Author Topic: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION (Read 21659 times)

guest1289 · « **on:** August 10, 2015, 05:41:23 PM »

.

MY INVENTION : A 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' INVENTION, that only uses 'Permanent-Magnets' ( No Superconductors ), and requires 'NO ELECTRICITY'.

______________________

This invention is also :

- A NEW-TYPE OF MAGNETIC-BEARING

- A Levitating-Object which can move around a 'Track', very similar to the 'MEISSNER-EFFECT' demonstrations on Looped-Tracks , but mine 'Does-Not' require superconductors .

- A Levitating-Object-Display-Case. For Example, people could insert the 'Levitating-Object' into their model-planes or model-cars and they would levitate in the Display-Case or be moved along the above-mentioned Looped-Track.

______________________

HOW IT WORKS
Very simply, in the case of a 'MEISSNER-LIKE EFFECT-ON-A-CIRCULAR-TRACK' , the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface' has the shape of 2 O's( or 'O O' ), so that the field between the 2 O's( or 'O O' ) cradle the Levitating-Object( to attract it, and/or to repel it ).
Although the 'Levitating-Object' could contain magnets to attract it to the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface', and seperate magnets to repel it from the 'Magnetic-Track-Surface', I think it would be better to have AN-INNER-CIRCULAR-MAGNETIC-TRACK to attract the 'Levitating-Object', and an OUTER-CIRCULAR-MAGNETIC-TRACK to repel the 'Levitating-Object', OR Visa Versa' .

_____________________________

HOW MY INVENTION OCCURRED TO ME
When I realized the reason why my magnetic-toy-car-invention would not propel itself along the toy-circular-track, I was slightly amazed that one end of the car would just levitate without moving, so obviously I thought to just keep the levitating part of the magnetic-toy-car, and turn it into the above invention.
_____________________________

CONTACT ME, IF YOU KNOW OF A COMPANY THAT IS INTERESTED IN THIS INVENTION

- john.backerwww@gmail.com
- One Corporation is interested ( but they require me to sign a 'Special-Document' with them, just to talk to them ), but I cannot decipher their document.
- I have filed Provisional-Patent-Applications for this invention.
______________________

CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD LINK BELOW, TO DOWNLOAD OR VIEW THE 'DOCUMENT I HAVE ATTACHED' DESCRIBING HOW MY INVENTION WORKS ( it also contains a cross-section diagram of my magnetic-circular-track )

MarkE · « **Reply #1 on:** August 10, 2015, 07:00:37 PM »

I do not see how you have dealt with Earnshaw's Theorem. There have been passive magnetic bearings developed that get around Earnshaw's Theorem once the bearings are in motion. See for example: http://www.magneticsmagazine.com/main/channels/magneticsassemblies/passive-magnetic-bearing-prototype-testing-results/.

guest1289 · « **Reply #2 on:** August 10, 2015, 07:50:08 PM »

.

I have not built a working model of this invention. ( I can not build anything )

I think that the configurations and spacing of the magnetic forces in my invention, may get around the problems associated with 'Earnshaw's theorem'.

________

- 'Earnshaw's theorem' - I assume( 'I only assume' ) that that 'Theorem' says that an object 'between' two 'permanent-magnets' will not levitate 'stably' between two 'permanent-magnets', OR, in the case of a magnetic-bearing, that the inner-bearing-object will not levitate 'stably' .
MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' IS NOT BETWEEN TWO 'PERMANENT-MAGNETS', MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' IS ALWAYS ON TOP OF THE 'PERMANENT-MAGNET-CIRCULAR-TRACK' , OR, ON TOP OF THE 'TWO' 'PERMANENT-MAGNET-CIRCULAR-TRACKS' , ONE 'TRACK' FOR ATTRACTION, AND ONE 'TRACK' FOR REPULSION.

SUITABLE SPACING BETWEEN ALL THE MAGNETS
- All the separate magnets in my invention have suitable spacing between each other, so as not to interfere with each other ( suitable spacing between the magnets that are not intended to interact with each other ).

( MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' can be on top of, or underneath, or in any direction away from the 'magnetic-track' or 'magnetic-tracks' from which it being 'Levitated' .

____________________

QUOTE : ""There have been passive magnetic bearings developed that get around Earnshaw's Theorem once the bearings are in motion""
- I had that idea years ago ( it seemed similar to the overall 'balancing out' effect of a gyroscope ), but I assumed that I was not the first to think it up, and that it probably already existed, and back then I could not find a suitable way to 'claim it as my invention' .

MarkE · « **Reply #3 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:07:02 PM »

What have you done to establish that your idea could work?

guest1289 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:58:14 PM »

Obviously, I'm relying on anyone interested in this invention, and the companies I present it to, to build a prototype, to prove, or disprove it's ability to function .

