hello all,
this patent is over 40 years old. did it slip through the cracks for a reason?
this motor uses shields to cover and uncover PERMANENT MAGNETS. no electrics are used. unlike my first impression, this machine uses attraction rather than repulsion.
you can download this patent here...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3469130.html
i've read this once. so far, i haven't been able to find a reason why it won't work. on the other hand, i can see where it could work better using the new materials available today that weren't available when the patent was granted.
has anyone found a reason for it not to work or can see a flaw?
tom
i heard one time that if no one has a comment it's because they know everything about the subject or they don't know enough to ask a question. i wonder which applies here.
i will say with the speed control included in the patent, it makes the overall machine feel too complex. let's study it without the speed control.
the inventor's use of attraction for rotation is the most curious part for me. he uses the stators separately to advance the rotor in 22.5 degree steps. he does this with separate cams, one for each side of the rotor. this means that even though the rotor magnets are located at the same place on the rotor, the shields (relative to the rotor magnets) uncover the stator magnets at different times. the stator magnets on one stator are 22.5 degrees offset to the stator magnets of the other stator. his thinking seems to be that the attraction of 2 magnets to each other is stronger than the attraction of 1 magnet to the metal shield.
does anybody have experience with this?
tom
Quote from: tbird on September 04, 2010, 08:13:03 AM
i heard one time that if no one has a comment it's because they know everything about the subject or they don't know enough to ask a question. i wonder which applies here.
In my case it's the latter. ;D
I don't know why the other readers here haven't pitched in with some opinions yet. Maybe it's the weather. You know, just one of those things.
I must admit though, I didn't go look at the patent at first because I just couldn't be bothered trying to decipher that sort of stuff. Maybe others are the same. I was also turned off by the mere mentioning of 'shielding', as it brings out the cynic in me. Just like seeing patents of free-energy devices does too, come to think of it.
I tend to assume if the thing works it
won't get patented, and that the more complex a device or system is, the higher chance there is that the patent applicant has tricked themselves into thinking the unworkable will work. Fancy pictures and jargon just don't cut the mustard, and patents are often full of them. Seems to me a person can patent almost any bullshit if it's presented the right way, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's previous bullshit. If it works, he should have built it, or at least enough of it to prove the concept, otherwise it's just a theory, and in theory, pretty much anything's possible. So...
Sorry if I'm being too skeptical. And I'm not having a go at you in any way for posting about it, that's what this place is for. The patent might not have been seen by most people here before and could be worth exploring in greater detail or prove useful in other ways, who knows.
At the moment though, I, for one, am more inclined to just write this off as yet another variation on the same old 'pull some magical shielding out of unicorn's arse and get the pixies to help you align the magnets just right and it'll work' trick.
The only real contribution I can think to make is to suggest you or someone else draw up a simplified diagram of the patented devices essential elements, showing how they're supposed to interact, to make it easier for others to give an opinion on whether they think it'll work or not.
And sorry if this isn't the kind of response you were looking for. Your thread not getting any replies reminded me how much the anonymous, consumerist, no obligation, drive-by aspect of the internet sucks sometimes and I just felt like trying to do something to counter it.
I may be way off here as I only took a brief look at the patent but as soon as I got to the part where they mentioned using iron or soft metal as a 'shield' I gave up reading further. To my knowledge iron and other similar metals do not shield magnetic fields. In the case of iron it will extend the field if it's in contact or close to a magnet. Seeing that as a basic flaw in their theory I didn't go any further.
if this works, i'll do the other 3 pages of drawings too.
tom
looks like it worked. here is the next page.
tom
...and the next
there is still 1 more showing part of the speed control. i'll forego that for now. this is the last of the drawings.
QuoteI must admit though, I didn't go look at the patent at first because I just couldn't be bothered trying to decipher that sort of stuff. Maybe others are the same. I was also turned off by the mere mentioning of 'shielding', as it brings out the cynic in me. Just like seeing patents of free-energy devices does too, come to think of it.
iwh,
thanks for your reply. you are right, i didn't give the readers a fair chance. i know patents are the last thing i want to read. at least the pics are here to have a look at.
as for the shielding, i'll pick that up more when i can get back to the other post.
meanwhile, i'll try to put the written part of the patent in plain english, at least as i understand it. hope it doesn't take too long.
tom
e2matrix,
i won't get too deep now, but something to think about, saturation and new vs. old material. remember, this thing is 40+ years old.
let me work on the written part for now, then we'll get with it.
thanks!!
tom
let's start with a parts list.
part number detail
10................................................complete housing as shown in fig1
11................................................right half end plate (part of assy 19)
12................................................bearing cover for output shaft (right side)
13................................................left half end plate (part of assy 18)
14................................................output shaft bearing neck
15................................................bolts holding the 2 halves of the split case
16................................................left side flange for bolts 15
17................................................right side flange for bolts 15
18................................................left half of split casing
19................................................right half of split casing
20................................................recess in 18 and 19 for mounting stator
21................................................shoulder in 18 for stator mounting (left side)
22................................................shoulder in 19 for stator mounting (right side)
23................................................right side stator
24................................................mounting bolts for right side stator
25................................................right side output shaft bearing flange (part of stator 23)
26................................................recess for flange 25 (right side)
27................................................bearing set in stator 23 (part of assy 23) right side
28................................................output shaft bearing, inner right side
29................................................output shaft bearing, outer right side
30................................................spacer between output shaft bearings, right side
31................................................left side stator
32................................................mounting bolts for left side stator
33................................................left side output shaft bearing flange (part of stator 31)
34................................................recess for flange 33 (left side)
35................................................bearing set in stator 31 (part of assy 31) left side
36................................................output shaft bearing, outer left side
37................................................output shaft bearing, inner left side
38................................................spacer between output shaft bearings, left side
40................................................output (power) shaft
41................................................reduced end of output shaft for bearing
42................................................recess in right side end plate for excess output shaft
43................................................bearing sleeve, left side
44................................................output shaft splines
45................................................threads for retaining nut
46................................................rotor
47................................................axial hub for rotor
48................................................key for rotor hub (fig.1)
49................................................keyway for rotor hub key (fig.2)
50................................................set screw for hub key (fig.3)
51................................................magnetically responsive block, right side (soft iron or steel)
52................................................magnetically responsive block, left side (soft iron or steel)
53................................................non-magnetic rotor counterweight
54................................................aluminum-nickel-cobalt alloy stator magnet, right side
55................................................aluminum-nickel-cobalt alloy stator magnet, left side
56................................................exposed face of stator magnets (both sides)
57................................................upper flange covering for stator magnet
58................................................lower flange covering for stator magnet
59................................................exposed side area of stator magnets
60................................................offset angle to form guide for shield assy.
