top

Magnetically Assisted Pendulum

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

Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:42 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Sounds like a good test - I'll dig out the stuff from the shed and try it.
Does bluetack sound ok? (makes it easy to adjust weight and stick).

Running around the circumference of the rotor, the magnets face the same way, correct? So we are attempting a imbalance in magnetic PE, correct?

Will post the results later here later.


BluTac to hold the weight in place should be fine. I don't think it's magnetic. It might be OK as a weight in its own right, in case you don't have any lead shot available.

The 2 opposite rotor magnets should be oriented so they pass the stator with the same relationship. At least that's the configuration I'm most interested in. The imbalance is actually gravitational, weight added to only one of the magnets to counter the rotor's balanced magnetic configuration.

Looking forward to the results. BTW, some photos of those configurations with the ferrite magnets would be nice. And video of any configurations that show more gain than your original video would be even better. :wink:

(there's been quite some discussion over at steorn.com, most of it negative of course)

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 04, 2009 8:49 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Placing the magnets in that orientation enhances the magnetic imbalance and places a negative torque on the rotor as the stator pushes the one magnet away while pulling the other in. That negative torque can be neutralized by adding the weight so that Gpe offsets -Mpe, but then the system would be balanced at horizontal. Extra weight will be necessary to at least bring the approaching magnet through BDC. What will happen after that, we will just have to see.

Cheers,

Cool

Discussion on Steorn about what?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:35 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

In responding to NicktheSafe on you-tube I just had thought I wanted to blog.

For circular motion, a spring winds from 0 to 90, travels with the rotor from 90 to 270 and then unwinds back into the rotor from 270 to 360. A stator is placed at 0. A shunt material is placed between 20 and 90 to prevent negative magnetic torque. The diameter of the rotor is selected so that magnetic interference is minimized at 90 to 270 (the coasting zone). So we have 3 zones. From 0 to 90 is the spring windup (deceleration) zone, the next 180 is the coasting zone, and the final 270 to 360 is the spring release (acceleration) zone.

In this example we replace gravity with a spring that is able to flip its stored energy and apply it to the other direction thereby allowing circular motion.

Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:38 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

An unrelated point I wanted to blog:

The rotor magnet flip on the pendulum can be locked with a pad style clutch that can be easily released at the top of each swing thereby allowing the magnet to flip using gravity and locking it in place during the swing itself.

Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:06 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Placing the magnets in that orientation enhances the magnetic imbalance and places a negative torque on the rotor as the stator pushes the one magnet away while pulling the other in. That negative torque can be neutralized by adding the weight so that Gpe offsets -Mpe, but then the system would be balanced at horizontal. Extra weight will be necessary to at least bring the approaching magnet through BDC. What will happen after that, we will just have to see.


At the moment, I'm only interested in seeing whether or not we can get more than 180 degrees of swing with 2 magnets on the rotor, or if the difference in magnetic potential between this config and the single magnet config causes problems. The nonweighted magnet will be moving farther away from the stator for the firs 90 degrees.

It might require a little extra weight to overcome the second 90 degrees, something I'm curious about as well. Position of the weight might make a difference, leading/centered/trailing the magnet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:10 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ok, OC I did the tests.

I used four D48 magnets, two stacked together on each side. This gave me a precise center-line where they were joined. The combined weight of each set was 6g. So I started with a 6g chunk of Blue-Tack to unbalance the rotor and put in the Gpe. The Gpe was calibrated to produce a centered BDC with the stator magnet removed. The system showed a loss on repetitive tests. I removed the far set of magnets so that the dual set and Blue-Tack were all on one side. This also resulted in a loss. I removed the Blue-Tack entirely and observed a gain of 5 angular displacement.

I then chose to ascertain what the Magnetic Potential energy was with both sets of magnets in place. I added and subtracted Blue-Tack well centered at the opposing magnet set to add the Gpe necessary to balance the rotor into horizontal stabilization between the Gpe and -Mpe. From this we would be able to calculate the negative torque present from the -Mpe. Unfortunately, my scale is not sensitive enough to give an accurate reading. The value was 1g +/- 0.5g. I did add small values of BT to the scale to see if I could see where the boundry was using the reasoning that if it took nearly the same amount of material to push the scale to 2g, then the measured value would be near 0.5g, or if it took half the material, then it would be very close to exactly 1g. The material required was less than 20% of the sample, so I conclude that the actual weight around 1.4g +/- 0.25g. The torque arm on that is 2.5"

So that gives us the balanced Mpe which does not produce a gain. Since the Mpe is doubled (two magnet sets), we should be able to just halve it to determine the value that does produce a gain.

One note regarding the balanced configuration with with the added weight is that there was a resonant action as it would oscillate between the wall in one direction and pass through on the other. There was no gain in this action, but it was interesting to watch the one-way effect it produced on that secondary set.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:12 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Ok, OC I did the tests.

