Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: dieter on February 05, 2017, 10:14:19 PM
-
What I crap, I just typed in like 10 pages of smart text, took me an hour or so, clicked Prewiew, and gone was it! Clicking Back gave me an empty text input, this suchs, Stefan I hope you read this.
So I am really peed of, but still ask,
anybody interested in a coproject, probably a parallel test application?
Seemingly I have after thoughts and measurements found a way to inverse the current flow during induction, with the implication of the Lenz effect being no longer a brake, but a drive.
-
I was trying to talk about this with a PHD in electrotechnics and it turned out these guys can only recite wikipedia formulas without to understand them, really, that is the state of academics these days, and have never built any device in all their lifetime.
So, smartasses stay away from here, I need practical people with real world experience and a profund, personal and complete understanding of induction.
-
Most significant is the observation, that current flows, say, CW when the applied field strength increases, and CCW when it decreases. It usually increases as the distance between magnet and coil decreases, and visa versa. An increasing field strength and the resulting current flow however repells its (normally approaching) source by means of the reactive field, while a decreasing strength of the inducer causes the reactive field to attract the source, to hold it back, prevent it from moving away, brake it.
That is Lenz law 101.
.
-
Now, this implies, logically, that if I had a magnet that is reducing its field strength, the closer it gets to the coil will reduce instead of increase the field strenght on proximation, and likewise increase the field strength while moving away, or in simple terms, it would be attracted when getting closer and pushed away when already moving away.
Or in even simpler terms: it would be accellerated by the "Lenz Effect"
To be discussed is, whether it is possible to build such a Magnet. In fact, I had some success. No selfrunner, but defnitely reversal of the current flow, pne of the fundamental criteria.
Others are: Inducer must lower the total fieldstrenght when getting closer to the coil, but must retain axial polarity orientation and also a minimum of stength to be affected by the reactive Field at all.
-
It would be really nice, if some of you, understanding these underlying principles, would participate in this project, thank you!
-
Hi Dieter, My understanding is very limited, but I find that on my set-up, which puts out AC
that if you input a DC voltage at the point where the AC wave is at zero, this reduces the lenz effect.
Also the input of the DC is used for drive.
My coils are all air core, it might not work with cores.
artv
-
Now, this implies, logically, that if I had a magnet that is reducing its field strength, the closer it gets to the coil will reduce instead of increase the field strenght on proximation, and likewise increase the field strength while moving away, or in simple terms, it would be attracted when getting closer and pushed away when already moving away.
Or in even simpler terms: it would be accellerated by the "Lenz Effect"
To be discussed is, whether it is possible to build such a Magnet. In fact, I had some success. No selfrunner, but defnitely reversal of the current flow, pne of the fundamental criteria.
Others are: Inducer must lower the total fieldstrenght when getting closer to the coil, but must retain axial polarity orientation and also a minimum of stength to be affected by the reactive Field at all.
Hi Deiter, sorry your idea won't work.
You see the action of induction is to oppose change, it is like electromagnetic inertia, and if it opposes change here too as it will, it will tact as a brake.
So the induction from a decrease is strength is irrelevant unless we know polarity decreasing, so the permanent magnet flips the polarity along with flipping the action, as such the induction is what happens of a collapse of the opposite polarity doing the opposite thing, as such we wind up right back where we started as each one flips the induced polarity.
John
-
Shylo, thank you, interesting, but you must choose the right DC polarity then, then of course it will drive the rotor. It is an intetesting, although diffrent concept.
Aether22, thank you, with all the respect, it is obvious to me that you don't understand induction, nor what I was talking about. "Polarity decreasing"?
wtf. Anyone who doesn't understand that induction without a polarity flip of the inductor is perfectly possible, at the cost of lower efficiency per cm3, should not post in this thread, thank you.
-
Dieter, you are incorrect about current reversing during magnetic field collapse. I am saying that based on over 50 years experience in electronics. Here is a link to a thread where we discuss this at length. If you will take the time to read it, it will help you see what is really going on. Since you apparently don't want anyone posting that does not agree with you this will be my only post. I will not get into an argument with you about your mistaken idea.
http://overunity.com/16203/inductive-kickback/
However your idea about changing the magnetic strength of a coil as it approaches and recedes from a magnet may have some interesting effects. I feel that aspect of your idea is worth pursuing.
Respectfully,
Carroll
-
Dieter, you are incorrect about current reversing during magnetic field collapse. I am saying that based on over 50 years experience in electronics. Here is a link to a thread where we discuss this at length. If you will take the time to read it, it will help you see what is really going on. Since you apparently don't want anyone posting that does not agree with you this will be my only post. I will not get into an argument with you about your mistaken idea.
http://overunity.com/16203/inductive-kickback/
However your idea about changing the magnetic strength of a coil as it approaches and recedes from a magnet may have some interesting effects. I feel that aspect of your idea is worth pursuing.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Carroll
I think you are mixed up here.
I do not see any comment by Dieter saying that the current reverses during magnetic field collapse.
What i do see is Dieter saying that the current flow reverses when the magnetic field strength decreases in the inductor-and he is correct.
Inductive kickback,and AC induction are two totally different things,when it comes to current flow.
As a magnet approaches an inductor/ coil,the current will flow in one direction,and when the magnet leaves the inductor/coil,the current will flow in the other direction.
Brad
-
It travels in both directions all the time.
One side is always a little stronger than the other.
I'm trying to to collect the stronger to drive the weaker.
artv
-
Hi Carrol,
"However your idea about changing the magnetic strength of a coil as it approaches and recedes from a magnet may have some interesting effects. I feel that aspect of your idea is worth pursuing."
Try flipping it, to reverse the drag.
artv
-
author=Erfinder link=topic=17116.msg499423#msg499423 date=1486395812]
sure he is....?
Post 2
Most significant is the observation, that current flows, say, CW when the applied field strength increases, and CCW when it decreases.
sure it does....?
Yes,i am sure it dose.
your opinion....right....not a question. I'm thinking the godfather of induction would have a negative opinion of your opinion.
Im sure the godfather would agree with known science,and not have much time for whackadoo crackpot's.
What current......not a question....
The induced current--you know,the very stuff that is powering the computer you are typing on now.
I just new you would show up here EF,and destroy yet another thread with your warped understanding of power.
You are so predictable :D
Brad
-
Most significant is the observation, that current flows, say, CW when the applied field strength increases, and CCW when it decreases. It usually increases as the distance between magnet and coil decreases, and visa versa. An increasing field strength and the resulting current flow however repels its (normally approaching) source by means of the reactive field, while a decreasing strength of the inducer causes the reactive field to attract the source, to hold it back, prevent it from moving away, brake it.
