top

Question for Alsetalokin

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next   Page 4 of 5

Thu Aug 28, 2008 5:17 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

As mentioned before the conductor has to experience a change in flux density in order to produce current from a magnetic force. If the magnet-bearing combination is in fact producing homopolar AC the device I have mentioned would identify it. (of course a bias would be necessary)

As far as sensing voltage from the earths magnetic field strictly from the rotation of the earth, again the density would need to fluctuate. This would only occur during magma shifts or strong magnetic interacton with other celestial bodies.

Some have claimed to extract voltage by fluxing this field. The concept is such that the potential stored in the field is extracted by recursive resonance. In this case the momentum of the earths rotation is not used. So even though we have reason to beleive the earths field may not rotate with the earth we are still faced with the dilema that the density at a particular elevation remains relatively constant. I suppose you could ride the tides up and down and experience the differential but even a 20 foot variance twice a day would produce very little.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Aug 31, 2008 3:25 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Over on Steorn.com yesterday, Loreman used a "Lagrange point" analogy in reference to magnetic field interactions. I don't know if any of you have ever considered that perspective, I hadn't, so I thought I'd mention it here.

Any thoughts?

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:37 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I had several thoughts. Some comical, some not. LaGrange, of course, is a small town in central Texas that accrued some momentary public fame (after having long been the stuff of high-school locker room legend) when ZZTop immortalized its (sadly long defunct) "best little whorehouse in Texas", the Chicken Ranch.
On the other hand, the Lagrange point in loreman's post is I believe a stable or semi-stable location WRT two large masses in mutual orbit, where smaller masses may collect and remain without (much) expenditure of energy. I don't think there is a purely magnetic analogy--can stable orbits be constructed using magnetic forces of attraction and repulsion alone? And is there a magnetic analogy to the gravitational Lagrange point? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Of course in the particular situation of the rotating magnet over the superconductor, it is flux pinning that is usually blamed for the levitation. That I'm not so worried about--it's the sustained rotation that puzzles me, and I don't see how that could be explained by orbital dynamics or even the magnet "rolling down hill".
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:01 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
On the other hand, the Lagrange point in loreman's post is I believe a stable or semi-stable location WRT two large masses in mutual orbit, where smaller masses may collect and remain without (much) expenditure of energy. I don't think there is a purely magnetic analogy--can stable orbits be constructed using magnetic forces of attraction and repulsion alone? And is there a magnetic analogy to the gravitational Lagrange point? I don't know, but I doubt it.
Of course in the particular situation of the rotating magnet over the superconductor, it is flux pinning that is usually blamed for the levitation. That I'm not so worried about--it's the sustained rotation that puzzles me, and I don't see how that could be explained by orbital dynamics or even the magnet "rolling down hill".


Let's take a snapshot from your high-speed video where the stator is positioned directly between 2 rotor magnets. We have a 3-body problem here, but in repulsion instead of attraction.

And what Harvey is calling the "event horizon", somehow that seems to fit. And your device is definitely "rolling" somewhere. Magnetic hill of some sort?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:41 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

It is possible to construct (and I have outlined this months ago elsewhere and atm cannot recall where - probably on Steorn's forum) a hollow magnetic sphere whereby one pole is on the inner surface and the other is on the outer surface creating a quasi-monopolar sphere. This object can serve as a single attractor holding an orbital with inverted polarity within a vacuum chamber.

The calculations would have to be quite specific and gravity would be an influence to be offset - but it would be possible to setup an orbiting 'moon' in a laboratory setting this way.

I have successfully orbited a steel ball around a dipole on a smooth surface for greater than 360 but the frictional losses and the polar change across the equator soon decay the orbit and the orbiter soon spirals in. But thats a discussion for another time - g2g

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Sep 01, 2008 11:15 pm PostPost subject:
Mr.Entropy
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
It is possible to construct (and I have outlined this months ago elsewhere and atm cannot recall where - probably on Steorn's forum) a hollow magnetic sphere whereby one pole is on the inner surface and the other is on the outer surface creating a quasi-monopolar sphere.

Such an object would have no detectable magnetic field, since anything outside the sphere would see the north-pole and south-pole surfaces as equal and opposite point sources.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:32 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

@Mr. Entropy,
I guess you'd have to build one to know for sure Wink

Anything outside the sphere would never be aware of what is inside. But since a field is defined as the volume of space wherein a force has influence the question arises as to whether the surface would have an area or volume of magnetic influence.

