top

My idea for Steorn's device.

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Steorn Technology Two: Permanent Magnet Motor (Only Permanent Magnets) Goto page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2

Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:57 pm PostPost subject: My idea for Steorn's device.
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

OK, I've pruned the list of statements Sean has said over the last month or two, (the full list can be found on RB's site, link is in the sticky in the General forum), and come up with the statements which I think are the most significant. Please note that comments in italics are not direct quotes from Sean:

Quote:
1) We had to break open the wind generators and started playing around with them, looking at, (amongst other things), the positioning of the magnets and testing the outputs – one of these configurations produced some strange results…

2) Certain configurations gave calculated results greater than 100% around a closed loop.

3) The core technology is the ability to construct certain magnetic fields, (using permanent magnets).

4) In many ways our technology is like going up and down a hill, (a magnet moves into a magnetic field and out of that field and in doing so gains enery).

5) When other magnetic materials travel around a closed trajectory within these fields a non-zero energy sum is achieved.

6) For a fixed trajectory travel around a closed loop in one direction will gain energy and travel around the loop in the other direction will results in an energy loss.

7) There is a fixed loss and a fixed gain for a specific closed loop. For a closed loop, one direction around the loop will see a gain in energy and the travel in the reverse direction will see a net loss.

8 ) In some parts of it's movement around the field, stopping and starting at the same place, it will gain energy and in some parts it will lose energy. The gain is larger than the loss.

9) As stated the technology does self sustain, and hence output is connected to input.

10) The trajectories themselves may not be a simple circular loop, they can involve complex paths through the field. Probably a 3 dimensional path.

11) Different configurations get different results[OU numbers of 130%, 285%, and 400%]. These could relate to the number of magnets used to create the fixed field.

12) The kind of magnetic fields we are looking at here are very low level.

13) Yes we use Flux3D - no Flux3D does not produce the same results.

14) When we are testing we are only interested in the energy changes due to magnetic interaction. Hence we compensate for friction, mechanical baselines etc.This allows us (in a test enviroment) to see the true effect of magnetic interaction only.

15) [Power produced, in Watts] depends on the specific configuration [of the device]. Possibly due to the number of magnets used?

16) Sean has said the power output of the device is 0.5 watts per cubic centimeter.

17) The original statement is correct as is your modified version of it:
<The core technology is the ability to construct certain magnetic fields (using permanent magnets) that when other magnetic materials travel around a closed trajectory within these fields a greater-than-zero energy sum is achieved >

18 ) Sean said that one of the magnetic configurations contained 6 magnets.

19) Sean possibly mentioned that the device depended on the moving magnet entering a magnetic field and exiting in another direction.

20) Just Maybe: Hi Sean You may have missed my earlier post, <The photos of the rig show two test rig shafts at 90 degrees to each other. The video of the test rig shows one horizontal and one vertical test rigs shaft. What is the significance of this? >
Sean: Hi Just Maybe, Yes two arms are required to develop a full energy map - the arms are the same - more detail on this in the next few parts. Thanks, Sean

21) Sean confirmed the LEMA was not part of the device.


Given the information above here is my guess at what Steorn's device looks like:


Take an Octahedron. (<click the word Octahedron if you're not sure what it looks like!) This is the basic shape of the device, (you can make one yourself out of blu-tac and matches Smile). Put it down on a surface so it is resting on one of its triangular faces. If you look down on it it kind of looks like a star of David shape with some extra lines connecting the points. Now take a look at my diagram:



The red circles indicate where the top 3 permanent magnets are positioned. The Purple circles are the bottom 3 magnets. The big grey circle is a disk in the centre of the shape and the orange circle is a rotating permenant magnet. The green dot is the axle or spindle holding the grey disk.

The disk will rotate moving the orange magnet in a circle however the disk can also move up and down between the outside magnets. This means that the orange magnet moves up and down as well as in a circle and if viewed from the side it is essentially moving in a wiggley ring motion, (like a sine wave joined to make a circle). Assuming the device works then the disk spining in one direction will create energy and the disk spinning in the other direction will lose energy. I don't know why it would lose energy in one direction, perhaps it is some phenomenom relating to the right hand rule.

I don't have the materials to make one so I don't know if it works or not but it does fit all of the clues that Sean has provided. For example: It fits clue 6), the orange magnet is moving in a closed trajectory. It fits clue 8 ), it is gaining and losing energy several times before one loop is completed. It fits clue 10), the trajectory is not a simple loop, it's moving in 3 dimensions. It also fits clue 19), that the magnet is not moving through another magnets field in a linear fasion but rather it is entering and exiting it at an angle of aprox 90 degrees.

