Apparatus for generating autogenic energy?

[ken_nyus]

Hi Folks,

I did do another build, a little better than the last one, but the results are similar, no cycling.

I also recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who used to teach Physics, and the device interested him enough to think about it, and why it will not work.

Looking at the torque graph from the simulation, my thinking was that it should work. My reasoning was that the large pulse of torque in my favor should be enough to overcome the small pulse of torque working against me.

My friend eventually pointed out that we have to consider also the forces acting on the sliding magnet which is coupled to the rotating magnet. When you add this into the picture, his argument is that the first half of the large pulse, while the magnets are still coming closer together, is a net loss, and now I see this, and I also see how this will cancel out the net gain from the second half of the large pulse.

So the large pulse is a wash, and all I am left with is the small pulse of torque, and this is not in my favor, so the total cycle is a net loss.

That is how I see it right now.

I still may do another build though

But first I will try and update the simulation to account for the forces acting on the sliding magnet, and try and graph this over the torque graph and see what I get.

.

[gyulasun]

Hi,

If I remember well, Jason now is able to simulate not only in FEMM but in a true 3D simulator program too.  That would be the best I think in this setup to use, maybe it could reveal more pros or cons...
Thanks for returning to this topic.

Gyula

[capthook]

Ken ?

Very cool device you have assembled.  I ran across this thread after having happened on the Chung-Nan Mu patent while sifting through the ?310? classification of the Patent Office.  (google patents with the .pdf?s sure makes it easier!  www.google.com/patents )
Doing a google search on ?Chung-Nan Mu? presented 10 hits.  This thread being the only one, anywhere, that discussion of this patent is taking place.  Kudos Ken!  I?ve lurked here the last few months ? you?re topic has inspired me to join this forum and a desire to add to this discussion in particular.

What made you decide to implement the design in the horizontal rather than vertical orientation?  It would seem to me that gravity is a component utilized in favor of the device.  It?s what caught my eye, as I?ve been trying to incorporate gravity in one of my ?designs? to ?hammer? the rotor with repulsion.  In Fig. 6 ? it seems gravity and the weight of the upper magnet assembly assists in getting from point (e) to (f).  Also in your device ? as mentioned before ? the flywheel may be undersized?  The rotational energy must also contribute to (e)to(f).

Cool suggestions offered on a bearing setup for the vertical shaft.  However ? just 1 bearing slipped over the (front in this view) end of the upper shaft inside the track should suffice?  Or even be unnecessary? (but probably ideal) On bearings ? what are you using?  I?ve found huge differences in bearing quality/run times.  A top quality rollerblade bearing is perfect for these types of applications.  ABEC 9 rated bearing are a little expensive ($60 set of but blow away a cheaper set. 
( http://www.inlinewarehouse.com/AggAccBearings.html )




Interesting to me the number of ?unused? patents in various fields that seem to be of value.  STUNNING the number of patents secured in this area of work, mechanical magnetic motors, that don?t work:
Patents for Unworkable Devices
United States Patents
?   May 24, 1932. H. L. Worthington 1,859,643 Magnetic Motor.
?   June 19, 1934. J. W. Poysa. 1,963,213 Magnetic Motor.
?   May 19, 1959. Norman L. Dean. 2,886,976 System for converting rotary motion into unidirectional motion.
?   July 13, 1965. E. Baumgartner. 3,194,008 Positive Buoyancy Prime Mover.
?   Dec 20, 1966. Dan K. McCoin. 3,292,365. Power conversion apparatus and method utilizing gravitational and buoyant forces.
?   Dec 7, 1971. E. Rutkove. 3,625,089. Gravity Wheel Apparatus.
?   Jan 27, 1976. David Diamond. 3,934,964. Gravity-Actuated Fluid Displacement Power Generator.
?   April 24, 1979. Howard R. Johnson. 4,151,431 Permanent Magnet Motor.
?   April 24, 1979. Howard R. Johnson. 4,151,432 Permanent Magnet Motor (Revision?)
?   January 22, 1980. Leslie R. Hinchman and Robert B. Hinchman. 4,184,409 Hydraulic Engine.
?   March, 2003. Thomas Bearden. 6,362,718. (A device that extracts "compressed energy" from the time domain in amount mc2. It draws energy from the longitudinal electromagnetic waves that fill the ocean of space-time".)
My interest in this device is the application of a mechanical magnetic motor, as the pulse-generating motors add so much more complexity and I believe that a working device is a mater of engineering rather than circuitry ? although the pulse devices may have a better chance of success utilizing back EMF.  Also ? it doesn?t use crazy magnet designs like the Johnson motor(s).
(Of course ? most everyone says these type of devices are impossible anyway.  Hmmm ? considering dark matter/energy makes up over 90/95% of the universe and we know NOTHING about it ? leaving what we DO know a percentage of the remaining 5% - I would say humans 200 years from now will laugh at MANY of our ?laws?.

You mention your ?hot-glue? replication.  However, I find the engineering quality of your design to be applauded.  Duct tape is my best friend as it makes it easy to make designs changes VERY easily LOL!

Again - kudos to you on your work on this project and look forward to your thoughts/updates on this project.  I may attempt to replicate the patent in the near future as well.

CH

[ken_nyus]

Hey Capt,

Thanks for the hello, and I would look forward to seeing another attempt at replicating this device!

I may eventually get back to this one, right now I am playing with an OC MPMM replication.

I went with sideways just because I thought it would be easier to setup a good slide that way. I thought about the gravity effect but then I figured if the device was balanced there would not be any gravity effect.

Let me know if you do any work on this, I would be very interested to see it.

[sm0ky2]

looking at that graph, it appears pretty symmetrical to me. avg. 0 ?

this is a fun little thing,  as the magnets come together, lets assume that when the sliding magnet is approaching the point of reversal, the rotating magnet is at 30-45 degrees before the parallel point.

You have back torque on the rotating shaft,  also the repulsion force decreases exponentially with distance.

so, whatever momentum you have built up by starting the device into motion would be gradually depleted as it spins around.

fascinating mechanism though. this could be an essential component of some more complex magnetic device one day.