top

New design ideas

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page Previous  1, 2   Page 2 of 2

Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:39 pm PostPost subject:
Pageygeeza
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 12

Reply with quote

I know i've not built anything yet, but after a lot of deliberation and design changes, i should be able to make a working model of a Magnetic Motor soon!!! Very Happy

Only 2 moving parts and if they work as well as I think, I could make it modular.

Btw, i'm using a cam method.

News to follow...........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:50 pm PostPost subject:
chrisbis
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 279

Reply with quote

Pageygeeza,

Did u ever make a working model Geeza?
_________________
underunity rules till proven overwise!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:22 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

(moving this conversation out of Racho's thread)

Harvey wrote:

... now back to the WhipMag - we need to trade the potential energy from one force with the potential energy of the other force. Now I used gravity as one force, and magnetic repulsion as the other. This can be simulated in the horizontal plane (removing gravity from the equation) and placing different staging of attractive, and repulsive sets on our apparatus. The two forces must not be aligned so one of the four must have the magnetic dipole turned 90 to the opposing force as this will offset that portion of the field providing a separation between the two nonconservative halves - an asymmetry.

Oscillator (Horizontal Pendulum):
So, on the top of the platter we have a magnet in attraction to a stator. The stator must as long as the platter diameter so that its force will seen as uniform across the entire side. Perhaps some magnetic tape that is truly N on one side and S on the other. Let the B vector face the platter. The attractor must swivel so that it is always facing that strip regardless of the platter rotation. This will simulate our gravity. Below and outside the bottom side of the platter, we have a spot stator magnet with the B vector facing the axle (the platter must be thick enough that the top and bottom fields do not interfere much). On the bottom of the platter, we have a magnet latched so that it's B vector is tangent to the platter - the precise size and shape need to be researched for optimum effect. That magnet must be rotated 180 and latched to ensure the B vector is anti-parallel when positioned @ 90 platter rotation while in the approaching mode.

Circular:
In this case, we do not need to rotate and latch the rotor magnet. But we do need a means to switch the gravitational simulator from side to side. One way this could be done by having our tape strips mounted to flip-boards which turns 180 when rotor mounted magnets are midpoint between the two flip boards. Let's say we are looking at this from the top down. X is left and right, Y is top and bottom and Z is height off the table - origin (0,0,0) is at the axle. Our flip boards will be like a ruler laying on edge. One will be positioned at say x = -3, and will run from -3y to +3y with z being the width of our tape and the thickness of our platter, y being the length of our tape and x being where the board is located. Another board of opposite polarity will be located at x = +3. The two boards flip on their y axis right after our little gravity simulation magnet on the platter passes midpoint. Resist the urge to flip this at the closest point - that will defeat the purpose of straining the field and converting that energy to potential in the other field - also, we want to flip the boards at the point of least amount of interaction.

Note too that in this case, another spot magnet is added on the other side. So one would be at -3x, 0y and one would be at +3x, 0y. Both have the B vector facing the platter axle. Dummy weights may be needed to counter balance the platter for high speed operation. So the energy in, is that required to flip the boards. The energy out is that provided by the field separation and conversion.

This would only be a proof of concept apparatus. A lot more work would be needed to really exploit this. But if the gains were sufficient, it would represent a fully magneto-mechanical rotational system. Limits would be seen on the flip time which needs to occur in about 5 or less of platter travel. So at 300 RPM you can see that trying to flip the boards becomes an inertial hurdle. Also, while the gravity simulation magnet riding on the platter is free to rotate, there is some action that may occur during the flips (this is one reason the flip must occur slightly after it has passed midpoint). As this magnet passes midpoint, it will have a magnetic moment that will make it want to turn 180 - to prevent that we flip the boards. But perhaps the thing to do is let it flip and keep the boards stationary - hmmm, simpler that way eh? Perhaps then we can have two and make the system balanced - and while we're at it, add another repulsion magnet so no dummy's are needed. Yep, forget the flip-boards, put the WhiPMag stator magnets on the rotor on one side, and the rotor magnets on the other. Should self run. Shocked

Cool


Still trying to digest much of what you said here. I think I've got most of it, but some drawings might help.

One point, though: I have doubts whether or not it's even possible to simulate the behavior of gravitational forces using permanent magnets.

How can you use a dipolar field to simulate a monopole field? You might be able to do it with some sophisticated controlled electromagnetic environment. Even something as simple as the force vs. distance curves are waaaay too different.

