FREE ENERGY USING MAGNETS

[Koen1]

Oooo did you mean it like that

I thought you wanted to use two coils next to eachother,
but you're talking about bending a coil so the two coil
poles are next to eachother, in combination with an
interesting magnet arrangement on the wheel...

Yes, that does appear to be a more effective application of a coil
than only using one pole.

A couple of years ago I was much more into magnet motors than
I am now, and I made a few sketches of ideas back then of which
a couple were along the same lines... But in the designs I recall
I used either one coil to drive two wheels at the same time,
or I used two coils wrapped around a U-shaped core to get something
quite similar to your "bent coil" idea.
But I didn't use the magnet arrangement on the wheel like you
show them...

Question: do you think there is really much difference between
a) using 100% of a coils flux but only at one pole, and
b) using 50% of a coils flux at one pole and 50% at the other
after all, the total magnetic field the coil prodcues does not
change, nor does the total flux. It is now used equally in two
places instead of in one...
But does that really add anything?

[nightlife]

Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused. With that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole? Maybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.
I guess I need to do some testing on this. I thought it was simple science but then again, what do I know about science. I ditched that class.

The magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.

[Koen1]

Koen1, You cant have a magnetic flux without having both poles. So, if you have one flux strength on one pole, the opposite has to have the same strength used or unused.

Yes yes, no no, that's not what I meant. Of course there need to be two poles and of course the total flux applies to the whole of the electromagnet coil.
And obviously that flux must flow equally through both poles at all times. I guess I should have formulated that more clearly. Sorry for the confusion.
What I meant was not actually the magnetic field of the electromagnet, as we can agree that needs to be homogenous and dipolar.
What I meant to say was:
Is there really much effective difference in the interaction with the rotor magnets between the use of
a) only one pole of the electromagnet to "push" or "pull" the rotor, so all the effective force exerted on the wheel
comes from a "monopolar" push or pull with all the energy cotained in the coil flux used at that single pole "push"/"pull", and
b) both poles of the electromagnet "pushing" and "pulling" the rotor at the same time, like your U-coil idea, where the
total coil flux is not only used to exert force on one 'pole' of the coil, but now the flux of the coil is used
in both poles to produce effective "push" and "pull" at the same time.
I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?

With that being said, if one pole can pick up 5#, then the other side should be able to at the same time using the same amount of power. How can you have flux one pole with out having flux at the opposite pole?

Not zero flux at the pole, I meant zero effective use of the flux in driving the wheel.
seems to me that, if we input X energy into the coil, the flux must equal that, and if we now use X energy in magnetic attraction or repulsion on one
pole of the coil, we should not be able to use that same amount of X energy at the other pole as well... We should be able to use 50% of X at
either pole, effectively, or otherwise we'd be using 2X output energy in the form of flux while we only put in 1X of energy... Does not compute...
Or have I gone completely looney now?

Maybe I have a misunderstanding on how electromagnetic poles react. I assumed they act the same a a magnet and you cant have one pole of a magnet have stronger flux then the other and you cant have no flux on one pole with out having flux on the other.

No, that was clearly a matter of me being extremely vague in my formulation. Sorry again.

The magnet arrangement allows us to use the full strength of both poles combined. It adds 100% torque plus it also gives us a longer throw. This I did test.

Ah, now this is sort of where I was heading.
So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?
Really?
Cool!

[nightlife]

Koen1, "I ask because it seems to me that, although use of two poles appears to double the applied force on the rotor, the
total flux and energy in the coil does not, so the total force that can be exerted by the coil should remain equal
to that which can be exerted in a setup where only one coil pole is used to apply force to the rotor...
And if that is so, then the total amount of energy received by the coil and force applied to the rotor
should not really be different... should it?"

I may be wrong with my assumption but I was thinking that electromagnets were the same as regular magnets and I also assumed that if a regular disc magnet was placed with the polarity's facing east and west, the east could be used to attract x amount of weight and even if x amount was the most it could attract, then the west could then attract the same at the same time.
This may be a wrong assumption for me and I guess I should have tested that before posting what I have.

"So you say that with X energy input to the coil, you get Y torque on the wheel when you use only single pole attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor,
but when you bend the coil into a U shape and use both poles for attraction/repulsion between stator coil and rotor, and you input X energy, you get 2Y torque out?"

This was based on my assumption of equal polarity strengths. meaning that if one polarity is loaded with the max it can handle, the other should be capable of being loaded with the same even after the one is already loaded with it's max.
Again I must state that my assumption may not be correct and I should have tested it before posting just to be sure. I will test it later as well as I will test the U shaped coil with the same test.

What you have said maybe the reason why others have not used the U shaped electromagnets and my assumption of how they act may be wrong. It looks like I have some more testing to do.

Thank you for the concerns, they are valid and I can now understand where they may be an issue.

[resonanceman]

Nightlife

It looks like  a great  idea to me

I assume that  you plan to drive  your coils  with AC


As I see it   you should   have  nearly  double  the  energy availablle .

the  only  down  side I can see  if IF  you  have  a  place  where  your magnets " catch "  the  problem area  will have twice the  energy to  stop the rotor .




In real life  probably  the  worst  part about  the  idea is it  will make  winding  the  coils  harder .....


gary