Apparatus for generating autogenic energy?

[hansvonlieven]

G'day all,

I have my doubts as to this thing. It looks like another lawyer's scam to tie up technology. The word autogenic means 'self generating, to produce from within'. It is a word that is being used in psychology and the self help industry.

The word was obviously used to fool patent examiners as the word perpetual motion is not allowed and this means just about the same thing.

The use of a piston like arrangement to re-guage the magnet is by no means new or original. The rest just describes a flywheel. This thing will run for a while after the flywheel has been set into motion by some outside force as the energy stored in the flywheel runs down, though I suspect the flywheel would run longer if the magnets were removed.

Anyone who has ever played with magnets knows that if you separate two magnets that are stuck to each other the easiest way is to slide them apart sideways. The hardest way is to pull them apart in the opposite direction to the natural attraction. In this device the re-guaging of the magnetic forces is attempted in the most unfavourable way possible.

My feeling is the thing will not work

Hans von Lieven

[ken_nyus]

Hi Hans,

The principle of the device as I understand it is all based on repulsion. Half the cycle is N-N, the other half S-S repulsion.

One of the diagrams is mislabeled, and there also seem to be some mistakes in the text, but they don't talk about any attraction being used, only repulsion.

[hansvonlieven]

G'day Ken and all,

You still need to get around the "sticky point", in other words there is a need to re-guage.

I cannot see how you can do it with this arrangement. It would be nice if one could, I admit, but this way?

I have a massive file of permanent magnet motor patents, none of which work. Please, someone tell me why this one does.

Hans von Lieven

[ken_nyus]

I'm not sure there is a classic sticky point in this design, it is more like a sticky-half.

Half of the cycle is working to push the flywheel (n-n repulsion), and the other half of the cycle is working against the flywheel (s-s repulsion).

But in the first half of the cycle the magnets are always a little closer together than in the corresponding points of the second half of the cycle, creating an imbalance of force in favor of the rotation, that's the theory anyway.

This excess force is stored in the flywheel, and used to get through the sticky-half.

If magnetic force is related to the square of the distance, a small difference in distance can mean a large difference in force?

[ken_nyus]

Ok, got a decent ball bearing linear slide for cheap on eBay, and I put the basic rig together. Worked out a push rod mechanism, with some heavy 1/4" rod ends I had. Overall sloppy and ugly, with lots of hot glue holding things together.

No luck on getting even a single rotation on it's own. The setup is heavy, especially the push rod mechanism. Also I am not sure how to go about balancing the mechanism in a practical way once all of the parts are connected together.

If anyone is interested I would like to try and go through some design criteria for this device, things that should be true for this to work.

Basic assumptions of the working principles of this device:

1. All forces are repulsion forces.
2. For one half of the cycle, N-N repulsion helps to push the flywheel. In the other half of the cycle S-S repulsion fights back against the flywheel.
3. The physical arrangement of the device causes the magnets to always be closer together for the N-N half of the cycle, compared to the corresponding points of the S-S half of the cycle.
3. Because of this difference in distance, the N-N half of the cycle should be producing more force than the S-S half of the cycle.
4. This "excess" force is stored in the flywheel, and used to push past the S-S half of the cycle, to start the cycle again.

Now what design criteria must be true for this to work? Here is what I think needs to be true:

1. The flywheel must be able to store more force than the total force required to cycle the device. I think the total force capacity(?) of the flywheel should be much larger than the forces provided by the magnet interaction. Here I think my flywheel is too small, a 2 1/4" brass flywheel for a small steam engine.

2. The difference in force between the two halves of the cycle should be maximized. In this device the way to do this is to make the stroke of the linear part longer. I have a slide that can move 1.5 inches.  Leaving a 1/4" on each end to avoid hitting the stops, that leaves about 1" of usable travel.

3. The difference in force between the two halves of the cycle must be enough to overcome the inherent friction/inertia of the device. My device so far is too heavy. I can adjust the magnets as close as possible to work in the range of greatest force, but then it seems like the flywheel cannot store it all.

My thoughts and progress so far.

Having fun working and thinking about this, hope to make some improvements in the future.



I am using N40 1 x 1 x 1/8" magnets.