I have been using this simulation software called vizimag to establish the field strength between magnets and the attraction they cause on a moving magnet. I'm simulating a certain setup now and every simulation I have performed shows COP > 1 for this setup. The highest I got so far is 4. This setup is as basic as it gets, I stumbled on it while looking at something unrelated. I now want to confirm it's not the software giving me wrong results by having someone else confirm the data in FEMM.
This is odd. A few months ago I was doing some very similar research which I completely forgot about. I even had a mathematical model for the field strength on the x axis.
http://www.energeticforum.com/46535-post4.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/46535-post4.html)
I have calculated the integral using Mathematica for the red area, which goes from 0 till where the derivative is 0. And for the green area, which starts from the point where the derivative is 0 and goes to infinity. A very strange seemingly random number pops up.
The green area is ALWAYS, no matter what gap distance d is chosen, 2+sqrt(6) times bigger than the red area. This is 4.45 times, meaning the COP is 4.45 if you let it go to infinity. I find it funny that its exactly 2+sqrt(6) in every possible case. I thought this function would give a COP of 1 if you divided the green area by the red.
At least vizimag confirmed this when one test showed a COP of 4 when the magnets where chosen to be thin and close to each other.
Of course the next question is would this be self accelerating when put on a wheel.
Hi Broli,
are you not seeing the same thing that Dr. Kenneth C. Kozeka has found: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Kedron:Eden_Project:Permanent_Magnet_Energy_Gain
Thanks for sharing
Luc
I have some similar magnets and could probably collect some actual data at constant increments that could be compared to your FEMM analysis.
4.0 > COP is not likely though.
I tested the EDEN setup also and came to the conclusion that it worked until I fixed my scale by removing all spring in the mounting, then the gain was gone!
One cannot use a spring scale when testing magnetic force.
Luc the idea is slightly different than the EDEN setup. This concept uses the repulsive field 2 magnets create. What simulations,math and experiments show is that there's a high point (maxima) in the field near the zero point.
If you would thus place a magnet oriented along this horizontal field it would want to go to this maxima. If you put a magnet near this maxima you will notice that the magnet will not be pulled between the two fixed magnets but it will encounter a wall slightly before its front goes between the magnet. This experiments can give you the location of the maxima of every set of magnets. I used ferrite magnets to prove this as they are more forgiving than neo's. This proves the theory and simulation that there are maximas that the magnet wants to go to and stay at. But does it also prove that the Integral of energy gain is bigger than energy loss? Only more experiments can conclude this.
For small setups the gap needs to be small if you want the COP to be high. The gap determines how fast this general COP of 4.45 is achieved. Another parameter is the width of the magnets. Basically what you want is for that two maxima points to be as close to each other as possible.
Attached is a recycled rendition I used for this setup. I'm not sure whether the rotor should be bigger so the rotor magnets make a more linear path near the stator magnets.
Broli, can you share your FEMM file(s)? I may be able to to some work on them
I didn't use FEMM, I used Vizimag like I mentioned in the first post. I never got used to FEMM so I'm asking someone who's proficient with it to simulate the same thing and calculate the integral along the x axis. It shouldn't be that big of a task unless FEMM can't calculate integrals.
@broli,
I am aware of a simple pendulum-like experiment with some similarity to your configuration, that does seem to show a gain, at least in one direction. But when the pendulum swings the opposite direction, there is a loss. It's nowhere near a 450% gain, only a few percent, but this is not a simulation. Maybe you guys can help each other.
The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
Discussion: http://www.fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=415
Broli, I did some quick FEMM simulation with 3 equally sized Neo's.
My force graph looks quite different from yours.
Entering the static magnets and leaving them shows positive forces, but the force is negative when the moving magnet is just in between the two static ones.
I see also COP however
robbie47 you should be careful. That is the graph of the scalar field strength along the x axis. The graph I show shows the component of the field vector that is only parallel to the x axis. I hope that makes sense.