Bear in mind that the mechanical energy that this device would produce is easily tappable. The main verticle spindle spins and also moves up and down in a piston type motion. This would exactly fit the test equipment that we have already seen pictures of i.e. two measuring arms at right angles to each other. It is my guess that one arm would measure rotational energy and the other would measure back and forth energy. Time will tell if the test results that Steorn post will show this.

Variables: Obviously there are some variables in this design. The centre disk could be larger or smaller than the one I showed. The orientation of the orange moving magnet could have its poles facing left/right or up/down or in/out. The magnets on the points could all have like poles facing in or the top ones may have North pointing to the centre and the bottom one may have South pointing to the centre etc. But there aren't that many configurations to play with.

My main point is that given the clues that we have there is a very limited number of combinations of bits and pieces that we could use to coincide with everything that Sean has stated. It also has to be reletively simple as they apparently stumbled upon this when experimenting with wind generators. It is not unreasonable to believe that they took two motors, (each with 3 magnets as a stator), and joined them together, off centre, and then removed the electromagnetic coils and ran a permanent magnet through it with their test equipment to map its energy efficiency. If anyone else can come up with an alternative that matches Sean's statements then I would be interested in hearing them but this is my first stab it. If anyone here is savy enough to try and make this design I would be most happy to see it done.

Phew, long post, hope that made sense! Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:18 pm PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

That must have taken you a long time to think up and write. Thanks for all your effort!

It does make sense and does match what they have said, but at the same time there are parts missing. That's not your fault or anyone's fault. We just don't have enough information from Steorn.

For example, which magnets would be positively charged and which ones would be negatively charged?

What angles would all these magnets be facing?

Also, mechanically speaking how would the rotor magnet on the disc be moving in three dimensions? I'm not an engineer so I'm not familiar with all the possible methods of moving parts around in a motor. I'm just a bit concerned that if you have some kind of motor lifting the rotor magnet up and down lets say on a pole of some sort that would take up energy too.

It's a good theory and your really doing a great job at studying everything they have said.

By the way, I'm not specifically asking you to take several more hours to answer the above questions! I'm just pointing out there is a lot we don't know at this point and unless we figure out some simpler methods building and testing such a rig could become quite complex.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:36 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Quote:
For example, which magnets would be positively charged and which ones would be negatively charged?


I honestly don't know at this stage but there can't be that many combinations. I assume you mean by negatively or positively charge, which direction the north and south poles are facing.

Quote:
What angles would all these magnets be facing


Same as above, actually both questions are the same question so we have reduced the variables right there. Smile

Quote:
Also, mechanically speaking how would the rotor magnet on the disc be moving in three dimensions? I'm not an engineer so I'm not familiar with all the possible methods of moving parts around in a motor. I'm just a bit concerned that if you have some kind of motor lifting the rotor magnet up and down lets say on a pole of some sort that would take up energy too.


Easy. Imagine a carousel or fairground roundabout thingy. The moving magnet would go round and round and up and down, like one of the horses. It's simpler than you think but then I probably didn't explain it well enough. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:38 pm PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Yes, I meant which poles are facing which way and not which ones are charged. I'm sorry for my goof up there.

I'm just curious how you could mechanically have a magnet moving up and down or other directions in 3D space. I'm not a mechanic or engineer so I'm having trouble visualizing the mechanism. Would it require an outside power source or some of the power from the rotor's movement?

By the way, please check out the BASH MY MOTOR thread. I plan to post many ideas to have them debunked until I find one that might work.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:25 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

babcat wrote:
Yes, I meant which poles are facing which way and not which ones are charged. I'm sorry for my goof up there.

I'm just curious how you could mechanically have a magnet moving up and down or other directions in 3D space. I'm not a mechanic or engineer so I'm having trouble visualizing the mechanism. Would it require an outside power source or some of the power from the rotor's movement?

By the way, please check out the BASH MY MOTOR thread. I plan to post many ideas to have them debunked until I find one that might work.


Hi babcat, I'll have a look at your motor when I get home tonight.

How does the magnet move up and down? Well it is attatched to a disk and the disk moves up and down on a spindle as well as rotating like a standard disk. Sean has stated that no energy is put into the device so the magnet would have to move in the motion I described by bouncing of repeling magnetic fields. Given what Sean has said I cannot think of any other possibility that fits right now. If the moving magnet is bouncing off repeling fields then there will have to be magnets above and below the moving magnet to keep this disk from falling to the bottom of the device. Assuming one device has 6 magnets as the stator and assuming there are equal magnets above and below the moving magnet then there would need to be 3 magnets at the top and 3 at the bottom.