If we are going to play a gravitational field against a magnetic field, I think we should do exactly that ... don't try to simulate it. The MAP is a good platform to do that.

My original WhipMag thoughts and designs were intended to play the imbalance of magnetic forces against "inertial forces" (a pretty close analog to gravitational forces). I still don't see why that couldn't work.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:36 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I'll see what I can do on the drawing - I could model it in that program we were playing around with if I could remember the name of it.

For this thought experiment, let's remove gravity from our equation - say it is in deep space:

Picture a long strip of magnetic tape with N facing the WhiPMag Axel and S facing away. The strip represents the Earth. Now picture one of the 834Dia magnet assembly attached to the whiPMag rotor at its edge so that the S faces the strip at all times - the attraction simulates gravity insomuch as it is always in the same vector regardless where on the wheel you are. The magnet strength is selected so the force is similar to gravity, giving the same acceleration of 9.8 m / sec. Gravitational strength is defined at 1/r and the same is true for magnets in close proximity, 1/r. But, the Earth's r is 4,000 miles and our magnet's r is . . . well you get the ratio. So the change in gravitational force over 3 inches is nil while the change in magnetic force over 3 inches is great. But I think a strength and distance ratio could be found to give little variance over the sweep.

Now, when two parallel strips are used and the same pole faces the rotor axle (N in our example) then one will push and the other will pull and the field will be relatively homogeneous between the two strips (like a slice of a Helmholtz field). And if we have two 834Dia assemblies then we have just doubled our simulated gravitational force, but it is balanced on the rotor. Now it doesn't matter where the rotor is positioned, the 834Dia's will flip to be in attraction to the nearest strip! The Gravitational minimum is clearly when these are closest to each other, the 834Dia's and the strips.

Ok that takes care of the simulated gravity portion. Now we must separate those field interactions from the next magnet pairs with some distance in the Z plane. ( the rotor lays in the XY plane). So, a thick rotor is necessary - not sure how thick, but far enough that the strip and the spot (disc) magnet (like the one I used in my MAP video) don't interact much. I envisage that the strip and spot (disc) both have the same polar orientation, so the worst that would happen if they did interact would be an increased gravitational minimum. The two rotor magnets that interact with the two spot (disc) magnets are oriented the same and have their B vector turned 90 to the spot (disc) B vector when at the gravitational minimum. Just like in the MAP video. These remain fixed in the rotor, the spot (disc) magnets remain fixed as stators, the strips remain fixed as Gravitational static field and the only things that move are the 834Dia and the rotors.

The Spot to rotor magnet attraction and repulsion is asymmetric in each quadrant of rotor motion, but conservative as a whole. However, because the gravitational simulation force is only conservative for half of the rotation we are able to trade energy from the one field into the other during the asymmetric periods in a gainful manner. Inertia is necessary for both this device and the MAP because it is traded for gravitational potential energy as the 834Dia is pulled away from the strips. This action is a combination of inertia and the asymmetric push from the spot (disc) magnet.

If the MAP has demonstrated a conversion between magnetic and gravitation energy potentials (and I am absolutely certain this is the case) then it is clear that we have a means to extract that energy from the conservative fields. The proposed device above, shows a way to do this using magnetic fields in a horizontal (gravitationally inert) plane.

Hope that helps.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 19, 2010 3:46 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
I'll see what I can do on the drawing - I could model it in that program we were playing around with if I could remember the name of it.


Harvey,

The simple and free CAD software I was using before was eMachineShop.

eMachineShop
http://www.emachineshop.com/machine-shop/Download/page100.html


There is also FEMM, the free 2D magnetics simulation software used by Korkskrew to calculate the fields and forces used in his Javascript simulation.

FEMM
http://www.femm.info/wiki/HomePage


According to Al, some magnetics capabilities have been recently added to Phun. I haven't gotten around to trying that yet.

Phun
http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Home


I have a hard time with anything graphic, even with simple tools. I've tried some more sophisticated SW, but all it does is confuse me.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Apr 20, 2010 12:12 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Thanx OC, I'll get on it.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:50 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ok, there is a bug in the Emachine program.

While I was able to work around the materials addition and subtractions issues, and get a close approximation as to where I was going with this, the program failed to work properly when I attempted to apply the extraction areas for the bottom side magnets. When switching to Bottom view and applying any tool, the origin shifts to the outside of the part instead of the center where it belongs. After dealing with that I decided to learn FEMM.

