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: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08  (Read 151963 times)

shakman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 237
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #180 on: July 15, 2008, 12:24:58 AM »
Oops, I forgot to change the size of the additional stators.   :-[
Here's what I meant to post...

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #181 on: July 15, 2008, 12:48:53 AM »
Hi Folks,

Naudin made some force measurements between two repel magnets when they approch each other from sideways and then axially, see this link: http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

Unfortunately, I am not aware of any further info on anyone's using this shown difference between the two forces since 1998...

The mass switch here just seems to utilize this force difference, right?

rgds,  Gyula

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #182 on: July 15, 2008, 01:17:38 AM »
Shakman,

I think your additional kicker magnets would help to latch a magnet that had not made the latch at 6 due to centrifical force.  But I'm not sure if this would help.  We would have lost the energy from the failed kick attempt already and slowed the wheel without accomplishing the goal of re-positioning the switch magnet.  A second kick would slow it down a second time, etc.

I think it would be best to avoid allowing the wheel to accelerate to this centrifical failure mode speed.  The wheel should be coupled to a load (generator) that keeps it at the RPM where the design is most efficient.  Higher RPM does not gain us anything in the wheel.  If you need high RPM just build a slow wheel with lots of torque and run the output to a gear box to wind up a higher RPM drive shaft.  I see the gravity motor wheel being constant low RPM.

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #183 on: July 15, 2008, 01:24:55 AM »
Gyula,

I wasn't aware that the forces were so unbalance when approaching from the side vs. co-axially.  That would definitely work in our favor.  It also explains why the wall doesn't feel that strong for the kick we witness when the switch fires. 

I so wish I had measurement equipment.  And every machine tool in the MicroMark catelog!  Maybe someday...

Thanks for the link.  Good stuff there.

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #184 on: July 15, 2008, 05:09:59 AM »
Gyula,

I wasn't aware that the forces were so unbalance when approaching from the side vs. co-axially.  That would definitely work in our favor.  It also explains why the wall doesn't feel that strong for the kick we witness when the switch fires. 

I so wish I had measurement equipment.  And every machine tool in the MicroMark catelog!  Maybe someday...

Thanks for the link.  Good stuff there.

A few posts back I detailed (or tried to) how to tell if your experiments are helping, hurting, or having no effect.  All you need is a known mass, a yardstick, a stopwatch, and a piece of string. For qualitative measurements (simply to tell if a change helped or harmed) you don't even need to know the mass--just use the same wrench every time.

Tomorrow if I have time I will try to illustrate what I mean with a video, using my Evil Skeptic build of the Mondrashek Magnet-Assisted Gravity Wheel. 

Of course this technique is based on the assumption that a change for the better, would reduce friction or add thrust, which would equate to a longer rundown time for a known energy input, and a change for the worse, or no effect, would give shorter or unchanged rundown times. This seems like a logical assumption to me, and is very likely to be true, unless there is some "quantum jump" from a non-performer to a real runner under unusual conditions, like maybe a higher rpm is required to initiate an effect. For example something like this might happen: a configuration doesn't self start, nor run from a low rpm, but if spun up faster than the "centrifugal lockout" rpm, it might catch and start running, sustaining, as it slowed and the magnet/weights started to drop. Odd effects like this have been noted before, in certain other devices, and it makes things a bit harder to test, but still, there are (cheap and effective ) ways, if it comes to that.

(It is surprising to me how few experimenters (even in physics laboratories!!) are willing to do the simplest control experiments. Personally, I think it would save a lot of time if they did them more often.)

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #185 on: July 15, 2008, 03:46:03 PM »
All,

Here is the what I can't get past that make the design workable for me.

We know we can make mass switches and fire them at the 6 and 12 o-clock positions.  The stators magnets that cause them to fire have a repulsive force that must be overcome as the magnets in the mass switches approach.  Lets can this force "F" for each stator, so we have 2xF force against rotation of the wheel.

If you start with only two mass switches on your wheel you have a measurable imbalance that will try to rotate the wheel due to gravity.  This force may not be greater than 2xF so the wheel will not run.  But add a second pair of mass switches so that you have four total and the measurable imbalance due to gravity will increase.  However, the repulsive force 2xF did not increase.  Continue adding mass switches as needed until you have an imbalance that exceeds 2xF.  If you run out of room on a given wheel size/configuration, increase the wheel size so you can add more mass switches.

Does the repulsive force 2xF not remain the same?  Is not the imbalance increasing everytime a mass switch pair is added?

Of course there is a lot more going on and I can only theorize with the knowledge that I have at hand.  I am no fanatic who is 100% confident this wil work.  I just have not been shown or learned the reason why this simple logic does not mean it must work.  I would love for someone to show or teach me the flaw so I can just move on.