I'm just trying to elliminate all the ways it couldn't be done and whatever's left over should be the correct model.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:11 pm PostPost subject:
Jowik
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

When reviewing Steorn's statements about their technology (great summary BTW), it seems as though people are leading towards the same thing: A disc / tube / shaft that rotates AND moves up and down. In each scenario, the magnet(s) on the shaft are positioned so that the forces of rotation gain energy based on moving around the constructed fields rather than straight through them.

If you have ever experimented with small high-powered neo magnets you can get a real "feel" as to their forces (I get mine from Lee Valley tools) and I've done some interesting experiments myself with them. No fancy experiments, but enough to realize that there's more to magnets than we realize.

I can draw up things in 3D for better visualization if you wish, which I hope would help lead to a proof of concept prototype. I honestly think we're on to something here...

Cheers,

John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:39 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Thanks Jowik, I think so too! I think it is great that people are using their imagination to come up with new ideas but it would be a shame to waste the clues we already have here.

It is interesting that you mention a tube rather than a disk; that might work better. I'm still thinking about the orientation of the stator magnets. I reckon I have the basic principle but there could be a variety of ways of postioning them, (within the boundaries of the clues). My first thought is that all the north poles would be facing inwards and the moving magnet with it's north south axis horizontal to the disk or tube.

If you feel like making some 3D mockups I would be very interested in seeing what you come up with! But, as Sean said, I think the only way to go about this is to start making prototypes and see how it goes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:17 pm PostPost subject:
Neo
Newbie


Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4
Location: UK

Reply with quote

Hi WhiteLite

I suspect that now the LEMA is ruled out as the control fixed stator magnet, that the The Stator is for example North seeking pole towards the rotar magnets also North seeking towards the stator, in repulsion. We know that when they are both at their smallest airgap opposite each other, the flux density is at its highest ansd once they pass over the summit of the hill the repelling effect will kick the rotor away with a good force. The problem is the approach of the rotar to the stator. What if the approach was not to the side as in a convential flywheel arrangement but face on. All the flux from a PM is around the edges, so if this area can be avoided at the approach plane then there must be less energy to get the magnets toghether face on?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:30 pm PostPost subject:
Jowik
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

Hi WhiteLite,

As you've probably already seen posted in this forum:

http://www.globaltrb.org/TECHREVFORUM/extensions/InlineImages/image.php?AttachmentID=8

This is an image of the design using a tube. If you imagine, in this position, the tube will move upward at first, the other magnet will move towards the middle of the curved magnets, the force of the pull on the magnet in the middle should be enough that it will start rotating the tube before the other magnets reach the "sticky" point. As soon as the magnets moving along the curved magnet are about to reach their sticky point, the other magnet that was pulled out of the vertical magnet enters the middle of the other vertical magnet and the process begins again.

I don't believe that this is Steorn's design because there is no way of rotating the tube in the opposite direction, but it may lead to the same phenomenon. If constructed properly, the vertical and curved magnets can be positioned so that the tube will rotate and move up and down, and it will only rotate in one direction. Based on my experience of using magnets in a rail-driver system, this one may work.

I will try tonight to draw up in 3D what you posted here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 8:34 pm PostPost subject:
Jowik
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 10
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

Should this topic should be moved to the category "Steorn Technology Two: Permanent Magnet Motor (Only Permanent Magnets)"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:01 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I appreciate the input guys, sounds like we are thinking on the same wavelength. I must thank you Jowik as, although I don't think your idea is the one, (although I could be proved wrong), it was what helped me to imagine the wriggly ring 3D path the rotor magnet would take and helped me imagine the method of mechanical energy the device created and also how it would fit nicely into the test equipment that Steorn posted.

My idea is closer to Neo's with all the magnets pointing inwards with the North faces pointing towards the edge of the disk. The difference I had was perhaps the rotor magnet, (and there could be more than one of them), may be side on rather than having its North pole facing the other North poles. It's weird and could lead to some interesting effects.

I think I'll leave this thread in this forum. As the LEMA aproach seems to have lost favour I think we may end up merging the bottom two forums into Inventor's Corner. I'll have to check with babcat first though.

BTW: I have made a rough model of the stator I was thinking of. It's made of matches blu-tac and coins so it's for illustration purposes only. I'll take some pictures and post them soon.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:02 pm PostPost subject:
Neo
Newbie


Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4
Location: UK

Reply with quote

just playing around here with a couple of Ferrite blocks, if the approach is at face on or just offset, then the energy at approach is far less than from the side. The approaching block finds its own path almost as it approaches and then accelerates away. Almost needs a kind of piston approach to the fixed magnet face on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:39 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

OK, here's my model. Forgive the crudeness of the pictures, my camera isn't that great. Razz







Image 2 is from the side and image 3 is from above.

