Interesting to see it move. I notice some similarities to the Howard Johnson designs and some others I've come across which may have a chance of working.

The similarity I see is the orientation of the magnetic poles. Looks exactly the same to me. I agree with your assessment that there is a difference between AR and SR being used in Howards motors and this one.

You said, " I don't care how you arrange 2 or 200 magnetic fields , they will find a balance point".

You are wrong! A proper scrutiny of all those magnet assemblies that didnt work or that didnt produce any overunity effect, one would see that they all have one thing in common: they were designed to use asymmetrical regauging(AR). The systems all have accelerating and decelerating forces which cancel out each other; as a result the systems have to regauge their magnetic potential energies to function continuously.

You also said, " Introduce a third field at various angles, you can shear the force and use this to get propulsion. But is it more than you put into shearing the field in the first
place?"

Perhaps you were asking whether the available magnetic potential energy(MPE) is more than the work done in assembling the magnets. If that's your question, here's the answer: Yes the MPE is more than the work done to assemble the magnets; it is so becauase there's no conservation-of-work law in nature. That is, one can either do less work and get more energy or do more work and get less energy...

MagnaProp,
All the arrows, including the bigger ones that appear occassionally, are constantly rotating with the ring magnets. This reminds of the debate on whether or not a rotating magnet rotates with its flux. Several experiments confirmed that the rotating magnet does rotate with its flux. So the two videos do agree with the experiments.

The magnetic flux arrows you mentioned are behaving like surging currents. The fact that they are appearing and disappearing continuously could mean that the motor is occassionally behaving as an open system and is therefore occassionally receiving  influx of energy from the environment...

Its obvious that you dont understand the motor's principle of operation; if you did, your "argument" would be different...

It is also obvious that you have no clue as to the way finite element analytical softwares operate. Why would you say that the motor design fooled the FEA software?! This is laughable, you know.

Experiments and simulation results confirmed that the output torque is greater when the tiny magnets are  inclined compared to when they are not inclined or when they just be at 90°.

Your last question isnt clear... As can be seen, the magnetic fields of the magnet assemblies are asymmetrical; thus the net output torque acting on the rotor magnet is not zero.

No, it wont operate the same if all
the ring magnets were stationary
and the rotor was comprised of
only the angled magnets.

The angled magnets function like wave guides; besides, a closer look at the magnetic flux of the motor would reveal that if the angled magnets were to function as the rotor, the net torque acting on them would be small.

The maximum net torque would be obtained when the rotor comprises either the middle ring magnet or the the other two ring magnets and the inclined magnets, or the middle ring magnet and the inclined magnets.

Okay, here are some important news I received from Simon regarding his motor:

Stefan,
As a matter of fact, my design will surely work. You'd recall that I once told you about a German professor that picked interest in my design. You'd also that I said he built a modified version of the motor, and the prototype didn't work.

Now, after having perfected my understanding of how to rightly use ANSYS Maxwell, I simulated the two modified versions that he built; the software confirmed the behaviour of the prototypes. The software confirmed the extremely high cogging torque and the extremely short deceleration time.

Here's the sweet part. The software revealed that for the prototype to work, the rotor magnets should be reduced to either 40, or 30, or 20, or 10, etc. (Note, his prototype has 50 rotor magnets.) The software also revealed that the net forward and net back magnetomotive forces(mmfs) of the prototype are heavily dependent on the airgap lengths between the rotor magnets.

That is, there are particular airgap lengths that would cause the forward mmf to be greater than the back mmf; and there are particular airgap lengths that would cause the back mmf to be greater than the forward mmf. And there are particular airgap lengths that would cause the forward and back mmfs to be equal in magnitude and thus produce zero torque and zero rotation.

Currently the professor isn't carrying me along; he doesn't tell me things anymore. When I asked him why he hasn't reduced the rotor magnets to either 50,or 40, or 30, or 20, or 18, 16, etc; he said that he used glue to hold the magnets in the rotor frame, and that removing them would damage the magnets.

Regards,
Simon

=================================

The attached document contain the simulation results and the model used in the simulation.
FIGURES 2 to 7 show the simulation results which confirm the behaviour of the prototypes built by the professor.

FIGURES 8 to 11 show the only ways the prototype would work.

FIGURES 2A to 2C show the nature of the output torque, the speed, and the solid loss.

FIGURES 3A to 3C show the the deceleration of the rotor when given a push of 300rpm in the clockwise direction. As shown, the rotor comes to rest in less than a second.

FIGURES 4A to 4C show the deceleration of the rotor when given a push of 300rpm in the counterclockwise direction. As shown, irrespective of the direction of push, the rotor always comes to rest in in less than than a second. The professor said it was like the rotor was in a viscous fluid.

According to the professor, the same thing happened when he used 25 pcs of NdFeB magnets as the rotor magnets. FIGURES 5A to 5C confirm the results. And FIGURES 6 through 7 show the effect of giving the rotor a push  in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions.

Regards,
Simon

==================================


Dear Stefan,

Cogging/detent torque is defined as the tendency of the rotor pole to align with the stator pole at minimum reluctance position. Pages 812 to 813 of the Ansys Maxwell’s manual explain how to use the software to calculate cogging torques. I’ve calculated the cogging torques of the motor when 50, 40, and 25 oblique magnets are used. The attached pictures are the results.


FIGURES 1A shows the result when a steel-1008-ring rotor and a 25-oblique-magnets stator are used.

FIGURE 1B shows the result when a 25-oblique-magnets rotor and a steel-1008-ring stator are used.

FIGURE 2A shows the result when a steel-1008-ring rotor and a 50-oblique-magnets stator are used.

FIGURE 2B shows the results when a 50-oblique-magnets rotor and a steel-1008-ring stator are used.

FIGURE 3A shows the result when a 40-oblique-magnets rotor and a ferrite-ring stator are used.

FIGURE 3B shows the result when a 40-oblique-magnets rotor and a steel-1008-ring stator are used.


FIGURES 1A-1B and 2A-2B show that the cogging torques are acting both in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions, meaning that the torques would resist any attempt of the rotor to spin. This is the reason the rotor behaves as though it were in a viscous fluid.


The graphs also show that the induced magnetic poles in the steel-1008 ring are roughly aligned with the poles of the oblique magnets.

The reason I use the word “roughly” is because of the fact that the graph plots are slightly towards the negative torque-axis. One effect of this rough magnetic locking is the slight difference in deceleration times of the rotor when it is given a push in the clockwise and counterclockwise directions. 


FIGURE 3A-3B show that the cogging torques are unidirectional. The graphs also show that the induced magnetic poles in the steel-1008 ring are not aligned with the magnetic poles of the oblique magnets, i.e. there’s no magnetic locking. Each time the magnetic poles of the oblique magnets attempt to lock on to the induced poles, the induced poles move away in the direction of rotation. As long as there’s no magnetic locking, the oblique magnets will rotate continuously about the axis of rotation.   


The pdf document contains information on the simulation results of the motor when 10,11, 12, 13, ...50 oblique magnets were used as the rotor.


I have the CAD file of the invention for 3D printing. Just in case you find anyone that would be interested in building the prototype.


Regards,

Simon


Be sure to View the 2 PDF Files , as they contain also all pictures !

Here is the latest PDF File from Simon attached.