Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?  (Read 24710 times)

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2007, 10:14:16 AM »
I analysed this in femm, the torque generated in 1 turn is 0.0, it balances out exactly. I don't think it is very interesting design anymore either, Just the amount of bearings needed, the gear wheels etc. produce a lot of friction.  Nice handy work from Clanzer.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2007, 10:22:34 AM »
I have more or less given up on these simulations because I don?t see them serving any useful purpose. Aside from the fact that FEMM is an obviously unreliable simulation to begin with. I'd never even consider using it. In them the magnetic field around a body of a given form is always assumed to be of exactly the same form as the magnetic field around another body of the same form. That?s not the case in a real experiment and it makes a hell of a lot of difference. I?d rather do what I already proposed above for Sean to do?carry out thorough measurements of the profile of the field with a gauss meter to see what the actual form of the magnetic field is of a construction made mechanically perfectly symmetric. The problems with these devices are the huge discrepancies in the actual fields in ostensibly perfectly manufactured contraptions.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #32 on: November 24, 2007, 10:26:28 AM »
I analysed this in femm, the torque generated in 1 turn is 0.0, it balances out exactly. I don't think it is very interesting design anymore either, Just the amount of bearings needed, the gear wheels etc. produce a lot of friction.  Nice handy work from Clanzer.
Show it. Show that simulation and let Stefan or @tao analyze it if they want, just out of curiosity, not that it is of any importance.

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2007, 11:26:32 AM »
The closest I got OU is the link here:
http://www.geocities.com/k_pullo/SMOT15_PM3-3.htm

This thing provides allways positive torque in average, in FEMM. I have downloaded Maxwell SV - a free 2D version, so I will just see what this application says about it.

Vidar

acp

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2007, 12:35:44 PM »
Here it is.

CLaNZeR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
    • Overunity.org.uk
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #35 on: November 24, 2007, 01:01:24 PM »
The closest I got OU is the link here:
http://www.geocities.com/k_pullo/SMOT15_PM3-3.htm

Thx Vidar

That on is on the CNC machine as I type :)
Gone for a 120mm Rotor with Rotor magnets 20mm in length which allows 16 of them to fit nicely with a 6 degree tilt.
Wanted to use the magnets I already have here, but looks like I will need to order some stator magnets. Will start a new thread when the Rotor cutout and mounted :)

@Omnibus, sorry mate I do not have a gauss meter, but as acp correctly say the friction and losses in the bearings and the Polycarbonate cogs is huge anyway. But even with the Rod magnets I used, there is not enough pull or push to even move a few mm. It just kind of balances itself out.

I will come back and play with it more another day, but for now I want to go for some really loose bearings on my next design and stick to single rotors.

Thanks for the feedback guys

Cheers

Sean.

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #36 on: November 24, 2007, 01:11:58 PM »
The closest I got OU is the link here:
http://www.geocities.com/k_pullo/SMOT15_PM3-3.htm

Thx Vidar

That on is on the CNC machine as I type :)
Gone for a 120mm Rotor with Rotor magnets 20mm in length which allows 16 of them to fit nicely with a 6 degree tilt.
Wanted to use the magnets I already have here, but looks like I will need to order some stator magnets. Will start a new thread when the Rotor cutout and mounted :)

@Omnibus, sorry mate I do not have a gauss meter, but as acp correctly say the friction and losses in the bearings and the Polycarbonate cogs is huge anyway. But even with the Rod magnets I used, there is not enough pull or push to even move a few mm. It just kind of balances itself out.

I will come back and play with it more another day, but for now I want to go for some really loose bearings on my next design and stick to single rotors.

Thanks for the feedback guys

Cheers

Sean.

What about needle bearings?

Vidar

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #37 on: November 24, 2007, 01:23:06 PM »
Here it is.
Thanks :)

The KissMotor:

The average torque on the satelites are 0.017Nm.
The average torque on the rotor is 0.68Nm

If we consider the tolerances, the result is practically zero.