At the moment, I do not know that anyone has built a prototype of it .

( Part of the problem has been, that I had some big problems in filing my 'Provisional Patent Applications' , and most companies in the 'European-Union' won't talk to you until you have been issued a 'Patent Filing' number, and I had to fix up a lot of problems with my 'Provisional Patent Applications'.
The Patent Laws outside of the European-Union( US, Canada, Asia etc ) are much better, they allow you to first 'Publish' your invention in 'Public', so that you can present your invention to companies, and if they think your invention is viable, you can ask them to properly write and draw your Patent-Application , and pay the associated costs.
NOTE : I have lost my right to Patent my invention in the European-Union, I already new that would happen when I published my invention . But I can still Patent in the US, Canada, Asia etc )
Definitely, don't start a discussion on Patent subjects, you'll get dizzy and ill. )

One big US company replied to me, and asked me to 'Sign A Waiver' of disclosure of information in order to discuss my invention with me, the 'Waiver' looks OK, but since I'm not a lawyer, I do not really know what I would be signing.

_________________________________________

If anyone knows of any US company, or any company anywhere else ( that doesn't mind I have lost my right to Patent my invention in the European-Union ), and does not require me to sign anything just to talk to me, then put them in contact with me john.backerwww@gmail.com

MarkE · « **Reply #5 on:** August 10, 2015, 10:33:38 PM »

If you have not even done hand calculations, then odds are that this is not going to work because it is going to run smack into Earnshaw's Theorem. As you probably know, the attracting or repelling force between two magnets or in a reluctance gap tends to be very non-linear. What Earnshaw's Theorem asserts is that you cannot come up with a stable static magnet configuration. The system will have positive feedback which will either drive the magnets off of each other, or snap together. You can think of it as trying to balance a marble on the top of a cone.

If you have come up with a way to get around Earnshaw's Theorem or to prove it wrong, then you probably have something valuable. If you just have a raw idea and haven't done any calculations to check the idea's viability, then chances are the idea doesn't work.

MagnaProp · « **Reply #6 on:** August 11, 2015, 01:46:57 AM »

Quote from: guest1289 on August 10, 2015, 05:41:23 PM

MY INVENTION

Hi. I'm trying to visualize your idea. Are these images correct?

guest1289 · « **Reply #7 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:54:16 AM »

MagnaProp , no, that's not actually the same as my invention

IN MY FIRST POST FOR THIS THREAD, I ATTACHED A DOCUMENT WHICH CONTAINS A 'CROSS-SECTION-DIAGRAM' OF MY MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, BUT, YOU WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY CLICK ON THE LINK TO THE DOCUMENT, TO OPEN IT.

( But all sorts of different versions and configurations of my invention could exist, I don't know if yours would work or not )

THE 'MAGNETIC-CRADLING-EFFECT' OF MY INVENTION IS MORE BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE, IN THE IMAGE BELOW ( PASTE THE ADDRESS BELOW INTO YOUR BROWSER SITE ADDRESS FIELD ), OR CLICK ON THE LINK

( NOTE : IF I CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW, MY BROWSER JUST DOWNLOADS THE IMAGE, AND THEN I HAVE TO CLICK ON THE DOWNLOAD TO VIEW IT )

http://overunity.com/6048/using-magnets-instead-of-bearings/dlattach/attach/27840/image//

Hopefully, the picture will still be there when you go to it
__________

At the moment, one of the other members has been having me a little bit worried about 'Earnshaw's Theorem', which I'm about the post a reply to , BUT, I HAVE JUST REALIZED, THAT THAT IS ONLY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT FULLY REALIZE THAT MY INVENTION IS BASED ON THE WELL KNOWN PRINCIPLE IN THE ABOVE PICTURE.

guest1289 · « **Reply #8 on:** August 11, 2015, 02:56:45 AM »

.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE : - MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF 'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE' OF MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.
BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, I.E. TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .

THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST', COULD BE DONE WITH THOSE PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS 'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER' ( such as plastic food containers for the freezer ) .
( THIS PARTICULAR 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' WOULD BE USEFULL TO 'MAYBE' 'DISPROVE' 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM', AND IT ALSO CONTAINS A 'CRADLING' EFFECT, WHICH MY INVENTION CONTAINS, BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS )

( Unfortunately though, these containers are slightly flexible, so ............ )
_________________

SCENARIO 1

On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are the same strength as the magnets used for 'repulsion' )

In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

In this scenario, I'm not actually sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 2

On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are 'WEAKER THAN' the magnets used for 'repulsion' )

In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a 'STRONGER' strength than the magnets used for attraction above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

In this scenario, again, I'm not totally sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 3 - THE SPECIAL SCENARIO

THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO, IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE 'DISTANCE' BETWEEN 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER' , AND, 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' .