61................................................flanges (attached to wings 62) that travel in groove made by 60
62................................................wings attached to shield 63 (covers 59)
63................................................shields (sufficiently thick as to hold and close or contain entirely the magnetic flux fields)
64................................................actuating rods (or bars) attached to Shields 63
65................................................bracket rod 64 rides in
66................................................cam, left side
67................................................notch in cam 66
68................................................cam, right side
69................................................notch in cam68
70................................................yoke bracket (provides a guide & support for end of shield rod 64)
71................................................bolts for holding yoke bracket 70 in place
72................................................dependent legs (part of yoke bracket 70) which straddle cams 66 & 68
73................................................square guide opening in yoke bracket 70 for rod 64
73'...............................................interval grooves in 73 for guiding rod 64
73"..............................................roller on the inner end of rod 64 engaging the peripheries of the cams 66 & 68
74................................................coil springs to keep constant pressure on roller 73" to stay engaged with cams 66 & 68
75................................................annular flange to secure spring 74 to rod 64
76-104 are speed control parts. if we get that far along to need a control for the speed, i'll id them.
this has been a good exercise for me. as you can tell from one of my earlier post, i was thinking the rotor had magnets too. i was wrong. only the stators have magnets.
hope this helps.
tom
QuoteI may be way off here as I only took a brief look at the patent but as soon as I got to the part where they mentioned using iron or soft metal as a 'shield' I gave up reading further. To my knowledge iron and other similar metals do not shield magnetic fields. In the case of iron it will extend the field if it's in contact or close to a magnet. Seeing that as a basic flaw in their theory I didn't go any further.
e2matrix,
i think you would be right if the iron you used was not thick enough and was saturated. then any excess flux could be felt on the opposite side of where the magnet is.
you can do a simple test to satisfy yourself. take 2 magnets and a small amount of transformer steel (something magnetic). place 1 magnet with north side to metal. now take the other magnet and approach (with north facing metal) the metal from the other side of the first magnet. we know without the metal between, the 2 magnets would repel strongly. with the metal, this force is reduced and if thick enough, the 2nd magnet will stick to the metal too. in order for this to happen the flux from the 1st magnet must not be seen by the 2nd magnet.
give it a try and let us know what you find.
tom
hi all,
there is another saying where i come from. "no news is good news." since no one has blasted this machine, i guess no one can find a fault. GREAT!!
of course i'm just trying to get attention. let's have a serious look at this machine.
in order for this machine to work, the stator magnets must be shielded and unshielded. the inventor claims...
"1. Means for shielding and unshielding a permanent magnet of the bar type including a casing formed of a material capable of shielding and containing the magnetic flux field of said magnet and completely encasing the magnet except for one end pole thereof, and a shield of similar material moveable on and at least partially off of said pole and said casing to encase and unencase said pole and the magnetic flux field."
is this possible? i think so. a problem may come as a result of this. other than the face that the rotor is exposed to, thickness of material shouldn't matter. however, if this thickness for the shield prevents the rotor material to be close enough to feel the pull of the magnet (when uncovered), then the main force for rotation won't exist. from here, we are lead to how much force is there? the design of the cam that moves the shield should not have a problem uncovering the magnet, but covering it could be a problem. the sharp accent the cover assy. has to make and the spring tension it has to overcome, in my mind, could be considerable. in section 4 the inventor says....
"In the operation of the machine, the rotor 46 is given an initial degree of rotation as through the exposed end of the power shaft 40,...."
this falls in line with what we were just talking about. does the unit self start? if no, as the last quote suggest, why? does the rotor have to have momentum to move the shield out to cover the magnet?
the magnets (54 & 55) and rotor block material (51 & 52) are located far out from the hub with the cams (66 & 68). this will give leverage to the attraction between the magnet and block material. is it enough to make the shield movement easy? or at all?
i'll hold up here so others can add their 2 cents worth.
tom
hi all,
i've been studying the patent and now see the cam is not as sharp as i first thought. it looks like it takes about 80 degrees to complete an uncover to cover segment of one rev. a couple of things might help make this easier. 1.) make the rotor diameter larger. this would give the rotor more leverage. 2.) enlarge the 80 degrees to maybe 135 degrees. i think this would have more than one stator magnet uncovered (or at least uncovering) at once. that might even be a good thing as long as the attraction was kept ahead of the rotor.
any body know enough about this machine to make a comment or ask a question yet?
tom
I know for a fact - through my own experiments - that you can overcome magnetism (I won't use the word 'shield' because it is inappropriate in this context). You can take - for example - a peice of ferrite material of suitable thickness and place it against a magnet of suitable strength and then take another magnet and bring the same pole closer to the ferrite material - you will reach a point where the distance between the ferrite material and the other magnet results in an apparent 'neutral point' where attraction and repulsion are cancelled out somewhat. This is because the proximity of the ferrite material combined with the opposite magnets repulsion results in a neutralising of the attraction and repulsion effects. Admittedly this point of neutrality is very small, but it is worth investigating.
hi ntesla,
good to see there is at least one out there with enough time and interest to reply here.
i hope e2matrix is reading this. maybe now he can, for now, come back too and look for another reason for this machine to not work.
i do have 1 question for you about the neutral effect. does it have the same feel for another piece of ferrite material as another magnet? i would think the shielding (i'll use it to keep things simple) thickness wouldn't have to be as exact for ferrite material as a magnet since there won't be any attraction between the 2 ferrite materials (as long as the shield isn't saturated). of course you would want to use as little material for shielding as possible so the space between the rotor block and stator will be as small as possible.
am i thinking clear here?
tom
edit.. i should add lwh to this "come back too" list since he had a comment about the shielding too.