Edit: On second thought that doesn't even look like two magnets in repulsion. The field can't be at its maximum at the center it should be 0! robbie47get your simulation straight! Also you should not have 3 magnets present when doing the integral calculation! you need to know the field 2 magnets in repulsion cause not the resulting field a 3 magnet has on the.m
Quote from: broli on July 19, 2009, 10:30:22 AM
robbie47get your simulation straight!
We may have a misunderstanding. The graph I showed is the graph of the force in x-direction (force to the left is negative, force to the right is positive).
All 3 magnets are present doing the force integrals.
What are the units of your graph? Field strenghts?
Quote from: robbie47 on July 19, 2009, 10:44:13 AM
We may have a misunderstanding. The graph I showed is the graph of the force in x-direction (force to the left is negative, force to the right is positive).
All 3 magnets are present doing the force integrals.
What are the units of your graph? Field strenghts?
Yes the graph represents the x component of the field along the x-axis. You should simulate the same. Can you show the setup of your simulation please.
I adjusted the graph to represent force so that it would be less confusing. Positive force indicates force in direction of movement negative force would be in opposite direction. When the magnet hits the maxima position this force instantly goes from positive to negative as the graph shows.
Hi Brolli
I can't do a simulation of your set up, but have tried a real test and it seems to show some advantage,going to do some more work on it,I can tell you the test I done if you want.
peter
Quote from: broli on July 19, 2009, 10:54:11 AM
Yes the graph represents the x component of the field along the x-axis. You should simulate the same. Can you show the setup of your simulation please.
Here are the Bx results of my simulations. Geographical setup is identical of yours. Red parts act as North poles, blue ones as south poles I asume.
How do you calculate your COP? Integrate Bx over distance?
I have done my COP calculation by integrating X-force over distance.
Quote from: robbie47 on July 19, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
Here are the Bx results of my simulations. Geographical setup is identical of yours. Red parts act as North poles, blue ones as south poles I asume.
How do you calculate your COP? Integrate Bx over distance?
Yes that graph is correct. The way you calculate the cop is indeed by integration. you integrate from a certain value -x to the maxima, this is your gain. Then you integrate from the maxima to 0, this is your loss. You can divide them by each other to get the COP.
I believe Robbie's simulation is correct, and if you actually calculate the work as (force x distance) you would also find it to be equal or zero gain.
Broli , your graph shows an instant change in direction and I cannot see how this could happen.
I may mount some actual magnets in my setup anyway and check the data but the entire setup is very simple and has likely been tried several times already.
From previous testing of similar setups, I can say Robbie's setup is very close to what I would expect.
Here's the FEMM script I used for those who want to play with it.
It generates all three magnets and then steps the moving magnet from left to right.
Output is written to text files with numbers separated by a comma, so spreadsheet program can import them.
I use FEMM v4.2
Just unzip the file and load the file as *.lua file and its runs.
lumen, I see the wrong assumption I made. I assumed that force is in direction relation with the B-field. But this is wrong (it would have been correct if it was a magnetic monopole), the force is in relation with the derivative of the B-field. It occurred to me when I realized a constant uniform B-field causes no force on a magnet. So at the maxima point the derivative is 0 meaning the field is near uniform there and thus the force would be 0 N. So my last graph is incorrect and robbie4's has the correct relation of force.
I have taken the derivative of the math equation and integrated it from -infinity to +infinity. The result I get is a big fat 0. So that's not good ;D . This thread can almost retire now. My last request would be asking robbie to integrate his first graph. From some negative or positive point to 0 and share the result.
Quote from: 0c on July 19, 2009, 10:03:06 AM
@broli,
I am aware of a simple pendulum-like experiment with some similarity to your configuration, that does seem to show a gain, at least in one direction. But when the pendulum swings the opposite direction, there is a loss. It's nowhere near a 450% gain, only a few percent, but this is not a simulation. Maybe you guys can help each other.
The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM
Discussion: http://www.fizzx.com/viewtopic.php?t=415
@Broli, before you abandon this thread, please look at the experiment I referenced and comment on it.
Quote from: 0c on July 19, 2009, 12:04:54 PM
@Broli, before you abandon this thread, please look at the experiment I referenced and comment on it.
