OverUnity Research

First up, I apologies for my absence.
As most will know, i started my own business, and that took up nearly all of my time, which caught me quite off guard.

As the money was flowing quite well, i decided to have an engineering company build me a precision prototype.
Biggest mistake i have ever made.
I won't go into it to much, other than to say i nearly lost the rights to my own invention.
I have removed the videos from my youtube channel for this very reason.
I still have the video's stored on my external HD, and i'm sure there are those that took copies as well.

Over the last 2 years, i have redesigned and reconfigured the motor, so as it does away with the coil and required electrical energy supply, as this seemed to be causing
a few issues in the build for some. The motor is now just a mechanical PM motor.

There is no need for anyone to build this motor at this point in time.
I am currently in talks with Chet, and another member of this forum.
The other member will soon be receiving all the stl files he needs to replicate this new design.
Once he has a running motor, he will confirm here on this thread that is actually works.

From that point, and only after confirmation, the plan is to have 10 fully engineered working prototypes built, as the3D printed  gears only last about 20 hours.
These will only be small 200 watt motors, so as to keep the cost down. Myself and the two mentioned above, will be choosing 8 people on this forum to receive 1 of these motors.
It will then be up to those 8 to share around as they see fit--This is an open source project.
Chet,Graham, and Darren are 3 of those 8 that i myself have chosen, due to their ongoing support over the years.

After the 8 have received the motors, i will be washing my hands of this project.

One last thing--> For those who thought that permanent magnets could not do useful work--you were wrong.
Anything that contains energy can do useful work.

Brad

Very intriguing Brad. Looking forward to hearing more about this.

And thanks for naming me as one to receive a motor.

Hi Brad,

Good to see you back.  Are you using PLA+ for your gears.  I have found it to be very strong if you use 100% infill.  I have some pretty small gears I have even drilled and tapped.  They work fine.

Take care,
Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.14, 18:01:46
Hi Brad,

Good to see you back.  Are you using PLA+ for your gears.  I have found it to be very strong if you use 100% infill.  I have some pretty small gears I have even drilled and tapped.  They work fine.

Take care,
Carroll

Hi Carroll

I made the wall thickness 5mm, so the teeth them self are solid.
It is just the speed and forces that are applied to the gears that wear them out after some time, but nothing that can't be sorted with ali machined gears.

Brad

Hi Brad,

Would you mind telling what RPM the motor runs at when the shaft is unloaded (i.e. the friction of the gear system is the load) ?

Thanks
Gyula

TinMan: Very nice to have you back. Good luck to you and the replicators.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.03.14, 21:35:46
TinMan: Very nice to have you back. Good luck to you and the replicators.

Thanks.

There is only going to be 1 replicator.
Others will just be receiving a working unit, which i hope they will share with everyone else.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.14, 13:18:34
One last thing--> For those who thought that permanent magnets could not do useful work--you were wrong.
Anything that contains energy can do useful work.

Brad

Thank you for sharing Brad. I completely agree with these statements.

Can I ask: if this device is using homopolar magnets in the way I think it is, can you share how you are deriving the power? Having spent many years playing with magnet/pulse motors, I am very curious to see how you have chosen to turn magnetic motion into power. 

Quote from: unimmortal on 2024.03.19, 03:28:10
Thank you for sharing Brad. I completely agree with these statements.

Can I ask: if this device is using homopolar magnets in the way I think it is, can you share how you are deriving the power? Having spent many years playing with magnet/pulse motors, I am very curious to see how you have chosen to turn magnetic motion into power.

What is a homopolar magnet ?

If you mean a monopole magnet, no.
However, the driving field is monopole.

To fully understand magnetic fields, you have to get away from this !north/south field thing, which in nothing more than a man made construct.
A PM has only 1 field, not two. So in essence, all PMs have monopole fields. Think of the PM like a battery, and the field like electrons flowing through a circuit.
The electrons always flow through the circuit in the same direction (battery=DC), and that flow of current is the same value throughout the circuit.
And like with batteries, when you put two in series, you always connect positive of one battery to the negative of the other battery. Like wise with PMs.
And like with the two series connected batteries, where the circuit has not changed, the current flowing through the circuit is now twice as much, as is the magnetic field of the two series connected PMs.
Seeing a pattern yet?
Oh, and there is no such thing as field lines. Another man made construct in an attempt to work out how magnetic fields work, and why they do what they do.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.19, 13:14:43
What is a homopolar magnet ?

Ah sorry, monopole magnet. I was thinking about floodrods comment around the large ring magnet and thought to myself a couple of copper discs would make it homopolar and call it a day.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.19, 13:14:43
And like with batteries, when you put two in series, you always connect positive of one battery to the negative of the other battery. Like wise with PMs.
And like with the two series connected batteries, where the circuit has not changed, the current flowing through the circuit is now twice as much, as is the magnetic field of the two series connected PMs.

If I understand correctly, I'm not sure there is a good correlation between batteries and PMs when they are stacked in series. I'm not sure I agree that the "magnetic current" doubles by stacking two PM's in series like adding a second series battery would in a resistive load circuit that remained the same.

The current density in the battery/load circuit doubles due to the doubled voltage source, but the field density in a PM remains the same when stacked in series with another identical PM. To double (or increase) the field density within the space of the PM, one would need to use better magnet material, or field concentrating material around it, or perhaps by "stacking" PM's in "parallel".

But I respect your work and I'm always open to being schooled, so please explain where I'm wrong!

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.20, 00:01:12
If I understand correctly, I'm not sure there is a good correlation between batteries and PMs when they are stacked in series. I'm not sure I agree that the "magnetic current" doubles by stacking two PM's in series like adding a second series battery would in a resistive load circuit that remained the same.

The current density in the battery/load circuit doubles due to the doubled voltage source, but the field density in a PM remains the same when stacked in series with another identical PM. To double (or increase) the field density within the space of the PM, one would need to use better magnet material, or field concentrating material around it, or perhaps by "stacking" PM's in "parallel".

But I respect your work and I'm always open to being schooled, so please explain where I'm wrong!

I'm going to quickly chime in - from experience with the Adams Axial where I have 6 columns of N40 magnets stacked in the rotor (20x20, 10x5, 20x20), I can tell you as a fact that the field becomes much stronger and extends much further at the pole ends. I haven't done dead weight tests for numbers, but I have had to double my airgap to make it usable ;)

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.20, 00:01:12
If I understand correctly, I'm not sure there is a good correlation between batteries and PMs when they are stacked in series. I'm not sure I agree that the "magnetic current" doubles by stacking two PM's in series like adding a second series battery would in a resistive load circuit that remained the same.

The current density in the battery/load circuit doubles due to the doubled voltage source, but the field density in a PM remains the same when stacked in series with another identical PM. To double (or increase) the field density within the space of the PM, one would need to use better magnet material, or field concentrating material around it, or perhaps by "stacking" PM's in "parallel".

But I respect your work and I'm always open to being schooled, so please explain where I'm wrong!

Ok, the field density when series connecting is not quite double, but close to it. A simple pull force test would show you this,
For example, we take a 10mm diameter x 10mm long neo magnet (lets say an N50), and we place it about 10mm away from a steel plate, we may get a pull force of say 100 grams.
If we then series connect another magnet the same, then the pull force will be about 190 grams.

And when we series connect two batteries, we double the internal resistance, so the peak current will also be less.




Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.20, 07:39:21
. If 1 battery can deliver a max current of say 1 amp, and we series connect another battery the same, so as we now have a single battery of double the voltage, then the max current would be about 1.9 amps, due to the internal resistance of the battery now being doubled.


Brad

But power which is getting in the load will be more in four time. 

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.03.20, 10:23:29
But power which is getting in the load will be more in four time.

Regardless, the max current will be less, as the resistance has increased.


Brad

Brad, I already tried it over the Shoutbox. Perhaps you haven't seen my request: Is it possible to reupload the relevant videos of your setup on youtube, perhaps with private links?

In which time will you give specification for the replicator and send out working units to chosen members?

Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2024.03.20, 12:48:15
Brad, I already tried it over the Shoutbox. Perhaps you haven't seen my request: Is it possible to reupload the relevant videos of your setup on youtube, perhaps with private links?

In which time will you give specification for the replicator and send out working units to chosen members?

There are no relevant videos for the magnet motor as yet, due to the fact that it is very easy to build.

From past experience, people tend to stray from precise instructions given, which results in a failed build.
So this time i have chosen just 1 person to replicate the motor.
Once that is done, and successful, then 10 precision motors will be built, and handed out to the selected people here.
These selected people are those i believe will do the best job at delivering the motor to other here and throughout.
Once they have the working motors, then i'm sure the video's will come.
But once the motors are delivered, i will no longer be participating from then on.

I will how ever, as time permits, be making some videos that show how to curve, distort, and neutralize magnetic fields, so as they can be used for gain.
But as a bit of a hint, the magnet motor ( i have no name for yet), works by neutralizing the magnetic fields of apposing magnets at a certain point, and then flipping to repulsion mode once the rotor magnets have passed !what we will call! TDC.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.20, 10:32:00
Regardless, the max current will be less, as the resistance has increased.


Brad

Hi guys,
Having 2 identical batteries, the short circuit current is the same for each and for the pair in series.
Also, the maximum power, which occurs at one half of open circuit voltage, will double for 2 identical batteries, whether in series or parallel.
Now, for a fixed resistance load, adding a second battery in series will increase power by factor of 4. Because there is twice the voltage across the same resistance so twice the current. 2×2
bi

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.20, 07:39:21
Ok, the field density when series connecting is not quite double, but close to it. A simple pull force test would show you this,
For example, we take a 10mm diameter x 10mm long neo magnet (lets say an N50), and we place it about 10mm away from a steel plate, we may get a pull force of say 100 grams.
If we then series connect another magnet the same, then the pull force will be about 190 grams.

Field density and pull force are different things.

If you were able to measure the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 10 series stacked PM's, then compared that to the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 100 of the same stacked magnets, would the field density be significantly different in each middle magnet? Go crazy and extend it even further to a stack of 100 vs. a stack of 1000.

I propose that any observed increase in pulling force of stacking magnets is likely due to there being a more uniform field at the ends of the magnet when increasing its length, but one quickly hits a point of greatly diminishing returns to adding more magnets.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.20, 14:36:10
Field density and pull force are different things.

I agree.
I find an interesting method to visualize the effect is to use this calculator.
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/calculator.asp

Since stacking identical magnets is equivalent to increasing length, just calculate the pull force of, say one, 1" magnet, vs 2", vs 3" long magnet. Each .5" diameter at zero inches from plate. Also try for lengths of .5, .25, .125".

Hope that helps.
bi

Thanks for the link bistander!

Looking at the various magnetic field visualizations and the given Gauss measurements in the centre (pink) when entering different lengths (thickness), indeed seems to support what I'm saying.

Too bad 3" is the max length, but the trend of a flattening max field density should be evident when looking at the measurements as the length is increased from 0.5", 1", 2", and 3".

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.20, 14:36:10
Field density and pull force are different things.

If you were able to measure the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 10 series stacked PM's, then compared that to the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 100 of the same stacked magnets, would the field density be significantly different in each middle magnet? Go crazy and extend it even further to a stack of 100 vs. a stack of 1000.

I propose that any observed increase in pulling force of stacking magnets is likely due to there being a more uniform field at the ends of the magnet when increasing its length, but one quickly hits a point of greatly diminishing returns to adding more magnets.

This is quite similar to when we pulse coils, not to attract the oncoming rotor magnet, but to align electrons in the coil (Robert Adams)- the more voltage put into the coil, the more electrons are aligned, and more work can occur when the switch opens and field reversal occurs.  And like magnets, there is a diminishing return the more voltage you add.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.20, 14:36:10
Field density and pull force are different things.

Go crazy and extend it even further to a stack of 100 vs. a stack of 1000.

, but one quickly hits a point of greatly diminishing returns to adding more magnets.

QuoteField density and pull force are different things.

No, they are directly related.
The increase in pull force is a result of a more dense field acting upon the steel plate.
We seen this in the 1+1=3 experiments.

QuoteIf you were able to measure the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 10 series stacked PM's, then compared that to the field density inside the middle magnet of a string of 100 of the same stacked magnets, would the field density be significantly different in each middle magnet?

Yes it would be.
But like all things, there is a point of diminishing returns as you state.
But we are talking only a few magnets here, of the smaller lengths, not 100's

QuoteI propose that any observed increase in pulling force of stacking magnets is likely due to there being a more uniform field at the ends of the magnet when increasing its length

Is pulling in the field to a more uniform field not exactly the same as making that field more dense ?

We can confirm this all by using the calculator linked by Bistander.
We can see how the field density increases in between the center magnets of the stack as we add more magnets in series, and also how the field density directly relates to pull force on a steel plate.
We are using just a 1 micron gap between magnets, which I'm sure you would agree, will show us the field density in the middle of the stacked magnets.
And as the gap between the magnet and the steel plate is just 1 micron, we can assume that all of the field at the end of the magnet is acting upon the steel plate, and the field is uniform in all cases, and not spread out into a wide field. From this, we can safely assume that it must be an increase in field density that increases the pull force when we stack more magnets together.
In order to increase pull force, you must increase the field density between the magnet and the ferromagnetic object it is acting upon.


Brad

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg110922#msg110922 date=1710944605

QuoteHaving 2 identical batteries, the short circuit current is the same for each and for the pair in series.

Actually no.
The two batteries in series will have half the short circuit current than a single battery will have.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.21, 00:54:48
Actually no.
The two batteries in series will have half the short circuit current than a single battery will have.

Brad

By the math:

V = battery terminal voltage

V_oc = open circuit battery voltage

R_int = internal resistance of the battery

I = battery current

Accepted battery model equation
V = V_oc - (I * R_int)

At short circuit, by definition, V = 0

Then V_oc -(I * R_int) = 0
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc = short circuit current

2 batteries in series, total voltage = 2 * V where V is the voltage of one battery. I is battery current which is same for both batteries. Equation is

V_total = 2 * V = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
Set V_total = 0 for short circuit, then

0 = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
0 = V_oc - (I * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
so
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

or you could multiply the terms on the right side of V_total equation by 2 giving

V_total = 2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int))
Where V_oc & R_int are values for a single battery and I is found by setting V_total to zero. Then

2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int)) = 0
or
2 * V_oc = I *(2 * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

So the short circuit battery current is equal to the open circuit battery voltage divided by the battery internal resistance. This is true for one battery, or two batteries in series, or any number of batteries in series.

Example:

Car battery. V_oc = 12.6 volts and R_int = 0.01 ohms

I_sc = 12.6v / 0.01ohms = 1260amps

2 batteries in series V_oc = 25.2volts and R_int = 0.02ohms
Then I_sc = 25.2v / 0.02ohms = 1260amps.

Elements in series add. Voltage adds. Resistance adds. So the division, V / R remains the same.

I = V / R = 2V / 2R = 3V / 3R and so on. Adding batteries in series doesn't change the short circuit current value.
bi

*edit {25.2 was 25.6 in 2 places} changed due to error. 2*12.6=25.2 not 25.6 for two in series. Also, 12.6 was 12.8 in one place due to error.

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.21, 04:47:05
By the math:

V = battery terminal voltage

V_oc = open circuit battery voltage

R_int = internal resistance of the battery

I = battery current

Accepted battery model equation
V = V_oc - (I * R_int)

At short circuit, by definition, V = 0

Then V_oc -(I * R_int) = 0
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc = short circuit current

2 batteries in series, total voltage = 2 * V where V is the voltage of one battery. I is battery current which is same for both batteries. Equation is

V_total = 2 * V = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
Set V_total = 0 for short circuit, then

0 = 2 * (V_oc - (I * R_int))
0 = V_oc - (I * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
so
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

or you could multiply the terms on the right side of V_total equation by 2 giving

V_total = 2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int))
Where V_oc & R_int are values for a single battery and I is found by setting V_total to zero. Then

2 * V_oc - (I *(2 * R_int)) = 0
or
2 * V_oc = I *(2 * R_int)
or
V_oc = I * R_int
or
I = V_oc / R_int = I_sc

So the short circuit battery current is equal to the open circuit battery voltage divided by the battery internal resistance. This is true for one battery, or two batteries in series, or any number of batteries in series.

Example:

Car battery. V_oc = 12.8 volts and R_int = 0.01 ohms

I_sc = 12.6v / 0.01ohms = 1260amps

2 batteries in series V_oc = 25.6volts and R_int = 0.02ohms
Then I_sc = 25.6v / 0.02ohms = 1260amps.

Elements in series add. Voltage adds. Resistance adds. So the division, V / R remains the same.

I = V / R = 2V / 2R = 3V / 3R and so on. Adding batteries in series doesn't change the short circuit current value.
bi

And yet fails basic ohms law.

In the circuits pictured below, i have allowed 0.1V across the short, so as easy calculations can be made.

I remember way back in one of the TPU threads, it was mentioned that a series of 9 volt batteries could have powered the lightbulbs.
Another very well versed member hear determined that the series resistance of all those cells in series could not even come close to providing enough current to power a 100 watt bulb.

And some where on this forum, there is a thread where i built a very large magnetizer.
I had 24 x 2V, 1300 amp batteries powering this device, and although each single battery could deliver the 1300 amps individually, the max current i could get out of the 24 in series was around 300 amps, and the loss was not in the cables. Once again, another well versed member said the loss was due to the now series connected internal resistance of each battery.

Some times things look great on paper, in ideal conditions, but in reality, it just doesn't work out that way.

But we can agree to disagree  O0


Brad

So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.21, 16:17:52
So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?

I agree, currents are the same.

But what is the circle enclosing v=0.1 shown on right side circuit?
bi

I am assuming that is a voltmeter with an indicated measured voltage.

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.21, 17:53:44
I am assuming that is a voltmeter with an indicated measured voltage.

OK. I think I see. So Brad says short circuit voltage is 0.1 volts instead of 0.0 as I had used. Look how that alters my example.

Example:

Car battery. V_oc = 12.6 volts and R_int = 0.01 ohms

I_sc = 12.6v / 0.01ohms = 1260amps [with V_sc = 0.0v]
I_sc = (12.6v - 0.1v) / 0.01ohms = 1250amps [with V_sc = 0.1v]

2 batteries in series V_oc = 25.2volts and R_int = 0.02ohms

Then I_sc = 25.2v / 0.02ohms = 1260amps [with V_sc = 0.0v]
          I_sc = (25.2v - 0.1v) / 0.02ohms = 1255amps [with V_sc = 0.1v]

So 1250A short circuit current for one battery
and
1255A short circuit current for two batteries in series
using a 0.1 volt drop across the short.
bi

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.21, 16:17:52
So the current through the left circuit is the same as the current through the right circuit (assuming all 3 battery voltages are equal). I think we can all agree on that.

What is it that we aren't agreeing on?

No , we did not all agree on that, but we do now.

I was incorrect in saying that the two batteries in series would result in a lower short circuit current, due to the now 2 internal resistances adding up.
But after physically testing new batteries yesterday, the short circuit current of one battery is exactly the same as the short circuit current of two batteries in series.
BiStander was correct, along with yourself Poynt, and i was wrong, even after all these years of messing around with batteries.


Brad

Quote from: gyula on 2024.03.14, 21:30:29
Hi Brad,

Would you mind telling what RPM the motor runs at when the shaft is unloaded (i.e. the friction of the gear system is the load) ?

Thanks
Gyula

The eddy currents produced in the gate core from the rotors magnets seems to regulate the speed at about 1800 rpm.
But it could also be the vibrations and noise of the plastic gears that are limiting the speed as well.

With better engineering, and a laminated gate, i think it will reach far higher rpm's
Machined aluminum gears is what is needed, and as the magnets rotate with the gears, there shouldn't be an eddy current issue there.

Sorry for the late reply, but not sure how i missed your question.

Brad

As this is going to be open source soon, i can share a few things now, so as you guys can start to get the jist of things, and maybe even find a better way to make it work.

Can we post stl files here ?
I will give it a shot.

Gears x 2
Gear adjustable shaft holder x 1
The adjustable shaft holder is designed for 8mm thread bar, with 22mm x 8mm x 7mm thick bearings for the rotors.
It allows you to mesh the gears correctly.
The gears have been offset by 3*, so as the magnets align correctly.
The 2 gears are printed in one hit.

Brad

You dont have to use battery analogy to see why "1+1" can be "3" when it comes to magnetic forces.

Current loops apply forces using the inverse square law. When you "stack" a magnet you are essentially stacking up these current loops. If you thickness is much smaller then your radius than your force will go up as if you have only increased the current. Since the force is (simplified) F= B*I*l. And B (due to the other magnet) is also dependent on its "current". In other words your force has a current squared relationship. So actually 1+1 can be nearly 4 if the radius is much bigger than the thickness of the magnets.

People are smart enough to figure out how something works, so I am eagerly awaiting the proposed idea.

Thanks Brad,

Got them downloaded.  Do we need to adjust the holes in the gears for the magnets we might already have or do we need to wait and only get the magnets you recommend?

Carroll

Quote from: broli on 2024.03.22, 12:07:37
You dont have to use battery analogy to see why "1+1" can be "3" when it comes to magnetic forces.

Current loops apply forces using the inverse square law. When you "stack" a magnet you are essentially stacking up these current loops. If you thickness is much smaller then your radius than your force will go up as if you have only increased the current. Since the force is (simplified) F= B*I*l. And B (due to the other magnet) is also dependent on its "current". In other words your force has a current squared relationship. So actually 1+1 can be nearly 4 if the radius is much bigger than the thickness of the magnets.

People are smart enough to figure out how something works, so I am eagerly awaiting the proposed idea.

Maybe you better go read the original 1+1=3 thread, so as you know what is being talked about.
In short, when two like poles are faced together, you don't double the field strength/pull force, you can get up to 5 times the field strength/pull force.


Brad

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.22, 12:12:05
Thanks Brad,

Got them downloaded.  Do we need to adjust the holes in the gears for the magnets we might already have or do we need to wait and only get the magnets you recommend?

Carroll

The hole size is 10.2mm for 10mm round x 10mm long magnets.
As long as your printer is accurate, that is what will fit the holes.
But adjust them as you need  O0

Brad

Thanks!! Got it.   O0

Attention

Please hold off on printing the gears, as one of the holes for the magnets is not the correct depth.

I will amend the depth tonight, and repost the updated files.


Brad

I am like 12 hours in, would it be possible to separate them into 2 STL's and label the one that was redone, so we can just reprint one?  I can see the one with the short hole.

Thanks!

Rectified gear set

Hi Brad,

I have gotten some magnets ordered.  I already have several of the right bearings.  I have a question.  Are both of the gears identical?  I have access to a second printer and was going to let each one print a gear.  They both look the same in the files.  That would save some time. 

Carroll

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.23, 23:14:29
Hi Brad,

I have gotten some magnets ordered.  I already have several of the right bearings.  I have a question.  Are both of the gears identical?  I have access to a second printer and was going to let each one print a gear.  They both look the same in the files.  That would save some time. 

Carroll

Use the latest stl in my last post, and print together.
The gears are different, in that the magnet holes are offset in relation to the teeth, so as they line up.

Got it! Thanks.   O0 O0

Just to let you all know, while i do appreciate the messages and enthusiasm, i am sticking to my plan as stated at the start of this thread.

I am happy to share the stl files for the rotors and adjustable base, but if you wish to peruse this at a faster rate than I have planned, then you will have to go about it yourself.
Making the rest is easy, tuning it to run takes a lot of patients. A precise balance must be found, and the first time is the hardest.

Anyway, if you wish to go it alone, it is just the below motor, where you remove the coil, and replace it with a magnetic gate--that is where the fine balancing act comes into play.
As you can see by the total power being used to run the motor, you only need a very slight field offset to make it work.
That power consumption includes the power being generated to run the LED, the transistor, the power dissipated by the CVR, and the noise being produced, as well as spinning the two rotors that have quite a bit of windage. The inverted voltage after transistor switch off, is also not being collected and used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

Brad

Thanks, Brad.
Quick note - I am traveling this week with family (Easter week).
Will return around 1 April.
Wishing you all the best !!!
Steve

  Video answered my question so thanks. See the dir to go. Gears done, platform printing. So as a PM, this can run off a 1.5v batt at 3.5mw.  Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed. PLA is not the answer.
thay

Quote from: Thaelin on 2024.03.24, 21:17:03
Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed.
thay

A reasonably easy option for quieter durable gears is to make them from glued timing belts. You will have to play with the sizing to get the mag timing where you need it.

https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A (https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A) Robert Murray-Smith video

tak

Quote from: tak22 on 2024.03.24, 23:23:47
A reasonably easy option for quieter durable gears is to make them from glued timing belts. You will have to play with the sizing to get the mag timing where you need it.

https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A (https://youtu.be/lXWO-Q2jh3A) Robert Murray-Smith video

tak

Very clever and very quiet, I love his video's - thanks for sharing.

Quote from: Thaelin on 2024.03.24, 21:17:03
Noise of the teeth is a real issue to be fixed. PLA is not the answer.
thay

Helical gears are the answer when it comes to noise reduction and durability, even when using PLA.

It is even better to use nylon or even dispense with gears that mesh directly with each other and use V-belts instead. There are now even manufacturers who offer made-to-measure V-belts for the private sector.

Kind regards

Hi Brad and all ,
I have been watching this process with some skepticism which seem to be fading , and my first point is that v belts wont hold the timing but toothed belts as used for automotive superchargers will or could be ok.

The belts that are used on cnc or 3d printers may also be viable as cheap as. They would have to be joined with superglue which could be an issue

I also wonder if the magnet rotor should be separate from the gears but locked in place with rotational adjustment/timing available.

If I have  this wrong please correct me

I never thought that spinning magnets could do what you are showing without an external kick however small.


I will get some magnets and be ready

This seems like much more fun than  frying Mosfets

Thank you

Lindsay

Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2024.03.25, 08:37:41
Hi Brad and all ,
I have been watching this process with some skepticism which seem to be fading , and my first point is that v belts wont hold the timing but toothed belts as used for automotive superchargers will or could be ok.

The belts that are used on cnc or 3d printers may also be viable as cheap as. They would have to be joined with superglue which could be an issue

I also wonder if the magnet rotor should be separate from the gears but locked in place with rotational adjustment/timing available.

If I have  this wrong please correct me

I never thought that spinning magnets could do what you are showing without an external kick however small.


I will get some magnets and be ready

This seems like much more fun than  frying Mosfets

Thank you

Lindsay

Hi Lindsay

No need for cogged belts or the likes.
Well machined gears have the least losses of any drive system.

It wouldn't matter if the plastic gears only lasted 5 minutes, as there are no power measurements to be done, as there is no power entering the system.
If it has only permanent magnets, and it continuously rotates for 5 minutes, then that proves the motor works.


Brad

You should use magnetic gears, very easy with a 3d printer, just embed magnets in your current "teeth" and no wear to boot.

Quote from: broli on 2024.03.25, 11:36:52
You should use magnetic gears, very easy with a 3d printer, just embed magnets in your current "teeth" and no wear to boot.

This is one of the reasons I have not, and will not start a builders group on this project--people like to change thing-deviate from the design that works.
As soon as you add other magnetic fields into this very magnetically balanced motor, it will not work.

You are of course, free to do as you chose with the design i have given.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Got two printers going about 12 hours now.  One printing the base and the other printing the pair of gears using your latest stl file.

Thanks,
Carroll

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.25, 09:49:08

It wouldn't matter if the plastic gears only lasted 5 minutes, as there are no power measurements to be done, as there is no power entering the system.
If it has only permanent magnets, and it continuously rotates for 5 minutes, then that proves the motor works.

Brad

Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.26, 01:18:47
Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

I dare say it has something like a battery, reed switch, and coil in the base.
Easily tested by waving a magnet over the base, and see if you can feel an attraction or repulsion force on the magnet.


Brad

Quote from: poynt99 on 2024.03.26, 01:18:47
Have y'all seen this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

Ok, this replication shows the mechanism being removed, and the wheel slows down.
Guess that eliminates the battery, reed switch, and coil in the base theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR-sdvX2_CE

  That reminds me of Grumage's water wheel in the back yard. Had just enough umph to keep turning but any load and it quit. Eye candy but not really  useful.
thay

Ok Brad thanks for sharing your engine.
I downloaded and printed the parts from the 3D models.
Now I ask you for some information regarding the electrical part of the engine: it seems to me that it works like a Bedini circuit, with a trigger coil and a running coil.
The trigger coil is air core or ferrite core ? Resistance and impedance of the coil ? The same for the running coil, resistance and impedance ? Is the core of the running coil consisting only of 4 laminates of a transformer or is wider and the lamina between the two wheels are only the median tips ?
The transistor is a NPN ?

