Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: tishatang on June 01, 2006, 09:14:15 AM

Title: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: tishatang on June 01, 2006, 09:14:15 AM
Hi all,

I really like this forum.  If my idea for a permanent magnet motor is to be realized, it will be here as a collective effort.  Also, if my logic is faulty, it will be revealed before energy is spent building a prototype.  I will have to describe my process of thinking step by step as I do not know how to draw using the computer.  This motor could possibly a self-runner, or at the very least, a highly efficient, high torque pulse motor. It should be relatively easy to build compared to some other designs.

To show then motive force I employ, you will need 30 or 40 neo or ceramic disc magnets 3/8ths to 1/2 inch in diameter and about 1/8th inch thick.  You will also need two ceramic rectangle hobby magnets about 2 inches by 1 inch by 1/4 in thick.

To simulate the rotor to stator relationship, I used two clear CD blanks that were protectors in a CD-R bundle.
Using a felt pen, I drew different rotor/stator configuations that I could superimpose and rotate until I determined the ideal was 4 rotor poles and 3 stator positions.  Hence the title 4X3, or if a pulse motor 4X3=12 pulses per revolution.

To build the motor described, you will need 100 to 150 disc magnets and 8 rectangle magnets.  All plentiful and cheap, nothing exotic.

Try :  http://www.wondermagnet.com/main.shtml

and also :   http://www.allelectronics.com/cgi-bin/category/370/Magnets.html

The latter is good also for optical sensors and other things of interest.

It has been a long day for me.  I am putting a new roof on my humble abode and tomorrow is another long day.

I will post again tomorrow and walk you thru the process.
Thanks,

Tishatang











Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 01, 2006, 02:35:53 PM
Listening.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: gn0stik on June 01, 2006, 03:50:10 PM
If you could draw a picture on paper and scan it in that would be cool. I'm no good a drawing with a mouse either so I understand your dilemma. For me, my surfing hand is my right hand and I write and draw with my left, so it's no good.

Anyway, we'd like to hear your design.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 01, 2006, 04:48:14 PM
If you do sketches and descriptions I can help with drawings if needed.

I have Solid Works (3d), Solid Edge (3d), and Autocad (2d).

If we go farther than drawings, I usually have idle machine shop equipment.  120x60x30 CNC mill (router - non ferrous & plastics - no hard metals) - Standard Bridgeport mill, small lathe, small surface grinder, bandsaw, misc power and hand tools.

I can handle most any type of data files to machine from.  STL and Iges work particularly well in most cases, but I can take any common format to work from.

If anyone has legitimate, promising looking projects, I am interested in helping in any way I can, as I have time.

I think an "open source" project of some kind would be a great thing on this forum.  I am eager to participate if we come up with the right project.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: kadora on June 02, 2006, 07:01:09 AM
I am eager to participate too with my turner,
mill machine and tectronic osciloscope .
We have to find mag motor solution.

magnetism is amazing
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: tishatang on June 02, 2006, 08:06:38 AM
Hi all,

Thanks for your interest.  This idea came to me about 3 years ago, and I thought I would get around to building it someday.  Problem is, I will be 70 soon and who knows when that someday will be?

I am recalling this by memory because I have no idea where my original stuff is.

I was playing with a bunch of 3/8 inch neo magnets and was amazed at how they liked to assemble themselves into rodlike structures.  As you add on more magnets, the poles would get stronger and stronger.
I knew about magnetic flux gates and wondered what would happen if I brought two bar magnets together with the rod of neos in the middle forming a flus gate.

I used two ceramic hobby magnets with like polarity facing each other in a repell position.  Do not  try this with neo bar magnets as they are too strong to control with your hands and you could hurt yourself.  As I brought the bar magnets together in the middle of about a 4 inch long column of neos, I could see the column start to move forward but they would roll sideways and stick to my hand held bar magnets.  I have a 16 inch long double edge desk ruler that has a notch cut in the middle to hold a pencil.  I placed the column of neos in the notch to act as sort of a guide to prevent the rod from rolling sideways.  Much to my surprise, if my timing was perfect in that the two hand held magnets came together at the same speed and distance, the rod of neos would accelerate thru the flux gate so fast that they would fly right off the table!  I knew I had discovered a cheap and easy flux gate linear motor.  If I could convert this principle to a rotary version, a motor would result.  I also noticed that  the leading edge of the neo column only had to barely enter the leading edge of the bar magnet for the gate to open and the column would start to accelerate thru.

I discovered my 3/8 neos would fit perfectly inside a 3/8 I.D. clear vinyl flexible hose that you can buy at any building supply.  I stuffed a bunch of neos inside the hose and found I could bend the column in a circle.  The hose allowed a slight movement between each indidual magnet for them to shift and bend in an arc.  So, the problem of converting linear motion to rotary motion seemed solved, at least in my mind.

I next worked on the rotor/stator relationship.
Take a piece of paper and draw a circle about 6 inches in diameter.  Starting at the bottom 6 o'clock position,
mark three points on the circle 120 degrees apart.  These will be the leading edges of the flux gate stators.
Allow 90 degress for the end of each gate which leaves 30 degrees free space between the end of one flux gate and the beginning of another.  Mark with heavy lines these three flux gates representing the bent 90 degree arcs of magnets so that they are easy to see.