That is Lenz law 101.
Now, this implies, logically, that if I had a magnet that is reducing its field strength, the closer it gets to the coil will reduce instead of increase the field strength on approximation, and likewise increase the field strength while moving away, or in simple terms, it would be attracted when getting closer and pushed away when already moving away.
Ok, maybe I didn't understand your idea.
"Most significant is the observation, that current flows, say, CW when the applied field strength increases, and CCW when it decreases."
Ok, so if the pole of a permanent magnet approaches a coil, then first it will induce a voltage that will try and move the electrons in a CCW direction say such that it repels the magnets approach with the resultant magnetic field in the pickup coil.
And then if the impedance of the pickup coil is not too great, then when you move the magnet and coil apart they will attract which is to say the current in the coil is now CW.
Ok, so far we are on the same page, right? That covers and agrees with everything above your "Lenz Law 101 comment".
"Now, this implies, logically, that if I had a magnet that is reducing its field strength, the closer it gets to the coil will reduce instead of increase the field strength on approximation"
hmmm, I think that sentence has some wrongly used words, but I think you are trying to say this "Therefore, if I had an electromagnet that approaches the pickup coil such that it's field was decreasing such that the pickup coils feels the field getting weaker as it approaches".
Ok, this is different to what I first thought you were saying, and it is an interesting idea.
Ok, so let's try and run this through some steps.
Step 1: Starting state, 2 air core electromagnets (one called the pickup coil) are separated by a distance of say 2cm, neither is energized.
note: Air cores simplify things a lot!
Step 2: One electromagnet passes a current, as it's magnetic field increases it loses electrical energy (a counter voltage is induced) from it's self inductance that would be regained if the field is later collapsed. Meanwhile the other electromagnet was open circuit and did not contribute.
Step 3: The electromagnet that passed the current reach it's maximum current from the applied voltage, at this point the is no more induction.
Step 4: The powered electromagnets field extends to the pickup coil that is 2 cm away, it begins to move closer to the pickup coil, but simultaneously the current through the electromagnet is decreased at a faster rate than the approach, as such there is indeed an induction in the pickup coil and the current flow from it has attracted the coil and given both kinetic energy AND electrical energy into the pickup coil!
So, what we must look at is what happened to the energy invested into the first electromagnet in which we invested electrical energy.
As you will recall the self impedance of that coil means that even if it were a superconductor, we would have had to invest energy to establish the magnetic field.
As such it needs to get that energy back from the collapse.
So now we see that the pickup coil is getting the energy from the collapse! It is collecting the energy instead!
Let's say we have these 2 coils at a fixed distance, we energize one establishing a magnetic field while the other is open circuit, then we decrease the magnetic field in the energized one while we tap the energy from the second inductively coupled coil, did it work? Yes!
Is it Free Energy? No!
Because they can't both tap that same energy and both get the full amount from it!
This same inductive effect is what is happening with your generator, except it isn't a generator as the induction is not created by the approach by transformer effects! You have created something like an automotive ignition coil!
It is NOT a generator as the motion does not induce the energy, actually it opposes the energy induced in the pickup coil!
If the motion was faster and if the collapse was not complete, there the 2 effects would balance out and there would be no energy induced into the pickup coil!
So what have you made?
You have made a transformer+motor!
It won't create energy, or at least not based of conventional electromagnetism!
Free Energy, besides Nuclear, Solar, Thermal etc.. Is all based on Aetheric engineering.
You cannot find a logical loop-hole, it is only yourself you have outsmarted!
-
Haha, Aether, for a sec I thought you were on the right track. You actually were, but then twisted things and finally wove in some es-aetheric power source.
I don't want to explain the obvious, but for once let me elaborate:
I never said the dynamic magnet on the rotor is an Emagnet, but indeed it could be one and you could use a tank cirquit to swap the required energy between cap and coil at very low cost.
I also didn't say Emagnet for the main static, to be dimmed, Magnet field, this would more likely be a huge PM.
All your comparations with sklid state transformers etc. make no sense, since motion, in particular rotation of the Rotor, is an integral Part of the energy lead out and also condition for the induction of this kind. In a transformer you cannot get closer and weaker at the same time. Motion is the further dimension here.
There is also no collapsing field in any way, except the polarity flip in the pickup coil, which is not collapsing per se, no back EMF spike or something.
I explained this a hundred times, and as it is extremly simple and I yet am misunderstood most of the times, I hope you don't mind if I'm getting a little tired of re-explaining. Ok my english is bad, sorry, but it's the same in german.
I suggest, before you explain me further why it cannot work you understand what I was talking again, see also the other thread about Lenzless Generator.
Just this: For the sake of simplicity:
The main, fixed Magnet is a big PM.
The Pickupcoil is shortened.
The Rotor moves between said PM and Coil.
The Rotor consists kn the PM side of a shield that dimms the fieldstrength, seen by the coil.
The Rotor consists on the coil side a small PM that is oriented the same way like the fixed big PM and acts solely as a grip for the coil, but does not significantly alter the dimming by the shield.
[] stator pm
= rotor shield
' rotor pm
# stator coil
That of course is only an experimental setup.
-
I stand by my objection if the magnet is an electromagnet.
Now if it is a magnet that somehow becomes weaker as it approaches, then that is an interesting but problematic effect.
Now I don't follow your description of the motor, it's not clear.
So if the magnet just got weaker, sure it could work, kinda.
But the problem is that magnetic fields tend to get stronger and if you can find a way to have it get weaker closer you will only do that with some weird magnetic field shape, and in that event the forces you experience will not be what you expect.
For instance I know how to make a permanent magnet that gets weaker as you approach it, what you do its take a large magnet and a small magnet, put them in repulsion and attach the small magnet large magnet.
Now from far away the magnetic field of the larger magnet wins, but closer in the field of the smaller magnet begins to weaken the field, closer yet they reach zero and flip, now this is where the smaller magnets field "wins".
So I guess you have a chance of doing this and moving the coil over an area where the main field weakens and reaches zero as it approaches.
I don't think that you will find it to actually work though, though I can't quite work out why yet.
And I don't fully understand your latest description as it needs a picture and a clearer description.
But as for the aether, it's real and it's how free energy really works and your liking of that fact has no impact on the reality.
-
As you said "though I can't quite work out why yet.", so honestly, you're just guessing, probably randomly.
