just my imagination at work, implying that my knowledge of the subject is limited and my motivation to find the perfect series of numbers for how many magnets on each wheel and etc is just as limited
for those of you who know physics, heres something to laugh at
i guess no criticism means one of two things:
1. nobody understands it
2. nobody can see why it wont work
You forgot another option, "nobody cares".
You get very little intrest if you only show an illustration of an idea, no matter how promising it may be. That's one sad part of this "community" you will learn to see. At best you'll just be ignored at worst you will be called lazy.
If you want to generate interest and replications, start by posting a video on youtube and make sure it's convincible.
if youre saying i should create a video through use of graphics, sorry i dont have the skills or program/s necessary for that. if you want an actual video recording of a working model of the device than im afraid you are asking too much. if i had a working model, this 'community' would be the least of my concerns
i went through the trouble of creating this illustration for the sole purpose of posting it here, the least i expect is a little bit of appreciation for my effort. and i would expect most physics minded people to be able to see through this device quickly, therefore requiring little effort. i dont think some quick input is much to expect, especially in a place like this where it is supposed to be welcome
I had an idea similar to this except I had two separate wheels geared together - not one inside the other. The magnets would still find a sticky point and get stuck. But your design is slightly different. I say try it and find out.
The people who would criticize the design are mostly people pulling stuff out of their behinds. Your only educator should be nature which shows you the answer through experimentation.
What I'm saying though is that this particular concept will most likely join the mountains of unbuilt concepts and ideas. Besides a few expectations here and there there's little to no experiments done on ideas presented by people who are actually alive.
I'm not criticizing you I'm telling you the things as they are so you can use that information to avoid the pit falls others fell in before you.
There is another member that has a similar idea.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9409.0
Jesus
Hold on Broli;
The best thing that he could do if he doesn't want build it is to do a FEMM
simulation of it. FEMM = 2D free magnetic simulation software. This will
show the magnetic field lines. What one would do is to do a number of
simulations moving the wheel(s) by a small amount and showing that there
is always net force vector in a rotationally positive direction. Magnetic field lines are
complicated and you cannot really always tell by looking at the emitter diagram.
There is also the matter of sticky spots that even FEMM may not be fully aware of.
Real magnets too can be highly variable one to the next.
Let's try to solve problems not create them.
:S:MarkSCoffman
it gets tricky when talking about how certain magnets would react given a hypothetical situation, because our current physics would basically just say "no matter what combination you have, it will not work"
with any magnet wheel there is a "sticky" spot, millions of set ups have yet to yield anything with evidence suggesting otherwise, your particular idea is a design that has similarities with ideas that have been tried and don't work,
most likely if you built this, the magnets would get stuck in between each other, they would be in attraction and the force required to pull them apart would be equal to any gain from the repulsion of the other side,
thank you for the idea of the femm program, i downloaded it, but im sure it will take ages for me to understand how to use it, given that i know nothing of physics. better than nothing though. i think that free energy with the use of magnets is entirely possible. sticky points may just be a result of lacking precision in magnetic strength or placement
Keep proposing ideas! It is a great thing to do. More people need to develop ideas, because there is certainly a lack of them. Everyone is expecting free technology to be handed to them, but nobody wants to contribute ideas... Keep up the good work.
I am not trying to be rude, but I am getting so sick of deficient observation. There is no excuse for being ignorant anymore, not when the internet is freely available everywhere. It is 2010 and we are reciting the same old fake jargon that perpetual motion is NOT possible, when clearly it is! It has been done over and over.... Stop believing in the old paradigm. This website is called Overunity for a reason..
Magnetic sticky points are caused by bad designs. Magnets have energy, and THERE ARE WORKING MAGNET MOTORS. Youtube is free, and there are about 10 good clear videos of solid working magnet motors, including the newest guy in Turkey who has been allowed in a university (a first time for an inventor of a perpetual motion machine).
I don't have a working magnet motor. I don't know enough about them to build one, but I've seen the way magnets behave, and I know that it's possible.