Vidar

rotorhead

  • Guest
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #38 on: November 24, 2007, 03:12:56 PM »
There's this idea on Steorn that was inspired by the Cack device but is considerably different in many ways. I wonder what a FEMM or Maxwell model would reveal about it?
http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687

capthook

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #39 on: February 21, 2008, 08:08:13 PM »
Hi all -

ClanZer - You are the MAN!  I've greatly enjoyed all of your replications of various devices.  Your enginering and construction skills are superior!

This idea is dead?  Looks like a more practical idea along the same lines as the WhipMag.

What about adjusting air gap?  Magnet size/strength?  Magnet spacing?  Rotor weight?

Changing gearing to bearing based rather than tooth based?  Stator magnets placed atop bearing (like a skate bearing) placed in a wheel (like a skateboard wheel) contacting the sun gear.  Providing a smooth motion - no impact with tooth losses.  Much less friction, yes?

Maybe manual starting speed of "x" m/s needed to get it going?

Additional "kick" magnet placed somewhere to give it the 1 spot of overbalance?

It's just with ALL these type of devices there are SO many variables one could mess with.

Should some of these be examined?  Or are you/we SURE this type of configuration would NOT work NO MATTER what?

Sure is a coooool idea.  I would be inspired to mess around with it if the design is possible.

(Thanks for sharing all your awesome replications ClanZer)

CH

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #40 on: February 21, 2008, 10:36:34 PM »
I don't think alternating gap, magnet size, rotor weight will change anything. The torque is independent on mass, but mass influence on acceleration (If it is torque). I did experiment with different magnets and airgaps, but nothing changed the fact that this idea is a dead end.
Magnet motors in general is nothing more than dead ends. Devices that don't work.

br.

Vidar

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #41 on: February 21, 2008, 11:12:18 PM »
I don't think alternating gap, magnet size, rotor weight will change anything. The torque is independent on mass, but mass influence on acceleration (If it is torque). I did experiment with different magnets and airgaps, but nothing changed the fact that this idea is a dead end.
Magnet motors in general is nothing more than dead ends. Devices that don't work.

br.

Vidar

As your overall participation in the discussions indicates, you're not qualified enough to make such pronouncements. Learn more before allowing yourself the audacity to teach others.

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #42 on: February 21, 2008, 11:31:00 PM »
You are wrong @omnibus. I am more than enough qualified to discuss topics here. But this is not the topic in this thread. So if you don't have other comments than comment me and my skills, you can stop writing, but quote your words to yourself !!

Discussing me or other persons are definitly not constructive, and should on the other hand be a good reason for you to be excluded from this forum!! >:(

Vidar

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #43 on: February 21, 2008, 11:40:31 PM »
You are wrong @omnibus. I am more than enough qualified to discuss topics here. But this is not the topic in this thread. So if you don't have other comments than comment me and my skills, you can stop writing, but quote your words to yourself !!

Discussing me or other persons are definitly not constructive, and should on the other hand be a good reason for you to be excluded from this forum!! >:(

Vidar

You should go away and not continue to clutter the discussion with incompetent blabber.

Low-Q

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2847
Re: Replication of the Jan P. Cack device?
« Reply #44 on: February 21, 2008, 11:51:56 PM »
You are wrong @omnibus. I am more than enough qualified to discuss topics here. But this is not the topic in this thread. So if you don't have other comments than comment me and my skills, you can stop writing, but quote your words to yourself !!

Discussing me or other persons are definitly not constructive, and should on the other hand be a good reason for you to be excluded from this forum!! >:(

Vidar

You should go away and not continue to clutter the discussion with incompetent blabber.
Maybe you should take a look at your own writings first, and then come back to tell who is blabbering here. Sadly there is no moderators on this forum to exclude such behaviours of yours. Grow up!

Vidar