For this scenario, repeat 'SCENARIO 1', but now either 'INCREASE', OR 'DECREASE' , the distance between either 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER', OR, between 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' , BREAKING THE 'SYMMETRY' OF THESE TWO DISTANCES.

In this scenario, I really cannot work out what would happen.

________________________

Unfortunately, I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.

MarkE · « **Reply #9 on:** August 11, 2015, 05:40:08 AM »

Quote from: guest1289 on August 11, 2015, 02:56:45 AM

.
POST MODIFICATION / UPDATE : - MY INVENTION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE PROBLEM POSED BY 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM' IN TERMS OF 'SIDEWAYS-SLIPPAGE' OF MY 'LEVITATING-OBJECT' ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK.

On what basis do you believe that your arrangement gets around Earnshaw's Theorem?

Quote

BUT THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' COULD PROVE OR DISPROVE IT'S ABILITY TO LEVITATE ( ACHIEVE A MEISSNER-LIKE-EFFECT ) ABOVE THE MAGNETIC-CIRCULAR-TRACK, I.E. TO WORK AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY .

What is the "Meissner-like" behavior that you claim your arrangement of conventional permanent magnets exhibits?

Quote

THE FOLLOWING 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST', COULD BE DONE WITH THOSE PLASTIC-FOOD-CONTAINERS 'THAT FIT INTO EACH OTHER' ( such as plastic food containers for the freezer ) .
( THIS PARTICULAR 'PROOF-OF-CONCEPT-TEST' WOULD BE USEFULL TO 'MAYBE' 'DISPROVE' 'EARNSHAW'S THEOREM', AND IT ALSO CONTAINS A 'CRADLING' EFFECT, WHICH MY INVENTION CONTAINS, BUT MY INVENTION DOES IT WITH MAGNETS )

( Unfortunately though, these containers are slightly flexible, so ............ )
_________________

SCENARIO 1

On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are the same strength as the magnets used for 'repulsion' )

In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( of the same strength as above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

In this scenario, I'm not actually sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 2

On the 'outer-corners' of the 'Two' 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets to attract the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' to each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

( In this scenario, the magnets used for 'attraction', are 'WEAKER THAN' the magnets used for 'repulsion' )

In the middle-section of the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers', glue a total of 8 magnets( each magnet being of a 'STRONGER' strength than the magnets used for attraction above ) to REPEL the two 'Plastic-Storage-Containers' away from each other( when one container is being lowered into the other container ).

In this scenario, again, I'm not totally sure what would happen .

________________________

SCENARIO 3 - THE SPECIAL SCENARIO

THE FOLLOWING SCENARIO, IS DESIGNED TO BREAK THE SYMMETRY OF THE 'DISTANCE' BETWEEN 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER' , AND, 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' .

For this scenario, repeat 'SCENARIO 1', but now either 'INCREASE', OR 'DECREASE' , the distance between either 'THE MAGNETS ATTRACTING EACH OTHER', OR, between 'THE MAGNETS REPELLING EACH OTHER' , BREAKING THE 'SYMMETRY' OF THESE TWO DISTANCES.

In this scenario, I really cannot work out what would happen.

________________________

Unfortunately, I cannot even construct the incredibly simple test above.

Why don't you explain why you believe any of these tests should work the way you hope.

MagnaProp · « **Reply #10 on:** August 11, 2015, 06:33:51 AM »

Quote from: guest1289 on August 11, 2015, 02:54:16 AM

MagnaProp , no, that's not actually the same as my invention...

I'll give it one more shot. Is one of these it?

guest1289 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 11, 2015, 04:28:36 PM »

Yes, the first picture in your last post( 3_V magneticTrack.jpg ), is basically the best embodiment ( version ) of my invention, although I have not checked the actual poles( but different configurations of the poles can exist )

And, the concept of your second picture ( 4_V magneticTrack.jpg ), is also mentioned in my Patent-Description.

( Obviously, the quality of your images, is what I should have submitted to 'The Patent Office' in my 'Patent-Description', but I don't care too much )

guest1289 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 11, 2015, 05:07:35 PM »

For the member asking how my invention could get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .

In the worst scenario, in which my invention could fail, 'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION' if it was just functioning on a steady tabletop, check the post by MagnaProp ( Today at 06:33:51 AM ), and examine the picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg , the 'Levitating-Object' could be pushed 'BY HAND' around the 'Magnetic-Circular-Track', like the 'Meissner Effect' demonstrations on looped tracks.
And the second picture 4_V magneticTrack.jpg , may be easier to manufacture .
But Picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg could be made out of numerous small flat round magnets.
( Keep in mind, all types of different 'magnetic-pole' configurations and combinations could be used to make this function.