Your idea on how to achive such a dynamic magnet is interesting and one further, interesting approach. In my current setup the main magnetic field comes from a fixed magnet, the rotor only dimms it gradually.
Any method is welcome to achieve this relatively simple task and who knows, maybe a sceptic like you comes up with a working solution. Even tho, atm. I consider myself the most sceptical one of all those who understood the underlying principle of the concept.
And what could I say about Aether? There is so much yet to be explored. Neutrinos with the speed of light, having mass, penetrating eartly matter in incredible quantities, actually all space, where there was "the vacum" before, empty space. Helium, being liquid at 0deg K. "Spooky action at a distance" and quantum particle entanglement. Yes, there is energy from the Aether, what ever that may be. Much more than energy I think. Even time is no more absolute, when you look at the double slit experiment.
But for me, practical application of quantum mechanics ist still a couple of steps ahead on the road, while electromagnetism allows for garage scientists to do simple experiments right away.
kr
-
As you said "though I can't quite work out why yet.", so honestly, you're just guessing, probably randomly.
Your idea on how to achive such a dynamic magnet is interesting and one further, interesting approach. In my current setup the main magnetic field comes from a fixed magnet, the rotor only dimms it gradually.
Any method is welcome to achieve this relatively simple task and who knows, maybe a sceptic like you comes up with a working solution. Even tho, atm. I consider myself the most sceptical one of all those who understood the underlying principle of the concept.
And what could I say about Aether? There is so much yet to be explored. Neutrinos with the speed of light, having mass, penetrating eartly matter in incredible quantities, actually all space, where there was "the vacum" before, empty space. Helium, being liquid at 0deg K. "Spooky action at a distance" and quantum particle entanglement. Yes, there is energy from the Aether, what ever that may be. Much more than energy I think. Even time is no more absolute, when you look at the double slit experiment.
But for me, practical application of quantum mechanics ist still a couple of steps ahead on the road, while electromagnetism allows for garage scientists to do simple experiments right away.
kr
I can understand that the aether might seem out of reach and mysterious to you.
I can feel aetheric energies (whatever they are) and I have found most people can, I know this might seem very foreign, but I am without any doubt that the well known historical free energy devices (Tesla, Stubblefield, Hendershot, Hubbard, Moray etc...) work this way, they felt these energies and many reported such.
I got to this by first studying all the claims and looking for correlations, what I saw was not the correlations I wanted to see, but the correlation that these devices and others operated as if they were more than the sum of their parts. Putting things in a circle increased the energy, there were signs of an energy, a something moving through space.
It too be 17 years before I made a coil that I could feel plainly emit an energy, I tried other and they could too. Thinking it sounded like Chi or Orgone which people also feel as similar sensations (heat, tingle) I tried it on people with complaints and I got amazing results.
I am yet to experiment with this in active circuits as I found I could learn more focusing on just the aether, and that could be done with just wire, and as I learnt later (yes this sounds impossible and crazy) even images!
I have learnt a lot about the aether in the years since and it explains ore of the free energy and antigravity devices that have credible evidence behind their claims.
Alas I didn't initially have fondness for the aether, and neither do most scientifically minded people. In much the same way most are close to Free Energy. But it is real, I have had proof it is real and I believe that by understanding the missing component in real Free Energy technology, actual results will be relatively easy!
I do not believe that I have seen any working Free Energy device that is of the "Gotcha, Loophole" type, they all seem to just inexplicably work while simultaneously having aetheric principles embedded throughout.
One of the signs that these devices work with the aether is that they usually have multiple anomalies besides the anomalous rise of energy.
They have thermal anomalies (odd hot/cold), they loose weight, non shocking electricity, illuminate lights wrong, arc at low voltages, operate strangely in devices, cause magnetization of generally non-magnetic materials. etc...
If you do a proper study of these devices and the associated anomalies you will quickly see that these are not just Free Energy devices, they are "Laws of physics get fucked here" devices.
I was once willing to show people the correlations, the evidence etc...
But now I say, research that on your own, but if you try what I say there is a better than 50% chance you will feel this energy!
Maybe as good as 70% to 90%!
Some even feel the graphics, do you want to try a graphic? Or a coil it takes a minute to make?
John
-
It doesn't sound too crazy to me, in fact interesting, but it definitely also sounds off topic :)
kr
-
It doesn't sound too crazy to me, in fact interesting, but it definitely also sounds off topic :)
kr
Off topic to this thread I agree. But if you are willing to try, either mosey on to my thread "Is anyone seriously interested in the physics of Free Energy?" or message me or email me berry.john22 at gmail.com
See if you are sensitive to the energy. If you are you might be interested in understanding the energy, experimenting with the energy, understanding how it is developed in different Free energy designs.
-
I probably will, the sooner or later.
For all rhose interested in the Topic, I agree, my presentation was a bit vague, so I made a graphic, that may or may not shed a light on this particular concept:
-
Note: I think I just realized that the shield must be downward concave, in order to maintain the desired polarity. Even tho I don't want to increase the total gap, if it helps to achieve any net gain, who cares.
-
Note: a further criterium for the shield is: attraction between coil and rotor PM must be bigger than repulsion between coil and parts of the shield that are of undesired polarity at certain moments during the cycle.
-
Here is an illustration of undesired polarity of the shield. I consider this the most significant if not thw only challenge.
-
Ok after testing and thinking further, I'm more or less guessing that for the rotor a weak, thin disc shaped magnet is better, probably ceramics, alnico or ferrite. By covering the entire shield, this maaaay work right out of the box.
Updated graphics, notice new rotor variation:
-
About Coghing
(is that written correctly?)
Coghing is a huge issue in any magnet rotation device, it would deserve its own forum section.
Coghing means, you will have friction in all directions, unlike in ballbearings for nonmagnetic devices. The losses are frequently underestimated and it may be a good idea to build a magnet bearing that uses sensors and EMagnets to precisely position the axis at the supposed center while floating freely in air.
However, for the particular design that is subject of this thread, coghing may at least partially be removed by using an unlike number of rotor elements vs stator elements. That doesn't nullify friction, but can reduce in greatly.
kr
-
Oh btw. first I called it "field strength", later "flux density", both is from the point of view of the coil effectively the same, at least in my terminology.
-
Ok, I see nobody of the few who understood this concept idea, like eg. Brad, is willing or able to explain why this probably could not work, leave alone to jump on the waggon and do some tests by their own.
