the idea of yu oscillator and the new magnetic motor is
to accumulate enough energy to pass the last magnet.
to store energy it uses a heavy enough rotating mass.
(solves the problem that seen with v gate motors)
after you know this
you see it with a naked eye that there is a problem because the rotating part is too light.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2yHsVqA5Po
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYNgJ_H-CGg
V gate motor video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCr3lOhMJCg&feature=fvw
my idea come from thinking about yu oscillator
yu oscillator
- stores the energy in a a flywheel
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq5r08eqgsk
forum: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8051.msg206275#msg206275
TheEnergyDream working PM
- the rotor is a flywheel by itself
video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnYHBowc8SQ&feature=sub
forum: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8424
I liked this "V gate motor"... Never had seen it before. It seems promissing... The driver magnet has to move so little... Don't know why didn't more people tried to develop it...
Look at this variant with two driver magnets, and try to imagine what could be done using a pendulum there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX7XIazh6iM
I'd say you're just looking at the force used to position the magnet axle initially being used, albeit more efficiently than the usual v gate, which requires constant movement of the stator to overcome the gate. This one will as well, since it's essentially just a longer V gate. Simple to test, just make it circular.
I don't know... The stator really have to move to overcome the gate, but this movement don't seems too big. Maybe using some kind of mainspring (like in watches) it would be possible to control the movement of the stator.
I don't know, just conjectures...
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLwEs0iu7U
It is hard to believe that this thing doesn't work! How could it not work?
Maybe it can not work if we use electricity to move the stator, because electricty is big waste of energy, but if we use a purely mechanical system to make the stator "jump" the sticky spot... Mainsprings can store a lot of energy and release it at the right moment...
Quote from: Rapadura on March 01, 2010, 02:54:53 PM
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg
And this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLwEs0iu7U
It is hard to believe that this thing doesn't work! How could it not work?
Maybe it can not work if we use electricity to move the stator, because electricty is big waste of energy, but if we use a purely mechanical system to make the stator "jump" the sticky spot... Mainsprings can store a lot of energy and release it at the right moment...
100% of the force used by the wheel is a direct translation of the input force used to move the stator. Zero excess energy sorry. Nice build, though.
No way... The force needed to move the stator is minimal... And it just need to "jump" the sticky spot. After the jump, gravity can be used to make the stator go back to its position during the rest of the rotation. And after the wheel is acelerated, the stator can be put aside and the wheel continues to spin for a while...
I think its a promissing design...
Quote from: Rapadura on March 01, 2010, 08:18:41 PM
No way... The force needed to move the stator is minimal... And it just need to "jump" the sticky spot. After the jump, gravity can be used to make the stator go back to its position during the rest of the rotation. And after the wheel is acelerated, the stator can be put aside and the wheel continues to spin for a while...
I think its a promissing design...
It's a simple SMOT and has been around a long time. Don't be fooled by the flywheel effect, this SMOT array is a direct conversion of input power. Try it yourself.
I hope I can try it for myself soon... I'm sure there's no need for much energy to make the stator jump a little when the sticky spot is approaching... The wheel is rotating because of the attraction force of the magnets, not because of the movement of the stator. The stator don't touch the wheel...
The author of this proposed device thinks it "could never work":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLwEs0iu7U
Maybe not, but... Couldn't we use a "manetic cam" to elevate the platform of the stator at the right moment? This way there is less friction than in a cam with physical contact. Of course the platform of the stator should be as light as possible, made of a very light plastic material.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 01, 2010, 09:26:27 PM
The author of this proposed device thinks it "could never work":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwLwEs0iu7U
Maybe not, but... Couldn't we use a "manetic cam" to elevate the platform of the stator at the right moment? This way there is less friction than in a cam with physical contact. Of course the platform of the stator should be as light as possible, made of a very light plastic material.