FEMM is very similar to Vizimag in function, but I find Vizimag more user friendly. I've only just begun in FEMM but like Vizimag it is going to have a serious limitation with regard to Z depth - it is only a 2D slice from what I can tell.

One approach, is to model the top transactions as one set of forces and the bottom transactions as another. Then it is just a matter of vector addition of those two forces and applying them to the torque of the rotor mathematically. If the net torque is > 0 for 360 then it will be proven mathematically.

The Phun program would be interesting to play with, but I have already identified stress tensors in the fundamental programming that allow OU action even in the non-magnetic version. So we cannot really put any trust in that for much. Also, the nature of my proposed device depends on a 3D separation that none of these 3 magnet programs can offer.

So this puts me in Google Sketchup or Autocad or the like for a 3D model.
I could give you 3 views in Visio if you like, but I don't know if that will tell you what you need.

Still working on it.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 13, 2010 7:02 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I'm learning more about FEMM each day. I don't know yet how to get the force tables exported or how to automate the LUA but when I do I will try and model the Horizontal model.

For now I have been doing other things, learning while I can.

BTW, did you guys see the updates that Jcmax did on his site for the M.A.P. (he calls it a Pendusmot, which I think is mean in a derogatory way)? Here is is post:
http://fizzx.org/viewtopic.php?p=10772#10772

and the link it goes to:
http://jcmax.pbworks.com/PenduSMOT

He clearly corroborates what I have been saying and then hides in in an arbitrary 5 loss he plugs in out of thin air when he reverses the rotor magnet - LOL. My calculations show that the gravitational potential energy is 10 times that required to flip the rotor magnet but to be fully effective, a pendulum latch and release should be put in place during the reversal period that would take some energy to operate also. The energy is there for the taking, the question is how do we capitalize on it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 13, 2010 5:19 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:

The energy is there for the taking, the question is how do we capitalize on it?


Actually 2 questions.

1) Is there enough energy to capitalize on?
2) How can we catitalize on it?

Sure missed you with all that RA downtime. Are you getting back in the groove now?

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 14, 2010 3:02 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi OC,

Yeah, I'm trying but I can't just abandon those guys until we solidify something. RA has everyone upset - she keep claiming that she has proof coming but it never materializes. I did a detailed AC analysis and found about 80% of the power she thought was coming from outside to be coming from inside the circuit. The other 20% could still be inside, but we don't have contiguous data to prove or disprove it. She went behind our backs and upset Tektronix and they pulled the equipment which stalled the tests we were doing - I think we were getting too close to the truth. Now she is borrowing lab space from M T E Khan at a SA University claiming that they are going to validate her technology but in private correspondence he tells us he hasn't agreed to anything yet. He said that she must get his permission before posting anything relating to him and that he hasn't seen her for over two weeks. It's really a big mess, she attacked us in the forums to the point that the Admins put a gag order on any of us talking about any of the tests the other is working on essentially severing the team into two parts and preventing any open collaboration. Needless to say it is going nowhere fast and I am turning my attention and time elsewhere - like Robert Brooks stuff and my own Big Coil simulations.

In answer to your questions:

1. The extra energy is that portion of gravitational potential energy manifested in the increased elevation of the pendulum. Theoretically this amounts to the mass of the rotor magnet at a given height where the energy is applied on a curve from tangential at first to orthogonal at the bottom of the swing. It is a standard pendulum equation.

2. We need to stop the pendulum at the top of the swing and allow the magnet to flip 180. I suggest we allow gravity to do that for us while the pendulum is locked. This needs to be a feather action latch and the magnet also needs to be latched after the flip. Another factor is the actual magnet needs to have a low MOI. So a long radially magnetized cylinder of small diameter would be best for speed of flipping, but the field spread may not work, I don't know. The math I did, used the 834dia as the rotor magnet using its MOI. The gain was 10x the energy needed to flip this in the hang time (last degree of travel and stall) without latching. With latching, the ratio is even better. To be of value, we need significant mass in that magnet and the necessary field strength proportionate to that mass. An array of these could be strung together I suppose and the gains summed up.

Or, if we can get the rotary version figured out, it may be another approach. There is something attractive to the fact that gravity accelerates all mass the same though.

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum