PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2026-01-29, 10:09:13
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
Author Topic: Where i'm at 1+1=3  (Read 97681 times)

Group: Mad Scientist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1105
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

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 516
well, guys
I'll just leave this here for you to notice.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695
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
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695


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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
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
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
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.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
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
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 557


Buy me some coffee


---------------------------
Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd  plate?
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695

So this does not look very promising after looking at Smudge his excellent simulations. (as could be expected for a magnet motor?).

Itsu

   
Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 591
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 !
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3064
3Dmagnetics
Quote
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.

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.


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695
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
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3064
3D magnetics
Quote
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!

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.


---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4695

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
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 372
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.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1946
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.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar
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.


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3914


Buy me a beer
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)


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar
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


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Renaissance Man
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3099


Buy me a cigar


---------------------------
Nanny state ? Left at the gate !! :)
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3914


Buy me a beer
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


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2332
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
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2026-01-29, 10:09:13