It all requires the same input of power. A moving hand, a cam, a pinto bean, Dick Cheney...
hey I was trying to do something similar to this, was thinking of using the mechanics of something like a whirligig to flip up in sync to teh rotation. I just learned this word, "whirligig", today trying to fin out what it is called, check out the youtubes underthat term or google it i think this might help some of you all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirligig
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&ei=TKOMS6CWHYPWM4P4nW4&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CBsQBSgA&q=whirligig&spell=1&fp=db64f927cfe7b756
this guys is a great whirligig maker on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/whirligiger32
@harrison73
You are suggesting informal wind power to get the device past the
sticking point?
@All
There are a number of ways to make the top piece weigh
effectively less.
A) a fulcrum and a balancing weight
B) a slinky like spring
C) an attached helium balloon
You are probably right about the friction though...must be.
:SMarkSCoffman
A patent of a "magnetic cam":
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0210659.html
"The invention relates generally to friction-based devices such as mechanical cams and followers, yokes, cranks, and links for power and motion conversion between rotating and reciprocating motion and relates generally to magnetic motion conversion devices as known in the art. More specifically, the invention relates to significant friction and wear reduction and efficient conversion of rotational and reciprocating motion by utilizing the force of magnetic field areas"
I have a feeling we can move that platform of the stator at the right moment with no much effort...
Another idea of a setup to move the platform of the stator at the right moment, without utilizing a cam, just a "pusher" (an object to push the platform), a spring, a rope and a reel attached to a gear:
@mscoffman
not wind, just borrowing the mechanics of the whirligig, just using a crankshaft like deal, so when you start spinning the array of magnets a crankshaft sort of deal times the opposing magnets into each other.
I believe the V-gate wheel turned the attention of many of us towards OU and magnetics. However, i believe that by simply applying mechanic tricks, this won't generate OU, otherwise it would be working already, or would be patented.
On the other hand, i was thinking about eliminating the mechanical uplifts by applying an electromagnet (coils) around the stator, which would be used only to cancel the stator NEO magnet's field at the gate.
At slow speeds, of course, the input energy would be certainly higher, because it would take relatively much time to get through the gate... BUT, as the speed increases, you need to cancel the field for shorter and shorter periods.
In other words, one full turn of the V-gate wheel will require less and less input energy as the RPM increases. Theoretically, there could be a point where the input energy is almost 0 per revolution, while the wheel is turning very fast.
Viktor
Quote from: Rapadura on March 01, 2010, 08:18:41 PM
No way... The force needed to move the stator is minimal... And it just need to "jump" the sticky spot. After the jump, gravity can be used to make the stator go back to its position during the rest of the rotation. And after the wheel is acelerated, the stator can be put aside and the wheel continues to spin for a while...
I think its a promissing design...
Yes, it is minimal force used to remove the stator, but it is also a minimal force that turns the wheel. It just don't work - also the reason why the sator is allways hand held in such demonstrations.
Vidar
this famous machine happens to use whirligig type mechanics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHVBu77jz4w
Quote from: victore on March 02, 2010, 02:56:50 PM
I believe the V-gate wheel turned the attention of many of us towards OU and magnetics. However, i believe that by simply applying mechanic tricks, this won't generate OU, otherwise it would be working already, or would be patented.
On the other hand, i was thinking about eliminating the mechanical uplifts by applying an electromagnet (coils) around the stator, which would be used only to cancel the stator NEO magnet's field at the gate.
At slow speeds, of course, the input energy would be certainly higher, because it would take relatively much time to get through the gate... BUT, as the speed increases, you need to cancel the field for shorter and shorter periods.
In other words, one full turn of the V-gate wheel will require less and less input energy as the RPM increases. Theoretically, there could be a point where the input energy is almost 0 per revolution, while the wheel is turning very fast.
Viktor
This is simply not correct, I'm afraid. The time it spend to open the gate gets shorter at high RPMs, yes you're right, but the number of times per minute or second also increase. So the net input energy will remain the same.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on March 02, 2010, 03:14:30 PM
This is simply not correct, I'm afraid. The time it spend to open the gate gets shorter at high RPMs, yes you're right, but the number of times per minute or second also increase. So the net input energy will remain the same.
Vidar
Yes, i was also thinking about that, but if you consider only one revolution as a unit of measure of energy output, then the input energy required for 1 revolution will decrease by increasing RPM's.