Now get two popsicle sticks and glue them together 90 degrees from each other forming a perfect cross.  These will represent the rotor with four poles, each pole being the two magnets in repell mode.  By reversing the polarity of the pole magnets, the motor will turn in the oposite direction.  Stick a pin thru the middle of the cross and the middle of the circle.  This will simulate the rotor turning thru the flux gates.  Bring a pole of the rotor to the leading edge of the bottom 6 o'clock position flux gate.  This will be the point of highest flux resistance keeping the rotor from entering the gate.  Remember, all we have to do is get the leading edge of the rotor past the leading edge of the gate for the rotor to accelerat thru.  As we have the bottom rotor in this position, take a look at where the other rotor poles are and what is going on in their respective positions.  We notice that one rotor is in between flux gates and is basicaly neutral.  However, we also notice that two of the rotor poles have already entered their respective flux gates and are helping accelerate the bottom pole towards the flux gate which is about to be engaged.

Because of the geometry of the 4X3 configuration, we have two flux gates acting together to help get the sticky pole thru its gate!  Of course, we can help the situation more by shielding the leading edge of each flux gate.  Also I have read, that an ordinary ball bearing does wonders to modify flux fields.  Maybe all we have to do is add a ball bearing to the leading edge of the flux gate.  

If we cannot get it to self run, we can always add a solenoid coil in front of each flux gate.  We could wind a bifiler coil and trigger it ala Bedini.  I think a simple coil triggered by an optical sensor would be better.  It would be timed to fire just befor the rotor pole reaches it in attrack mode to the solenoid.  The pulse would be timed to shut off just as the pole passes the solenoid the collapsing field reversing the polarity of the solenoid which would help kick the rotor pole thru the gate.  You could use only one coil and fine tune it.  When you get everything right, you could add the other two coils.
You could refine the opical sensors to move like an automotive  distributor allowing you to get the best power at various motor rpms.

This design is very scalable.  You can build it bigger or smaller or stack multiple rotors and stators together.

Let me know what you think.

Tishatang
Title: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: Magnetizer on June 02, 2006, 12:54:31 PM
Hi all,

As the old thread http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1086.0.html has been locked, i have started a new thread for it ...

I read the explanations from Tishatang and tried to figure out the setup of his idea. So I made some drawing and attached it to that message.

I wanted to ask Tishatang if this drawing is what you wanted to tell us ?

Best regards,

Magnetizer
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: jake on June 02, 2006, 02:36:52 PM
Nice work on the drawing.  It is functionally as I envisioned it also.

I took a stack of 1/2 x 1/8 neo's and tinkered around with them for a while.  What I noticed is the force is very strong toward either end of the stack of magnets (repelling at one end, attracting at the other), but much less when the opposing magnets are in the middle somewhere.  There is probably some force profile that could be tested and plotted.

I think what is going to happen (without electrical input somehow) is that the device is going to find cogging points through the rotation and not rotate continuously.  If the force anywhere along the stator magnets was equal, the device appears to be perpetually out of balance.  I suspect that the drop in force while in the middle of the poles will cause the device to be in equalibrium.

It is very interesting, simple to construct, and easy to modify, etc.  I would like to know whether this device would cog or just be force balanced through the rotation.

This looks like something that could be made to rotate by combining with the Flynn effect to weaken the sticky spots at the right times.
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: jake on June 02, 2006, 02:46:09 PM
Magnetizer,

Is it easy for you to manipulate your rotor in the drawing?

If so, can you rotate the rotor 15 degrees clockwise and post another view?  This will put it at a point where the two rotor poles on the right exactly line up with the ends of the stator pole.  I think this is a point of uncertainty.  The upper right pole wants to stay where it is, very strongly.  The lower right pole doesn't want to stay there at all, and the two on the left are out in the middle where there is not a lot going on.
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: Magnetizer on June 02, 2006, 04:28:49 PM
Magnetizer,

Is it easy for you to manipulate your rotor in the drawing?

If so, can you rotate the rotor 15 degrees clockwise and post another view? 

Here it is ...

Best regards,

Magnetizer
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: gn0stik on June 02, 2006, 04:56:41 PM
what do you use for your drawings magnetizer?

I just found a free 3D modelling software by google called sketchup.
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: jake on June 02, 2006, 05:00:24 PM
Thanks.

I wonder what happens right in that area.  The upper left rotor mag doesn't want to be there, the left one wants to be there, the two to the right side are ambivalent.  I think this is the problem with it.  I believe it will either cog or produce no torque at all.

There are all kinds of ways to modify, but I'm not sure you don't keep ending up in the same spot. - balanced or cogging.
Title: Re: 4x3 permanent magnet motor concept. Part 2
Post by: tishatang on June 02, 2006, 06:35:55 PM
Hi Magnetiser and all,

Boy, you guys are quick!  Nice drawings.
Just a quick response before my day starts.

