This is an idea that I have had for quite some time.
It uses 4 pistons, 4 stationary stator mags, and 9 gears.
Neos are .75 X .25 X .125
Rotor uses same magnets and is .750 diameter.
Shield covers 234 degrees as drawn, but will certainly need
Fine tuning for coverage and timing.
Gears are 3.5 inches.
Please view my PDF drawing. ( I lack good CAD software)
You can see there is quite a mechanical advantage for the power stroke
to overcome the shield attraction.
eavogels was nice enough to create an AVI of my drawing. He might be posting it on his web site in the near future. Once you watch the AVI it is pretty easy to understand the concept. (Please note the AVI shows the stator array and shield much larger than the actual .750)
I ordered gears and magnets yesterday, so here goes……
Your comments please…… John
I like it!
Approaching repelling magets with the shield in place, and then the shield is removed?
If shielding really works, the uses for it seem endless.
Like the gear setup also, nifty.
Stroke just seems long for such small magnets? Did you consider giving the pistons a second magnet on the outside? Not easy, I know.
A simulation of this motor is at
http://fdp.nu/dualpistondevice
Eric.
Cloxxki,
Will the shield work?I guess we will find out. Most say no. But I feel it is worth a try. It Will take some guess work to get it right I'm sure. I doubt it will do anything with out a shield of some sort.
The shield rotates with the gear and does move out of the way as the piston nears top dead center.
It is about a 3 inch stroke. Yes it is far for a small magnet. I have four strokes for that reason. But I feel it is important to keep the center stator array as small diameter as possible for the mechanical advantage to be able to move the shield at all. Thanks for your comment....
eavogels, thanks as always for your help in the animation....John
John:
If you substitute the 4 middle gears for 2 chains, you may be able to play more with stroke length, should you want to. Or, the piston might be connected some way removed for it's gear's outer edge.
I never need much reason to kill a dead spot. So if the shielding and you machine would work, I'd suggest a mark II adding inward inward reponsion on the back stroke.
Once shielding works to any degree towards PMM though, the magnetic attempts of all of history will need to be looked at once more. Your device looks especially good as it works in straight repulsions, no rotation at the magnets. If the shielding has a weak spot, your device might already have the workaround.
I say : start cutting some wood for the simplest of attempts!
Quote from: JohnPK on June 08, 2009, 10:43:00 AM
Will the shield work?I guess we will find out. Most say no.
The shield will work. I tried that in my dual piston device. I feel and see the forces when the magnets have the shield in between and when the shield is removed.
The good thing with the dual piston device is that the shield is exactly inserted in the middle. But the good thing in this quad device is that there are more pistons.
I'm a bit afraid for the sliding magnets. I noticed that in my Dual Piston Device Version 1, that sliding is heavy, specially with such a short lever dat presses the magnet to the sides of the slot. Perhaps an idea to make the lever so long that it is connected to the magnet in opposite? That gives less pressure to the slot sides.
By the way: I tried a six piston version as well. See http://fdp.nu/dualpistondevice (http://fdp.nu/dualpistondevice)
Do you see some similarity with the Torbay device?
Eric.
Erg mooi.
Can't flaw it. Hope TK will feel the same, as that would be absolute validation.
Cloxxki, I am hoping that just having attraction to the shield will help the piston on the return to top dead center.
I really like Eric's drawing of the six piston animation. That gives me even more ideas. And 50 % more power.
I should have ordered more gears.
I wish I didn't have a day job, I can lose sleep over something like this. Ideas start poring in as soon as I hit the pillow.
Hope to see more input and more ideas from others.
Thanks for the help... John
JohnPK
Welcome to the forum. I have a design version of this as well. But my pistons are on the inside. I am to busy with gravity approaches to play with magnets at this time. But I do have a several designs I will try in the future or have someone like Sean to do if he would like.
Hello Alan,
Sure would like to see a drawing of your idea. Is one available?
My gears and mags should be here in a few days. I would like to get as many new ideas as I can before I start building.
(I hate it when I find out that I duplicate efforts. I do that way too often.) Thanks, John
Quote from: JohnPK on June 08, 2009, 09:30:07 PM
I should have ordered more gears.
The six piston device uses less gears.
Een nederlander op de draad?
The animations of 2/4/6 piston motors are very nice :)
And its an old but interesting idea. Worth trying.
My knee jerk response after watching the animations is that it will halt quickly somewhere with pistons at mid way. There is nothing in it which will encourage pistons to go on after they find an equilibrium.