Viktor
Quote from: victore on March 02, 2010, 03:28:53 PM
Yes, i was also thinking about that, but if you consider only one revolution as a unit of measure of A output, then the input energy required for 1 revolution will decrease by increasing RPM's.
Viktor
Yes, you're right. However it will not be of any interest.
Vidar
Quote from: harrison73 on March 02, 2010, 03:10:25 PM
this famous machine happens to use whirligig type mechanics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHVBu77jz4w
Battery powered.
I still think that the idea of the cam (magnetic or not) may work... I'm anxious to receive my next payment, to start buying the materials I need to try it for myself. I'll ask for help from one old friend of mine that studies mechatronics, and I hope he don't think I'm becoming crazy. I'm sure there's something big with this V gate wheel... I can't watch this video without thinking that this is really big:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg
The hand of our friend "ardan37" moves very little and gets a great spining from that wheel... I'm sure we can substitute ardans37's hand with something that requires very little energy...
Rapa
Have you seen member Erfinders mag motor?
Hope somebody has a link [I lost it in a crash]
you would "love it"
Small softball sized V gate configuration set in a square "poly" block.
Chet
Quote from: Rapadura on March 02, 2010, 07:09:11 PM
I still think that the idea of the cam (magnetic or not) may work... I'm anxious to receive my next payment, to start buying the materials I need to try it for myself. I'll ask for help from one old friend of mine that studies mechatronics, and I hope he don't think I'm becoming crazy. I'm sure there's something big with this V gate wheel... I can't watch this video without thinking that this is really big:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg
The hand of our friend "ardan37" moves very little and gets a great spining from that wheel... I'm sure we can substitute ardans37's hand with something that requires very little energy...
You can't. Have you seen 'therickoff's' attempt at a mag motor? He took it as far as it can probably go and realized it can't be done. Not with a gate type setup, at least.
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheRickoff#p/u
Same thing w/ James Roney.
"TheRickoff" said 2 days ago:
"Thanks for your interest in the project and the videos. Yes, if a moving stator is used, and used well, it entirely avoids any "sticky points," so that there is nothing to overcome. You simply get one acceleration burst after another."
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTn3qlYJSg )
I agree with him. If a moving stator is used, and used well, it entirely avoids any "sticky points" .
That's what we need: a moving stator well planed and well used.
V Gate has the potential... Once rotating with high velocity, a cam can easily move the stator properly and maintain the velocity. I know it's too simple, and could have been done in Ancient Greece by Archimedes, but what can we do if it was not until 2010 to get someone to do it...
Quote from: Rapadura on March 02, 2010, 10:32:13 PM
"TheRickoff" said 2 days ago:
"Thanks for your interest in the project and the videos. Yes, if a moving stator is used, and used well, it entirely avoids any "sticky points," so that there is nothing to overcome. You simply get one acceleration burst after another."
( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTn3qlYJSg )
I agree with him. If a moving stator is used, and used well, it entirely avoids any "sticky points" .
That's what we need: a moving stator well planed and well used.
V Gate has the potential... Once rotating with high velocity, a cam can easily move the stator properly and maintain the velocity. I know it's too simple, and could have been done in Ancient Greece by Archimedes, but what can we do if it was not until 2010 to get someone to do it...
'Gate' is a deceptive term imho, It should be called a wall. Initial inertia compared to an in-motion device is also deceptive. I think mr Yu is approaching it in the best possible way. We'll see how his device turns out.
am thinking about the potenial of a flywheel with it's weight getting over the hump, in tanduem with a cam or crankshaft...
Quote from: harrison73 on March 03, 2010, 12:15:57 AM
am thinking about the potenial of a flywheel with it's weight getting over the hump, in tanduem with a cam or crankshaft...
Perhaps the 1001st try will work. Or not...
Hey All,
Please see this one -
http://www.linux-host.org/energy/maggen.htm
Kind Regards, Penno
Quote from: happyfunball on March 03, 2010, 12:30:22 AM
Perhaps the 1001st try will work. Or not...
