Searching for Buddy in promising magnet motor Project.

[Low-Q]

Man this forum has some issues with my Browser. I can't even go back and edit the posting, so, sorry for the tags mess.

Try Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome. For some reason I do not have the same problem with these browsers.
I run Windows 7 at work, and Windows 10 at home. No problem, but yes, sometimes the browser really mess up. The text format might also be an issue.
Pressing the little button above the text field "A↳a" after selecting all the text, might help.

[Low-Q]

Thanks for clearing up :-)

@ Vidar,


quote:
...., then there must be the opposite when the rotor physically escapes. It is attracted on its way out too, so I assume that the forces (Actually torque, since this is a rotary system) involved in one complete cycle, is zero.

Well, here you're wrong. See, if the shield has passed by, the coils polarity flips and therefor repellse the shield, that is a pm to the coil side.

quote:
I think that any fluctuations in the force field that might cause wheelwork for free, is an illusion.


Again wrong and easily proofable: if I had a magnet that turns on and off, I had a motor, would you agree? Any fluctuation, such as on-off, could drive a motor. Of course there is no fluctuation in a PM. But if there was one.


quote:
The only way to prove or disprove an idea, is to leave the drawing board and start building.


I' doing both simultanously anyway.


Thanks for your opinion, btw.

[dieter]

This whole, tempting idea (whether I'm the only one who gets it or not) does not let me go.


Again I went trough simulations. In this current, early attempt I achieve a fieldstrength drop of about 33%, or from 100% to 67%. Using a relatively thin iron core helps a lot to "beam over" almost the entire fieldstrength of the PM, despite the large airgap. By making the shield even broader this was further optimized, so currently I have about 0.6 Tesla in the iron core of the coil when shielded, and about 1 Tesla when unshielded.


Let us think trough this again: If we have our low-R coil without a load, it will be passive. Now if we let just a little bit of current flow, then the reactive field is not capable of fully stop (or compensate) the fieldstrength drop. This means as long as a fieldstrength drop (and rise, of course) is maintained, the flowing current is for free and there is also some torque added.


I must confess, it's getting a bit confusing with the recursive counterfx, but it seems logical to me, that you CAN have a limited amount of current flow in the coil while maintaining the desired inverted fieldstrength fluctuation.


Therefor this is my claim: Violation of the law of conservation of energy.


Unless there is energy in a PM, which by accepted belief is not.


Please don't hesitate to ask me if there is something unclear.


FEMM shots, using an iron core, or supermalloy.

[Low-Q]

@dieter
Is it possible for you to post the FEMM file you're using? Zip it first maybe.


Vidar

[dieter]

Hi Vidar,


thanks for your interest. I'll upload the. fem, maybe later, but it really isn't a big deal to do it from scratch. See also my femm mini tutorial thread.


Meanwhile read my latest pdf in the download section. Efficiency in fieldstrength drop was greatly improved from previously 1.0 vs 0.7 Tesla to 1.8 vs 0.6 Tesla, using closed fluxpath switching.