate (G) of the MOSFET transistor...
Does the charge direction matter to trip the gate (G)?
I am uncertain about the connection to the MOSFET at the source (S) and drain (D) to get the proper direction of the charge flow to block magnetic flux in the bolt...
Should the 12 volt testing battery be connected to the source (S) or the drain (D) and in which direction?
Thank you for your consideration. ;D
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Here's a quick sketch I did.
When the two metal pieces are connected to each other, this will allow the rotor magnet to pass the stator with little to no resistance. Once the rotor magnet is half way pass the bottom metal piece, we will disconnect the two metal pieces, which will cause the stator magnet to repel the rotor magnet. The only thing this drawing doesn't show, is the switching mechanism to connect and disconnect the two pieces of metal.
I hope you can overlook my poor drawing capabilities.
Edit: I made a mistake with the polarity of the magnets in the drawing. The magnets on the rotors should be a north pole facing the stator instead of the south pole I have in the drawing. After making this correction, you will see how the top metal piece on the stator will attract the approaching rotor magnet while the bottom metal piece of the stator will repel the rotor magnet that is moving away from the stator when they are disconnected from each other.
I hope you can understand this......lol
@LowQ:
Let's divide the south pole of a magnet for illustration purposes. This will also apply to the north pole, but we'll only talk about the south pole to keep this simple.
Half of the south pole is a good guy and the other half of the south pole is a bad guy. The bad guy destroys all the energy that the good guy provides. The bad guy is known as the sticky spot. The good and bad guys can switch their roles depending on their operation. So, you will always have a good and bad guy.
Look at my corrected drawing for a second time. The metal pieces are separated. The top stator will attract one of the rotor magnets while the bottom stator will repel another magnet. These guys are both good at the same time and are both providing us with energy.
Let's say the good guy provided 100 units of energy and the bad guy provided 100 units of energy (In a normal magnet motor the bad guy doesn't provide anything, instead he would destroy the 100 units of energy that the good guy provided). We now have 200 units of energy. We'll destroy the 100 units of energy that the bad guy normally doesn't provide for the connecting and disconnecting of the two stators in order to keep them both good (In a normal magnet motor, this would destroy all the energy that was gained) . We now have 100 units of energy minus friction after a complete cycle. A cycle is a complete pass of two rotor magnets passing both stators. Also, the top stator in the drawing should be curved to the rotor (poor drawing).
I will agree with you that things don't always work according to what is on paper or according to theory. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not good at putting my thoughts in writing. >:(
@Golden Mean
I redrew your schematic because it contained some fatal drawing mistakes.
I included a current limiting resistor in the positive wire of the battery to save the MOSFET from the several ampers of current when it switches on, (one possible explanation for burning your FETs is the lack of this resistor).
I did not include your 3V gate supply batteries in the modified schematic because you can use the 12V battery itself to control the gate via the reed switch, ok? Resistor R1 discharges the gate-source inherent capacitor when the reed is also off, use any value between 2-3 kOhm.
I indicated a MOSFET type, IRF840 (500V 8A) but any similar or better rated can be used. (IF you happen to use this type, then the value of R2 should be chosen 2 Ohm at least to bring down current below 8A from the 12V battery, ok?)
The IRF840 is an N-channel type, meaning its gate should get a positive voltage polarity with respect to its source to be able to control it. Also the drain should get a positive polarity from any supply with respect to the source electrode. (For P-channel FETs all polarities are just the opposite.)
rgds, Gyula
Quote from: Golden Mean on April 23, 2009, 01:30:54 AM
Thank you for your excellent reply and offer to assist. Attached is a PDF schematic and brief explanation of the pulse motor setup.
I am uncertain about the direction of current flow from the 3 volt power supply to the gate (G) of the MOSFET transistor...
Does the charge direction matter to trip the gate (G)?
I am uncertain about the connection to the MOSFET at the source (S) and drain (D) to get the proper direction of the charge flow to block magnetic flux in the bolt...
Should the 12 volt testing battery be connected to the source (S) or the drain (D) and in which direction?
Thank you for your consideration. ;D
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Quote@LowQ:
Let's divide the south pole of a magnet for illustration purposes. This will also apply to the north pole, but we'll only talk about the south pole to keep this simple.
Half of the south pole is a good guy and the other half of the south pole is a bad guy. The bad guy destroys all the energy that the good guy provides. The bad guy is known as the sticky spot. The good and bad guys can switch their roles depending on their operation. So, you will always have a good and bad guy.
Look at my corrected drawing for a second time. The metal pieces are separated. The top stator will attract one of the rotor magnets while the bottom stator will repel another magnet. These guys are both good at the same time and are both providing us with energy.