I think very few people did experiments with V Gate in a flywheel. And
nobody has tried seriously the idea of the cam.
@harrison73
Sir; Inertial Momentum is insufficient in itself to solve the overunity
problem. If a rotor can make one cogging-free rotation then all that
is needed is "energy gain" around the entire rotational loop to make
it run forever. Without "energy gain" then no matter how much rotational
mass the rotor has it will always run down and stop via cogging. So
rotational mass needs to be suffcient at some RPM to overcome
cogging.
@happyfunball
"Gate" is what it has become known as in the permanent magnet motor
field.
---
Also; as the rotor RPM goes up. The inductance of a coil will need to be
overcome by applying additional electrical energy to get it to pulse fast.
Also the repetition rate itself will require the coil current to rise...So
there is no free electrical lunch.
I don't like electronic actuation (unless it works :D) as there may be
some relationship between the amount of magnetic work you can get
from the generator and the amount you can produce from the magnetic
motor. I'm not saying I know what the relationship is...but it would
probably defeat device operation.
---
@All
Ok...we have overcome weight of the top piece as being a problem.
and we have overcome friction as being a problem. ;) The last one
is a problem of inertial momentum of the top piece. This could
be overcome by making the cam actuation very long and shallow...
Then, it does kind of remind you of the Yu pendulum as a wheel
doesn't it.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on March 03, 2010, 10:27:55 AM
@happyfunball
"Gate" is what it has become known as in the permanent magnet motor
field.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I'm aware of the meaning of 'gate.' I think you meant to say the magnetic field juncture, ie: the end/ beginning of the SMOT array. In my opinion, a more accurate description would be 'wall' due to the fact that the 'gate' has never been overcome and makes it sound a little too doable to would-be experimenters...
Quote from: Rapadura on March 03, 2010, 10:21:35 AM
I think very few people did experiments with V Gate in a flywheel. And nobody has tried seriously the idea of the cam.
Rickoff certainly took it seriously. I think the rest are aware of the fact that a cam requires energy input which can't be extracted from a spinning SMOT array. But by all means give it a shot.
Btw, Roney w/ his 'runway plates' is apparently still at it according to a message I received from him.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 03, 2010, 11:32:30 AM
I think the rest are aware of the fact that a cam requires energy input which can't be extracted from a spinning SMOT array.
A cam just have to overcome the friction with the upper piece without slowing down the wheel too much, just a little...
The cam is just spinning with the wheel, and the only "trouble" the cam will face is friction with the upper piece, when the cam touches it in order to lift it.
It's only a matter of reducing the friction between the cam and the upper piece during the brief moment that this pieces are touching each other. If friction is minimal, the wheel will slow down very little. And the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces during the rest of the rotation will compensate for that little slowing down.
I believe there is a real possibility that it could work.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 03, 2010, 12:24:41 PM
A cam just have to overcome the friction with the upper piece without slowing down the wheel too much, just a little...
The cam is just spinning with the wheel, and the only "trouble" the cam will face is friction with the upper piece, when the cam touches it in order to lift it.
It's only a matter of reducing the friction between the cam and the upper piece during the brief moment that this pieces are touching each other. If friction is minimal, the wheel will slow down very little. And the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces during the rest of the rotation will compensate for that little slowing down.
You're forgetting that there's no real torque here. It's just spinning on bearings. Any load, you hit the wall.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 03, 2010, 01:31:33 PM
You're forgetting that there's no real torque here. It's just spinning on bearings. Any load, you hit the wall.
Any load? What you mean with "any"?
Take a bike and lift the front wheel so that it can rotate freely. Give a little push to the wheel, leaving it spinning slowly. Then, take a small toy car and put one of the little wheels of the car in contact with the bicycle wheel for just 2 seconds and see if it will stop the bicycle wheel... It won't.
With a very light plastic platform for the stator, and with the cam surface covered with rubber and the little wheel of the lifted platform also made of rubber, friction will be small. It won't stop the flywheel.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 03, 2010, 02:32:20 PM
Any load? What you mean with "any"?