The material thickness would have a well defined equatorial region near its midpoint and the B vector would be perpendicular to this curved designator which in and of itself defines a sphere. The interior surface would have a higher surface density than the exterior. The question of flux (defined as flowing in a completed magnetic circuit) is raised as the dipolar embodiment constrains the completion and thus severs the flow, causing a magnetic open circuit.

However, the potential caused by the atomic alignment persists and as long as the material prevents domain reorganization both the interior and exterior surfaces will appear as static magnetic charges. For all intents and purposes each surface can be viewed and manipulated as a monopole just like an electric charge.

What now? Now you have to solve the puzzle as to what magnetism physically is. If on the one hand it is nothing more than quantum particles flowing out one end of the magnet and back into the other and we have closed off its route then what? And on the other hand, if magnetism is a special curvature of space-time that must connect to conserve continuity, what then? Will it find a pathway back to the other pole transdimensionally?

Sorta makes you want to build one and see...eh?

Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:53 pm PostPost subject:
Mr.Entropy
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Canada

Reply with quote

Well, I don't know what you just said, but:

- by Gauss' law for magnetism, the net magnetic flux leaving the surface of the outer sphere is zero.

- by symmetry, the magnetic flux leaving the surface of the outer sphere is the same everywhere on it.

Therefore, the flux leaving the surface of the outer sphere is zero everywhere on it.

A similar arugment shows that the field is zero inside the sphere as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 03, 2008 7:10 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Flux in a magnetic circuit can be likened to current in an electrical circuit. When a potential exists that has a relative differential, forces will work to balance that differential. In the case of electricity this potential is referred to as a charge and is measured in volts. When a path is provided that allows the potential to equalize current flows through that path.

In the case of dipole permanent magnets, there are two magnetic charges at the poles that balance themselves through space. To date mankind has found nothing to prevent the flux from flowing except two things. 1. An equal magnetic charge of the same polarity. 2. The internal mass of a permanent magnet.

#2 Above is a special case wherein flux does flow in one direction only.

Consequently, by confining one of the poles to the interior surface the flux is blocked as it cannot flow back through the material.

However, the charge or potential of the exterior still exists even if flux does not flow from it to the interior and its field is still valid with respects to another sphere so designed as to have an opposite exterior charge. The two will interact as they attempt to balance the magnetic charges between them. Flux will flow from one to the other near instantly bringing both to the same potential somewhere in between. This is where the solidity of the domains is important, because in order to satisfy the new equalibrium something else must give and the physiology of the material will be stressed. And again, the results here can only be evaluated by labroratory analysis. Current mathematical models do not accurately predict these results. This is particularly the result of thinking the flux from a given pole must flow back to the opposite pole of the same dipole by some path, even space itself. But where the path is blocked by either #1 or #2 above these models fail.

So, although it can be said that zero flux is leaving the surfaces relative to the interior the same cannot be said relative to another source of opposite potential.

Sorry for all the words, but simply put - you'll never know the answer unless you build one and see.

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:24 pm PostPost subject:
jwk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 51

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Flux in a magnetic circuit can be likened to current in an electrical circuit. When a potential exists that has a relative differential, forces will work to balance that differential. In the case of electricity this potential is referred to as a charge and is measured in volts. When a path is provided that allows the potential to equalize current flows through that path.

In the case of dipole permanent magnets, there are two magnetic charges at the poles that balance themselves through space. To date mankind has found nothing to prevent the flux from flowing except two things. 1. An equal magnetic charge of the same polarity. 2. The internal mass of a permanent magnet.

#2 Above is a special case wherein flux does flow in one direction only.

Consequently, by confining one of the poles to the interior surface the flux is blocked as it cannot flow back through the material.

However, the charge or potential of the exterior still exists even if flux does not flow from it to the interior and its field is still valid with respects to another sphere so designed as to have an opposite exterior charge. The two will interact as they attempt to balance the magnetic charges between them. Flux will flow from one to the other near instantly bringing both to the same potential somewhere in between. This is where the solidity of the domains is important, because in order to satisfy the new equalibrium something else must give and the physiology of the material will be stressed. And again, the results here can only be evaluated by labroratory analysis. Current mathematical models do not accurately predict these results. This is particularly the result of thinking the flux from a given pole must flow back to the opposite pole of the same dipole by some path, even space itself. But where the path is blocked by either #1 or #2 above these models fail.