I also saw this attempt by yourself (perhaps) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jFT1Ze6igI
It would be better if you can simply rotate the plexiglass wheel using a small motor just at the right speed. This will eliminate a lot of mechanical stuff and losses.
If the energy out of the output wheel is more than the energy consumed by the motor, you have something.
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 02:56:36 AM
The animations of 2/4/6 piston motors are very nice :)
And its an old but interesting idea. Worth trying.
My knee jerk response after watching the animations is that it will halt quickly somewhere with pistons at mid way. There is nothing in it which will encourage pistons to go on after they find an equilibrium.
The whole thing together is a flywheel, that should keep it going.
The shielding prevent the system to slow down and possibly return direction as it would without it.
Whether pistons in this kind of a setup are the most efficient energy transfer, I am less sure.
Tommey Reed's rotary piston patent pending concept and double ratchet system comes to mind.
His recent UO circuit ideas didn't work, perhaps he'd offer his piston insight towards achieving OU in relation to rotating or swinging magnetical shields.
Just might work, and work really well.
Hello all,
I did not stop working on my other ideas, but engines is what I do know......
My patented rotary engine is a great design and my patent pending ratchet engine is also very good.
The ratchet engine offers total efficiency up to 95% with 5% of machanical lose.
I am working on many projects, but the ratchet engine is one of the simple one to build, it offers any pressure being forced on any size piston to convert it in to rotational energy.
In other words, if 120 psi is being forced on to a 1" x1" area the total output of the shaft will be 10ft/lb, not in/lb.
I will bring up that video to show the torque and power output soon.
I'm still looking into some mistakes I made on the pulse motor, as you all have seen all the videos was remove because of my mistakes....
Tom
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 03:05:27 AM
It would be better if you can simply rotate the plexiglass wheel using a small motor just at the right speed.
The shield was meant to rotate: it did so in the beginning; but when I tried that, I noticed that entering and leaving the magnetic field went too slow. That was before I learn about the Geneva Driva. I will try the Geneva Driva and a motor. I'm not sure yet how to time this. I guess a reed will do.
This 'too slow' ebtering will perhaps be a problem in the Quad eller Hex designs as well. I'm going to transfer my experiences with the Dual Piston Device V2 into the drawing of the Hex Piston Device. I want the Geneva Drive there as well, in the core.
Eric.
Quote from: Omega_0 on June 09, 2009, 02:56:36 AM
My knee jerk..............
The advantage with the 6 pistons (3 pairs) is that always 2 pair work to enter or leav the centre. And one pair is trying to stop the rotation.
It's important that in the final version the piston travel much less then what they do in the simulation.
Eric
Quote from: JohnPK on June 08, 2009, 11:39:06 PM
Hello Alan,
Sure would like to see a drawing of your idea. Is one available?
My gears and mags should be here in a few days. I would like to get as many new ideas as I can before I start building.
(I hate it when I find out that I duplicate efforts. I do that way too often.) Thanks, John
I will go through my notes and drawings and post it later. There is one big difference. Mine uses a crank shaft instead of gears. To many gears seam to cause to much friction. But I am not without gears on other projects either.
I looked at the video on the design idea, many factors have to be added.
The amount of torque needed to move the push rod to move the magnet would have to be less then the total output torque.
If you look at the greater movement that the magnet will need to move, this could be what will stop the motor to run.
Any time you use a force to convert into rotational energy, the most important factor is how much force is pushing and how much force is pulling, this apply to any engine.
If two forces push each other at the same force then you have no movement, if one force is greater then the other, then the greater force will over come the weaker force.
The magnets need a greater force either pushing or pulling, If this was able to happen then you have OU.
But even with steel plates blocking a magnet field, it still will need a force to unblock the steel plates.
This happens because the magnets is pulling it self to the metal plate, so it takes energy to push them away.
This is also why dc motor work on a on/off magnet field, that cause rotation of a dc motor.
::)
Tom..
Quote from: AB Hammer on June 09, 2009, 08:52:11 AM
Mine uses a crank shaft instead of gears
My first model had no gears, just sliding parts and levers. That was much friction. The second model had 2 gears and the rest where rotating bearing. Very little friction. The Quad and Hex (now I'm drawing an octo) have perhaps too many gears. I like the crank idea. There should be a way to replace some gears with cranks. Back to the WM2D workspace.
Eric
I was afraid I couldn't stop myself. Now I made a simulation of the
OCTO PISTON DEVICE : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSZj_eWaYQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgSZj_eWaYQ)
It's a nice serie now: Dual, Quad, Hex and Octo.
i don't know the words for 10 and 12, so this HAS to be the last one.