I am an auto mechanic and magnets make me think of engines. You can pour all the fuel and spark at an engine you want, but if you don't have the timing correct, the engine will NOT start, and it will NOT stay running. If you have the valve timing, or spark timing off, you can get combustion and a loud bang, but the engine won't start, no matter what you do... It's the same thing with magnets.
For all magnet motors, you either need perfect spacing, and perfect configurations, or you need perfect timing, and way to time it. This means, you need a way to shield the magnets, or move the magnets so they are no longer static... Look at Troy Reed. Troy Reed can be found on Youtube. He took the concept of an internal combustion engine and turned into an ALL MAGNET motor, that produced free energy... I don't know how to do it, but it sure as heck is possible.
Please lets embrace reality and accept the true nature of things. Just because we don't understand them, doesn't mean we can just put our head in the sand and pretend they don't exist...
thanks supermuble, i agree entirely
as an engineer, what do you think of my design?
;D To be honest, I don't understand it. Let me look at it in the morning and think about it some more and I'll tell you what I think ok!
Quote from: TEI2MINUS on August 07, 2010, 03:03:29 AM
just my imagination at work, implying that my knowledge of the subject is limited and my motivation to find the perfect series of numbers for how many magnets on each wheel and etc is just as limited
for those of you who know physics, heres something to laugh at
Magnets repels and attracts accordig to its magnetic strength - flux density. This means the number magnetic flux lines are the same in attraction and repelling mode - simply because the magnet is a closed loop that never changes. Further, this means a magnet cannot repell more than it attracts, nor attracts more than it repels. Further, this means it cannot propell an item more in one direction than the other, which again means a permanent magnet motor will never work as long the number of magnetic lines are unchanged.
A bad statement? Probably, but if anyone wants to make a machine that is based on the laws of magnetism, the law of magnetism must be taken into account when making one.
Vidar
gravity and magnetism are almost identical
the same amount of energy you can gain from a magnet in repulsion is identical (and in the real world a little less due to losses in friction) than you can from an attraction
sticky spots have little to do with placement, its about the forces
if you use uniform strength magnets, it will "balance" and nothing will move
then someone says:
"oh but what if i used increasing magnets so that the next one is strong enough to pull it past the other one?"
well thats what a sticky spot is
when looped, the next magnet to either pull or push the wheel is the weakest one you have
so if you are using magnets that all have the same strength, theres no chance it will work
then you say again::
"but what if i changed them up there must be millions of combinations"
yep....but most likely none of them will ever work
Has anyone realized that there are 4 fields from a magnet (not two) like the old books say.
As it turns out, the North doesn't loop all the way to the South. The north has two loops coming out of it, and both loops reach towards the center of the magnet, NOT to the South. The South also has 2 loops reaching back towards the center. The two loops coming out of each end of a bar magnet are both traveling in opposite directions. It is possible to short circuit the spins on magnets and make a row of magnets that has identical spins. The spins can create infinite motion in one unilateral direction - perpetual motion.
I've never done this myself, but I do believe it is possible.
http://yfrog.com/5nimage002wvj (http://yfrog.com/5nimage002wvj)
thats a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional field
from the top you would see them connect, your diagram only shows it from the side and the "apparent" extra poles are actually one pole connected to itself
I have also though about this. Magnets have 4 dead spots where the magnetic flux are close to or perfectly in parallell. I think however the flux are travelling from north to south, but in the area where there is no curve in the lines (in the center of N and S), or where the lines are changing from leaving to approaching (Where the "tagential vectors" of the flux lines are in parallell) - right in the center and between N and S outside and inside the magnet - there are dead spots where no magnetic force exists. However, to enter and leave these spots requires the same amount of energy. A series of magnets will not change anything. Nullifying these spins by adding more magnets, just moves the spins to another location. In a closed loop of magnets there will therfor not be any spins at all - at least the sum of the spins directions will be zero in a closed loop.
