Magnetic OU principle, You should really take a look at this !

[BEP]

Ok.

I borrowed an AutoSketch machine and scribbled the idea. Believe me when I say having the net result as zero is a good thing.

There is a reason why I am using a 1/2 inch shaft. Not only because those were the only parts I had left from another mag motor.

You can put simple coils in the stator sections to aid in gap adjustment (set for minimal variation and balance between the three dual stator sections.

A separate magnet on each side is required so there is additional torque generated where the opposite stators meet.
The sketch does not show the current state of my experiment. Mine has adjustment screws for adjusting rotor/stator and stator/magnet gaps. Balancing the three major sections is difficult. If one has a large difference it may take most or none of the magnetic flux.

Good luck. Don't waste your time with a simulator unless it is true 3D.

[BEP]

Due to some PM'd questions, I'll answer here:

Rotor construction: Qty 6, roughly C shaped laminations of the same metal as the rotor. Metal used is .26mm thick - measured.

"Orientation of laminations should be same as rotor sections!" - WRONG. In a conventional motor, yes. Not here.

No, I haven't measured the magnet's strength.

Q. "Half inch bearings and shaft? Are you kidding?"
A. NO. I only expect a maximum unloaded RPM of 462 but there are strong stresses already. I always overbuild. If it can't turn the bearings and shaft I'm not interested in it.

Q. "A separate magnet on each side is required so there is additional torque generated where the opposite stators meet. - Are your stators rotating?"

A. No, They are STATORS. Two separate flux - one from each magnet, meet to continue through the rotor sections. In the middle between the two pie-slice-shaped rotor sections (one on either face of the overall rotor) these two flux repel each other. This aids in the flux seeking a wider gap and in smoothing any remaining sticky points.

[lumen]

@BEP


I have my own CNC machines so it's possible for me to build virtually any prototype design. In the past I found it much easier to only build enough to test the operating principal. This usually indicates the problem and even lets you do some "what if " testing to find a modified condition which may improve possibilities of any gain in energy.

So far it looks like anything that depends on the changing magnitude of the field will always require the same energy in the opposite move to reduce the field.

At this point it looks like a moving field with a constant magnitude may be the only possibility.

[BEP]

@BEP


I have my own CNC machines so it's possible for me to build virtually any prototype design. In the past I found it much easier to only build enough to test the operating principal. This usually indicates the problem and even lets you do some "what if " testing to find a modified condition which may improve possibilities of any gain in energy.

So far it looks like anything that depends on the changing magnitude of the field will always require the same energy in the opposite move to reduce the field.

At this point it looks like a moving field with a constant magnitude may be the only possibility.

Constant magnitude but no movement radially. The only movement I want is the (forgive me purists) expansion and compression of the field lines in the axial direction at each stator/rotor point.

I'm past the concept stage. The only problem is the increase in flux during expansion with side leakage. Those should be addressed with this design. A slight ramp in the radial dimension of each section should handle this along with create some attraction to the next section. The key is the expansion/contraction must be the same axis as the shaft.
I only used the CNC to build a mock-up of the supporting structures.

[JackH]

Hello ALL,


Thees is Jack W Hildenbrand machine.     I allready have a patent on it a the patent office.    How do you thick there'll do anytime with it.when it financed,