This will be the last one for now. It's time to do some real design. I want cranks, I want a Geneva Drive. Lot's of thing to think about.
I really see a Torbay device all the time and with more pistons that gets even worse. Perhaps the ring magnet should be replaced to a half ring, so that the 90 degrees rule can take over?
So much to do, so little time.
Eric.
Well, I have gotten some really good ideas from everybody. I think the 'Hex" motor is the one to persue. I will have enough magnets and I figured out a way to do it with only 4 gears. But I haven't drawn that motor yet. It is still in my head. so here is a question,
I ordered 3.5 inch diameter gears. I was going to have about a 3 inch stroke. I'm getting the hint from everyone that the gears are going to be to big and should perhaps move towards 2.0 inch gears. remember, the actual size of the stator array is still only .75 inch. My original thought was that I need the mechanical advantage of a larger gear.
But, even at a 2.0 diameter stroke, the magnets will be 99% spent on the ability to repel one another, so what would be the use of a larger gear?
It is only money, gears are cheap. Should I re order a batch of 2.00 gears? or just use the 3.5?
As always, comments welcome. John
This will not work if you place the shield between the magnets.
When magnets are repelling the force to remove the shield increases greatly. You can get around this if you simply place the iron plates on each side (front and back in the design pdf).
This will conduct the field away and into the iron and the magnets can move close together with little force. This also offers the advantage of no pull on the shields as they can be pulling onto the next magnet pair as they are leaving the previous pair.
I have done a lot of testing in this area and this configuration offers the only real hope in shield use.
Quote from: lumen on June 09, 2009, 11:20:17 PM
I have done a lot of testing in this area and this configuration offers the only real hope in shield use.
I agree. I also felt that drag. That should be reduced som how.
Quote from: JohnPK on June 09, 2009, 06:01:12 PM
It is only money, gears are cheap. Should I re order a batch of 2.00 gears? or just use the 3.5?
Wow, in my case the money is always the show stopper.
With magnet motors I like to build as big as possible. That covers smallers errors.
But the 3" stroke sounds good. You must first decied what magnets you use, since they need to handle that stroke. 3" need strong magnets.
I'm not sure yet what is the best.
/Eric.
Lumen, I'm listening, but I can't quite picture what your thought is. You are refering to the quatro simulation right? Are you suggesting stationary shields someplace?
Eric, do you understand the thought? I've got a mental block on this one. John
I did a quick sketch of the only possible way a mechanical advantage could be gained using shields.
It's not that close to scale, but it should give you the idea of what I was saying earlier.
Quote from: lumen on June 10, 2009, 08:28:49 PM
I did a quick sketch of the only possible way a mechanical advantage could be gained using shields.
Thanks Lumen. I'm working on it. I'm not 100% with you yet, but I will try to get it in a WM2d model.
I'm also working on a crank version but had to take a break of all drawing yesterday.
Nice that your drawing shows a 5 piston device.
Eric.
This is a design I did about three years ago....
Tom :o
Better grapnics, 4 piston engine with single combustion chamber..
Tom :o
Magnet drive....
Quote from: lumen on June 10, 2009, 08:28:49 PM
I did a quick sketch of the only possible way a mechanical advantage could be gained using shields.
Thanks for that drawing. I need some more info to be able to use it, I'm afraid.
The green objects are sliders I suppose?
Is the shield you've drawn completely replacing the moon shaped shield? In the original drawing?
Thanks.
Eric.
@eavogels
The shield is the orange wedge shaped area and they are about 3/16 inch thick.
There are actually two of them and they rotate with the center gear and pass closely to the magnets on both the near and far side of the magnets.
This shield will draw the field and conduct it to the other end of the magnets so there will be less force as they approach the other repelling magnet. This configuration is the only one that showed no additional drag removing the shield as the gain from moving onto the magnets.
There will be some additional pull if the repelling magnets are moved very close together but then there is also some extra pull as the shield moves to the next magnet because it is further out on the rotating diameter.
So you would drop the half moon shield all togeather?
On your drawing, The stator is stationary isn't it?
Did you assemble something like this? I can see your theory, but it looks like a real trick to design around a stationary stator.
My magnets and 3.5 inch gears arrived today. Initial thought, I should have gotten 2.00 gears, the magnets are very powerfull, but they are not going to push much after the first 1.5 inches.
The gears are not a problem, you can always put the cam location anywhere on the gear to get whatever stroke you need.