Anyway, the four corners of a square or rectangular bar magnet has the strongest forces.
Vidar
Perpetual magnetic motion with magnets for power, using the modification of magnetic spins has already been achieved.. Just go do more research. This is how Howard Johnson did it... and he did do it.
Ignorance doesn't make something impossible. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it hasn't been done....
Here is the original article. If you don't want to read it, then that's fine, but it is here, and it does explain how to use magnetic spins.
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html (http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/sm-text.html)
And here is the real patent...
http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/4151431-pg1.html (http://www.newebmasters.com/freeenergy/4151431-pg1.html)
As for me, I am giving up on magnetic motors. Even if it is possible, I don't have enough patience.
Howard did not make a working magnet motor. He did not prove anything. He made a track once, but this track worked if he put the 'train' inside the propelling area by hand. He did never build a working closed loop.
Wow. Are you serious? Didn't you read the article? The magazine editor operated a "closed loop" magnetic motor that Howard built out of nothing but magnets and foil tape on a spinning rotor. I am not trying to be mean, but if you aren't going to read the articles, then why do you claim to know what you are talking about?
No offense to anyone in particular, I just don't see what this forum has to offer, except excessive and unwarranted skepticism based on ignorance and incomplete information. I am hereby deleting my account. Overunity.com should be called "debunkers of all possibility" or something to that effect.
why would you ever think the first place you ever heard of the first free energy device would be on the internet?
edit to add::::::::;
most people on this site know the name howard johnson already, hes up there with bessler, and no one has ever replicated it
you can actually find replication attempts on this site, all fail
Overunity.com are one of many forums on the internet. It is also forums about orbs, ghosts, and crystals that talks so dead people. Much of it are bogus, and some of it are interesting stuff.
This forum contains both the possible and the impossible. The trick is to keep away from the impossible (gravity, magnet motors), and focus on the obvious possible and plausible. Harnessing the energy that is already provided to us by or caused by the sun, are still free energy. We should focus more in technology that actually can work. And this forum is perfect for this opportunity:)
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 05:05:13 AM
This forum contains both the possible and the impossible. The trick is to keep away from the impossible (gravity, magnet motors), and focus on the obvious possible and plausible.
LOL... lowq, come down from your flight of fancy and leave your megalomania and delusions of grandeur behind. the word impossible has no time limit... are you suggesting that you have knowledge of all things to be created and or discovered from now until the end of time?
I would suggest to focus on the obvious possible. The word 'impossible' is used because a conservative force cannot be a source of energy! Unless you are heavy one day and light or weightless the other day, gravity are not conservative. This has not happen in the history of the universe. This is something we must accept. Also accept that something are impossible. Maybe another time in another universe with another laws, the impossible would be possible:)
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 07:45:25 AM
I would suggest to focus on the obvious possible. The word 'impossible' is used because a conservative force cannot be a source of energy! Unless you are heavy one day and light or weightless the other day, gravity are not conservative. This has not happen in the history of the universe. This is something we must accept. Also accept that something are impossible. Maybe another time in another universe with another laws, the impossible would be possible:)
i would suggest you drop the delusions of grandeur. now you are talking about the 'history of the universe'? please continue with this hilarious line of reasoning. go on, tell us all about the history of the universe. were you a witness to it all? are you expecting us to believe that you have witnessed the entire 'history of the universe'? please, tell us how it all began or even if it had a beginning at all... so you go from one megalomaniacal claim (that you know the future) to another megalomaniacal claim (that you know the entire past), too funny. you using the word impossible implies that you know the entire future of the multiverse. i will accept no such thing, and i will describe it for what it is... megalomaniacal. some things MAY BE impossible, you however, are NOT the one to tell us what those things are, and your doing so is indicative of mental issues. you, along with science, cannot even fully explain gravity... ::) i suppose next you will be telling us the theory of relativity is proven.