Thank you

Mac

Quote from: ciucianebbia on 2024.03.26, 13:21:36
Ok Brad thanks for sharing your engine.
I downloaded and printed the parts from the 3D models.
Now I ask you for some information regarding the electrical part of the engine: it seems to me that it works like a Bedini circuit, with a trigger coil and a running coil.
The trigger coil is air core or ferrite core ? Resistance and impedance of the coil ? The same for the running coil, resistance and impedance ? Is the core of the running coil consisting only of 4 laminates of a transformer or is wider and the lamina between the two wheels are only the median tips ?
The transistor is a NPN ?

Thank you

Mac

The trigger coil is from a 12 volt relay-nothing special.
The drive coil had just 4 laminates from a MOT as the core, and about 250 turns of .5mm wire.
The transistor would have been a 2N3055
I don't measure impedances or resistances unless requested at the time.

Added--i still actually have the file for the drive coil former.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.26, 13:56:24
The trigger coil is from a 12 volt relay-nothing special.
The drive coil had just 4 laminates from a MOT as the core, and about 250 turns of .5mm wire.
The transistor would have been a 2N3055
I don't measure impedances or resistances unless requested at the time.

Added--i still actually have the file for the drive coil former.


Brad

Not that there is any confusion here, but I had previously assumed that the magnet motor you presented was driven purely by the clever constellation of magnets, without any electrical input.

Are we talking about two different concepts here in the same thread, the motor from the video 4 years ago and the magnet motor currently presented?

Thanks for the clarification.

Right from the start, I explained that this thread was based on a flaw. 1+1=3 applies to forces, not energy. It's very easy to get a high force from a low force. We've known this since 387 BC, when Archimedes invented the lever. Whether or not the forces are magnetic in origin makes no difference: it's commonplace to create a large magnetic force from a weak one.
The balance of forces is irrelevant when it comes to energy. Only the work of forces counts. So we need to integrate the product of force x displacement over the course of a closed cycle of movement of magnets and magnetic parts. As long as this calculation based on measurements has not been made, saying that 1+1=3 has no relevance, because 1+1=2 remains for energy until proven otherwise.

Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.  Brad never said 1+1=3 was about energy.  He has always claimed it was about forces.

You are nothing but a negative influence on this forum.  You don't build, you don't share, you just constantly spout negative comments.

Please just go away!!!

Carroll

Quote from: Frederik2k1 on 2024.03.27, 08:15:06
Not that there is any confusion here, but I had previously assumed that the magnet motor you presented was driven purely by the clever constellation of magnets, without any electrical input.

Are we talking about two different concepts here in the same thread, the motor from the video 4 years ago and the magnet motor currently presented?

Thanks for the clarification.

Call it a modified version.

 

Quoteauthor=F6FLT link=topic=4603.msg111074#msg111074 date=1711537391

QuoteAs long as this calculation based on measurements has not been made, saying that 1+1=3 has no relevance

But it was made, graphed, and repeated by many involved in that topic, with the same results-the scientific method  O0
Perhaps go and read through the topic, and then you will fully understand what took place.
In short, it was about increasing force over distance, using the same power input.
By the addition of a PM, we could increase that force over distance by up to 5 times.

Brad

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.27, 11:15:45
Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about.  Brad never said 1+1=3 was about energy.  He has always claimed it was about forces.

You are nothing but a negative influence on this forum.  You don't build, you don't share, you just constantly spout negative comments.

Please just go away!!!

Carroll

It's all good Carroll.
I enjoy F6FLT's input, and have a great respect for him.

He is welcome on any of my topics.

Brad

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.27, 11:15:45
Please go away and pester somebody else.  It is clear you don't know what you are talking about....

In addition to science, I'd have to teach you politeness.
;D

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.27, 12:17:23
It's all good Carroll.
I enjoy F6FLT's input, and have a great respect for him.

He is welcome on any of my topics.

Brad

Thanks Brad. I'm well aware that you're taking a constructive and sincere approach, and that you're experimenting in a concrete way, which I respect.
When I respond to a specific subject, it's not about the person, it's about the subject, and it's facts and logic that I put forward, even if they may disappoint (and when I talk about a general context, like the FE movement, I don't accuse anyone by name).

Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.27, 13:01:17
Thanks Brad. I'm well aware that you're taking a constructive and sincere approach, and that you're experimenting in a concrete way, which I respect.
When I respond to a specific subject, it's not about the person, it's about the subject, and it's facts and logic that I put forward, even if they may disappoint (and when I talk about a general context, like the FE movement, I don't accuse anyone by name).

I took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.27, 14:29:22
I took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

Brad

Hi Brad,
I've been interested in your project. A few months ago when you were explaining test methods which, if I'm not mistaken, were used to generate the data for these graphs, I had some questions, but decided to wait until you finished that exercise. Then I lost track. Well, you're back, and so are my questions. Those are centered around energy, work, power, torque and the like. I decided to give chatgpt a try.

Quote

User

With physics, is this statement correct? Rotational force over distance is work being done.

ChatGPT
The statement is almost correct but needs a slight adjustment. In rotational mechanics, the product of torque (rotational force) and the angle through which it acts is the work done, not simply the rotational force over distance.

So, the corrected statement would be:

"Torque (rotational force) multiplied by the angle through which it acts represents the work done in rotational systems."

User
OK. Thanks. bi

ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions in the future, feel free to ask. Goodbye!


ChatGPT 3.5

User
In physics, is work the same as, and equal, to energy?

ChatGPT
In physics, work and energy are related concepts but not exactly the same. Work is the transfer of energy that occurs when a force is applied to an object and the object moves in the direction of the force. Energy, on the other hand, is a property of objects and systems that enables them to do work. So while work is a form of energy transfer, they are not identical. However, in certain situations, such as when work is done to change the kinetic or potential energy of an object, the work done is equal to the change in energy of the object. This is described by the work-energy theorem.

User
In rotational mechanical systems, torque and energy (or work done) have the same units, newton meters, but are not the same physical quantity, correct. Explain how to avoid confusion.

ChatGPT
That's correct. Torque and energy (or work done) both have units of newton-meters (Nm), but they represent different physical quantities in rotational mechanical systems.

Torque is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object, causing it to rotate around an axis. It is typically represented by the symbol τ (tau) and is defined as the product of the force and the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the line of action of the force.

Energy, or work done, in rotational systems is the product of torque and the angle through which the object rotates. It represents the amount of energy transferred to or from the system due to the rotation.

To avoid confusion between torque and energy:

Understand their definitions and physical meanings: Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance (angle).

Pay attention to the context: Torque is usually discussed when talking about the rotational dynamics of an object, while energy (work done) is discussed in the context of changes in rotational kinetic energy or potential energy in rotational systems.

Use appropriate symbols and terms: Use τ for torque and W for work or energy, and ensure clarity in your communication by specifying which quantity you're referring to.

By keeping these distinctions in mind and using clear terminology, you can avoid confusion between torque and energy in rotational mechanical systems.



User
Thanks, good bi

ChatGPT
You're welcome! If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask. Have a great day!

Comments and or discussion appreciated.
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.27, 23:17:20
Hi Brad,
I've been interested in your project. A few months ago when you were explaining test methods which, if I'm not mistaken, were used to generate the data for these graphs, I had some questions, but decided to wait until you finished that exercise. Then I lost track. Well, you're back, and so are my questions. Those are centered around energy, work, power, torque and the like. I decided to give chatgpt a try.

Comments and or discussion appreciated.
bi

Well' I'm not quite sure what your question is ?

The graphs I shared, and the comments I made along with the graphs were-
(Rotational force over distance is work being done)
Rotational force is another name for torque-they are one in the same.

Your chatGPT says-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system. So the graphs show the difference in work being done (energy) between the two motors, along with the input power required to do that work, which is the same in both cases.

In the graphs, you will see what i call !wasted torque!.
That is the attractive force over distance being applied along the axis line of the rotor between the electromagnet, and the rotors axle/center.
My motor design removes that wasted torque, and turns it into rotational torque, as can be seen in the graphed results.

Once we remove the back torque over distance for the torque plate to escape the PM's field, our total gain is about 75% more than the standard motor.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.28, 00:48:11
Well' I'm not quite sure what your question is ?

The graphs I shared, and the comments I made along with the graphs were-
(Rotational force over distance is work being done)
Rotational force is another name for torque-they are one in the same.

Your chatGPT says-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system. So the graphs show the difference in work being done (energy) between the two motors, along with the input power required to do that work, which is the same in both cases.

In the graphs, you will see what i call !wasted torque!.
That is the attractive force over distance being applied along the axis line of the rotor between the electromagnet, and the rotors axle/center.
My motor design removes that wasted torque, and turns it into rotational torque, as can be seen in the graphed results.

Once we remove the back torque over distance for the torque plate to escape the PM's field, our total gain is about 75% more than the standard motor.


Brad

Thanks for the reply.
You mix the linear and rotational mechanical parameters and then power to energy comparison omitting time.

Power is volts * amps, held equal for the two graphs.

Power is (radians /second) * torque.

You say.
"My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system."
That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.

The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?

And I totally missed your explanation of "wasted torque". Is that side loading or radial thrust? How does that enter into energy besides bearing friction?

Like I said, it is difficult for me to follow your method. Perhaps I should have just waited to see where it leads. Which I am content to do.

Regards,
bi

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111098#msg111098 date=1711592482

QuoteThat would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.

Your chat GPT says-->-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
The graphs clearly show the rotational force (torque), and the distance traveled.
The graphs clearly show a torque curve over distance.

QuoteYou mix the linear and rotational mechanical parameters and then power to energy comparison omitting time

.

Time is irrelevant when graphing the output torque curve v P/in between the two motors.

QuoteThe graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?

Energy (work done) is torque over distance. Even your chatGPT says that.
Energy is the ability to do work, and the work being done is force over distance.

QuoteAnd I totally missed your explanation of "wasted torque". Is that side loading or radial thrust?

It is side loading.

QuoteHow does that enter into energy besides bearing friction?

As you can see in the graph on the left, that side loading results in a large loss of rotational energy.
With my motor design, we take that wasted side loading energy, and add it to the rotational energy.
And as you can see in the graphs, when we do this, it results in almost double the rotational force over distance for the same power input.
It is much the same as trying to push a car forward from the side of the car, where you push at a 45 degree angle.
Half of your input energy is wasted trying to push the car sideways, while only half of your energy is used to push the car forward.
It is much better to push the car from the back, where the applied force is directly toward the front of the car.

QuoteLike I said, it is difficult for me to follow your method. Perhaps I should have just waited to see where it leads. Which I am content to do.

You are talking about two different motors here.
Work on the torque force motor has finished.
This motor we are discussing here, is a variation of the torque force motor, where the coil and input power are omitted, and where the magnets now rotate, and the torque plate remains stationary.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.28, 03:13:24


Your chat GPT says-->-(Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance)
The graphs clearly show the rotational force (torque), and the distance traveled.
The graphs clearly show a torque curve over distance.

I disagree. Appears the graphs show a linear force (actually grams, which are used as a substitute for force) vs linear distance (mm). Even if it were "torque over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Quote
Time is irrelevant when graphing the output torque curve v P/in between the two motors.

And a graph of "output torque v P/in" does not relate to any power output. Time is relevant. You need rotational velocity to deduce power (and energy) from torque.

Recall my specific question:"The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?"

Quote
Energy (work done) is torque over distance. Even your chatGPT says that.
Energy is the ability to do work, and the work being done is force over distance.

Force over distance in rectangular coordinates or torque over angle in polar. But not a mix of the two.

Quote
It is side loading.

Side loading (or axial thrust) does not substract from output power directly, just from extra bearing friction loss.

Quote
As you can see in the graph on the left, that side loading results in a large loss of rotational energy.
With my motor design, we take that wasted side loading energy, and add it to the rotational energy.
And as you can see in the graphs, when we do this, it results in almost double the rotational force over distance for the same power input.
It is much the same as trying to push a car forward from the side of the car, where you push at a 45 degree angle.
Half of your input energy is wasted trying to push the car sideways, while only half of your energy is used to push the car forward.
It is much better to push the car from the back, where the applied force is directly toward the front of the car.

Only the force in the direction of motion or displacement enters into the work formula.

Quote
You are talking about two different motors here.
Work on the torque force motor has finished.
This motor we are discussing here, is a variation of the torque force motor, where the coil and input power are omitted, and where the magnets now rotate, and the torque plate remains stationary.

Brad

Sorry, I didn't realize there were two different projects. I don't want to distract. Why don't we continue after you complete your plan? I really want to see you reveal this device.
bi

  Was looking into getting the bearings for the printed gears and noticed that they are the very same bearings that is used for inline skates. Have a box full, talk about off the shelf parts. Good choice Brad
thay

 

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111101#msg111101 date=1711602372

QuoteI disagree. Appears the graphs show a linear force (actually grams, which are used as a substitute for force) vs linear distance (mm).

Gram- Force is a valid force measurement unit.
The graphs show a rotational force being applied to the rotor of the motor.\

Quote"torque over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Energy is the ability to do work. Power is the work done over time.
I said time is irrelevant, as i never claimed any power outputs were being calculated.
What was calculated was a gain in torque over distance between the two motors, where the two motors use the same rotor, same electromagnet, and same P/in
The graphs show a torque curve over a distance.

QuoteAnd a graph of "output torque v P/in" does not relate to any power output.

I never said anything about power output, as that would have to include time, mass, and acceleration, which is not what the graphs are indicating.

QuoteTime is relevant. You need rotational velocity to deduce power (and energy) from torque.

Time is not relevant, as we are not calculating power. Eg,
We are measuring the difference in torque over distance.
The graphs clearly show the applied torque over distance-work being done on the rotor over that short distance.

QuoteRecall my specific question:"The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?"

Once again, the graphs show an applied torque over a distance.
I think you are looking at the graphs in a static manor, where they should be viewed as showing the rotor in motion over that distance. That is work being done.
Energy is the total amount of work done, and power is how fast you can do it.
As we are not calculating P/out, then time is irrelevant.
The total amount of work done is between the start of the torque curve, to the end of the torque curve.
The distance is between the start and end of the torque curve.

QuoteSide loading (or axial thrust) does not substract from output power directly, just from extra bearing friction loss.

It absolutely subtracts from total output rotational power.
The graphs prove that beyond doubt.
Those involved in that experiment will confirm this.
A higher torque applied over a distance directly increases rotational power output.
With my motor, side loading on the bearings is reduced by 75%+

QuoteOnly the force in the direction of motion or displacement enters into the work formula.

That is exactly what the graphs are showing.
Force over distance in the direction of rotation.

QuoteSorry, I didn't realize there were two different projects. I don't want to distract. Why don't we continue after you complete your plan? I really want to see you reveal this device.
bi

The graphs we are discussing, are of the motor which is the 1+1=3.
So the subject matter we are discussing is directly related to the graphs i posted.

The all magnet motor also being discussed here, is a different motor and subject.
So we are both discussing the same motor--the torque force motor.

Brad

Quote from: Thaelin on 2024.03.28, 06:38:52
  Was looking into getting the bearings for the printed gears and noticed that they are the very same bearings that is used for inline skates. Have a box full, talk about off the shelf parts. Good choice Brad
thay

That is exactly why i use that size-they are common.
The same bearings are used in the 12/24 volt scooter motors.

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.28, 02:21:22
Thanks for the reply.
You mix the linear and rotational mechanical parameters and then power to energy comparison omitting time.

Power is volts * amps, held equal for the two graphs.

Power is (radians /second) * torque.

You say.
"My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system."
That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.

The graphs tell me nothing about energy or work. That's the question I have, you say they do. How?

And I totally missed your explanation of "wasted torque". Is that side loading or radial thrust? How does that enter into energy besides bearing friction?

Like I said, it is difficult for me to follow your method. Perhaps I should have just waited to see where it leads. Which I am content to do.

Regards,
bi

Hope the diagram below makes things a little clearer.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.28, 07:32:36
Hope the diagram below makes things a little clearer.

Brad

Hi Brad,
Yes, the diagram is helpful. Thanks.

Text in CAPS is copied and pasted from your diagram.

GRAPHS SHOW TORQUE OVER DISTANCE MEASURED BETWEEN POINT A AND B OF THE ROTATING MASS 

Actually the graphs show the linear force (in grams-force) vs linear distance (in mm). This is not the same as torque of the rotating mass.

THIS RESULTS IN A HIGHER ROTATIONAL OUTPUT POWER VALUE FOR THE SAME POWER INPUT TO THE ELECTROMAGNET.

(my underline)
So you do use the graph to make a deduction of rotational power based on torque. This brings time into the picture.

And I disagree with your work calculations due to omission of cos θ.

That's all.
bi

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.27, 14:29:22
I took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

Brad

Torque is to rotational motion what force is to translational motion. It has nothing to do with energy.

At each point, take the force, multiply it by the distance travelled between 2 points, with points close enough together that the force can always be considered to be constant and tangent to the line between two points. Then add all these products, calculated along a closed path, to give the energy, and only then can we say whether 1+1=3.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.03.28, 16:17:16
Torque is to rotational motion what force is to translational motion. It has nothing to do with energy.
<snip>

Torque, or force, without motion has nothing to do with energy. But when you associate it with motion, as you did in your quote, then it, torque or force, has much to do with work, and energy.
My point of view.
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.28, 16:38:48
Torque, or force, without motion has nothing to do with energy. But when you associate it with motion, as you did in your quote, then it, torque or force, has much to do with work, and energy.
My point of view.
bi

That's exactly what I'm saying  C.C, except that I've also explained how to make this "association".

And unfortunately that's not what's been done so far.

Okay guys look at this thread, watch the video and read all of it and then explain why you think it can't work.

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,61.0/topicseen.html

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.28, 20:39:47
Okay guys look at this thread, watch the video and read all of it and then explain why you think it can't work.

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,61.0/topicseen.html

Thanks for the share Carroll nice work from Jim.

Tinman

QuoteI took the time to find the graphs from the tests carried out in the 1+1=3 topic.
As you can see, the torque over distance increase in the modified motor, for the same input power, is greatly different.
Rotational force over distance is work being done.

I can see where this could confuse others.
It follows the notion that we should see things for what they are not what others say something should be.

For example, ChatGPT said

QuoteThe statement is almost correct but needs a slight adjustment. In rotational mechanics, the product of torque (rotational force) and the angle through which it acts is the work done, not simply the rotational force over distance.

Here we can see that chatgpt is good at parroting others but cannot think creatively or in an abstract sense. For example, any small segment of the circular path could be considered as a straight line so we can say force over distance is work being done in that context. The problem is AI and many people who think like programmed machines have problems with abstract concepts. As we can see the answer depends on what level were thinking on.

For example, many people can't understand Alternating Current for the same reasons. AC is simply DC which varies in voltage/current and periodically reverses direction. Yet many make AC out to be much more than it is giving it special attributes it does not possess. AC doesn't have to be a Sine Wave or symmetrical in nature and the term only implies that the Current periodically Alternates, nothing more. Yet when we say AC all everyone can see is a Sine wave, why is that?. It's because they don't realize there mind has been programmed through repetition similar to an AI.

In fact, most learning is through education/memorization and memorizing something is basically a form of programming. We are programming our kids to think one way then judging them based on how well they can retain there programming just like an AI. :D

AC

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.28, 20:39:47
Okay guys look at this thread, watch the video and read all of it and then explain why you think it can't work.

https://overunitymachines.com/index.php/topic,61.0/topicseen.html

It looks easy enough to build, has anyone built one to see if the concept actually works?.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.03.28, 22:30:41
Tinman
I can see where this could confuse others.
It follows the notion that we should see things for what they are not what others say something should be.

For example, ChatGPT said
Here we can see that chatgpt is good at parroting others but cannot think creatively or in an abstract sense. For example, any small segment of the circular path could be considered as a straight line so we can say force over distance is work being done in that context. The problem is AI and many people who think like programmed machines have problems with abstract concepts. As we can see the answer depends on what level were thinking on.

For example, many people can't understand Alternating Current for the same reasons. AC is simply DC which varies in voltage/current and periodically reverses direction. Yet many make AC out to be much more than it is giving it special attributes it does not possess. AC doesn't have to be a Sine Wave or symmetrical in nature and the term only implies that the Current periodically Alternates, nothing more. Yet when we say AC all everyone can see is a Sine wave, why is that?. It's because they don't realize there mind has been programmed through repetition similar to an AI.

In fact, most learning is through education/memorization and memorizing something is basically a form of programming. We are programming our kids to think one way then judging them based on how well they can retain there programming just like an AI. :D

AC

Agree AC

It seems a little to hard for some to understand that the graphs show the energy input to the rotating mass between the measured points.

When you want to know how much energy is being put into a rotating system, you graph it at the input part of the cycle, exactly as it was done.
This then gives you a very clear vision of how much work is being done on the rotating body between the two given points.

If no energy was being transferred from the electromagnet to the PM, then no force would be seen at the PM over that distance.

So many people confuse energy with power, as we have seen here.
We are not calculating power. We are measuring a torque curve between two points (work being done) in the cycle, so as we can see the difference in energy (work being done) being put into each rotating system for a given P/In to the electromagnet.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.28, 23:34:49
Agree AC

It seems a little to hard for some to understand that the graphs show the energy input to the rotating mass between the measured points.

When you want to know how much energy is being put into a rotating system, you graph it at the input part of the cycle, exactly as it was done.
This then gives you a very clear vision of how much work is being done on the rotating body between the two given points.

If no energy was being transferred from the electromagnet to the PM, then no force would be seen at the PM over that distance.

So many people confuse energy with power, as we have seen here.
We are not calculating power. We are measuring a torque curve between two points (work being done) in the cycle, so as we can see the difference in energy (work being done) being put into each rotating system for a given P/In to the electromagnet.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Your graphs do not show torque. And even if they did, it would not represent energy, or power, and I assure you I know the difference. There is confusion surrounding this so I attempted to have chatgpt help explain the details. From my first post on the subject, his answer is pasted below. It has nothing to do confusion of energy and power, or not realizing any small segment of the circular path could be considered as a straight line.
bi

Quote
User
In rotational mechanical systems, torque and energy (or work done) have the same units, newton meters, but are not the same physical quantity, correct. Explain how to avoid confusion.

ChatGPT
That's correct. Torque and energy (or work done) both have units of newton-meters (Nm), but they represent different physical quantities in rotational mechanical systems.

Torque is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object, causing it to rotate around an axis. It is typically represented by the symbol τ (tau) and is defined as the product of the force and the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the line of action of the force.

Energy, or work done, in rotational systems is the product of torque and the angle through which the object rotates. It represents the amount of energy transferred to or from the system due to the rotation.

To avoid confusion between torque and energy:

Understand their definitions and physical meanings: Torque is the rotational force, while energy (work done) is the result of torque acting over a distance (angle).

Pay attention to the context: Torque is usually discussed when talking about the rotational dynamics of an object, while energy (work done) is discussed in the context of changes in rotational kinetic energy or potential energy in rotational systems.

Use appropriate symbols and terms: Use τ for torque and W for work or energy, and ensure clarity in your communication by specifying which quantity you're referring to.

By keeping these distinctions in mind and using clear terminology, you can avoid confusion between torque and energy in rotational mechanical systems.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.03.28, 22:45:51
It looks easy enough to build, has anyone built one to see if the concept actually works?.

AC

Yes, I tried many years ago, and could not get it to work.
But that doesn't mean some one else won't be able to make it work.

I used a large speaker magnet, that I cut in half, and flipped one half over.
I used a slow rotating 5 inch Dimond blade and grinding paste to cut the magnet in half.
I used transformer laminate blocks instead of bolts though.

I found that because the laminated blocks were attracted to the magnet much more than they were attracted toward the curved steel stator, it got stuck at the end of the magnet halves.

That was just my findings, but i encourage everyone to try everything for your self.
Just because one person fails, does not mean the next won't succeed.

Brad

Quote
author=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111133#msg111133 date=1711670160

Quote

QuoteYour graphs do not show torque.

As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you that that is exactly what they show.
Torque: Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis.
!!Don't get confused between torque applied ( a force applied on a rotating body about an axis), and ft/lb of torque, or Nm of torque.!!
To clarify, a force upon a rotating body is called a torque. A force applied to a body in a linear motion, is called a force.
The graphs clearly show a measured force over distance that causes an object (the rotor) to rotate about it's axis.




Quote

Quoteit would not represent energy

Work = Force times Distance = Energy
Energy is not power.
Power is how fast that energy is used
As the graphs were obtained in a static manor, we can calculate the energy (force x distance), but we cannot calculate the power, as there was no motion/time.

When you compress a spring, you use force over distance.
The compressed spring now has stored energy.
That stored energy came from an applied force over distance.
Energy was transferred from an applied force over distance (work being done= energy), into the spring.
If the compressed spring now has stored energy, and energy is not a force over distance as you say, then where did the spring get it's now stored energy from?

Now, if you wanted to graph that applied force over distance that it took to compress that spring, that now has stored that energy, how would you do it ?
You would do it exactly as I did with the graphs i shared.


Quote

QuoteAnd even if they did, it would not represent energy, or power, and I assure you I know the difference. There is confusion surrounding this so I attempted to have chatgpt help explain the details. From my first post on the subject, his answer is pasted below. It has nothing to do confusion of energy and power, or not realizing any small segment of the circular path could be considered as a straight line.
bi

All I can say, and with all due respect, is to forget about what chatGPT says, and step into the real world of mechanics and mechanical engineering.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 01:15:15
Quote
author=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111133#msg111133 date=1711670160

Quote
As a mechanical engineer, I can tell you that that is exactly what they show.
Torque: Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis.
!!Don't get confused between torque applied ( a force applied on a rotating body about an axis), and ft/lb of torque, or Nm of torque.!!
To clarify, a force upon a rotating body is called a torque. A force applied to a body in a linear motion, is called a force.
The graphs clearly show a measured force over distance that causes an object (the rotor) to rotate about it's axis.




Quote
Work = Force times Distance = Energy
Energy is not power.
Power is how fast that energy is used
As the graphs were obtained in a static manor, we can calculate the energy (force x distance), but we cannot calculate the power, as there was no motion/time.

When you compress a spring, you use force over distance.
The compressed spring now has stored energy.
That stored energy came from an applied force over distance.
Energy was transferred from an applied force over distance (work being done= energy), into the spring.
If the compressed spring now has stored energy, and energy is not a force over distance as you say, then where did the spring get it's now stored energy from?

Now, if you wanted to graph that applied force over distance that it took to compress that spring, that now has stored that energy, how would you do it ?
You would do it exactly as I did with the graphs i shared.


Quote
All I can say, and with all due respect, is to forget about what chatGPT says, and step into the real world of mechanics and mechanical engineering.

Brad

Hi Brad,

Thanks for the definitions. But when going from linear force distance calculation to polar torque angular, the distance is the radius, or perpendicular distance from the force vector to the center of rotation, right? You don't use that on the graphs from what I see. You state on the nice diagram:
"GRAPHS SHOW TORQUE OVER DISTANCE MEASURED BETWEEN POINT A AND B OF THE ROTATING MASS"
A to B is not a proper distance for a torque calculation.

This is similar in nature to your oversight of cosθ, the angle of applied force to the direction of motion when figuring work done in linear motion.

QuoteAs the graphs were obtained in a static manor, we can calculate the energy (force x distance), but we cannot calculate the power, as there was no motion/time.

But you take a comparison of the two cases at equal input power, 12W. Without time in the mix, one case may have twice the duration, or twice the input energy. So I think you have needlessly mixed power and energy.

You're obviously welcome to run tests any way you desire. All I attempted to do was point out confusion. So carry on and good luck.
bi

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 01:15:15
<snip>

When you compress a spring, you use force over distance.
The compressed spring now has stored energy.
That stored energy came from an applied force over distance.
Energy was transferred from an applied force over distance (work being done= energy), into the spring.
If the compressed spring now has stored energy, and energy is not a force over distance as you say, then where did the spring get it's now stored energy from?

Now, if you wanted to graph that applied force over distance that it took to compress that spring, that now has stored that energy, how would you do it ?
You would do it exactly as I did with the graphs i shared.

Quoteenergy is not a force over distance as you say

I never said that. Show me.

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111136#msg111136 date=1711680847
Hi Brad,

QuoteBut when going from linear force distance calculation to polar torque angular, the distance is the radius

The measurements were taken at the radius.
The mm stated on the graph, are arc mm, not linear mm.

QuoteGRAPHS SHOW TORQUE OVER DISTANCE MEASURED BETWEEN POINT A AND B OF THE ROTATING MASS"

As measured in the arc, not in a straight line between points A and B
The fixed line from the rotor to the scales will follow the magnets arc, and so each torque is measured through that arc, not in a straight line.

QuoteA to B is not a proper distance for a torque calculation.