You can try the half moon in the same setup to satisfy your own curiosity. All I'm saying is while testing different shield concepts, the only one that showed any hope was the side shields because they indicated nearly the same pull with the magnets separated as when pushed close together.
The center magnets do not rotate, they are always inline with the piston magnets.
I usually only build what is needed to test the concept and believe you could test this concept using only one piston and one center magnet with two gears and two other stationary magnets at the position of the next piston just to assist the shield.
If you get a good indication of operation at this point then proceed on.
I hate to say, but you all are just wasting time with this mechanical thing.
Magnets have a push and pull, that can not be controlled. This is why we have electromagnets in the first place. Even if you block a magnet with steel, it will still need energy to pull it away from the metal. Another thing is energy, just how much energy do you think you can get out of this?
Buy a solar panel, that's free energy! Most people think 746 watts grow on trees, but the facts are, if you have a 24" wheel you will need to spin it at 3600 rpm at a contant torque of (5252/3600 rpm)=1.46lb = 1hp =746 watts
Even if you get a force of say 10lb of force, this could be calculated into energy.
(5252/10)=525 rpm: =1hp 746 watts
33000 lb of work in one minute equal 1hp, so if you lift 1lb 33,000 feet in one minute, you just made one horse power.
You could lift 33,000lb one foot in one minute, you also have made 1hp.
24" rotor will give you a foot pound reading, so when this is turn one revolution the distant it travels is ((24"*pi)/12)=6.28ft of work, so if you have 10lb of constant torque you have put out 62.8 lb of work for each revolution of the wheel.
(33,000/6.28)=5254, but 5252 is use to calculate hp, hp is also amount of energy in wattage 746= 1hp or 7460 watts=10hp.
If you spin a 24" wheel at 5252 rpm, all you will need is a constant torque of 1lb and you have 1hp.
A 1hp dc motor at 2000 rpm, produce (5252/2000)=2.62 foot pounds of torque this is enough power to move you bicycle 30+mph.
Tom :o
This is my basic rotary piston engine, you can see how simple this is. Make it simple, don't add too many parts...
Tom 8)
You could make use magnet to move the piston like this basic engine I design.
Tom :o
@Tommey
The only thing more researched than magnet motors are combustion engines. You would need to go a long way to come up with something better in this area.
If it does not run on algae oil then you are not looking far enough ahead. Are you using non wearing ceramic cylinders and pistons? Your stuff has already been invented, we are looking at the impossible magnet motor. I mean, why deal with reality when you could work on the imaginary!
Quote from: lumen on June 11, 2009, 09:34:39 PM
you can always put the cam location anywhere on the gear to get whatever stroke you need.
You can try the half moon in the same setup to satisfy your own curiosity
The center magnets do not rotate, they are always inline with the piston magnets.
Too big gears will be an extra load.
I have tried the half moon in my dual piston device. I know how much unwanted drag that gives.
Perhaps I can try a variant of your shiled on my device. We should learn a lot from that. I'm ony some days away from my holliday. I have WM2d with me, but not my mill ;=)
Imaginary idea waste time and money, no power can be made for something that can't run. As for my rotary engine, Its is new technology that's why I have a patent on it, and also the ratchet engine. These engines run on any type of fuels and even air pressure.
If you know anything its all about make energy not a clock that ticks.....
That's why I said before,its best to but a solar panel then playing around magnet that won't produce any real power.
Its a joke to see others trying to make a motor that spins with no true energy being , it's nothing more then playing with magnet fields that is doing nothing with real power.
Energy is the problem, not a rotating machine that could not put out any real energy.
You would have been better off to build a better windmill, then play with magnets that won't produce nothing!
Sorry to tell you the facts >:(
Tom... 8)
@Tommey
You should take your genius to the thread "Maxwell's Demon" and use your ability to design a efficient heat engine to run on the temperature difference of hot and cold water!
Then you could see how your new motor could produce energy off nothing but gravity!
Wait, gravity is another field that cannot produce energy.
Conservative fields do not produce energy but they can organize or reverse entropy to produce areas of increased energy without creating energy.
But then, if the energy was organized and usable, is this not real energy because it was used once already?
Wont work, using Gas law and Charles Law you wont produce enough pressure from expanding gas to do real work. That's why there is nuclear power in the first place...
:o
Tom
Wow, I thought the internal combustion engine was an expanding gas engine, and steam engines really did not work!
Well I guess I have been fooled before but this comes as a real shock! I better throw away all them old useless books I have showing that junk actually working.
If you want to be a ass hole then ok, gasoline is the fuel to run heat engine, and other fuel are used to heat up water into steam to be used for steam turbins.
