Honey Creek Design's magnet motor theory

[aarnold]

Hi,
I`ve already tried this, without sucess... sorry. the exact project..
If you find a way to do it please post here.. I would be glad to know.
regards
Augusto

[Tom Anderson]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for sharing your interesting idea. Let me tell my problem with it as I can see. Let's look at your Figure-4b. The approaching magnet of the wheel and the shuttle magnet are neccessarily of like poles so this is against rotation. Another breaking effect comes from the cam follower's friction on the surface, though it could be minimised by using ball bearing. So I am afraid of the wheel coming to a stop finally.  
Perhaps using several shuttles around the wheel the repel torque gained would serve for a continuous rotation, only the building of your setup could tell it.

rgds
Gyula;

PS In the meantime I noticed Gregory's more or less similar opinion on your setup...  Well one more thing to prototype it!

Hi Gyula, and Gregory;

I would first like to thank you for your input. I know on my website shows only one shuttle in all the graphics, I did that to allow for a clearer image of what I was talking about in the text. I hope the graphic image I uploaded here will give you a better idea of what it will look like with all six shuttles working.

I understand what you were talking about in figure 4b were the magnet of the shuttle comes near the magnet of the power wheel. You are right the same poles are facing each other causing a resistant to the motion. Figure 4b shows the shuttled pushed back maximizing the distance between the magnets reduces the repelling force. Looking at the design with multiple shuttles, each spaced to work at equally timed intervals, will allow for a shuttle to be near figure 1b while another is near the location shown in figure 4b. The forces in figure 1b should over power those in figure 4b.

I hope I have helped you I know this is still just talk and until I can build one it will never really be known.

Tom

[gyulasun]

....   Looking at the design with multiple shuttles, each spaced to work at equally timed intervals, will allow for a shuttle to be near figure 1b while another is near the location shown in figure 4b. The forces in figure 1b should over power those in figure 4b.

Hi Tom,

Yes, I do agree and the significant difference between the two forces you refer to above is the only hope for your setup to work.
Nice animation by the way and I did think you had had a multi-shuttle setup in your mind.    Hopefully you will have the means to build a prototype, at least with 2 shuttles placed a 180 degree apart from each other, or if you are confident in your plan you can choose a 4 or even the 6 shuttle setup for testing.

rgds
Gyula

[Gregory]

Hi Tom,

Nice animation. This design has some value. I can give you some observation from my individual viewpoint. Maybe it will help.

0.
If you test concepts, at the first time always use the least magnets possible with the design. There is a good reason to do this. Magnetic fields alter each other more or less depending on distance and field dimensions. Because this alteration the desired effects (one by one) will be all a bit weaker or a bit more unstable with more magnets than with less magnets. Also you can observe the situation better with less magnets.

1.
It is a good idea to try to recalculate and set the proportions and dimensions and use a well-thought-out design for the best chance.
In the present animation when the shuttle magnet stays inside between the actual driven magnet and the approaching (next) magnet, it slightly slows down the movement of the wheel (and thus all the moving parts) due to the interaction between the shuttle magnet and the (next) approaching magnet. I think it can be a good idea to rule this out of the design by using the best proportions possible.

The dimensions of all the parts always must have some connection to the magnets used in the design. To rule out a few undesired effects I recommend to perform a few measures with the magnets you are chosen to use.

Place two magnets (one from the shuttle and one from the wheel when they?re not the same) on a table with like poles facing and measure the minimal distance where one can move the mass of the other. Multiple the given value by a number around 1.25 - 1.5 and write down that new distance. It will be much longer, and suggest you to use a wheel bigger in diameter or decrease the number of magnets used on the wheel. (a connection between the physics of magnets, distance, and geometry)

Divide the bigger wheel to equal parts depending on the new spacing between the magnets on the wheel. If you done this it will give you the advantage that now you can work with separated interactions between shuttle-wheel magnet pairs, so the pairs do not affect each other's movement. I think the benefit of this is not irrelevant. In this case you can perform more precise experiments and can get a better feeling about how a shuttle-wheel magnet pair works. (We can call this idea as the idea of ideal distance between the rotor magnets in this type of magnet motors.)

2.
The strongest reaction force (negative torque) occurs when the machine try to push the shuttle in behind the rotor magnet. If we don?t figure out something which can overcome this force, then the motor will most likely not work. The first idea to solve this can be the optimization of the movement of the shuttles compared to the rotating wheel.

I assume the best positioning can be demonstrated with two shuttles and two rotor magnets, so with two pairs. While the first shuttle is just moved to its maximal position inside, the second shuttle just begin to move inward. So, you use the maximal force of the first to move the second against the negative torque. (we can call this the optimal offset between shuttle actions) This is still not enough in most (or all) of the cases. Therefore the most obvious answer for this can be to use more shuttle-wheel magnet pairs with the same optimal offset. And in fact, with this optimal offset idea we must use more shuttles in order to close the loop, otherwise our machine will be unfinished, with asymmetric gaps in the rooms of our desired offsets. So, we must close the loop to form an even machine with equal distances, one complete, even unit.

[Gregory]

There were two idea (point 1,2) to solve two different problems, but these ideas hardly want to go together. Point 2, the optimal offset idea usually injure point 1 the ideal distance, because if we use more shuttles they will be closer to each other. A bit paradox, and can be difficult to find the optimal design. But if we don?t make point 1 and 2 go together perfectly without any injury in one or the other, then the machine do not have the best chance to be workable. Looks like the geometry of the parts and the field distances of the magnets generate some (impassable) limits from the viewpoints of point 1 and 2.

3.
At the moment I can see only a few situation to escape from the problem.
At first, we can operate with the magnet type and dimensions ( and field dimensions), distances between rotor magnets, and the number of rotor segments to choose the best design. Three important value which must be handled carefully to achieve harmony between them.

Secondly, If only two or a few (depending on field distances) shuttle-wheel magnet pairs are in one plane, then I think point 1 and 2 can go together without injuring the logic of each other. And thus the machine can gain the needed torque to push the shuttle in the inner position. But the use of more planes means more rotors mounted on the same shaft, and the shuttles separated between the rotors evenly. At this point the machine became closer to a real 3 dimensional machine.

(Regarding the separated pairs, I feel some interesting thing with the number 3, just an impression. 3/4, 6/8, 9/12?are interesting designs)

This whole thing is not a single calculation in 10 minutes, but it is possible to find the desired proportions. (I have already gone through some similar procedure on paper a year ago.)
I would love to see something running on its own, but I have doubts about the workability of the three points I wrote. I?ve already tried point 1 and 2 with some static setup, but didn?t try the possibilities of point 3 with them. For me it looks like magnets don?t like going this way, although point 3 has some untested options.

I think none of the static setups will ever work, I designed more than a hundred, tested only the best five and all failed. This is why I like the idea of moving all the magnets in some way. In this way there are more chances to imitate an electric motor which works with changing, dynamic magnetic fields.

But magnets are coony. They always want to find balance, so they simply do not want to spin for you. You must use their constant intention (to seeking for balance) to make them dance for you. You must be a great artist to do that, and perhaps the real answer for the problem is something unusual or different approach.

Damn... I have spent too much time writing this!

Wish you all the best,
Greg

P.S.: Your quote from Edison is perfect!