Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08

[shakman]

Oops, I forgot to change the size of the additional stators.   
Here's what I meant to post...

[gyulasun]

Hi Folks,

Naudin made some force measurements between two repel magnets when they approch each other from sideways and then axially, see this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any further info on anyone's using this shown difference between the two forces since 1998...

The mass switch here just seems to utilize this force difference, right?

rgds,  Gyula

[mondrasek]

Shakman,

I think your additional kicker magnets would help to latch a magnet that had not made the latch at 6 due to centrifical force.  But I'm not sure if this would help.  We would have lost the energy from the failed kick attempt already and slowed the wheel without accomplishing the goal of re-positioning the switch magnet.  A second kick would slow it down a second time, etc.

I think it would be best to avoid allowing the wheel to accelerate to this centrifical failure mode speed.  The wheel should be coupled to a load (generator) that keeps it at the RPM where the design is most efficient.  Higher RPM does not gain us anything in the wheel.  If you need high RPM just build a slow wheel with lots of torque and run the output to a gear box to wind up a higher RPM drive shaft.  I see the gravity motor wheel being constant low RPM.

[mondrasek]

Gyula,

I wasn't aware that the forces were so unbalance when approaching from the side vs. co-axially.  That would definitely work in our favor.  It also explains why the wall doesn't feel that strong for the kick we witness when the switch fires. 

I so wish I had measurement equipment.  And every machine tool in the MicroMark catelog!  Maybe someday...

Thanks for the link.  Good stuff there.

[TinselKoala]

Gyula,

I wasn't aware that the forces were so unbalance when approaching from the side vs. co-axially.  That would definitely work in our favor.  It also explains why the wall doesn't feel that strong for the kick we witness when the switch fires. 

I so wish I had measurement equipment.  And every machine tool in the MicroMark catelog!  Maybe someday...

Thanks for the link.  Good stuff there.

A few posts back I detailed (or tried to) how to tell if your experiments are helping, hurting, or having no effect.  All you need is a known mass, a yardstick, a stopwatch, and a piece of string. For qualitative measurements (simply to tell if a change helped or harmed) you don't even need to know the mass--just use the same wrench every time.

Tomorrow if I have time I will try to illustrate what I mean with a video, using my Evil Skeptic build of the Mondrashek Magnet-Assisted Gravity Wheel. 

Of course this technique is based on the assumption that a change for the better, would reduce friction or add thrust, which would equate to a longer rundown time for a known energy input, and a change for the worse, or no effect, would give shorter or unchanged rundown times. This seems like a logical assumption to me, and is very likely to be true, unless there is some "quantum jump" from a non-performer to a real runner under unusual conditions, like maybe a higher rpm is required to initiate an effect. For example something like this might happen: a configuration doesn't self start, nor run from a low rpm, but if spun up faster than the "centrifugal lockout" rpm, it might catch and start running, sustaining, as it slowed and the magnet/weights started to drop. Odd effects like this have been noted before, in certain other devices, and it makes things a bit harder to test, but still, there are (cheap and effective ) ways, if it comes to that.

(It is surprising to me how few experimenters (even in physics laboratories!!) are willing to do the simplest control experiments. Personally, I think it would save a lot of time if they did them more often.)