Take a bike and lift the front wheel so that it can rotate freely. Give a little push to the wheel, leaving it spinning slowly. Then, take a small toy car and put one of the little wheels of the car in contact with the bicycle wheel for just 2 seconds and see if it will stop the bicycle wheel... It won't.
With a very light plastic platform for the stator, and with the cam surface covered with rubber and the little wheel of the lifted platform also made of rubber, friction will be small. It won't stop the flywheel.
A bicycle wheel is not working against magnetic forces. A flywheel only has temporary torque. Rickoff has an extremely low friction, moving stator setup. Couldn't get it to work.
If it kicks away fast because the ramp is steep and sharp
there is momentum inertia to overcome in the top piece.
That takes energy. No question, the cam would need
to be adjusted, but the history does tend to indicate
it can't be done. There is; some small acceleration from
the magnetic array. You want that acceleration to build
up in the wheel by not using it all up.
:S:MarkSCoffman
OK, I still think the idea of the cam should work, but, anyway, I can suggest to ardan37 that he could attach a dynamo to the flywheel of his experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg
So, ardan37 can just sit in a confortable chair, enjoying that great music of the video, and just slightly moving his hand he can generate almost as much power as this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSJ0CeBYG0s
And he certainly will sweat a lot less and will be much less tired!
One more video where the idea of the cam should work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w
A cam will not work nor will any other configuration when dealing with this type of smot. Sorry but you are wasting time with this type of smot design if you are looking to produce OU.
I disagree, and I will try the cam, as soon as I have money (my vacation is finishing and I go back to my job next week, 10 days later I should be receiving my payment).
Nobody has tried the cam, someone have to do.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 03, 2010, 09:42:38 PM
Nobody has tried the cam, someone have to do.
Oh yes they have. There are videos posted on youtube. You have to always remember the draw and the repelling affects are equal. As you pull away, you have resistance which again is equal. You have to get away from the equals and you can not do so when dealing with this type of smot design. Sorry but that is a fact. I am just trying to keep you from wasting time but then again, you learn from your mistakes so it may still benifit you and who knows, it may just help you think of a new way.
I never saw a video on YouTube where a cam is utilized with a V gate in a flywheel.
I think since the flywheel have a initial good speed, the stator will be easily lifted up, and the magnetic atraction forces in the rest of the rotation will compensate the little slowing down of the flywheel caused by the brief moment of friction between the cam and the stator. I think the flyweel will accelerate, not decelerate.
There are threads on this site about this. They are a few years old but we have went over all this already in those threads. You will find links to some of those videos I spoke of, in those threads. Not sure exactly were you would find those threads but I do remember them being a few years old.
I used the Google Search on this website, and found some threads, but didn't find any Youtube video of a cam with a V gate.
Some more comments on this design:
I thought that the fact that something pushes (or pull) the stator up, before reaching the sticky spot, only makes the sticky spot to relocate, to "anticipate" itself, into the location where the stator begins to rise, moving away from the permanent magnets on the flywheel. It almost discouraged me.
But then I thought: if this was true, the flywheel would not work even with human hand. And the videos show that works with human hand.
If the sticky spot really was "anticipated" when the hand of the person in the video on YouTube begins the rising of the stator, separating it from the permanent magnets, then that "antecipated sticky spot" should decelerate the wheel. If there was really a sticky point caused by the force of attraction between the stator and the permanent magnets on the wheel at the exact point where the stator begins to distances itself from the permanent magnets, driven by the human hand, then the wheel would decelerate gradually because of this sticky point.
But we see in the videos it is not what happens. When the human hand moves the stator up at the appropriate time, the wheel does not slow down. Rather, it will gradually accelerating and gaining speed. So, there is not "anticipation of the sticky spot"...
So, I guess this means that, if a cam was used, the only force that this cam would have to face to lift the stator would be friction, and the weight of the stator, and not an "anticipated sticky spot" .
Quote from: Rapadura on March 04, 2010, 01:31:31 PM
Some more comments on this design:
I thought that the fact that something pushes (or pull) the stator up, before reaching the sticky spot, only makes the sticky spot to relocate, to "anticipate" itself, into the location where the stator begins to rise, moving away from the permanent magnets on the flywheel. It almost discouraged me.