So, although it can be said that zero flux is leaving the surfaces relative to the interior the same cannot be said relative to another source of opposite potential.

Sorry for all the words, but simply put - you'll never know the answer unless you build one and see.

Cheers,

Cool



Can it be made ? how so ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Thu Sep 04, 2008 1:55 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

jwk wrote:

Can it be made ? how so ?


By drawing single planar pre-magnetized elsastomeres into a hemispherical press mold and then pressure assembling the two hemispheres with the appropriate magnetically susceptible adhesive.

I knew I should of patented this process before releasing it publicly, but the cat was already out of the bag.

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:12 am PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I want one.
Or maybe two, oppositely polarized.
Or a set of 4, two each.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:17 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

alsetalokin wrote:
I want one.
Or maybe two, oppositely polarized.
Or a set of 4, two each.


Mee tooo, 'cept I want 3 sets 'cuz I wanna try some 3-body/LaGrange experiments. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:56 pm PostPost subject:
jwk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 51

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
jwk wrote:

Can it be made ? how so ?


By drawing single planar pre-magnetized elsastomeres into a hemispherical press mold and then pressure assembling the two hemispheres with the appropriate magnetically susceptible adhesive.

I knew I should of patented this process before releasing it publicly, but the cat was already out of the bag.

Cheers,

Cool


so could you make 2 hemispheres from steel and thread them to fit...then magnetise them and screw together ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:11 pm PostPost subject:
billgates
Contributor
Contributor


Joined: 27 Jan 2008
Posts: 41

Reply with quote

I think that's right. Simply join two magnetized hemispheres together. In my opinion it could work with hollow spheres too (two steel shells).
A really interesting object, anyway.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:06 pm PostPost subject:
jwk
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 51

Reply with quote

So then ..could you make it from any shape, as long as it was magnetised inside S and outside N (or vice versa) ? ...is the magnetising the difficult bit ? Can you make the shape first and then do it or is that difficult ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
 
Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:46 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Here is a link to the process:

http://urad.net/forums/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=87&fullsize=1

Current equipment used to make Permanent Magnets does not allow us to make a solid as presented by billgates AFAIK. It is difficult to arrive at a smooth density gradient even with the process shown in the link and we always will have some leakage through the seam.

In the future, a molecularly porus substrate can be used with a dissolving internal circuit to create this object without seams. But these technologies are a a bit distant and the expected impact on mankind is minimal.

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:15 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

@Harvey,

I think we will need to do it your way. I tried to construct something like what you are proposing by simply sticking a whole bunch of N poles to the outside of a 1 7/8" steel sphere (don't tell my sweetheart I used one of her meditation balls).

http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll48/overconfident/wacko/?action=view&current=e024.jpg
http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll48/overconfident/wacko/?action=view&current=e025.jpg
http://s285.photobucket.com/albums/ll48/overconfident/wacko/?action=view&current=e026.flv

The ball was about saturated. I couldn't get the magnets much closer before the started behaving badly. Lotsa magnetic leaks.

Oh well. It kept me occupied for a couple hours.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:12 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

@OC,

Regarding 'Cylinders N pole down' pic - if your list is respective left to right it seems the 9/16" N35's have the greatest impact on your monitor. Even more than the 1/2" N40's. That is a very interesting test you did there.

As far as the porcupine ball goes...your secret is safe with me, but if your sweetheart starts having cyclonic meditations we'll know why Mr. Green

Yes, the field structure is shorted between standing magnets. Sad

The process seems simple but its not. Forging the elastomer will definitely create macrodomains that disrupt symmetry and they will tend to rotate toward the seam edge unless suppressed by a like field die piece calibrated to hold them down. The internal compression around each microdomain on the interior regions will also cause realignment issues at that level thereby shifting the equatorial into sinus patterns along the trim line. The cycle length of this wavy equatorial line (separating blue from red in the drawing) will be impossible to sync with the two halves and thus it is almost guaranteed to have phasic overlaps along the seam when assembled. It may be helpful to cure the elastomer after assembly. The adhesive region will do its best to combine these phasic overlaps but in the worst case of a 180 shift the microdomains in the adhesive will be nearly lateral along the seam. These variances will be projected by the field intesity and will manefest themselves as a seam quality rating. Well phased assemblies will be good quality while many mismatched domains will be poor quality.

A good tool & die maker could fabricate the tooling in about a day. This project is one that I havn't even put on my list so if anyone else wants to tackle it feel free. There are probably at least 30,000 individuals who would want to experiment with these objects and thats a conservative WAG.