Magnet Helper

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #186 on: July 15, 2008, 04:05:13 PM »
Sharing ideas is a great way to brainstorm; however, I am confused about the premise in which these ideas are allowed to exist.  There are only two ideas I can think of 1) being that conventional physics has limitations to its validity, and 2) Gravity is a deletable energy supply.

If #1 is true, then I can understand how someone can ignore the conservation of energy law that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  If that is the case, I can understand why there is a high level of interest in this proposed device.

If #2 is true, that would mean that as more people build gravity motors, that people would weigh less because gravity would be depleted.  Clearly, that would make a lot of people happy since they wouldn't have to diet, but doesn't the end result mean people end off floating into space when all gravity is depleted?

I applaud creativity in trying to solve major issues, but my curiosity stems from the lack of understanding to the rules applied to the filtering of ideas.  I would be interested to understand if anyone has taken the time to do an energy balance, and my guess is that this has not happened.  I wonder if it has, if the results have been verified by a second source to check the validity of the calculations.  If the calculations are accurate and there shows to be a net energy output, then I understand the effort.  If they turn out that the energy is balanced, and there is a debate as to the accuracy of the laws of physics then I understand the effort.

My guess is the work done by the magnets has not been done or done accurately.  I have at my disposal, magnetic analysis software that I have been using for 20+ years and I would offer to take the other energy calculations and compare them to the work done via the magnetic field.  I know most people do not understand magnetism, and I am guessing that is the real missing link in why effort is being done to build a prototype.  I am not trying to be discouraging, but I am trying to offer conclusive evidence as to the result

dudeman750

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #187 on: July 15, 2008, 04:06:26 PM »
The only thing I can add is that the repulsive wall might be considered per degree of rotation. So every time you add a mass switch, yes you are not creating more resistance but it is occuring more often so that would hurt inertia wouldnt it? All these problems will become evident when someone succeeds with an adjustable model to play with. We may find it works better with less tubes or more, it may be a cancelling factor since every tube pair adds another "wall" but yes I see your point in that there is more mass on the heavy side to counter this. If we take the wall out of the equation with pulse electromagnet then it wouldnt matter anyway, but all the ME that I talk to seem to think the repulsion of the 12 and 6 magnets will counter any energy generated by the clockwise motion even with a pulse firing circuit. and when I bring that up, they think even with BEMF circuit that it will consume more energy than the wheel could generate. I think the bottom line is that we need to see it in action in real life to answer all these questions. Im anxious for all 3 of you to complete each of your models.

Im kind of unhappy that TK and Clanzer are not taking to your little switch/catch though. Its too simple and I feel adding latching magnets is just clouding the design. I was picturing a tube style deal like MO came up with but slotted all the way up and down such that you could move your switch/catch on a separate small plate and adjust where the magnet is captured. Also slot and make adjustable the stator magnets as far as space would allow. Then a various assortment of different strength magnets with similar diameter, but diff lenths and densities maybe. I know all this would take a lot of work and cost a bit though. 

I wish I had more formal education on this stuff. Its really interesting to me.

I will be traveling by you today, I can drop off that camera sometime.

Git er dun guys! LOLOLOL

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #188 on: July 15, 2008, 04:51:46 PM »
Magnet Helper,

Dudeman750 let me know you are his contact that reviewed this yesterday.  Thanks for taking the time and offering to do what I always expected:  Sim or calculate the system.  I welcome your assistance.

Clanzer and TK both love to build.  And both do it when they know why the design will not work due to their own individual passions.

A build was not what I had expected, but I welcome them since noo ne yet had a better way to show me the flaw in this concept.  A sim or explanation of which law of physics this violates (that I can understand) is all I am looking for.  Barring that, I have to pursue.

I do not believe this rewrites any current laws.  If it runs it is due to our miss understanding of gravity as a usable force.

A simple electric motor runs due to the attraction of perminant magnets and electromagnets in a rotor/stator configuaration.  The electric energy is used to create magnetic fields and switch them so that the perminant magnets are in a state of continual attraction.  The elecricity is not the force that makes the motor run.  It is the attractive magnetic field forces, not the electricity that turns the motor.  The perminant magnets do not get weakend by the use of this force.

Gravity is also an attractive force.  We have not been able to make a motor of the same type as the simple electric motor using gravity because we cannot change the direction of gravity.  But if we harnessed gravity in some way I believe it would also not weaken, similar to the perminant magnets not weakening in the simple electric motor.

Just to stem some foreseeable rebutals, I am aware that perminant magnets decay with time and heat, etc. but that is a materials and environment issue, and is not caused by using their attractive force to make a motor rotate.

Magnet Helper

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #189 on: July 15, 2008, 06:16:59 PM »
If this is a duplicate then I apologize, but I did not see where my last post ended up.

What I was essentially saying was that as a background, I was a motor designer for 4 years so I understand the magnetic/electrical aspects and that I am a PE with undergrad in ME, so I understand the dynamics aspect.  I also have dynamic software simulation capability as well as the magnetic analysis simulation so I should be able to tell you about anything you want to know about this concept. 

I would be happy to model this if you can give me the dimensions and materials. This way, you would be able to have information for making any other decisions.

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #190 on: July 15, 2008, 07:29:02 PM »
Magnet Helper,

Great.  Let's start a model using some common materials.  I recently ordered and received 24 1/2 dia x 1/2 long neodymium magnets rated ~ N45.

I'd like to have them in phenolic tubse that are .580 ID and .75 OD (not so common, I know, but not as exotic as carbon fiber and very available).  OAL we'll make 8 inches.  Capture the magnets in the the tube with phenolic disks .75 dia and .05 thick.

Can you wing the whistle cuts and latch or do you need me to CAD something up?  Latch can be brass for now.

Mount the tube and latch to a 1/4 x 2 x 7 wood strip with 1/2 x 2 champhers at the end that will point towards the axel like in the pictures of my build on the bottom of page 2.  The tube should hang off each end of the wood strip equially.  This will be one switch module.

We can start with an array of 4 modules on a 24 inch diameter wheel.  Wheel should be wood 24 dia and 3/8 thick.  Array equally so the bottom edge of each mass switch is hanging 1/4 inch past the rim of the wheel.  Bearing system is up to you.  Should not need to be non-conductive or anything special.

The stators will be 1/2 x 1/4 x 1 N40 neodymium magnets.  Place them in position so that the 1 x 1/2 surfaces are centered and face the bottom of the switch tubes when at 6 and 12.  The switches should approach the 1 inch edge.  Adjust the gap between the stators and the switches so that they throw the switch magnets up the tubes just far enough to make past and then fall back and catch on the latch when the wheel is forced to rotate 33 RPM.  That'll be our maximum RPM design target.

We can begin doubling mass switches on the wheel as needed from here.  Also, we can increase the wheel diameter if need be (unless we find what makes this another non-runner idea first).

Let me know if you have any difficulties with this plan or need more info.  Also, PM me if you want to exchange or have my cell number to discuss further.

M.

Magnet Helper

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #191 on: July 15, 2008, 08:28:50 PM »
The information you supplied looks sufficient to get started.  I will probably ignore the latch since I was really only interested in the inertia of the wheel and the latches won't add much based on the other components.

This will take a while to get the magnets correct since I have to find the equilibrium point, or at least get a close approximation.

One thing I just realized, and you don't have to comment, but you mentioned something about 33 RPM.  The way I see this working (if it works the way it is intended) is that there is always a torque applied to the wheel due to it being out of balance.  Unless there is a friction, the torque will continually apply an acceleration, so the wheel would continue to gain speed with time.  We know, that in the practical world there will be some friction, but I am wondering where the 33 rpm's came from.

As I said before, it is not important because my model will calculate the net torque and determine the acceleration and velocity and be able to plot them with time.  Of course, my model will not include friction, so you will see the best available scenario.  I can put in friction if I wish, but I don't think that will be necessary.

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #192 on: July 15, 2008, 09:14:46 PM »
MH,

Centrifical force is in play and acting on each switch magnet with increasing force as the RPM increases.

If we set the stators to mass switch gap so that the switch magnet only fires high enough to make the latch at 33RPM, the switches will not fire high enough to reach the latch at 34 or higher RPM.  The design is self governing with respect to RPM.  It cannot run awy beyond the RPM where centrifical force causes the bottom switches to stop working.  If it does it will slow back to 33RPM and below where the switching will begin to operate properly again.

I just chose 33RPM arbitrarily as a design parameter for this test.

Having the stator magnets closer to the switches than necessary to just sustain 33RPM would allow for a higher maximum RPM.  But doing so also increases the wall that is the repeling force each stator has when each mass switch approaches.  It would increase the number of switches and possibly the diameter we would need to build a self running device.

I hope to adjust the other variables in this design so that it works with the 24 1/2 dia and 1/2 long magnets I have or less.  This is so (if we run) others can build a replica relatively simply and easily.

M.

gwhy!

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #193 on: July 15, 2008, 10:34:31 PM »
Hi Everyone,
  Just playing catchup on this thread.. Its all looking and sounding very good and all positive input. Just thought I will pop by and say well done and a very big up to the builders taking this concept on (nice) .....  8)

ThothTheSecond

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 75
Re: Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08
« Reply #194 on: July 16, 2008, 12:34:50 AM »
Just a thought from a newbie here.  I can understand the whole wall thing when two magnets interact with each other, but what if there were no magnets in the rods

Just a piece of metal/ball/whatever that would be repulsed by the magnet on the outside at 6, past the latch.  Then the same would occur with the magnet on the inside at 12.

Would there still be a wall ?