Quote from: tbird on September 14, 2010, 08:04:57 AM
hi ntesla,
good to see there is at least one out there with enough time and interest to reply here.
i hope e2matrix is reading this. maybe now he can, for now, come back too and look for another reason for this machine to not work.
i do have 1 question for you about the neutral effect. does it have the same feel for another piece of ferrite material as another magnet? i would think the shielding (i'll use it to keep things simple) thickness wouldn't have to be as exact for ferrite material as a magnet since there won't be any attraction between the 2 ferrite materials (as long as the shield isn't saturated). of course you would want to use as little material for shielding as possible so the space between the rotor block and stator will be as small as possible.
am i thinking clear here?
tom
edit.. i should add lwh to this "come back too" list since he had a comment about the shielding too.
I am not sure what you mean by "another piece of ferrite material". The effect works because you have two magnets with the same poles opposing each other e.g S to S but the ferrite material in between the magnets will always be attracted to BOTH poles. My experiments were based on having one magnet and the ferrite material as the stator and the other magnet as part of the rotor.
The combination of ferrite thickness, its ferromagnetic properties, in relation to the strength of the magnets needs to be taken into account. Therefore the distance between the the rotor magnet and ferrite material at 'neutral' will be dependent on the above factors.
The potential here (my experiments were not scientific but I think they merit more investigation!) is that you can use the ferrite material of the stator - at distance - for attraction and then transition to repulsion once the rotor magnet gets close enough to the other magnet. The neutral point means, unlike the transitioning from one pole to the other of a magnet, there is no force (i.e 'sticking point') you need to overcome.
Have I built a working motor that demonstrates this idea as workable? No - but I have confirmed the effect using a ferrite block and some magnets.
Tbird, it seems to me you know what effect is required to make the design in the patent you referred to, work. So get some magnets and some 'shielding' and see if you can create the required effect. You don't have to build the whole device first, just prove the practicality of the key effect/s that would make it run.
I don't really have anything further to add, as besides not being knowledgeable enough in these matters, I'm not really interested in theoretical discussions about what may or may not work.
However ;D
Shielding in general, the neutral-point phenomena just recently mentioned, the Radus/Hildenbrand magnetic field amplification effect, other phenomena I've forgotten the name of; they can all be used to overcome the sticky spot and create an overunity device. Theoretically. But to actually do it for real is not that easy. These things require intricate placements of materials and timing of reactions far beyond what can be readily measured. Tools don't even exist to measure some of the interactions taking place. And depending on what it is you think you know, you can't even rely on your intuition, when counter-intuitive actions are required. Add to that all the human complications, including laziness, fear of failure, fear of success, lack of access to adequate time and resources, and more, and even the most valid theory can be prevented from being put into practice. But, again, that's what it takes. Despite all the odds against it, despite all the complications and reasons not to. At some point someone, somewhere, has to get their hands dirty and make the tangible device that utilizes these effects. As, I believe, has been done, more than once. Everything else is just talk though. Including this, so...
hello lwh,
i guess you are right. no need to ask first if anybody has experience or can see a theoretical problem with this patent. guess i'll get my checkbook out and dingy ashore to the nearest machine shop and see what they can build. i really should have just done that in the first place. THANKS for the advice!!
tom
It made sense to ask here about the design. It just turns out no-one's tried it or is interested. Shit happens.
As far as seeing what the nearest maching shop can build, I wouldn't bother. They can build whatever they've got the tools to build, and what they're not equipped to make, some other place will be. But none of them can be expected to help you figure out what it is you want them to make. All they want is your money and a clear diagram to follow. Though even then they might knock back your custom if they think what you're asking looks like it'd be more trouble than it's worth.
It's all just my opinion, but I think your best bet is to literally get two magnets and put some shielding between them and see if you can get them to behave in a way that might allow them to be used in a design like the one in that patent you found. Then, if there's something there that you think might be useful, redesign the patented machine to suit your available materials and make, or get made, some parts to do further testing with. Then, if you still think it'll work, make or get made the parts for the whole thing, put it together and see what happens. But, first and foremost, if you can't get a decent shielding effect to start off with, forget it.
Remember too that just because something works on paper doesn't mean it'll work for real. That patent, or any other design, might be logically flawless and critic proof, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll work when actually built. Some designs are like those Escher drawings where water flows quite believeably uphill, only it's harder to tell what the actual illusion is.
Hope this helps. I'm not trying to discourage you, but I don't want to encourage you to waste your time or money either.
By the way, what's your opinion on the Torbay device? From how you've described the device in the patent you found, if the shielding worked, I get the impression it'd be working in a similar fashion to the Torbay device, wherein it's in a perpetual state of disequilibrium, forever falling into a gap between the moving magnets. I ask this because I'm a bit critical of those sort of designs, to the point where I really doubt they can work, and I was wondering if you've thought about that aspect of the design.
QuoteI am not sure what you mean by "another piece of ferrite material". The effect works because you have two magnets with the same poles opposing each other e.g S to S but the ferrite material in between the magnets will always be attracted to BOTH poles. My experiments were based on having one magnet and the ferrite material as the stator and the other magnet as part of the rotor.
The combination of ferrite thickness, its ferromagnetic properties, in relation to the strength of the magnets needs to be taken into account. Therefore the distance between the the rotor magnet and ferrite material at 'neutral' will be dependent on the above factors.
The potential here (my experiments were not scientific but I think they merit more investigation!) is that you can use the ferrite material of the stator - at distance - for attraction and then transition to repulsion once the rotor magnet gets close enough to the other magnet. The neutral point means, unlike the transitioning from one pole to the other of a magnet, there is no force (i.e 'sticking point') you need to overcome.
Have I built a working motor that demonstrates this idea as workable? No - but I have confirmed the effect using a ferrite block and some magnets.
