Author Topic: Newton's Magnets (Read 36115 times)

Low-Q · « **Reply #30 on:** July 16, 2019, 09:32:01 PM »

Quote from: lumen on July 16, 2019, 07:20:01 PM

@ Tinman

The best part of these experiments is not whether it works or fails, but what is learned.
.........

Totally agreed. Learning is important.

Using neos in close approximity of a weaker ceramic magnet is a problem. This problem has already been addressed earlier in this thread. What you can do to compensate for this, is making a smaller diameter for the part where the ceramic magnets are fixed, so you extend the gap between the statorfield and the rotorfield.
Too far apart, and you will add the two fields from the left rotormagnet and the statormagnet, repelling the right hand rotormagnet even more. This aready happens before the rotormagnets are facing eachother. So if you perhaps place several smaller statormagnets as an arch, and makes sure there is a balance between repelling and attracting forces in the 90° rotation in advance of the statormagnets end, you will have a different result. Perhaps closer to a running motor.
So doing adjustments to cancel repelling and attracting forces at one place, will enhance repelling forces another place in the design you have now.

I think this rotary design can be a few steps closer to a selfrunner if you do modifications, as suggested with the arched statorfield. Just have in mind that two of the magnets enhance the field on one side, and that can cause the other field to be too much repelled, or too little (starting to attract). However, firstly, the most important thing is to gain a net positive torque even if the rotormagnets at some places counterforces rotation, the other forces has to be greater.

Maybe it even goes backwards. I allways think both forward and backwards when designing. Thinking like that helps me to understand more. Asking, what determine direction? Can it go backwards as well as forwards? What does the statormagnet want to do? What if I fix the rotor, and let the statormagnet go, what will happen?

Vidar

telecom · « **Reply #31 on:** July 16, 2019, 10:55:26 PM »

Quote from: Floor on July 16, 2019, 05:44:08 AM

To see a short video on the ACTUAL SUBJECT of this topic.
click
https://youtu.be/1_CrU7M46S4
or for a similar design click
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gzr2q

Also see the attached PDF files below.

floor

Just want to note that in the youtube video magnets are parallel to each other,
but in a dailymotion - they are perpendicular to the shield magnets.
Why and how this shield works is still puzzling to me.
I can only guess that the shield transforms linear forces into the rotational
ones, which in turn being absorbed by a frame.
If you can, please clarify the above mechanism.

Floor · « **Reply #32 on:** July 17, 2019, 01:38:15 AM »

If I may be admitted back into this topic after showing such very bad behaviour

@ Lumen

Your observationshave a good deal of validity.

In the rotating design, we are not creating precisely equal conditions
on each side of the neo magnet. There are significant differences in the
fields when one is repelling under compression rather than like the other
attracting with expansive fields.

A possible solution... create more nearly identical field conditions (although inverted to one another in the vertical plane) on either side of the shield.

See the PDF below

Split and then flip one half of the shield magnet.

note. This will also change the force vector direction upon the (now an array),
of shield magnets, into a torque force.

floor

lumen · « **Reply #33 on:** July 17, 2019, 04:48:14 AM »

@ Floor

Looking at your PDF is making me wonder..... I bet if I put that into the simulator, it's going to tell me that there is no change in forces on the outer magnets with or without the shield magnets.
That would be interesting because if the actual response is not as calculated then something is missing.
We will see what happens.

lumen · « **Reply #34 on:** July 17, 2019, 09:47:08 PM »

So the results ?

Without the shield magnet the right magnet has a force of +65.3 Newtons and the left is also a -65.3 Newtons.
With the shield inserted the right magnet has a force of +61.2 Newtons and the left is showing -60.8 Newtons.
This is the result for Neodymium magnets and I am sure the results are different using ceramic magnets.

I think the results may be changed to something closer to that of ceramic magnets by adding a some iron to the magnet faces.
This would result in the repelling forces shifting somewhat toward attraction as the forces increase.(maybe not exactly the same but similar)
Possibly adding something like ferrite that could have greater thickness might yield a better curve for the desired action.
Or just a thin Neodymium magnet on the back of a ceramic magnet might yield the same action but with more power!

There should be more testing in this area.

Floor · « **Reply #35 on:** July 17, 2019, 10:19:00 PM »

@ Lumen

All of this stuff is based on basics. Unfortunately for nearly all of us, in the course of
our learning those basics, our teachers left out / failed to accentuate certain aspects.