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:20 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I found this in my inbox today (I'm sure the sender won't mind me posting it here):

From new user Magneto:

"Hi there, I'm fascinated with this latest magnet configuration of yours for a magnetic motor. I wish to explore this a bit further with much more powerful magnets. Firstly:

1. Where do I buy stator magnets

2. what are the size of cylinder magnets that you use for your prototype

3. Do you have any info on specs of your setup?
Example - distance from stator to assemly etc? "


Magneto, all this information is available in these threads. I respectfully suggest that the best use of your time, for now, is to go back to the beginning and read all the information you can. You will find the answers you seek, and much much more. Once you are "up to speed" as it were, you may find yourself in a better position to attempt (or not attempt) a "build" of your own.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Oct 06, 2008 3:28 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

@Al,

Are you back in the saddle?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:17 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Al some questions. What is the measured height of your idler stator bearings? the ones that were SW?

And do you have any video of GW action we have not seen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:38 pm PostPost subject:
alsetalokin
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Posts: 640
Location: Sol III

Reply with quote

I think all the videos I've taken are "out there" somewhere. I'm not even sure if I have copies of all of them myself anymore (there was a minor computer glitch a few months ago and I lost some stuff).
Everything of interest is still packed away, but I know I posted some exact dimensions of the bearings somewhere before. I can dig some out and measure them with a micrometer, but that won't happen until Monday at the earliest.

A note on dimensions:
It has to do with significant digits and measurement accuracy.
Sometimes I see copies of my original posts, where somebody has helpfully filled in metric conversions of my Imperial dimensions, or vice versa. I have to laugh, when something like this occurs:
18 mm ( 0.7087")
Of course, if I say the measurement is 18 mm, that only implies accuracy of half a mm, so it could be anywhere from 17 1/2 mm to 18 1/2 mm. If I used a tool that could measure a little more accurately, I would say 18.0 mm, which would imply anywhere in the 17.95 to 18.05 range.
So to take, for example, the 0.7087" conversion as being some kind of accurate measurement, it isn't. In fact, it is certainly wrong.

The moral is, don't waste time and effort trying to get these unbelievably accurate dimensions. The only time it really matters is with relative dimensions, like when you are trying to get a particular class fit between two parts or something.
_________________
"Abandon hope, all ye who enter here..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Oct 24, 2008 11:01 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

@Al,

Well said.

IIRC the group was sweating over a 1/64" possible difference in bearing thickness and I told them this was more accurate than the tool you used Wink

The only place a very accurate measurement may be important at this point would be in the actual ball diameter in the bearings along with the race thicknesses (diameters). I only say this as they can directly alter the harmonics and magnetic interaction which at this point is still an uncertainty.

The audio spectra may be helpful if compared to that of the WhiPMag II.

Cheers

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Oct 25, 2008 2:56 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
@Al,

Well said.

IIRC the group was sweating over a 1/64" possible difference in bearing thickness and I told them this was more accurate than the tool you used Wink

The only place a very accurate measurement may be important at this point would be in the actual ball diameter in the bearings along with the race thicknesses (diameters). I only say this as they can directly alter the harmonics and magnetic interaction which at this point is still an uncertainty.

The audio spectra may be helpful if compared to that of the WhiPMag II.

Cheers

Cool


Reason I ask is the bearings I have are 5/32"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 14, 2008 5:22 am PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Al, I can not find out the why of your rotor diameter and magnet slot cuts.

Did you lay it out to a rotor magnet length??

Edited to ask what math did you use for this.

edited to add: For a given lay out of certain angles such as the 27.7 degrees in a circle: there is an angle that allows the center of the rotor magnets and overlap to be a centered to the action on each angle to keep a good stair step. From this angle and a given length of a rotor magnet, centering the action can be done. The radius to the center line of the rotor magnets can be calculated.

I am wondering if Al did this when doing his lay out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 14, 2008 8:11 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

If you recall there was a 5x8 and a 13x8 assembly. 5 stators, 8 rotors magnets and 13 stators, 8 rotor magnets.

IIRC, this was OC's recommended numerical arrangement. However, originally, OC envisioned the rotating 'stators' as being pinned to the rotor while the stationary 8 surrounded the rotor. Al reversed the arrangement for ease of manufacture, placing the rotating 'stators' on the base and the 8 'stationary' magnets on the rotor.