NTesla,
sorry for the confusion. you, like me, think it logical to use a magnet not only on the stator, but also on the rotor. Jine did not. maybe because of the thinking 40+ years ago, he designed his motor with attraction to metal in the rotor. a lot of motors today use this method but with electromagnets (no shielding) which are timed to turn on and off at the desired time.
with that in mind, in Jine's machine, the stator magnet can be hidden from the rotor block (ferrite material) if the shield is thick enough to contain all of the flux from the magnet. if this is done, the rotor will not be attracted to the magnet. if when the magnet is uncovered and the rotor block is close enough, the rotor should be drawn to the magnet. this is where the rotation is developed. once the rotor is near covering the magnet (its work is done for that segment of the cycle), the shield should then cover the magnet so the rotor can continue on with little or no resistance (that would be caused by the stator magnet) to the next step in the cycle.
QuoteThe effect works because you have two magnets with the same poles opposing each other e.g S to S but the ferrite material in between the magnets will always be attracted to BOTH poles.
i don't think this is exactly right. if the ferrite material is not large enough to handle all the flux from the first magnet, then the second magnet will still feel resistance from the field of the first and will not stick to the ferrite material, at least where the first magnet is located.
hope we are on the same page now.
tom
QuoteBy the way, what's your opinion on the Torbay device? From how you've described the device in the patent you found, if the shielding worked, I get the impression it'd be working in a similar fashion to the Torbay device, wherein it's in a perpetual state of disequilibrium, forever falling into a gap between the moving magnets. I ask this because I'm a bit critical of those sort of designs, to the point where I really doubt they can work, and I was wondering if you've thought about that aspect of the design.
lwh,
torbay uses repulsion rather than attraction to make the rotor turn. at the same time, torbay ask his design to do a lot of work, even before giving up extra power to, say drive a generator.
the ramps used to move the magnets (like you would say) look like a reasonable way to get the magnets up and down when needed. i have found, in one device i tried, that when the roller meets the ramp, unless everything is perfectly machined, it sounds and feels like the roller just ran into a brick wall. to say the least, this was enough to kill my hopes of it working.
in torbays unit there were a lot of hinges too. with a hinge, you get or lose leverage. i think his was on the losing end.
in this thread "Magnet Motor from Argentina, part2" a couple of guys tried really hard to build this design, but in the end gave up.
there maybe more than 1 reason jine's machine won't work, but i think the most likely reason would be the cam arrangement. i have come up with what i think would be a better way for that (rat trap inspired), but would like to hear others thoughts before giving up on jine's approach to this.
also, i would like other opinions on what the shield would do on its own without the spring and not connected to anything. in other words if it were installed and had to be operated by hand, where would the shield starting point be? how much effect would the stator magnet have on the shield?
tom
a new piston Generator:
An energy producing apparatus utilizing magnetic pistons is provided. Permanent magnets of like polarity are employed within a cylinder of each piston and upon a top portion of said piston. The like polarity pistons have a natural desire to repel one another. A ferromagnetic slipper unit is...
Patent number: 7330094
Filing date: May 16, 2006
Issue date: Feb 12, 2008
Quote from: tbird on September 18, 2010, 10:54:15 AM
NTesla,
i don't think this is exactly right. if the ferrite material is not large enough to handle all the flux from the first magnet, then the second magnet will still feel resistance from the field of the first and will not stick to the ferrite material, at least where the first magnet is located.
hope we are on the same page now.
tom
Your right ;D My statement was in the context of having a ferrite material of suitable thickness - if it ain't thick enough it will not work!
Quote from: wings on September 29, 2010, 09:35:26 AM
a new piston Generator:
An energy producing apparatus utilizing magnetic pistons is provided. Permanent magnets of like polarity are employed within a cylinder of each piston and upon a top portion of said piston. The like polarity pistons have a natural desire to repel one another. A ferromagnetic slipper unit is...
Patent number: 7330094
Filing date: May 16, 2006
Issue date: Feb 12, 2008
Interesting patent - I have only read the image and therefore my first question is about how much energy is required to remove the ferromagnetic slipper unit considering it looks like force is required to overcome its attraction to BOTH pistons. If this is true where is the net gain? Seems to me it would only be worth it if the energy required to move the ferromagnetic slipper in a cycle was less than the combined repulsion of the magnets and losses through friction etc.
Hello tbryd and thread readers, I think the reason not much viewing on this thread yet due to the very recent open source Anton or Meyers replica... hydoxy cells. A cell is shown free running making at least 1000 watts thru a generator engine. The Meyer replication was 50LPM at 50 Amps in their release as open source video. Their webpage is Future Energy Concepts out of Arizona.
Quote from: NTesla on September 29, 2010, 12:42:35 PM
Interesting patent - I have only read the image and therefore my first question is about how much energy is required to remove the ferromagnetic slipper unit considering it looks like force is required to overcome its attraction to BOTH pistons. If this is true where is the net gain? Seems to me it would only be worth it if the energy required to move the ferromagnetic slipper in a cycle was less than the combined repulsion of the magnets and losses through friction etc.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
Quote from: wings on September 30, 2010, 04:16:15 AM
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm
Nice find :) I have visted the Naudin site before but never noticed that article.
Quote from: NTesla on September 30, 2010, 05:52:57 AM
Nice find :) I have visted the Naudin site before but never noticed that article.
potential energy and delivered energy are another story ....
E = Force X Displacement
also to investigate two magnet and in between the use of pyrolitic carbon shielding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolytic_carbon
Naudin motor-generator:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mppprop.htm
Quote from: wings on September 30, 2010, 06:06:26 AM
potential energy and delivered energy are another story ....
E = Force X Displacement
also to investigate two magnet and in between the use of pyrolitic carbon shielding
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolytic_carbon
Naudin motor-generator:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/mppprop.htm
I think alot of those pure magnet motor type theoretical designs fail to take into account the energy required to first get magnets with the same polarity into the state where they can use their repulsion for 'delivered energy'. You don't get something for nothing of course!
On a side note, I think Naudin's work is to be commended however I get the impression he does not spend enough time investigating a concept (or at least summarising it) - it leaves you wondering if what he was working on had undiscovered potential. The M.E.G and Steorn replications come to mind.
Hope,
you maybe right about the other thread. for now, there are at least a few of us who can find time to look at this. we'll hang in there and see what develops.