I tried to replicate dozens of designs by others, many of them even lacking any theory, and they all failed. Collections of concepts in 1000pg+ pdfs, nothing but utter bullshit, and compared to them, from an objective point of view, this concept here is the most logical,elegant and plausible that I have ever seen. People try to replicate "designs" like Thestatika, Sweet, Hendersot, Johnson etc. with no theory or even plan, only based on trust on a report about a working model, and that in a world full of lies.
So for now I will go on and see for myself. Anyone interested please PN me, so I'll be notified.
I have btw. also suggested to Stefan that he might mod the forum in such a way that thread starters can delete spamish postings in their thread to seperate the real discussions from barely disguised troll posts that make 80% of all postings, and once this works, I am positive that the number of serious and real users will rise again. Please backup my request to Stefan.
Yeah, maybe the title I chose for this thread isn't ideal, I probably should have added some catchy stuff like "Tesla appeared to me in a dream, new plan!" Or "Alien technology, sent to me from Alpha Centauri Population, proof!" (one must be pro to come up with the incredible bs as seen here, flooding the forum). However.
Over and out.
kr
-
I bump this thread with some interesting vids from time to time, hope you don't mind. These are not meant to change the subject, please.
Althouth diffrent, interesting: Ray's BEMF free genetator:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3TFALmHtMw
-
@deiter
Couple of things....
First, the 'other topics' you listed, were in fact discussed
In great detail, accompanying many of the replications.
You may have to dig through some "bullshit" to find it.
The bullshit comes with the true knowledge. We cannot separate
the two. For having them both is what makes this forum
what it is.
One mans bullshit is another mans treasure.
You personally may disagree with someone else's opinion or
perspective on a particular matter. That does not inherently make
that person incorrect.
Even when it comes to commonly accepted scientific theories and
what we think we know about what we know. We can always expand
our knowledge and understanding, today's theory is the foundation for
tomorrow's laws. But a more complete theory can always take its place.
Euclid did not agree with Pythagoras. This did not make either one of them
incorrect. In fact but discussion of what Euclid disagreed with led to the
expansion of the human understanding of geometry.
Such takes place in the pages of this forum.
Collectively we all gain from it.
To help lead knowledge, science, and technology in a new direction
for the future of mankind.
-
And how exactly is that supposed to bring this project any step further? It just makes the thread harder and longer to read, just like most other postings, in fact not only in this thread, but in every one.
Certainly, many people are afraid of a bullshit button cause all they produce is bullshit and they may feel perfectly comfie, sitting in a sea of bullshit.
However, despite all spam-defending preaching, I don't.
-
I am having problems finding the right magnets on ebay, maybe somebody can give me a little hint here.
What I need is a very thin, very big magnet with a proper polarization, see the graphic here: http://overunity.com/17116/searching-for-buddy-in-promising-magnet-motor-project/msg499525/#msg499525
I would prefer something like 50 * 50 * 0.5 mm, block or disc shape. That doesn't seem to exist, best I've seen was 32*1 disc.
I may try instead smaller block magnets like 7*7*0.5mm, and then force and glue them in position, side by side, but even that I could not find. There are thin disc shaped ones, but I need rectangular ones in such an assembly.
A further qudstion is: there are flexible magnet foils, they would be an option, but I am not certain whether they have any proper polarity at all, but I tend to think they' made out of randomly polarised particles, just sticking on iron anyway.
Also, the magnet I need may be thicker if the stength is lower, as long as they are properly polarized. Also, as my assets are parked offshore (read extremly limited) I would prefer something cheap, from china most likely.
Thanks for your help.
-
Just sharing some thougths and progress info.
Like I said, can't find the magnets, and even if I find something worth trying, standard delivery will take 2-6 weeks.
So I made a test: crushed some of a ceramic magnet, put a piece of paper on a MO magnet, put the little magnet pieces on it, on an area of like 1/3 inch2. They nicely alignet to the field. Put some glue on it, done. This can be done repeatedly with layers.
Crushing the magnet should maybe not be done with too strong shockwaves. Pieces from 0.1 to 0.5mm seem fine.
Sorry if I ask again, did anybody actually understand the principle of the device described earlier in this thread?
-
So... I take it, eighter you guys know something that I don't know, or I know something that all of you don't understand.
If the latter is the case, let me say that I would guess an IQ of 80 (that of a gifted gorilla) is enough to understand it, IF you really understand the Lenz law and the secondary field in induction.
-
I realize the only monkey here is me, because I am talking to myself in public.
Maybe the problem of this forum is, that people (other than notorious naysayers) read only their own threads.
However, it sucks. I don't see anything coming back here.
-
I was trying to talk about this with a PHD in electrotechnics and it turned out these guys can only recite wikipedia formulas without to understand them, really, that is the state of academics these days, and have never built any device in all their lifetime.
So, smartasses stay away from here, I need practical people with real world experience and a profund, personal and complete understanding of induction.
Induction should absolutely be comprehensible. I haven't read the whole thread yet - my fingers just pressed "Quote" and I did start to type this :-))
Vidar
-
@dieter
My experiences are some times similar.
In my toipcs, some times, it seems I am talking to an empty
room.
One never knows when or if, some one else will come along
who has.... both the time and intrest to come back with something
relevant.
On accasions, I have simply posted my results / next steps, ideas...
so on and nothing happens at al .... or..... not for a while.
Some times this is because the topic is usless....
Some times its because of who knows ? maybe just the timeing ?
So don't worry about it..
Many times I don't comment on other peoples topics ... because I'm not qualified
to do so....It's over my head.
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
Some times people are NOT understanding a subject... but they think they are / are quite
certain that they do understand it.
and so
they raise passionate and often well founded objections to that subject (which they are
certain they have understood... but which infact they have no understanding at all)
(at least in the context in which the topics founder is presenting his information).
While at the same time.... their objection, based upon correct understanding, is very accurate
if looked at from THEIR context.
It can be very difficult to get some one to see a subtle difference in context...
especially if that person has a lot of knowledge in a particular area of science.
People. typically / eventually....come to a place where they think they have seen it all.....
and their projections of some point of view, upon a subject is then very difficult for
them to change it.
They may not see that.....
what is very true / always has been true... under all conditions they have ever observed....
are simple not what is being looked at / discussed.
case in point
one definition of work and then .... physic's definition of work.
........................................................
.............................................................................
If an electric current is flowing.... the electric potential is changing.
The potentuial may be MAINTAINED as constant at some SPECIFIC
measurement point (ie. a regulateing power supply)...
but down the line ... and at both ends of that current flow...
there is a potential change.... or at least convention so holds it.