Let's say the good guy provided 100 units of energy and the bad guy provided 100 units of energy (In a normal magnet motor the bad guy doesn't provide anything, instead he would destroy the 100 units of energy that the good guy provided). We now have 200 units of energy. We'll destroy the 100 units of energy that the bad guy normally doesn't provide for the connecting and disconnecting of the two stators in order to keep them both good (In a normal magnet motor, this would destroy all the energy that was gained) . We now have 100 units of energy minus friction after a complete cycle. A cycle is a complete pass of two rotor magnets passing both stators. Also, the top stator in the drawing should be curved to the rotor (poor drawing).
I will agree with you that things don't always work according to what is on paper or according to theory. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I'm not good at putting my thoughts in writing.
The sticky spot will be the stators itself. Look at the flux between the two statormagnets. It will jump almost directly to the other statormagnet and not contribute any useful attraction or repell of the rotormagnets. Left you have two statormagnets that is pulled together via the fluxpath through the metal pieces. So if you want to remove the statormagnet at properiate timing, they will be hard to move.
Another thing is that the "neutral" zone, somewhere in between the stator magnets, is more attractive than a repelling zone, so there will be a sticky spot in that direction - a direction opposite of the desired rotation.
Look at the forces with the magnet wheel and only the metal pieces, then look at it with the magnet wheel with only the stator magnets. Calculate a number of forces in given angels separately. Then it is then easier to predict the result when those are combined. Because it does not happen any spooky when you combine magnetic material, as the metal pieces, with magnets. You just make it more complex and less surveyable.
You should however try it anyway. Results, even if not good, are nice to have for later experiments.
Vidar
Quote from: gyulasun on April 23, 2009, 06:41:15 AM
@Golden Mean
I redrew your schematic because it contained some fatal drawing mistakes.
I included a current limiting resistor in the positive wire of the battery to save the MOSFET from the several ampers of current when it switches on, (one possible explanation for burning your FETs is the lack of this resistor).
I did not include your 3V gate supply batteries in the modified schematic because you can use the 12V battery itself to control the gate via the reed switch, ok? Resistor R1 discharges the gate-source inherent capacitor when the reed is also off, use any value between 2-3 kOhm.
I indicated a MOSFET type, IRF840 (500V 8A) but any similar or better rated can be used. (IF you happen to use this type, then the value of R2 should be chosen 2 Ohm at least to bring down current below 8A from the 12V battery, ok?)
The IRF840 is an N-channel type, meaning its gate should get a positive voltage polarity with respect to its source to be able to control it. Also the drain should get a positive polarity from any supply with respect to the source electrode. (For P-channel FETs all polarities are just the opposite.)
rgds, Gyula
Thank you Gyula for reviewing and correcting my schematic. However, there will have to be resistor going to the reed switch as I've already welded two by trying to run the coil current directly through the reed switch and skipping the MOSFET altogether. What type of resistor should I use to reduce the voltage down to around 3 volts?
Also, attached is the spec sheet for the MOSFET I am working with (currently anyway ;))
I'll post my results as soon as I have some time to do some more testing (likely Friday night).
Thanks again.
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Sorry, accidental double post... :-\
Quote from: Golden Mean on April 23, 2009, 12:25:23 PM
Thank you Gyula for reviewing and correcting my schematic. However, there will have to be resistor going to the reed switch as I've already welded two by trying to run the coil current directly through the reed switch and skipping the MOSFET altogether. What type of resistor should I use to reduce the voltage down to around 3 volts?
Also, attached is the spec sheet for the MOSFET I am working with (currently anyway ;))
I'll post my results as soon as I have some time to do some more testing (likely Friday night).
Thanks again.
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Hi,
The data sheet shows the TIP47-50 npn bipolar power transistors specs, this is NOT a MOSFET as you can also read it. Why did you think it is a MOSFET and indicated in your PDF file its electrodes as G, D and S? It should be B, C and E.
This transistor has a max allowed peak collector current of 2A as you can see so the value of the resistor R2 I included in the modified schematic should be increased to at least 9-10 Ohm, ok?
Now if you really have got TIP48 bipolar transistors (and not MOSFETs) than you have to modify my schematic: you have to insert a resistor in series with the reed switch where the left hand side of the reed goes to the common point of G (which is now the B or base of the transistor) and R1, ok? The value of this series resistor can be between 8-9 kOhm (maybe better to use a 10 kOhm trimmer potmeter, place also in series with its wiper a 1kOhm resistor), ok? now I have no time to update the schematic, if you do not understand, then I will draw it tomorrow.
Your reed switches was destined to weld when you used them directly, without transistor, because they cannot handle the too high current (your coil copper resistance is under 1 or around 1-2 Ohm and you connected it to a 12V battery via the reed, use Ohms law to figure out the current!)
rgds, Gyula
Have you folks read up about the Robert Adams and Muller motors?