NTesla, wings,
those are interesting machines and data, and good food for thought, but a bit off the design (jines) in this thread.
stating the obvious, the question is "can the shield be moved away and back over the stator magnet with less energy than the machine can provide by attracting the metal piece on the rotor to a magnet in the stator?".
if no, what needs to be changed so it can work?
tom
Quotealso, i would like other opinions on what the shield would do on its own without the spring and not connected to anything. in other words if it were installed and had to be operated by hand, where would the shield starting point be? how much effect would the stator magnet have on the shield?
about the shield....
i think it will be attracted to the magnet (more so) as the rotor block is. let's say the force is 10 units. since the rotor block will not be as close as the shield, its attractive force will be less, let's say it is 7 units. how can 7 units provide enough force to move a shield that is being attracted by 10 units? in this case, the spring. if it is compressed with 11 units of force, if not restricted by the cam, will uncover the magnet. to overcome this force to move the shield back over the magnet, the cam only has to provide 1.something units plus the effort to overcome the angle of the cam ramp.
does this now sound more reasonable? might it work?
tom
Quote from: tbird on October 02, 2010, 10:37:36 AM
about the shield....
i think it will be attracted to the magnet (more so) as the rotor block is. let's say the force is 10 units. since the rotor block will not be as close as the shield, its attractive force will be less, let's say it is 7 units. how can 7 units provide enough force to move a shield that is being attracted by 10 units? in this case, the spring. if it is compressed with 11 units of force, if not restricted by the cam, will uncover the magnet. to overcome this force to move the shield back over the magnet, the cam only has to provide 1.something units plus the effort to overcome the angle of the cam ramp.
does this now sound more reasonable? might it work?
tom
The problem with shields, are that they affects the magnetism as much as they are being affected by the magnetism - ofcourse. So any attemt to apply or remove a shield require ofcourse the net force per distance that will occour in the motor to provide torque per revolution. You must apply energy to the shields to make them doing the job you want. There is no way a magnet motor can supply shielding by its own power, because the shield are depended on the motormagnets as much as the motormagnets are depended on the shields. It's very logic when you think about it.
Quote from: Low-Q on October 02, 2010, 04:27:03 PM
The problem with shields, are that they affects the magnetism as much as they are being affected by the magnetism - of course. So any attempt to apply or remove a shield require of course the net force per distance that will occur in the motor to provide torque per revolution. You must apply energy to the shields to make them doing the job you want. There is no way a magnet motor can supply shielding by its own power, because the shield are depended on the motormagnets as much as the motormagnets are depended on the shields. It's very logic when you think about it.
thinking about how to shield the magnetism there are different ways
- by magnetic material like METGLAS Mu-METAL - Containing the Field
- by diamagnetic like -pyrolitic graphite - Expelling the Field
- by electric system - switching the field expelling or containing the field (like Astronauts Radus boots)
... and different geometry
???
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magshield.htm
Quote from: Low-Q on October 02, 2010, 04:27:03 PM
...There is no way a magnet motor can supply shielding by its own power, because the shield are depended on the motormagnets as much as the motormagnets are depended on the shields...
I share that opinon. It's like thinking something like this can be real, only it's harder to see and more tempting to believe in -
Low-Q,
QuoteThe problem with shields, are that they affects the magnetism as much as they are being affected by the magnetism - ofcourse. So any attemt to apply or remove a shield require ofcourse the net force per distance that will occour in the motor to provide torque per revolution. You must apply energy to the shields to make them doing the job you want. There is no way a magnet motor can supply shielding by its own power, because the shield are depended on the motormagnets as much as the motormagnets are depended on the shields. It's very logic when you think about it.
now that you've spit that out, can you make a comment on my post? is my math wrong? did i not consider something important?
tom
Making and braking the magnetic "barr" might be accomplished with mercury spinning in ring containing embedded magnets,you could really get this liquid metal (maybe heated bismuth is safer) spinning within a Rodin coil field. Glass containment could be simple within a bottle with the air evacuated. Etch coat the glass with your coil configs, sweet generator and more. Wouldn't the stern magnets be in for a wild ride on that surface.
hope,
before we scrap jines design all together, let's find the flaw in it first.
to all those who instantly say "this will not work"......
"if you are given the choice of a 25 cent, 10 cent, 5 cent, & 1 cent coins to make 30 cents using any 2 coins with the condition one of them can NOT be a 5 cent coin, what 2 coins would they be?"
.....you will probably say "it can't be done".
if you know the answer, please post a reply here. no explanation is needed at this time.
let's see who the real thinkers are and who are just "talking heads".
tom
QuoteQuote from: Low-Q on October 02, 2010, 06:27:03 PM...There is no way a magnet motor can supply shielding by its own power, because the shield are depended on the motormagnets as much as the motormagnets are depended on the shields...
I share that opinon. It's like thinking something like this can be real, only it's harder to see and more tempting to believe in -
iwh,
i'm not sure which design low-q is talking about, but that statement does not apply to jines.
maybe you still haven't figured out how it works. there are 2 stators containing magnets. while one side is attracting the rotor, the other side is being prepaired to attract the rotor. if "a magnetically responsive block, (soft iron or steel) will be attracted to a magnet." is true, then depending on the strength of the magnet, we can assign a force value it creates. in one of my earlier post i gave this value 7 units.
this 7 units is transferred to the power shaft which contains 2 cams. these cams are set to apply an outward force to actuating rods (or bars)(64) attached to Shields 63. since we have predetermined the force of attraction (10 units because it is closer to the magnet than the rotor block) of the shield to the magnet, we can size the spring (74) to be just strong enough to remove the shield so it doesn't cover the magnet. with spring in place and cam not interacting, the net force to move the shield back over the magnet would be 1 unit. this could vary a bit due to travel distance of the shield.
this brings us to where i have concerns. with cam in place and magnet uncovered, the shield, in a distance of 1/16 of the circumference of the cam/rotor, will be required to recover the magnet. the good news is only 1 shield is a load at any given time. that is when the magnet is to be covered. uncovering is the job of the spring.
jines cam arrangement can be changed so the covering process is not as big of a load, but i'm not sure of the effect of a longer uncovered time.
if you want to point fingers at something that might be a problem, this is probably a good place to start.
tom
the coins is easy. quarter and dime. I just have 5 extra now. be glad to give it back to you.
thay
wrong! next.