It is correct when static torques are being measured, as they are always measured at the arc moment.

What is torque:  Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Just as force is what causes an object to accelerate in linear kinematics, torque is what causes an object to acquire angular acceleration.

What is static torque: A static torque is one which does not produce an angular acceleration. Someone pushing on a closed door is applying a static torque to the door because the door is not rotating about its hinges, despite the force applied. Someone pedaling a bicycle at constant speed is also applying a static torque because they are not accelerating.

QuoteThis is similar in nature to your oversight of cosθ, the angle of applied force to the direction of motion when figuring work done in linear motion.

There is no oversight,as the PM that the magnetic field is pulling on, will always be in the arc position. It does not, and cannot travel in, or be in a linear position.
The graphs show arc force (torque) values at each point in the arc moment, not linear values.

QuoteBut you take a comparison of the two cases at equal input power, 12W. Without time in the mix, one case may have twice the duration, or twice the input energy. So I think you have needlessly mixed power and energy.

The P/in's time is a constant in both cases, as is the duration.
The duration is the distance of the graphed torque curve.
I have not mixed power and energy.
I am the one saying energy is not power.

QuoteYou're obviously welcome to run tests any way you desire. All I attempted to do was point out confusion. So carry on and good luck.

I carry out static torque measurements the correct way, as has been done by engineers for many years.
Engineers carried out these very same static torque tests on steam engines, so as they could be sure that the pushrod system, crankshaft, and the wheels them self could handle the applied torque at any point in the full cycle.


Brad

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.29, 03:45:56

QuoteIf energy is not a force over distance as you say

QuoteI never said that. Show me.

Quote reply 74

QuoteEven if it were "torque (force) over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 05:35:41
Quote reply 74
Brad

Brad,
Your reply was inside a quote so it didn't show properly here. I copied it and paste it here:
______
Quote
If energy is not a force over distance as you say

Quote
I never said that. Show me.

Quote reply 74
Quote
Even if it were "torque (force) over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Brad
__________

My actual statement, copied from post 74 is:
"Even if it were "torque over distance", it is not indicating energy or power."

I did not say what you claim. I wrote "torque". Not force. Not torque (force). Don't lie about what I say. And torque is not force. And I meant torque, not force.
bi

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 05:26:19


The measurements were taken at the radius.
The mm stated on the graph, are arc mm, not linear mm.

As measured in the arc, not in a straight line between points A and B
The fixed line from the rotor to the scales will follow the magnets arc, and so each torque is measured through that arc, not in a straight line.

It is correct when static torques are being measured, as they are always measured at the arc moment.

What is torque:  Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Just as force is what causes an object to accelerate in linear kinematics, torque is what causes an object to acquire angular acceleration.

What is static torque: A static torque is one which does not produce an angular acceleration. Someone pushing on a closed door is applying a static torque to the door because the door is not rotating about its hinges, despite the force applied. Someone pedaling a bicycle at constant speed is also applying a static torque because they are not accelerating.

There is no oversight,as the PM that the magnetic field is pulling on, will always be in the arc position. It does not, and cannot travel in, or be in a linear position.
The graphs show arc force (torque) values at each point in the arc moment, not linear values.

The P/in's time is a constant in both cases, as is the duration.
The duration is the distance of the graphed torque curve.
I have not mixed power and energy.
I am the one saying energy is not power.

I carry out static torque measurements the correct way, as has been done by engineers for many years.
Engineers carried out these very same static torque tests on steam engines, so as they could be sure that the pushrod system, crankshaft, and the wheels them self could handle the applied torque at any point in the full cycle.


Brad

Where is the distance from the center of rotation used to derive the torque value from a force measurement?

I don't see that and without that I fail to comprehend how you can call a force measurement torque. 

Your helpful diagrams stated distance from A to B indicating linear. How was I to know you had used a string to get an arc around the circumference, until you just told me. From that arc distance one can get the angle, and using the angle makes all the difference. If that is the case, then the x-axis is really displacement in radians, right? And if the radius was used to calculate torque from the force measurements, I could then see a "torque curve". And as chatgpt said, "Energy, or work done, in rotational systems is the product of torque and the angle through which the object rotates." See reply 70.
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.29, 06:15:48
Brad,
Your reply was inside a quote so it didn't show properly here. I copied it and paste it here:
______
Quote
If energy is not a force over distance as you say

Quote
I never said that. Show me.

Quote reply 74
Quote
Even if it were "torque (force) over distance", it is not indicating energy or power.

Brad
__________

My actual statement, copied from post 74 is:
"Even if it were "torque over distance", it is not indicating energy or power."

I did not say what you claim. I wrote "torque". Not force. Not torque (force). Don't lie about what I say. And torque is not force. And I meant torque, not force.
bi

I put force in, as force is torque on a rotating body.
You continue to make the same mistake over and over, regardless of me telling you that they are one in the same when imparted on a rotating body.
I did not lie. How can you lie by placing a word that has the very same meaning as the other.

So once again--when a force is placed on a body that has linear motion, it is call a force.
When a force is placed on a rotating body, it is called a torque.

Brad

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111141#msg111141 date=1711694698

QuoteWhere is the distance from the center of rotation used to derive the torque value from a force measurement?

You do not need the distance from the center of rotation to obtain the torque value being imposed on the outer rim of the rotor.
We are not measuring ft/lb or newton meters of torque. We are measuring the torque being applied to the outer rim of the rotor.
The rotor could be any diameter, but the torque imposed on the outer rim would be the same regardless.
The only thing that would change, is the ft/lb or newton meters of torque value. The torque value on the outer rim of the rotor would remain the same.
You are mixing up torque and foot pounds of torque etc. They are not the same thing.

I decided to ask your belove chatGPT what an applied force to a rotating body is called
Guess what it said

QuoteThe force applied to a rotating body is called torque. Torque is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object, causing it to rotate around an axis.

I then asked it this--is an applied torque over distance energy ?
It's answer was

Quotewhen torque is applied over a distance and causes an object to rotate, work is done, and energy is transferred.

I am not sure why you cannot see that we were graphing the value of torque being applied to the outer rim over a distance of a rotating body.

I said-quote: "My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system."

You said in post 72 -quote: That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.
I once again aske your beloved chatGPT- is torque applied to a rotating disc over distance energy
It's answer-

QuoteYes, when torque is applied to a rotating disc over a distance, it involves the transfer or conversion of energy.
Work: When torque is applied over a distance (angular displacement), work is done on the rotating disc. Work, in this context, is the transfer of energy that results in the disc's rotational motion. The amount of work done depends on the magnitude of the torque applied and the distance over which it is applied.


So, when torque is applied to a rotating disc over a distance, it involves the transfer of energy, as work is done on the disc to make it rotate. This demonstrates the connection between torque, angular displacement, work, and energy in the context of rotating systems.

In post 74, you said:

QuoteOnly the force in the direction of motion or displacement enters into the work formula.

I must say, if the torque is being imparted on the PM that is fixed to the rotating disk, in which direction do you think it was going when each measurement was taken in the graphs?
Obviously, the electromagnet, which is fixed into position, is pulling the PM on the rotor toward it, in a radial arc from point A to point B-the direction of rotation, as clearly shown in the diagram posted.

You also said in post 74 Quote:

QuoteForce over distance in rectangular coordinates or torque over angle in polar. But not a mix of the two.

I never mixed the two. It was you that was unsure how the measurements were taken, not me.

QuoteI don't see that and without that I fail to comprehend how you can call a force measurement torque.

Once again, because a force applied to a rotating body is called a torque. not foot pounds of torque, not newton meters of torque, just a torque.
That torque can be measured in grams, pounds, newtons-what ever you like,
When we were all testing this motor, we wanted to know the difference in applied torque onto the rotors outer rim during the brief on time of the coil, at the same P/in to the coil, over the same distance of rotation, between the two types of motors. By graphing the torque curve as we did, we could calculate the average torque applied to the rotor in both the motors, regardless of what diameter each persons rotor was.

QuoteYour helpful diagrams stated distance from A to B indicating linear.

No it did not.
How on earth do you get linear from a diagram that shows a magnet traveling from point A to point B on a rotor ?
The diagram says- graphs show torque over distance measured between point A and B of the !rotating mass!, which obviously means that the distance between point A and point B is the curved path of the rotating PM, which is fixed to the rotating mass.

QuoteHow was I to know you had used a string to get an arc around the circumference, until you just told me.

Well how was I to know that you didn't think I new what I was doing, when i've been doing this type of thing for 40 years.
How else would you graph a torque curve using multiple static measurements over a curved path?
It would seem like you decided I was wrong, before you even knew how the test was carried out.

QuoteAnd if the radius was used to calculate torque from the force measurements, I could then see a "torque curve".

Once again, the radius is not needed to obtain the torque curve being imparted on the outer rim of the rotor.
The rotor could have a radius of 100mm or 500mm, but the torque being applied on the outer rim of the rotor would be exactly the same in both cases.

Once again, we refer to your beloved chatGPT
Question-what is static torque
Answer-
Static torque refers to the torque applied to an object that is not in motion, i.e., it is static or stationary. It's the torque exerted on an object without any movement or rotation occurring.
In practical terms, static torque may be important for various reasons:
Assembly and Fastening: When assembling components, especially in engineering and manufacturing, static torque is often applied to fasteners (such as nuts and bolts) to ensure they are tightened to a specific torque specification.
Calibration: Static torque is used in the calibration of torque-measuring instruments or devices, ensuring their accuracy by applying known torques to them while they are stationary.
Preload: In mechanical systems, such as bearings, static torque might be applied to create preload, which helps to reduce backlash, improve rigidity, and enhance the overall performance of the system.In summary, static torque is the torque applied to an object at rest, and it finds applications in various fields such as engineering, manufacturing, and mechanical systems.

QuoteAnd as chatgpt said, "Energy, or work done, in rotational systems is the product of torque and the angle through which the object rotates

Which is exactly what the graphs and diagram show.
It shows the torque value being imparted on the PM, that is fixed to the rotating disc, and so the PM will change angle slightly to that of the electromagnet, through each torque measurement point in the graph.

I really am confused as to why you find this hard to understand.
I still think you are mixing up torque with the likes of foot pounds of torque, or newton meters of torque, but they are not the same.

One more question for the almighty chatGPT

if you are pushing down on the peddle  of a pushbike, but the peddle does not move, are you applying a torque upon the peddle ?

Answer:

QuoteYes, if you are pushing down on the pedal of a pushbike but the pedal does not move, you are indeed applying torque to the pedal. Torque is the rotational force applied to an object around an axis, and when you push down on the pedal, you are applying a force that tends to rotate the pedal around its axis of rotation.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 11:59:24


You do not need the distance from the center of rotation to obtain the torque value being imposed on the outer rim of the rotor.
We are not measuring ft/lb or newton meters of torque. We are measuring the torque being applied to the outer rim of the rotor.
The rotor could be any diameter, but the torque imposed on the outer rim would be the same regardless.
The only thing that would change, is the ft/lb or newton meters of torque value. The torque value on the outer rim of the rotor would remain the same.
You are mixing up torque and foot pounds of torque etc. They are not the same thing.

I decided to ask your belove chatGPT what an applied force to a rotating body is called
Guess what it said
I then asked it this--is an applied torque over distance energy ?
It's answer was
I am not sure why you cannot see that we were graphing the value of torque being applied to the outer rim over a distance of a rotating body.

I said-quote: "My graphs show torque over a distance in a rotating system."

You said in post 72 -quote: That would be your graphs show torque vs angle (or radians). And that is not energy.
I once again aske your beloved chatGPT- is torque applied to a rotating disc over distance energy
It's answer-
In post 74, you said: I must say, if the torque is being imparted on the PM that is fixed to the rotating disk, in which direction do you think it was going when each measurement was taken in the graphs?
Obviously, the electromagnet, which is fixed into position, is pulling the PM on the rotor toward it, in a radial arc from point A to point B-the direction of rotation, as clearly shown in the diagram posted.

You also said in post 74 Quote:
I never mixed the two. It was you that was unsure how the measurements were taken, not me.

Once again, because a force applied to a rotating body is called a torque. not foot pounds of torque, not newton meters of torque, just a torque.
That torque can be measured in grams, pounds, newtons-what ever you like,
When we were all testing this motor, we wanted to know the difference in applied torque onto the rotors outer rim during the brief on time of the coil, at the same P/in to the coil, over the same distance of rotation, between the two types of motors. By graphing the torque curve as we did, we could calculate the average torque applied to the rotor in both the motors, regardless of what diameter each persons rotor was.

No it did not.
How on earth do you get linear from a diagram that shows a magnet traveling from point A to point B on a rotor ?
The diagram says- graphs show torque over distance measured between point A and B of the !rotating mass!, which obviously means that the distance between point A and point B is the curved path of the rotating PM, which is fixed to the rotating mass.

Well how was I to know that you didn't think I new what I was doing, when i've been doing this type of thing for 40 years.
How else would you graph a torque curve using multiple static measurements over a curved path?
It would seem like you decided I was wrong, before you even knew how the test was carried out.

Once again, the radius is not needed to obtain the torque curve being imparted on the outer rim of the rotor.
The rotor could have a radius of 100mm or 500mm, but the torque being applied on the outer rim of the rotor would be exactly the same in both cases.

Once again, we refer to your beloved chatGPT
Question-what is static torque
Answer-
Static torque refers to the torque applied to an object that is not in motion, i.e., it is static or stationary. It's the torque exerted on an object without any movement or rotation occurring.
In practical terms, static torque may be important for various reasons:
Assembly and Fastening: When assembling components, especially in engineering and manufacturing, static torque is often applied to fasteners (such as nuts and bolts) to ensure they are tightened to a specific torque specification.
Calibration: Static torque is used in the calibration of torque-measuring instruments or devices, ensuring their accuracy by applying known torques to them while they are stationary.
Preload: In mechanical systems, such as bearings, static torque might be applied to create preload, which helps to reduce backlash, improve rigidity, and enhance the overall performance of the system.In summary, static torque is the torque applied to an object at rest, and it finds applications in various fields such as engineering, manufacturing, and mechanical systems.

Which is exactly what the graphs and diagram show.
It shows the torque value being imparted on the PM, that is fixed to the rotating disc, and so the PM will change angle slightly to that of the electromagnet, through each torque measurement point in the graph.

I really am confused as to why you find this hard to understand.
I still think you are mixing up torque with the likes of foot pounds of torque, or newton meters of torque, but they are not the same.

One more question for the almighty chatGPT

if you are pushing down on the peddle  of a pushbike, but the peddle does not move, are you applying a torque upon the peddle ?

Answer:

Brad

Brad,
Sincerely, thank you the discussion. But I will need to leave it. A basic disagreement exists I fail to see resolution. Your last question:

Quoteif you are pushing down on the peddle  of a pushbike, but the peddle does not move, are you applying a torque upon the peddle

My answer is: No. You are applying force to the peddle. Torque occurs on the crank shaft through the moment arm.
Torque is not force.

Regards.
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.29, 12:28:12
Brad,
Sincerely, thank you the discussion. But I will need to leave it. A basic disagreement exists I fail to see resolution. Your last question:


Regards.
bi

QuoteMy answer is: No. You are applying force to the peddle. Torque occurs on the crank shaft through the moment arm.
Torque is not force.

But your chatGPT says you are applying a torque to the peddle.
Are you picking and choosing as to what is correct in chatGPT ?

Maybe you just don't know that in mechanics, a force applied to a body that can rotate, is called a torque.

To quote wiki: In physics and mechanics, torque is the rotational analogue of linear force.

And to quote Kahn Academy : Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Just as force is what causes an object to accelerate in linear kinematics, torque is what causes an object to acquire angular acceleration.

And to quote Study.com: "torque is the rotational equivalent of force."


Brad

So anyway, Bistander started quoting answers he asked from chatGPT, so i decided to pay it a visit, and ask some questions myself.

Needless to say, i have been asking it all sorts of things-thanks Bistander  O0.

I asked it this--can magnets do work ?
Are you ready for the answer? lol

Answer- Yes, magnets can do work. Work, in physics, is defined as the transfer of energy when a force is applied to an object and causes it to move a certain distance in the direction of the force. Magnets can exert forces on other magnetic objects or materials, causing them to move and thus do work.  O0

Question- can an all magnet motor work

Answer-

QuoteThe idea of an "all magnet motor" typically refers to a concept where the motion of magnets alone, without any external input of energy, is purported to generate continuous motion and therefore produce usable mechanical energy. However, the concept of an "all magnet motor" falls into the realm of perpetual motion machines, which violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Question- could the laws of thermodynamics be wrong or incomplete

Answer- While it's theoretically possible that our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics could evolve or be refined in the future, any proposed modifications would need to be supported by substantial evidence and would have to explain the vast body of existing experimental data that currently corroborates the laws as we understand them.

Question- what if some one actually invented a working perpetual motion machine ?

Answer- If someone were to claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine and it were verified to genuinely operate as claimed, it would necessitate a major reevaluation of our understanding of physics. Scientists would rigorously investigate the device to understand how it functions and whether it truly violates established physical principles.

And the big question- would the oil companies be happy if a true perpetual motion machine were invented

Answer- If a true perpetual motion machine were invented, it would have profound implications for the global energy landscape. A perpetual motion machine that generates unlimited energy without the need for fuel would disrupt traditional energy markets, including those dominated by oil companies. It could lead to a rapid decline in the demand for fossil fuels, impacting the profitability of oil extraction, refining, and distribution businesses. Governments and regulatory bodies may need to reassess energy policies and regulations in light of the invention of a perpetual motion machine. New regulations may be required to manage the transition to this new energy paradigm and address potential societal impacts.

Question- what would happen to the solar industry if a perpetual motion machine was invented ?

Answer- If a perpetual motion machine were invented and proven to work, it would have profound implications for the entire energy industry, including the solar industry. A perpetual motion machine that generates unlimited energy without the need for fuel would disrupt traditional energy markets, including those dominated by solar energy. It could lead to a rapid decline in the demand for solar panels and other solar technologies, as well as other renewable energy sources.

Question- would the inventor of an actual perpetual motion machine be in danger

Answer- While it's difficult to predict the exact outcome, it's conceivable that the inventor could face various challenges, including skepticism, scrutiny, and even threats, depending on the nature and implications of the invention.

Ok, that's enough chatGPT for me lol.

Brad

I like F6 thought posted here

https://overunity.com/18109/2019-and-beyond/msg529320/#msg529320
Burning the atmosphere ( transport,heat etc) and deforestation  etc etc .. is prehistoric!
And flushing drinking water ?? Yeesh
Gotta fix that too ...( FE solutions for sure)

Clean Green FE is our destiny..
Teach !

I am not sure why there seems to be so much confusion about torque and force.  Force is a direct push or pull in a straight line.  Torque is a measure of that push or pull in relation to the distance from the center of rotation.  Let me give you a pretty simple example that I hope will explain it better.

Lets say I have a bolt i want to remove.  I put a socket and a ratchet with a 6 inch handle onto the bolt.  Since I am getting old I can onlly push with let's say 10 pounds of force which is applied to the end of the 6 inch ratchet.   As Brad has correctly stated torque is measured in foot/pounds or newton/meters.  Using that formula we can see that I have only applied  5 foot/pounds of torque.  Since the bolt is stuck tighter than that I need to do something different.  So I replace the 6 inch ratchet with a 2 foot breaker bar.  Now I apply the same 10 pounds of force because I haven't suddenly gotten any stronger.  Now  if we calculate the torque we can see we now have 20 foot/pouds of torque.  Our force didn't change at all but our torqued went up 4 times.

When we were working on the 1+1=3 torque plate motor Brad showed us how to measure the force being applied to the rim of the motor.  We didn't really care about the torque as we were only interested in getting the 1+1=3 effect which many of us were able to do.  I think there are a couple of reasons we didn't look at the torque.  The first problem is that finding a good way to measure torque would be much harder than the simple way Brad showed us for measuring the force.  Also any torque measurements wouldn't mean much since most of us had different sizes of rotors

Respectfullyy
Carroll

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.29, 13:10:08
But your chatGPT says you are applying a torque to the peddle.
Are you picking and choosing as to what is correct in chatGPT ?

That was your chatGPT, not mine.

Quote
Maybe you just don't know that in mechanics, a force applied to a body that can rotate, is called a torque.

I know what torque and force are.

Quote
To quote wiki: In physics and mechanics, torque is the rotational analogue of linear force.

Note "analogue of", not the same as.

Quote

And to quote Kahn Academy : Torque is a measure of the force that can cause an object to rotate about an axis. Just as force is what causes an object to accelerate in linear kinematics, torque is what causes an object to acquire angular acceleration.

And to quote Study.com: "torque is the rotational equivalent of force."


Brad

Quick visit to my chatGPT:

QuoteUser

Is gravity a force?

ChatGPT
Yes, gravity is considered a fundamental force of nature. It's the force of attraction between objects with mass, such as planets, stars, and everyday objects.

User
A bowling ball rests on the ground with no forces except gravity. Is there torque imparted to the ball?

ChatGPT
In the scenario you described, if a bowling ball is at rest on the ground with no external forces acting upon it except gravity, then there would be no torque imparted to the ball. Torque arises from a force acting at a distance from a point of rotation, causing rotation or angular acceleration. Since the ball is stationary and not rotating in this scenario, there is no torque acting on it.


User
So force and torque are not the same thing, correct?

ChatGPT
Correct, force and torque are not the same thing.

Force is a push or pull acting upon an object, causing it to accelerate or change its motion in some way. Torque, on the other hand, is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object about an axis of rotation. It is the product of a force applied at a distance from the axis of rotation, resulting in a twisting or rotational motion. While both force and torque involve the application of a physical influence, they operate in different ways and have different effects on objects.

Quote
Are you picking and choosing as to what is correct in chatGPT ?

Yes, are you?
bi

A short word on llms. They are trained on essentially redacted data and they regularly hallucinate. I use the pro versions of ChatGPT, Gemini and claude3. All give different answers. For the most part they are not great at calculations. They are good at guessing what word should come next in a sentence. I would encourage everyone to investigate open source models using an app like lmstudio. These are free and the models are getting better everyday and for the most part uncensored unlike their paid counterparts.

Great news !
A self running magnet array ( not writing about ancillary inputs ( heat etc etc)
Needs no measuring for validation..

I have yet to speak with an academic who disagrees .
Even a self running array which has a coil harvesting into capacitor to maintain
A gain mechanism...(open source for replication?
would be incredibly interesting to academic research community.

It would be one thing if this was in development stage ( the prototype)
Then bistander input might have relevance..

Here it is not the case ..

Respectfully
Chet K

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.29, 18:31:12




bi

QuoteThat was your chatGPT, not mine.

So ask yours the same question, and post the answers.

QuoteI know what torque and force are.

Well i thought you would have as well, but apparently not.

QuoteYes, are you?

No.
As you can see, i only asked it direct questions, and gave the actual answers.
I only did this as you seem to use it to provide what you Deem'd accurate information.

QuoteQuick visit to my chatGPT:

Well is it not fair that we both use the same information source ?

QuoteNote "analogue of", not the same as.

Analog-relating to, or being a mechanism or device in which information is represented by continuously variable physical quantities.

Bi, do you know how HP is calculated using the prony brake method ?
If not, go and study it, and see how HP is measured using this method.
Then you will understand the difference between a torque, and torque value.

Brad

Quote from: CITFTA on 2024.03.29, 17:43:21
I am not sure why there seems to be so much confusion about torque and force.  Force is a direct push or pull in a straight line.  Torque is a measure of that push or pull in relation to the distance from the center of rotation.  Let me give you a pretty simple example that I hope will explain it better.

Lets say I have a bolt i want to remove.  I put a socket and a ratchet with a 6 inch handle onto the bolt.  Since I am getting old I can onlly push with let's say 10 pounds of force which is applied to the end of the 6 inch ratchet.   As Brad has correctly stated torque is measured in foot/pounds or newton/meters.  Using that formula we can see that I have only applied  5 foot/pounds of torque.  Since the bolt is stuck tighter than that I need to do something different.  So I replace the 6 inch ratchet with a 2 foot breaker bar.  Now I apply the same 10 pounds of force because I haven't suddenly gotten any stronger.  Now  if we calculate the torque we can see we now have 20 foot/pouds of torque.  Our force didn't change at all but our torqued went up 4 times.

When we were working on the 1+1=3 torque plate motor Brad showed us how to measure the force being applied to the rim of the motor.  We didn't really care about the torque as we were only interested in getting the 1+1=3 effect which many of us were able to do.  I think there are a couple of reasons we didn't look at the torque.  The first problem is that finding a good way to measure torque would be much harder than the simple way Brad showed us for measuring the force.  Also any torque measurements wouldn't mean much since most of us had different sizes of rotors

Respectfullyy
Carroll

Hi citfta,

Thanks for chiming in.

You know how picky I can be, or at least have been accused of being. Well, the proper units for torque are pound-feet or newton-meters, not foot/pounds or newton/meters.

QuoteTorque has the dimension of force times distance, symbolically T−2L2M. Although those fundamental dimensions are the same as that for energy or work, official SI literature suggests using the unit newton-metre (N⋅m) and never the joule.[12][13] The unit newton-metre is properly denoted N⋅m.[13]

The traditional imperial and U.S. customary units for torque are the pound foot (lbf-ft), or for small values the pound inch (lbf-in). In the US, torque is most commonly referred to as the foot-pound (denoted as either lb-ft or ft-lb) and the inch-pound (denoted as in-lb).[14][15] Practitioners depend on context and the hyphen in the abbreviation to know that these refer to torque and not to energy or moment of mass (as the symbolism ft-lb would properly imply).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

But to your example:
You applied the same force in your two attempts to loosen the fastener, correct? 10 pounds. But on the second attempt, as you say, the torque increased by a four factor.
Doesn't that support my contention force and torque are not the same? Seems clear to me.
Regards,
bi

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.30, 00:19:31
So ask yours the same question, and post the answers.

Brad

Hi Brad,

Actually I did ask the same question, nearly. I asked for chatGPT to explain the difference between torque and force. I didn't bother to post it at the time because I thought it was too obvious. But I did copy and save it. So I'll post it now.

Quote
User
In physics, exactly what is the difference between torque and force?

ChatGPT
In physics, force is a push or pull on an object resulting from its interaction with another object. Torque, on the other hand, is a measure of the rotational force applied to an object around an axis. While force causes linear motion, torque causes rotational motion. In essence, force is to linear motion what torque is to rotational motion.



User
Continuing to explain torque and force, go into the calculation and units of measure, and how each is used to figure power and energy.

ChatGPT
Certainly!

Calculation and Units of Measure:

Force: The force acting on an object is calculated using Newton's second law, F = ma, where F is the force, m is the mass of the object, and a is the acceleration. The SI unit of force is the Newton (N).

Torque: Torque (τ) is calculated as the product of the force applied and the perpendicular distance from the axis of rotation to the point where the force is applied. Mathematically, τ = r × F, where τ is torque, r is the distance from the axis of rotation, and F is the force applied perpendicular to the radius. The SI unit of torque is the Newton-meter (Nm).

Power and Energy:

Power: Power (P) is the rate at which work is done or energy is transferred. In terms of force and torque, power can be calculated using the formulas:

For linear motion: P = F × v, where P is power, F is force, and v is velocity.
For rotational motion: P = τ × ω, where P is power, τ is torque, and ω is angular velocity.
Power is measured in watts (W) in the SI system.
Energy: Energy (E) is the capacity to do work. The relationship between force, torque, and energy depends on the type of motion:

For linear motion: The work done by a force is calculated as W = F × d, where W is work, F is force, and d is the displacement. Energy is measured in joules (J).
For rotational motion: The work done by torque is calculated as W = τ × θ, where W is work, τ is torque, and θ is the angle through which the torque acts. Energy is still measured in joules (J).
Understanding force and torque allows us to comprehend the mechanics of both linear and rotational motion and how they relate to power and energy.

Notice he accepts my premise that there is a difference between torque and force, hence torque and force are not the same.
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.30, 02:24:36
Hi Brad,

Actually I did ask the same question, nearly. I asked for chatGPT to explain the difference between torque and force. I didn't bother to post it at the time because I thought it was too obvious. But I did copy and save it. So I'll post it now.

Notice he accepts my premise that there is a difference between torque and force, hence torque and force are not the same.
bi

So now it is clear that you are confused between a torque applied to a rotating disc, and the measure of that torque (eg-foot pounds) at the axis of rotation.
I have tried time and time again to try and explain that a torque is a  force applied to a rotating body-eg, a disc or rotor of a motor.
It is clear that you do not understand mechanical or electromagnetic applied torques.

I will try once again, and after that, if you still do not understand, then i can't help you.