They did this not because they were particularly bad teaches, but because certain aspects
of those basics were traditionally considered / assumed to be of little consequence.

In mechanics :

1. A force (any kind of force) is not form of energy, its not even a mechanical energy.

2. A force acting / causing some change, is an expenditure of, manifestation of
or exchange of energy.

3. Forces which are present between magnets are not / do not expend energy
unless / until they cause a change.

Commonly, that change is measured in terms of some form of displacement.
Then and only then is that magnetic force and its action, a form of energy.
(measurable as force time displacement)

As a relavent example, consider an apple sitting upon Newton's desk. The force of gravity
is pulling upon that apple. But there is (by definition) no work being done upon the
apple and there is no expenditure of gravitational energy unless the apple falls.

These devices and methods, change the direction of forces, so that they can not act,
and therefore are not / do not become expenditures of energy.

The forces are still there but they cost us / the device very little (mostly just increased friction losses).

This seems like just word trickery, but it actually / really is the way it is, when dealing with force and energy.

The devices / methods also neutralize forces by balancing.

Motion that is caused / occurs, but which is not done against a force is not an energy expenditure.

Shields of any kind redirect energy. Even a motor cycle helmet does this. They do not magically
cause energy to vanish.

Floor · « **Reply #36 on:** July 17, 2019, 10:36:44 PM »

Quote from: lumen on July 17, 2019, 04:48:14 AM

@ Floor

Looking at your PDF is making me wonder..... I bet if I put that into the simulator, it's going to tell me that there is no change in forces on the outer magnets with or without the shield magnets.
That would be interesting because if the actual response is not as calculated then something is missing.
We will see what happens.

@ Lumen

!. Can not / will not, discuss the results with neo magnets (it is off topic).

2. As I said in an earlier comment, I have the FEMM software, but I don't use it.

3. I don't want to discuss the FEMM software nor the validity of or invalidity of its usage (it is off topic).

4. We are discussing real world magnet interactions. You may, of course, wonder all you wish to about FEMM results,
but its off topic here.

Floor · « **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2019, 10:48:06 PM »

Here is the basis of the topic of discussion

Equal and opposite forces.

It requires the same energy expenditure to pull two magnets in attraction apart,
as those magnets delivered during their attraction to each other.

Because Newtons laws are valid, and also because of the two pole nature of permanent magnets...........

we can change the positions of two magnets, which are in close proximity to one another,
without doing work against the magnetic forces between those magnets. To see an example of this
illustrated, open the PDF attached below.

We can get energy from magnets, cyclically and repeatedly.

We accomplish this by limiting motions to specific vectors (right angle and or near right angle vectors),
by neutralization of (balancing of) attracting and repelling forces along specific vectors, and preventing
motions along specific other vectors.

To see this done watch this video, Titled "amazeing"

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gzr2q

lumen · « **Reply #38 on:** July 18, 2019, 01:08:46 AM »

@ Floor

I posted the FEMM results only because I have tested this exact configuration and the results match the FEMM results and if you notice the difference you will see it's to small to be useful.
What is different are the results that are shown in some devices using ceramic magnets.
To know why the results are different may be the key to building a self sustaining device.

You missed one though, Two magnets stacked together increase the field strength.

Floor · « **Reply #39 on:** July 18, 2019, 01:50:10 AM »

Quote from: lumen on July 18, 2019, 01:08:46 AM

@ Floor

I posted the FEMM results only because I have tested this exact configuration and the results match the FEMM results and if you notice the difference you will see it's to small to be useful.
What is different are the results that are shown in some devices using ceramic magnets.
To know why the results are different may be the key to building a self sustaining device.

You missed one though, Two magnets stacked together increase the field strength.

"You missed one though, Two magnets stacked together increase the field strength."

Two magnets stacked together CHANGES field strength.

There are many and various, ways in which that "strength" may CHANGE. INCREASE can only properly be described in terms of both magnitude AND direction.

What YOU MISSED AND SEEM NOT TO UNDERSTAND, is that it is quite often, a VERY DIFFICULT TASK to keep a topic on topic. This is especially true, in an environment (like the OU forum) that is filled with brilliant and creative minds.

There is sometimes a seemingly endless array of, valid and fascinating, variations and nuances to a particular set of interactions. Sometimes, far more than a single person could explore in a
lifetime.
The focus of this topic has already spread far and wide and is sometimes barely on topic.