tom
Quote from: tbird on October 03, 2010, 11:48:19 AM
iwh,
i'm not sure which design low-q is talking about, but that statement does not apply to jines.
maybe you still haven't figured out how it works. there are 2 stators containing magnets. while one side is attracting the rotor, the other side is being prepaired to attract the rotor. if "a magnetically responsive block, (soft iron or steel) will be attracted to a magnet." is true, then depending on the strength of the magnet, we can assign a force value it creates. in one of my earlier post i gave this value 7 units.
this 7 units is transferred to the power shaft which contains 2 cams. these cams are set to apply an outward force to actuating rods (or bars)(64) attached to Shields 63. since we have predetermined the force of attraction (10 units because it is closer to the magnet than the rotor block) of the shield to the magnet, we can size the spring (74) to be just strong enough to remove the shield so it doesn't cover the magnet. with spring in place and cam not interacting, the net force to move the shield back over the magnet would be 1 unit. this could vary a bit due to travel distance of the shield.
this brings us to where i have concerns. with cam in place and magnet uncovered, the shield, in a distance of 1/16 of the circumference of the cam/rotor, will be required to recover the magnet. the good news is only 1 shield is a load at any given time. that is when the magnet is to be covered. uncovering is the job of the spring.
jines cam arrangement can be changed so the covering process is not as big of a load, but i'm not sure of the effect of a longer uncovered time.
if you want to point fingers at something that might be a problem, this is probably a good place to start.
tom
The travel distance of the shield, or any shields, is a very important detail. One thing is to discuss forces, but forces alone are nothing what so ever without the distance it will provide force. No matter what magnet motor we discuss, the shielding will never be able to do anything without energy input. The energy that has been spent or provided are totally dependent of the product of average force per the given distance. If the units you are using are the forces. If you spend 10 units over a distance of 7cm, the product of these are the same as 7 units over a distance of 10cm - they have provided or consumed the same amount of energy. We must always focus on the energy, and not let us bee fooled by the forces alone. If the "units" corresponds to the energy, I strongly believe your figures are wrong as long the equations ends up in more or less than 0.
Let us turn this motor (in the patent we are discussing) "up side down" and let the rotor bee the magnetic shielding, and the shield be the part that is suppose to do work. Now it is easier to see how the actual rotor are as much dependent on the shielding in order to do work, as the shielding are depended on the rotor in order to do work. They will always be inside the same system, in the very same closed loop. In a closed loop there has in average not happened anything, because during one revolution of the rotor, no matter how the shields are controlled and moved around, it ends up in the same configuration as when you started - at the very same potential.
It is still impossible to create energy out of a conservative force like permanent magnetism - by "conservative" we mean "no change", also by "permanent" we mean "no change".
The motor in the patent will not work.
Vidar
Quote from: tbird on October 03, 2010, 10:40:00 AM
hope,
before we scrap jines design all together, let's find the flaw in it first.
to all those who instantly say "this will not work"......
"if you are given the choice of a 25 cent, 10 cent, 5 cent, & 1 cent coins to make 30 cents using any 2 coins with the condition one of them can NOT be a 5 cent coin, what 2 coins would they be?"
.....you will probably say "it can't be done".
if you know the answer, please post a reply here. no explanation is needed at this time.
let's see who the real thinkers are and who are just "talking heads".
tom
I would buy an item for 11 cent, repair it, and sell it for 30 cent.
Quote from: Low-Q on October 03, 2010, 04:55:12 PM
We must always focus on the energy, and not let us bee fooled by the forces alone. If the "units" corresponds to the energy, I strongly believe your figures are wrong as long the equations ends up in more or less than 0.
Agree!
just some considerations
In the the patent, 7 shielding plates are over the relative magnets and the operating springs are compressed, just one off and the relative spring is not compressed.
The rotating magnets running out on larger radius, the stator magnet are bit inside all seem designed to suck (operate) the shielding plate in traction way not pushing??? at least near balanced.
QuoteThe travel distance of the shield, or any shields, is a very important detail. One thing is to discuss forces, but forces alone are nothing what so ever without the distance it will provide force. No matter what magnet motor we discuss, the shielding will never be able to do anything without energy input. The energy that has been spent or provided are totally dependent of the product of average force per the given distance. If the units you are using are the forces. If you spend 10 units over a distance of 7cm, the product of these are the same as 7 units over a distance of 10cm - they have provided or consumed the same amount of energy. We must always focus on the energy, and not let us bee fooled by the forces alone. If the "units" corresponds to the energy, I strongly believe your figures are wrong as long the equations ends up in more or less than 0.
Let us turn this motor (in the patent we are discussing) "up side down" and let the rotor bee the magnetic shielding, and the shield be the part that is suppose to do work. Now it is easier to see how the actual rotor are as much dependent on the shielding in order to do work, as the shielding are depended on the rotor in order to do work. They will always be inside the same system, in the very same closed loop. In a closed loop there has in average not happened anything, because during one revolution of the rotor, no matter how the shields are controlled and moved around, it ends up in the same configuration as when you started - at the very same potential.
It is still impossible to create energy out of a conservative force like permanent magnetism - by "conservative" we mean "no change", also by "permanent" we mean "no change".
The motor in the patent will not work.
Vidar
vidar,
now we are getting somewhere. nice reply.
i don't have much time now (maybe tomorrow) to catch all your points. i do think i have some good counter points. for now i'll just do some quick replies to the other question at hand.
tom
QuoteI would buy an item for 11 cent, repair it, and sell it for 30 cent.
wrong!
this is exactly why i put this challenge out there. to show how quickly people here get away from the topic by not reading or at least not understanding what is stated. nothing was mentioned about converting or giving change or whatever. the question is "what 2 coins would they be?" very simple.
tom
QuoteAgree!
just some considerations
In the the patent, 7 shielding plates are over the relative magnets and the operating springs are compressed, just one off and the relative spring is not compressed.