But then I thought: if this was true, the flywheel would not work even with human hand. And the videos show that works with human hand.
If the sticky spot really was "anticipated" when the hand of the person in the video on YouTube begins the rising of the stator, separating it from the permanent magnets, then that "antecipated sticky spot" should decelerate the wheel. If there was really a sticky point caused by the force of attraction between the stator and the permanent magnets on the wheel at the exact point where the stator begins to distances itself from the permanent magnets, driven by the human hand, then the wheel would decelerate gradually because of this sticky point.
But we see in the videos it is not what happens. When the human hand moves the stator up at the appropriate time, the wheel does not slow down. Rather, it will gradually accelerating and gaining speed. So, there is not "anticipation of the sticky spot"...
So, I guess this means that, if a cam was used, the only force that this cam would have to face to lift the stator would be friction, and the weight of the stator, and not an "anticipated sticky spot" .
It will also face the force of the 'gate,' (sticky spot) no matter what you do. Since there is no real torque, you will quickly realize there is no real input power to hurl the stator over the beginning/end of the SMOT....
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 01:36:25 PM
It will also face the force of the 'gate,' (sticky spot) no matter what you do. Since there is no real torque, you will quickly realize there is no real input power to hurl the stator over the beginning/end of the SMOT....
Look to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w
As you can see, the kinetic energy of the rotating wheel makes it overcome the sticky spot many times, it keeps on looping for a quite good time
even with the sticky spot there.
The problem is: each time the sticky spot passes along the stator,
the wheel is slightly decelerated. After many loops, this slow deceleration will stop the wheel.
BUT, if there was a cam, that good speed of the wheel would be sufficient to hurl the stator over the sticky spot, with very few friction. In this case, at each loop, the deceleration of the wheel
will not be caused by the sticky spot, it will be caused by friction between the cam and the platform of the stator.
BUT, if this friction is reduced to a minimal, the deceleration caused by this friction
may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation (the cam only takes a few degrees in a rotational movement of 360 degrees).
We know that the deceleration of the wheel caused by the sticky spot in each loop is
greater, not smaller, than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. It's why we have a
net loss, and the wheel will eventually stop.
BUT, in the case of friction between the cam and the platform of the stator, the deceleration caused by this friction may be
smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. So, there is a possibility that we can achieve a
net gain. So, the wheel will not stop.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 04, 2010, 02:34:44 PM
Look to this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w
As you can see, the kinetic energy of the rotating wheel makes it overcome the sticky spot many times, it keeps on looping for a quite good time even with the sticky spot there.
The problem is: each time the sticky spot passes along the stator, the wheel is slightly decelerated. After many loops, this slow deceleration will stop the wheel.
BUT, if there was a cam, that good speed of the wheel would be sufficient to hurl the stator over the sticky spot, with very few friction. In this case, at each loop, the deceleration of the wheel will not be caused by the sticky spot, it will be caused by friction between the cam and the platform of the stator.
BUT, if this friction is reduced to a minimal, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation (the cam only takes a few degrees in a rotational movement of 360 degrees).
We know that the deceleration of the wheel caused by the sticky spot in each loop is greater, not smaller, than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. It's why we have a net loss, and the wheel will eventually stop.
BUT, in the case of friction between the cam and the platform of the stator, the deceleration caused by this friction may be smaller than the acceleration caused by the magnetic forces in the rest of the rotation. So, there is a possibility that we can achieve a net gain. So, the wheel will not stop.
A Perendev derivitive, which also does not work. You're not seeing it accurately, the wheel has no real kinetic energy beyond what is being input by hand motion. Rickoff's ultra-low friction moving cam setup is based on the fact that the repulsive force of a magnet is very slightly more than attractive (or do I have that reversed) but it still did not work.
Anyway the best way to find out is just to build it. Perhaps you'll stumble upon something, good luck.