0c that would indeed show that moving by the magnet in one direction would give it more energy than the other. But the obvious question is did he put it flat and did it end up perpetuating? The video is from April so I assume he abandoned it?
Quote from: broli on July 19, 2009, 12:16:13 PM
0c that would indeed show that moving by the magnet in one direction would give it more energy than the other. But the obvious question is did he put it flat and did it end up perpetuating? The video is from April so I assume he abandoned it?
Is it perpetuating? No. He has problems when he attempts to take it beyond 180 degrees, and hasn't yet figured out how to make the process repeatable without incurring losses. What he demonstrated has been replicated, and apparently his son was able to suggest some changes that improve the gain (and increase the loss in the opposite direction).
Abandoned? Uh Uh! In fact he has just started discussing it over on CLaNZeR's forum. Maybe you should log in over there and join the discussion. He's looking for more ideas and replications.
Quote from: 0c on July 19, 2009, 12:36:22 PM
Is it perpetuating? No. He has problems when he attempts to take it beyond 180 degrees, and hasn't yet figured out how to make the process repeatable without incurring losses. What he demonstrated has been replicated, and apparently his son was able to suggest some changes that improve the gain (and increase the loss in the opposite direction).
Abandoned? Uh Uh! In fact he has just started discussing it over on CLaNZeR's forum. Maybe you should log in over there and join the discussion. He's looking for more ideas and replications.
I will check it out, but I don't want to get sidetracked again. This very topic is a side track from http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4272-manipulating-magnetic-flux.html .
I am grateful for it. Because now I can go back and assist that thread with the new knowledge I have acquired.
Quote from: broli on July 19, 2009, 11:59:32 AM
My last request would be asking robbie to integrate his first graph. From some negative or positive point to 0 and share the result.
I enlarged the range of movement so a bit more accuracy was obtained.
Top graph is the force on the moving magnet in x-direction
Bottom graph is the integral of the top one.
Mind the slight negative endresult.......(the last, utmost right value in the integral graph)
In the post link below I propose a pendulum type device
as a test of magnetic overunity, based on the work of
several other folks.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7341.msg192005#msg192005
Unlike the pendulum in your current link, my pendulum
alters its stator field to avoid the sticky spot, opening the
use of potentially very strong magnetic drive arrays. The key
seems to be the use of a rapidly moving "escapement
mechanism". Yes, magnetic interactions are 100% conservative
but like the LR and RC time constants of electronics; only
if you let the process settle fully. The escapement seems to
alter the magnetic field fast and start a new cycle before the process
can equalise to 100% conservative, essentially cutting the
conservation process "off at the knees". See, elecromagnetic
forces are 10^18 times stronger than gravitational ones but
that is not "infinetly strong"; that it would take to instantly
guarentee 100% conservativenes, so the process will take
a certain amount of time.
Either there will be excess energy available or a macroscopic
quantum energy mask will descend over the unit like what happens
at the nanoscopic level.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: broli on July 18, 2009, 07:46:51 PM
I have been using this simulation software called vizimag to establish the field strength between magnets and the attraction they cause on a moving magnet. I'm simulating a certain setup now and every simulation I have performed shows COP > 1 for this setup. The highest I got so far is 4. This setup is as basic as it gets, I stumbled on it while looking at something unrelated. I now want to confirm it's not the software giving me wrong results by having someone else confirm the data in FEMM.
I think the graph is wrong. This shows that the approaching magnet is pulled harder and harder until it hits the blue line, and then, in an instant, it is counterforced instead of finding its sticky spot . This is just not what is hapening with a magnet setup like that - trust me, I have tried in practice, and simulated in FEMM too.
The graph should show a green area that is increasing, but also decreasing untill it hits the blue line, where the force is gradually going from pull to push. The red area should therfor be on the opposite side of the x axis of the graph, and the graph should also look much more like the graph that is displayed later in the thread.
When the moving magnet is between the stator magnets, they are so close, that the counterforce in that area should be very much greater than the force you have in any point outside it. However, the time and distance that any point of force is representing will be the same in both force and counterforce.
