'Core Rearrangement' - 'Fin Motor' - Open Tech - OU?

[tim123]

Hi guys,
  I think it's possible to build a simple overunity motor. In fact I think there's potentially a whole calss of motors, operating on the same basic principle, which would be overunity, and I'd like to put these ideas into the public domain - and see if they stand up to scrutiny...

The motor would comprise of an outer coil - around a magnetic core. The magnetic core contains two parts - the rotor, and the stator. Both are made of magnetic material - i.e. iron.

When the coil is powered, the rotor and stator both become magnetised. Depending on orientation, they will repel, or attract. When the coil is unpowered, the rotor and stator are both unmagnetised (or at least much less magnetised). This allows for a continuous rotary movement as the rotor is alternately attracted to (or repelled from) the stator, then unmagnetised as it passes the stator.

What's effectively happening is that the magnetic core of the coil is being 'rearranged' - i.e. from one configuration to another - by the application of power to the coil. It relies on the magnetic properties of the materials to provide the output power - while magnetising them using as little power as possible.

With the arrangement I'm proposing there's very little possibility of any generator effect from the movement of the rotor:
- There is no axial movement of flux due to the rotation of the rotor relative to the coil.
- There is only a tiny change in the inductance of the coil as the rotor changes position (Tested - but only roughly).

Note that the mass of material within the core is constant. What changes are: the core's apparent face area and/or it's flux linkage properties.

I've got two designs to illustrate the concept. Images attached. Originally posted under this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/msg366509/#msg366509

The first is the basic rotary design, with the stator / rotor faces running axially. The second is the 'Fin Motor' design - where the faces run radially. The Fin Motor design is vastly more powerful (potentially).

If I'm right, and the Fin Motor design works the way I think it should - then you can pack a large surface-area of magnet into a relatively small volume, and power it with only a little more electricity than would be required to saturate a static iron core.

Does anyone have any info which might be relevant to this?
- Reasons why it wouldn't work?
- Existing patents of the same idea?
- Similar lines of research?

Thanks
Tim

[gyulasun]

Hi Tim,

You think it is possible your motor setups are able to produce more output than what is input to run them and this is fine BUT it ought to be tested and build a prototype to get evidence.

Trying to answer your first question (why it would not work?) I do think your setups are able to work and operate as you describe. 
(I am also sure the inductance of the coil changes very little during the operation and this is a favorable situation to capture and reuse some part of the input energy.)

HOWEVER if your question referred to extra output over the input than the only answer is building a test setup and measure and measure and again check the measurements... 

Existing patents on it? I have not seen such working principle in such arrangement but who knows?

Similar line of research?  Sorry I am not aware of such. I mentioned to you Butch LaFonte and gave a link but his setups do not include yours... as far I can judge it.

Keep at it and build it.

Greetings, Gyula

[tinman]

Hi guys,
  I think it's possible to build a simple overunity motor. In fact I think there's potentially a whole calss of motors, operating on the same basic principle, which would be overunity, and I'd like to put these ideas into the public domain - and see if they stand up to scrutiny...

The motor would comprise of an outer coil - around a magnetic core. The magnetic core contains two parts - the rotor, and the stator. Both are made of magnetic material - i.e. iron.

When the coil is powered, the rotor and stator both become magnetised. Depending on orientation, they will repel, or attract. When the coil is unpowered, the rotor and stator are both unmagnetised (or at least much less magnetised). This allows for a continuous rotary movement as the rotor is alternately attracted to (or repelled from) the stator, then unmagnetised as it passes the stator.

What's effectively happening is that the magnetic core of the coil is being 'rearranged' - i.e. from one configuration to another - by the application of power to the coil. It relies on the magnetic properties of the materials to provide the output power - while magnetising them using as little power as possible.

With the arrangement I'm proposing there's very little possibility of any generator effect from the movement of the rotor:
- There is no axial movement of flux due to the rotation of the rotor relative to the coil.
- There is only a tiny change in the inductance of the coil as the rotor changes position (Tested - but only roughly).

Note that the mass of material within the core is constant. What changes are: the core's apparent face area and/or it's flux linkage properties.

I've got two designs to illustrate the concept. Images attached. Originally posted under this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/13673/tims-magnet-piston-engine-design/msg366509/#msg366509

The first is the basic rotary design, with the stator / rotor faces running axially. The second is the 'Fin Motor' design - where the faces run radially. The Fin Motor design is vastly more powerful (potentially).

If I'm right, and the Fin Motor design works the way I think it should - then you can pack a large surface-area of magnet into a relatively small volume, and power it with only a little more electricity than would be required to saturate a static iron core.

Does anyone have any info which might be relevant to this?
- Reasons why it wouldn't work?
- Existing patents of the same idea?
- Similar lines of research?

Thanks
Tim

Tim-that fin motor design is truely excellent,and i dont believe i have seen a motor designed like that anywhere. This is one i would like to give a try,if you dont mind?.I believe i have an idea as to what to use for the core's,and would be easy to come by.

Brad

[tim123]

Hi Gyula, I agree it needs testing. I'm working on a CAD design in my spare time...

Tinman, please feel free to try it out - it's Open Technology as far as I'm concerned. I'd like the idea to be developed on the forum - it makes it unpatentable - at least in the UK... :-)

[tinman]

Hi Gyula, I agree it needs testing. I'm working on a CAD design in my spare time...

Tinman, please feel free to try it out - it's Open Technology as far as I'm concerned. I'd like the idea to be developed on the forum - it makes it unpatentable - at least in the UK... :-)

That may be the case in the UK,but i believe in America,it's first in best dressed-no mater who designed it. These are the risk's we all take when open sourcing designs like this. I have recently had one of the members on my forum email me and tell me some one took one of his design's,and is now selling kits for the device. It happened not long ago aswell,when teslatronics done some of his own take and sell-but we wont go into that. On my forum,we call these guys sleeper's.They watch in the background,and then run with anything that looks like it could make them a buck.
What you need to do is tie your name in with your designs,and post a video showing your design that carries your name. This way you have some intellectual property rights to the design.