When a force is applied to a mass that moves in a linear motion, it is called a force.
When a force is applied to a rotating mass/rotor, it is called a torque, not a force.

Lets ask your chatGPT again, with the specific questions related to my graphs, and electromagnetic torque's in motors.

Q1- is a rotational force applied to a rotating disc called a torque?
A1-Yes, a rotational force applied to a rotating disk is indeed called torque. Torque is the measure of the rotational force that causes an object to rotate around an axis. When applied to a rotating disk, torque can cause it to speed up, slow down, or change direction depending on the direction and magnitude of the torque applied. It's commonly encountered in mechanical systems where rotary motion is involved, such as engines, motors, and machinery.

Q2-is a force applied to a mass with linear motion called a torque?

A2-No, a force applied to a mass with linear motion is not called torque; it's simply referred to as force.

Q3- does the magnetic field in an electric motor apply a torque on the rotor?

A3-Yes, in an electric motor, the interaction between the magnetic field and the current-carrying conductors (such as coils) in the rotor generates a torque that drives the rotation of the rotor. This phenomenon is known as the electromagnetic torque.

Q4-if the electric motor has stalled, do the magnetic fields still apply a torque on the rotor

A4-In a stalled motor scenario, the rotor is not moving, so there is no mechanical output. However, the magnetic fields produced by the stator coils still interact with the magnetic field of the rotor, creating a torque that tries to turn the rotor. This torque is resisted by the opposing torque due to friction and other resistive forces, preventing the rotor from turning.

In the case of the motors that were being graphed, it was the scales that was the equal and opposite torque, stopping the motor from turning.
But the electromagnetic field acting upon the PM that is fixed to the rotor, still created a torque on the rotor. It was the value of the applied electromagnetic torque we were measuring in the graphs.

But lets ask this question
Q5-does the electromagnetic field apply a torque or a force on the rotor of the electric motor?

A5- The electromagnetic field in an electric motor applies a torque to the rotor, not a force. This torque is what causes the rotor to rotate within the motor.

You keep on insisting that we need the radius to calculate the value of torque, but we do not.
The electromagnetic torque that was applied to the rotor, by the electromagnet, was measured at the point where that torque was being applied to the rotor, not at the center of axis.
So the R is omitted, as is foot pounds, newton meters-etc, as there is no feet or meters from where the measurements of this applied torque were being graphed.

One last question for good measure
Q6- can static torque measurements be made at the outer rim of the rotor in an electric motor

A6- Yes, static torque measurements can be made at the outer rim of the rotor in an electric motor. In static conditions, where the rotor is not rotating, the torque measurement can be performed by applying a known force or load to the outer rim of the rotor and measuring the resulting torque. Static torque measurements on the rotor of an electric motor can be important for various reasons, including performance evaluation, maintenance checks, and calibration of the motor. These measurements help ensure that the motor is operating within specified parameters and can provide valuable insights into its overall condition and efficiency.

In the case of the graphs, the known load is the scales.
The measurements taken between both motors was to give us valuable information in regards to their efficiency.

If you can't understand that there is no foot pound, or newton meters of torque being measured, but only the electromagnetic torque being applied to the outer edge of the rotor, then there is nothing more i can do or say that will make you understand what the graphs were measuring, which is the applied torque to the outer edge of the rotor, by the electromagnetic field on the PM.
The PM rotates with the rotor, and so is imparting a rotational force on the outer edge of the rotor.
A rotational force applied to a rotating disc, is a torque-not a force, regardless of whether the disc is rotating or stationary, as in the static torque tests we graphed.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.30, 06:48:39
So now it is clear that you are confused between a torque applied to a rotating disc, and the measure of that torque (eg-foot pounds) at the axis of rotation.
I have tried time and time again to try and explain that a torque is a  force applied to a rotating body-eg, a disc or rotor of a motor.

Hi Brad,
And I thought you were confused. Imagine that. Obviously there is confusion, and that's my point. So here we go;

User bi

In physics, can a force be applied to a rotating body such that it does not affect the motion?

ChatGPT

[Yes, it's possible to apply a force to a rotating body in such a way that it doesn't affect its rotational motion. This occurs when the force is applied along the axis of rotation, which doesn't produce a torque. Torque is what causes rotational acceleration, so if the force is applied in such a way that it doesn't produce torque, the rotational motion remains unaffected.]
>end session

End thrust on the motor shaft is an example.

So not all forces applied to rotating bodies make torque. But a force applied to the rotating body can result in torque under certain conditions.

Quote
It is clear that you do not understand mechanical or electromagnetic applied torques.

I understand very well. Happen to disagree with you about some things. But I do know the subject very well.

Quote

I will try once again, and after that, if you still do not understand, then i can't help you.

All I am saying is that torque and force are not the same thing. And your graphs were of the force read from the spring scale which is force, a vector in space at a known distance from the center of rotation. Whereas the resulting torque is a vector located at the center of rotation. Those two vectors, torque and force, have different magnitudes and directions and carry different units of measure. Torque and force are not the same.

I agree that your graphs represent a function proportional to the torque magnitude. And may be sufficient for your purpose. But they are not true torque graphs. Using only the information from the graph, one does not know the torque value in newton meters.

Quote

When a force is applied to a mass that moves in a linear motion, it is called a force.

I agree. A force is a force, of course.

Quote
When a force is applied to a rotating mass/rotor, it is called a torque, not a force.

I disagree. It is still a force. Torque can result if certain conditions are present, like that force being applied at a distance from the axis of rotation. Then a torque is imparted, which is a vector located at the center of rotation in the direction perpendicular to the plane of rotation. The force applied is still a force. Torque and force are different things.

Quote

Lets ask your chatGPT again, with the specific questions related to my graphs, and electromagnetic torque's in motors.

Q1- is a rotational force applied to a rotating disc called a torque?
A1-Yes, a rotational force applied to a rotating disk is indeed called torque. Torque is the measure of the rotational force that causes an object to rotate around an axis. When applied to a rotating disk, torque can cause it to speed up, slow down, or change direction depending on the direction and magnitude of the torque applied. It's commonly encountered in mechanical systems where rotary motion is involved, such as engines, motors, and machinery.

I agree, yes. I never said otherwise. Torque is often called rotational force.  But not all force is rotational force. So this does not imply that torque and force are the same.

Quote
Q2-is a force applied to a mass with linear motion called a torque?

A2-No, a force applied to a mass with linear motion is not called torque; it's simply referred to as force.

I agree. No. Never said otherwise. In fact this supports my contention that force and torque are not the same.

Quote
Q3- does the magnetic field in an electric motor apply a torque on the rotor?

A3-Yes, in an electric motor, the interaction between the magnetic field and the current-carrying conductors (such as coils) in the rotor generates a torque that drives the rotation of the rotor. This phenomenon is known as the electromagnetic torque.

No, It's the Lorentz Force Law which governs the interaction of the magnetic field in the electric motor, not his torque law.
The force is applied at a distance from the center of rotation and thereby causes a torque on the rotor shaft.

Quote
Q4-if the electric motor has stalled, do the magnetic fields still apply a torque on the rotor

A4-In a stalled motor scenario, the rotor is not moving, so there is no mechanical output. However, the magnetic fields produced by the stator coils still interact with the magnetic field of the rotor, creating a torque that tries to turn the rotor. This torque is resisted by the opposing torque due to friction and other resistive forces, preventing the rotor from turning.

Stall torque, as all* torque in the electric motor, results from Lorentz forces.

Quote
In the case of the motors that were being graphed, it was the scales that was the equal and opposite torque, stopping the motor from turning.
But the electromagnetic field acting upon the PM that is fixed to the rotor, still created a torque on the rotor. It was the value of the applied electromagnetic torque we were measuring in the graphs.

Your graphs were of the force read from the spring scale which is force, a vector in space at a known distance from the center of rotation. Whereas the resulting torque is a vector located at the center of rotation. Those two vectors, torque and force, have different magnitudes and directions and carry different units of measure. Torque and force are not the same.

Quote

But lets ask this question
Q5-does the electromagnetic field apply a torque or a force on the rotor of the electric motor?

A5- The electromagnetic field in an electric motor applies a torque to the rotor, not a force. This torque is what causes the rotor to rotate within the motor.

See Q3. It is Lorentz force, not Lorentz torque.
The magnetic field interaction with armature current produces force as evidenced in linear motors.
It is use of rotor in the question facilitating the reply from chatgpt.
But in common terminology, considering the total field and forces, electromagnetic torque is considered the result from the combined Lorentz forces and referred to as caused by the magnetic field interaction with armature currents.

Quote
You keep on insisting that we need the radius to calculate the value of torque, but we do not.
The electromagnetic torque that was applied to the rotor, by the electromagnet, was measured at the point where that torque was being applied to the rotor, not at the center of axis.

Quote
So the R is omitted, as is foot pounds, newton meters-etc, as there is no feet or meters from where the measurements of this applied torque were being graphed.

You noticed. That's what makes a force plot, not a torque curve. Thank you very much.

Quote
One last question for good measure
Q6- can static torque measurements be made at the outer rim of the rotor in an electric motor

A6- Yes, static torque measurements can be made at the outer rim of the rotor in an electric motor. In static conditions, where the rotor is not rotating, the torque measurement can be performed by applying a known force or load to the outer rim of the rotor and measuring the resulting torque. Static torque measurements on the rotor of an electric motor can be important for various reasons, including performance evaluation, maintenance checks, and calibration of the motor. These measurements help ensure that the motor is operating within specified parameters and can provide valuable insights into its overall condition and efficiency.

Of course, you simply multiply the measured force (N) by the radius (m) to get the torque (N-m).

Quote
In the case of the graphs, the known load is the scales.
The measurements taken between both motors was to give us valuable information in regards to their efficiency.

You tell us these are static measurements. Therefore at each measurement, the power output is zero. You have 12watts input. Efficiency is power out / power in, 0 / 12 = 0. That's valuable to you? I'll be interested to see how. I mean all information is valuable I suppose, but efficiency isn't obvious from your force graphs.

Quote
If you can't understand that there is no foot pound, or newton meters of torque being measured, but only the electromagnetic torque being applied to the outer edge of the rotor, then there is nothing more i can do or say that will make you understand what the graphs were measuring, which is the applied torque to the outer edge of the rotor, by the electromagnetic field on the PM.
The PM rotates with the rotor, and so is imparting a rotational force on the outer edge of the rotor.
A rotational force applied to a rotating disc, is a torque-not a force, regardless of whether the disc is rotating or stationary, as in the static torque tests we graphed.


Brad

But your spring scale measures force, not torque. And you plot those force values. Yes, it represents torque. But force isn't torque. The necessary moment arm is missing.

So no, you can't convince me that force and torque are the same. Stop trying.

Respectfully,
bi

edit * concerning "all". There can be exceptions possible due to dynamic conditions, and of course torque due to rotational losses.

Hi Brad,
Just thought of an example of a torque curve. Just for reference. From my post here:
https://overunity.com/19405/magnetic-flux-motor-just-patented-that-creates-its-own-electricity/210/
Reply #222.
bi

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111185#msg111185 date=1711830718

QuoteI agree that your graphs represent a function proportional to the torque magnitude. And may be sufficient for your purpose. But they are not true torque graphs. Using only the information from the graph, one does not know the torque value in newton meters.

Once again, we were not measuring newton meters, we were measuring the torque being applied to the outer rim of the rotor.
Torque applied to the outer rim of the rotor, is not newton meters of torque at the center of axis.
Why you find this hard to understand, i can't say.

QuoteTorque and force are not the same

.

A force applied to a rotating body, in the direction of rotation is a torque.

QuoteIn physics, can a force be applied to a rotating body such that it does not affect the motion?

Obviously, but irrelevant to the topic of conversation.

QuoteSo not all forces applied to rotating bodies make torque.

Of course.

QuoteTorque is often called rotational force.

There you go.
And so the opposite is true, where rotational force applied to a rotating disk is called a torque.

QuoteTorque and force are different things

And i thought you almost had it there.
Yes, torque and force in most cases are two different things, except in regards to the situation being discussed here.

QuoteNo, It's the Lorentz Force Law which governs the interaction of the magnetic field in the electric motor, not his torque law.

I fail to see your point here, as the Lorentz force results in exactly what I said-a torque imparted on the outer rim of the rotor in a motor.

Question- does the Lorentz force in an electric motor result in a torque being applied to the outer rim of the rotor

Answer- Yes, the Lorentz force in an electric motor does indeed result in a torque being applied to the outer rim of the rotor.

So I am not sure as to why you are arguing with your own admissions here ?

QuoteYour graphs were of the force read from the spring scale which is force

Yes, the scales (pressure pad scales, not spring scales) were measuring the value of force being applied to the scales from the resultant torque being imparted onto the rotor, which was created by the Lorentz forces within the magnetic fields.

QuoteThe force is applied at a distance from the center of rotation and thereby causes a torque on the rotor shaft.

No, not in the case of the motors being graphed, as the shaft is fixed, and does not rotate.

QuoteStall torque, as all* torque in the electric motor, results from Lorentz forces.

Ah, so you agree that the electromagnetic fields create Lorentz forces, and Lorentz forces cause a torque to be applied to the rotor of the electric motor.
And if we wanted to know the value of this applied torque at the outer rim of the rotor, where this torque was being applied, and not the resultant torque over distance at the center of axis of the rotor, we would do this how ?

QuoteYou noticed. That's what makes a force plot, not a torque curve. Thank you very much.
Of course, you simply multiply the measured force (N) by the radius (m) to get the torque (N-m).

No and no.
The force measured by the scales is the value of the torque at each measured point.
There is no (N-m), as there is no meters, due to the measurements being taken at the point of the applied torque, and not the center of axis.

QuoteYou tell us these are static measurements. Therefore at each measurement, the power output is zero. You have 12watts input. Efficiency is power out / power in, 0 / 12 = 0. That's valuable to you? I'll be interested to see how.

Ok, it seems you are still unaware as to what we were doing in the tests and the resultant graphs, so i will try again
We were measuring the difference in applied torque values during the on time of the electromagnet, between the two motors.
We were not measuring P/in to P/out. We were measuring the value of torque being applied to the rotor in that small portion of a full rotation of the rotor, where that small portion is the energy injection to the rotor per revolution.
The power supplied to the electromagnet was kept at the same value throughout each test.
This allowed us to see which motor resulted in a higher torque being applied to the rotor for that same period--which one used the electromagnets energy more efficiently.
Can i make it any clearer than that ?

QuoteI mean all information is valuable I suppose, but efficiency isn't obvious from your force graphs.

When in fact, the torque graphs show exactly that. They clearly show which motor uses the fixed value electromagnet field more efficiently.

QuoteBut your spring scale measures force, not torque. And you plot those force values. Yes, it represents torque. But force isn't torque

.

The scales measure the value of the applied torque.

QuoteThe necessary moment arm is missing.

Exactly, as there is no moment arm--there is a rotor.
So no ft/lb, no Nm, just the value of the applied torque at the point where that torque is being applied to the rotor-at the PM that is fixed to the rotor.

QuoteSo no, you can't convince me that force and torque are the same. Stop trying.

Never did try.
What i said was-when a force is applied to a mass that moves in a linear motion, it is call a force.
When a force is applied to a rotating mass, in the direction of rotation, it is called a torque--and that is fact.

Why don't we just ask chatGPT the direct question at hand here

Q- User
In an electric motor, if we wanted to know the value of the torque being applied by the lorentz force to the outer rim of the rotor, and not the resultant torque at the output shaft, could we use scales attached to the outer rim of the rotor to measure the value of this torque ?

A-
Yes, in principle, you could use scales attached to the outer rim of the rotor to measure the torque being applied by the Lorentz force. However, there are some practical considerations and challenges you would need to address:

Sensitivity of the scales: The scales attached to the outer rim would need to be highly sensitive to detect the torque being applied. They would need to be capable of measuring very small forces accurately.

And there you have it.
A direct question, and a direct answer.

I think we are done here.
You are of course free to see and do things as you see fit.
I will continue to do them the correct way, and use well know terms and measurement when testing is carried out.


Brad

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.31, 00:09:53
Hi Brad,
Just thought of an example of a torque curve. Just for reference. From my post here:
https://overunity.com/19405/magnetic-flux-motor-just-patented-that-creates-its-own-electricity/210/
Reply #222.
bi

Wow, that is truly amazing. O0
Lets put the two together.

From your previous post, (But your spring scale measures force, not torque)., please pay attention to the circled in red on my graph.
Second image shows where the applied torque is, and where the resultant newton meters of torque would be taken from.
We were measuring the applied torque.
Brad

Hi Bistander

In post 88, you said this-(your graphs do not show torque).

So there is an easy way to put this all to bed.
You plot the torque curves, using the provided information.
The rotor used in those tests is 200mm diameter exactly, so R is 100mm
The applied force (torque) is in the graphs supplied.
Please plot a torque curve for each graph, using the provided information, and post the results here.
Also plot a torque curve for the !wasted torque-(it's not a torque, but just what i called it)
We can then compare them to my graphs.

Thanks
Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 01:39:49
Hi Bistander

In post 88, you said this-(your graphs do not show torque).

So there is an easy way to put this all to bed.
You plot the torque curves, using the provided information.
The rotor used in those tests is 200mm diameter exactly, so R is 100mm
The applied force (torque) is in the graphs supplied.
Please plot a torque curve for each graph, using the provided information, and post the results here.
Also plot a torque curve for the !wasted torque-(it's not a torque, but just what i called it)
We can then compare them to my graphs.

Thanks
Brad

Hi Brad,
Mind if I take a shortcut?
You say:

"You plot the torque curves, using the provided information.
The rotor used in those tests is 200mm diameter exactly, so R is 100mm"

Simply multiply the Y-axis values by 0.1 and relabel as torque in gram-meters.

To be proper, calculate the conversion and relabel the X-axis as radians.

After your explanation of test method, I said your force graph was proportional to torque. But not having known the 100mm moment, the torque values were unknown.


"(it's not a torque, but just what i called it)"

Oh, you admit you call things torque when they're something different? Imagine that.

Regards,
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.31, 02:20:16
Hi Brad,
Mind if I take a shortcut?
You say:

"You plot the torque curves, using the provided information.
The rotor used in those tests is 200mm diameter exactly, so R is 100mm"






Regards,
bi

QuoteSimply multiply the Y-axis values by 0.1 and relabel as torque in gram-meters.

To be proper, calculate the conversion and relabel the X-axis as radians.

After your explanation of test method, I said your force graph was proportional to torque. But not having known the 100mm moment, the torque values were unknown.

Would the resultant torque curve look any different ?
And the graph does indeed show the torque value applied to the rotor by the Lorentz force.
Once again, we were measuring that value at the point at which it is applied to the rotor.
Please see image below.
You are still confused between applied torque, and center of axis torque.

Quote"(it's not a torque, but just what i called it)"
Oh, you admit you call things torque when they're something different? Imagine that.

It was called wasted torque because it detracted from the torque value, and did nothing but waste some of the magnetic energy.


Brad

Quote from: bistander on 2024.03.31, 02:20:16
Hi Brad,

QuoteMind if I take a shortcut?

Yes, i do.
Please provide your own torque graphs, based on the information provided, so as we can compare the two graphed torque curves.

Quote"You plot the torque curves, using the provided information.
The rotor used in those tests is 200mm diameter exactly, so R is 100mm"

Simply multiply the Y-axis values by 0.1 and relabel as torque in gram-meters.

Totally unnecessary to show a torque curve.
By doing as you say, would result in the very same torque curve graph, which is why i suspect you do not wish to do your own torque curve graph, using the numbers provided.

QuoteTo be proper, calculate the conversion and relabel the X-axis as radians.

Also would make no difference at all to the resultant torque curve in the graph.

QuoteAfter your explanation of test method, I said your force graph was proportional to torque. But not having known the 100mm moment, the torque values were unknown.

The torque values applied at the rim of the rotor, by the Lorentz force, are well defined in the graphs. The are measured in grams.
That torque applied at the rim of the rotor, would be exactly the same regardless of what the diameter of the rotor is, thus R has no meaning in regards to what the graph are showing, which once again, is the torque imparted on the rotor by the Lorentz force.

You made the claim that the graphs do not show a torque, and so we are not looking at a torque curve.
So, as i asked, please plot your own graphs, using all the information given, and we will see is there is a difference between the two graphs.

Thanks
Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 04:23:40
Would the resultant torque curve look any different ?
And the graph does indeed show the torque value applied to the rotor by the Lorentz force.
Once again, we were measuring that value at the point at which it is applied to the rotor.
Please see image below.
You are still confused between applied torque, and center of axis torque.

It was called wasted torque because it detracted from the torque value, and did nothing but waste some of the magnetic energy.


Brad

The answer to your question is right there. Proportional.
And I disagree with your statements.
I thought that put it to bed.
bi

WTF.
While I was composing a reply to your previous post, you sent another, which said it was put to bed. So I didn't post it but copied and saved it. I'll paste it for kicks and to see how you answer the question.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 00:37:59
Wow, that is truly amazing. O0
Lets put the two together.

From your previous post, (But your spring scale measures force, not torque)., please pay attention to the circled in red on my graph.
Second image shows where the applied torque is, and where the resultant newton meters of torque would be taken from.
We were measuring the applied torque.
Brad

The red circle contains "pull force grams".

That is exactly my point and what I've said numerous times. You have a force graph.

Thanks for explaining your test methods. One thing is unclear when you say there are no N-m of torque on the shaft involved. ("not newton meters of torque at the center of axis")
On your test rig, would it not have given you the same results if your force scale were attached to a disk, same diameter, fixed several cm away on the shaft, thereby showing torque transmitted on the axis?
bi

Ok, do you know how a prony brake test is carried out ?

In the diagram below, we have a torque being applied to the belt, from the rotating drum.
How is the value of this torque measured ?

And incase you get confused again- your beloved chatGPT

Q- with the prony brake test, does the rotating drum apply a torque on the belt

A- Yes, in a Prony brake test, the rotating drum applies a torque on the belt. The Prony brake test is a method used to measure the torque output of an engine or motor. It involves applying a frictional load to the rotating shaft of the engine or motor using a brake mechanism.
In the setup, a belt is wrapped around the shaft of the engine or motor and then tightened using a brake shoe or similar mechanism. The friction between the belt and the brake shoe creates a resisting torque on the shaft, causing it to slow down or come to a stop, depending on the load applied.
By measuring various parameters such as the force applied by the brake shoe, the radius at which the force is applied, and the speed of the shaft, it is possible to calculate the torque output of the engine or motor.
So yes, the rotating drum (or brake shoe) applies a torque on the belt, which in turn applies a resisting torque on the shaft being tested.

I hope you finally understand now.
My graphs show the torque curve, as should be measured.

Cheers
Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 05:27:46
Ok, do you know how a prony brake test is carried out ?

In the diagram below, we have a torque being applied to the belt, from the rotating drum.
How is the value of this torque measured ?

And incase you get confused again- your beloved chatGPT

Q- with the prony brake test, does the rotating drum apply a torque on the belt

A- Yes, in a Prony brake test, the rotating drum applies a torque on the belt. The Prony brake test is a method used to measure the torque output of an engine or motor. It involves applying a frictional load to the rotating shaft of the engine or motor using a brake mechanism.
In the setup, a belt is wrapped around the shaft of the engine or motor and then tightened using a brake shoe or similar mechanism. The friction between the belt and the brake shoe creates a resisting torque on the shaft, causing it to slow down or come to a stop, depending on the load applied.
By measuring various parameters such as the force applied by the brake shoe, the radius at which the force is applied, and the speed of the shaft, it is possible to calculate the torque output of the engine or motor.
So yes, the rotating drum (or brake shoe) applies a torque on the belt, which in turn applies a resisting torque on the shaft being tested.

I hope you finally understand now.
My graphs show the torque curve, as should be measured.

Cheers
Brad

Brad,
I am well aware of how dynamometers work. Thanks.
bi

Quoteauthor=bistander link=topic=4603.msg111197#msg111197 date=1711867090]
Brad,
I am well aware of how dynamometers work. Thanks.
bi

Great.
So after all this, you would agree that the scales of the dynamometer are showing the value of torque being applied to the belt, by the rim of the drum that the belt contacts ?
Then, to calculate say Nm of torque an hp of the motor driving the drum has, we would then need the rpm, and the radius of the drum-correct ?
You also understand that the torque being applied to my pulse motor rotor, is not coming from a rotating shaft at the center of axis, but from the induced Lorentz force generated between the electromagnet, and the PM that if fixed to the outer edge of the rotor?

If so, then congratulations.
You have just learned that my torque graphs show the value of the torque being imparted on the scales by the outer rim of the rotor.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.31, 07:43:14
 
Great.
So after all this, you would agree that the scales of the dynamometer are showing the value of torque being applied to the belt, by the rim of the drum that the belt contacts ?
Then, to calculate say Nm of torque an hp of the motor driving the drum has, we would then need the rpm, and the radius of the drum-correct ?
You also understand that the torque being applied to my pulse motor rotor, is not coming from a rotating shaft at the center of axis, but from the induced Lorentz force generated between the electromagnet, and the PM that if fixed to the outer edge of the rotor?

If so, then congratulations.
You have just learned that my torque graphs show the value of the torque being imparted on the scales by the outer rim of the rotor.


Brad

Brad,

No, the scales display a force value. The torque value isn't known until the moment arm is considered. Just as in citfta'a wrench example of reply #103. Torque and force are different.
Good day,
bi

edit:
I grow weary. I was going to leave it here but decided to add a different opinion. Last night I browsed the net reading a few articles on Prony brake dynamometers. Here is a copy of part of an article which I saved. Notice the author stated "measured force" in spring balance.

Quote
18.4.4 Prony Brake
The Prony brake is another torque-measuring system that is now uncommon. It is used to measure the torque in a rotating shaft and consists of a rope wound round the shaft, as illustrated in Figure 18.13. One end of the rope is attached to a spring balance and the other end carries a load in the form of a standard mass, m. If the measured force in the spring balance is Fs, then the effective force, Fe, exerted by the rope on the shaft is given by


Sign in to download full-size image
Figure 18.13. A Prony brake.

I apologize that I don't have the reference link at the moment. I'll add it later. https://tinyurl.com/23ym8q39
bi

The chatGDP reply in post #120 tells you

QuoteBy measuring various parameters such as the force applied by the brake shoe, the radius at which the force is applied, and the speed of the shaft, it is possible to calculate the torque output of the engine or motor.

So you use the dynamometer scales to calculate the torque in the type of dynamometer displayed in the image.  It does not display the torque.  I don't know whether there are dynamometers that enable you to put in the RPM and radius data so that the display does show a torque, but the scales shown will show a force value.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.31, 16:14:07
The chatGDP reply in post #120 tells youSo you use the dynamometer scales to calculate the torque in the type of dynamometer displayed in the image.  It does not display the torque.  I don't know whether there are dynamometers that enable you to put in the RPM and radius data so that the display does show a torque, but the scales shown will show a force value.

Smudge

Thank you sir.
bi

I hope that with Brad's next response or two we can close this matter and continue focusing on the replication.

Otherwise, maybe this debate on force and torque theory could be moved to a separate topic, as I am not sure of the specific relevance of this debate?

Quote from: Smudge on 2024.03.31, 16:14:07
The chatGDP reply in post #120 tells youSo you use the dynamometer scales to calculate the torque in the type of dynamometer displayed in the image.  It does not display the torque.  I don't know whether there are dynamometers that enable you to put in the RPM and radius data so that the display does show a torque, but the scales shown will show a force value.

Smudge

Yas, as is in my graphs, and as i have always said.
The force value on the scales is showing the value of torque that is being applied to the belt, by the outer rim of the brake drum.
Between the belt and the drum, the radius value is 0, so the scales indicate the actual value of torque the rotating brake drum is applying to the belt.
The rotating drum applies a torque onto the belt, because it is rotating, and a rotating force is torque. The belt applies a force on the scales, because it is not rotating, and the force between the belt and scales is linear.
If you wish to know the torque value at the center of rotation( from the motor), you then include the radius value from center of axis to the outer rim of the brake drum, providing that the center of axis is actually the torque provider. With a pulse motor, the center of axis-the shaft, is fixed, and does not provide or deliver any torque at all.

I claimed the graphs show a torque curve, which they do.
Bistander claims the graphs do not show torque, so they must not show a torque curve.
I gave him the radius he wanted, and asked him to provide his own graphs based around all the measurements provided, so as we could compare graphs.
He has so far not done this simple exercise, and provided the graphs, thus providing zero proof that my graphs do not show a torque curve.

QuoteThe chatGDP reply in post #120 tells you So

Asking chatPT straight forward questions

Q- does the brake drum in a prony brake test, apply a torque or a force onto the belt that is attached to the scales. straight forward answer please
A-In a Prony brake test, the brake drum applies a torque onto the belt, which in turn creates a force measured by the scales. So, the brake drum applies a torque.

Q- How then do we calculate the torque value of the motor attached to the brake drum
A- To calculate the torque value of the motor attached to the brake drum in a Prony brake test, you would typically measure the force applied by the belt on the scales and the radius of the brake drum.

Full unedited screen shot below.

So, the rotating drum applies a !torque! onto the belt. The belt then applies a !force! onto the scales.
So the scale are showing the value of the !torque! being applied to the belt, by way of applying a force onto the scales.
Then, as you can see, we have to carry out further calculations to get the newton meters or feet pound of torque of the motor (center of axis)

My graphs show the value of torque being applied to the belt, by way of the force being applied to the scales, as clearly indicated in the torque curve graphs.
Diagram attached.

Anyone is welcome to prove me wrong, but do so by providing proof, by way of your own graphs, not word salad, based around the supplied data.(rotor radius is 100mm)
If your torque curve graph then turns out to have a different torque curve, you can teach me where I went wrong.
So the onus is on you Bistander, to provide your own graphs, and compare to mine, as you are the one saying my graphs do not show a torque, and so they also must not show a torque curve
I think that is only fair, as this is the way this forum works, and always has.
If you think someone is wrong, provide proof that they are.


Brad

 

Quoteauthor=poynt99 link=topic=4603.msg111215#msg111215 date=1711906073
I hope that with Brad's next response or two we can close this matter and continue focusing on the replication.

Otherwise, maybe this debate on force and torque theory could be moved to a separate topic, as I am not sure of the specific relevance of this debate?

Between my last post, and this one-yes, lets hope that those that do not understand, finally do.

First lets clear this up.
Bistander said-No, the scales display a force value. .

Yes, the scales show a force value, as clearly indicated in my graphs, and i have never said they dont.-see below.
What i did say was-the scales show the value of the applied torque, by way of the value of force being imparted on the scales.
In my last post chatGPT clearly showed i was correct.

Bistander said-The torque value isn't known until the moment arm is considered

If you wish to know the value of torque of the motor driving the drum, then yes, you need the moment arm considered.
If you wish to know the torque value the rotating drum is applying to the belt, then the moment arm value is 0, as there is no distance between the belt and rotating drum.
So the scales actually show the value of the torque being applied to the belt, by the rotating drum, by way of applying a force to the scales, by the belt.

Now, how is a stall torque of a motor calculated ?
I will ask chatGPT this very question, although i am sure the mechanically minded already know-well most anyway.

Q-if a set of scales is attached to the outer perimeter of a rotor, that is attached to a dc motor, can this measure the stall torque value of the motor.
A-
Yes, attaching scales to the outer perimeter of a rotor connected to a DC motor can potentially measure the stall torque value of the motor indirectly. When the motor stalls, it means that the torque being applied by the motor is equal to the opposing torque (usually frictional or resisting torque). At this point, the rotor stops rotating, and the scales attached to it will measure the force exerted on them due to this opposing torque.

However, it's essential to consider some factors:

Sensitivity and Calibration: The scales need to be sensitive enough to measure the small force exerted during stalling accurately. Also, the scales need to be properly calibrated to provide accurate measurements.

Mechanical Design: The attachment of scales to the rotor should be robust and stable to ensure accurate measurement without any unwanted movement or deformation.

Safety: It's crucial to ensure that the setup is safe and that there is no risk of the rotor or any other component causing harm during stall testing.

Interpretation:

QuoteThe force measured by the scales will need to be converted into torque units using the appropriate conversion factor based on the distance from the center of the rotor to the point of force application

.[/glow]

This is how stall torque is calculated when the shaft of the motor is what is delivering the torque, so the radious between the center of the shaft delivering the torque, to the point where the scales are attached, must be known to calculate the torque value.

But with a pulse motor, such as the ones we were testing, has a fixed shaft at the center of axis, and does not provide any torque to the rotor.
With a pulse motor, the torque imparted onto the rotor, is applied to the outer edge of the rotor, via the Lorents force-as Bistander stated.
The scales are also attached to the outer edge of the rotor, and so they are attached to the same radius value as the applied torque is attached to.
The R value is there for 0, and so, like in a prony brake test, the scales show the value of the applied torque, by way of a force being applied to the scales.
Once again, see screen shot below showing this clearly explained by chatGPT.

This is how torque is calculated on the outer rim of a pulse motor that has a fixed shaft, where the scales are attached to the same radius point at which the torque is applied to the rotor.
The torque value is not calculated at the center of axis, as the shaft at the center of axis is fixed, and does not provide torque to the rotor.
If you did include R from the center of axis to the point at which the scales are attached, you have just calculated the torque value of a fixed shaft that does not and cannot provide torque.

So, i would like you all to think about this, and just ask yourself-how do you calculate the torque being imparted by the Lorentz force on the outer edge of the rotor of a pulse motor, where that pulse motor has a fixed shaft that does not provide or have a torque imparted on it ?

I have provided the graphs and direct answer to direct questions for chatGPT
It has been clearly explained by both myself and chatGPT.

So yes Poynt, i hope this solves this disagreement.

Brad

Guys,

The entire force vs. torque debate is academic.

Brad's graph of Force vs. Distance has the same shape as a graph of Torque vs. Angular displacement.
The area under the curve in both graphs represents the same work/energy (expressed in Joules) - not power, as time does not figure into it.

Torque can exist without angular displacement if it is opposed by equal yet opposite torque.
Force can exist without linear displacement if it is opposed by equal yet opposite force.
In both of these cases the work done by them is exactly zero, despite them having a non-zero and measurable magnitude as well as direction.

Brad's experimental method of converting torque to linear force by unwinding a string from a circumference is correct, because it guarantees that this force is always applied perpendicularly to the radius (i.e.: tangentially). Multiplying that force by that radius yields the torque. Dividing that torque by the radius gives back the force, making them interconvertible, albeit not the same.

Brad's work/energy measurement methodology is valid. His axis labels (and units) are wrong for a Torque vs. Angle graph ...but it does not matter for the end result.   The final units are correct and energy calculation - the same.

Force is not energy.
Torque is not energy.
They need to be integrated over distance and angular displacement, respectively, to become so. Brad is doing that.

P.S.
The force of magnetic attraction is proportional to the gradient of magnetic flux density, not to the flux density itself ...albeit the former usually follows from the latter. Nonlinear ferromagnetic effects such as saturation can disturb that proportionality.

Quote from: verpies on 2024.04.01, 02:26:25
Guys,

The entire force vs. torque debate is academic.

Brad's graph of Force vs. Distance has the same shape as a graph of Torque vs. Angular displacement.
The area under the curve in both graphs represents the same work/energy (expressed in Joules) - not power, as time does not figure into it.

Torque can exist without angular displacement if it is opposed by equal yet opposite torque.
Force can exist without linear displacement if it is opposed by equal yet opposite force.
In both of these cases the work done by them is exactly zero, despite them having non-zero and measurable magnitude as well as direction.

Brad's experimental method of converting torque to linear force by unwinding a string from a circumference is correct, because it guarantees that this force is always perpendicular the the radius. Multiplying that force by that radius yields the torque. Dividing that torque by the radius gives back the force, making them interconvertible, albeit not the same.

Brad's work/energy measurement methodology is valid. His axis labels (and units) are wrong for a Torque vs. Angle graph ...but it does not matter for the end result.   The final units are correct and energy calculation - the same.

Force is not energy.
Torque is not energy.
They need to be integrated over distance and angular displacement, respectively, to become so. Brad is doing that.

P.S.
The force of magnetic attraction is proportional to the gradient of magnetic flux density, not to the flux density itself ...albeit the former usually follows from the latter. Ferromagnetic effects such as saturation can disturb that proportionality.

Thank you Verpies.

Ok, an update on replication progress.


As I have been laid up in bed mostly, over the last 5 days with the wu flu,  have been spending time on the computer, as you might well be able to tell.
But I have also been redesigning the neutralizing gate for the different size gears I have switch to- the ones posted here some time back. The other gears teeth were too fine, and stripped out quite quickly.
The new gears are a bit smaller in diameter, so as I could reduce the magnet spacing a bit.

Below is some pics of the old gate, which is quite complex to get tuned correctly.
Being able to see where improvements can be made, the new gate is different.
Being that the gears are smaller now, the old gate did not fit between the gears in the correct spot, so a new design had to be made anyway.
Worst case scenario is, i have to reprint the original gears again, but make the teeth a bit larger.

Once i am well enough, i will be back out into the workshop to perfect the new gate, and make sure it works as good as the last model.

Please also know that I am in no hurry to rush this through.
I have been sitting on this for some time now, and i am going to make sure i stick to my plan as to how this is delivered to those here.
The upscale model that will be my final product, has a repelling force of 4kg between the magnets, so plastic printed parts are not going to cut it.
I chatted with Grumage about getting some geared drums casted up, and machined. This would have been a very time consuming project, as well as costly.
It would also have meant that it would be hard for the  average home builder to manufacture, so i set about finding an off the shelf solution.
Also pictured below is the off the shelf gears i will be using in the final product. This makes the build a little easier for everyone.
Please do not rush out buying parts until a replication has been confirmed by the member here building it.

I will keep you all updated as progress continues, and do my best to piece this together using off the shelf parts.

Brad

I'd like to warn you that conductive gears will disrupt dynamic magnetic fields because of the eddy currents induced in them.
They will not disrupt static magnetic fields ...unless they are ferromagnetic (e.g. steel).

The argument that the magnets rotate with the gear and thus the gear does not experience a changing magnetic flux is true but half-baked since one metal gear WILL experience a changing magnetic flux from the moving magnets attached to the OTHER gear.

Ground ceramic gears are a solution to this problem (see here (https://www.smallprecisiontools.com/en/products-solutions/ceramics-injection-molding/ceramic-applications/industrial-ceramic-parts/ceramic-gears1)) ...if this is a problem at all because the device's operation relies on undisturbed dynamic magnetic fields and can tolerate some eddy braking (which in the best case scenario will act as a speed governor).

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.01, 04:33:17
Also pictured below is the off the shelf gears i will be using in the final product.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4603.0;attach=50717)

Quote from: verpies on 2024.04.01, 07:43:20
I'd like to warn you that conductive gears will disrupt dynamic magnetic fields because of the eddy currents induced in them.
They will not disrupt static magnetic fields ...unless they are ferromagnetic (e.g. steel).

The argument that the magnets rotate with the gear and thus the gear does not experience a changing magnetic flux is true but half-baked since one metal gear WILL experience a changing magnetic flux from the moving magnets attached to the OTHER gear.

Ground ceramic gears are a solution to this problem (see here (https://www.smallprecisiontools.com/en/products-solutions/ceramics-injection-molding/ceramic-applications/industrial-ceramic-parts/ceramic-gears1)) ...if this is a problem at all because the device's operation relies on undisturbed dynamic magnetic fields and can tolerate some eddy braking (which in the best case scenario will act as a speed governor).

At 1000rpm, the frequency of any induce flux into the rotors, is 100hz
This is where 1 magnet of 1 rotor is directly opposite the other apposing magnet on the other rotor-TDC.
But even when these two combining fields meet, they are still rotating with the rotors, so there should be very minimal drag via induced eddy currents.

With this motor, the torque output is almost smooth.
Even though the two opposing magnets get further apart through the rotation, and the repulsion force drops, the radius of the moment arm (so to speak) increases at the same rate as the repulsion force decreases.

BTW, it is a bit hard to weld to ceramics.  ;D


Brad

Hello
You can glue it. Or a metal gear with a greater distance to the magnet. I think that's the least of the problems. Are the magnets in the gate also 10mm ?
Greeting
Lota

Quote from: lota on 2024.04.01, 10:50:28
Hello
You can glue it...

Yes, gluing the magnet holder to a ceramic gear with an epoxy resin containing ceramic powder/filler makes a very strong and reliable bond.  Machineable, too.

I personally cannot wait for the extra parts to arrive. Just hoping that my current situation allows me to put the device together. I managed to make a brew today without spilling anything lol. There's hope!  ;D

On eBay there are many Chinese outlets for gears, MOD 1 & 2 being very popular in both straight and helically cut forms. There's also material choice too. Nylon is a really tough, hard wearing material and having a ' proper ' tooth form should run well with adequate lubrication.

When Alan gets back home I shall ask him to redraw the current design in Alibre and provide a new file for printing. We shall use a Module pitch gear profile and helical form.

Thanks again Brad....  O0

Quote from: Grumage on 2024.04.01, 11:19:02
Nylon is a really tough, hard wearing material and having a ' proper ' tooth form should run well with adequate lubrication.

...but you can forget about gluing the magnet holder to a Nylon or Delrin gear.  Epoxy resins make very solid bonds to ceramics but not to Nylon. The only chemicals that I know of which can "bite" Nylon are Xylenol and Meta Cresol - and they are very nasty.

Quote from: verpies on 2024.04.01, 11:48:19
...but you can forget about gluing the magnet holder to a Nylon or Delrin gear.  Epoxy resins make very solid bonds to ceramics but not to Nylon. The only chemicals that I know of which can "bite" Nylon are Xylenol and Meta Cresol - and they are very nasty.

Think i will stick with the aluminum camshaft gears.
1- i can weld stuff to them
2- if they can drive a camshaft for 400,000 miles and more, then they will be fine with the motor.
3- They have some weight to them, so will act as flywheels as well, and remove most of the vibration/cogging.
4- easy to machine.
5- off the shelf
6- reasonably priced

Brad

I hate to ask, but--

Is there anyone on this forum that can simulate a magnet motor design ?
I need a simulated confirmation.
Need all my eggs in one basket


Brad

Hello
may work with Algodoo. Magnets but difficult. It's better to build. The printer prints.
Greeting
Lota

Hi Brad,

I've already been simulating what you have shared of your magnet motor in FEMM 4.2 based on the dimensions in your STL files, which I've 3D printed and built.  Since you have not posted your gate details, which appear to be the secret sauce, I've only been guessing at different gate designs.  But I have a framework for simulation in place.

FEMM 4.2 calculates torques for static configurations. So I advance the gears incrementally, recording torques at each increment, and sum over a full revolution.  But you can make the increments as tiny as you wish to improve resolution.

FEMM 4.2 is only 2D, however.  And from the posting of your old gate housing, which is 3D, an exact mapping would not be possible.  Often, it is possible to translate the third dimension into the plane for simulations, however.     

Regardless, I'm enthusiastic to help in any way I can.  The world needs this immediately.  Thank you sincerely for your willingness to open source it.  I so hope you get it out before you are suppressed. 
   

Quoteauthor=Beginners Mind link=topic=4603.msg111277#msg111277 date=1712034480
Thank you sincerely for your willingness to open source it.  I so hope you get it out before you are suppressed.

Not my first trip down this rabbit hole.
Measures outside the scope of surveillance have been put in place to make sure it is delivered to the people, should I go on some sort of !field! trip. O0


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.02, 07:36:56


Not my first trip down this rabbit hole.
Measures outside the scope of surveillance have been put in place to make sure it is delivered to the people, should I go on some sort of !field! trip. O0


Brad

Really glad to hear it.  Please let me know if I can be of assistance with the magnetic simulations you asked about. 
-Dave (BeginnersMind)

Post lady arrived bearing gifts....

Just the magnets to come.

Hello
I once constructed a gate. I don't know yet if it will work that way. The test will tell.
Greeting
Lota
P.S. I changed the file a bit. Metal tray is 4x10

The old Anet A8 printing flat out.
New larger gears for V2.
This is the presentation motor being built as I speak.


.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpm5PJsp6oA


Brad

Ok, so the organization and a means to produce these motors inhouse is being sorted atm.
Being a public forum, with the undesirables being able to peak in for a look when ever they please, i won't get into any details.

I have a company near by that can cnc mill any type of gear drum I need from billet stock , at a size up to 1.2 meters lol. Don't think we will be needing that one for a while.

https://www.wagears.com.au/cnc-machining-2/

Found that TEMU sells all sorts of neo's cheap  O0

Things are coming along nicely  O0

Brad

Well, 1 flying magnet was enough.
Time to print a shield stator plate.

How to make an adjustable gate field, and contain the opposite field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sXmD5dm8S8


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.06, 02:48:32
How to make an adjustable gate field, and contain the opposite field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sXmD5dm8S8


Brad

Thank you Brad!  Your selflessness in sharing this is a heroic gesture worthy of the greatest admiration.  I teared up watching your video.  I don't know of anyone who has discovered a key to an OU device that has ever freely shared it with the world like you just did.  They keep it to themselves in hopes of personal profit and either take it to their grave or are suppressed before they die.  I hope you are remembered throughout history for your compassion and kindness to all the beings on this planet.  Well done.

Hi Brad,

I'm super grateful for your recent video showing your gate concept as posted above.  While I have no doubt your gate works, do you think it might possibly work by a different mechanism than what you explained? 

I replicated your demonstration and found that the protruding piece of steel did not show repulsion towards a like pole magnet though it did attract, like any piece of steel would.  This puzzled me so I ran the attached FEMM study which also does not show any magnetic field extending out into the protruding piece of steel.

What am I missing?

Thx,
Dave

Quote from: Beginners Mind on 2024.04.07, 02:46:53
Hi Brad,

I'm super grateful for your recent video showing your gate concept as posted above.  While I have no doubt your gate works, do you think it might possibly work by a different mechanism than what you explained? 

I replicated your demonstration and found that the protruding piece of steel did not show repulsion towards a like pole magnet though it did attract, like any piece of steel would.  This puzzled me so I ran the attached FEMM study which also does not show any magnetic field extending out into the protruding piece of steel.

What am I missing?

Thx,
Dave

It is not to repel the magnets, it is to reduce the attraction toward the steel, and to keep the two approaching magnets fields from one another.
Keep in mind that only a % of the two rotor magnets fields has to be reduced, in order to gain an offset, and thus rotation.
The greater this reduction % is, the more torque the motor has.

1+1=3
The field intensity on the gate plate can be increased by up to 5 times, by using bucking fields on the plate, as we found out in the 1+1=3 motor build.
So, one fixed magnet, and one adjustable one, to increase or decrease field intensity on the plate.

As seen on the other side of the stator former, there is an adjusting screw hole to adjust the bucking magnets.
The two holes on the other end of the tube is just for a magnet/spring retaining pin.

Brad

If you have not yet watched this film by Steven Greer, kick back, and enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FKtI1cal4U

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.07, 04:41:49
It is not to repel the magnets, it is to reduce the attraction toward the steel, and to keep the two approaching magnets fields from one another.
Keep in mind that only a % of the two rotor magnets fields has to be reduced, in order to gain an offset, and thus rotation.
The greater this reduction % is, the more torque the motor has.

1+1=3
The field intensity on the gate plate can be increased by up to 5 times, by using bucking fields on the plate, as we found out in the 1+1=3 motor build.
So, one fixed magnet, and one adjustable one, to increase or decrease field intensity on the plate.

As seen on the other side of the stator former, there is an adjusting screw hole to adjust the bucking magnets.
The two holes on the other end of the tube is just for a magnet/spring retaining pin.

Brad

Thanks for the clarification.  Bucking magnets make sense.  I totally understand that.  The field between them will shoot out down the steel strip and FEMM confirms.  That seems the way to go. 

Thanks for the plug for Dr. Greer's film. 

Hello
a question. Are the magnets in the gate bigger? In my test, the field is not enough.
Greeting
Lota

I'm not sure if this is of use to anyone. At work when I've done models for FEA I often try to create scripts to generate them on the fly so I can play with multiple variables and it makes it easier to sweep through them and optimize designs. I've attached a python script to create a model with given parameters. It can be extended and toyed with more which I will do later. I might tidy things up too to make certain parts of it less hacky but for now it does what I want it to.

You'll need FEMM installed as well as Python 3 and pyfemm lib installed (pip install pyfemm in cmd line).

Beginners mind

QuoteI replicated your demonstration and found that the protruding piece of steel did not show repulsion towards a like pole magnet though it did attract, like any piece of steel would.  This puzzled me so I ran the attached FEMM study which also does not show any magnetic field extending out into the protruding piece of steel.

What am I missing?

Indeed, what are you missing?. I had everything on hand to replicate the effect Tinman showed in his video and the steel lamination is magnetized in both a repulsion and attraction mode more or less. That is N N N II S and N N N II N. As Tinman implied the lamination polarity is similar to the weaker magnetic pole because it is shifted off center from the neutral zone. Magnetic viewing film shows some of the pole field structure but not very well. I will have to dust off my hall sensor array and map this gate configuration.

In my Wesley Gary magnetic motor experiments I found FEMM seldom if ever works. The problem is that the code like science does not recognize a neutral zone. That is the point where two fields separated by a boundary condition merge. It does not matter if the fields are in attraction or repulsion there is always a neutral zone. Logically one field polarity cannot transition into another field polarity without losing its polarity in the process. In effect no neutral point is similar to the notion of something from nothing. A transition without a real transition, it's absurd.

Think about it, we have no issue with a negative charge transitioning into a positive charge when at the "zero crossing" of a Sine wave. We recognize that one quality has transitioned into a different one at some "point". Do you know why almost every other area of science recognizes a neutral or transition zone/point but not the Primary Fields?. It's because most falsely believe Faraday's imaginary field lines are real, lol. So it's just a silly misunderstanding in some sense. Many people have come to believe in imaginary man made things which are not real which then corrupted there understanding of nature and reality.

As well it's super easy to prove by experiment. Measure the field between any two field sources with a real field measurement device. In every case there is always a field transition point between the two fields where the field polarity ceases to exist, a neutral or zero point. What other proof do we need?.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.07, 17:54:35
Beginners mind
Indeed, what are you missing?. I had everything on hand to replicate the effect Tinman showed in his video and the steel lamination is magnetized in both a repulsion and attraction mode more or less. That is N N N II S and N N N II N. As Tinman implied the lamination polarity is similar to the weaker magnetic pole because it is shifted off center from the neutral zone. Magnetic viewing film shows some of the pole field structure but not very well. I will have to dust off my hall sensor array and map this gate configuration.

In my Wesley Gary magnetic motor experiments I found FEMM seldom if ever works. The problem is that the code like science does not recognize a neutral zone. That is the point where two fields separated by a boundary condition merge. It does not matter if the fields are in attraction or repulsion there is always a neutral zone. Logically one field polarity cannot transition into another field polarity without losing its polarity in the process. In effect no neutral point is similar to the notion of something from nothing. A transition without a real transition, it's absurd.

Think about it, we have no issue with a negative charge transitioning into a positive charge when at the "zero crossing" of a Sine wave. We recognize that one quality has transitioned into a different one at some "point". Do you know why almost every other area of science recognizes a neutral or transition zone/point but not the Primary Fields?. It's because most falsely believe Faraday's imaginary field lines are real, lol. So it's just a silly misunderstanding in some sense. Many people have come to believe in imaginary man made things which are not real which then corrupted there understanding of nature and reality.

As well it's super easy to prove by experiment. Measure the field between any two field sources with a real field measurement device. In every case there is always a field transition point between the two fields where the field polarity ceases to exist, a neutral or zero point. What other proof do we need?.

AC

It may be possible to do some post processing of the ans files that femm gives to render such neutral zones more easily and then trick femm into rendering it. I'll have a dig around in the FEMM source and see if there is some documenation of the format for the ans files. When I was working on this sorta stuff full time I ran into issues like this and unfortunately the format of the files was proprietary and obfuscated. FEMM being open source should be able to be easier to work with in this way. Once I understand what quantities are what in the files then finding some mathematical definition of the neutral fields based on the quantities I have at hand would be the next step perhaps some kind of differentiation over space or a 1/x kind of situation. Likely will take some tinkering but I believe it's possible.

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.07, 17:54:35
In my Wesley Gary magnetic motor experiments I found FEMM seldom if ever works.

FEMM very much models reality if you know how to use it, if there's no effect in FEMM there's no effect in reality. Don't blame the tool blame the tool head using it.

Quote from: broli on 2024.04.08, 01:04:36
FEMM very much models reality if you know how to use it, if there's no effect in FEMM there's no effect in reality. Don't blame the tool blame the tool head using it.

I agree to a point however FEMM has its limitations (eddy currents are one I can think of). If you know how to use it you can get great results however how we interpret results in many cases can come in how we're visualizing the fields. Use some of that magnetic viewing film and look at a FEMM result and you'll see the discrepancy. I believe AC is simply saying in problems where you care about manipulating the "neutral" of a magnetic field you'll have a hard time visualizing what is going on with the fields.

Quote from: polyrhythm on 2024.04.08, 03:54:19
I agree to a point however FEMM has its limitations (eddy currents are one I can think of). If you know how to use it you can get great results however how we interpret results in many cases can come in how we're visualizing the fields. Use some of that magnetic viewing film and look at a FEMM result and you'll see the discrepancy. I believe AC is simply saying in problems where you care about manipulating the "neutral" of a magnetic field you'll have a hard time visualizing what is going on with the fields.

True every tool has its limit, therefore you must know what you are doing and what the results are telling you. Magnetic viewing film shows the "current" lines of a magnet, not its "field" or "poles". Tool heads like AC can perhaps learn something from the many smart people out there in places he calls "cesspools" then one idea he can finally manage to replicate someone else's ideas that actually works. Then again every tool has its limits.

Quoteauthor=broli link=topic=4603.msg111410#msg111410 date=1712557117

QuoteMagnetic viewing film shows the "current" lines of a magnet

What current ?
The magnetic field is a separation of charge as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what the charge is, is yet to be discovered.
But there is something all around us which the magnet is separating into +/- charges, including the magnet it self.
What ever it is, the charge density close around the PM, is extremely dense, hence why like polls repel (like charges), and opposite polls attract (opposite charges)
It could well be this dark energy or matter they keep on talking about.

But think about it.
We know how to create this field of separated charges (the magnetic field), but are yet to work out what this field is, or how we can pull energy from this field.
Now, if we ever work out how to draw from this field of charge, we would have a limitless supply of energy, and the PM would just keep on separating these charges as we draw from it.

Science doesn't yet know what the field is, because science has a one track mind.
Science thinks that charges are only what we know today. It either has to be an electrical positive charge, or an electrical negative charge, when it comes to electrical energy.
So the end result is, they won't find what they are not looking for--a different type of energy.

QuoteTool heads like AC can perhaps learn something from the many smart people out there in places he calls "cesspools"

Please keep your posts respectful.
I can tell you now, AC knows his way around thing like this, and many other subjects.
I think you could learn a thing or two from him.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.08, 07:33:32


What current ?
The magnetic field is a separation of charge as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what the charge is, is yet to be discovered.
But there is something all around us which the magnet is separating into +/- charges, including the magnet it self.
What ever it is, the charge density close around the PM, is extremely dense, hence why like polls repel (like charges), and opposite polls attract (opposite charges)
It could well be this dark energy or matter they keep on talking about.

But think about it.
We know how to create this field of separated charges (the magnetic field), but are yet to work out what this field is, or how we can pull energy from this field.
Now, if we ever work out how to draw from this field of charge, we would have a limitless supply of energy, and the PM would just keep on separating these charges as we draw from it.

Science doesn't yet know what the field is, because science has a one track mind.
Science thinks that charges are only what we know today. It either has to be an electrical positive charge, or an electrical negative charge, when it comes to electrical energy.
So the end result is, they won't find what they are not looking for--a different type of energy.

Please keep your posts respectful.
I can tell you now, AC knows his way around thing like this, and many other subjects.
I think you could learn a thing or two from him.


Brad

We can all learn from each other, but its hard to respect someone who brings bigotry and racism to the open table of sharing ideas. If he apologies I will do the same and retract my comment. So far he hasn't, calling places where billions of innocent people live in peace "cesspools", so a tool head he remains. If you want to target someone, target failed corrupt leaders not the places where people live as your own leaders have brought your own house, in what I assume to be Canada, on the brink of collapse. Bickering amongst ourselves is exactly what these "leaders" love. There is already enough conflict and wars in the world, no need to start any here.

Anyway back to sharing ideas. There are no "charges", and this is a misconception brought by bad teaching. Calling a magnet a "dipole" only serves to confuse further. However if we look at a magnet for what it actually contains, namely a bunch of aligned electrons, it starts to make much more sense. The "current" represents the outer edges of the spins of the electrons that do not cancel each other due to their neighbors. When all electrons are aligned, their "inner" spin/currents components cancel and so you are only left with the outer edge part as there are no more neighbors to cancel it. This is also why you can model a PM as a coil, they are completely equivalent to each other given the right current.  See attached drawing.

Unlike coils though, PMs are special, they are constant current coils. No matter how you manipulate some other "field" around them their "current" remains constant unlike a regular coil.

But as your idea implies, not everything is a PM, iron also contains these electrons but they are "soft" and can be easily manipulated and reoriented by an external magnetic force giving rise to complex non-linear dynamics. If exploited can give rise to interesting things. The best part is that this can be fully explored in FEMM as well perhaps making "science" look even worse for overlooking such a feature that was present in our current models of EM. At least they can say "it was there all along" and they can continue sleeping on that comfortable pillow of their education.

Quote from: broli on 2024.04.08, 09:07:53
We can all learn from each other, but its hard to respect someone who brings bigotry and racism to the open table of sharing ideas. If he apologies I will do the same and retract my comment. So far he hasn't, calling places where billions of innocent people live in peace "cesspools", so a tool head he remains. If you want to target someone, target failed corrupt leaders not the places where people live as your own leaders have brought your own house, in what I assume to be Canada, on the brink of collapse. Bickering amongst ourselves is exactly what these "leaders" love. There is already enough conflict and wars in the world, no need to start any here.

Anyway back to sharing ideas. There are no "charges", and this is a misconception brought by bad teaching. Calling a magnet a "dipole" only serves to confuse further. However if we look at a magnet for what it actually contains, namely a bunch of aligned electrons, it starts to make much more sense. The "current" represents the outer edges of the spins of the electrons that do not cancel each other due to their neighbors. When all electrons are aligned, their "inner" spin/currents components cancel and so you are only left with the outer edge part as there are no more neighbors to cancel it. This is also why you can model a PM as a coil, they are completely equivalent to each other given the right current.  See attached drawing.

Unlike coils though, PMs are special, they are constant current coils. No matter how you manipulate some other "field" around them their "current" remains constant unlike a regular coil.

But as your idea implies, not everything is a PM, iron also contains these electrons but they are "soft" and can be easily manipulated and reoriented by an external magnetic force giving rise to complex non-linear dynamics. If exploited can give rise to interesting things. The best part is that this can be fully explored in FEMM as well perhaps making "science" look even worse for overlooking such a feature that was present in our current models of EM. At least they can say "it was there all along" and they can continue sleeping on that comfortable pillow of their education.

If what you say is true, then this !current! should be of equal value throughout the magnet and the field, which it is not.
The PM cannot be modeled as a coil, as the likes of a neodymium PM is a dead short- a coil is not. A coil has resistance, a PM does not.
A coil has a rise and fall time, a PM does not. In fact, there is not one thing the same, other than a coil produces a magnetic field, but the magnetic field of an electromagnet is not the same as that of a PM field.

The nice little pictures of PMs, that show arrows coming out of the north end, circling back around to the south end, and then flowing through the PM body, is nothing short of garbage.
We can clearly measure from one pole to center, a decline of charge down to 0, and then an incline of opposite charge from 0 up to maximum charge to the opposite outer pole of the PM body.
If there was some form of current flowing through the PM body, as the pretty pictures show, then we should see no change along the length of the PM body at all, as these currents must be of the same value throughout. But we don't. We see a sine wave from one end of the PM body, to the other end, not a continuous current flow.

The magnetic field is in the shape of infinity-a figure 8 on it's side, along the length of a long rod magnet
But so often, people are fooled by the wonderful sprinkling of iron filings over a piece of paper that is on top of a PM, thinking they are seeing this wonderful picture of field lines, oblivious to the fact that each one of them iron filings has become a temporary PM it self. And all these little PMs are sticking to each other, and not following the actual path of the PMs field.

See example below of garbage Vs reality.
If it were as the picture on the left side shows, where the arrow points from N to S, then if you had a long magnet as such, and a coil facing out through the page, then you should be able to pass that PM across the face of the coil, and get the same positive or negative sine as the PM approaches the coil, along the whole length of that magnet, as the lovely arrow shows that the same flowing field will be cutting through the coil along it's whole length. But we don't get that. We get what would be the case of the picture on the right, where one end of the PM will show say a negative sign as that end of the PM approaches the coil, and we get the opposite sine as  the other end of the magnet approaches the coil. And if we pass the middle of the PM across the coil, we get nothing, as the field value is 0.

There is no currents, there is a separation of some form of charge happening in the PMs field, and I intend on finding out what this charge separation is. Could be this dark energy they need, in order for relativity to work on a universal scale, or it could be the either having what ever kind of charges it has, being separated.

A PM is billions of atomic generators acting together, and creating a charge separation around the PM body.
Thats my claim.


Brad

Charge is the linear domain, and magnetism is the non-linear domain. You cannot mix them up. I agree on the field line visualization being confusing to people who have no background knowledge on electromagnetism but what I am saying is nothing new. Electrons spin, forever, at a fixed magnetic moment no matter what you do to them, this is the "magic" of nature still not understood by modern science. As you say, in our "domain" we only know of currents and resistance (positive friction). But the spin of electrons live in the "negative friction" domain. The interesting part is that these two domains can interact. Because this spin can ALSO impart MECHANICAL angular momentum on the lattice of the material in our "mechanical/material" world: see the Einstein-de Haas effect or the Feynman disk paradox. The electron spin is therefore a real thing that can manifest itself as mechanical energy. And the same btw goes for current flow, when electrons flow they impart momentum on the lattice, which continuously deforms it, and causes it to heat up which we see as "resistance." But we can also deform it using angular momentum and perhaps cause the inverse to happen. However we dont need to deform it on the molecular level, the cool part of magnetism is that a PM is LITERALLY a giant electron in the very palm of your hand. So we can expand these molecular effects to the macroscopic scale as well.

Confusing linear forces (charge/movement) with non-linear forces (magnetism/spin) wil not make you a good parent as you will misunderstand your own child forming wrong conclusion. I did the same and had to relearn all this bad garbage and align myself ironically back into non-linear thinking. However when we combine linear and non linear forces, at the right angle, there seems to be magic. If you cant explain that magic correctly then sure your idea works, but it will only confuse people and even put people off as the "theory" behind WHY the thing works is fundamentally wrong.

Below is a quick video I've recently took to support the magnet motor I'm working on.

For anyone who wants to actually see the direction of flow within a magnet - gently rock a magnet bar underneath ferrofluid. It will be 'sticky' so take the time to do this smoothly. Below is what you should see.

https://youtube.com/shorts/J975N1mUxgE?si=ANNXs3ZDtB-BykEL

So much for uniform...

Perhaps to drive the point even further home. Attached you see a simulation of a coil next to a N52 10mmx10mm magnet. I needed to crank current up to 23000Amps for the coil, which goes to show how powerful magnets are that you hold in your hand without much thought. Can you tell the difference in their "field"? Because I cant, as they look like identical twins to me.

Its funny how you sometimes think something is common knowledge until you discover it is not. However changing your viewpoint on something is perhaps mankinds most difficult feat, mine included.

Quote from: unimmortal on 2024.04.08, 12:14:37
Below is a quick video I've recently took to support the magnet motor I'm working on.

For anyone who wants to actually see the direction of flow within a magnet - gently rock a magnet bar underneath ferrofluid. It will be 'sticky' so take the time to do this smoothly. Below is what you should see.

https://youtube.com/shorts/J975N1mUxgE?si=ANNXs3ZDtB-BykEL

So much for uniform...

Yep
As I said, clearly a figure 8, where there is 0 value to the field at the center of the bar magnet.


Brad

One of the problems with forums is that info and data gets buried over time and thus has to be repeated to those who might have missed something.

I have posted this video before but I think it bears repeating at this point.  It appears to agree with Brad and the solution to these questions must be answered with experiments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls

Regards,
Pm

Quoteauthor=broli link=topic=4603.msg111421#msg111421 date=1712580317

QuoteCan you tell the difference in their "field"? Because I cant, as they look like identical twins to me.

Yep, but you cant see it.
The electromagnet has an electric field mixed in with the magnetic field.
A PM does not have !what we call! an electric field around it.

This makes the fields of the two different--they are not the same.


Brad

Quote from: partzman on 2024.04.08, 13:08:18
One of the problems with forums is that info and data gets buried over time and thus has to be repeated to those who might have missed something.

I have posted this video before but I think it bears repeating at this point.  It appears to agree with Brad and the solution to these questions must be answered with experiments!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2JFDpTE_ls

Regards,
Pm

Great simple experiment Partzman.
Not sure how i missed that, but i have been away for some time.

Yes, there are those stuck with the mainstream science, and there are those of us that seek the truth and facts.

What your video showed, is exactly what we should see.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.08, 13:01:51
Yep
As I said, clearly a figure 8, where there is 0 value to the field at the center of the bar magnet.

Brad

Ok, so how come the first half of the clip is two sides that are fairly uniform, but the second half shows a stifled flow between the poles, with the last side showing a CCW vortex forming on the south pole?

You're close thinking a figure 8, but a torus would be more accurate.

Hahaha the party of linear thinkers is growing. Where is F6 when you need him, please rescue me from this dipole charge madness and align these thinkers into circular thinking ;D.

Quote from: unimmortal on 2024.04.08, 13:51:57
, ,

QuoteOk, so how come the first half of the clip is two sides that are fairly uniform

That is the figure 8 field, where the center has no field.

Quotebut the second half shows a stifled flow between the poles

Because you are rocking the magnet from end to end.

Quotewith the last side showing a CCW vortex forming on the south pole?

Nothing more than fluid dynamics.
The fluid rushing in from the other end causes the rotation.
This rotation can be made to go in both directions at once, or either direction, depending on what angle you have your magnet.

QuoteYou're close thinking a figure 8, but a torus would be more accurate.

A 3 dimensional figure 8 is a double torus-an hour glass.
The symmetry of this hour glass figure would depend on the shape of the PM

Brad

Quote from: broli on 2024.04.08, 13:58:49
Hahaha the party of linear thinkers is growing. Where is F6 when you need him, please rescue me from this dipole charge madness and align these thinkers into circular thinking ;D.

Prove that it is not a dipole as such.
Generate some power using the middle of a rod magnet passing a coil--it's that simple.
Show each end of the PM produce the same sinewave when passing a coil--it's that simple.
Then come tell us all that it's not a dipole.

Explain how like poles repel, and unlike poles attract if it is not a dipole of charge.
Is it a changing electric field, or a changing magnetic field that induces current flow in a conductor ?

Brad

I will do you one better. When the time comes I will show you what circular thinking can do. How about you then show me a real magnetic "monopole".

The irony is that magnetic "monopoles" exists but not the way you envision them. If you spin already spinning charge in the right way, you can end up with forces that appear to be acting like a monopole. Essentially ending up with something that behaves like a charged particle using magnetic fields only using it to literally position yourself in space. But I dont want to advance too much as the pace might already be too high for the elderly folks around here as magnetic gyroscopes are even a topic too scary for me to handle right now.

Quoteauthor=broli link=topic=4603.msg111435#msg111435 date=1712587255

QuoteBut I dont want to advance too much as the pace might already be too high for the elderly folks around here

Oh, I see.  :D
What the hell are you doing here with all us old folk?
You should be on one of them science forums, with other physicists, not hanging out with the pension squad.

QuoteHow about you then show me a real magnetic "monopole".

There is no mono in  dipole.

QuoteI will do you one better. When the time comes I will show you what circular thinking can do.

I think us elderly folk have seen enough of your !circular! thinking.
The road to nowhere comes to mind.

QuoteThe irony is that magnetic "monopoles" exists but not the way you envision them.

We can use one field of the dipole to our advantage, and they exist exactly as we see and use them.

QuoteT If you spin already spinning charge in the right way, you can end up with forces that appear to be acting like a monopole.

You mean like the charge fields at each end of a PM ?

QuoteEssentially ending up with something that behaves like a charged particle using magnetic fields only using it to literally position yourself in space.  as magnetic gyroscopes are even a topic too scary for me to handle right now.

Word salad.

Quoteliterally position yourself in space.

Send some pics while you are up there, so as we can show the rest of the flat earthers.


Brad

Tinman

QuoteWhat current ?
The magnetic field is a separation of charge as far as I'm concerned.
Now, what the charge is, is yet to be discovered.
But there is something all around us which the magnet is separating into +/- charges, including the magnet it self.
What ever it is, the charge density close around the PM, is extremely dense, hence why like polls repel (like charges), and opposite polls attract (opposite charges)
It could well be this dark energy or matter they keep on talking about.

If this perspective helps you understand things better and helps you produce better results then that is the correct perspective for you.

Many critics seem obsessed with trying to convince us there mainstream perspective is the only right one. There is also the possibility others want to force the mainstream way of thinking on us because they know it will fail. No successful free energy inventors followed mainstream science to any extent and they were all open minded free thinkers.

So we need to ask, are some people trying to force mainstream science and thinking on others to help or to ensure they fail like everyone else?.   

We could ask the obvious question, why is mainstream science no closer to understanding what the Primary Fields (E,B,G) are in reality than they were 200 years ago?. There has been literally no progress made in this area which should tell us something about the validity of there often nonsensical theories. Here reality is stranger than fiction. Take two magnets and feel the field of force which acts between them. Apparently nobody on this planet is intelligent enough to figure out what this field of force is in reality. How can everybody not know what it is and have no clue?. This in itself demonstrates how primitive we are and how far we have to go in my opinion.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.08, 17:29:01
Tinman
If this perspective helps you understand things better and helps you produce better results then that is the correct perspective for you.

Many critics seem obsessed with trying to convince us there mainstream perspective is the only right one. There is also the possibility others want to force the mainstream way of thinking on us because they know it will fail. No successful free energy inventors followed mainstream science to any extent and they were all open minded free thinkers.

So we need to ask, are some people trying to force mainstream science and thinking on others to help or to ensure they fail like everyone else?.   

We could ask the obvious question, why is mainstream science no closer to understanding what the Primary Fields (E,B,G) are in reality than they were 200 years ago?. There has been literally no progress made in this area which should tell us something about the validity of there often nonsensical theories. Here reality is stranger than fiction. Take two magnets and feel the field of force which acts between them. Apparently nobody on this planet is intelligent enough to figure out what this field of force is in reality. How can everybody not know what it is and have no clue?. This in itself demonstrates how primitive we are and how far we have to go in my opinion.

AC

What a load of BS. Show us what you have besides your EBG fairy dust and I will change my thoughts. Show me how I can warm my house in the winter with it or never pay for gas again. Where is the idea of century or do you only have your bitterness to show here? And then you wonder why you are seen as a joke by the rest of the world, if you are not willing to compromise, if you cant even change your viewpoint, agree on the very basics then a hard reality awaits you.

Change, adapt and evolve or let nature roll you over to become fertilizer for the next generation that is the only "constant" out there.

Quote from: broli on 2024.04.08, 17:49:26
What a load of BS. Show us what you have besides your EBG fairy dust and I will change my thoughts. Show me how I can warm my house in the winter with it or never pay for gas again. Where is the idea of century or do you only have your bitterness to show here? And then you wonder why you are seen as a joke by the rest of the world, if you are not willing to compromise, if you cant even change your viewpoint, agree on the very basics then a hard reality awaits you.

Change, adapt and evolve or let nature roll you over to become fertilizer for the next generation that is the only "constant" out there.

Broli

Rather than continually argue with people, and sling mud toward them, is there anything helpful you have to offer this group?

Please understand that your way is not the way those here think or operate.
We present experiments to back up our theories, not just continually sling mud, and throw out word salad.

Perhaps this old peoples home is not where you should be?

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.09, 07:42:14
Broli

Rather than continually argue with people, and sling mud toward them, is there anything helpful you have to offer this group?

Please understand that your way is not the way those here think or operate.
We present experiments to back up our theories, not just continually sling mud, and throw out word salad.

Perhaps this old peoples home is not where you should be?

Brad

Understood, I will keep to my muddy lane and leave your thread in peace. For any younger generation reading this, you are not alone, the sun will shine brightly as you are the future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ36wQJUYq4

Why is this guy spending so much effort and high tech CGI to "prove" there is no free energy?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Me thinks he protesteth too much."
Anyhow, it may give you guys some ideas.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.04.09, 10:45:04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ36wQJUYq4

Why is this guy spending so much effort and high tech CGI to "prove" there is no free energy?
To paraphrase Shakespeare, "Me thinks he protesteth too much."
Anyhow, it may give you guys some ideas.

The main reason some expend much effort to oppose FE devices is fear and a cult/group think mentality. It's actually kind of comical because they fear the conservation of energy is being broken which we know is not the case. In fact fear and denial go hand in hand.

On the notion of a magnetic motor, there is reason to believe a pure magnetic motor could be possible.
1)What is a magnetic field?, nobody knows and it seems strange that many seem so sure of something they admit to not understanding. As if to say I understand it, but I have no idea what it is or how it works, lol.

2)Superficial observations don't cut it and we cannot deny complex interactions with a simple one. That's like saying an airplane cannot fly just because I cannot see anything holding it up. So just because a simple gating effect is observed (Force-distance in equals force-distance out) this does not exclude more complex or unexpected interactions.

3)I found that most FE devices operate using a very obscure or unknown process. What does that mean, an unknown process?. It means a process which is not known because it is very complex with many variables which can only be understood by specific experiments. Every FE inventor claimed if everything is not exactly right in every detail it will not work. In effect the process is "different" which requires a different way of thinking and perspective. Which is why mainstream or group thinking always fails. In fact, most always think any new discovery is impossible but people discover hundreds of new things others never thought of every day.

Understanding the above we can make a few assumptions.
A magnetic motor cannot be as simple as it appears and there must be some underlying more complex field interactions taking place somewhere. One good candidate I was experimenting with in the past is the shaded pole effect or traveling magnetism. It fits the bill, 99% of people have never heard of it, it can delay a magnetic field, store it's energy periodically and manipulate existing magnetic fields. Most people can understand a static force acting on something over a distance we call work. However very few can understand the more complex concept of a traveling force. In fact many FE inventors spoke of flowing magnetism (Schauberger) and in some cases glowing magnetism(Schappeller).

In any case, there's a 99% chance the most obvious answer is not the right one. A discovery is always obscure in it's nature because it's defined as something nobody else thought of. It's always the last thing everyone else was looking for.

AC

I came across this patent for a magnet motor by Howard Johnson.
It may give you some ideas.

QuoteIt may give you some ideas.

New ideas are good.  :)
I extracted banana-shaped magnets from cheap motors.  Lots of motors, lots of free magnets.
Something didn't rotation for me. :-[

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.09, 16:51:42

A magnetic motor cannot be as simple as it appears and there must be some underlying more complex field interactions taking place somewhere.

AC

There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

Quote from: unimmortal on 2024.04.10, 09:41:21
There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.10, 12:08:16
I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.

Well said and many seem fearful to do these basic experiments which could prove there mainstream theories wrong.

For example, the only thing supporting the notion of closed loops is the concept of lines or force. As we know Faraday who invented the lines of force concept said "there are no real lines of force they are imaginary". Since there are no lines of force there can be no closed loops, field rotation or vortexes. So it would seem most mainstream theories regarding the magnetic field are misguided and built on a lie.

AC

Quote from: unimmortal on 2024.04.10, 09:41:21
There most definitely is. Howard Johson laid the ground work out pretty simply - there are two vortices in a magnet. Experiments with ferrofluid are so far showing amazing things that concur with everything he has stated. And interestingly, because the sum of the vortices will (generally) always yield a North and South, that's where people stop looking and attempt to simply manipulate the fields in a binary manner.

Compare what you've said about simplicity to an article on the Hojo motors.

Quote
Complex Forces

Some very complex magnetic forces are obviously at play in this deceptively simple magnetic system, and at this time it is impossible to develop a mathematical model of what actually occurs. However, computer analysis of the system, conducted by Professor William Harrison and his associates at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Blacksburg, VA), provide vital feedback information that greatly helps in the effort to optimize these complex forces to achieve the most efficient possible operating design.

As Professor Harrison points out, in addition to the obvious interaction between the two poles of the armature magnet and the stator magnets, many other interactions are in play. The stator magnets affect each other and the support plate. Magnet distances and their strengths vary despite best efforts of manufacturers to exercise quality controls. In the assembly of the working model, there are inevitable differences between horizontal and vertical air spaces. All these interrelated factors must be optimized, which is why computer analysis in this refinement stage is vital. It's a kind of information feedback system. As changes are made in the physical design, fast dynamic measurements are made to see whether the expected results have actually been achieved. The 'new computer data is then used to develop new changes in the design of the experimental model. And so on, and on.

Source: http://www.rexresearch.com/johnson/1johnson.htm

If differences in the manufacturing between 2 magnets of same origin is of importance then we're dealing with something that takes quite a bit of fine tuning. I would say this suggests that overunity is an epiphenomenon of a complex system where each part doesn't contain FE intrinsically. At least the article has some suggestion that some kind of FEA or other analysis was of use in the design phase though.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.10, 12:08:16
I guess it would come down to who understands how to use these fields for gain first.
One would have to agree, that that person must know what is right from wrong.

If the fields have vortices as you state, then carry out the simple experiment a lot of us have.
Fix one magnet to a timber platform, and suspend one from the celling on a long piece of string so it can freely rotate, and so as unlike poles are facing one another.
Leave say a 5mm gap between magnets. We should see the one on the string start to rotate.

The field always remains stationary, even if you spin the magnet.
Once again, that tells me that the energy field around the magnet is fixed in space.


Brad

Done, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).

Then I put a small angle in the magnet column(s) by inserting a very small piece of plastic half way, and the location of where equilibrium existed between the two moved...

Looking through ferrofluid, you can alter where the vortex (typically south, north is dominant) will turn up, and the easiest way is to but a bend in a magnet column or by adding extra magnets. A much more difficult way is to hold an additional magnet where it doesn't want to go - this approach has yielded me 3 vortex's on 1 face of the magnet column.

At the moment I believe the N and S fields don't actually align in a straight line, more a ~72 deg angle, which happens to be about the angle of vortices in nature (whirlpools etc).

Put 5 ball magnets together in a ring, lay flat on a table, make another ring and place beside it. You can rotate the two against each other (very gently)without either collapsing. External angles are ~72 degrees.

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.04.10, 04:29:56
I came across this patent for a magnet motor by Howard Johnson.
It may give you some ideas.

Thanks, added to the collection. It essentially looks like what was presented in his book. The idea of a field being used to push another field through the gate works - a bit of hard work to get the magnets setup but the effect is replicable (masking tape over magnets and masking tape to hold them together). I still believe there is a more complimentary way of working with the fields though.

Quote from: polyrhythm on 2024.04.11, 01:11:05

If differences in the manufacturing between 2 magnets of same origin is of importance then we're dealing with something that takes quite a bit of fine tuning. At least the article has some suggestion that some kind of FEA or other analysis was of use in the design phase though.

That's exactly what I've found. Again, with a column of magnets, you can turn any of them and observe a slight field change - a good reason to stay away from simulators until you've got a real good handle yourself.

unimmortal

QuoteDone, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).

What your seeing is rotation because of a non-uniform field or experimental error. If a good quality magnet is rotated on it's polar axis with the pole faces parallel to one another there is no rotation.

This is a common mistake which I noticed while doing magnetic levitation experiments. Cheap magnets with variable density have non-uniform fields which produce a cogging like effect. Non-parallel faces coupled with variable density only makes matters worse.

QuotePut 5 ball magnets together in a ring, lay flat on a table, make another ring and place beside it. You can rotate the two against each other (very gently)without either collapsing. External angles are ~72 degrees.

Indeed, this is similar to the cogging effect your seeing which produces a rotation on your magnets on a string. It's due to a non-uniform field producing a rotation force. So we need to be careful about what we think were seeing and why it's happening.

My magnetic rotation experiment was a little different than yours. I built a Electromagnetic Levitation Device similar to this one,
https://www.designnews.com/gadget-freak/how-to-build-an-electromagnetic-levitation-device
It's a pretty easy build and it's really cool.

I levitated a 1"x1" N52 cylinder magnet with a small mirror attached to it and bounced a laser of the mirror. The laser reflected off the mirror on the magnet onto a wall twenty feet away. This can easily measure rotation down to a 1/100 of a degree and was super sensitive with no friction. When I rotated a magnet, copper, aluminum or iron plate under the levitated magnet I measure zero rotation. So I know as a fact there is no rotation.

AC

Quoteauthor=unimmortal link=topic=4603.msg111508#msg111508 date=1712800843
Done, using 4 x 4mm x 8mm neo cylinders on each end. I then went a step further and had both magnets suspended on string.  Rotating forces present in both cases (as expected).

Great.
Throw up the test video, and we'll see where you went wrong.

Did the suspended magnet continuously rotate ?
Did it do just a 1/2 turn, and stop?


Brad

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.04.11, 06:08:06
So I know as a fact there is no rotation.

AC

Happy to concur.

The vague point I'm trying to make with what I have found so far is that there are two active and dynamic forces within a magnet, that I believe can be manipulated, even though the outside appearance and tests as you have pointed out result in zero rotation and two polarities - equilibrium. So what can equalise faster than a magnet?  ;)

Howard Johnson stated something I think is signficant and worth constructing some tests to validate:

"Our mapping operation shows these particles pairing off as the unlike fields merge. Then, our topographical program shows that the gauss count (the strength of the lines of force) at the attracting end has been reduced, because the pairing of a large part of the particle populations.

The repulsion of like poles represents particle activity which is quite different from attraction. The particles react with each other as they form two vortices that spin in the same direction. There is no reduction in the gauss count, which registers about three times as high as it does at the attracting end."

If we can in some way differentiate N from S as stated above, then we can leverage it.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.11, 06:26:47

Great.
Throw up the test video, and we'll see where you went wrong.

Did the suspended magnet continuously rotate ?
Did it do just a 1/2 turn, and stop?

Brad

Suspended magnet rotated 1/2 turn, two on a string danced for a short time. Both scenarios saw them come to rest.

What went wrong? holding ferrofluid vertically... but I did get to see the flows on both magnets - or more correctly the action/reaction of ferrofluid in proximity to them.

Quoteauthor=unimmortal link=topic=4603.msg111515#msg111515 date=1712819592

QuoteSuspended magnet rotated 1/2 turn, two on a string danced for a short time. Both scenarios saw them come to rest.

So no rotating fields, but either non uniform fields in the cheap magnets, or not correctly balanced on the string.
As i said, many of us have carried out this very experiment many times.

QuoteWhat went wrong? holding ferrofluid vertically... but I did get to see the flows on both magnets - or more correctly the action/reaction of ferrofluid in proximity to them.

Your ferro fluid experiments show nothing out of the ordinary.
Grab a saucer of water and a syringe.
Nearly fill the saucer with water.
Mix up a cup full of colored water (food dye) for the syringe.
Now fill the syringe, and squirt into the water in the saucer from the side, and watch the water in the saucer rotate as your ferro fluid did.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.11, 07:49:25

Your ferro fluid experiments show nothing out of the ordinary.

Brad

Agree with all of your other points, however I'm still seeing 3 distinct uniform flows in different directions coming from north, and when I'm not seeing a vortex, similar flows at the south.

I guess I'll have to come up with a more definitive test.

I don't know what to make of this South Korean patent - but he claims OU by effectively compressing a piezoelectric module using a simple combination of permanent magnets, electromagnets, and some piezoelectric crystals.

https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20150049713A/en

When the permanent magnet pulls the electromagnet by gravitational pulling force, the ball exerts a force on the piezoelectric element to obtain electricity.
The generated electricity is sent to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic force, and the electromagnet is pushed to the opposite electromagnet by repulsive force with the permanent magnet.
Repeat this exercise to get permanent kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy is converted into rotational energy to produce electrical energy.
It looks very simple and cheap to make.
Seems to be:-  4 coils  (electromagnets) 2 permanent magnets, some piezoelectric elements, and an easily 3d printed crankshaft.

Add a generator and you're home and dry.

Quoteauthor=unimmortal link=topic=4603.msg111522#msg111522 date=1712824863
Agree with all of your other points, however I'm still seeing 3 distinct uniform flows in different directions coming from north, and when I'm not seeing a vortex, similar flows at the south.

QuoteI guess I'll have to come up with a more definitive test.

Absolutely.
Never stop trying different testing methods, even the crazy ones.


Brad

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.04.11, 09:30:12
I don't know what to make of this South Korean patent - but he claims OU by effectively compressing a piezoelectric module using a simple combination of permanent magnets, electromagnets, and some piezoelectric crystals.

https://patents.google.com/patent/KR20150049713A/en

When the permanent magnet pulls the electromagnet by gravitational pulling force, the ball exerts a force on the piezoelectric element to obtain electricity.
The generated electricity is sent to the electromagnet to generate a magnetic force, and the electromagnet is pushed to the opposite electromagnet by repulsive force with the permanent magnet.
Repeat this exercise to get permanent kinetic energy.
The kinetic energy is converted into rotational energy to produce electrical energy.
It looks very simple and cheap to make.
Seems to be:-  4 coils  (electromagnets) 2 permanent magnets, some piezoelectric elements, and an easily 3d printed crankshaft.