Vidar
@Robbie, I wonder how accurate the FEMM simulator is? I have a configuration of three magnets and a movement method that shows a gain in femm 4.2.
If you have some time and want to graph something that shows gain, let me know and I'll post the setup.
Plus, I need to be sure it's not just something I'm doing that's causing a problem in the simulator.
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2009, 12:04:07 AM
@Robbie, I wonder how accurate the FEMM simulator is? I have a configuration of three magnets and a movement method that shows a gain in femm 4.2.
If you have some time and want to graph something that shows gain, let me know and I'll post the setup.
Plus, I need to be sure it's not just something I'm doing that's causing a problem in the simulator.
Hi Lumen,
Accuracy of FEMM depends on a few factors:
- mesh density. This defines the number of points that are calculated. The higher the mesh density, the higher the accuracy, but of course you need a PC that has a powerful CPU to allow fast calculations.
- material definition correctness
For the simulation in this thread I used default Neo magnet setting that comes default with Femm. To caluculate COP the absolute correctness of the magnets is not very relevant. If you want absolute forces to be calculated it is of course.
I used a quite high mesh density that I defined manually instead of the default ' auto mesh' setting.
On top of that it is important to know that FEMM simulates in 2D not in 3D.
The depth of a setup can be somewhat realistic by defining the thickness of the magnets.
In general my experience is that for COP calculations of simple setups FEMM can be quite accurate.
I verified this by simulating a few different setups that have clearly COP=0 and checked how close FEMM calculates it to be 0. With the calibration setups I used, COP has indeed values very close to 0, e.g. 0.000000000001. But again, choosing a correct mesh density is key here.
FEMM, but also other simulators, does not take into account Eddy Currents that e.g. occur within Neo magnets when you move them very close to each other. Something to take into account when real builds are compared with these simulations. Ceramic magnets suffer much less from internal eddy currents.
I could have a look at your setup and simulate it in FEMM if it can be defined in 2D.
Just let me know your setup by posting it here or send me a PM.
The setup is based on magnets I have and I plan to do some actual testing on this setup with my digital scale to confirm the results also. (I also posted the FEMM setup.)
This is the setup:
The small magnets are .125 x.75 x 1
Large magnet is .125 x 1 x 2
The lower small magnet moves into and out of the page and is shown already inserted at the starting position.
(there is no way to check this in FEMM and this needs physical testing)
It is inserted .015" from the center line of the upper small magnet and shows a positive Y force at this location so it should pull itself in.
The edge of the large magnet is .350" from the edge of the upper small magnet.
At this point, the large magnet will move in the positive X direction and needs to be stopped at .350" from the left edge of the upper small magnet. At this point the lower small magnet shows a minus Y value and should be easy to remove.
The process is reversed by again inserting the lower small magnet with reversed polarity, at .015" from the center line of the upper small magnet. Now the large magnet will move back to the starting position.
A graph showing the force of the large magnet along the .550" X direction travel along with the force of the lower small magnet's force in the Y direction should confirm any gain.
Never use for calculate 3D problem program designed 2D only. Try program Maxwell 3D from Ansoft (for example) - and you find no overunity in this system.
Hi Lumen,
Just a quick check before I will simulate.
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2009, 12:31:29 PM
The process is reversed by again inserting the lower small magnet with reversed polarity, at .015" from the center line of the upper small magnet. Now the large magnet will move back to the starting position.
I understand the following steps are needed to do your COP calculations:
Starting from the FEMM file you attached:
1) Move the long magnet 0.55 inch to the right
2) Remove the bottom small magnet (shift it to the bottom of the workspace)
3) Reverse the polarity of the bottom magnet (180 degrees)
4) Shift the bottom small magnet in from bottom to near the long magnet (the start position)
5) Move the long magnet 0.55 to the left (the start position)
Is 4) and 5) done simultaniously or sequential?
How did you determine your COP?
Quote from: jonifer on July 24, 2009, 01:32:32 PM
Never use for calculate 3D problem program designed 2D only. Try program Maxwell 3D from Ansoft (for example) - and you find no overunity in this system.