An electric potential changes.... and / or.... is created, due to a current flow......
or
An electric potential changes and / or is created, due to the magnetic
component of the electric/magnetic...... the electric/magnetic always..... co exist
are aspects of a same phenominon.
These are basics... which I am sure you are allready fully aware of.
But its where I would focus if I were the one doing your / this exploration.
It's not that the basics are invalid... I think rather that...it is the assumptions
which are / have been made about those basics .....
and
what those basics SEEM to imply..... but perhaps do not.... that we might examine.
.............................................
Dia magnetizm is very weak, not perhaps useful in a motor / shield ?
Your crushed magnet approch gives you layers in which plane ?
What polarity orientations in the layers, do you intend ?
regards
floor
-
@Deiter
To be honest, after the first standard obscurities, when you
Began to vaguely describe your idea...
You lost me.
I have no idea in what context you mean to say "increasing magnetic field"
Because you associate this also with "approachig field" concepts.
To me these are two separate mechanisms of magnetic fields.
Strength, being a matter of density, separate from field dimensions
Together, size and strength of the field give its characteristics of field gradient.
Electromagnetic fields are different, in that they have the electric vector and
associated time constant.
In a permanent magnet, the electric vector is 90-degrees to that of induction,
and manifests itself as a purely magnetic effect on the large scale.
Thus there is no "time".
I tried to follow you through your rants about other people's inability to
Understand what you are talking about, and then again you lost me
When you described an unobtainable magnet size.
Now I'm in America
And it seemed to me that you want a magnet
That is 2inches in diameter , and 0.2 inches thick???
That would likely break itself in any conceivable use platform.
Is there no way for you to use something thicker?
If not, my suggestion would be to sacrifice "field strength"
For the ability to obtain a smaller physical size magnet.
Something like ironferrite or Sumeriam-cobalt
These could be safely cut that thin and hold up against
Minor abuse.
There are also magnetic tape, and sheets of thin stuff
You can cut.
These are mostly soft-rubber magnets with some %ferrite
and are weaker than ceramics of similar dimension.
Ceramicferrite magnets may work for whatever you are trying
To do, just use caution when breaking or cutting them.
You can scratch a groove in a ceramic and get them to
Break along fairly straight lines.
As far as "back emf" is concerned:
Here is only one Authority whom understands the process
Of back emf, and how to eliminate or avoid it.
His name is Jim Murray
This is just a you tube video, short and to the point
But I recommend viewing a few of his lectures.
https://youtu.be/HK3JOlY0V8Y (https://youtu.be/HK3JOlY0V8Y)
This is the foremost expert in the field of back-emf research
And the only man on earth to successfully demonstrate how to
Avoid back emf in three formats: magnetic-mechanical, electric,
And with solid-state electronics.
He is also an expert in recycling electricity through circuits,
Using feedback loops and switches to return current through a
Circuit, from whence it came.
Thus double, triple using it, or more until it is all "really used".
Yes- he figured out that we don't use most of our electricity
We just pass it through the circuit and let it go.
He knows how to catch it and bring it back.
-
Wouldn't just placing a strong neo at one end of a 6 inch long, 32nd of an inch,
piece of laminate steel ,give you your, strong, thin, magnet ,at the opposite end?
artv
-
Thanks for all your responses, I may respond to few points later.
Here are some FEMM screens with explanations.
Here's a test arrangement. Top Magnet is eg. strong Neo, Bottom coil is passive atm. Everything between these two is the Rotor.
-
Next the minimum and maximum of magnetic field strength you can achieve with this shield inside the coil:
-
Next thing ist most important: while the shield is approaching, no fieldlines that go in and out of its bottom say should ever show their butt to the coil!
Butt is the backside of the arrows, btw. We want any field that is between the shield(=rotor) and the coil to be straight from top down to bottom as much as possible, at any moment. The reason why is, we don't want any repulsion, only a variation of attraction.
-
So, basicly, from the coils point of view, the rotor is just a PM. But because it also shields the big, stator magnet, it will reduce the total field strength when you move it closer. Yet, it's still a magnet. Lenz kicks in, "thinking" the rotor is moving away (due to decreasing fieldstrength) and therefor Lenz does what? Yes, attract the presumably escaping rotor, while in reality the rotor is getting closer.
I think this is what people don't get. Lenz drag becomes Lenz accelleration, if you simply make the field decreasing while the rotor gets closer.
Yeah, that's all very nice, but there are certain factors that clearly indicate a narrow bandwith, in which this inverting trick can be used at all.
First of all, if we drop the magnetic fieldstrength, we cause current flow in the coil, and it will be of like magnetic polarity, like the main magnet etc. remember that! As one can imagine the coils secondary magnetic field adds to the primary field, and this reduces practically the fieldstrength drop we need to get current flow... the snake bites its tail.
However, there may be a narrow band in which the accelleration has it's peak, that could be half of the magnetic potential between shielded and unshielded.
To simulate this, I have replaced the coil by a weak ceramic magnet. It's static magnetic field symbolizes the current we may extract. Notice that we still have a variation in field strength. This may very well be the narrow regime in which the Reversal of the Lorentz force is possible.
-
Wouldn't just placing a strong neo at one end of a 6 inch long, 32nd of an inch,
piece of laminate steel ,give you your, strong, thin, magnet ,at the opposite end?
artv
Thanks, but I'm afraid not. Iron typically and excessively adopts the magnetic polarity based on its own shape. Only oversaturated iron ignores the shape. So if you stick a magnet to a nail or sheet, the poles will be at the two ends, which is what I use in the flield shaping part, but I have to hide this shaped field behind PM, see also recent pics.