360 / 13 = (12 * 27.7) + 27.6
360 / 8 = 45

Those calcs are true and scaleable to any diameter circles.

But when 10 of the stators are removed you get a different symmetry. Now to even the spacing, one of the stators will be centered 110.8 from the other two which must have a spacing of 138.4 between them. Ahhh, but what if the 0.1 is not taken from the space between the idlers? What if it is taken from the space between one of the idlers and the primary stator? Then you would have 138.5 between the idlers and 110.7 between one of the idlers and the primary stator.

So the thot plickens. Is the 0.1 shift significant? How does each layout affect the sequential nature of the rotor:stator interactions? Only one rotor magnet can be equitorially centered on the imaginary line connecting the rotor axis and a stator axis at any given instant. Therefore, a natural progression occurs where 3 different rotor magnets align equitorially as stated above, followed by a small timing pause before the sequence repeats.

[You will need the Math BHO to properly view the following]

Letting `T` = time the rotor takes to move 1, `RM_x` rotor magnet 1-8 and `S_x` = stator magnet 1-3:

Given `RM_1:S_1 = 0T
`RM_3:S_2 = 20.8T` And `RM_5:S_3 = 24.2T` And `RM_8:S_1 = 45T`

So the symmetrical sequence then is 20.8T, 3.4T, 20.8T, 20.8T, 3.4T etc...
And the skewed sequence would be 20.8T, 3.5T, 20.7T, 20.8T, 3.5T etc...

There, now you have the scaleable timing of this thing.

Next, when you add sizes and distances and rotational phasing, each become additions to the above unchangeable timing. Naturally, if the rotor magnets are longer, then the overlap period increases for the same rotor magnetic path radius. Enlarging the radius shrinks the overlap and vice versa.

For the most part (give or take a couple of degrees) the equitorial line of the `RM_x`'s align with the equitorial line of the `S_x`'s during AGW operation. Consequently, the phase and torque charts for `S_1` closely follow those I have already posted.

As long as the rotor is turning, the `S_1` stator will be balanced in AGW until such time that momentum can no longer sustain the shearing during negative torque and the stator reverses direction. When the momentum drops below the magnetic force the stator becomes submissive to the magnetic force.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 14, 2008 1:11 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

(minor correction: Originally in my dream, the spinning diametrically magnetized magnets were on the rotor. When I first tried to draw that configuration, I had a hard time translating the amorphous image in my head into a practical design that could actually be constructed.

When I swapped the spinning and fixed-orientation magnets, it started to look more like a reasonable device. The first drawings I posted, on which Al based his design, were the configuration we all know. Since that time, I have had other ideas about how to design a device where the spinning magnets are on the rotor, just like in my dream.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:46 pm PostPost subject:
lostcauses
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 02 May 2008
Posts: 871
Location: NM

Reply with quote

Ahh

Again even way back to the original, timing to angles will if set up correctly show the magnets and overlay of action. In other words a timing chart of interaction. Different methods from such can be derived to get the actions due to the faces of a octagon and distance apart to allow the centering of the rotor magnets in said action.

Al had already played with a smaller rig. So how did he get the rotor measurements he ended up with??

Luck of some scrap made into the first one? Drawn and Calculated, on what basis, etc.. Did OC just throw a figure out there and Al use it, etc.

I am wondering the how of choice of rotor diameter, and face distance of the octagon was chosen.

In other words the magnet length to the rotor is a situation with this thing. Again it just may have been luck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:35 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

About dimensions:

When Al first started, no dimensions were available. The only spec I gave was that the rotor magnets should be at least as long as the diameter of the stator magnets, possibly a little longer. I think the rotor size was dictated by the size of scrap material that was available at the time.

When Al finally posted a photo of the 13 x 8 device, I commented that it seemed too small. The 13 stators were way too close to each other and would interact with each other too strongly.

I did some measurements to see what the optimum distance between stator magnets would be, based on the behavior in my dream, and came up with a distance of approximately 4 inches stator-to-stator (which would call for a rotor diameter 17 - 18 inches). Before trying to build a larger device, Al played with several alternate stator configurations. The 3 stator configuration is what he finally discovered unusual behavior with (stator spacing a little greater than what I thought would be optimum).

The only dimensions we have are for Al's device and for a few replications that do not display any exciting behavior. The full-size 13 x 8 WhipMag with latches and pivots never got built.

Hope this wasn't too boring,
OC
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