Hi Happyfunball
Is it a proven fact that there is a force difference between attraction and repulsion?
peter
Quote from: petersone on March 04, 2010, 03:08:16 PM
Hi Happyfunball
Is it a proven fact that there is a force difference between attraction and repulsion?
peter
Yes, but I'm not an expert on the matter.
HI Happyfunball
You are, compared to me,it's all relative!!
peter
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 02:52:40 PM
You're not seeing it accurately, the wheel has no real kinetic energy beyond what is being input by hand motion.
As we can see in the two videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w ) just after the stator passes the gate (or sticky spot) there is acceleration of the wheel, clearly caused by the magnetic forces between the stator and the permanent magnets on the wheel.
So, hand motion is not "inputing" kinetic energy. Acceleration caused by magnetic forces is "inputing" kinetic energy.
Hand motion is just working to prevent the gate from
withdrawing kinetic energy from the wheel. If the stator passes along the gate, the gate (sticky spot) will
withdraw kinetic energy from the wheel. If it withdraws
more kinetic energy than the acceleration in the rest of the rotation can input back, it will reduce the speed of rotation, and the final result will be the wheel eventually stopping. Hand motion just prevents this from happening.
Hand motion can completely avoid the slowdown caused by the passage of the stator through the gate, using only a small energy from the human body.
We can replace hand motion by something like a cam, that has friction with the platform of the stator for a brief instant, but the slowdown caused by this friction can be
much smaller than the slowdown caused by the passage of the stator along the gate.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 04, 2010, 09:50:22 PM
As we can see in the two videos ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ux4qfizL0xg and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbj3rIFVb5w ) just after the stator passes the gate (or sticky spot) there is acceleration of the wheel, clearly caused by the magnetic forces between the stator and the permanent magnets on the wheel.
So, hand motion is not "inputing" kinetic energy. Acceleration caused by magnetic forces is "inputing" kinetic energy.
Hand motion is just working to prevent the gate from withdrawing kinetic energy from the wheel. If the stator passes along the gate, the gate (sticky spot) will withdraw kinetic energy from the wheel. If it withdraws more kinetic energy than the acceleration in the rest of the rotation can input back, it will reduce the speed of rotation, and the final result will be the wheel eventually stopping. Hand motion just prevents this from happening.
Hand motion can completely avoid the slowdown caused by the passage of the stator through the gate, using only a small energy from the human body.
We can replace hand motion by something like a cam, that has friction with the platform of the stator for a brief instant, but the slowdown caused by this friction can be much smaller than the slowdown caused by the passage of the stator along the gate.
All of the energy is input by hand movement, at the beginning of and during the cycle. 100%.
This is why, after building such a sweet looking v gate wheel out of superior materials, most likely CNC, at some expense, you have not and will not see a follow-up video showing a self powered cam activated device.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 09:57:26 PM
All of the energy is input by hand movement, at the beginning of and during the cycle. 100%.
No. Just 0% of the energy is input by hand movement. 100% of of the energy is input by magnetic forces, just like when a permanent magnet on a table atracts an iron ball.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 04, 2010, 10:01:56 PM
No. Just 0% of the energy is input by hand movement. 100% of of the energy is input by magnetic forces, just like when a permanent magnet on a table atracts an iron ball.
If youre going to play semantics, 100% of the magnetic energy is input by a hand moving a magnet.
An iron ball will only attract to a magnet if they are positioned (hand motion) in close enough proximity. Once the iron ball has attached itself to the magnet, it will require significant outside force to separate again. A perfect analogy of what's happening with the v gate wheel.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 04, 2010, 10:06:04 PM
An iron ball will only attract to a magnet if they are positioned (hand motion) in close enough proximity.
It is completely absurd to say that the acceleration caused in the ball is the result of the hand that put the ball there.
If the ball is at rest, only half centimeter away from the "close enough proximity" to start to be attracted by the magnet through a little ramp with a slope of 10 degrees, and I use an electromagnetic actuator to push the ball for this half centimeter, the energy spent in that little push is much smaller than the kinetic energy of the ball accelerated by the magnetic force going up in the ramp.