-
[/font]@DeiterTo be honest, after the first standard obscurities, when you Began to vaguely describe your idea...You lost me.I have no idea in what context you mean to say "increasing magnetic field"Because you associate this also with "approachig field" concepts.To me these are two separate mechanisms of magnetic fields.Strength, being a matter of density, separate from field dimensions Together, size and strength of the field give its characteristics of field gradient.Electromagnetic fields are different, in that they have the electric vector andassociated time constant.In a permanent magnet, the electric vector is 90-degrees to that of induction,and manifests itself as a purely magnetic effect on the large scale.Thus there is no "time".I tried to follow you through your rants about other people's inability toUnderstand what you are talking about, and then again you lost meWhen you described an unobtainable magnet size.Now I'm in America And it seemed to me that you want a magnet That is 2inches in diameter , and 0.2 inches thick???That would likely break itself in any conceivable use platform.Is there no way for you to use something thicker?If not, my suggestion would be to sacrifice "field strength"For the ability to obtain a smaller physical size magnet.Something like ironferrite or Sumeriam-cobaltThese could be safely cut that thin and hold up against Minor abuse.There are also magnetic tape, and sheets of thin stuffYou can cut.These are mostly soft-rubber magnets with some %ferriteand are weaker than ceramics of similar dimension.Ceramicferrite magnets may work for whatever you are trying To do, just use caution when breaking or cutting them.You can scratch a groove in a ceramic and get them toBreak along fairly straight lines.As far as "back emf" is concerned:Here is only one Authority whom understands the process Of back emf, and how to eliminate or avoid it.His name is Jim MurrayThis is just a you tube video, short and to the pointBut I recommend viewing a few of his lectures.https://youtu.be/HK3JOlY0V8Y (https://youtu.be/HK3JOlY0V8Y)This is the foremost expert in the field of back-emf researchAnd the only man on earth to successfully demonstrate how toAvoid back emf in three formats: magnetic-mechanical, electric,And with solid-state electronics.He is also an expert in recycling electricity through circuits,Using feedback loops and switches to return current through aCircuit, from whence it came.Thus double, triple using it, or more until it is all "really used".Yes- he figured out that we don't use most of our electricity We just pass it through the circuit and let it go.He knows how to catch it and bring it back.
[/font]
@Smoky,
thanks a lot for your suggestions. Did I really say "increasing magnetic field"? Not rather "Increasing magnetic fieldstrength"?
Well you guys think way to much. You assume this is some super complicated, abstract stuff, while I am actually just speaking of a permanent magnet, that is moving towards a coil. No surprise the magnetic field, at the location of the coil, is getting stronger. This is simple stuff, don't overcomplicate it ^^
Anyway, thanks.
-
@ Floor
It's not that the basics are invalid... I think rather that...it is the assumptions
That is precisely what I think about the Lenz Law.
Basicly it says, when you induce a current, you'll get not only the current for your magnet motion, but as a bonus also the reactive, secondary field, for free. Unfortunately tho, Lenz continues, this free bonus energy will always be directed against the primary, inducing field.
It is unscientific to say that. He could have said "We haven't found a way around it yet".
It's all about Prestige... eg. what sounds better, Floors Observations or Floors Law?
-
@ All, in case you missed it, please see new FEMM screenshots with explanation on Page 3, thanks.
-
When you stick iron to a magnet, in any form, shield or not
You redirect some of the field into and through the metal.
A real simple test to show if your motor will work as conceptualised
Would be to place a magnet in front of a coil and without moving the
Magnet - stick of iron around the magnet to "decrease" the field from
the coils perspective.
And see if any induction occurs.
-
When you stick iron to a magnet, in any form, shield or not
You redirect some of the field into and through the metal.
A real simple test to show if your motor will work as conceptualised
Would be to place a magnet in front of a coil and without moving the
Magnet - stick of iron around the magnet to "decrease" the field from
the coils perspective.
And see if any induction occurs.
That is exactly how electric guitar pickups work. There are magnetized iron rods close to each string. As the magnetic strings viberates, a signal is induced in the coil around the rods, and sends this signal to an amplifier.
Vidar
-
@ Floor
That is precisely what I think about the Lenz Law.
Basicly it says, when you induce a current, you'll get not only the current for your magnet motion, but as a bonus also the reactive, secondary field, for free. Unfortunately tho, Lenz continues, this free bonus energy will always be directed against the primary, inducing field.
It is unscientific to say that. He could have said "We haven't found a way around it yet".
It's all about Prestige... eg. what sounds better, Floors Observations or Floors Law?
We haven't found a way around yet. That's true. However, I think that peopole stopped looking for it because the evedence is so obvious. Maybe they think "Why try to deny something that nature has already proven a godzillion times". It's basicly not worth it - my opinion.
Cause and effect is still valid untill someone cause something that doesn't have any effect. Or find the effect that did not have any known cause - like the Big Bang. Yes "known cause" - we just know there was a cause, but not what cause.
Vidar
-
@ Smoky
When you stick iron to a magnet, in any form, shield or not
You redirect some of the field into and through the metal.
That is because of it's high permeability. Trying to connect to the other pole, the magnet is searching for that other pole all the way trough the iron. It will prefer to follow the iron over air, even if that brings it further away from that other pole, but especially when it brings it closer.
fA real simple test to show if your motor will work as conceptualisedWould be to place a magnet in front of a coil and without moving the
Magnet - stick of iron around the magnet to "decrease" the field from
the coils perspective.
And see if any induction occurs.
Yes, it does. Actually, this was the first thing I noticed, which started the whole thing.
Whether you increase or reduce the magnetic strength at the location of the coil, both induces current and the coil doesn't care how you do that, by approaching a permanent magnet, or by shielding a fixed magnet.
You should really watch my FEMM simulation pics and read the corresponding explanations on Page 3 of this thread, because you are asking questions already answered, more than once :) But I get used to it ^^
-
@ Vidar
We haven't found a way around yet. That's true. However, I think that peopole stopped looking for it because the evedence is so obvious. Maybe they think "Why try to deny something that nature has already proven a godzillion times". It's basicly not worth it - my opinion.
Cause and effect is still valid untill someone cause something that doesn't have any effect. Or find the effect that did not have any known cause - like the Big Bang. Yes "known cause" - we just know there was a cause, but not what cause.
Well, godzillion doesn't seem to be a quantum in a scientific sense. Besides, nature doesn't do a lot of observable induction tests. However, an observation is no evidence.
I am now studying free energy concepts for like 20 years and what really puzzled me is the fact, that I never saw this particular concept in any plan. Not in Kelly's 1000 pg free energy plans collection and not in any other design, except maybe in 2 or 3 concepts that have claimed OU, which I mentioned in my 2016 paper or pdf on Reverse Lorentz Force, in the files section.
Additionally I realized that not only most hobbyists around here haven't yet understood the fundamental principles of induction, but also every Pro (eg. Masters degree in Electrotechnics) I ever tried to explain this particular concept. This led me to the conclusion that Science has become "Hear-say", a parrots field of expertise, rather than doing tests, observations by your own, leave alone to question or challenge any of the law-labeled observations.
Cause and effect, that's true, and I agree with anybody, saying we need energy to do work. But if there is any fluctuation in the forces we experience, we can easily attach a wheelwork to it. Just like in the cirquit of water on this planet, a heat cycle, driven by the energy of the universe with all it's motion and heat.
Please watch, think about and maybe comment my FEMM screenshots on Page 3 of this thread, thanks!
