Magnet question

[ace569er]

A drawing or scetch would help a lot.

I do have that... In very good detail. In sketchup & Cad(which I used to have a friend 3-Dprint it), But..... that would take a way from people using there minds to figure out a rather simple arrangement. I'm curious if people can see what I saw as the problem, and how to counter that issue? I have broke it down to a point were, I know for a fact, I would come quickly to the conclusion. It just took me till I had the info I gave. Before I could even see the real problem that had to be overcome, & how to do it. Now I need to figure out how to make it stronger. Because equal unity is not to useful, as kool as it is....

[elecar]

Yeah drawing is not a strong point of mine, the air gaps are exaggerated to show the principle. Both motors are in attraction mode and turn in opposite directions.
The rotors will stop at the end of the spiral and as the cam strikes the stationary cam it knocks the rotor into a  spin and the process repeats.
Basically using the force of the moving rotor to knock the stationary rotor into action.

I am not great at riddles, but would be interested in your gate weakening method.

[ace569er]

The only issue I see is that the point of greatest attraction is to strong to be pushed through by one extra cam. 10 extra, would still be to weak. Plus you could achieve the same by dividing the gate on the same rotor/stator. With multiple armatures making the gears to drive the other cam. Just to achieve different positions on the gate at the same time. No longer needed, greatly reducing friction. That's if I'm understanding you properly. Here's a drawing for 10 armatures pushing 2 on a 4 gate stator. You can do up to 11 pushing 1. Without having to built to large to separate the flux each armature. While keeping the same degrees. It's is all useless, because it is still  not strong enough without calibrating the stopping/sticky point, to overcome it. With the force of added armatures. All designs have the same issues. The sticky point has to be weakened while not weakening (yet increasing) the drive. Without changing distance or adding any form of work what so ever to do so.....ask yourself what can do that? I more or less already told you.........

[elecar]

I like your V gate design, although if you rotate the rotor there comes a point where you have 4 of the rotors magnets at the gates. That means the other 6 have to be doing "work" greater than the forces at the 4 gates combined.

The drawing I posted was one I was playing with before, I have now got it down to a single rotor and changed the layout.
I did play with the configuration of the stators and rotor to include extra layers, but my best guess told me that for every extra one added to a single rotor I halved the force available to move the next cam.
Whereas  in the configuration shown each rotor makes a full rotation before transferring its energy to the next. Those exaggerated air gaps  do not help, but as an example if the air gap at the stationary rotor was 1mm and the attractive force was 9lbs,  by time the moving rotor was in the impact position it would have an approximate 2mm gap that may have an attractive force of 7lbs. So the impact of the cam needs to be worth an extra couple of pounds. Then you have to figure the torque of the moving rotor at impact. The cams running outside of the rotors arc should provide some extra leverage to move the stationary rotor enough to move it beyond the sticky point and back into rotation.

I only have my current drawing on paper, I shall transfer it to the computer and post it when I get chance. It has changed considerably, but as I mentioned before I still think cogging or the gate will be an issue.

[gyulasun]

Thank you, I took a look and it seems he had the same problem "needing 2 shafts" I have got it down to one and will be starting a build in the next 2 weeks.

Here is an earlier one I was playing with.

Hi elecar,

I have edited your drawing a little to show what I think may help defeat or reduce the sticky point and also eliminate one of the shafts from your draw. The idea is not mine, you can see it here  http://www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/fig8.jpg from this link:  www.rexresearch.com/werjefelt/werjefelt.htm

The principle is to compensate the sticky point somewhere else and not inside the setup which directly creates the sticky point. The "somewhere else" place has no magnetic interaction with the setup that causes the sticky point, they are connected only by the common and single shaft.

What do you think? I have not tested this, sorry and surely the shape, size and strength of the magnet pair compensating the sticky point should be chosen by testing the forces.

rgds, Gyula