The CITFA shield rotor needs to self adjust up and down on a spring. The weight of the spoke wheel repulsion magnets needs to be enough to overcome the measured force resisting closure. The net power would be the ratio of difference as measured by CITFA. The shield rotor needs to lift with the repulsion magnets to eliminate the counter reinsertion force.

When in position, the weight of the overhead repulsion magnet spoke wheel would "sandwich" the newly positioned shield magnet down between the two stacks. The rotor shield needs to ride up and down on a spring as well as power around 90 degrees.


This pump would run like a CooKoo clock!

Nested sleeves, a slot key in frame bearing shaft, a latch and a pivot spring on the rotor spool. This design would require a second pulse coil positioned directly beneath the upper one to pulse the shield rotor in the retracted position. The weight of the falling repulsion magnet spoke wheel needs to be enough to compress the shield magnet and load the pivot springs at the base of the rotor shaft tube.


The hinged latch is then set in position and the power pulse turns the rotor 90 degrees and triggers the latch open. Springs can substitute for weight to press down on the rotor to supply the extra cocking force!

Best to design for / aim for the enabling of full proof measurements from the start.
       floor

The shield arm needs to position on the top a spool seated over the pivot spring cap with an I/D of 7/16".

1. Rack and pinyon linkage of output magnets in drawing.
OR the "OTHER METHOD" previously presented IN YOUR DESIGN OK.
Outer magnets MUST BE SO LINKED when using the CITFTA presented method.

2. Output magnets are a single pole on a face.

3. Shield magnets are a single pole on a face.

4. Shield magnets mechanically linked / move in unison (left and right in drawing),
                       ROTATING IN YOUR VARIATION.

5. ATTRACTION force between a SINGLE outer magnet and the shield would be GREATER than the REPELLING force of a SINGLE outer magnet and the shield (given that all the magnets which interact are near to identical in their capacity to exert force).

This is why the outer magnet which is in REPULSION TO THE SHIELD MUST be approximately TWO magnets stacked together for every ONE outer magnet which is ATTRACTED to the shield.

Other wise there will NOT be a near to balance of forces upon the racks and pinion gears, when the shield magnet is in its place between the outer magnets.  There are limits here.  e.g. 8 repelling magnets stacked will give a total repelling force which is LESS THAN than 2 times greater than 4 repelling magnets stacked.

6. Fine tuning magnets.  May or may not be needed.

7. These are, start action, that action completes / stops, then a next action starts and then it completes / stops and so on. There are no continuous motions.  There is no constantly moving element.

Synchro 1 quote

"The rotor shield needs to ride up and down on a spring as well as power around 90 degrees. "

End of Synchro 1 quote

Magnets are not springs.

When the shield magnet is in place between the outer magnets, there exist, both an attraction force and a repulsion force upon it. Both of these forces are combined / act upon the shield magnet and incline the shield magnet to move in a single / the same direction.

One will not be able to push a combination of,  the 2 outer magnets and the inner / shield magnet together except against magnetic forces. 

The shield will attract TO the one and REPALL from the other.  One would then need to compress the shield combined with the attracting outer magnet/s, against the repelling magnet/s.

Only a linking of the outer magnets in a manner effectively the same as illustrated, will allow
one to bring the outer magnets into near proximity with the inner magnet, and at the same time practically eliminate the work against magnetic forces along that line of travel.

Disregard the above if you are already aware of these factors.   (Its for other readers primarily).

"How does this Cookoo clock compare to CITFA's haymaker?"

It'll do.
Are you two competing for the O.U. prize ?   

Maybe we really have an O.U. prize contender here, with a marriage of concepts. Inverting one side of the Rack and Pinion setup and adapting the configuration to the the Cookoo design.

CITFA measured .7 kg on the magnetic compression and 4.5 kg on the repulsion. adding perhaps an additional .3kg for the pivot spring would yield 3.5 kg's of O.U. force. We need to subtract the pulse power to arrive at an actual COP. The result is the 3 to 1 sheer to push pull advantage, just like the magnet pump, Looks like a winning combination! 

@ All readers

Mechanical work = force x displacement
                 or
Joules of energy = Newtons of force x meters of travel

Forces are not constant over the course of the magnet displacements.
We are not looking simply at the peak force x the displacement in each action.

The input energy present in each one of the 3 actions will be equal to the average
force in that action x the displacement in that action.

The output energy present will be in one action and will be equal to the average
force x the displacement during that action.

3 inputs
1 output

1. Shield installed = input 1
2. output magnets brought near to shield = input 2
3. Shield removed = input 3
4. output magnets repel = output 1

Any net gain will be output 1, minus the sum of inputs 1, 2 and 3..

There will be some friction losses which would not be not accounted
for by that measurement process.

  floor