Ricks Pipe Dream

[Lakes]

Why not make the pdf freely available Rick?

You can alway attach it to a post here.

[TinselKoala]

Probably not that well if this is an aluminum rotor, as I suspect may be the case.  I also see the upright block (steel, I presume) that is apparently used for nullifying an undesirable magnetic interaction, and notice that is usually where things tend to hang up.  I assume the horseshoe mag is alnico, and that the rotor magnets are ceramics.  Try all neos, group and orient the magnets as I have shown, and see where it goes.  Some flywheel effect would definitely help out.  A solid rotor does not offer a good flywheel effect.  To achieve that, much of the mass nearer the center must be removed, allowing the majority of weight to be centered in a relatively narrow band at the outside perimeter.  That's why a steel rimmed bicycle wheel already has good flywheel effect, and when further weight is added (as in the form of my 3+3/4 pound birch plywood ring) this greatly enhances inertial momentum to smooth and even out rotations, and to overcome rotational resistance points.  Very nice machine work, TK.  You really aren't that far away from succeeding, so do keep trying.

Best wishes,

Rick   

Argh.

Your statement about flywheel effect is  wrong. The reason flywheels have holes near the center is to reduce their overall weight without correspondingly reducing their rotational moment of inertia. If you have 2 flywheels of the same dimensions, one with holes and one without, the one without holes will be the better flywheel. It will also be heavier.
I can prove this assertion if need be, but any elementary physics book can explain it to you. And if you think about it, how could removing material possibly increase inertia? It cannot. You take 2 flywheels, identical in dimensions, they have identical inertia. Your claim is that by removing material from one, you will increase its rotational inertia.

Your assessment of my testbed is also wrong. There are no ferromagnetic materials whatsoever on or near the disk. In the vid shown I believe I had the keeper on the alnico stator, but all hardware and supporting parts are non-magnetic stainless steel and brass and aluminum and plastic.

(EDIT I forgot about the ball bearings in the articulated stator system. There are 3 ball bearings and their races are indeed ferromagnetic. They tend to remain relatively far from the rotor magnets though.)

I  have many different magnets and have tried many different configurations. I have a data-logging tachometer, vibration sensors, Hall effect sensors and other instrumentation that tell me exactly what my wheel is doing. I have 3 different ways of imparting known and repeatable starting momentum to my disk.
And I have another disk of the same dimensions (except thicker) made entirely of Acrylic Plastic.
And I can make that linkage swing magnets in any plane, horizontal or vertical, and I have many different kinds of stator magnets and mounts for them.

I am succeeding just fine, thank you. I can prove, using my apparatus, that ANY arrangement of magnets that you or anybody can come up with, will actually subtract energy from a spinning disk rather than add to it.

For example, on my wheel here's the runup-rundown profile of a pretty good magnet arrangement (non-articulated stator, Mylow configuration). Most others are much worse. Can you show any data from your rig that even hints at an improvement obtained by putting magnets on it?

[ramset]

I suppose if the system accelerates ,that run down stuff goes right out the window

perhaps carbon fiber lever/track follower 

Many possibilities with Rick's test rig

Chet
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheRickoff&view=videos

[nyctuber]

@ New York: There is no logical reason for your so-called "skepticism" here, which in actuality is nothing of the kind. If it was legitimate, you would have waited to see more of the actual outcome before trying every trick in the book to dis the project; and you would have more to offer than your continually repeated opinions... Which certainly do not gain in worth by the repetition.

Now you are claiming to be a "scape goat" lol... So you are the "victim" here, eh? That one's a classic

Poor little New York: Trying to save the world from magnet motors... No one understands you.

...You are understood, alright

And what it boils down to is this: A cynical attempt to use this site's dedication to Free Speech against itself.

There is a better reason for my skepticism than your blind worship based on hope. In fact, you should thank me for it.

[jibbguy]

@New York: Yes, Thanks for showing us what you are really all about by your previous actions here.
___________________________

@ Tinsel: It appears to be "splitting hairs" regarding the flywheel. with a bicycle wheel with spokes, having the weight out at the circumference is probably the best way to go

Regarding the run down: You are supposing a KNOWN type configuration. Having neat toys to monitor it (and they are very, lol and worthy of envy), can't change that.

With a manually-operated MOSTAT to avoid "Mr. Sticky"; we all know there can be continual rotation with decent torque possible, we all can see that and have known about the possibility of such for a long time now; with many different designs. So replacing that with an efficient MOSTAT has the capability to ruin that equation that always seemed to end in a "minus" before... By changing the Equation itself, and thereby the "rules".

With a design such as Rick envisions the energy needed to operate the MOSTAT is a "Constant"; while scaling-up the wheel or changing the number of magnets or their specific configuration can indeed change the amount of possible torque available.... So although the MOSTAT is a "constant" user of energy (mainly dependent on RPM i guess), the Rotor's specific configuration is a "variable" supplier of energy per RPM.

So the key will be to change the variable to exceed the constant. In such a system there will be a minimum size or minimum number of mags that will work at all: Scaling-up or changing basic magnet configs can increase the total torque available per RPM... There really is no disputing this. Meanwhile the energy needed to run the MOSTAT remains the same for a specific RPM.

Although, i guess we need to add a Disclaimer about that torque produced by the mags at a given RPM... We DO NOT know yet for sure if that is a '"constant", or another variable. With conventional electric motors, it pretty much is a linear constant for the input energy (within the mid operating ranges of the motor anyway). But with permanent magnets as the only motive force, who knows; there could be more or less energy produced at higher RPM's for all we know yet; or even a "resonant frequency" -like effect for a specific config of magnets; where a specifc RPM produces the most torque. It will all need to be tested... Since there is no model available.

That's where your expertise and equipment could be very useful

But using a "regular" run down test without the MOSTAT he envisions, is pretty much without meaning in this case (because we can't know that constant energy value for the equation yet).

So that is why the predictions of Doom are premature

And why endeavors such as this ARE important.