-
Yes, I've watched it. When you say "Yes, attract the presumably escaping rotor, while in reality the rotor is getting closer.", then there must be the opposite when the rotor physically escapes. It is attracted on its way out too, so I assume that the forces (Actually torque, since this is a rotary system) involved in one complete cycle, is zero.
Still, you have some interesting thoughts, but I'm not 100% confident if this is going to work as intended.
There are many adopted opinions out there, you're right about that. Primarily people that does not do physical experiments, or have personal experience, but only listen to others what they have to say. I do a lot of physical experiments myself, but I must be relatively sure that the initial theory is worth putting into practice. However, sometimes the experiment does not fit the theory, and the theory must therefor be rejected. Practical experiments always win :-)
"But if there is any fluctuation in the forces we experience, we can easily attach a wheelwork to it"
Well, to be honest, I think that any fluctuations in the force field that might cause wheelwork for free, is an illusion. Because, if it was true, you have experienced a system that is actually picking up energy that initially did not had any cause. As far as I know from all my experiments, I have experienced that it's not possible.
The only way to prove or disprove an idea, is to leave the drawing board and start building.
Best of luck.
Vidar
@ Vidar
Well, godzillion doesn't seem to be a quantum in a scientific sense. Besides, nature doesn't do a lot of observable induction tests. However, an observation is no evidence.
I am now studying free energy concepts for like 20 years and what really puzzled me is the fact, that I never saw this particular concept in any plan. Not in Kelly's 1000 pg free energy plans collection and not in any other design, except maybe in 2 or 3 concepts that have claimed OU, which I mentioned in my 2016 paper or pdf on Reverse Lorentz Force, in the files section.
Additionally I realized that not only most hobbyists around here haven't yet understood the fundamental principles of induction, but also every Pro (eg. Masters degree in Electrotechnics) I ever tried to explain this particular concept. This led me to the conclusion that Science has become "Hear-say", a parrots field of expertise, rather than doing tests, observations by your own, leave alone to question or challenge any of the law-labeled observations.
Cause and effect, that's true, and I agree with anybody, saying we need energy to do work. But if there is any fluctuation in the forces we experience, we can easily attach a wheelwork to it. Just like in the cirquit of water on this planet, a heat cycle, driven by the energy of the universe with all it's motion and heat.
Please watch, think about and maybe comment my FEMM screenshots on Page 3 of this thread, thanks!
-
@ Vidar,
quote:
....[size=78%], then there must be the opposite when the rotor physically escapes. It is attracted on its way out too, so I assume that the forces (Actually torque, since this is a rotary system) involved in one complete cycle, is zero.[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]Well, here you're wrong. See, if the shield has passed by, the coils polarity flips and therefor repellse the shield, that is a pm to the coil side.[/size]
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]quote:[/size]
I think that any fluctuations in the force field that might cause wheelwork for free, is an illusion.
Again :) wrong and easily proofable: if I had a magnet that turns on and off, I had a motor, would you agree? Any fluctuation, such as on-off, could drive a motor. Of course there is no fluctuation in a PM. But if there was one.
quote:
The only way to prove or disprove an idea, is to leave the drawing board and start building.[/size]
[/size]
I' doing both simultanously anyway.[/size]
[/size]
Thanks for your opinion, btw.[/size]
-
Man this forum has some issues with my Browser. I can't even go back and edit the posting, so, sorry for the tags mess.
-
Man this forum has some issues with my Browser. I can't even go back and edit the posting, so, sorry for the tags mess.
Try Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome. For some reason I do not have the same problem with these browsers.
I run Windows 7 at work, and Windows 10 at home. No problem, but yes, sometimes the browser really mess up. The text format might also be an issue.
Pressing the little button above the text field "A↳a" after selecting all the text, might help.
-
Thanks for clearing up :-)
@ Vidar,
quote:
...., then there must be the opposite when the rotor physically escapes. It is attracted on its way out too, so I assume that the forces (Actually torque, since this is a rotary system) involved in one complete cycle, is zero.
Well, here you're wrong. See, if the shield has passed by, the coils polarity flips and therefor repellse the shield, that is a pm to the coil side.
quote:
I think that any fluctuations in the force field that might cause wheelwork for free, is an illusion.
Again :) wrong and easily proofable: if I had a magnet that turns on and off, I had a motor, would you agree? Any fluctuation, such as on-off, could drive a motor. Of course there is no fluctuation in a PM. But if there was one.
quote:
The only way to prove or disprove an idea, is to leave the drawing board and start building.
I' doing both simultanously anyway.
Thanks for your opinion, btw.
-
This whole, tempting idea (whether I'm the only one who gets it or not) does not let me go.
Again I went trough simulations. In this current, early attempt I achieve a fieldstrength drop of about 33%, or from 100% to 67%. Using a relatively thin iron core helps a lot to "beam over" almost the entire fieldstrength of the PM, despite the large airgap. By making the shield even broader this was further optimized, so currently I have about 0.6 Tesla in the iron core of the coil when shielded, and about 1 Tesla when unshielded.
Let us think trough this again: If we have our low-R coil without a load, it will be passive. Now if we let just a little bit of current flow, then the reactive field is not capable of fully stop (or compensate) the fieldstrength drop. This means as long as a fieldstrength drop (and rise, of course) is maintained, the flowing current is for free and there is also some torque added.
I must confess, it's getting a bit confusing with the recursive counterfx, but it seems logical to me, that you CAN have a limited amount of current flow in the coil while maintaining the desired inverted fieldstrength fluctuation.
Therefor this is my claim: Violation of the law of conservation of energy.
Unless there is energy in a PM, which by accepted belief is not.
Please don't hesitate to ask me if there is something unclear.
FEMM shots, using an iron core, or supermalloy.
-
@dieter
Is it possible for you to post the FEMM file you're using? Zip it first maybe.
Vidar
-
Hi Vidar,
thanks for your interest. I'll upload the. fem, maybe later, but it really isn't a big deal to do it from scratch. See also my femm mini tutorial thread.
Meanwhile read my latest pdf in the download section. Efficiency in fieldstrength drop was greatly improved from previously 1.0 vs 0.7 Tesla to 1.8 vs 0.6 Tesla, using closed fluxpath switching.
-
Hi Dieter:
Not sure these are the type of magnets you want but are close to the size and multiple thickness up to .25
KJ Magnetics has them and sizes and price follow:
BY0Y01 2.00 X 2.00 X .0625 $ 9.36
BY0Y02 2.00 X 2.00 X .1250 $15.41
BY0Y04 2.00 X 2.00 X .2500 $2747
These are magnetized through the thickness or the faces
Hope that might help you out. They are real prompt in mailing out the orders as I have used them in the past.
thay
-
Thaelin, thanks a lot. See my latest design in the pdf, attached above, which does not require very thin magnets anymore, but common sizes will do.