Is completely absurd to say that the electromagnetic forces does not cause acceleration. If that were true, there would not exist electric motors.
Quote from: Rapadura on March 04, 2010, 10:01:56 PM
No. Just 0% of the A is input by hand movement. 100% of of the energy is input by magnetic forces, just like when a permanent magnet on a table atracts an iron ball.
The wheel in the v-gate video have a sticky spot where the poles in the V-gate is closest to the hand held magnet - at the end of the V-gate. It is towards that point the magnet is attracted to. To avoid that sticky spot, the hand must remove the magnet from it for some time. The force spent to roll that wheel corresponds perfectly to the forces between that sticky spot, and the hand held magnet. So it is impossible to build up kinetic energy that is greater than the force provided by the V-gate. So the hand must help to accelerate the wheel by using force to interrupt the attraction near and beyond the sticky spot. If you use a cam to lift that magnet away, the cam must steal exactly, or more, that amount of kinetic energy that is built up by the V-gate. The wheel is therefor 100% depended on the hand to accelerate. There will be no follow up video with a true self runner - trust me :)
Vidar
Quote from: Rapadura on March 05, 2010, 12:30:50 PM
It is completely absurd to say that the acceleration caused in the ball is the result of the hand that put the ball there.
If the ball is at rest, only half centimeter away from the "close enough proximity" to start to be attracted by the magnet through a little ramp with a slope of 10 degrees, and I use an electromagnetic actuator to push the ball for this half centimeter, the A spent in that little push is much smaller than the kinetic energy of the ball accelerated by the magnetic force going up in the ramp.
Is completely absurd to say that the electromagnetic forces does not cause acceleration. If that were true, there would not exist electric motors.
The problem with such ramps, SMOTs, is that the ball is repelled if it is outside the beginning og the track. The hand must overcome that force to make the ball enter inside the attracting area.
Second: The end of the track there is built up some kinetic energy. The ball can fall through a hole at the end of the track, but the gravity acceleration at that point is not 9,81 m/s^2, but much less - due to the magnetic force that breaks the ball to fall freely towards gravity. Adding the repelling force outside the start of the track where the ball are suppose to start over again, the actual potential energy the ball have on the top of the slope is therefor the sams as in the bottom of the slope - or less if we take friction and Lentz law into account.
Vidar
Quote from: Rapadura on March 05, 2010, 12:30:50 PM
It is completely absurd to say that the acceleration caused in the ball is the result of the hand that put the ball there.
If the ball is at rest, only half centimeter away from the "close enough proximity" to start to be attracted by the magnet through a little ramp with a slope of 10 degrees, and I use an electromagnetic actuator to push the ball for this half centimeter, the energy spent in that little push is much smaller than the kinetic energy of the ball accelerated by the magnetic force going up in the ramp.
Is completely absurd to say that the electromagnetic forces does not cause acceleration. If that were true, there would not exist electric motors.
The V Gate requires outside force to operate. No excess energy is produced. Build one and find out for yourself, as thousands of others have. The end.
Quote from: happyfunball on March 06, 2010, 12:32:39 AM
Build one and find out for yourself
It's precisely what I'm going to do! If it works, I will put the video on YouTube, if it don't work, I will put the video on YouTube too.
after elaborating on this with my father he is an engineer he said that two magnets are balanced towards the center.
also my father said about the yu's video that it "adds" the energy in resonance with the oscillation.
i thought about the balance toward the center and i think i understand it:
so there is a south half of a magnet and a north half of a magnet,
if i make a long magnet and put it so that only the north side of the rotor is in an angle that only that side repulses from a stator magnet then it is still will have a balance at the minimal repulsion point. so it made me wonder how a static magnet motor is possible.
[image1]
also so i thing the v gate motor is also along magnet bend in a v shape and both poles are used with repulsion
[image2]
it is guessable that in situations like this there is less attraction then repulsion.
but there is a balance at the least repulsive point so how can it work if there is a balance (should be there a temporary imbalance?)
and the repulsion from what - from the stator and from the gravity?
why smot not working? in jnaudin website, smot gains 113% http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/smotnrgt.htm