As you can see the magnets would be disks with the faces pointing inwards being North. The disk would lie horizontally with a spindle pointing vertically.

You will also notice that the natural path of a magnet would be between the fields, an up/down diagonal motion through the triangles.

Also, I was thinking that if the rotor magnet had it's North facing the Norths of the stator PM's how could the device gain energy with the disk spinning in one direction and lose energy spinning in the other direction? That's why I thought of the rotor magnet lying horizontal on the disk, (with the poles alligned with the edge of the disk). That way when the disk is turning in one direction the North pole of the rotor magnet is entering the North stator fields first and in the other direction the South pole of the rotor magnet is entering the North stator fields first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:59 pm PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Neo,

Something like what you are describing is what we need. We need a method that allows a magnet to use less energy getting past the sticky point than it recieves being accelerated away.

Would you please post a simple picture or video (if you have a cam of some sort) of what your doing with those magnets?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:03 pm PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Whitelight,

I like your concept! It sounds like it would be a tad difficult and complex to build a working model, but your theory certainly sounds plausible. Especially the part about how it would gain energy one way and lose energy the other way. Another thought I had was what if all the magnets were not the same size or shape. That could create various fields that might interact with the rotor magnet.

By the way, you scared me for a moment. In the first picture those coins looked like Neodymium magnets and then when I saw it on your laptop it freaked me out! I was like.. NOOO!!! Not on your computer!!!!

Then I realized they were just coins. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:54 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Glad you liked it babcat. To be fair I don't think it is to scale; if the frame was that size then I think the stator magnets would be much smaller. Sean stated that "The kind of magnetic fields we are looking at here are very low level".

The best way to go about it would be to build a larger frame and place the magnets on fixed screws. Then you could wind them in a bit each time to test different configurations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:38 pm PostPost subject:
Neo
Newbie


Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 4
Location: UK

Reply with quote

Nice idea about the adjustable arms to place the magnets on Whitelite. When you start playing you will see the airgap between two magnets has enormous effect on the flux density. Even 1 or 2 mm can mean almost half the energy is lost. I would also suggest you just buy some cheap Anisotropic Sintered Ferrite discs or blocks off the shelf at somewhere like RS componants or Farnell. You do not need NdFeB at this stage. You will get a good idea from Ferrite, but just make sure it is axial N - S through the thickness and not Isotropic multipole Ferrite. If you get stuck I will send you a few samples foc in the post. Sorry to just talk magnets all the time, but this is my area and feel I can bring this to the party. I am learning a hell of a lot of other stuff from you guys, which is invaluable in tyring to understand what Sean and Co are doing. Cheers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Oct 31, 2006 7:39 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Thanks for the advice Neo. To be honest, reading the posts Sean made regarding the testing arms, I think there is a chance the design is not a perfect octahedron. In fact it may look more like an elongated octahedron, i.e. very tall. In my current design the up an down movement of the rotor magnet is quite small compared to the rotation of the magnet but if we stretched out the octahedron verticaly then the up an down movement of the magnet could be made to equal the circumference of the disk.

If that is the case then the movement of the testing arms would be equal, (although one arm would rotate continually in one direction while the other would move first clockwise then anti clockwise. They would move at a 1:1 ratio to each other).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:40 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I came to another realisation recently and that is the stator could be simplified further. Original discussions on the Steorn forum led me to think that the devices stator could be made from a tetrahedron. I guess I dismissed this idea when I moved to the octahedral idea but a tetrahedral stator would still work. It's made of triangles, just like the octahedron, and the rotor magnet could still move in an up/down circular motion if attatched to a disk.

A tetrahedron, (made up of just 4 magnets, 1 on each point), has 3 edges joining at its points, an octahedron has 4 edges joining at each point, so there may be a geometric object that has 5 edges joining each point. It is conceivable that these 3 configurations give rise to the different OU figures that Steorn provided, (130%, 285% & 400%). Perhaps the device is less efficient the greater the angles the rotor magnet has to move through the field per rotation and as you increase the number of stator magnets the more the angle becomes vertical.