Add a generator and you're home and dry.

Hello Aking
You make me suddenly think of this guy and his beautiful machine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeUwOqMR_w4

RhineX

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.04.10, 04:29:56
I came across this patent for a magnet motor by Howard Johnson.
It may give you some ideas.

I made just planar variant that motor. Aren't they the same thing ?
Why it doesn't rotate?  >:( From Howard Johnson was rotating, but  mine isn't.
The CD is suspended on a long thread. Under it placed six-pole PM from capstan tape video recorder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13zTJz3VXnM

Bedini and Friedrich on Howard Johnson's magnet motor.  Some good tips here

Dear Aking.21,

The bottom line is this as Rick wrote:

"There really wasn't much excess power in these kind of magnetic setups. Careful testing showed that there was only a very little output from the exit compared to bringing in the train to the entrance which offered resistance.  I had planned on making a loop to see if it could overcome that resistance be never had any extra track."

Gyula

Magets you can turn on and off. Just a refresher course.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AygyCYMVXlI&t=258s


RIP Patti Smith

I don't know if this has been posted before, but it looks like it might work unless there is a hidden coil somewhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4N4TiOHc-g

Hello,

how far are the models to be sent?

Greetings Lota

Hello, here is my setup.
But it's not running yet.
Greetings Lota

Hello,
Video
https://youtube.com/shorts/0gccsL_JRUg (https://youtube.com/shorts/0gccsL_JRUg)

Quote from: lota on 2024.05.06, 17:11:27
Hello,
Video
https://youtube.com/shorts/0gccsL_JRUg (https://youtube.com/shorts/0gccsL_JRUg)

Nice work mate. Have you tried running it with the mag directly opposite each other?

Hello, yes I have. But when it's offset, it runs easier.
greeting
Lota

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.14, 13:18:34
First up, I apologies for my absence.
As most will know, i started my own business, and that took up nearly all of my time, which caught me quite off guard.

As the money was flowing quite well, i decided to have an engineering company build me a precision prototype.
Biggest mistake i have ever made.
I won't go into it to much, other than to say i nearly lost the rights to my own invention.
I have removed the videos from my youtube channel for this very reason.
I still have the video's stored on my external HD, and i'm sure there are those that took copies as well.

Over the last 2 years, i have redesigned and reconfigured the motor, so as it does away with the coil and required electrical energy supply, as this seemed to be causing
a few issues in the build for some. The motor is now just a mechanical PM motor.

There is no need for anyone to build this motor at this point in time.
I am currently in talks with Chet, and another member of this forum.
The other member will soon be receiving all the stl files he needs to replicate this new design.
Once he has a running motor, he will confirm here on this thread that is actually works.

From that point, and only after confirmation, the plan is to have 10 fully engineered working prototypes built, as the3D printed  gears only last about 20 hours.
These will only be small 200 watt motors, so as to keep the cost down. Myself and the two mentioned above, will be choosing 8 people on this forum to receive 1 of these motors.
It will then be up to those 8 to share around as they see fit--This is an open source project.
Chet,Graham, and Darren are 3 of those 8 that i myself have chosen, due to their ongoing support over the years.

After the 8 have received the motors, i will be washing my hands of this project.

One last thing--> For those who thought that permanent magnets could not do useful work--you were wrong.
Anything that contains energy can do useful work.

Brad

Brad,

I had to take some time off to deal with downed trees and branches from multiple storms, and in between raindrops, manage to get some semblance of a garden planted.  I returned to read the forum and Chet had posted a thread with alternate FE websites.  I followed a few of these links only to find this project motor of yours being discussed and replicated, which does not even appear on the OUR forum home page.  Talk about burying the lead!

Is this the invention you need to be able to explain soon (as we were discussing in another thread)?  What is the current status of this project as discussed in your quoted post above?

PW   

Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.27, 21:22:31

Brad,

I had to take some time off to deal with downed trees and branches from multiple storms, and in between raindrops, manage to get some semblance of a garden planted.  I returned to read the forum and Chet had posted a thread with alternate FE websites.  I followed a few of these links only to find this project motor of yours being discussed and replicated, which does not even appear on the OUR forum home page.  Talk about burying the lead!

Is this the invention you need to be able to explain soon (as we were discussing in another thread)?  What is the current status of this project as discussed in your quoted post above?

PW

Hi PW

I have been away on our yearly vacation for the last 3 weeks, and arrived back home today.
We have just finished unpacking, and i am about to return to my research and development.

Yes, the earlier version is on another forum-or should i say, some form of resemblance of it.
Oddly enough, the newer version also made it's way there some how?

The current status is- i don't yet have a version that i am happy with, as the first is very hard to balance the fields to get it to work.
I am just about to start some testing on a simpler version of the motor, so nothing to share on that yet.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.03.14, 13:18:34
...
These will only be small 200 watt motors, so as to keep the cost down. Myself and the two mentioned above, will be choosing 8 people on this forum to receive 1 of these motors.
...

Brad,

Do you still have a prototype that produces 200 watts?

Is that 200 watts mechanical, as in approx. 1/4 HP?

How did you measure the "200 watts"?

Any videos?

Why is this not the "talk of the town"? 

Amazing...

PW

Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.28, 13:01:30
Brad,

Do you still have a prototype that produces 200 watts?

Is that 200 watts mechanical, as in approx. 1/4 HP?

How did you measure the "200 watts"?

Any videos?

Why is this not the "talk of the town"? 

Amazing...

PW

When you get countless PMs and emails continuously, you tend to quiet things down a bit, so as you can continue your work.

And when i say small, it means not to costly to post, and reasonably light.
I am trying to simplify the design atm, so as it is easy to replicate.


Brad

Quote from: picowatt on 2024.05.28, 13:01:30
Brad,

Do you still have a prototype that produces 200 watts?

Is that 200 watts mechanical, as in approx. 1/4 HP?

How did you measure the "200 watts"?

Any videos?

Why is this not the "talk of the town"? 

Amazing...

PW

Did TinMan not declared that he measured and calculated it via the Horsepower method ? I think he mentioned it.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Imperial_Horsepower.svg/220px-Imperial_Horsepower.svg.png)
Source: Wikipedia

When you know the time, height and mass of the weight lifted, you can calculate the horsepower.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.29, 00:53:23
When you get countless PMs and emails continuously, you tend to quiet things down a bit, so as you can continue your work.

And when i say small, it means not to costly to post, and reasonably light.
I am trying to simplify the design atm, so as it is easy to replicate.


Brad

Amazing post,  5 questions asked, none answered.

Itsu

Quoteauthor=picowatt link=topic=4603.msg112500#msg112500 date=1716901290

QuoteDo you still have a prototype that produces 200 watts?

No
The prototype only produces 90-92 watts,
But with a more precise build, 200 watts is obtainable.

QuoteIs that (edit) watts mechanical, as in approx.(edit)HP?

Yes, calculated using the prony brake method.

QuoteHow did you measure the "200 watts"?

I never claimed i measured 200 watts.
I stated that the units that are going to be handed out would be 200 watts.

QuoteAny videos?

Yes.
I have dated video's archived for later reference.

QuoteWhy is this not the "talk of the town"?

Because we learnt from the last saga-the RT
I posted countless videos, taking precise measurements exactly as you asked me to, and look what happened.
It is clear, when it comes to things like this, that the inventor should not be the one to present, and make claims on his invention, but rather a replicator should be the one to present his findings on the invention. When i have perfected the design, and when the replicator i have chosen is well enough to replicate my finished design, then a video will be posted.
There are also other things that have to take place at the very same time. This has to be this way, so as it finds it's mark, and not the shelf.
With some powerful outside help, this will find it's mark.

There are those, outside of the net, that have copies of my videos, should i have a sudden mishap.
All that will come from releasing video's, is the same onslaught i received with the RT, so no video's will be released until such time as everything is in place.
And when that time comes, the video's will not be from me.


Brad

What is(was) the RT?
bi

Quote from: bistander on 2024.05.29, 13:29:28
What is(was) the RT?
bi

Not going to get into that at this point in time.
But for your entertainment, here is one of the videos taken during testing stage.
The videos were removed from my channel, but someone copied them, and opened a channel using my name (above board of course).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSsmScZqMts

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.29, 12:32:48
No
The prototype only produces 90-92 watts,
But with a more precise build, 200 watts is obtainable.

Yes, calculated using the prony brake method.

I never claimed i measured 200 watts.
I stated that the units that are going to be handed out would be 200 watts.

Yes.
I have dated video's archived for later reference.

Because we learnt from the last saga-the RT
I posted countless videos, taking precise measurements exactly as you asked me to, and look what happened.
It is clear, when it comes to things like this, that the inventor should not be the one to present, and make claims on his invention, but rather a replicator should be the one to present his findings on the invention. When i have perfected the design, and when the replicator i have chosen is well enough to replicate my finished design, then a video will be posted.
There are also other things that have to take place at the very same time. This has to be this way, so as it finds it's mark, and not the shelf.
With some powerful outside help, this will find it's mark.

There are those, outside of the net, that have copies of my videos, should i have a sudden mishap.
All that will come from releasing video's, is the same onslaught i received with the RT, so no video's will be released until such time as everything is in place.
And when that time comes, the video's will not be from me.


Brad

That is the way to go O0, but I needed a person who would understand how it works, so they have a learning curve to go through. That is about to change very soon.

Mike

Quote from: Centraflow on 2024.05.29, 18:24:53
That is the way to go O0, but I needed a person who would understand how it works, so they have a learning curve to go through. That is about to change very soon.

Mike

Quotebut I needed a person who would understand how it works, so they have a learning curve to go through.

And therein lies the problem, as I am unable to explain as to why it works.
How it works can be shown, but why it works is still unknown.
1- the conservation of energy is not absolute
2- the magnetic field is made of matter that can provide energy.
I see no 3rd option.


Brad

Quote from: JimBoot on 2024.05.29, 22:28:45
Ahem

Have amended the post.
Didn't mean it to sound like that.

Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.29, 23:52:55
And therein lies the problem, as I am unable to explain as to why it works.
How it works can be shown, but why it works is still unknown.
1- the conservation of energy is not absolute
2- the magnetic field is made of matter that can provide energy.
I see no 3rd option.


Brad

I dont think its a coincidence that on the same week I made a "breakthrough" a couple of months ago you showed up. The universe is all connected. And I am certain of it that you are also leveraging the rotational lever effect used in Blackbird. Gears and constraints allows us to redirect forces as we please. They are what keeps the universe ticking. Particles and "fields" (which are just more fine particles) interacting due these allow us to release the potential energy as kinetic. You need both magnets and "eddy currents", something hard and something soft like your conductor in the middle, its making eddy currents. I suggest you play with different gear ratios in your new design it makes fine tuning less of a problem and lets the eddy currents propel you forward more easier than backward.

Well today I learned the damnedest of things while messing around with another design.
It took me about 3 hours to work out what was going on, and it turns out that the mass of an object can be increased without actually adding any mass to it physically  :o
Knowing what I know now, I think I actually built this one ass about.
These PM fields really are tricky little SOBs
But this is something I can now use--something I can base my next design on  O0

Video coming soon on how to add mass to a ferromagnetic material, without actually adding any mass physically.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.30, 13:09:41
Well today I learned the damnedest of things while messing around with another design.
It took me about 3 hours to work out what was going on, and it turns out that the mass of an object can be increased without actually adding any mass to it physically  :o
Knowing what I know now, I think I actually built this one ass about.
These PM fields really are tricky little SOBs
But this is something I can now use--something I can base my next design on  O0

Video coming soon on how to add mass to a ferromagnetic material, without actually adding any mass physically.


Brad

So your gears finally also started spinning huh, good  O0. I will start by showing them what "friction" can do, you can start by showing them what its magnetic form can do. However it wont take long before I enter the domain of magnetism as well. So you better keep up the pace.

Quotethe mass of an object can be increased without actually adding any mass to it physically  :o

Changing the mass of an object using a magnet was not your idea.
It was many centuries ago that Jonathan Swift wrote about the flying island of Laputa.  ;)

======================================================================

QuoteI don't think you know what my idea is.

Can we see this flying island?

No. I can't . unfortunately. :(
Gulliver saw this. O0

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.05.30, 17:26:42
Changing the mass of an object using a magnet was not your idea.
It was many centuries ago that Jonathan Swift wrote about the flying island of Laputa.  ;)

I don't think you know what my idea is.

Can we see this flying island?

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.05.29, 12:32:48
No
The prototype only produces 90-92 watts,
But with a more precise build, 200 watts is obtainable.

Do you still have the prototype that produces 90 watts?

Quote
Yes, calculated using the prony brake method.

I've seen a lot of poor examples of DIY Prony brakes.  Achieving smooth braking action, steady torque readings, and accurate RPM indications can be challenging.  A large flywheel may be needed for designs that produce significant cogging (similar to smoothing a pulsed circuit with a large cap).     

Quote
I never claimed i measured 200 watts.
I stated that the units that are going to be handed out would be 200 watts.

My apologies, your OP made it sound like you were pretty far along after two years of development, to the point of being ready to have a more rugged version professionally machined, and that you were "downsizing" your design for the units to be distributed...

Quote
Because we learnt from the last saga-the RT
I posted countless videos, taking precise measurements exactly as you asked me to, and look what happened.

Frankly, I have no clue as to "what happened" regarding the RT.  The last comments Mark E. and myself made regarding your measurements was along the lines of "barring any shenanigans", your measurements proved that you had indeed achieved OU.  The next step we were discussing was the use of a high efficiency buck/boost to close the loop to attempt self-running.  At that point, something happened at your end and you and your project went silent.  To this day, I have no idea what really happened that caused you to stop working on or discussing the RT as openly as you previously had been.   


If you still have the 90 watt prototype of your all magnet motor (or any self-runner), and need to be able to explain why it works, I can suggest several experiments and measurements that would be a good start in that direction.  As we did with the RT, we can treat your motor as a "black box", wherein we only need the results of the suggested experiments and measurements.

Before digging into the realm of the "quantum", the initial tests should be geared toward ruling out environmental sources.  These will require your prototype to be mounted to its own platform with any required "adjustments" rigid enough to allow the unit to be located and oriented as desired.  A phototach or equivalent should be mounted as well to monitor RPM.  A way to load the motor, mechanically or electrically, should also be mounted to the motor's platform.  I would suggest using an electrical load, particularly if your motor "runs away" when unloaded.  This can be a separate shaft or belt driven generator/motor (preferred), or coils located such that your magnets pass by them, connected to a simple electronic load used to regulate the speed (and provide additional measurement data).  This doesn't have to be a large load, just whatever is needed to maintain a given RPM.  Using a zener to drive a pass transistor into a resistive load would allow no load startups with "fair" speed regulation. 

How difficult would it be to make your prototype meet the above requirements?

PW

Gonna Try This. No Gate.   No idea if it will work.  Seems the magnetic domains line up on paper.

Gonna be hard convincing 2 like poles to stay together, But I will try

Diametrically polarized matched with regular would be even better, but I do not have diametric ones ATM.

Ok- Crude  test complete.  Results Look promising..  Attract In / Repel Out seems to work.  Slight problems at Neutralization stage (at TDC) that needs tweaking.

You know where to find me if interested in seeing updates as I go.

Quote from: floodrod on 2024.06.03, 02:34:58
Ok- Crude  test complete.  Results Look promising..  Attract In / Repel Out seems to work.  Slight problems at Neutralization stage (at TDC) that needs tweaking.

You know where to find me if interested in seeing updates as I go.

This is not my scene- but looking from the outside here is a thought.
In my opinion, the only way to get through the sticking point is to use gravity assist.
So a cross between a gravity motor and a magnet motor.
As an example. you can get to the top dead center and beyond using magnets.
Then you use gravity to fall downwards and hope the momentum gets you through the sticking point.
If successful then you repeat and voila!
The device will only work in upright mode.
Good luck. (You can cut me in when you make your first million).

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.06.03, 14:57:18
This is not my scene- but looking from the outside here is a thought.
In my opinion, the only way to get through the sticking point is to use gravity assist.
So a cross between a gravity motor and a magnet motor.
As an example. you can get to the top dead center and beyond using magnets.
Then you use gravity to fall downwards and hope the momentum gets you through the sticking point.
If successful then you repeat and voila!
The device will only work in upright mode.
Good luck. (You can cut me in when you make your first million).

Yeah, that last idea did not work as planned.  I can eliminate the sticky spot, but I end up getting resistive forces elsewhere.   I have a new, more complicated setup I am building out to test.. 

Quote from: Aking.21 on 2024.06.03, 14:57:18
...
In my opinion, the only way to get through the sticking point is to use gravity assist.
...

It will be useless. Whether it is under the effect of magnetism or gravity that the object moves, it does so because of a potential difference, magnetic or gravitational, between the arrival and the departure.

On a loop, the potential difference is zero since the departure and the arrival are at the same point. And since the work of a force deriving from a potential does not depend on the path followed, the work is globally zero whatever the conditions of potential variations on the path or their types.

In other words, the force only works on those parts of the circuit that have a potential difference. The moving object will therefore never be able to complete the circuit indefinitely since by looping the path, you eliminate the potential difference and therefore eliminate the cause of the effect.

I think it is time to make systems in accordance with the laws of OUR universe, and not with those dreamed of an imaginary universe.

F6FLT

QuoteIt will be useless. Whether it is under the effect of magnetism or gravity that the object moves, it does so because of a potential difference, magnetic or gravitational, between the arrival and the departure.

Of course, it would help if someone had a clue what a magnetic or gravic field are. It's kind of like claiming to understand cars but never having driven one or understand how they work. It just lacks credibility in my opinion.

QuoteOn a loop, the potential difference is zero since the departure and the arrival are at the same point. And since the work of a force deriving from a potential does not depend on the path followed, the work is globally zero whatever the conditions of potential variations on the path or their types.

In a closed loop yes but as we know there are no truly closed loops. They are only imaginary just like your lines and loops of force.

QuoteIn other words, the force only works on those parts of the circuit that have a potential difference. The moving object will therefore never be able to complete the circuit indefinitely since by looping the path, you eliminate the potential difference and therefore eliminate the cause of the effect.

In fact, the difference in potential or energy state is the cause of a force on something. The force then becomes a secondary cause acting on the something causing it to move.

As well, the particles in an atom spin or loop in a "circuit" indefinitely. I asked ChatGPT why the particles in atoms can never stop moving and it had a circular reasoning meltdown, lol. It keeps repeating the same old gibberish that yes the particles can never stop moving but the motion is not perpetual. Then it tried to give me the old "perpetual motion machine" song and dance. So I said no it's not a perpetual motion machine silly I'm talking about the conservation of energy and motion, grade school physics. It obviously doesn't know the answer...

QuoteI think it is time to make systems in accordance with the laws of OUR universe, and not with those dreamed of an imaginary universe.

I like think of it this way, a few generations ago our descendants were basically running around in animal skins foraging for food but look at us now. The funny thing is each generation obviously had an ego problem and supposed they were as smart as it gets and nothing could change. It's strange isn't it?, everyone keeps saying nothing can change but it always does. It's almost as if everyone failed history class.

AC

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2024.06.10, 16:24:37
As well, the particles in an atom spin or loop in a "circuit" indefinitely.

Particles spin around the nucleus forever, yes.But we can't take energy of it. Useful energy for us.
Then something will happen to the atom and it will collapse.
Why do we need such an eternal rotating wheel that stands under a vacuum hood and we cannot take anything from it ?  Only watch.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.06.10, 17:30:13
Particles spin around the nucleus forever, yes.But we can't take energy of it. Useful energy for us.
Then something will happen to the atom and it will collapse.
Why do we need such an eternal rotating wheel that stands under a vacuum hood and we cannot take anything from it ?  Only watch.

If we cannot get energy from an atom then how do you explain nuclear energy like fission or fusion?. In fact, we already know how to get energy from atoms and it's found in any grade school science textbook. You may want to learn how nuclear reactors and stars work.

For example, your car engine burns a hydrocarbon fuel in the following reaction CxHy + O2 >>> CO2 + H2O. In effect all were doing is rearranging the atoms in the molecules which liberates some of the internal kinetic energy as heat (jiggling atoms). The kinetic energy in the hydrocarbon originally came from the Sun a star, to plants as light, animals ate the plants, the plants/animals died, were buried and reformed, ending up in oil and gas formations. Ergo, the kinetic energy in fossil fuels is renewable and considered solar energy because it came from a star we call the Sun.

Nuclear fission or fusion energy is similar and instead of rearranging the atoms in molecules were rearranging the particles in atoms. For example, the uranium in nuclear reactors was formed in star collision/explosions through a nuclear fusion process. The stars exploded, threw the uranium out into space, it landed on Earth and then we dug into the Earth to find it. Ergo the kinetic energy in uranium came from stars and we simply liberated the energy in our nuclear reactors.

To recap, kinetic energy can be stored in atoms and molecules and when a process rearranges said atoms and molecules the same kinetic energy can be released. So in fact, the thing you suggested cannot be done is what's actually happening everywhere in the universe. You literally could not be more wrong considering the facts we already know.

AC

Sharing this one with the public, as I know there are those working on the same version of the magnet motor.
How to remove the sticky spot at the crossover point- the easy way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EGSvgqZGNE


Brad

Hello
how far along is the project? Or did it die?
Greeting
Lota

Quote from: lota on 2024.07.11, 06:06:28
Hello
how far along is the project? Or did it die?
Greeting
Lota

The project is coming along nicely.
Update coming soon.

I would upload my latest PPT, but the forum does not allow for this file format.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.07.16, 11:44:38
The project is coming along nicely.
Update coming soon.

I would upload my latest PPT, but the forum does not allow for this file format.


Brad

Quote from: sergh on 2024.07.15, 07:08:47
Regarding magnetic wheels as perpetual motion machines, my opinion is skeptical. Like this YouTuber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dywk3u2ncHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZy6Oc91Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brJRnz0gAFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogSO7SMggAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHKpZUqlu0
etc..

...

Hi Brad,

If the size of the PPT file is accepted by the forum software, try to rename the file extension from PPT to say PDF or maybe DOC.  Then we would change it back to PPT after downloading.

Gyula

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.07.16, 11:44:38
The project is coming along nicely.
Update coming soon.

I would upload my latest PPT, but the forum does not allow for this file format.


Brad

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.07.16, 11:44:38
The project is coming along nicely.
Update coming soon.

I would upload my latest PPT, but the forum does not allow for this file format.


Brad

I purchased a new PC last year running windows 11 and microsoft 365 (after 23 years with my old one running windows XP and 23 years old Powerpoint) and was surprised to find I can now use "save as" to save my Powerpoint files in pdf format.

I also have an Icloud account where you can upload a ppt file and download it as a pdf.  May also be possible with a Google cloud account.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2024.07.16, 15:16:44
I purchased a new PC last year running windows 11 and microsoft 365

I'm sorry for you

You can also turn it into a .zip and upload it as such.

Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2024.07.16, 13:52:57

Quote from: sergh
Regarding magnetic wheels as perpetual motion machines, my opinion is skeptical. Like this YouTuber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dywk3u2ncHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZy6Oc91Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brJRnz0gAFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogSO7SMggAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHKpZUqlu0

I agree with Sergh. The idea that a permanent magnet system can be looped is based on a belief without any concrete evidence, either theoretical or practical, or else it would have to be provided.
A magnetic mobile moves because of a difference in magnetic potential, just as a ball moves because of a difference in gravitational potential.
As the work of such a force does not depend on the path followed but only on the potential difference, and the potential on a loop is the same at the start and at the end, it will remain zero over a cycle, no matter how the children try to make it pass the "sticky point", which is only the potential difference on a short path, inverse to that on the long path.
It's like trying to get a ball that has rolled down a long, gentle slope back to the same height on a short, steep incline. In the absence of loss, it's possible, but in practice it's not, and at best it would be without energy gain. And it's easy to imagine the opposite, that propelled along a short path, the mobile could pass along the long path. Why we should think that action should take place in one direction and not the other is purely a matter of blind belief.
Putting the arrival and departure at the same potential level is equivalent to removing the cause of movement while hoping for perpetual motion without cause. And this is true whatever the type of force used, when it derives from a potential difference.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2024.07.21, 10:17:27


I agree with Sergh. The idea that a permanent magnet system can be looped is based on a belief without any concrete evidence, either theoretical or practical, or else it would have to be provided.
A magnetic mobile moves because of a difference in magnetic potential, just as a ball moves because of a difference in gravitational potential.
As the work of such a force does not depend on the path followed but only on the potential difference, and the potential on a loop is the same at the start and at the end, it will remain zero over a cycle, no matter how the children try to make it pass the "sticky point", which is only the potential difference on a short path, inverse to that on the long path.

May I interject with the effect of hysteresis?  This is well known in magnetism, a particular path is followed where you end up at the starting point but energy is not conserved.  Most people are familiar with the classical BH loop where the loop area represents energy loss per cycle (actually energy volume density).  You can plot current in a coil against flux through that coil and obtain a loop whose area yields energy directly in Joules.  You can do this with a classical AC transformer and obtain a loop for the primary current that represents energy input per cycle, the loop is traversed CCW.  If you do this for the secondary you obtain a loop that is traversed CW reprsenting energy output per cycle.

In your statements above you are quite happy to observe that there can be a loss of energy during that forward and inverse movement (e.g. due to friction) while "the potential on a loop is the same at the start and at the end".  Why can't you accept that there could be a source of energy doing the opposite?  Magnets have an enormous number of spinning electrons aligned whose effect can be modelled as an effective large surface current around the magnet, like large current though a single layer of closely wound superconducting wire.  As someone interested in FE why are you not looking into this as an energy source?

Smudge   

Sergh

QuoteRegarding magnetic wheels as perpetual motion machines, my opinion is skeptical. Like this YouTuber:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dywk3u2ncHk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMZy6Oc91Fs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brJRnz0gAFo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogSO7SMggAk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RHKpZUqlu0

Your reasoning based on the fallacy fallacy is always problematic. Your also using the oversimplification fallacy, "the oversimplification fallacy occurs when someone distills a complex issue or topic down to a very basic or simplistic explanation or example, and then uses that oversimplified version to argue against the original complex issue". F6FLT likes to use these same fallacies as we can see from his last post.

For example, many claim we cannot get more out than we put in and all systems are closed. Unless of course the closed system is a box with a nuclear bomb in it containing uranium. In this case the energy in the uranium which could vaporize you and the city your in came from star collisions/supernova tens of billions of years ago in some other part of the universe. Which makes this argument that what we put in is always what we get out seem misguided at best. Nobody put in anything because the energy was concentrated in the uranium from the star collision before the Earth and our solar system even existed. This is a little different than a ball rolling down a ramp, lol.

AC

Smudge

QuoteI purchased a new PC last year running windows 11 and microsoft 365 (after 23 years with my old one running windows XP and 23 years old Powerpoint) and was surprised to find I can now use "save as" to save my Powerpoint files in pdf format.

I'm running windows 10 on a pretty fast laptop with a free program called "classic shell" to emulate the XP GUI. http://www.classicshell.net/
So we can have all the benefits of a new operating system without the present gong show they call a start menu/file system of windows 10/11.
I think the XP GUI which is very similar to Linux and Raspberry Pi is the most user friendly.

AC

I started in SCO Unix and never really wanted to see what Windows was. When Linus came out with Linux, I was in from the start and have used it since. I have one machine that has 7 on it only for one program and sits most of the time. The Classic program sounds nice, may have to see what it is. Thanks for the link even tho it is no longer upgrading.
thay

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.07.16, 11:44:38
The project is coming along nicely.
Update coming soon.

I would upload my latest PPT, but the forum does not allow for this file format.


Brad

Hi Brad,

I contacted the Admin and now you can attach PPT file format to your posts as you wished.    8)

Thanks,
Gyula

BUMP. Thanks Floodrod.  O0

Blimey, it's getting on 11 months since I got clobbered, thankfully I'm able to read and write again. Physically a different story but I tinker as a form of physiotherapy. I keep picking up the two rotors and suddenly thought did anyone try a gentle variable DC  drive to the centre Gizmo?

On page 2 I found Brads video where he showed us a 5 magnet rotor pair. A couple of questions, did anyone try this 5 magnet arrangement? Why does the motor stay at a constant speed?

Cheers Graham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.01.07, 12:21:25
BUMP. Thanks Floodrod.  O0

Blimey, it's getting on 11 months since I got clobbered, thankfully I'm able to read and write again. Physically a different story but I tinker as a form of physiotherapy. I keep picking up the two rotors and suddenly thought did anyone try a gentle variable DC  drive to the centre Gizmo?

On page 2 I found Brads video where he showed us a 5 magnet rotor pair. A couple of questions, did anyone try this 5 magnet arrangement? Why does the motor stay at a constant speed?