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter2.pdf
Quote from: Paul-R on April 24, 2009, 09:32:30 AM
Have you folks read up about the Robert Adams and Muller motors?
http://www.free-energy-info.co.uk/Chapter2.pdf
This looks like a better and easier solution than what I was thinking about.
Thanks Paul and Golden Mean.
Quote from: gyulasun on April 23, 2009, 07:01:44 PM
Hi,
The data sheet shows the TIP47-50 npn bipolar power transistors specs, this is NOT a MOSFET as you can also read it. Why did you think it is a MOSFET and indicated in your PDF file its electrodes as G, D and S? It should be B, C and E.
This transistor has a max allowed peak collector current of 2A as you can see so the value of the resistor R2 I included in the modified schematic should be increased to at least 9-10 Ohm, ok?
Now if you really have got TIP48 bipolar transistors (and not MOSFETs) than you have to modify my schematic: you have to insert a resistor in series with the reed switch where the left hand side of the reed goes to the common point of G (which is now the B or base of the transistor) and R1, ok? The value of this series resistor can be between 8-9 kOhm (maybe better to use a 10 kOhm trimmer potmeter, place also in series with its wiper a 1kOhm resistor), ok? now I have no time to update the schematic, if you do not understand, then I will draw it tomorrow.
Your reed switches was destined to weld when you used them directly, without transistor, because they cannot handle the too high current (your coil copper resistance is under 1 or around 1-2 Ohm and you connected it to a 12V battery via the reed, use Ohms law to figure out the current!)
rgds, Gyula
Well that explains why I can't get this circuit to work!!! ARGHH!!! My apologies. I somehow got it in my head that this transistor was a MOSFET and have been struggling with it for a while now.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious Gyula. I will rework my schmatic and do some testing soon (hopefully tonight) and see if I can get this working.
Peace,
~ Golden Mean
Here's a modified version of the Adams motor, using alternating poles like the Muller motor, and using both ends of the electromagnet unlike Adam's original motor. Here's a link that explains the operation of this motor, http://members.fortunecity.com/freeenergy2000/adamsmotor.htm (http://members.fortunecity.com/freeenergy2000/adamsmotor.htm)
There are two options which allows you to use both ends of the electromagnet for efficiency purposes. The first option is to use two rotors with the stator between the two. The other option is to possibly use a C-type electromagnetic coil, which simplifies the operation of the motor and is illustrated in the attached drawing.
In order to fully understand this motor, you must read the link above. It shows how to wind the coils and the theory behind this motor.
Thanks,
GB
As this is the Half bakes Ideas forum...
What about ways of shielding the influence of an otherwise proximate permanent magnet?
If lead can shield us from radio-active radiation, what about magnetic fields?
Opening/closing a diafragma out of the shielding material (lead or otherwise), with be like an on/off switch.
Or, as people seem to get all excited over: a spinning disc with pre-drilled openings to generate pulse from permanent magnets.
I have the feeling that the solution to big problems is at times overly simple.
Feel free to call me stupid. At this sort of thing, I just am.
Quote from: Cloxxki on May 05, 2009, 05:01:46 AM
As this is the Half bakes Ideas forum...
What about ways of shielding the influence of an otherwise proximate permanent magnet?
If lead can shield us from radio-active radiation, what about magnetic fields?
Opening/closing a diafragma out of the shielding material (lead or otherwise), with be like an on/off switch.
Or, as people seem to get all excited over: a spinning disc with pre-drilled openings to generate pulse from permanent magnets.
I have the feeling that the solution to big problems is at times overly simple.
Feel free to call me stupid. At this sort of thing, I just am.
Hi,
Lead is a diamagnetic material ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism ) and has a relative magnetic permeability of slightly less than one, just like copper. So lead cannot shield magnetism.
Unfortunately, there are no known materials that are able to serve as a real shield should, metals with higher than one relative permeability can 'collect' and guide magnetic flux inside their body but they are attracted by any magnet, this can be a drawback.
There is a patent, also mentioned here in this forum that deals with a mixture of powdered non-magnetic and/or magnetic materials and claims good shielding properties, see here info http://www.rexresearch.com/wardle/wardle.htm and some info here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1771.msg20092.html#msg20092
Unfortunately, I am aware of only unsussessful replication attemps of the compound mixture of those materials referred to in the Wardle-May patent.
Regards, Gyula
Good stuff, thanks.
Instead of sheilding the flux why not go with the flow? If things are balanced just right you might be able to contain the magnetic flux and set things up in such a way that it only takes a small amount of power to make an alternate path be the path of least resistance. Here is an Idea I had a while back, but never found the time to try it out.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1504.msg12125.html#msg12125