A NEW 'MAGNETIC-BEARING',  INVENTED TODAY

The  image in the  URL  below,  is not the NEW 'MAGNETIC-BEARING',  INVENTED TODAY ,  but it is the basis of it.

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

A  new type of  magnetic-bearing  could be based on the above principle in the image at the  above  URL ,   and instead   of  'flattish-round magnets',   magnetic-tubes/pipes   could be used,  for example,  4 pipes arranged in a circle,  and the  'bearing' or  moving-part  spins in the middle of the circle    )

(   Now I don't know what to do,   I am totally tired out from the process and problems of filing a   'provisional-patent-application'  for  'MY OTHER INVENTION'  related to this (  I cannot sneakily add this NEW-INVENTION  as modification to my   'provisional-patent-application'  for  'MY OTHER INVENTION',   because modifications are not allowed on  'provisional-patent-applications'  .   
     The patent system,  is keeping  everyone down (  because they try to turn the government  patent-departments  into profit making businesses,   and the result is that the  'average-individual'  loses reasonable access to patenting their  intellectual-property    )

First: Please stop spamming by opening multiple threads on the same subject.

You also cannot obtain a defensible patent on prior art.  If you are trying to attract investors or some such thing then you will need to explain to them what problem it is that you solved, and why you were able to solve it and others before you did not.

.

Below is  an image of  this  NEW 'MAGNETIC-BEARING',  I INVENTED TODAY

(  It's  obviously  'incredibly' simple  )

In the  image  below,  at  the  point  labelled at the bottom of the image as   'POINT X' ,   there would be a  'magnetic-cradle'  such as the  one in  my other  invention  http://overunity.com/15966/my-levitating-object-invention/msg459006/#msg459006  ,    to keep the   moving-part   of the  magnetic-bearing   in place in the opposite  90-degree angle,   to make it a  100%  magnetic-bearing,  unlike others.


(  This can function in all the  applications  where all other  magnetic-bearings  can function in,  which makes it different to my  'OTHER MAGNETIC-BEARING-INVENTION'     http://overunity.com/15966/my-levitating-object-invention/msg459006/#msg459006  ,   but that invention has it's own  significant  advantages   )

If anyone wants to contact me to   'write and draw and file'  my 'patent-application'  for  todays invention,  AND  address the  'financial-costs' associated with that process ,    CONTACT ME at   john.backerwww@gmail.com

The simple ones  function(  where they just rest on the  'two'  magnets etc ),  there are numerous  genuine youtube videos,  showing them working with no problems,    examine the image at the  URL  below  .

(  I WAS worried that  using more than  two  magnets,   would not function the same as the simple ones,   BUT NOW I HAVE REALIZED THAT IF THE  DIAMETER  OF THE  MOVING-PART ( IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BEARING )  IS LARGE ENOUGH,   THAT IT WILL FUNCTION   )

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

(  your browser may only download the image above,  and then you may have to click on the  download  to  view it  )

NOW,  GO TO MY INVENTION   http://overunity.com/15966/my-levitating-object-invention/msg459006/#new  ,   THEN GO TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD,  AND GO TO THE POST ON   'August 11, 2015, 06:33:51 AM'  ,  AND  EXAMINE  THE IMAGE  LABELLED   3_V magneticTrack.jpg   ,     AND TELL ME      THAT IF THE    'LEVITATING-OBJECT'  WAS  A  FULL-RING  LEVITATING  ABOVE THE  TWO-RINGS  IN THAT IMAGE,      THAT THAT WOULD NOT WORK,   IF IT WAS JUST SET UP ON A STEADY TABLE     ?

The simple ones  function(  where they just rest on the  'two'  magnets etc ),  there are numerous  genuine youtube videos,  showing them working with no problems,    examine the image at the  URL  below  .