The history of the universe is not what I am talking about - I wasn't there when it happend. If you know the answer to 1 + 1, you will soon understand that the universe has been affected by gravity for quite some time. There are numberless of results, events in the universe that tells us in more and more detail how it has been created - no problem - we know quite a lot of the universe to determine how objects and gravity affects each other.
Even if we cannot understand gravity, we know very well how it affects objects, and the universe.
When it comes to knowledge about things: Babies and small children do not drown in the water because they don't know what water consist of - we just know small kids can drown in the water regardless of how much we know about the water - you cannot automticly float, just by describing the water. The same with gravity - we will fall down to the ground if we jump from a bridge - regardless of the knowledge of gravity. We know it's there, we know it affects objects in a constant rate depending on the objects weight and size.
No one can proove we cannot float weightless in thin air. No one can proove we cannot jump to the moon, or swollow the sun. Just because no one hase made it yet, doesnt mean it is impossible? Oh, I forgot - it is ofcourse possible. We just have to wait till we have more knowledge :)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 02:01:53 PM
The history of the universe is not what I am talking about - I wasn't there when it happend. If you know the answer to 1 + 1, you will soon understand that the universe has been affected by gravity for quite some time. There are numberless of results, events in the universe that tells us in more and more detail how it has been created - no problem - we know quite a lot of the universe to determine how objects and gravity affects each other.
Even if we cannot understand gravity, we know very well how it affects objects, and the universe.
When it comes to knowledge about things: Babies and small children do not drown in the water because they don't know what water consist of - we just know small kids can drown in the water regardless of how much we know about the water - you cannot automticly float, just by describing the water. The same with gravity - we will fall down to the ground if we jump from a bridge - regardless of the knowledge of gravity. We know it's there, we know it affects objects in a constant rate depending on the objects weight and size.
No one can proove we cannot float weightless in thin air. No one can proove we cannot jump to the moon, or swollow the sun. Just because no one hase made it yet, doesnt mean it is impossible? Oh, I forgot - it is ofcourse possible. We just have to wait till we have more knowledge :)
Vidar
when you can, to my satisfaction, fully explain 'gravity' then i will bow to your knowledge of what is possible with it... other than that i suggest you learn the not so subtle difference between im
probable and im
possible.
I do not think that "conventional thinking" about gravitywheels or magnetmotors will contribute to anything than yet another disappointment. Gravity isn't hard to explain, it's hard to understand. We know that gravity is related to mass. Increasing or decreasing mass will at last make a working gravitywheel, but we do not have the knowledge or tools to move, destroy or create mass without use of energy. Mass are energy, so therefor mass and energy are related. This is also something we have to relate to when we consider to seek solutions in gravitypowered machines.
Gravity is also a very interesting subject to discuss, and there are a lot of different explanations to it. I have made my own thoughts, and are also inspired by the general science about the subject. I think gravity is some sort of potential that was created from something that had to give. I think something has "charged" mass with a certain potential, but this potential wants to equalize into zero by attracting mass together again. I have however no explanation to gravity, but I am sure gravity has a counterforce or an oposite potential - like the potential between + and - on an electric battery. Something had to give in order to create gravity and the potential difference - what that would be could be something that explains the expansion of the universe. If antimatter had an oposite gravity - "levity" - it could explain the expansion. OR expansion is just something that appears to be...
I think it is both smart and less time consuming by relating to present knowledge of gravity and magnetism - we know enough to be smart enough to let it be and seek other solutions. There is plenty of free energy perpetual motion machines out there - the difference is that these machines are ran by external power - the sun - and owned by big companies that suck money out of your pocket. If you are smart, do the best out of something you already know works, and create free energy where you live. Non of us have to pay the goverment to power our households if we can manage to harvest the free energy ourself. It's right here, right outside our doorstep in the next few billion years!