You've done a Maxwell 3D model? Great, how about sharing it?
(PS: If you're handy with Maxwell, I've got a model I'd like to see done.)
maxwell have very simply draw and program JmagStudio too (demo version obviosly)
@ Lumen,
I made some preparations for the simulation:
1) I changed the mesh size of the workspace to 0.1 (to increase accuracy)
2) The mesh size of the magnets was also set to 0.1 (to increase accuracy)
3) I composed a group for each magnet: top small magnet is set to be group 1, long magnet is set to group 2, bottom small magnet is set to group 3
I grouped the magnets so its easier to move the magnets using a script.
The modified file is attached
@Robbie, The small bottom magnet is supposed to move in and out of the screen and I know this cannot be done in 2d software so down will have to do. When inserting the small magnet back into position it needs to have been shifted over .140" so it again starts out .015" from center line of the top small magnet, but on the other side of center line because now it will be going the other way.
Other wise you are correct.
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2009, 04:28:52 PM
@Robbie, The small bottom magnet is supposed to move in and out of the screen and I know this cannot be done in 2d software so down will have to do. When inserting the small magnet back into position it needs to have been shifted over .140" so it again starts out .015" from center line of the top small magnet, but on the other side of center line because now it will be going the other way.
Other wise you are correct.
Lumen,
A trick to simulate the z-direction fade in - fade out could be to gradually weaken the magnetic value to zero. Just a thought....
What are your desired output parameters? Force?
Robbie,
Yes, force. Also, that shift needs to be .155" to get .015" from center line not the .140" I had mentioned.
A fade in and out will discount any force it takes to place the magnet into the setup and it will likely show a lot of gain.
Thanks for doing this, I don't have the script thing down at this point even though I have written a 4 axis CNC control software to operate my machines, it seems like I tend to shy away from learning another programming language.
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2009, 04:53:33 PM
A fade in and out will discount any force it takes to place the magnet into the setup and it will likely show a lot of gain.
Yes, you are right. So I will simulate shift in and out in Y-direction as suggested earlier.
It will need to wait until tomorrow. It's getting pretty late here (Holland)
Robbie,
I tested your modified file and the changes you made shifted the optimal position of the lower small magnet.
It now seems the best starting point is at a distance of .025" from the center line of the upper small magnet.
After moving the large magnet .55 to the right, the small lower magnet would then need to have the polarity reversed then moved over -.175" so the opposite side is .025" from the center line of the upper small magnet to reverse the process.
It should not be necessary to simulate the reversal because in theory it should be the same as the first cycle only opposite.
You could use the fade in and out idea, to simulate the lower magnet moving in and out of the screen and this would show the best case condition of the setup. Moving the lower small magnet up into position and then down at the end of the cycle would show the worst case condition. Sliding in and out of the screen should fall somewhere in between these conditions.
program from femm.foster-miller.net is learning only for study, not realy calculate magnetic force.
Use Femlab from Comsol (3d program) or you can't use seach system on China FTP,
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2009, 11:35:56 PM
Robbie,
I tested your modified file and the changes you made shifted the optimal position of the lower small magnet.
It now seems the best starting point is at a distance of .025" from the center line of the upper small magnet.
After moving the large magnet .55 to the right, the small lower magnet would then need to have the polarity reversed then moved over -.175" so the opposite side is .025" from the center line of the upper small magnet to reverse the process.
It should not be necessary to simulate the reversal because in theory it should be the same as the first cycle only opposite.
You could use the fade in and out idea, to simulate the lower magnet moving in and out of the screen and this would show the best case condition of the setup. Moving the lower small magnet up into position and then down at the end of the cycle would show the worst case condition. Sliding in and out of the screen should fall somewhere in between these conditions.
I repeat the steps that I now understand from you last indications, starting with the modified file I posted earlier:
First shift the bottom small magnet 0.01" to the right (its new preferred starting position), then:
1) Move the long magnet 0.55 inch to the right
2) Reverse the polarity of the bottom magnet (180 degrees)
3) Shift the bottom small magnet 0.175" to the left
4a) Shift the bottom magnet down as a fade out, or
4b) decrease the magnet strength of the bottom small magnet in steps to zero strength.