Comments:

Rotate the bar magnets 90 degrees so that they are in a sense parallel to the rotor magnets.
Make the air gap bigger, say 40 degrees.
Make the the rotor magnets diameter smaller by 50 percent in relation to the size of the bar magnets.
Increase the diameter of the rotor by 50 percent.

It will be easy to change length of stator length by just adding or removing magnets inside the vinyl hose.

I don't think it will cog when we get the right proportions.

Thanks,
Tishatang
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: hartiberlin on June 02, 2006, 11:25:14 PM
I have merged the 2 topics now...Who did lock the first topic ??
Did I klick wrong ?
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: tishatang on June 03, 2006, 04:59:21 AM
Hi all,
Just fired up my computer and reread my earlier post.

I hadn't had my morning coffee when I wrote it and I see when I said rotor magnets I meant to say stator magnets.  I think it will be easier for me to say bar magnets for the rotor and discs for the stator.   It will be easier for me to think bar or rectangle for one and round or disc for the other.  Also, since the stator is really a flux gate component, is it really a stator?  Maybe in the sense that it is the fixed part of the equation.

As I look at this posting reply page, I see at the bottom the "lock this topic" toggle.

I probably  did it by accident as I wrote my long post.  My computer is an old laptop with a real sensitive touch screen.

Hopefully our collective energies will be fruitful.

Tishatang
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: acp on June 03, 2006, 07:10:46 PM
This doesn't work, I had almost exactly the same idea last year, built a model..... It just sat there. It cogs if you turn it by hand, but basically It completely balances out. Changing the air gap won't make any difference.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 03, 2006, 09:55:56 PM
Hi Tishatang and all!

I want to say it's basically a very good idea, but of course have many troubles.
I'm working on a geometrically similar 4x3 design, but not the same as this. My new magnets arrived few days before, and now I'm testing different setups with my previous unworkable prototype, used as a testing tool.

4x3 geometry has interesting properties, but the geometry itself is not enough.

Until this day I don't have any success. So I was very disappointed and depressed.
I had a setup before, wich looked almost work, but of course didn't, it cogged. When I changed the position of one magnet by 1-2 millimeters, it became workable for that area, and spinned through the sticky spot. But the problem is, when I change the position of one magnet I brake the geometry, and this makes it also unworkable. And of course 1 or 2 millimeters is a long lenght if you are working with magnets.

I designed all my ideas to have only one sticky spots per stator magnet at the entering point to the field of the stator. I designed more than 50 setups from the last winter to this time, tested the best ones, and I still don't have "the great workable design".

This day I feel a bit better. I tested an attractive design, partly with my hand. I tested many times the same movement, and saw something interesting.
A rotor magnet attracted to a stator magnet, and when it wants to stop (due its attraction), another rotor magnet entered to a position, where another stator magnet attracted this second rotor magnet and free the first (cogging) rotor magnet, and pull it farther from its lock point, and finally the second magnet cogged. But what if, I add a third... and close the geometry...? ;)
I tested this many times with these 4 magnets. They all fixed in the same geometry, except the one in my hand.
This experiment makes me hoping a little, maybe it is possible to make it self-running, but i don't know. It has many troubles to work with this. Of course it also has very low torque.

Tishatang. I work with small neo magnets. My design has only one sticky spot at the entering point of the stator. If I think right your design has two, at the entering, and at the exiting points. But... Your design has much more force than my. I tested it with the same magnets I use.
So I think this theory really worth to try. But every sizes, dimensions, and proportions are very important. I think little changes can makes it workable or totally unworkable. There are big differences between two unworkable device. "Fighting" with geometry... It's really not easy.

Another good geometries for this: (rotor / stator)
5/3; 3/9 or 9/3;

Every geometrical setup has a best proportion, and a best diameter for the stator to rotor ratio. If you use wrong proportions, it looks really not good, but when it set into the right relation, it looks interesting.
I think the actual pictures are not bad.

Every geometrical ratio possible for the number of locked magnets per the number of working magnets. In this design at least 1 magnet always cog, and 3 other want to move it through. It is possible to use 1 vs. 6, or 1 vs. 8, but it is not instantly mean the design become workable if you add more and more working rotor magnet, because when you increase this proportion, you must increase the lenght of the stator magnets, and the force they are producing in the middle areas become smaller and smaller, and the same time the sticky spots become stronger and stronger.

Anyway, I think this is a good idea.
Good luck to experiment with it!

Best wishes,
Greg
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: tishatang on June 04, 2006, 07:03:08 AM
Hi Greg and Gregory,

Thanks for your detailed response.  I appreciate the feedback.
Yes, if you look at my design from a static standpoint, there are two sticky points, one entering and one leaving.  However, dynamically, the acceleration thru the gate was much more than any retarding pull by the magnetic fluxes.  Otherwise, the neo rod would not have scooted off the desk.

I have a philosophical  question:

Would the world be better off with a permanent magnet motor that self-ran, but was so delicate, it could produce no work,

Or, a cheap to make, compact pulse motor, that could be retro-fitted to the front wheel of a bicycle, and maybe give you a range of 75 miles instead of 20 miles?  How many consumer/commuters would choose the latter?