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 03:55:04 PM
I do not think that "conventional thinking" about gravitywheels or magnetmotors will contribute to anything than yet another disappointment. Gravity isn't hard to explain, it's hard to understand. We know that gravity is related to mass. Increasing or decreasing mass will at last make a working gravitywheel, but we do not have the knowledge or tools to move, destroy or create mass without use of energy. Mass are energy, so therefor mass and energy are related. This is also something we have to relate to when we consider to seek solutions in gravitypowered machines.
if it isn't hard to explain, then please reconcile the 'gravity paradox' with a rigorous proof... ;)
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 03:55:04 PM
Gravity is also a very interesting subject to discuss, and there are a lot of different explanations to it. I have made my own thoughts, and are also inspired by the general science about the subject. I think gravity is some sort of potential that was created from something that had to give. I think something has "charged" mass with a certain potential, but this potential wants to equalize into zero by attracting mass together again. I have however no explanation to gravity, but I am sure gravity has a counterforce or an oposite potential - like the potential between + and - on an electric battery. Something had to give in order to create gravity and the potential difference - what that would be could be something that explains the expansion of the universe. If antimatter had an oposite gravity - "levity" - it could explain the expansion. OR expansion is just something that appears to be...
it certainly is an interesting subject. everyone has their own conjecture it seems. ;) there are plenty of gravity threads, let us not monopolize this one since it relates to magnets.
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 03:55:04 PM
I think it is both smart and less time consuming by relating to present knowledge of gravity and magnetism - we know enough to be smart enough to let it be and seek other solutions. There is plenty of free energy perpetual motion machines out there - the difference is that these machines are ran by external power - the sun - and owned by big companies that suck money out of your pocket. If you are smart, do the best out of something you already know works, and create free energy where you live. Non of us have to pay the goverment to power our households if we can manage to harvest the free energy ourself. It's right here, right outside our doorstep in the next few billion years!
Vidar
"we know enough to be smart enough to let it be and seek other solutions."? who is we? who else are you speaking for? i do agree with you about not having to pay someone to power our households, i harvest all the time...
It isn't hard to explain what gravity do: Drop a stone, and you're explained.
To understand why, is harder...
"We" are all of us - everyone - hopefully.
Good to know you have taken your steps to harvest free energy. It should be more people like you doing the same thing at their homes.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 04:49:15 PM
It isn't hard to explain what gravity do: Drop a stone, and you're explained.
To understand why, is harder...
"We" are all of us - everyone - hopefully.
Good to know you have taken your steps to harvest free energy. It should be more people like you doing the same thing at their homes.
Vidar
if it isn't hard to explain, then please reconcile the 'gravity paradox' with a rigorous proof... all you did was give me a vague definition of its effects, not an explanation. ::)
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on August 12, 2010, 04:59:16 PM
if it isn't hard to explain, then please reconcile the 'gravity paradox' with a rigorous proof... all you did was give me a vague definition of its effects, not an explanation. ::)
I guess we have a different definition of what is an explanation and what is a vague definition...
If I would explain what gravity do, I would simply dropped a stone into the ground and let you know what gravity did to that stone. This "effect" are for sure quite essensial when we try to understand gravitypowered machines, and why they cannot work. A better understanding of gravity will probably not change its properties - if it is that you are looking for :)
Anyways, a vague definition is what you get. I cannot explain further.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 05:21:31 PM
I guess we have a different definition of what is an explanation and what is a vague definition...
If I would explain what gravity do, I would simply dropped a stone into the ground and let you know what gravity did to that stone. This "effect" are for sure quite essensial when we try to understand gravitypowered machines, and why they cannot work. A better understanding of gravity will probably not change its properties - if it is that you are looking for :)
Anyways, a vague definition is what you get. I cannot explain further.
Vidar
since we are both speaking english, we should be using the same definition of explanation...
in english an explanation is defined as a set of statements constructed to describe a set of facts which clarifies the causes, context, and consequences of those facts. if you are using a different definition, that is your error, not mine.
i know you cannot explain further... which is why i laughed when you presumed to tell us what was possible with gravity and what was not. better minds (newton, einstein) than yours could only come up with incomplete explanations of gravity. you might want to take a look at what they called an 'explanation' vs. what you call an 'explanation'.
