Hey all. 

I've just recently finished building my Torbay replication.  It does everything it's supposed to do, except self-run. 

Sorry I don't have pictures, but I don't have ready access to a camera.

I've used improvised materials in the construction and so had to let that influence the design quite a bit.  This meant I ended up having the stators pivot outwards more than up and down.  Which in turn meant I had the top cap on the rotor pushing the stators in from the sides, much like others here have drawn and mentioned.  In my opinion, this variation is workable. 

What wasn't workable, for me, were the magnets I was using.  I had some 25mm Neo cubes (N50's) left over from another project, so thought I'd try using those to see what would happen.  One in each of the eight stators, and one in the rotor. 

Turns out the disk-shaped rotor magnet Torbay used in his patented design is essential for the thing to work.  Anything less than that long horizontal surface area has the stators repelling the rotor as they come down (or in) to push the rotor.

I hope I'm describing this clearly.  The stator magnets must come down to push the rotor well behind the leading edge of the rotor magnet.  This can't be done if the rotor magnet is too short horizontally, as the stators will repel the rotor backwards before they can repel it forwards.

It's pretty obvious really, and something I saw in the planning stages, but which I hoped I could overcome during construction.  But no. 

I can turn the device by hand easily enough, but the space between when the stator is repelling in the wrong direction and when it's repelling in the right direction is too small, creating too sharp of an angle on the rotor ramp, for it to self run.

I hope this information is helpful in some way.  I'd like to see someone disprove what I've found, and get a Torbay device working with readily available materials, but I myself won't be doing it, for different reasons.

One reason being, somewhere along the way, while building this thing, it occurred to me that the repulsion force that pushes the rotor forward is the same force that pushes the stators in (or down).  That is, the stators push the rotor forward, which in turn (in a roundabout way) pushes the stators in, which push the rotor forward, which pushes the stators in, which push the rotor forward, which...now hang on a minute. 

I just don't get it.  How can that possibly work?

How do the stators push the rotor when the stators must themselves be pushed by the rotor in order to push the rotor...aaarrrrgghhhh!!!!!

Okay.  Hang on.  So you push it yourself to get it started.  Then it just continues on by itself.  But what about all the friction inherent in the design, which can never be fully surmounted?  Are those forces of resistance of no consequence at all?

I don't know.  I just don't know.  It's a conundrum.  The stators, while pushing the rotor, are essentially pushing themselves, with some moving parts inbetween. 

Doesn't sound good.  Impossible even, I'm afraid to say.
 
How can the stators push the rotor harder than the rotor is pushing the stators (isn't that what's required for the thing to work)? 

Even if there are two or three stator magnets repelling the rotor magnet at once, they are still only pushing the rotor because the rotor, via the top cap, is pushing the stators.
 
Please pardon my ignorance, but it just doesn't add up. 

I can't see how it can be overunity.  I can't see how, even with precision engineering of perfect components, it can overcome the frictions and resistances of its moving parts and be self running.

Again, I ask you all to forgive my ignorance, if that's what's preventing me from seeing how this thing can work.  But at the same time, I have to admit, without regret, that it may have been wishful thinking on my part that enabled me to believe in the torbay device in the first place.

 
       













             

Heya Harti.

Sorry if my post isn't helpful without pictures.   

As for the springs, no, I didn't use any to pull the stators back.  With the stators pivot point below and behind the actual magnets, the stators move back very easily with just the barest help from the raising arm.

In terms of design errors, I'm pretty sure it all comes down to the magnets I used.  (That and the fundamental impossibility of the thing?)

But yeah, there might be something else I missed.  Would be good to get some feedback on it. 

I should be able to borrow a camera in a week or two, maybe sooner but only by chance.

I've just recently finished building my Torbay replication.  It does everything it's supposed to do, except self-run. 

Turns out the disk-shaped rotor magnet Torbay used in his patented design is essential for the thing to work.  Anything less than that long horizontal surface area has the stators repelling the rotor as they come down (or in) to push the rotor.

