Magnetic compensation of sticky spots.

[Low-Q]

Hi.


I just got an idea that makes me crazy, but it must be tested - for learning ofcourse (I say learning so I don't get disappointed).
Even if I know that permanentmagnets are conservative, it does not mean we can use the conservatism to our advantage.
I also know that static fields cannot create energy.
So, for the purpose of learning more about magnetism, I got the idea of cancelling a sticky spot.


I have no drawings yet. But maybe a description will help as a start.


Experiments shows if a horizontal field approach a vertical field at some distance below or above, the horizontal field starts with attraction, and leaves with repulsion.


If we analyze the forces, we get a sine curve that first rise to a positive peak value, then drops to a negative peak value.
We can agree that both forces adds up in a net force of zero.


If we introduce a second group of fields where both is vertical but opposite polarity, and let them pass by each other, we get a curve that only drops to a negative peak value.
We can agree that equal poles repels.


Now, let us combine both groups of fields in the same closed system, but apart to reduce magnetic influence of each others groups, where the second field group works only at the first groups attraction area.
If we are lucky, we can reduce or elimiate the net sum of attraction, and we are left with greater repulsion than attraction.


This means the sticky spot is reduced but not on the expense of the later repulsion.


What does this mean if I'm right? It means we have a repulsion system that has no equilibrium.
If I'm wrong (which is most likely), it just means that nature allways find a way to conserve energy.


I will start building this super simple device tomorrow. First and foremost to learn more about magnets.


Vidar

[Low-Q]

Here is some graphs and intentioned function.
The lower magnets points north out of the paper.


If you could take a look at this and give me some feedback, it would be great.


Vidar

[Low-Q]

The 3D printer is now making parts for a propulsion track, and moving magnet holders.
Two tracks and two moving magnet holders with a fix to keep them in parallell along the two tracks.


1. The slot in the red mark for a magnet polarized horizontally.
2. The slot in the blue mark for a magnet polarized vertically.
3. The light blue magnet holder for a magnet polarized along the track.
4. The green magnet holder for a magnet polarized vertically and parallell to the magnet in the blue mark.
5. The red part is the fix glued to the moving magnet holders.


I can cut the track magnets if needed. I have many 50x5x1.5mm neo-magnets.
The moving magnets are small disc magnets measuring 10mm diameter and 2.5mm thick.


The build takes 3.5 hours. They are finished tomorrow.

[Low-Q]

I did some simple tests. This experiment might have some serious flaws, but I find it interesting that it appearently provide more force in one direction than the other.


Here is a video I just made.
https://youtu.be/c2RwHt_e3zw

[Low-Q]

Before I proceed with more building projects, I did a simulation in FEMM. The result some how make sense.
If you look at the attached image, there is three graphs.


Blue graph is the force acting on a moving magnet polarized along its moving axis when it pass by a stator magnet that is polarized perpendiculary to the moving magnet. First there is forward attraction, then backward repulsion, then forward repulsion.


Red graph is the force acting on the other moving magnet, which supposingly is cancelling the sticky spot. It does to a sertain extent. First there is backward repulsion, then forward repulsion.


The green graph is the sum of both blue and red graph. The repulsion force at the first and second bump in that graph, is not much in peak value, but spands over a long distance. The forward repulsion force at last is high, but spands over a short distance. Even if the useful peak values in this graph looks like good stuff, the average forward force I got left is only 6% of the highest useful repulsion force. 6% can easily be just tolerances during coarse simulations in FEMM.


The sense in this graph is that the red graph does not compensate the whole blue graph in its first peak and bottom. Both blue and red has an average of zero force, and it makes sense that none of them can account for forward motion even if those graphs are combined.


Vidar