Maybe the pulse mode is the way to go!

Thanks,
Tishatang
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 04, 2006, 10:37:44 PM
Hi Tishatang!

Very good question!

Of course, I think the function and the usability always have primary importance. So, when we are thinking only in present time I choose the latter, like many people do. But... If we are not consider present time only, and thinking without such limits I choose the first, the so delicate self-running magnetic toy. Because it has great scientific importance, wich makes it more important than (almost) every pulse motor.
And on the other hand, once a permanent magnetic motor become workable, It's just a question of hard work,  designing, and technology to make it stronger and stronger to turn into a really useful device.

However a pulse motor with good efficiency is absolutely viable, and its reality is unquestionable. Unlike the permanet magnet motor, wich branded to impossible by most of the physicists and scientists of nowadays.

But I like things believed as impossible. :D  I'm more an artist than an engineer. And if I think I have a good idea, I feel it's my role to try and make it real if it's possible. If my mind is enough I will do it, but if it isn't enough, then anybody other will do it in the future, I'm pretty sure.

Just wait and see... One day sombody will do the "impossible", it's sure. And I'm not a believer.  ;)

Thanks,
Greg
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: hartiberlin on June 05, 2006, 03:29:27 AM
You would probably need special iron
cores to get this motor to work.
Just with magnets it will not work,
simular designs we had already tested years
ago...
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 05, 2006, 04:14:17 PM
Quote
I have a philosophical  question:

Would the world be better off with a permanent magnet motor that self-ran, but was so delicate, it could produce no work,

Or, a cheap to make, compact pulse motor, that could be retro-fitted to the front wheel of a bicycle, and maybe give you a range of 75 miles instead of 20 miles?  How many consumer/commuters would choose the latter?

Maybe the pulse mode is the way to go!

I vote for the second.  The journey to #2 could very well lead to #1.  With a constant focus on overunity, no matter how small, we go nowhere.  If we have a goal we might reach, we make a step toward big gains.

If you produce a motor that is, let's say, 1w overunity, you would have to multiply by 1,000,000 to get 1 megawatt.  It may be impossible to construct something so large.  A motor that is barely overunity is arguably of little practical use if it can do little more than turn itself.

This is why I am trying to form a group of people to work toward a vehicle propulsion motor that would possibly do as you suggest - make the same car go much farther with the same energy input.  This would be a more useful device that a wheel that can spin itself and light one LED extra, for example.  And it is a reachable goal that might allow us to learn how to get to the overunity goal.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: nightwynd on June 05, 2006, 05:29:29 PM
If the motor is cogging at a certain point, perhaps you could use another property of matter that many here seem to forget: inertia. Hook up an electric motor to this one, get it spinning as fast as you safely can without the magnets flying apart. Would the weight of the rotor arm give it enough inertial push to get it past the cog point and accelerate fast enough to the next one to actually increase its speed?
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: tishatang on June 05, 2006, 08:54:43 PM
This design would benefit by the use of inertia.

I was going to build my prototype by using a square piece of plywood 18 inches on a side with a 12 inch cirle cut out in the middle.  The plywood would be 1/2 thick.  I would use a router and cut a hollow groove inside the circle to hold the vinyl hose with the magnets inside.  3/8 ths magnets plus the thickness of the hose would be about 1/2 inch to equal the thickness of the plywood.

For the rotor, I would use two pieces of plastic cutting boards you can buy at Wal-Mart and cut out two 12 in circles.   With a spacer and some shims for width, I would attach the rotor magnets to the inside of the rotor discs.

I was going to use an automotive alternator to attach the rotor to.  This would give me strong smooth running bearings and a shaft that was disigned for a pulley (rotor) to be attached to.  If it ran, it would also generate some current since it is an alternator.  I don't know if modern alternators will motor.  That way you could attach a battery and spin the rotor up to speed.  If you can find an early alternator, they had permanent magnet fields, and should motor?  Of course, if you could just use a PM DC motor if you had one.

Once up to speed, you could disconnect the battery and see of it self-runs.  If so, you now have a built-in generator to measure output.

The piece of plywood could be notched to accomodate solenoids if you decide to make it into a pulse motor.

Tishatang
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 06, 2006, 12:58:27 AM
You would probably need special iron
cores to get this motor to work.
Just with magnets it will not work,
simular designs we had already tested years
ago...

Thanks for the tip, Stefan. Let me see... What is the usability of these special iron cores? I can wind them up, and use as an electromagnet... or maybe for special shielding... and What more? How can I use them to make things going?

Quote
If you produce a motor that is, let's say, 1w overunity, you would have to multiply by 1,000,000 to get 1 megawatt.  It may be impossible to construct something so large.  A motor that is barely overunity is arguably of little practical use if it can do little more than turn itself.

Jake. I agree with you in this. I can agree with you easily, and understand your viewpoint, but I think you still missing something:
Once you have a self-running permanent magnetic toy, You can perfect it, and re-desing in a better way to make a useful device. And this spinning toy can be the best starting point to create the most efficient pulse motor of the world, isn't it? Maybe one day you not need to recharge the batteries of your newest device anymore, just drive the car... Now, it's only a "stupid dream", but nobody of us know everything, wich is possible... and Nobody of us understand and see through everything...