I hope I'm describing this clearly.  The stator magnets must come down to push the rotor well behind the leading edge of the rotor magnet.  This can't be done if the rotor magnet is too short horizontally, as the stators will repel the rotor backwards before they can repel it forwards.

It's pretty obvious really, and something I saw in the planning stages, but which I hoped I could overcome during construction.  But no. 

One reason being, somewhere along the way, while building this thing, it occurred to me that the repulsion force that pushes the rotor forward is the same force that pushes the stators in (or down).  That is, the stators push the rotor forward, which in turn (in a roundabout way) pushes the stators in, which push the rotor forward, which pushes the stators in, which push the rotor forward, which...now hang on a minute. 

I just don't get it.  How can that possibly work?

How do the stators push the rotor when the stators must themselves be pushed by the rotor in order to push the rotor...aaarrrrgghhhh!!!!!

Okay.  Hang on.  So you push it yourself to get it started.  Then it just continues on by itself.  But what about all the friction inherent in the design, which can never be fully surmounted?  Are those forces of resistance of no consequence at all?

I don't know.  I just don't know.  It's a conundrum.  The stators, while pushing the rotor, are essentially pushing themselves, with some moving parts inbetween. 

Doesn't sound good.  Impossible even, I'm afraid to say.
 
How can the stators push the rotor harder than the rotor is pushing the stators (isn't that what's required for the thing to work)? 

Even if there are two or three stator magnets repelling the rotor magnet at once, they are still only pushing the rotor because the rotor, via the top cap, is pushing the stators.
 
Please pardon my ignorance, but it just doesn't add up. 

I can't see how it can be overunity.  I can't see how, even with precision engineering of perfect components, it can overcome the frictions and resistances of its moving parts and be self running.

Hey lwh, I hear you.
Good observations, I think.

I have studied this motor for myself for some time, and I didn't try to build it, because mostly the same reasons and problems you mentioned. I think this motor won't work in the original way, even if does somehow, it must be weak & delicate, and hard to tune it.

But I believe it can be modified to become workable, and the concept itself is a really good idea. I also like Mrd's and others creative attempts.

I think the Balance is the key for success.
If you can make an overall balace for every stator magnet in relation to the rotor magnet, you can easily move the stators with the force of the rotor. I don't know how it is possible exactly, but I'm affraid it can be more complex. I have a few strange ideas, but still working on it. Perhaps, I will post them, when I find the right solution.

The mechanics and the movement of the stators must be in perfect balance in relation to each other and to the rotor magnets. And in this case only one unbalanced part remains: The rotor with torque.

Regards,
Greg

I'm using multiple posts because some of the pictures weren't showing up, probably just me, but just in case.

cont'd

Last one.  Too many complications arising with this close an arrangement of the stators.  I had to try it though.   

Mulling this over I think we are going about it wrong. we seem to be stuck in this rut of having the rotor located on the inner circle and the stators on the outer circle.
think of a pivot and fulcrum you wouldn't try to raise the weight on the long side you would raise it on the short side but thats exactly what we all seem to be trying to do (me included). I think flipping this concept about would work easier.

Are you using a milling machine/router to cut your parts?

Well done and keep going, I know how much time and effort it takes to experiment like this.

Where did you get those square magnets from?

I used a loose hacksaw blade with a tea-towel wrapped around one end for a handle to cut the steel and aluminium parts, and a hand-held electric jigsaw to cut the round bit of wood.

I bought the magnets from a place here in Australia, I'll look up more precise details if you want.

I don't intend to continue with the Torbay type arrangement.

Mulling this over I think we are going about it wrong. we seem to be stuck in this rut of having the rotor located on the inner circle and the stators on the outer circle.
think of a pivot and fulcrum you wouldn't try to raise the weight on the long side you would raise it on the short side but thats exactly what we all seem to be trying to do (me included). I think flipping this concept about would work easier.

I've heard similar things mentioned before, and it's also crossed my own mind.  If I were to continue with this I'd probably head off in that dierction myself.  However, in my opinion, it still wouldn't work, and would just lead to a more efficient way of revealing the fundamental flaw in the Torbay concept (which I tried to describe in my original post).

Les.