(  I WAS worried that  using more than  two  magnets,   would not function the same as the simple ones,   BUT NOW I HAVE REALIZED THAT IF THE  DIAMETER  OF THE  MOVING-PART ( IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BEARING )  IS LARGE ENOUGH,   THAT IT WILL FUNCTION   )

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

(  your browser may only download the image above,  and then you may have to click on the  download  to  view it  )

THIS IS THE "MENDOCINO MOTOR" SUSPENSION SYSTEM. IT REQUIRES ONE POINT CONTACT FOR STABILITY. WITHOUT THIS CONTACT THE ROTOR WILL SIMPLY CRASH INTO THE SUSPENDING MAGNETS. THIS IS IN FACT A DEMONSTRATION OF THE TRUTH OF EARNSHAW'S THEOREM.
HERE IS A VIDEO OF MY ELECTROSTATIC MOTOR USING THAT SUSPENSION SYSTEM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVfw-TeJ9r4

NOW,  GO TO MY INVENTION   http://overunity.com/15966/my-levitating-object-invention/msg459006/#new  ,   THEN GO TO THE FIRST PAGE OF THE THREAD,  AND GO TO THE POST ON   'August 11, 2015, 06:33:51 AM'  ,  AND  EXAMINE  THE IMAGE  LABELLED   3_V magneticTrack.jpg   ,     AND TELL ME      THAT IF THE    'LEVITATING-OBJECT'  WAS  A  FULL-RING  LEVITATING  ABOVE THE  TWO-RINGS  IN THAT IMAGE,      THAT THAT WOULD NOT WORK,   IF IT WAS JUST SET UP ON A STEADY TABLE     ?

THAT IS RIGHT, IT WILL NOT WORK. BUILD IT YOURSELF AND FIND OUT WHY NOT. DON'T SMASH YOUR FINGERS!
(It might work if you can spin-stabilize the "levitated" magnet properly. Then you will have invented the Levitron.)

YOU SAY YOU "CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING"... I WONDER WHY NOT? WHAT IS PREVENTING YOU FROM ORDERING SOME MAGNETS FROM A SUPPLIER AND PUTTING THEM TOGETHER IN WHATEVER WAY YOU LIKE?

AND ALL_CAPS IS CONSIDERED "SHOUTING" AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO GET YOUR POINTS ACROSS. SEE WHAT I MEAN??

Thanks for identifying it,   by telling me the name of it ( MENDOCINO MOTOR" SUSPENSION SYSTEM ),  that is a big help for what I'm doing .    (   I did not know it will crash without   'One point of physical contact for stability' ,   amazing   )

(  I may have slightly misunderstood  regarding that  it will crash without   'One point of physical contact for stability'  ,    Since you only said  'One point of contact for stability'  ,   you did not say  'physical contact',   but I'm going to examine it   )

Yes, it has to be a rigid, physical contact.

Soon,   I will examine it properly( the MENDOCINO MOTOR" SUSPENSION SYSTEM ),    just to assure myself  that the    'One point of physical contact for stability'   required by the   'Mendocino Motor Suspension System'  ,    cannot infact be replaced by a  contactless  magnetic-bearing,   based on the same principle as this  'Suspension System'  ,    For Example,   by putting a    magnetic-ball  on the  very end of the  axle,   and  then using the same principle as this  'Suspension System' to  repel  the  magnetic-ball (  but,  by using  2  pipe/tube-shaped-magnets   instead of  flat-round-circular-magnets,   to repel the  magnetic-ball   )

No, unfortunately that won't work. You'll notice that the "MM" suspension system has a sharp point, bearing onto a piece of glass, for very low friction. The levitation magnets need to be adjusted so that the rotor axle's point bears gently on the glass. If this point-contact has any flexibility, the rotor will crash, since it is being simultaneously attracted and repelled by the lower supporting magnets on the frame, and must be precisely fixed in position axially with respect to the magnets on the frame. People have tried using magnets on one or the other or even both ends of the axle to attain this fixed position, but it has never worked because of the "springiness" of the magnetic attraction or repulsion. The rigid point-contact is the only way that has been discovered so far to make the suspension stable.
Steorn's variant of this system used a vertical axle and very strong ring magnets, concentrically positioned on frame and axle, with the "point contact" being a hardened ball which bore against the hardened face of a micrometer adjusting screw. By adjusting the mike, the proper axial position could be set and maintained at a low-friction but axially stable position.

All of that being said, these systems are fun to experiment with and I am encouraging you to do some experimentation of your own, if and when you are able. Perhaps you can find a new arrangement that hasn't yet been tried. But as I said earlier, as long as you don't have some kind of prototype, and are covering ground that has already been well explored, you might think about holding off on making big claims, and especially, I'd advise that you don't spend any money on patent lawyers...yet! Wait till you have a proof-of-concept prototype constructed that works as you think it should.