Robbie,
That is correct, except you can avoid all the shifting at the end.
1: move bottom magnet up from bottom of screen (or fade in), into the new position (.025" off top magnet center line)
2: move long magnet .55" to right
3: move bottom magnet down to bottom of screen (or fade out)
These steps should cover the entire setup since the movement back would just be the same thing from the other end of the setup.
Quote from: lumen on July 25, 2009, 10:14:04 AM
Robbie,
That is correct, except you can avoid all the shifting at the end.
1: move bottom magnet up from bottom of screen (or fade in), into the new position (.025" off top magnet center line)
2: move long magnet .55" to right
3: move bottom magnet down to bottom of screen (or fade out)
These steps should cover the entire setup since the movement back would just be the same thing from the other end of the setup.
Lumen,
Some first results attached.
The pdf contains 3 pages:
page 1: X and Y forces of top small magnet
page 2: X and Y forces of middle long magnet
page 3: X and Y forces of bottom small magnet
Each page contains 3 steps:
step 1: move middle long magnet 0.55" to the right
step 2: move bottom small magnet 0.175" to left
step 3: move bottom small magnet down 3"
Also attached the Femm file (zipped) where the bottom magnet has moved 0.1" to the right as you indicated as new preferred location
Also attached the lua script file (zipped). If you use this file it will modify the femm file, so you should backup the original femm file first before running the lua script. The lua script moves the magnets stepwise, each step is analyzed and all forces are written to text files.
The output contains 3 text files (zipped) that you can import in e.g. MS Excel
The file names should be clear enough.
Each file contains two columns; the left one represents force results of the x-component; the right column represents force results of the y-component
Lumen,
Our posts just crossed each other.
Let me know if the format is something you expected.
Then I will modify the script so the sequence will be like you indicated latest:
1: move bottom magnet up from bottom of screen (or fade in), into the new position (.025" off top magnet center line)
2: move long magnet .55" to right
3: move bottom magnet down to bottom of screen (or fade out)
Where does the polarity alteration of the bottom magnet fit in?
Robbie,
The polarity change of the bottom magnet is after the sequences 1,2,3 and that would be as follows.
4: Shift lower small magnet -.175"
5: Change polarity of lower small magnet
6: Move lower small magnet back up (or fade in). This is same as step #1 but now on the other side of the center line of the top small magnet by .025" and most the large magnet is now on the right side.
These steps are probably not needed because they are only to operate the mirror process and should show the same results as the previous steps but in the opposite directions.
I want to take a look at the results you posted and see if it's what I was getting.
That's some really good looking info!
You have the magnets grouped F1 top, F2 center, and F3 bottom?
If you re-order the steps starting with the new step #1 (moving up or fading in the F3 magnet) it will be in order of operation.
It looks like the force on F2 was a constant -6.2N all the way through step 1.
Interesting when it's on a graph.
I may need to try writing scripts after all. That is nice stuff.
Lots of text very little images. I have 0 understanding of what all this talk is about. "Shift this, move that, flip that one". Can't you make images of the step by step process. I can make gif animations but I need to know what the heck is being talked about.
Quote from: lumen on July 25, 2009, 04:28:17 PM
You have the magnets grouped F1 top, F2 center, and F3 bottom?
Lumen,
Glad you liked it.
Indeed:
F1 represents the forces of the small top magnet
F2 represents the forces of the long middle magnet
F3 represents the forces of the small bottom magnet
I will rewrite the script according to your latest info on movements, probably tomorrow.
@Broli,
Robbie was graphing out the data for the magnet sequence setup in FEMM4.2 that indicates a gain if stepped through manually which is a real pain.
The graphs look good but the sequence still needs to be changed before any real value can be determined. Even then, with 2D software, it will still needs a build to determine 3d results unless someone can further simulate it in 3D.