Edit: Just found out the next shape could be a Icosahedron. It could hold 12 magnets although the top two probably wouldn't be used due to its shape. That means a scalability from 4 to 6 to 10. Interestingly there doesn't seem to be a shape higher than this which could explain why Steorn only quoted the OU figures for 3 designs. Check the link below for more details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_tiling
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:40 pm PostPost subject:
verticalvoid
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 19

Reply with quote

Hello Everyone,

I've been around since Day 0 watching the events unfold at Steorn, and has, as of yet, not even registered with the forum there. The events are still fascinating to me, and I am glad to keep myself inform. I'm still in the 'undecided' area and will remain so until Sean releases more evidence and/or others are able to create their own overunity devices.

What made me actually register and give you guys some input is the configuration of your model using regular polyhedrons. I'm an Undergraduate Mathematics Major (and by no means well-versed) and I find that the use of tetrahedrons, dodecahedrons, etc. in your construction to be useful. However, have you thought of looking at other platonic solids to use in your configuration? For example, instead of using a platonic solid based on a tiling of triangles (which is how you construct tetrahedrons), why not take a look at ones that are not based on one geometric figure but rather several different ones in different combinations. This is a classic graph theory problem and is being researched by many to find new types of platonic solids.

This is just an idea to do construct other experiments and not let you be stuck on experiments that only use regular polyhedrons.

Sincerely,
Vertical Void
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:07 am PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Interesting idea verticalvoid, although I suspect most of your ideas are going to go over my head. Smile

To be honest I think the key to the device is that it is just a ring of equilateral triangles with magnets at each point. The only thing is I don't think it can be scaled beyond an Icosahedron and perhaps to many triangles negates the effect. It's late though so I'll have to go into more detail tomorrow. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:16 am PostPost subject:
verticalvoid
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 19

Reply with quote

Whitelight,

Actually, it's not that hard to come up with and understand. At any given vertex (i.e. a corner) you have some number of geometric shapes that fit together (like two triangles and two squares in a cuboctahedron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuboctahedron). I'm just suggesting that using these different shapes and positioning the magnets like you suggest on the vertices (corners) that you may achieve different levels of overunity.

VV
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:34 am PostPost subject:
clovis ray20
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 81
Location: oklahoma, usa

Reply with quote

very interesting guys
now that is what i call thinking out of the box.
good work, one suggestion if i may . one of sean suggestion to be exact.
and that is to take a hard look at the lines of flux and how they act and interact with each other.
this it seem, to be a good clue to what is going on

_________________
if you want to feel rich, count up the things you own that money want buy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:29 am PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I had a quick go at VisiMag, (or whatever it is called), last night to see what the fields would look like in a triangular arrangement. It's only 2D so is pretty crude but the patterns were very interesting. With 3 magnets in a triangle with their north poles facing the centre of the triangle. When a magnet was slid into this configuration on its side some strange flux lines appeared that seemed to loop back around the magnets and linked all 4 of them together.

I'll create an animation tonight and post it, along with some pictures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:26 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

While I'm at work, if anyone's interested, take a look at Antiprisms. These could represent the series of magnetic configurations that Steorn are using in their devices:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiprisms
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:46 pm PostPost subject:
verticalvoid
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 31 Oct 2006
Posts: 19

Reply with quote

I like the thought. Especially since the top n-gon is rotated just a bit compared to the bottom n-gon for the anti-prisms. This could lead to interesting developments as far as testing how the EMF is going to change and react.

VV
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Nov 02, 2006 9:53 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

Quick update: They tried to deliver my magnets today but no-one was home to sign for them so I will have to pick them up on Saturday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:36 pm PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Whitelight,

What kind of magnets did you order?

By the way, I did indeed look at the visimag software and played around with it. The software is indeed interesting, but I was a little annoyed that I could not see anything three dimensionally. In my head, I'm thinking about fields above and below magnets, and the software does not produce that.

I just wish it was 3D and it was easier to add exact dimensions in inches or centimeters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:44 pm PostPost subject:
WhiteLite
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 181
Location: United Kingdom

Reply with quote

I seem to have unintentionally ordered the strongest magnets available, Neodymiun Iron Boron magnets. Not that big though probably the size of a coin, (disk shaped magnets).

If it's any use you can do side views of potential devices with visimag. Making a repeling triangle is interesting when you add a magnet in the centre but yeah, it's no substitute for 3D software.

Anyway, bedtime for me. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Nov 06, 2006 1:28 am PostPost subject:
babcat
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 265
Location: USA

Reply with quote

If I was you I would order some of the magnetic viewing film available on the internet.

http://www.wondermagnet.com/viewingfilm.html

It allows you to view the flux of magnets.

I'm having a hard time with visimag. It just does not seem too user friendly in my opinion. Also, I am trying to figure out how a 2D object's field in visimag translates to the field of a 3D object in real life!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Steorn Technology Two: Permanent Magnet Motor (Only Permanent Magnets)
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