The  ring  levitating  above the  2 rings( in my levitating object invention  ),   could just be made of plastic,   and at every  90-degrees around the circle,   it could have  something like  a   magnetic-ball  to  levitate it  above the  2  rings (  4 balls in total ). 
     But,   instead of a   full-ring   floating  above the   '2-rings',   it could just be something like  a  single    'magnetic-ball( which has a small stick containing a small weight extending from its underside to keep the magnetic ball pointing in one direction to maintain repulsion  )   levitating above    the   '2-rings'. 
(   Although I believe everything you have told me,  I'm not totally giving up  )

(  I can't go into the details why I can't build anything  )

(  I'm already reducing my use of  text all written in capital letters  )

(  Hopefully,  you are right,  and I will not have to waste anymore time on my designs that you have seen,   
 
_________

Thank you for not using all-caps routinely.
I think, as I said earlier, that rotational (spinning) stabilization might work with your ring magnet arrangement, but again, this would then be a variation on the Levitron, and those things are pretty hard to adjust properly. When they are, they are pretty amazing for sure, but they can't really take any appreciable load like a real _electromagnetic, feedback-controlled_ levitating bearing system can.
It's my strong belief that your system as described would only produce "crashes" as the object you are trying to levitate slips out of its required position. The situation is kind of like trying to balance a marble on top of a bowling ball. There "may" be one exact point where you could balance the thing, but the very least slightest perturbation or vibration or off-center situation will make it "diverge" and crash. With magnets it's even harder -- in fact, as Earnshaw proved, impossible -- because of that "springiness" thing.

You could,  if you wanted to,  try and  debunk my   'magnet-motor' ,  in the
the thread I created for it     http://overunity.com/15860/can-anyone-identify-this-mystery-magnet-motor-or-provide-any-information/msg454866/#msg454866   ,   and in particular,   the  'drum-version'   of it on the first page of that thread  posted on   'July 10, 2015, 12:06:20 AM'   ,  in image    'DRUM VERSION.JPG'  ,     

____________

But regardless,   your information has been very useful,  theres nothing worse that wasting time on things that other people already know cannot work

Yes, I saw that earlier. The problem is that the strength of attraction of a magnet falls off rapidly. So there's an equilibrium position of the rotor magnets that will not cause any rotation. You could probably rotate the rotor by hand with very little "cogging" but there's no reason that it should rotate on its own. Furthermore, the system will actually act as a brake, due to eddy currents that are generated in the stator as the fields of the rotor magnets are dragged through the stator material.

But build it and see for yourself! Perhaps some pulse-motor builder can take an already-built rotor and wrap a length of iron barstock around it for a stator. It should be very easy to see if there's any tendency to rotate, simply by doing rundown tests in both directions. If you can't build anything at all, for some reason, maybe you could hire someone to do it for you, or you could ask some specific individuals to make and test it.

My problem is sort of the opposite of yours. I _could_ build many things, and have done so. But much of my machine tooling is out of reach, and I can't spend even a few pennies on projects like yours. But it wouldn't be very hard to do, especially for someone with a lathe and milling machine and other basic machine shop tools.

And just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPqEEZa2Gis

Any time you have relative motion between a magnet and a conductive metal piece you will have eddy currents generated in the metal, and this will act as a brake. It doesn't really matter which is "rotor" and which is "stator". You can get around some of this eddy current brake phenomenon by using nonconductive magnetic materials like certain ferrites, or by laminating with thin, insulated laminations in the proper orientation.

It's too bad you are prevented from building anything. I don't know of any basic full-motion magnetic field simulators that you could use to "virtually" test your ideas, maybe someone else does. I understand your idea as described, but I'm still afraid it won't work, for the reasons I've already stated.

Just so you know that I'm not totally full of "hot air" ... here are some things that I was experimenting with some years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyPYBJfRVQ4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3JHdIzPmfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZhljtwJHKw

No, it will not work. Yes, without a point of contact for stabilization it will "jump out" and crash. The reason for this is contained in Earnshaw's theorem and has to do with the 1/r and 1/r² relationships between force and distance between magnets.

You might be interested in studying this patent application:
http://www.google.com/patents/US20110001379

Note that they use ring magnets to completely surround the shaft magnets, performing the same function as your outside rods but going continuously around, as if you had a large number of rods. Also note that their system _requires_ axial restraint, which, in the embodiment used in the famous "plinth" Orbos demonstrated years ago, used a single hardened ball on the top end of the axle that bore against the hardened platen of a micrometer adjustment screw which allowed precise control (and restraint) along the axial direction.