If you look back some posts at the FEMM plot, there is a description that gives a better concept of the moving principal.
Still at this time, it's probably not worth anyone else spending time on unless your looking for something to try yourself or see something that could make it better.
It only appears at this time that the setup can have a magnet inserted with no force, then some work gets done and the same magnet can then be removed with no work. (appears in FEMM4.2)
Robbie,
I took your script and figured out how to work it, at least well enough to make the changes. It seems to work good, so I will try to graph some results later tomorrow.
Thanks for the help with FEMM scripting.
Quote from: lumen on July 26, 2009, 01:01:49 AM
Robbie,
I took your script and figured out how to work it, at least well enough to make the changes. It seems to work good, so I will try to graph some results later tomorrow.
Thanks for the help with FEMM scripting.
Hi Lumen,
Good to hear you started to play with scripting.
If you need help, just let me know.
Yes, we would be curious about your desired results, so please post them here.
One remark: in my script at the end the magnets are set to their original position, but there is a small bug. For some reason Femm not always performs the last step when using the 'for do end' commands.
Well, according to FEMM 4.2, this procedure is all gain. There must be some problem somewhere in this that I missed so I am posting the FEMM setup and the script to make the moves and write the data. (Thanks to Robbie's help with the script)
The picture shows the starting position and these are the moves.
1: The lower small magnet rotates into position and pulls itself in.
2: The large magnet slides to the right .55" and does this by itself.
3: The lower small magnet rotates away from its position and is now pushed away.
If at this point the lower magnet's polarity was changed, it would again pull itself in and the process would reverse all in a gain direction.
The original concept was to have the the lower small magnet slide into position in the in/out screen direction but this cannot be confirmed in the 2D software so the insertion was changed to a rotate which also seems to work.
The rotate makes it harder to build a device to test the process.
I will ask again. Make a visual presentation of the whole process. I have no clue what you are showing or saying.
I agree, the concept is a bit difficult to follow in the previous posts.
These pictures indicate the operation steps in the FEMM script posted and should also help in understanding the posted data.
broli said:
Quote
I now want to confirm it's not the software giving me wrong results by having someone else confirm the data in FEMM.
You remember the old fashioned steam locomotives more that 100-125 years ago?
Go back to your drawing, take away one of the stationary magnets and place the other with the red end poing to the red end of the moving magnet.
The moving magnet should be inside a lubricated conduit so it can slide back and forth.
As it's pushed toward the other magnet's identical end, magnetic repulsion forces it away, until a spring arrangement along the centerline of movement pushes it back---just like a steam locomotive axle drive.
It's OU and it should beat Lenz law limitations, since there's no coil(s) to deal with.
Your software is correct in determining OU---it
is OU.
--Lee
The interesting thing with this configuration, is none of the magnets need to be moved, they all move themselves.
In step #1, the pivot magnet pulls itself into the configuration.
In step #2, the sliding magnet slides itself to the right and into a position that now pushes away the pivot magnet.
In step #3, the pivot magnet is now pushed away from the configuration because of the previous movement of the sliding magnet.
Then after step #3, if the polarity is reversed on the pivot magnet and the pivot point moved over a bit, it will again pull itself into the configuration to perform the entire sequence over again but in reverse.
I'm not sure how this could be true, but I think it couldn't hurt to look into this a bit further to determine why these results.
Some rule for megnet motor (overunity too)
- the distance between the magnets does not change by more 1 mm
in right motor you can get 1000000 more power with same magnet.
Quote from: jonifer on July 27, 2009, 02:17:10 AM
Some rule for megnet motor (overunity too)
- the distance between the magnets does not change by more 1 mm
in right motor you can get 1000000 more power with same magnet.
True, but cogging / sticky spots will increase by the same factor. Definitely a consideration.
Thanks lumen now I see what's supposed to happen.
I have a question. Does FEMM indicate all this forces when you run through all these steps?
@Broli, FEMM can show data several different ways but I only required the XY force data.
I posted three txt files that contain the XY force data for every step in each of the three moves made.
The blank lines indicate when the next move starts.