If I was writing in Norwegian (I am a Norwegian), you would probably not understand me ;) Anyways, gravity, as we know it, cannot do work - it is impossible because we use the present (lack of) knowledge to construct machines. I am willing to say that we one day will fully understand gravity, and therefor find ways to harness its potential - but probably on expense for something else. Energy as we know it is all about potential differences. It is reasonable to believe this potential difference also applies to gravity - if gravity is the source of energy. As long gravity and mass doesn't change by itself, no work can be carried out.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 06:25:39 PM
If I was writing in Norwegian (I am a Norwegian), you would probably not understand me ;)
:D probably not, unless you were singing "ol' macdonald had a farm" as that along with basic words like 'hallo', 'tusen takk' and 'vaer saa god' is the only norwegian i can recall from what my gammlefar taught me when i was young. he was the son of a norwegian immigrant and i am proud to have norwegian heritage. i still remember how to make blood krub, rommegrot, lutefisk and krumkaker, but that is of little use to help me discuss gravity in your native tongue. by the way, your english is excellent!
Quote from: Low-Q on August 12, 2010, 06:25:39 PM
Anyways, gravity, as we know it, cannot do work - it is impossible because we use the present (lack of) knowledge to construct machines. I am willing to say that we one day will fully understand gravity, and therefor find ways to harness its potential - but probably on expense for something else. Energy as we know it is all about potential differences. It is reasonable to believe this potential difference also applies to gravity - if gravity is the source of energy. As long gravity and mass doesn't change by itself, no work can be carried out.
Vidar
i would amend 'impossible' to 'not currently possible', other than that i pretty much agree with your statement.
Quote from: TEI2MINUS on August 07, 2010, 03:03:29 AM
just my imagination at work, implying that my knowledge of the subject is limited and my motivation to find the perfect series of numbers for how many magnets on each wheel and etc is just as limited
for those of you who know physics, heres something to laugh at
Hi TE12 - I'm not clever enough to get your illustration back up - but I think you've got a the makings of a really interesting design concept.
I wonder if there would be more 'chance' of motion - keeping the three plate division but giving each structure a 'conal' type base on a shared axis. Then get solid rows of magnets - the outer say North south the next south north and the third north south - again - all on a shared horizontal plane. Have each circle positioned as close as possible to the next so that they can sense the opposing fields?
I really need to draw this. I'll scribble something at the weekend and post it here. Won't be your own high standard of illustration - but I'm thinking that one circle facing north and the next facing south and so on - may be interesting.
Anyway. Not well explained. I'll try and get the time to improve on this. Nice basic concept you've got here.
Regards,
Rosemary
Who or what is determining which direction the wheel are spinning? Is it our imagination, or the physics? Do we cover all possible flaws when we design a magnet motor? There is a lot of issues that we do not think of, or can ever imagine will stop the wheel from spinning - we just build the wheel and stand there as big question marks...wondering why it didn't work. Quite often the explanation is "improper tuning, balance, alignment" etc. I think the explanation is much more simple: Conservative forces cannot do work.
Those who really makes it work, tries to sell it to companies - and a few days later the inventor are busted, put in jail, and spend his time in prison to figure out other ways to make money. This is the never ending story of "successful" magnet motor-, or other perpetual motion machine inventors.
Vidar
Hi Vidar,
I see so many Youtube videos of magnet motors working - but it always seems to be associated with someone anxiously varying the position of an applied magnet. It's confusing. I wonder how difficult it would be to simply get a journalist to film this in action and show NO sleight of hand. In any event. I'm very aware of the reluctance of journalists to comment EVER on my own device. But my own is not that clearly evident. It requires comparative power analysis and by the time the exercise is explained I see their eyes glazing over. But I would have thought a moving series of magnets would be unarguable. In any event. I'm intrigued enough to try this. My only other magnet interface is just WAY TOO expensive to manage. And there's a certain unassailable logic in putting those multiple wheels together. My concern is the 'break' between the magnets. it gives too much scope to reach that dreaded 'rest' position. That's it's preferred default and seems to want to get there.