I used four D48 magnets, two stacked together on each side. This gave me a precise center-line where they were joined. The combined weight of each set was 6g. So I started with a 6g chunk of Blue-Tack to unbalance the rotor and put in the Gpe. The Gpe was calibrated to produce a centered BDC with the stator magnet removed. The system showed a loss on repetitive tests. I removed the far set of magnets so that the dual set and Blue-Tack were all on one side. This also resulted in a loss. I removed the Blue-Tack entirely and observed a gain of 5 angular displacement.

I then chose to ascertain what the Magnetic Potential energy was with both sets of magnets in place. I added and subtracted Blue-Tack well centered at the opposing magnet set to add the Gpe necessary to balance the rotor into horizontal stabilization between the Gpe and -Mpe. From this we would be able to calculate the negative torque present from the -Mpe. Unfortunately, my scale is not sensitive enough to give an accurate reading. The value was 1g +/- 0.5g. I did add small values of BT to the scale to see if I could see where the boundry was using the reasoning that if it took nearly the same amount of material to push the scale to 2g, then the measured value would be near 0.5g, or if it took half the material, then it would be very close to exactly 1g. The material required was less than 20% of the sample, so I conclude that the actual weight around 1.4g +/- 0.25g. The torque arm on that is 2.5"

So that gives us the balanced Mpe which does not produce a gain. Since the Mpe is doubled (two magnet sets), we should be able to just halve it to determine the value that does produce a gain.

One note regarding the balanced configuration with with the added weight is that there was a resonant action as it would oscillate between the wall in one direction and pass through on the other. There was no gain in this action, but it was interesting to watch the one-way effect it produced on that secondary set.

8)


Just to make sure I understand:

1) You could not get a gain under any circumstances with the magnetically balanced rotor, not with any amount of BluTac or with the BluTac at the leading/center/trailing edges.

2) Did you try with a single magnet on each side? Or only with pairs?

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort.

(I wonder if LC has tried any of this yet?)

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:55 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

1) Correct
2) No, only pairs
3) Yes, there is confirmation in a prior post.

G2G, perhaps more tomorrow.

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:05 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
1) Correct
2) No, only pairs
3) Yes, there is confirmation in a prior post.


I don't know that LC has tried with the balanced magnet config?

Another thing I'm curious about would be your son's over/under config, using the balanced rotor mag config and the weight. Of course the weight would need to be heavier to overcome the repulsive forces on entry, hiitting both rotor mags simultaneously. But does it show a gain after passing through the stator fields?

Just musing a bit. Wink

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:12 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
Harvey wrote:
1) Correct
2) No, only pairs
3) Yes, there is confirmation in a prior post.


I don't know that LC has tried with the balanced magnet config?

Another thing I'm curious about would be your son's over/under config, using the balanced rotor mag config and the weight. Of course the weight would need to be heavier to overcome the repulsive forces on entry, hitting both rotor mags simultaneously. But does it show a gain after passing through the stator fields?

Just musing a bit. :wink:

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:58 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

It's been a long day, and I still have about another hour to go.

No, LC did not post anything wrt the balanced rotor.

My son's suggested configuration creates straight through field (Like a Helmholtz coil) so the polarity is reversed from the bottom stator. This means that if the balanced rotor went into that field it would have a negative effect. Perhaps if the magnet were suspending inside the 2.5" radius... hmmm. But then the arc and field shape would be a bit different and we still would have a problem with the Gpe inversion. Thinking out loud again... Rolling Eyes

Zzzzzz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:14 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
My son's suggested configuration creates straight through field (Like a Helmholtz coil) so the polarity is reversed from the bottom stator. This means that if the balanced rotor went into that field it would have a negative effect. Perhaps if the magnet were suspending inside the 2.5" radius... hmmm. But then the arc and field shape would be a bit different and we still would have a problem with the Gpe inversion. Thinking out loud again... :roll:


You have probably divined where I'm going with this. But I'll try to lay it out in simple terms, just to make sure we know where we're coming from, I'll summarize:

1) Single rotor magnet provides the gravitational imbalance necessary to have pendular motion.

2) Traditional pendular motion starting from horizontal will not swing through more than 180 degrees, never going above horizontal.

3) When the stator magnet is added to the equation, the pendulum swing appears to be offset, or augmented, so it can swing above horizontal in one direction, but its height is restricted in the other direction.

4) If we ever expect to achieve continuous rotation, we will need to have a magnetic interaction at least twice per revolution.

5) Adding a second magnet to the stator eliminates the gravitationally unbalanced condition that provides the pendular action. The rotor is gravitationally balanced and responds only to the magnetic fields.

6) Adding a nonmagnetic weight to one of the magnets reintroduces the gravitational imbalance without disturbing the magnetic environment. Optimum position with respect to the magnet is unknown, but a good guess would be coincident to the magnet's center of gravity.

7) The addition of a second magnet appears to modify the magnetic field. Interaction between the stator and the pendulum no longer provides the offset and apparent gain. It refuses to swing above horizontal.

8) The balanced dual magnet rotor also fails to show any gain when spun by hand, in an attempt to substitute rotational momentum for gravitational imbalance.