_________________

However, my invention is intended to function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated, but it is still an incredibly simple invention.
It is only in this 'AGAINST-GRAVITY' functionality that I do not actually know if my invention can get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
To make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY' , I have described two possible options :

1 - The 'Levitating-Object' could have some magnets to attract it to a single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track', and other magnets to repel it from the single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track'

2 - The second option would be to have two 'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks', one 'track' being used to repel the 'Levitating-Object', and the other 'track' being used to attract the 'Levitating-Object' .

If no other solutions would work to get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' to make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', I was thinking of 'SCENARIO 3' in my post 'Today at 02:56:45 AM' , or a modification 'SCENARIO 3'

______________________

guest1289 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 11, 2015, 06:08:43 PM »

I should add, that 'ANOTHER' way to achieve a totally 'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case', could be simply to put the levitating-object between a field above it, that repels it, and a field below it, that repels it, using the magnetic-cradle field designs in my invention, but my full invention has many more applications than just a 'Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet Levitating-Object Display-Case'

SoManyWires · « **Reply #14 on:** August 11, 2015, 10:21:56 PM »

Quote from: guest1289 on August 11, 2015, 05:07:35 PM

For the member asking how my invention could get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem' .

In the worst scenario, in which my invention could fail, 'IT WOULD STILL FUNCTION' if it was just functioning on a steady tabletop, check the post by MagnaProp ( Today at 06:33:51 AM ), and examine the picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg , the 'Levitating-Object' could be pushed around the 'Magnetic-Circular-Track', like the 'Meissner Effect' demonstrations on looped tracks.
And the second picture 4_V magneticTrack.jpg , may be easier to manufacture .
But Picture 3_V magneticTrack.jpg could be made out of numerous small flat round magnets.
( Keep in mind, all types of different 'magnetic-pole' configurations and combinations could be used to make this function.

_________________

However, my invention is intended to function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY', and that is where my invention gets only slightly more complicated, but it is still an incredibly simple invention.
It is only in this 'Anti-Gravity' functionality that I do not actually know if my invention can get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem'.
To make my invention function 'AT ANY ANGLE IN RELATION TO GRAVITY' , I have described two possible options :

1 - The 'Levitating-Object' could have some magnets to attract it to a single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track', and other magnets to repel it from the single-existing 'Circular-Magnetic-Track'

2 - The second option would be to have two 'Circular-Magnetic-Tracks', one 'track' being used to repel the 'Levitating-Object', and the other 'track' being used to attract the 'Levitating-Object' .

If no other solutions could be found to get around 'Earnshaw's Theorem', I was thinking of 'SCENARIO 3' in my post 'Today at 02:56:45 AM'

______________________

you are onto something there.
i too have questions about this being possible.
one thing that seems to convince me is when looking at how a linear permanent magnet rail gun seems to work.

though this is not involving using magnets to levitate, a levitating bearing system that remains stable enough for a added rotor could be possible to reduce wear and friction.

arrange the stator magnets as shown to work already in linear arrangement this way exactly, though making the proper diameter remain within the passing rotors magnet's( magnet rail guns projectile, projectile(s) now attached to a rotor) angle of approach.

could it be that simple?

or does it need help from either a combination of a few other possible considerations?

such as a clutch that works with a tensioning coil / torque converter that can store the built up force that occurs during the movement past the stators magnets, to help it complete revolutions.

or a flywheel included with the torque converter, maybe a flywheel without a torque converter even.

or electro magnets placed at the right location fed power from the rotation of other sets of magnets passing wire coils that are either attached to the rotor and the stator, to help cancel out the cogging effect that the rails rotor and stator magnets run into.

these things make me wonder.
have not seen any arrangement of magnets anywhere yet that conforms to this concept, yet seen many other different ones.

there is also slow self charging capacitors being developed, batteries that can run for years without needing recharging, and still more than those above mentioned, and combinations thereof.

so if one idea alone does not work, using more than one idea to help make another one possible would make the next logical step before giving up and moving onto something else should any other working proof of concepts become more useful for ones invested time and just waiting to find out if some working design is developed somewhere else.

the goal is to be more efficient than using solar or windpower and be of reasonable build cost.
until that happens, if it happens, these test projects can end up being expensive if no recycled
components are to be found.

a important thing is that the person working on their projects enjoys what they are doing, even if there is no winning the lotto by that person who is making such attempts.

and knows at least just enough about the safety of working around their projects materials!

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION (Read 21659 times)

guest1289

MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MarkE

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MarkE

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MarkE

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MagnaProp

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MarkE

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

MagnaProp

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

guest1289

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION

SoManyWires

Re: MY 'LEVITATING OBJECT' INVENTION