Regards,
Rosemary
The classical outcome of a magnet motor is that they are "THIS close!" to make it work. One could more likely had a single bicycle wheel without magnets or other stuff, and spun it up and let it spin - they are also "THIS close!" to spin forever. What magnets do is to make this closed loop not so smooth due to the attractions and repulsions. Sadly these forces adds up to zero - simply because they are the same magnets with the same strength that is closed in a loop... I cannot understand why people cannot see this. I still wonder if it could be possible to make it work anyways... What if we could use only one part of a magnet so we did not have to concern about counter forces. Is this possible for me to achieve? If so, I would be a dead man :-))
I really wonder how Finsruds Perpetual Machine are working. Is it fake, or what are making this heavy steel ball rolling in the circular track between those two bicycle rims? I have an idea, but no answer. I will try to replicate his design one day by using my own understanding on how it works.... one day.
i look forward to your drawing rosemary
even if this stuff isnt possible, i enjoy thinking about it anyway. its like two artists discussing the concept behind their paintings or music or writing. fiction can be fun
Hi TE12
Here's the links. I'm afraid I still don't know how to open these links - if someone could oblige? I realise I'm probably stressing everyone's tolerance.
And I also hope the scribbles will show what I'm getting at. LOL. It really is a scribble. What I'm then proposing is that those three plates have the magnets positioned that the fields oppose each other.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi758.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx223%2Faetherevarising%2FDSC00173.jpg&hash=7547d3547cfaf779c2b83f2d24d2ab3816abdda5)
Incidentally the diagram is a cross section through three conical structures with manets positioned in a continuous line around each circular rim. Hope you can read it.
R
Quote from: Rosemary Ainslie on August 14, 2010, 01:15:52 PM
Hi TE12
Here's the links. I'm afraid I still don't know how to open these links - if someone could oblige? I realise I'm probably stressing everyone's tolerance.
And I also hope the scribbles will show what I'm getting at. LOL. It really is a scribble. What I'm then proposing is that those three plates have the magnets positioned that the fields oppose each other.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi758.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fxx223%2Faetherevarising%2FDSC00173.jpg&hash=7547d3547cfaf779c2b83f2d24d2ab3816abdda5)
Incidentally the diagram is a cross section through three conical structures with manets positioned in a continuous line around each circular rim. Hope you can read it.
R
Are those plates actually rotating cones? Are these cones made of magnets with opposed poles so they can levitate over each other?
EDIT: Sorry didn't read the last sentence. So there are cones with magnets opposed to eachother at each rim. I guess the magnets are either magnetized radially or through the "length" of the rims.
What will propell the rotation, and who or what are detemining the direction of rotation?
Vidar
Vidar
@rosemary
Try and put a space betwen the ( and the text inside it. Do it on each side and the link will be workable.
( http://i758.....jpg )
Jesus
or click on this link:
http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00173.jpg (http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx223/aetherevarising/DSC00173.jpg)
i dont understand your drawing rosemary, and i dont really see how it is similar to my design.
what makes it work?
Hi again TE12. I was rather hoping you were around. It's our early morning and it's a lonely time for me. Not a good sleeper is my problem.
In any event. Here's what I'm trying to show. It's a cross section of the rig. Three conical structures (like a tea cup) share the same axis but have their own bearings to enable a spin. The 'rim' of the cones (cup) are embedded with continuous lines of magnets arranged as follows
OPTION 1
Outside circle rim has magnets lined 'head to toe' north/south continously around the rim
Middle circle rim has magnets lined 'head to toe' south/north continuously around the rim
Inner circle rim has magnets lined 'head to toe' north/south continuously around the rim.
OPTION 2
Outside circle rim has magnets placed outside north/inside south continuously
Middle circle rim has magnets placed inside north/outside south - continuously
Inner circle rim has magnets plced outside north/inside south continuously
If you looked down on the construct you'd see three 'necklaces' forming a 3 tiered choker of diminishing length.