What you are participating in, is the present state of a 5 year of study / research (by me), in this some what narrow vein of examinations. Combined with the experience of some of the other participants in the topic, there is probably well over a century of time / experience present (not excluding your own).

Most participant are rugged individualists / valiant explorers. It is difficult for us to resits
the temptation to present innovations. This in itself is not something to be put down upon or invalidated. But participants must be careful that they not prevent a topics culmination.

PLEASE be more careful in the future in this context.

respectfully
floor

In some ways your observations, questions, ideas are simply ahead of the curve, at this time.

Floor · « **Reply #40 on:** July 18, 2019, 02:45:12 AM »

@ all readers

PLEASE see the exceptions at the bottom of the page.

Some points which are critical to understand about this topic.
Its about
ONE
.... straight line or LINEAR MOTIONS ...

.....AT 90 DEGREES .....

of a magnet or magnets, in relationship to another / other magnets.

TWO

The energy present as the motion of an "output magnet or magnets"
..... AFTER ..
a "shielding magnet or magnets" has been
..... COMPLETELY....
removed from between those other magnets, is also permissible as on topic.

THREE

The energy required to install or remove a "shielding magnet or magnets"
between or from between "output magnets" is also permissible as on topic.

FOUR

The topic is about START then COMPLETED MOTION then STOP and THEN
the next motion / action devices only.

Participants / readers, please understand that these are the only conditions,
under which I have observed "over unity" in terms of the ratio of input mechanical work to
output mechanical work.

NEXT

With one exception the LowQ Tinman exploration / design will be considered as on topic.

NEXT

The discussion is also (ALMOST ) entirely limited to ceramic magnet application.

Again with one exception, the LowQ Tinman exploration / design. Please do your best
to stick to the ceramics.

best wishes
floor

Floor · « **Reply #41 on:** July 18, 2019, 02:54:10 AM »

@ Lumen

Quote from floor
"As a relavent example, consider an apple sitting upon Newton's desk. The force of gravity
is pulling upon that apple. But there is (by definition) no work being done upon the
apple and there is no expenditure of gravitational energy unless the apple falls."
end quote

See also this link below

https://overunity.com/18234/new-version-of-flotation-device/msg535512/#msg535512

EDIT here / addendum ...1/23/22
Link is to an attempt by me to apply right angle interaction toa gravity based device...

Floor · « **Reply #42 on:** July 18, 2019, 03:30:57 AM »

@ All readers

Here is the basis of the topic of discussion

Equal and opposite forces.

It requires the same energy expenditure to pull two magnets in attraction apart,
as those magnets delivered during their attraction to each other.

Because Newtons laws are valid, and also because of the two pole nature of permanent magnets...........

we can change the positions of two magnets, which are in close proximity to one another,
without doing work against the magnetic forces between those magnets. To see an example of this
illustrated, open the PDF attached below.

We can get energy from magnets, cyclically and repeatedly.

We accomplish this by limiting motions to specific vectors (right angle and or near right angle vectors),
by neutralization of (balancing of) attracting and repelling forces along specific vectors, and preventing
motions along specific other vectors.

To see this done watch this video, Titled "amazeing"

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6gzr2q

PDF attached below.

floor

lumen · « **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2019, 04:21:25 AM »

@ Floor

There are many new people in the forum that don't have a good understanding of how physics and mechanical devices operate and most have likely not been here when you first posted your test setup on this principal. If you were to check back you would see I was there.

I was a Journeyman machinist for 15 years and I have a building full of CNC machines that I wrote custom software to do nearly any task, including taking force measurements from many combinations of magnetic interactions.
Then I was a mechanical and electrical engineer for 25 years and now retired.

I'm not bragging, just don't need reminding of trivial physics and work calculation.

I was working on a way to determine if work can actually be done in a uniform magnetic field because the Faraday device that claims it is doing so is not a conclusive test.

So I should no doubt return back to that task and see where that leads and let you continue on.
Thanks for letting me post, it was a good distraction.

Floor · « **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2019, 12:08:32 PM »

@Lumen

Be well.

floor

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Newton's Magnets (Read 36115 times)

Low-Q

Re: Newton's Magnets

telecom

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

lumen

Re: Newton's Magnets

lumen

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

lumen

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets

lumen

Re: Newton's Magnets

Floor

Re: Newton's Magnets