Still, thanks.
kr
-
I never build anything, so I don't know how valid my comments are
when the stator and the rotor align :
- the 'Rotor-iron C-core' , which is to divert the magnetic-flux-path of the 'Stator-magnet' that moves into it, that 'could be the main part where the motor would get stuck,
- Although, I assume it does not divert all of the magnetic-flux-path
- maybe instead of the 'Rotor-iron C-core', you could affect the 'Stator-magnet' with diamagnetics, or, whatever other ways
I have always wondered what are the pulse-motors that are continually mentioned on this site, and other similar sites , I wonder if this motor is what they mean by pulse-motor
However, I now get the impression that magnet-motors( if any work, I never built my magnet-motor-3.5, or any at all ) are only worthwhile as impressive novelties, they have no practical potential / application, since any magnets will wear out
I was thinking of maybe starting my own thread, just to type my own vague version of your idea( or is this what they mean by pulse-motors ),
-
Hi Guest, thanks for your interest. Basicly, the C-core of the rotor, that temporarily steals the flux of the stator, is ferromagneticly attracted. This causes high friction losses, but does not consume energy magneticly, because basicly attraction is the same on both sides.
Furthermore the significant, special feature here is a naturally high fieldstrength in the coil/magnet stator, that is lowered by the rotor, hence the term negative induction. This very reversal of induction principle opens up a whole bunch of exploitable opportunities to overcome the flaws of conventional designs.
Well, it's really simple, a C-Core, couple of magnets, iron bars, a coil.
A pulse motor is something very diffrent, usually refers to a Motor that has electromagnets (coils) that get short DC pulses from a Transistor or other timing device, often they use rather the collapsing field than the pulse itself, to gain efficiency. Like eg. Bedini SSG.
I would be thankful if you do not start a new thread, based on my design unless you really understand it and you can offer an optimation. Mind you I am working for years on this. It would hurt to see it screwed in such a way. Its currwnt ignorance hurts already, but knowing there are some people, just reading, makes it worth at all.
To understand this concept requires not much.
Magnetism and Induction. There is even the "I still don't get it" section, I hope you didn't skip that? ^^
Once you or anybody understands this design, I can guarranty it will make you understand pretty much all magnet motors, and if or why they may work or not.
-
yes, your explanation of how the 'Rotor-iron C-core' will not cause the rotor to stay stuck to the stator seems logical, as best as I can visualize it
the design in the thread I'm about to post, is not related to your design
( your design reminded me of the term pulse-motors, I have been wanting to post ideas about pulse-motors in general )
Prior to your explanation of what are commonly referred to as pulse-motors, something I know very little about( and, the usage of the collapsing-field ), I loosely( without thinking ) thought that if I post any pulse-motor like design, that it could relate to your design
If you ever observe any similarities( I could never design anything even nearly similar to your design ) you, or anyone could let me know, and my post could be deleted, or my thread closed
Most of my threads usually only last 1 day
( I only post designs/ideas on my own threads, due to the possibility of post-deletion on this site, which is available on some threads )
yes, the "I still don't get it" section, also helped
-
Thanks again.
Here's an important update:
A flaw surfaced in the last design suggestion.
Let me try to explain: While indeed the C-core on the rotor steals the flux from the stators PM-Coil fluxpath and does force the fieldstrength drop in the coil core, this current flow and its field practically increases and decreases the permeability of the core, resulting in an increased petmeability while approaching and a decreased permeability while moving away. So the flux will stick longer to the stator while the rotor is approaching (and that means it will less azteact the C-core/Rotor), and when moving away the flux will also remain longer on the Rotors C-Core, because the coil core, due to increasing field strength, has a flux-blocking tendency.
So it's a brake, Lenz, out of his grave, still a very difficult person he is ^^
However, I have already a particular solution to this undesired sideeffect. That being said, it's becomeing increasingly difficult to simulate these inteactive and dynamic processes in Femm.
Bottom line, if Inventors would have given up because of frequent failure, we would still be useing torches to light up our caves.
-
That simply is called the thrill of the chase.
-
Yeah, featuring Burt Reynolds as John Bedini etc. ^^
What seems to be the solution to the problem described above, are two PMs on the rotor, above and below the stators coil core, polarized as a "3way crossroad" that acts due to the dynamic permeability of the core as some kind of magnetic transistor.
So the dropping fieldstrength in the core does no longer lower the attraction of the stator, because the flux will pass trough these two PMs of the rotor. That way the rotor is attracted additionally.
-
...
I have tested conditions with decreasing fieldstrength (rotor comes closer) and carefully added up all involved attraction strengths. I did the same with increasing fieldstrength (rotor moves away). I achieved a slight gain of like 15% in that attraction during approaching is higher than during departure. This is without useing the current flow.
But Femm really makes it tricky. Results differ, depending on coil core features. According to Femm I should best use a ceramic 5 PM as / instead of the coils iron core... weird but maybe worth trying.
-
Are you using scripts which positions the moving magnet automatically with for example 1mm increments and measure forces for each step?
Vidar
-
Nobody ever succeed with magnet motor.
For I track down all researcher nobody succeed, ever. Smoky I don't think you surpass those hundreds I saw over the years, they all seem to fade away.
The PHD is right...
Pulse? Nah, it's fraud, it's all made up by bedini. Lindemann.
Frauds. Nothing there, no Kilowatts behind the mystique.
There is only Friedrich luling and lutec Wich appear to be real... Appear to be.
Get yourself a cad systrn
-
Vidar, no, no scripts. I just simulated various stages of the cycle, and also simulated the reactive fields by using relatively weak PMs instead of iron core for the coil core, to see the LIKE superimposition on approaching and the OPPOSITE superimposition on departire of the rotor.
However, there is the flaw mentioned above. I need some time to come up with a proper solution, gotta give it a break.
Meanwhile a paradoxon has gotten my attention, on how to extract energy from PMs in a even simpler way, see download section if interested.
-
Little update, see also my files section for a new pdf.
I fell back to an older design, that doesn't seem to have the Lenz law problem of the recent versions. In fact it's a simpler and more elegant design.
The rotor consists of a flux guide that reduces the fieldstrength that reaches the coil core, but yet becomes an atteactive magnet when approaching, and a repelling magnet when departing.