Hope that's clearer.
Regards,
Rosemary
Quote from: TEI2MINUS on August 15, 2010, 12:16:12 AM
what makes it work?
My concern with all the specs I've seen on magnet motors is that they do NOT have a continuous field. To my way of thinking a magnetic field needs a 'full on field' before it can do what it want's to do - which, (again in my view only) is to orbit and to orbit as a field. Interrupt that field with spaces and the magnets will find their 'rest position' inside those spaces.
What I've actually drawn here - and what your own design inspired me to try - was a schematic that actually replicates what I
see as an atomic energy level. Again, only according to my own thinking I suspect that these energy levels are opposing magnetic fields.
But regarding 'what makes it work?' - I have no idea if it will work. But I'm interested enough to try and build this rig and test it - if that helps. If it doesn't work - which is more than likely - I'll report here. In the unlikely event that it does work - I'll video it. The advantage to this over my monopole arrangement is that it's financially affordable to test this and I've already bought the magnets. Tiny little tubular ferrite numbers with a north/south pole on a flat surface. Diameter plus/minus 0.5cms and a depth of about 0.25 cms. The cones or cups will be carved from teflon blocks. And the hope is to find non inductive ceramic bearings - failing which we'll use steel. But if we need steel then we'll need to keep the sides of the cone some critical distance from the magnets that they don't induce another field in that conductive material.
Hopefully you can follow all of this -(t12) LOL. I've been puzzling over your avatar for a while now.
;D
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ADDED Not sure yet if it's obvious - but I'm trying to fix it that the magnets NEVER find a rest position. But it still needs to be tested and - as ever - there's absolutely no knowing if this is right. It would be nice to find out though.
The problem with a continuous field is that it is continuous - no change. As there are no change in the magnetic field anywhere around the rim, there will be no places for the magnetic field to wanna go. There will probably be repulsion or attraction in the vertical plane, but nothing will ever happen in the rotary direction - with the magnets arranged like you proposed. I have tested to stack 50 small round disc magnets in a circle. The only thing that happens is that the magnetic field is a closed loop that isn't affecting the surroundings at all.
In order to make a motive force with magnets, there must be a difference in the magnetic field in front and behind the moving magnet. The most dense field are behind to push the magnet away, and the least dense field are in front to "suck" the magnet towards it.
If you can manage to to make an all permanent magnet motor like this, without having the opposite poles to counter force, you have reached your goal - I suppose.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on August 15, 2010, 06:46:45 PM
The problem with a continuous field is that it is continuous - no change. As there are no change in the magnetic field anywhere around the rim, there will be no places for the magnetic field to wanna go. There will probably be repulsion or attraction in the vertical plane, but nothing will ever happen in the rotary direction - with the magnets arranged like you proposed. I have tested to stack 50 small round disc magnets in a circle. The only thing that happens is that the magnetic field is a closed loop that isn't affecting the surroundings at all.
In order to make a motive force with magnets, there must be a difference in the magnetic field in front and behind the moving magnet. The most dense field are behind to push the magnet away, and the least dense field are in front to "suck" the magnet towards it.
Hello Vidar, I'm sure you're right. My concern is that the angle of interaction between two circles needs to be a 90 degrees to each other - and I'm not sure how one can physically arrange this. But since I CAN arrange them that three opposing circles are at 180 degrees then I feel we should, at least, try it. And the test can be varied by placing each graduated circle with all magnets in opposition - so to speak - as another variation. I'm rather relying on the number variation between each circle to present an imbalanced force. The worst that can happen is that we'll learn something new. I'm hoping to get my rig early in the coming week. Frankly it's intriguing so much that it's keeping me awake. I need to get some answers here.
Regards,
Rosemary
Making an angle will not change anything. It will still not work. The magnetic fields are still not changed. If you are lucky, a monopole could work in that arrangement. But regular permanent magnets will definitely not work. Try it anyway, it is fun to experiment with magnetism.:)