My point is you think a motor run on OU and can power your house.
Solar comes from the Sun, and yet you think magnet will power the world. Throw those books out that made you believe that magnet will run forever, and power your homes to get free energy! ;)
As simple as a wheel turns, no magnet motor could ever have enough extra power to do any real work. More mechanical parts add more friction and drag on a mechanical system. less part for a so called magnet motor the a better chance that you will have a wheel that spins, but no power can be draw of of it.
:-[
eavogels,
It wont work, too much drag with gears and magnet won't do what you think it will. You would be better off to work on a single wheel then add too many parts that will drag this to a point of no return.
Think simple! >:(
Wow! Is it safe for me to come back to my thread?
Just for kicks, let me put this into perspective, so far I have a $50.00 investment into this project. except for my time, that is all. I was having a good time with this invention, and I spent a little dough to keep the magnet guys in business. My wife knows where I am, I'm not in the bar, my dog is not starving because I spent all her dog food money on magnets. Live is good.
And it's kind of cool getting a troll on my first thread.
But can we get back to thinking positive without killing a thread?
Lumen, I might be able to put both shielding devices on one set up. You believe that I would be better off starting with out the half moon shield and just start with something similar to what you've drawn? John
The half moon or shield between the repelling faces will generate a pull that I believe takes the same as any energy that could be gained by the repelling faces. All the testing I have done using this configuration indicates this. I use a modified digital fish scale to get very accurate readings.
I have my own CNC machines and usually make my own gears from 1/4" lexan. I can usually build a device over a weekend but sometimes it takes a day to draw it up in 3d.
I have a plan for a device that should confirm this concept with only two moving parts and this should provide some additional data.
If you have your half moon shield made already, you could try it out so you might have something to compare the results against.
A good reason to PLAY with magnets
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
Chet
Quote from: ramset on June 13, 2009, 11:52:03 AM
A good reason to PLAY with magnets
http://rosemaryainslie.blogspot.com/
Chet
Ouch!
I need another cup of coffee.
Zipons? Truants? Ok....
I downloaded and read the PDF which describes the circuit tested. Which is from October 2002. Looks good at first, until you read carefully, and then it's a perfect example of pseudoscience. Instead of calculating the input energy directly from the measurements of V and I and the V x I waveform, by integrating over time to get the total energy, and then dividing by the number of seconds to get the average power, she does it another way which I don't think is correct or equivalent. I also don't think the measurements are taken correctly, if the diagram actually reflects where and how the measurements were made. And the attempt at calorimetry, while admirable, just serves to illustrate how difficult it actually is to do good calorimetry.
Still, it's a simple enough circuit and I have all or most of the parts on hand. Thanks for a nice little weekend project! We shall see what we shall see.
(I sure hope I don't encounter any Truants or Zipons, though. I get nervous when they get on the same bus I'm on.)
(And darnit, that "patent" seems to be actually a ten-year-old application, not a patent.)
TK
Your the best!!
Chet
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
Something else that might help, Bismuth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUoUSz-hD8A&NR=1
Chet
Sooo....
TK a beggar waits at your door [Me]
Any opinions on Cop 17?
Chet
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
Quote from: ramset on June 15, 2009, 09:13:19 PM
Sooo....
TK a beggar waits at your door [Me]
Any opinions on Cop 17?
Chet
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
I couldn't find the IRFPG50 specified in the circuit, but I did find some 2SK1548 mosfets that have almost identical specs (900V instead of 1000V). I haven't put it together yet; I might have a chance to later today or tomorrow.
I can see why there is difficulty in measuring this circuit, though--with an input duty cycle less than 5 percent and non-linear oscillations from overdriving the MOSFET, one really needs better equipment than a 50 MHz 2-channel oscilloscope and a spreadsheet.
I have the proper equipment, including fast digital scopes with math functions, and a water-flow calorimetric power meter, but it might be packed away--we're moving to a new undisclosed location and a lot of useful stuff is buried in shipping containers.
But we'll see what I can see with the stuff that's not packed yet, and if there seems to be something interesting I can always dig out the artillery.
TK
Thanks ,
Just doesn't cover it!!
YOUR THE BEST!!
Chet
Quote from: ramset on June 15, 2009, 09:13:19 PM
Sooo....
TK a beggar waits at your door [Me]
Any opinions on Cop 17?
Chet
http://www.feelthevibe.com/free_energy/rosemary_ainslie/transient_energy.pdf
To avoid derailing this thread totally I've started a new one for this topic. Done some work, posted some pics, and so on.
--TK