Nightwynd.
I didn't forget inertia, but yes it is usually a forgotten property. Thanks for the reminder.
I tested another setup. My design actually uses a little inertia, because it can't start by itself. Normally it is in balance. But when I push through one sticky spot, or just push back enough, the wheel spin through 2 sticky spots, and stop at the third, where it started, and where in balance. Now the geometry is still broken, and I can't close it, because the proportion seem to be wrong. But looks interesting when it spins through 2 attractive sticky spots, where normally magnets want to stop. I will do tests with it few more days, need to test all of my ideas very carefully. After I try to design and make it in the right form. I think maybe it can be something, what has partly similar effect as the eyewitnesses said about Bessler's last two wheel. It is normally in balance, so it has weaker balanced points on smaller areas, and stronger overbalanced points on larger areas... Once you push on a little, it begin to spin and can't stop without outsider influence. I think it is possible somehow. Sorry to mention Bessler...  :D But I observed this similarity.

Tishatang. Hope you enjoy to work with your design!  :)
Please post some words about your results, after you tested it properly. I intersted what happens at the cog points.

Thanks,
Greg
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 06, 2006, 03:16:49 PM
For any device to be useful, it must produce a lot of torque.  Most of the OU designs are vain attempts to get something to just rotate itself.  I see little value in this objective.  Step back and be objective, and look at how many examples there are of "I'm almost there" when you go through these forums.  There have been many brilliant people spend lifetimes trying to get a perfectly balanced wheel to be perpetually out of balance, or a force balanced magnetic contraption to rotate forever.  The device always wins.  It quickly or slowly relaxes into its equalibrium and sits there.

I find it unreasonable to think that any magnetic device without some outside stimulus will keep rotating.  It is the equivalent of thinking that some kind of gravity wheel will keep rotating.  The forces are balanced at some point (or all points) in the rotation in all these devices.  When the forces are balanced the device will not move.  You must disturb the equalibrium to cause motion.

As for magnetic devices with outside stimulation, I find it reasonable to think that there may be a chance to find COP>1.  It could be that the outside stimulus will tap in to some unknown and allow a COP > 1.

I will not entertain designs that include magnets only (no outside stimulus such as coils, etc.).  I believe it to be unreasonable to think that any magnet only device will produce any positive results.  Same goes for gravity only devices (gravity wheels, etc.) with no outside stimulus.  I would eliminate gravity-magnetic combinations for the same reason.  There is always equalibrium in these devices.

It should be intuitively obvious to a person with a minimal understanding of physics that gravity wheels will not work.  It should be just as obvious that magnet only devices will not work.  The magnets act as static forces, and a simple force analysis will expose that they can't work.

If you add electrically stimulated coils, I don't think the situation is hopeless.  The coils can cause disturbances to the otherwise static forces and provide the necessary stimulation to make the device actually rotate (Kundel, for example).  The trick is to shock the system in some way that taps into the undefined forces to create to COP > 1 that we are looking for.  Perhaps some kind of high voltage zap will cause the system to grab energy from the ether, or whatever.

But, as for me, I will not invest time in any gravity only, magnet only, or gravity-magnet device that doesn't have some other stimulation mechanism.  It is unreasonable to believe any such device will work - in my opinion.  In fact, there is some evidence to believe that when a magnet only device appears to work, the magnets deplete without explanation, and the device slowly stops - I have seen at least two reported cases of this on this site.

This leads me to believe that, ironically, if you figure out a way to get "power" from magnets, the magnets appear to deplete. (once again the second law wins)

If someone credibly and openly demonstrates otherwise, in a manner that is easily and widely reproduced, I will be most happy to say I was wrong.  Until then, my money and effort goes toward a more efficient, lighter, more powerful motor as the first objective - because it is reasonable to believe it can be done, and it has great benefits immediately.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 06, 2006, 03:28:09 PM
An interesting quote from Sterling Allen that supports my position:


"If these guys (and others doing similar research, like Bedini) truly are getting over unity, and it isn't just a measurement error due to an unusual electromagnetic phenomenon, then it probably has to do with something that is happening to alter normal magnetic flux at the point where magnetic lock-up of the magnets is overcome by the proper electromagnetic pulse. Perhaps that sudden flip-flop is the gate to the inflow of external energy from ___ (fill in the blank: zero point energy? magnetic energy? gravity? or something else not even named or conceived yet?)" -- Sterling D. Allan (SilverThunder 10:06, 23 Feb 2006 (EST))

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor)
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Liberty on June 06, 2006, 06:06:00 PM
For any device to be useful, it must produce a lot of torque.  Most of the OU designs are vain attempts to get something to just rotate itself.  I see little value in this objective.  Step back and be objective, and look at how many examples there are of "I'm almost there" when you go through these forums.  There have been many brilliant people spend lifetimes trying to get a perfectly balanced wheel to be perpetually out of balance, or a force balanced magnetic contraption to rotate forever.  The device always wins.  It quickly or slowly relaxes into its equalibrium and sits there.

