MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

[MagnaProp]

MagnaProp  ,   no,   that's not actually the same as my invention...

I'll give it one more shot. Is one of these it?

[guest1289]

Yes,      the first picture in your last post(  3_V magneticTrack.jpg  ),      is basically the best embodiment ( version ) of my invention,     although I have not checked the actual poles(  but different configurations of the poles can exist   )

     And,  the concept of your second picture ( 4_V magneticTrack.jpg ),  is also mentioned in my  Patent-Description.

      (  Obviously,   the quality of your images,  is what I should have submitted to  'The Patent Office' in my  'Patent-Description',   but I don't care too much    )

     
   

[guest1289]

For the member asking how my  invention  could get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem' .

In the worst scenario,  in which my invention could fail,   'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION'  if it was just functioning on a steady  tabletop,   check the post by  MagnaProp (  Today at 06:33:51 AM ),   and  examine the picture  3_V magneticTrack.jpg  ,   the  'Levitating-Object'  could be pushed  'BY HAND'  around the  'Magnetic-Circular-Track',   like the  'Meissner Effect'  demonstrations on looped tracks. 
    And the second picture    4_V magneticTrack.jpg  ,   may be easier to  manufacture .   
    But Picture   3_V magneticTrack.jpg  could be made out of  numerous  small flat round magnets. 
(  Keep in mind,  all types of different   'magnetic-pole'  configurations  and  combinations  could be used to make this function.   

_________________

However,  my invention is intended to function  'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY',   and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated,  but it is still an incredibly simple invention.   
     It is only in this  'AGAINST-GRAVITY'  functionality  that  I do not actually know if my invention can get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
       To make my invention function   'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY'  ,   I have described two possible options  :

       1 -  The  'Levitating-Object'  could have some magnets to attract it to a  single-existing  'Circular-Magnetic-Track',   and other magnets to repel it from the  single-existing  'Circular-Magnetic-Track'

       2 -  The second option would be to have  two   'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks',   one  'track'  being used to  repel  the  'Levitating-Object',   and the other  'track'   being used to  attract   the  'Levitating-Object' .

        If no other solutions would work to get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem' to make my invention function  'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY',    I was thinking of  'SCENARIO 3'  in my post    'Today at 02:56:45 AM' ,  or a  modification  'SCENARIO 3'

______________________
       

[guest1289]

I should add,   that   'ANOTHER'  way to achieve  a totally   'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case',   could be simply to put the  levitating-object  between  a field above it,  that repels it,  and a field below it,  that repels it,    using  the  magnetic-cradle  field designs in my invention,     but my full invention has many more applications than just a   'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case'

[SoManyWires]

For the member asking how my  invention  could get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem' .

In the worst scenario,  in which my invention could fail,   'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION'  if it was just functioning on a steady  tabletop,   check the post by  MagnaProp (  Today at 06:33:51 AM ),   and  examine the picture  3_V magneticTrack.jpg  ,   the  'Levitating-Object'  could be pushed around the  'Magnetic-Circular-Track',   like the  'Meissner Effect'  demonstrations on looped tracks. 
    And the second picture    4_V magneticTrack.jpg  ,   may be easier to  manufacture .   
    But Picture   3_V magneticTrack.jpg  could be made out of  numerous  small flat round magnets. 
(  Keep in mind,  all types of different   'magnetic-pole'  configurations  and  combinations  could be used to make this function.   

_________________

However,  my invention is intended to function  'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY',   and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated,  but it is still an incredibly simple invention.   
     It is only in this  'Anti-Gravity'  functionality  that  I do not actually know if my invention can get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
       To make my invention function   'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY'  ,   I have described two possible options  :

       1 -  The  'Levitating-Object'  could have some magnets to attract it to a  single-existing  'Circular-Magnetic-Track',   and other magnets to repel it from the  single-existing  'Circular-Magnetic-Track'

       2 -  The second option would be to have  two   'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks',   one  'track'  being used to  repel  the  'Levitating-Object',   and the other  'track'   being used to  attract   the  'Levitating-Object' .

        If no other solutions could be found to get around   'Earnshaw's Theorem',   I was thinking of  'SCENARIO 3'  in my post    'Today at 02:56:45 AM'   

______________________
     

you are onto something there.
i too have questions about this being possible.
one thing that seems to convince me is when looking at how a linear permanent magnet rail gun seems to work.

though this is not involving using magnets to levitate, a levitating bearing system that remains stable enough for a added rotor could be possible to reduce wear and friction.

arrange the stator magnets as shown to work already in linear arrangement this way exactly, though making the proper diameter remain within the passing rotors magnet's( magnet rail guns projectile, projectile(s) now attached to a rotor) angle of approach.

could it be that simple?

or does it need help from either a combination of a few other possible considerations?

such as a clutch that works with a tensioning coil / torque converter that can store the built up force that occurs during the movement past the stators magnets, to help it complete revolutions.

or a flywheel included with the torque converter, maybe a flywheel without a torque converter even.

or electro magnets placed at the right location fed power from the rotation of other sets of magnets passing wire coils that are either attached to the rotor and the stator, to help cancel out the cogging effect that the rails rotor and stator magnets run into.

these things make me wonder.
have not seen any arrangement of magnets anywhere yet that conforms to this concept, yet seen many other different ones.

there is also slow self charging capacitors being developed, batteries that can run for years without needing recharging, and still more than those above mentioned, and combinations thereof.

so if one idea alone does not work, using more than one idea to help make another one possible would make the next logical step before giving up and moving onto something else should any other working proof of concepts become more useful for ones invested time and just waiting to find out if some working design is developed somewhere else.

the goal is to be more efficient than using solar or windpower and be of reasonable build cost.
until that happens, if it happens, these test projects can end up being expensive if no recycled
components are to be found.

a important thing is that the person working on their projects enjoys what they are doing, even if there is no winning the lotto by that person who is making such attempts.

and knows at least just enough about the safety of working around their projects materials!