pat. 3469130 Jines, J.E. Magnetic Motor, does it work?

[tbird]

hello all,

this patent is over 40 years old.  did it slip through the cracks for a reason?

this motor uses shields to cover and uncover PERMANENT MAGNETS.  no electrics are used.  unlike my first impression, this machine uses attraction rather than repulsion.

you can download this patent here...

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3469130.html

i've read this once.  so far, i haven't been able to find a reason why it won't work.  on the other hand, i can see where it could work better using the new materials available today that weren't available when the patent was granted.

has anyone found a reason for it not to work or can see a flaw?

tom

[tbird]

i heard one time that if no one has a comment it's because they know everything about the subject or they don't know enough to ask a question.  i wonder which applies  here.

i will say with the speed control included in the patent, it makes the overall machine feel too complex.  let's study it without the speed control.

the inventor's use of attraction for rotation is the most curious part for me.  he uses the stators separately to advance the rotor in 22.5 degree steps.  he does this with separate cams, one for each side of the rotor.  this means that even though the rotor magnets are located at the same place on the rotor, the shields (relative to the rotor magnets) uncover the stator magnets at different times.  the stator magnets on one stator are 22.5 degrees offset to the stator magnets of the other stator.  his thinking seems to be that the attraction of 2 magnets to each other is stronger than the attraction of 1 magnet to the metal shield.

does anybody have experience with this?

tom

[lwh]

i heard one time that if no one has a comment it's because they know everything about the subject or they don't know enough to ask a question.  i wonder which applies  here.

In my case it's the latter.

I don't know why the other readers here haven't pitched in with some opinions yet.  Maybe it's the weather.  You know, just one of those things. 

I must admit though, I didn't go look at the patent at first because I just couldn't be bothered trying to decipher that sort of stuff.  Maybe others are the same.  I was also turned off by the mere mentioning of 'shielding', as it brings out the cynic in me.  Just like seeing patents of free-energy devices does too, come to think of it. 

I tend to assume if the thing works it won't get patented, and that the more complex a device or system is, the higher chance there is that the patent applicant has tricked themselves into thinking the unworkable will work.  Fancy pictures and jargon just don't cut the mustard, and patents are often full of them.  Seems to me a person can patent almost any bullshit if it's presented the right way, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's previous bullshit.  If it works, he should have built it, or at least enough of it to prove the concept, otherwise it's just a theory, and in theory, pretty much anything's possible.  So... 

Sorry if I'm being too skeptical.  And I'm not having a go at you in any way for posting about it, that's what this place is for.  The patent might not have been seen by most people here before and could be worth exploring in greater detail or prove useful in other ways, who knows.

At the moment though, I, for one, am more inclined to just write this off as yet another variation on the same old 'pull some magical shielding out of unicorn's arse and get the pixies to help you align the magnets just right and it'll work' trick. 

The only real contribution I can think to make is to suggest you or someone else draw up a simplified diagram of the patented devices essential elements, showing how they're supposed to interact, to make it easier for others to give an opinion on whether they think it'll work or not.   

And sorry if this isn't the kind of response you were looking for.  Your thread not getting any replies reminded me how much the anonymous, consumerist, no obligation, drive-by aspect of the internet sucks sometimes and I just felt like trying to do something to counter it.

[e2matrix]

I may be way off here as I only took a brief look at the patent but as soon as I got to the part where they mentioned using iron or soft metal as a 'shield' I gave up reading further.  To my knowledge iron and other similar metals do not shield magnetic fields.  In the case of iron it will extend the field if it's in contact or close to a magnet.  Seeing that as a basic flaw in their theory I didn't go any further. 

[tbird]

if this works, i'll do the other 3 pages of drawings too.

tom