Hi Steven,

You have a very very interesting setup, I like it! What is more, at the moment I cannot tell you any reason why it should not work...

Let's try analyzing it so that other members could also argue.

First I suggest to consider one half of your setup, i.e. one disk only with its magnets and the shield ring around it. 

As you and Vidar pointed out already, the LENGTH of the ring is crucial to balance out the sticky points. I think the length must be chosen so that the 'behind/leaving' and 'ahead/approaching' distance between the magnets and the endings of the ring at its any one end should be equal. This can be done by shifting the ring around the perimeter back and force a little at a time and trimming its length.

The main problem here is to find / select uniform magnets of more or less equal strength.  In ideal case, if you give a gentle push by your hand to this one disk/one ring setup, it should rotate freely for nearly the same duration like it would without the ring, assuming equal hand pushing force. This requirement assumes now choosing  ring material with a minimum eddy current possibility. There must also be a radial force trying to brake rotation but this is almost balanced due to the approximately 3/4 coverage of the ring around the disk magnets all the time during a full rotation.

If this situation with one disk/one ring can be approached well, then probably another separate one disk/one ring can be constructed in the same way and placing these two disks near each other as Steven showed in his animation/pictures, there will be attractive forces between the two disks' magnets.  I tend to agree with using a 1:1 gear to connect the disks (but this surely consumes useful torque).

Vidar suggests a modification to replace one of the disks with a flat stationary magnet bar.  Well, this seems also a good idea here, at the moment I cannot argue against it either...

Now some tinkering should be done to test these nice setups.

Thanks for sharing this.

Gyula

Hi Steven,
very nice animation and idea.
I think that this concept can have some success,
Also the discs need to be geared up, so they can only move
together in sync.
Many thanks.

Regards, Stefan.

Was there not a proposal in your old Yahoo Free-energy group which
had strange "spoon shaped" shields. I thought the name Zirbes was
involved, but I am sure this is not ther case.

This idea had something to give; it kept the shields out of the way
in a clever fashion.
Paul.

The thing is with all the permanent magnet motors that are out there is that, depletion of the magnets is reported. This is highly likely because these designs always seem to use the repelling mode of the magnets. And you will deplete a magnet in a short while when you hammer it constantly with a strong repelling pole. This is the case in permanent magnet motors working in repelling mode. So that is why I started thinking about magnet motors in attraction mode. Because it is very likely that in attraction mode the magnets will 'survive' BUT it is so much harder to make a working magnet motor in attraction mode.
I do have high hopes for the Perendev motor although it works in repelling mode. But they say the magnets only lose about 1% of their strength a year.

Thanks
Steven

A simple way to avoid degaussing is to make the magnets work with the magnetic lines going parallell. Two bar magnets placed in parallel will repel if the same pole is pointing in the same direction, but they will never degaussing as they are working with each other.

So another modification to the drawings in the opening post here is to use magnets where the poles are pointing 90^o to the disc surface. Then closing the magnetic in the same principle as shown there.Then a repelling mode would work as well without degaussing the magnets over time.

If I'm not clear, please tell - its late here in Norway.

Br.

Vidar