Cheers Graham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

Oh dear, just Crickets chirping.  ;D  A simple yes or no or I don't know would be great. I was thinking about getting the 5 pole rotor drawn up over the weekend but if it's already been tried then it's both a waste of time and material. Also I'm still curious why the rotors maintained a constant speed.
Cheers Grum.

Hi Graham,


sorry about that, i thought others would likely be more suited to answer, but obviously we all thought that  :)

I don't think a 4 or 5 magnet rotor makes any difference, so no, i did not try that.

I don't know what you mean by "a gentle variable DC  drive to the centre Gizmo?"

The Gizmo, i think, is just a coil around a core being pulsed at the right time (by hall sensor, pickup coil etc.) which gives it its constant speed IMO.

Looking at Tinman his YouTube side (https://www.youtube.com/@69Atho/videos), he is still now and then showing some updates on his build, but apparently not interesting enough for updating this (his) thread(s).


Good to hear things are improving (read and write again), so keep on tinkering  O0


Itsu

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.01.09, 13:07:16
Oh dear, just Crickets chirping.  ;D

I was waiting for someone else to write something interesting.

Anyway, F6FLT's analysis of these type of motors is right on the spot when only hard magnets are involved.
If you add a soft ferromagnetic member (e.g. a Wesley G. shield), then such motors start to fall under a different category.

I have never seen a geared dual-rotor motor with a W.G. shield implemented, which is not a surprise because such shield requires soft ferromagnetic member with tunable thickness.

Thank you Itsu/Verpies. O0

With several degrees of frost and a covering of snow outside, the kitchen table is a nice place to be alongside the stove...  I have reduced the number of magnets in the rotors from 6 to 3, in each. Currently waiting for some Ceramic bearings to replace the Steel ones. They are definitely influenced by the strong magnetic field.  The  variable mass WG shield is next on the agenda.

Cheers Grum.

Graham,

i did experiment with all nylon bearings, but could only notice a minor improvement, but i still used the 6 magnets per rotor.
Perhaps these ceramic bearings perform much better.
Could you give an example of such a ceramic bearing (ad, picture)?

Not sure what you mean by "variable mass WG shield", could you explain?

Thanks,  Itsu

Dear Itsu.

I'm merely tinkering with Brad's idea to keep me sane. Having lost my engineering abilities almost completely it's a good way to start my rehabilitation and I'm now able to use a spanner and screwdriver again. O0  After removing 3 sets of magnets ( now 120 degrees spacing ) I noticed that the rotors, if offset correctly almost ran past each other with little to no resistance.

The bearings are known as hybrid Ceramic which have Steel race's and Ceramic balls. They are quite expensive so I wouldn't recommend purchasing them until I see a positive result.

Legend has it that Wesley Gary invented a perpetual motion motor. The principle was ridiculously simple. He discovered that at a certain distance from one magnetic pole, Iron would flip polarity.  This change appears to be based upon the mass.

As you know I have spent many hours building various replicas of the WG motor, without success.

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.01.17, 12:59:20
Dear Itsu.

I'm merely tinkering with Brad's idea to keep me sane. Having lost my engineering abilities almost completely it's a good way to start my rehabilitation and I'm now able to use a spanner and screwdriver again. O0  After removing 3 sets of magnets ( now 120 degrees spacing ) I noticed that the rotors, if offset correctly almost ran past each other with little to no resistance.

The bearings are known as hybrid Ceramic which have Steel race's and Ceramic balls. They are quite expensive so I wouldn't recommend purchasing them until I see a positive result.

Legend has it that Wesley Gary invented a perpetual motion motor. The principle was ridiculously simple. He discovered that at a certain distance from one magnetic pole, Iron would flip polarity.  This change appears to be based upon the mass.

As you know I have spent many hours building various replicas of the WG motor, without success.

Cheers Graham.

Hey Graham,

I had to go back and read your posts.  I just realized that you had a stroke and am sorry to hear that.  I took quite a long break from the forum after spending a lot of time working on Mike's STEAP replication without success so I've missed quite a bit.  Have you ever heard of Methylene Blue?  It may be something worth looking into to help you recover your mind more fully.  https://axonintegrativehealth.com/iv-packages/unlocking-neuro-protection-and-enhancements-the-power-of-methylene-blue-iv-therapy/

Take Care,

Dave

Thanks Dave, try 4  :D

Bleed in March  causing me to loose the use of my right arm and hand then 3 more in late June early July. This time a clot or two which affected my right side coordination. Luckily my mental acuity was virtually intact.

Verpies recommended a regime of several homeopathic remedies, Lions Mane being one of them. I'm not a great fan of Big PHARMA medicine so have decided against the Statins despite my high Cholesterol levels. My problem is that I cannot function on low levels of Cholesterol!

Anyway, enough of my woes, my goal is now focused on getting fit enough to return to my favourite place, the workshop. Well perhaps not just yet, we need to see some warmer weather first.  O0

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.01.18, 14:10:36
Thanks Dave, try 4  :D

Bleed in March  causing me to loose the use of my right arm and hand then 3 more in late June early July. This time a clot or two which affected my right side coordination. Luckily my mental acuity was virtually intact.

Verpies recommended a regime of several homeopathic remedies, Lions Mane being one of them. I'm not a great fan of Big PHARMA medicine so have decided against the Statins despite my high Cholesterol levels. My problem is that I cannot function on low levels of Cholesterol!

Anyway, enough of my woes, my goal is now focused on getting fit enough to return to my favourite place, the workshop. Well perhaps not just yet, we need to see some warmer weather first.  O0

Cheers Graham.

I'm glad it didn't affect your cognitive abilities!!  I hope you find a speedy recovery and that today's medicine and understanding of the body can get you back to where you want to be.


Take Care,

Dave

Quote from: Itsu on 2025.01.17, 10:22:47
Graham,

i did experiment with all nylon bearings, but could only notice a minor improvement, but i still used the 6 magnets per rotor.
Perhaps these ceramic bearings perform much better.
Could you give an example of such a ceramic bearing (ad, picture)?

Not sure what you mean by "variable mass WG shield", could you explain?

Thanks,  Itsu

try this...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTfFIetYPY

mags

Thanks Mags.  O0

With Itsu's help on the CAD front I have printed two new rotors. Just 3 magnet slots @ 120 degrees. They carry two N 52 - 10x10 round Neodymium magnets with a 10 mm diameter Sreel ball facing the gate.

https://youtu.be/HPTNzqcbxDo?feature=shared

At this moment I have the Ceramic Hybrid bearings shimmed with beer can but the intention is to use Silver Steel precision ground stock for the pivots..... The more precise the build, the better. 

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.01.25, 11:04:47
https://youtu.be/HPTNzqcbxDo?feature=shared

...I remembered that when I was playing with W.G. shields years ago, they worked better when they were composed of three layers, e.g.: transformer steel sheet - glass sheet - transformer steel sheet.

I was using microscope slides as the glass sheets but anything that is incompressible and not ferromagnetc and nonconductive, should work.

Quote from: TinMan on 2024.04.07, 04:41:49
It is not to repel the magnets, it is to reduce the attraction toward the steel, and to keep the two approaching magnets fields from one another.
Keep in mind that only a % of the two rotor magnets fields has to be reduced, in order to gain an offset, and thus rotation.
The greater this reduction % is, the more torque the motor has.

1+1=3
The field intensity on the gate plate can be increased by up to 5 times, by using bucking fields on the plate, as we found out in the 1+1=3 motor build.
So, one fixed magnet, and one adjustable one, to increase or decrease field intensity on the plate.

As seen on the other side of the stator former, there is an adjusting screw hole to adjust the bucking magnets.
The two holes on the other end of the tube is just for a magnet/spring retaining pin.

Brad

Thanks for the advice Verpies.  O0

So, if I've understood this post correctly a coil wound on a suitable former and placed where the adjustable PM's are housed we should be able to dial in the correct magnetic flux to see rotation?

Cheers Graham.

Tinman his latest magnet motor video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxwgEmFK5qA ) on his new channel ( https://www.youtube.com/@TheMagneticMotionLab/videos ) Magnetic Motion Lab.

His old channel is renamed in "Does It Work?" and can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/@69Atho/videos

Itsu

Quote from: web000x on 2025.01.17, 21:50:15
Have you ever heard of Methylene Blue?  It may be something worth looking into to help you recover your mind more fully.

Methylene Blue is neuroprotective and it tends to accumulate in cancerous tumors sensitizing them to other treatments. It turns the urine green, too.

So I would recommend it for treating cancers (together with phenbendazole and ivermectin) and for protecting the brain from an UPCOMING stroke or hypoxia, ...but not for neuroregeneration from a PAST stroke.

Quote from: verpies on 2025.02.12, 00:16:59
Methylene Blue is neuroprotective and it tends to accumulate in cancerous tumors sensitizing them to other treatments. It turns the urine green, too.

So I would recommend it for treating cancers (together with phenbendazole and ivermectin) and for protecting the brain from an UPCOMING stroke or hypoxia, ...but not for neuroregeneration from a PAST stroke.

It might not work by means of neuroregeneration, but the nootropic factor is pretty profound for anyone struggling with brain fog.

Dave

Quote from: web000x on 2025.02.12, 01:15:50
It might not work by means of neuroregeneration, but the nootropic factor is pretty profound for anyone struggling with brain fog.

Dave

Love this conversation probably needs it's own thread - thanks for the tips @verpies. Bit hard to tell others about protecting themselves from UPCOMING strokes  & hypoxia though. But if asked I have that info now.

I'll leave this here tonight.

https://youtu.be/oDnnc6H9nZo?si=a64HaqHS-yyPVh4m

Hope to have a little more to say tomorrow.
Cheers Grum.

Way to go Graham O0

almost there........

Itsu

Thanks Itsu.  O0

When Brad, TinMan dropped this bombshell a couple of years ago I think most of us were hoping that this was it? Why would he make such a bold statement, If not true?

Sadly the project quickly became bogged down and ground to a halt. Almost immediately Red flags began flying with even simple errors in the stl files for the Rotors being found and rectified.

Moving forward I wondered if the Rotors weren't actually the right size and Brad had just quickly cobbled something together to save face? My reasoning was that the greater spacing between the poles would make it easier to manipulate the interaction. 
Itsu very kindly drew up some new rotors at the maximum diameter that my Bambu Labs P1S was capable of. A new base and some high precision ceramic bearings finished the job.

So, here we are today. Thankfully the many hours spent tinkering with this device haven't been a total waste, it has helped immensely with my rehabilitation from the brain damage after the strokes.  I am using 10x10 mm N 52 pairs in 20 mm pockets. I have also tried one magnet and one Steel ball , ball seeing ball. The best effect seems to be placing squares of Transformer Steel over each pairing as they pass one another. Typically the video demonstration didn't play ball as I've had several full revolutions on many occasions.  My question is would a different angle of attack of the magnets change the situation? At the moment they meet each other head on. Is this something that could be done using a simulation?

Cheers Grum.

would love to see a simulator for these things. it could be done.  the sim magnets and their flux interactions would have to be modeled correctly.
mags

Graham,

you said:  "My question is would a different angle of attack of the magnets change the situation? At the moment they meet each other head on. Is this something that could be done using a simulation?"

Searching in google, i ran across this website: https://citeus.um.ac.id/jmest/vol9/iss1/21/ and its article about the "angle of attack" of magnets in a specific electric motor using a simulator.

Perhaps it contains some useful information for your setup.


Your magnets could be "offset" (thus changing their "angle of attack" IMO) by offsetting the gears teeth.
Not sure how that relates to the 44 degrees etc. mentioned in the article.


Attaching the PDF below.

Itsu

yes, magnets can be flawed with the magnetization not centered. on disk mags.  ive found offsets off center with 3/8 and 3/4 disk mags.  to avoid that, use smaller dia and longer mags.  gives a better pinpoint location of magnetic center.  then just find matching sets for field strength equalization.

mags

well, guys
I'll just leave this here for you to notice.

Graham,

angle of attack of the magnets, do you mean something like this where the 6 magnets are 44 degrees angled to the left:

Itsu

Thanks Itsu, that's exactly what I was thinking about. 

I wonder if Smudge has any thoughts, if the FEMM simulator might help in showing what the repulsion fields might look like? Before wasting any more time and energy.
I will try and sketch out a way of placing the magnets so that they can be swivelled around their own axis.

I still wonder if there was any merit to the initial claim or was it just a massive ' Red Herring ' ?

Cheers Graham.

Graham,

OK, i got you, so something like this, but then with some means to vary the angle of the left gear magnets:

Concerning the  ' Red Herring ', i guess it was, as there seems to be no such thing as an "all magnetic motor".

Itsu

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.10.10, 11:19:33
I wonder if Smudge has any thoughts, if the FEMM simulator might help in showing what the repulsion fields might look like? Before wasting any more time and energy.

Well here is my first try and I can't believe my results.  The first image is the FEMM layout where I have the closest magnets opposing each other to produce torque that turns the RH rotor CW and the LH rotor also CW.  NOTE THIS CANNOT BE TWO GEARS MESHING.  It needs some intermediate gear to couple the rotors.  The grid is 1mm increments and FEMM sotves for infinite dimension in the z direction but gives an answer for a given slice of this infinite length.  The z slice was set to 10mm.   

The second image is the torque in Nm for 60 degree movement on the RH rotor (FEMM cannot measure both torques but by symmetry the LH rotor would also obtain the same torque).  The torque is ever positive and that is astounding so I must go through it all and check.

Smudge

Good news.  I run the simulation under Lua control in 1 degree steps and my Lua program ran the RH rotor CW and the LH rotor CCW.  So it did simulate your wanted situation where the rotors are meshing gear wheels.  So my initial results show promise, but I now need to shift things to check the torque on the other rotor because this result is too good to be true.

OK here is the real result.  Having now got the torques for both rotors and correctly related them to the rotation direction I get the result shown in the image below.  The net result is zero for the gear meshed rotors.  This was a crude quick go with a coarse mesh as indicated by the noisy curves.  I can go a lot finer to see whether there is some small net torque for this particular arrangement. Then play with different PM angles (these were set to 44 degrees from the radius vector).

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2025.10.10, 17:01:28
Good news.  I run the simulation under Lua control in 1 degree steps and my Lua program ran the RH rotor CW and the LH rotor CCW.  So it did simulate your wanted situation where the rotors are meshing gear wheels.  So my initial results show promise, but I now need to shift things to check the torque on the other rotor because this result is too good to be true.

Good morning Smudge.

Well, well, well.... What a pity no one asked about doing a sim earlier on in this Saga. Your findings accurately describe what I see on my kitchen table. Basically the rotors will spin for several revolutions due to inertia but eventually stop. ( Zero torque )

Would there be any joy if I made a ' jockey wheel ' So that both rotors spin in the same direction?

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.10.11, 10:16:00
Would there be any joy if I made a ' jockey wheel ' So that both rotors spin in the same direction?

Did the sim this morning and the answer is no.  Don't know why these results are not noisy compared to the previous sim.
Edit.  FEMM can't sim the effect of magnet tilt into the z direction and that could offer something different.  Will think about that and come back. 
Smudge

I came across this magnetic motor kit on AliExpress:

It saves you the hassle of making your own from scratch it so you can modify and experiment.
It's only £60. Plus a small post fee. Sorry for the long URL, but Tinyurl didn't work.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005006005017534.html?af=449857&dp=7035_1760210828_e77209cf228ae8f41f3d1c3741d12564&cn=clk2k2QRGmRM3HteZJjkxBGW5WncMbwN4jMJ2v7ELd7oxd&Afref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.superoffers.com&af=449857&dp=7035_1760210828_e77209cf228ae8f41f3d1c3741d12564&sv1=affiliate&sv_campaign_id=449857&awc=7035_1760210828_e77209cf228ae8f41f3d1c3741d12564&aff_fcid=233f63dab84f4545910f50cf9d4b3a50-1760210829151-03211-b8uzCTzW&aff_fsk=b8uzCTzW&aff_platform=promotion&sk=b8uzCTzW&aff_trace_key=233f63dab84f4545910f50cf9d4b3a50-1760210829151-03211-b8uzCTzW&terminal_id=e04aba454ae5415fa4b23639097402c8&afSmartRedirect=y

So this does not look very promising after looking at Smudge his excellent simulations. (as could be expected for a magnet motor?).

Itsu

The trouble with magnet motors is that just about all of us were and still are fascinated with the invisible force of magnetism.

No matter your schooling or lack of it we cant help but feel like we are "almost " there .

This means that everybody has a weak spot of affection on the subject.

With so many hours by so many people one would imagine that if there was any real success it should have filtered down to the success that we all still hope is possible.

My own experience was with a bedini setup back in the late 90's where I charged some old batteries, swapped them around and repeated the exercise with the same success.

It took me a few months to admit that my assumptions were wrong and I embarrassed myself with others who were skeptical to begin with. At the same time there remained a lot of other claims of success and in the few weeks that I spent not knowing why I had success I encouraged others who also wanted to try it for themselves.

Ok the short story is that pulse charging and old battery does bring it back to life to a measurable degree.

The Bedini motors are a great art piece so they actually looked good . They still look good but why the heck do that have have a spinning wheel with a lot of mass yet only deal with milliamps of charge?

Back then when I looked at Bedinis other products, one was a green pen that you marked your cd's with and they sounded better!
He was also into crazy thick speaker wires even copper pipe!

The latest "bedini guy" is a perfect example of this as he reminds me of my self , his construction is beautiful and his theory is for the most part correct. His mistake is to use new batteries. This is good in away because he will not see the success that I had ,so it will hopefully reach its conclusion in the shorter term, all the same there is a lot of mass and many things to go wrong, least of all the noisy bearings. etc etc etc which keeps the game going for all.

I really wish that I am wrong about this and I dont want to upset the game that is in progress for many satisfied people who fund his work.

There is still no doubt in my mind that some have had success only to be the victim of the ephemeral nature of magnetization.

I think that Brad had some real success that did not turn out to be repeatable. The earths field is always present .
Again, I want to be wrong.

And Brad if you read this there are no hard feelings as we have all done it !

3Dmagnetics

QuoteThe latest "bedini guy" is a perfect example of this as he reminds me of my self , his construction is beautiful and his theory is for the most part correct. His mistake is to use new batteries. This is good in away because he will not see the success that I had ,so it will hopefully reach its conclusion in the shorter term, all the same there is a lot of mass and many things to go wrong, least of all the noisy bearings. etc etc etc which keeps the game going for all.

Fair enough, however I took a different approach.

As you implied, most replicators are simply trying to replicate a given device and not really understand it so much. The "getter done and see what happens" approach 99% of people use. However I noticed almost all replications are not real replications and deviate from the spirit, layout and process of the original device. In effect, they have set themselves up for failure from the start.

It's kind of strange imo. Let's recap, so you "built a device", and it didn't work, what's the next step?. For most there is no next step and they automatically apply the crab mentality where individuals try to prevent others from succeeding out of envy or insecurity, believing that if they can't achieve something, neither should anyone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality

However understanding psychology ergo myself I chose to move in the opposite direction.

After building countless devices and failing it always comes down to two choices imo. We can delude ourselves and pretend it cannot be done or acknowledge the fact our knowledge base and perspective is outdated or flawed, ergo it's not them it's me. This was my turning point and the moment I truly acknowledged the fact I didn't know what I was doing everything changed.

In fact, it was Viktor Schauberger who gave me my new direction. When Viktor was asked how it should be done his response was, "Exactly in the opposite way that it is done today!". At which point the way forward is obvious, stop trying to blindly follow others.

Here is the methodology...
1)pick any process, device or technology.
2)research how the concept works and the supposed end result.
3)now try to reproduce the same result but you cannot use any conventional thinking or method to achieve it.
4)it must be new and unique or you go back to #2.

You see, #3 is where literally everyone fails. They can only repeat what others have told them or their mind goes blank.

Here is a clue, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/be-the-best-learner-you-can-be/202402/how-do-people-learn
"When you learn something, there is a change. Change may be the central idea of learning, for what is learning if not a change in what we know or do?"

In effect, people want change as new technology but are not willing to change themselves or learn something new to get it. They want change without any change which is a direct contradiction. Then after their refusal to change or learn they blame others ie. the crab mentality.

Graham,

i was pondering on your suggestion on how to make the 6 magnets on your gears variable and came up with something like this, see below.

I sliced up your fixed gear in basically 3 parts being a gear plate, a magnetholder plate and magnetholders (6).

This way, the 6 magnets can be adjusted slightly to and from the gap and turned both up or down from the now fixed position.

Also, the magnetholder plate can be adjusted compared to the gears, so the magnets can be (if angled) being moved in the face to face position.


Is this something you had in mind?

Suggestions welcome.

Regards Itsu

3D magnetics

QuoteBack then when I looked at Bedinis other products, one was a green pen that you marked your cd's with and they sounded better!
He was also into crazy thick speaker wires even copper pipe!

This is comical and makes perfect sense to any real inventor or creative mind,  ;D.

1)one was a green pen that you marked your cd's with and they sounded better!
Easy, anytime we rotate a plastic CD the tiny brush inside which wipes the CD creates static or moving charges. This doesn't effect the laser but the laser electronics creating small distortions. The marker probably used an anti-static fluid to reduce the unwanted effects. This is quite common in very high end audio systems.

2)He was also into crazy thick speaker wires even copper pipe!
Again super easy, so at higher frequencies and power levels the dielectric plastic over smaller wires acts as a dampening capacitance. The larger the diameter of the conductor ie. area,  the lower the surface charge density at HF and resistance. Of course to amateurs who like to generalize and use bulk/lump sum theory this means nothing.

In fact, I know many hard core audio people who are all in on maximum sound quality. One friend with a $30K system did have speaker wire as thick as your thumb and swore by it. The sound quality was like nothing I had ever heard before and was almost unreal. For example, on CD music a man is playing a guitar and we can hear his fingers move over each tiny bump or turn of the wire winding on the larger guitar strings. In many ways the sound reproduction was better than actually being present as the music was being played.

Here absolute quality is more important than quantity.

As i happen to have the same programs as mentioned in the attached PDF some posts of my ago, i tried to analyze / simulate the forces / flux density etc. of 2 opposing 10x20mm N52 magnets Graham is using.

I don't think they are of any use to us here as they are just two static magnets, but i will still show them here anyway.

More study into these programs are required  :)

Itsu

Just a gentle reminder that the initial TinMan design had a core in between both rotors to modulate the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

The core is a crucial part of the design. He then allegedly found a way to do it without an active coil then got paranoid and dissipated into the abyss.

FEMM simulations, also confirmed by Smudge at the time, showed that there was a plausible COP > 1 when you are dealing with fields that are at 90 degrees angle of each other.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4594.msg110628#msg110628

But I sadly stopped pursuing it due to the complexity and high currents involved. It seems like Tinman might have been onto the same thing by energizing a coil which its field angle is at 90 degrees of the magnet allowing you to decouple the coil from the movement of the magnets.

Quote from: broli on 2025.10.14, 18:19:45
Just a gentle reminder that the initial TinMan design had a core in between both rotors to modulate the field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ps9AUKzsKfg

The core is a crucial part of the design. He then allegedly found a way to do it without an active coil then got paranoid and dissipated into the abyss.

FEMM simulations, also confirmed by Smudge at the time, showed that there was a plausible COP > 1 when you are dealing with fields that are at 90 degrees angle of each other.
https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4594.msg110628#msg110628

But I sadly stopped pursuing it due to the complexity and high currents involved. It seems like Tinman might have been onto the same thing by energizing a coil which its field angle is at 90 degrees of the magnet allowing you to decouple the coil from the movement of the magnets.

I didn't use a coil but did have a core but I think the hojo has more potential than this design though which is why I'm exploring it again.

I'm glad to see a little more debate on this topic. And no Dear Broli, I had not forgotten about the ' gate ' as Brad termed it.....  In conversation I was told that his device was a self running machine. ( without any electrical aid )

I'm curious about the drawing you have posted, re attached. The original design has the magnets placed in opposition, directly opposite each other. Is this something you have been considering ( altering the attack angle? )

Cheers Graham.

Like this.

The steel piece should end at the centre line so as the two magnets pull towards the steel until the end of the steel when they will push away 8)

I wish it was that simple Mike. 😄

I have tried about every conceivable method... apart from trying the magnets at different angles of attack.

Cheers Graham.  O0

Here's a selection of Brad's  ' sure fire' over unity devices.

https://youtu.be/XK3vYAIjd7s?si=EdBOqjsfH6psgJrK

https://youtu.be/D_zbggaXR7k?si=g2Ebse38ZALIl1H2

https://youtu.be/LMGcFtH18hE?si=uoDJy_AQ_WaNdZfs

https://youtu.be/Hn17OKYr_SU?si=Ol7UgfbeLE_RfZ27

https://youtu.be/Bp8_iVQIYwE?si=VMB-gUIzP2qElJ_4

https://youtu.be/BIpCVLvieq0?si=vOLNFhmjeB11U3do

https://youtu.be/w-vrwzcZmBw?si=1GJJpy2xj7P70m1I

https://youtu.be/KzYr-98j1SQ?si=jTT1oZG5wl73xxpM

Perhaps some inspiration could be gained??

Cheers Graham.

Quote from: Grumage on 2025.10.15, 18:48:32
I wish it was that simple Mike. 😄

I have tried about every conceivable method... apart from trying the magnets at different angles of attack.

Cheers Graham.  O0

Not quite Graham.

My drawing is only showing one magnet in each "wheel", there should be more.

It is a form of vee gate, the transformer steel is just one laminate.

If you place a north pole on one side and a north on the other they will be attracted and not repulse until they both come to the end of the steel when they will push hard apart.

As the two magnets start to push apart the next magnets on the wheel are now pulling in at the other end of the steel "strip", the strip has to be long enough that the magnets are shielded from one another.

As the steel strip and the magnets distance reduces the force of pull becomes greater, until again the magnets reach the other end of the steel strip and push hard apart.

Just my two pence, not tried it, have a lot on my plate.

Keep well

Here is my work so far.  The first image is my FEMM arrangement with the Fe plate at its innermost position.  The next image shows the plate at its outermost position, that is a movement of 4mm.  Next is the torque v. angle for the two positions.  This is just one torque, it has to be doubled for both rotations geared together.  The average torque in each case is small, it would show as zero on these charts.  Next I show the results for the Fe plate being suddenly pulled out 4mm at the 40 degree angle (and of course pushed back in at the 60 degree angle).  The average torque is now non zero, so the machine would keep running with this Fe pumping action.  My next step is to see whether the energy consumed for a single in-out pump is less than the energy gained from the 60 degree rotation.

Smudge

It turns out "pushing" the Fe plate back in every 60 degrees is actually a strong pull in, you gain energy.  Pulling the plate out at the appropriate points requires little energy.  Summing the energy gained at pull in with that gained from rotation tells me this machine is capable of 10 watts output at 6000 RPM.  I need to go through all this again working with a finer mesh and checking everything.  One thing I got wrong, I actually did the runs using the opposite rotations yielding negative torque, but simply changed the signs for reversed torque.  But that screwed up my pull out at 40 degrees, it is actually at 20 degrees with the correct rotation.  But the pull out force is negligible compared with the pull in force.

Smudge

Quote from: Smudge on 2025.10.17, 09:14:07
Here is my work so far.  The first image is my FEMM arrangement with the Fe plate at its innermost position.  The next image shows the plate at its outermost position, that is a movement of 4mm.  Next is the torque v. angle for the two positions.  This is just one torque, it has to be doubled for both rotations geared together.  The average torque in each case is small, it would show as zero on these charts.  Next I show the results for the Fe plate being suddenly pulled out 4mm at the 40 degree angle (and of course pushed back in at the 60 degree angle).  The average torque is now non zero, so the machine would keep running with this Fe pumping action.  My next step is to see whether the energy consumed for a single in-out pump is less than the energy gained from the 60 degree rotation.

Smudge

You have drawn it better than me, but that is what I was trying to explain.

The angle changes as the wheels rotate.

Well I have to report that on checking everything the system is not OU.  It takes energy to do the in-out move and that consumes more energy than that obtained from the rotation.  Still looking into other possibilities but not hopeful.

Smudge

Quote from: Itsu on 2025.10.13, 20:17:33
As i happen to have the same programs as mentioned in the attached PDF some posts of my ago, i tried to analyze / simulate the forces / flux density etc. of 2 opposing 10x20mm N52 magnets Graham is using.

EM Works ?

Yes.

Quote from: Smudge on 2025.10.18, 14:10:45
Well I have to report that on checking everything the system is not OU.  It takes energy to do the in-out move and that consumes more energy than that obtained from the rotation.  Still looking into other possibilities but not hopeful.

Smudge

Thanks for this!