I find it unreasonable to think that any magnetic device without some outside stimulus will keep rotating.  It is the equivalent of thinking that some kind of gravity wheel will keep rotating.  The forces are balanced at some point (or all points) in the rotation in all these devices.  When the forces are balanced the device will not move.  You must disturb the equalibrium to cause motion.

As for magnetic devices with outside stimulation, I find it reasonable to think that there may be a chance to find COP>1.  It could be that the outside stimulus will tap in to some unknown and allow a COP > 1.

I will not entertain designs that include magnets only (no outside stimulus such as coils, etc.).  I believe it to be unreasonable to think that any magnet only device will produce any positive results.  Same goes for gravity only devices (gravity wheels, etc.) with no outside stimulus.  I would eliminate gravity-magnetic combinations for the same reason.  There is always equalibrium in these devices.

It should be intuitively obvious to a person with a minimal understanding of physics that gravity wheels will not work.  It should be just as obvious that magnet only devices will not work.  The magnets act as static forces, and a simple force analysis will expose that they can't work.

If you add electrically stimulated coils, I don't think the situation is hopeless.  The coils can cause disturbances to the otherwise static forces and provide the necessary stimulation to make the device actually rotate (Kundel, for example).  The trick is to shock the system in some way that taps into the undefined forces to create to COP > 1 that we are looking for.  Perhaps some kind of high voltage zap will cause the system to grab energy from the ether, or whatever.

But, as for me, I will not invest time in any gravity only, magnet only, or gravity-magnet device that doesn't have some other stimulation mechanism.  It is unreasonable to believe any such device will work - in my opinion.  In fact, there is some evidence to believe that when a magnet only device appears to work, the magnets deplete without explanation, and the device slowly stops - I have seen at least two reported cases of this on this site.

This leads me to believe that, ironically, if you figure out a way to get "power" from magnets, the magnets appear to deplete. (once again the second law wins)

If someone credibly and openly demonstrates otherwise, in a manner that is easily and widely reproduced, I will be most happy to say I was wrong.  Until then, my money and effort goes toward a more efficient, lighter, more powerful motor as the first objective - because it is reasonable to believe it can be done, and it has great benefits immediately.

I would mostly agree with Jake.  I think that using stimulus to the magnet motor and recovering the power used for motor operation (like Mr. Kundel's motor) through turning a alternator or generator would be the best method to use. 

Even though I believe that on the "Liberty motor" that I made, it would be possible to run the motor without power with a little redesign, but it probably would not be the best way to run the motor, because you could not control it as well.

I agree with Jake, that we will need high torque magnet motors that can be used in a small 'hub' to help provide motive power to our current vehicles, or something like it.  The hub device would be readily attachable.  It would be necessary and timely to have available until such time as a magnet motor alternator device can be developed to help to power it.  So it is good to persue both devices in my opinion. 
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 06, 2006, 10:49:59 PM
Thanks for your response, Jake.
Okay, I don't want to convince you, or anybody, I never wanted. It's just an idea I'm trying myself.
By the way I really agree with you, electricity and magnetism work best together, and an only magnetic device itself is not practical. I just think, if you have one, and understand how it works, you have better understandings to make a good magnetic-electromagnetic device wich is suitable for usual applications. Thats all.
If I'm not annoying you... Please can you clarify for me, which ones are those devices you mention they are depleted? Maybe one is the Perendev one? And the other?
Thank you.


Hello Liberty,
If you really feel, your machine can run without electricity with a little redesign, I recommend to try it, and if it truly run, you can add your (new) coil setup to it, and make it powerful.
But I don't want to prejudice you, or chip on your work.

Good work all for you!
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 06, 2006, 11:43:02 PM
Here are notes from the first one that made an impression on me (This is not perendev):

Quote
CONCLUSION:

This kind of device is interesting, and the principle
is easy to understand and to follow.
In my experiments, my magnets got weak after some
hours of testing and never reached speeds more than
100..150 revolutions/minute. This shows, that much
energy is lost due to eddy currents wich are inducted in the
soft iron and the nickel-plating of the magnets i used.
Maybe also a big loss of energy is caused by my magnets itself,
on memeber of the group tells me that my magnets (NeFeB)
are highly conductive and so they are itself a big reason
to brake the system due to eddy currents.

This the device spins without initial startup for up to 50 seconds.
(I had some longer runs (up to five minutes) but this runs are not
predictable and not safely repeatable.) 40-50 Second runs
without any starting action was the "normal", wich is interesting
enough to think and experiment a little bit more..

Further experiments will show, if ceramic magnets
will do a better job!

greetings
helmut goebkes

His wheel type device was the most promising looking wheel I stumbled in to.  It really looked like it could work (and apparently it did until the magnets weakened)  If this testimony is true, it leads me to believe that if you really get a wheel to run with magnets only, you will weaken the magnets because you are really drawing power (not just force) from the magnets.