The rotating magnets running out on larger radius, the stator magnet are bit inside all seem designed to suck (operate) the shielding plate in traction way not pushing??? at least near balanced.
wings,
again we find someone who doesn't understand the subject.
this machine only uses magnets that don't move, thus they are part of the stators (2 stators). also the radius of where the shields go is the same as the rotor blocks. the drive for moving the shields does have a smaller radius. this gives the force of attraction (rotor block to stator magnet) leverage to move the shields.
please study some more. i'd love to have your comments once you know the subject.
tom
Quote from: tbird on October 03, 2010, 07:20:30 PM
wings,
again we find someone who doesn't understand the subject.
this machine only uses magnets that don't move, thus they are part of the stators (2 stators). also the radius of where the shields go is the same as the rotor blocks. the drive for moving the shields does have a smaller radius. this gives the force of attraction (rotor block to stator magnet) leverage to move the shields.
please study some more. i'd love to have your comments once you know the subject.
tom
An important issue is the friction between the shielding plates and the stator surface.
A very simple analysis with hypothetical numbers can show OU less friction more gain.
Quote"if you are given the choice of a 25 cent, 10 cent, 5 cent, & 1 cent coins to make 30 cents using any 2 coins with the condition one of them can NOT be a 5 cent coin, what 2 coins would they be?"
hi all,
it has been over a day since i posted this challenge. no one has come forth with the answer. well, for those who are waiting on pins and needles, here is the answer.
the 2 coins will be the 25 cent and 5 cent coins.
i know what you are thinking, "..but he said one couldn't be a 5 cent coin!!" that is right. the 25 cent coin is not a 5 cent coin. note in the condition it says "one of them", not "neither of them".
as has been said before, "the devil is in the detail!".
tom
QuoteThe travel distance of the shield, or any shields, is a very important detail.
i agree, to a point. the distance the shield has to travel in this machine is the width of the stator magnet. in this machine, at worst, it is the same as the distance the rotor block will travel once the shield is removed until it is replaced (power part of cycle). what you may not be considering is the spring that moves the shield off the magnet. the attraction of the magnet to the shield works in one direction while the force of the spring works in the other direction. since the spring has 1 (+or-) unit more force than the attraction, the spring wins the battle by a net force of 1 (+or-) unit. from fig.5 we see the rotor has about a 4 to 1 leverage advantage over the cam. this reduces the load of the shield even more. the hard part (in my mind) is the angle of the cam (ramp) the roller on the inner end of rod 64 has to climb. here, as wings says, friction will play a big part. i think this is where we will have to make changes for this machine to work.
QuoteIf the "units" corresponds to the energy, I strongly believe your figures are wrong as long the equations ends up in more or less than 0.
please feel free to rework my numbers. if i have made a mistake, let me know.
QuoteLet us turn this motor (in the patent we are discussing) "up side down" and let the rotor bee the magnetic shielding, and the shield be the part that is suppose to do work.
to me, that would be like using the wheels of a car to turn the engine. why would we do that except to start the engine when the built in starter didn't work.
Quote...no matter how the shields are controlled and moved around, it ends up in the same configuration as when you started - at the very same potential.
this doesn't seem to be a bad thing with this machine. to start, the rotor is being attracted to a stator magnet. this produces energy. from here that energy is passed to the power shaft which passes a small part to the cam to move the shield at about the end of the power section of the cycle. the rest can be used to do work elsewhere. now we are back where we started. let's do more work in the next cycle.
QuoteIt is still impossible to create energy out of a conservative force like permanent magnetism - by "conservative" we mean "no change", also by "permanent" we mean "no change".
The motor in the patent will not work.
this is the saddest thing i've seen you write. if you believe this, why are you here? there must be something else that can happen (in your mind) that allows this to be true and yet will give us our goal. enlighten me.
tom
hi all,
i've been thinking about the cam and feel i didn't do a very good job of explaining what i think is the problem. let me try a different way.
if we look at the roller (73") on the end of the inner end of rod 64 and place a compass rose on it with south (180 degrees) being the part touching the cam track at its inner most point (closest to center point of power shaft), we can then follow the point on the rose that makes contact with the track throughout the cycle.
to start, looking at fig.2 (rotation clockwise), this contact looks to be from south (180 degrees) to about southwest (225 degrees). if we continued this rotation, we would see this contact point continues out until it reaches the full travel limit. by the time it gets there, the contact point is at or near west (270 degrees).
this means that less and less force is applied outward and more and more of the force is applied to the side. if it reaches west, no force will be felt outward. the machine would stop.
the further out the shield is pushed, the more effort to compress the spring is needed. granted the magnet attraction should get stronger, but remember, it will never be strong enough to overcome the spring. something needs to be arranged to prevent the contact point moving beyond southwest (225 degrees).
is everyone with me? any questions so far?
tom
hi all,
maybe everyone needs more time to think about the shielding.
let's address the source of power, the attraction of the rotor block to the stator magnet.
is a block magnet the best shape to give the most attraction in this configuration? might a cylinder magnet with the north on half the curved surface and south on the other half be better? my thinking is it would have to lay on its side exposing one or the other pole only.
does it matter?
tom
QuoteAn important issue is the friction between the shielding plates and the stator surface.
A very simple analysis with hypothetical numbers can show OU less friction more gain.
wings,
i think something like this
http://www.automotioncomponents.co.uk/purchase.php?p_no=L1024&id=27&method=w
will work nicely for the shields. should prevent shield contact with stator magnet and surrounding parts.
as you can see from the info, coefficients of friction is .003.
thanks for your comments.
tom
Quote from: tbird on October 12, 2010, 08:33:38 AM
wings,
i think something like this
http://www.automotioncomponents.co.uk/purchase.php?p_no=L1024&id=27&method=w
will work nicely for the shields. should prevent shield contact with stator magnet and surrounding parts.
as you can see from the info, coefficients of friction is .003.
thanks for your comments.
tom
on this slide you have to mount the screen in one of the two sides.
Its thickness is not compatible with the patent drawing, to maximize the pull force, the rotor and the stator must be close.
I'd rather start with a test consisting of a pendulum with a mobile shielding operated by his motion, if the oscillation is amplified it is OU.
Or from a device similar to this patent 3899703_PERMANENT_MAGNET_MOTION_CONVERSION
hi wings,
Quoteon this slide you have to mount the screen in one of the two sides.
