Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[rotorhead]

This thread used to be all about the OC MPMM. It has now been completely derailed. Enter at your own risk.

http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687

[Pirate88179]

I don't believe this will work, but then, what do I really know?

Bill

[Nastrand2000]

It may work with 3 or more rotors, but this is basically the perendev setup with a twist. Good luck...I wish you the best, but I don't trust sims.
Jason

[rotorhead]

There wasn't much interest when I first started this thread, but there wasn't much to show either. Just a few graphics. Now someone has taken serious interest in the idea and is actually building something. Maybe you'd like to take another look.

The concept: http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59687
The construction: http://freeenergytrackers.ning.com/photo/photo/listForContributor?screenName=3pgkrtdln76us

[4Tesla]

Did the device work?

4Tesla

[rotorhead]

If you take the time to follow the links, look at the graphics and photos, and read some of the text, you'll see that it's still in the early stages of construction. A lot more work needs to be done.

Just posting here in case one of the more gifted builders here wants to try building something like this. The more, the merrier.

[Koen1]

Looks like a magnetic "gearbox", with the rotating magnets and larger wheel acting as cogwheels...

And like a cogwheel version, it doesn't look like any more energy (rotation) can be delivered to the larger wheel that was not put in by the smaller ones...
In this case we have magnetostatic friction where the cogwheels have mechanical friction...

What makes you think it could be OU so that it can power itself despite friction and resistance?

[rotorhead]

One of the reasons I posted here was because I know there are some people here skilled in the simulation arts. I would dearly love to see a detailed sim of this thing in action. It might help to determine feasibility. In the meantime, trial-and-error validation continues ...

[Koen1]

Excuse me, are you saying you have not actually done any simulations? Not even extensive mental simulations?
So you just had an idea, and you think instead of doing some simulations and calculations to see if it might indeed work,
spending lots of time and money on building something of which you have no clue if it will work is the best way to go?
Well of curse if you have the time and the money to waste then by all means do so...
But the design seems quite straightforward to me, and I don't see it working at over unity... Now that's only the mental simulation
and related quick mathematical sim of course, but in general I have found that my mental sims tend to turn out very close if not identical to computer simulations of the magnetic fields...

Hey, but if you get it to work, please do post!

[rotorhead]

Koen1,

I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.

Your response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have. I'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.

And please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.

[Koen1]

I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.

Okay, okay, but if you have done extensive mental simulations based on up to date knowledge and understanding of electromagnetic theory, and those have convinced you, then why not just build it? Unless you're actually not convinced, but you're only hoping that it may work...

Unfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.

Didn't you just say you have not seen anything that indicates it will not work? Is that not the same as having no reason to believe it might not work?
Seems to me like youre saying "I believe it may work. But I am not prepared to place an order at a machine shop, because I have no reason to believe it may work."
And that sounds like a form of contradiction to me...

Your response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have.

Now that's funny because your own contradictory comments indicate to me that you have yourself done a lot less investigation on pm devices in general including this "technology" than I have.

I'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.

If there were evidence of such a setup working, then it would have been built, patented, and probably marketed or at least revealed long ago. After all, this is a very simple setup. There would and should be tons of evidence...

More interestingly, what makes you think that it would rotate using less energy than you put in?
I can see how it may rotate, but I fail to see where the energy gain would be...
Seems to me the Takahashi motor still has a better chance...

And please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.

Don't see why I'd quote maths... Mathematical proof is very nice if one is trying to build a firm wall of evidence, and can be very usefull during certain stages of OU device design, but maths is not everything... I prefer logical reasoning and mental simulation. If that checks out, maths might be nice to further substantiate the proofs. At this point in development I would decide whether to go for computer simulation, or go for construction.
Keep in mind that computer simulations also have their limitations. Many magnetics sims only simulate the magnetostatic fields, and of course all are based on the theory of magnetics to a degree. Most sims can simulate the behaviour of magnets and mag.fields according to the Maxwellian formulae, on a macro scale. Quantum effects related to magnetism, like spin effects etc, are not included in most sims. Similar to the fact that electrodynamics sims most often only model Maxwellian macro events well, but don't do so well for quantumelectrodynamics at all.
So what I'm basically saying is that the simulations you are looking for are all directly based on the mathematics you seem to be somewhat wary of.
Sims are very much mathematical constructs. Real physical magnets are not.

Point I am trying to make: if you don't want mathematical proof, but empirical evidence, then you don't really want the sim, you want the prototype.
Might just turn out that the prototype works where the sim does not.

[rotorhead]

I HAVE done "mental" simulations. I have also performed some trivial experiments with magnets to convince myself the idea is not completely without merit. So far, I have not seen anything to indicate the idea is unworkable.

Okay, okay, but if you have done extensive mental simulations based on up to date knowledge and understanding of electromagnetic theory, and those have convinced you, then why not just build it? Unless you're actually not convinced, but you're only hoping that it may work...

I didn't say I was convinced it would work. I said I was convinced the idea has merit. It appears to be a new approach that I haven't seen anywhere else. It uses both magnetic attraction and repulsion simultaneously to provide rotational forces.

Unfortunately, I do not have access to any software capable of simulating the mechanism shown or the knowledge how to use it properly. I also lack the equipment to build something of this nature and I'm not willing to contract with a local machine shop unless I have some reason to believe it might possibly work.