I'm positive there was one more all magment design I saw either here, or linked from here that described the same issue. (depleting magnets)  I think it may have been perendev, as you guessed, but I'm not sure.  I know I saw another, because it struck me after seeing the above one.  I was so impressed by the Goebkes device that I copied the information into my records.  When I saw the same effect in another device it made me form the hypothesis that there is some problem that occurs if you do figure out a way to pull power from mags.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Liberty on June 07, 2006, 12:31:24 AM
Here are notes from the first one that made an impression on me (This is not perendev):

Quote
CONCLUSION:

This kind of device is interesting, and the principle
is easy to understand and to follow.
In my experiments, my magnets got weak after some
hours of testing and never reached speeds more than
100..150 revolutions/minute. This shows, that much
energy is lost due to eddy currents wich are inducted in the
soft iron and the nickel-plating of the magnets i used.
Maybe also a big loss of energy is caused by my magnets itself,
on memeber of the group tells me that my magnets (NeFeB)
are highly conductive and so they are itself a big reason
to brake the system due to eddy currents.

This the device spins without initial startup for up to 50 seconds.
(I had some longer runs (up to five minutes) but this runs are not
predictable and not safely repeatable.) 40-50 Second runs
without any starting action was the "normal", wich is interesting
enough to think and experiment a little bit more..

Further experiments will show, if ceramic magnets
will do a better job!

greetings
helmut goebkes

His wheel type device was the most promising looking wheel I stumbled in to.  It really looked like it could work (and apparently it did until the magnets weakened)  If this testimony is true, it leads me to believe that if you really get a wheel to run with magnets only, you will weaken the magnets because you are really drawing power (not just force) from the magnets.

I'm positive there was one more all magment design I saw either here, or linked from here that described the same issue. (depleting magnets)  I think it may have been perendev, as you guessed, but I'm not sure.  I know I saw another, because it struck me after seeing the above one.  I was so impressed by the Goebkes device that I copied the information into my records.  When I saw the same effect in another device it made me form the hypothesis that there is some problem that occurs if you do figure out a way to pull power from mags.

Hi Jake,

Just a quick note before I have to leave.  You should also put Steve Kundel's motor in your records, because as far as I know, his magnets are still working in his motor.  I think it depends on how deeply you stress the magnet and of what type you use. 

As far as the "Liberty motor" goes, I ran it for several hours per day and during several different days.  Then took the magnets out and stuck them to the table.  No problem here with demagnetization.  I used standard neo magnets.

Have a good day, I've got to go mow the yard.  Bye.

Liberty
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: jake on June 07, 2006, 03:39:23 AM
What was unique about the two devices I saw that weakened the magnets was that there was somewhat strong testimony that the device(s) self ran for a period of time, and the magnets weakened.

Kundel's motor is really just a motor as I see it. It is a unique configuration, but I don't see it as a OU device.  "Normal" permanent magnet motors run for at least 10's of years without problems unless they overheat or take huge current hits that prematurely damage them.  I presume the motors could run for 100's of years if they would mechanically hold up.
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 07, 2006, 04:51:17 PM
Last night I read everything what I found about Helmut goebkes's magnetic wheel at the yahoo groups pages.
Interesting... I agree with you, The fact that there are few people who already made a static device to operate is mean something. Yes, the devices demagnetized soon, but we still have the fact, that they worked before they demagnetized.
(And an interesting thought:
Only theoretically, these devices also foreshadow the possibility of a gravity machine. Because gravitiy and magnetism are similar. Of course Only theoretically. Only an inference, not strong)

If I understand right Goebkes's device used a soft steel part, wich is neccesary for its operation. The magnets attracted to this steel part, and after repelled each other strongly. The perendev device also works on a static repulsion state, and if I study it right, it can't work in attraction mode, just stand without a single move.
I guess, In static repulsion the flux lines try to cross each other, but they can't, and maybe this causes swirling flux, what is unnatural, and the power was rejecting out from the magnets. In helmut's design the steel part also can deplete the magnets, maybe, i don't know.

Magnets never want to repell each other, really never, they want to be attracted together, and standing in equilibrium, forever. Gravity (wich appear in nature) is also only attractive force, or we only knows gravitational attraction, wich is the natural way to go. (Planets and galaxies move by gravitational attraction.)
So if we use unnatural ways to operate a device, obviously the device will stop operating soon. I guess this is the essential part of the problem.

I don't know too much about electromagnetic motors, but if i know right (once again :D), these motors work in a "balanced mode", with equal attraction and repulsion, or more the attraction. Is this right, or I'm dumb?

So, i have a conclusion: If I can figure out a way, where the static magnetic motor works with equal attraction-repulsion forces, or more attraction than repulsion, and the same time the device not use soft steel and similar parts, just magnets... If I can do this, perhaps I have a chance. Is this the right conclusion, what do you think?

I think if once I can set my wheel into stable motion, I also can set it into full attraction mode, or a more attraction mode, I almost sure about this.
I have already played long hours with my rough test tool, somtimes feel quite close to self rotation, but help it with my hand at the cog point, and I never feel the magnets weaken.