Its thickness is not compatible with the patent drawing, to maximize the pull force, the rotor and the stator must be close.
if we attach the rod/bar (64) that the shield is attached to to the car on the slide, i think the space between the rotor block and stator won't change. it still has to be thick enough to contain the field. at least with the slide, the shield won't have to drag on any surfaces.
QuoteI'd rather start with a test consisting of a pendulum with a mobile shielding operated by his motion, if the oscillation is amplified it is OU.
i think any test you can do would be a grand idea!!
QuoteOr from a device similar to this patent 3899703_PERMANENT_MAGNET_MOTION_CONVERSION
i had a look at that patent. the diverter plate (shield), if built to the size of the drawings, has a fair amount of travel. of the 2 methods he mentions (solenoid & cam) to move the diverter, which would be your choice?
since there are magnets in the stator and rotor, mostly in repell mode, i think spacing between rotor and stator can be wider without losing as much as jines machine would. this might be worth its own thread.
let us know how your test go.
tom
hi all,
about the attachment....
can the spring (4) be adjusted to move the shield (3) so it uncovers the stationary magnet (2) in the top figure (starting between the 2 magnets & ending as in the bottom figure), but only require little effort to move it back over the stationary magnet (2)?
tom
ok, maybe that was so easy , it was hard. let's have a look at it a little different.
assuming the shield assy is as far right as possible, with the only influence on the shields being the magnetic pull of the magnets, where will the shield assy want to go, from the shown position, naturally?
1. nowhere
2. to the left (covering left stationary magnet)
3. center between magnets
tom
hi all,
since no one feels one way or the other, let's assume the shield wants to go between the magnets and the spring can just overcome this action enough to move the shield out to a point the magnet is uncovered.
let's add the lever arm to the simplest form (see att).
any thoughts?
tom
Quote from: tbird on November 28, 2010, 11:11:30 AM
hi all,
since no one feels one way or the other, let's assume the shield wants to go between the magnets and the spring can just overcome this action enough to move the shield out to a point the magnet is uncovered.
let's add the lever arm to the simplest form (see att).
any thoughts?
tom
I try ???
the magnetic field acts as a potential field, then except for the losses due to hysteresis that you enter can be returned.
you can draw a spring or a cam that balances the force of attraction or repulsion at any point of rotation.
energy balance has to be done on the friction and hysteresis losses
Quoteyou can draw a spring or a cam that balances the force of attraction or repulsion at any point of rotation.
energy balance has to be done on the friction and hysteresis losses
does that mean you think the shield can be moved in and out (on the linear bearing) with little effort if the spring is adjusted correctly?
tom
Quote from: tbird on November 29, 2010, 05:37:35 AM
does that mean you think the shield can be moved in and out (on the linear bearing) with little effort if the spring is adjusted correctly?
tom
I think so see conical springs or spring in series with limited stroke or a mix of spring in compression an in extension.....
http://www.mitcalc.com/doc/springs/help/en/springstxt.htm
wings,
if the magnets are 1" square, when in the repell mode, would they have enough energy to rise 2 inches and compress the spring on the way 1 inch? refer to lastest figure in reply 57. keep in mind, drawing not to scale (my bad!).
tom
Quote from: tbird on November 29, 2010, 09:37:27 AM
wings,
if the magnets are 1" square, when in the repell mode, would they have enough energy to rise 2 inches and compress the spring on the way 1 inch? refer to lastest figure in reply 57. keep in mind, drawing not to scale (my bad!).
tom
some idea:
- design a balanced system with one shield going in and the other out
- forget the springs and design a cam with two roller that actuate the shield in both direction with minimum backlash (compression and traction) - backlash = loss
wings,
i have already, but still with springs. later versions could be as you suggest. my art work is not very good (how is yours?) so haven't tried yet.
if it will get more interested, let's have a pic.
tom
Quote from: tbird on November 29, 2010, 11:09:35 AM
wings,
i have already, but still with springs. later versions could be as you suggest. my art work is not very good (how is yours?) so haven't tried yet.
if it will get more interested, let's have a pic.
tom
I have done some experiment on other area, not in magnetic motor except Orbo - toroid saturation motor.
It is important to understand the trick before starting to bult it otherwise you spend energy and money with no results.
The best way is by small test to verify the assumpions - as example with weights pulleys or electronic scales to measure acting forces with magnets approaching tangentially or axially.
I have little time for experiments. But I can help you if you like.
... you can understand my native language is not english..
best regards
wings,
as i have said before, "i think any test you can do would be a grand idea!!".
i do understand about "native language is not english". i am currently in a place where english is not the first language. i struggle all the time. if the desire is there, we will get by.
tom
If I understood well, no replications or working models until now. Bad news compared to Muammar Yildiz magnet motor, which is available on a YouTube video.
BTW, did anybody make a model of the Carousel generator? Seems in the same state as this motor.
Regards.
ALEJANDRO
hi guys,
there are 2 points of interest in the picture below that might be worth considering.
1. according to the patent, this machine can run in either direction. with the changes i've drawn (not my strong suit), this would not be possible.
2. some one (i can't find the comment now) was concerned about the dwell angle for the cam. this change would address that and maybe add a little extra pull to the rotor.
first note the added bell crank. this reverses the action of the shield. instead of the shield moving inward when the cam notch passes under the shield rod assy., the shield will move outward (lobe used now). now the dwell angle on the cam doesn't have to be so short. it will be more gradual, but the magnet will be fully uncovered by the time the rotor reaches it. the stator magnet will be uncovered (at least partially) longer, but will cover quickly when the time comes. this extra time will add extra attraction to the rotor (if it is not too far away).
this still has the benefit of being almost balanced (small effort to move) between the spring tension and the attraction of the shield to the stator magnet. i can explain if you don't understand.
any thoughts?
tom
Yes, I have a thought.
If you eliminate the part number 54, the "Stator Magnet", the device will "run" longer, given any initial starting spin.
TinselKoala,
QuoteYes, I have a thought.
If you eliminate the part number 54, the "Stator Magnet", the device will "run" longer, given any initial starting spin.
i have read some of your other posts. you seem to be a smart fellow, at least when it comes to electronics. i just have to wonder why you would come to this thread and make such a comment. it seems beneath your abilities.
if you have something constructive to say, please jump in. otherwise, keep your counter productive comments to yourself.
tom