Didn't you just say you have not seen anything that indicates it will not work? Is that not the same as having no reason to believe it might not work?
Seems to me like youre saying "I believe it may work. But I am not prepared to place an order at a machine shop, because I have no reason to believe it may work."
And that sounds like a form of contradiction to me...

You are correct. I don't currently have enough faith in the idea to go down to the machine shop and invest a significant amount to have the thing designed and built. I'm bringing it up here in hopes someone can show me some additional evidence one way or the other.

Your response indicates to me that you have done less investigation on this technology than I have.

Now that's funny because your own contradictory comments indicate to me that you have yourself done a lot less investigation on pm devices in general including this "technology" than I have.

You may very well have done more investigation on pm devices than I have. But you haven't offered me any evidence why this type of system won't work. Show me something. I have set up some magnets, they do rotate on their own as claimed, if rotation is stopped in the correct orientation the combined forces of attraction and repulsion are applied in the direction of rotation. Is there enough force to keep things rotating? I don't know.

But it looks more promising to me than the Torbay Motor ever did. Definitely better than the Lego Motor or the screws on PVC thing a while ago.

I'm looking for additional evidence, not opinions.

If there were evidence of such a setup working, then it would have been built, patented, and probably marketed or at least revealed long ago. After all, this is a very simple setup. There would and should be tons of evidence...

More interestingly, what makes you think that it would rotate using less energy than you put in?
I can see how it may rotate, but I fail to see where the energy gain would be...
Seems to me the Takahashi motor still has a better chance...

Maybe. But most motors I am aware of use only attraction or repulsion, or alternate them, not both simultaneously like this one.

And please don't quote some mathematical formulas to me. If we listened to the math, there would be no need for a site like this, and no hope whatsoever for any overunity devices. The math should reflect reality, not the other way around.

Don't see why I'd quote maths... Mathematical proof is very nice if one is trying to build a firm wall of evidence, and can be very usefull during certain stages of OU device design, but maths is not everything... I prefer logical reasoning and mental simulation. If that checks out, maths might be nice to further substantiate the proofs. At this point in development I would decide whether to go for computer simulation, or go for construction.
Keep in mind that computer simulations also have their limitations. Many magnetics sims only simulate the magnetostatic fields, and of course all are based on the theory of magnetics to a degree. Most sims can simulate the behaviour of magnets and mag.fields according to the Maxwellian formulae, on a macro scale. Quantum effects related to magnetism, like spin effects etc, are not included in most sims. Similar to the fact that electrodynamics sims most often only model Maxwellian macro events well, but don't do so well for quantumelectrodynamics at all.
So what I'm basically saying is that the simulations you are looking for are all directly based on the mathematics you seem to be somewhat wary of.
Sims are very much mathematical constructs. Real physical magnets are not.

Point I am trying to make: if you don't want mathematical proof, but empirical evidence, then you don't really want the sim, you want the prototype.
Might just turn out that the prototype works where the sim does not.

It's possible a simulation might help me see something I hadn't considered previously. I'd be interested in some of the force calculations anyway, to see if they add up.

Hey, it looked like a new and different approach. I just thought I'd see if anyone else was interested.

[Low-Q]

rotorhead:

Is it possible for you to show me the gif-files in this thread? I cannot find it in your link. A few pictures, but not the animations.

EDIT: It might be easier to understand how the motor are suppose to work, and easier to show why it will/will not work.

br.

Vidar

[Koen1]

I didn't say I was convinced it would work. I said I was convinced the idea has merit. It appears to be a new approach that I haven't seen anywhere else. It uses both magnetic attraction and repulsion simultaneously to provide rotational forces.

Oh I'm sorry for busting your balls before, I misunderstood. I thought you were convinced it had to work, didn't realise you're only pondering the possible merits of cooperative attraction- and repulsion-effects in pm motors. Apologies.

But it looks more promising to me than the Torbay Motor ever did. Definitely better than the Lego Motor or the screws on PVC thing a while ago.

You're right there.

Maybe. But most motors I am aware of use only attraction or repulsion, or alternate them, not both simultaneously like this one.

Indeed. Although I have also heard a few 'inventors' claim that using only the principle of attraction somehow gives more output than using rejection in pm motors...
On the other hand, if that were really the case, we should have several attraction-based motors out there already, and I don't know of any attraction-based OU devices at present.
I'm not entirely sure why using attraction and rejection simultaneously would produce different or stronger effects, but it may be worth experimenting with.

It's possible a simulation might help me see something I hadn't considered previously. I'd be interested in some of the force calculations anyway, to see if they add up.

Makes sense. Unfortunately I can't help you with the sim software. I know FEMM and a few others, but I don't know any sim programs that can actually simulate the mechanics as well as the magnetics and then calculate overall forces. Sorry.

[rotorhead]

rotorhead:

Is it possible for you to show me the gif-files in this thread? I cannot find it in your link. A few pictures, but not the animations.

EDIT: It might be easier to understand how the motor are suppose to work, and easier to show why it will/will not work.

br.

Vidar

http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-fast.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-slow.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-Frame1.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-RotatingMagnetDetail.GIF
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/StatorRotor.jpg
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/Pieces.jpg
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/RotatingMagnets.gif
http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/MagnetRelationships.gif
http://imgbolt.com/public/26428/WheelWithNotes.jpg


There were also some earlier animations.

http://imgbolt.com/public/26167/Orbo-fast.gif
http://imgbolt.com/public/26168/Orbo-slow.gif

That's all I can find at the moment.