Anyway I don't want to present myself as a f***in clever person... Just my mind runs continously, and this the reason why I wrote too much ideas here.  :) Hope you haven't got a bad feeling about this, and my mode to communicate.

Regards,
Greg
Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Liberty on June 07, 2006, 05:30:49 PM
Last night I read everything what I found about Helmut goebkes's magnetic wheel at the yahoo groups pages.
Interesting... I agree with you, The fact that there are few people who already made a static device to operate is mean something. Yes, the devices demagnetized soon, but we still have the fact, that they worked before they demagnetized.
(And an interesting thought:
Only theoretically, these devices also foreshadow the possibility of a gravity machine. Because gravitiy and magnetism are similar. Of course Only theoretically. Only an inference, not strong)

If I understand right Goebkes's device used a soft steel part, wich is neccesary for its operation. The magnets attracted to this steel part, and after repelled each other strongly. The perendev device also works on a static repulsion state, and if I study it right, it can't work in attraction mode, just stand without a single move.
I guess, In static repulsion the flux lines try to cross each other, but they can't, and maybe this causes swirling flux, what is unnatural, and the power was rejecting out from the magnets. In helmut's design the steel part also can deplete the magnets, maybe, i don't know.

Magnets never want to repell each other, really never, they want to be attracted together, and standing in equilibrium, forever. Gravity (wich appear in nature) is also only attractive force, or we only knows gravitational attraction, wich is the natural way to go. (Planets and galaxies move by gravitational attraction.)
So if we use unnatural ways to operate a device, obviously the device will stop operating soon. I guess this is the essential part of the problem.

I don't know too much about electromagnetic motors, but if i know right (once again :D), these motors work in a "balanced mode", with equal attraction and repulsion, or more the attraction. Is this right, or I'm dumb?

So, i have a conclusion: If I can figure out a way, where the static magnetic motor works with equal attraction-repulsion forces, or more attraction than repulsion, and the same time the device not use soft steel and similar parts, just magnets... If I can do this, perhaps I have a chance. Is this the right conclusion, what do you think?

I think if once I can set my wheel into stable motion, I also can set it into full attraction mode, or a more attraction mode, I almost sure about this.
I have already played long hours with my rough test tool, somtimes feel quite close to self rotation, but help it with my hand at the cog point, and I never feel the magnets weaken.

Anyway I don't want to present myself as a f***in clever person... Just my mind runs continously, and this the reason why I wrote too much ideas here.  :) Hope you haven't got a bad feeling about this, and my mode to communicate.

Regards,
Greg

The part that you said about:  "If I can figure out a way, where the static magnetic motor works with equal attraction-repulsion forces, or more attraction than repulsion, and the same time the device not use soft steel and similar parts, just magnets..."

Yes, you are on the right track.  Soft steel (or any conductive metal) will have eddy currents while in a magnetic field. (Electricity that is induced in the metal shorts out in the metal resulting in heat loss).  This was the downfall of Helmut Goebkes's magnetic wheel in my opinion (but it was a very creative attempt). 

It sounds like you are trying to make a gravity wheel?  You could use a Wankel style gate (but RPM's will be limited with a Wankel style gate due to the lock/unlock of attracting magnets on the path).  Or you could try a Kundel style gate with a mechanical device for the release before lockup.

Liberty

Title: Re: 4X3 Permanent Magnet Motor concept
Post by: Gregory on June 07, 2006, 06:44:01 PM
Yes, you are on the right track.  Soft steel (or any conductive metal) will have eddy currents while in a magnetic field. (Electricity that is induced in the metal shorts out in the metal resulting in heat loss).  This was the downfall of Helmut Goebkes's magnetic wheel in my opinion (but it was a very creative attempt). 

It sounds like you are trying to make a gravity wheel?  You could use a Wankel style gate (but RPM's will be limited with a Wankel style gate due to the lock/unlock of attracting magnets on the path).  Or you could try a Kundel style gate with a mechanical device for the release before lockup.

Liberty

Thanks Liberty.
I agree with you, Helmut Goebkes's device was a creative attempt.

No, I don't want to try to create a gravity wheel now. I just tried to talk and explain, that permanent magnetic motors and gravity wheels are "brothers". If one is possible, that means the other is also possible, theoretically. I think it's almost useless and an insane effort to try to make a gravity wheel, without an operating permanent magnetic motor created before. We can adjust the direction of magnetic forces, and place the magnets to every form and geometry we want. But gravity on earth always points in the same direction, we can't change it. We only can position the weights, which ones are attracting to the center of the globe. Plus few mechanical tricks. Not too much possibilities... So, I think it's make much more difficult to thinking about gravity wheels.
But yes, if my magnets begin to move one day, and I perfect the design to reach usable power level (what needs much more than a single month), after I will try the gravity wheel, too. Just for fun... (Gravity can't "demagnetize".)

However, at the moment too much if stand inside the equation, between my words. And I don't like if-s.

Thank you for the tips. I've already read about the Kundel motor, looks an interesting idea. I will read soon about the wankel gate you mentioned. But now I must sleep some hours, I almost didn't sleep in the last two days.