So things changed when an additional magnet was added and the desired effect vanished. Why? We don't know yet, but here are some thoughts.

a) Magnets on opposite sides influence each other and reduce or eliminate some necessary magnetic asymmetry. If this is the case:
(1) A larger rotor size may reduce the effects each magnet has on the other, allowing more autonomous interactions with the stator magnet.
(2) Magnetic shielding between the rotor magnets (center of the rotor) may reduce their mutual interaction. Note, the shielding may introduce other magnetic side effects. Ferromagnetic and diamagnetic shielding may have different effect.

b) Gravity is an acceleration, rotational momentum is not, and the force vectors are completely different.
(1) Gravitational imbalance can be provided to a magnetically balanced pendulum through the addition of a nonmagnetic weight to one side. So far, this hasn't seemed to work, but not all possible positions have been tried yet. Since we are looking for an increase in gravitational potential, all measurements should be related to the starting and ending positions of the weight.

c) A second magnet may require a second stator magnetic interaction on the opposite side to compensate for the additional complexity of the magnetic environment.
(1) Adding a second stator will increase repulsive resistance and will require a heavier weight to allow the rotor to pass through the field of the stators.
(2) Magnetic shielding may help isolate and improve the autonomy of each magnetic transaction.

d) Curvature of the path taken by a rotor magnet may be important as it interacts with the curved field of the stator magnet. In other words, rotors of different diameters may work better or worse than others. Does size matter?
(1) This could be most easily tested by using a rotating arm instead of a disc.

Feedback is welcome.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:17 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

It sounds like you have the concept well in mind.

Adding weight, even to a single magnet system destroys the gain. It changes the acceleration and deceleration times and these seem to be important to that operation.

I have outlined above in a blog post a possible means of replacing gravity with a spring that would give us some more latitude WRT rotor size and magnetic field interactions.

Still thinking on the results.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:53 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Been doing some different experiments and here is one that you can try with your WMII

Take 8 rectangular ceramic Home Depot style magnets. Mine measure 3/8" x 3/4" x 1-7/8"

Split the stack exactly in half four and four and insert the WMII inside the gap between the two stacks of four. So now you have four on the table, the WMII, and four on top of the WMII. The directional vector for B runs straight up vertically through the 90 mark.

Now take 4, D48 magnets stacked together and insert them into a single slot on the WMII. Place the rotor such that the center of that stack is exactly on the 0 mark. Release the rotor and mark its stop point. Repeat about 10 times to ensure you have not added or subtracted energy in the release and to get a good average of the stop point.

Now let your starting position be on the other side. Align the center of the D48 stack on the horizontal line aligned with 180 and repeat the process above.

I get about 18-20 degrees of gain in angular displacement.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:57 pm PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Note from Al on this topic. Just thought I'd copy it here:
====================================

Glerp.

What this country needs is a good nickel USB datalogger. Or a cigar, but I don't smoke. CIgars, anyway.

But after all, the little logic problem that I posed earlier still hasn't been addressed:
If you start at horizontal, and it goes above horizontal on the other side, then you should start X above horizontal, and then it should go a little above X above horizontal on the other side....repeat until you are starting just before vertical...then it should go a little past just before vertical...that is, it should start going around and around and around and around and around and around and around...
But it doesn't, does it?
SO, either there is some cancelling effect that only works above horizontal, OR there are some assumptions that are in error in the first place.
Like conservative==symmetrical.
Or like input data is sufficiently accurate and precise enough to work with.
Or like some few other input assumptions that come to mind.
Maybe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Aug 06, 2009 6:04 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Funny how for many things Al and I think alike. I did a crude test exactly like that the very first day and the results are puzzling. Naturally there are many factors, such as the gravitational force angle on the rotor, the magnetic flux curvature, the distance of the magnets in the upper two quadrants and of course the increased acceleration and deceleration times. We have shown that adding kinetic energy to the rotor seems to be counter productive when an adjustment in magnetic potential energy is not made. There are quite a few clues in that, and sound reasons why Al's assumption doesn't pan out. Regardless of those conditions, the matter still stands: There is an observable gain in the half cycle of the pendulum that can be put to use. It still remains to be ascertained whether that gain is sufficient to power the reversal of the moving magnets poles.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:37 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Racho,

You can make the Magnetically Assisted Pendulum very easily.

You can use a ruler. 144mm. Put a good bearing (lowest friction) in the center. Attach the bearing to a solid vertical surface. Make sure the assembly is balanced and high enough to allow magnets to be under it when it turns around.

Attach one magnet to the ruler on one end. The B field should point along the circumference of the arc path.

Place a larger magnet at the bottom, dead center with the axle and bearing.

Let the pendulum swing from horizontal and check the height. Try from the other side (or turn over one of the magnets). One way will be a loss, the other way a gain.

Find out if you can make a way to turn over the magnet on the ruler automatically.

8)


You've made one of these? How about some photos?

Harvey, I think you may really have something here. You should spend more time working on this project.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:14 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I hope to make a 24" version soon to test the field distribution ideas we have discussed. I think I have all the materials...heck, maybe tonight.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:43 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

No Joy.

I kluged it together, sorted out the radial play etc. Spent most of the time getting the arm balanced and cannot get a good magnetic reaction. The angular momentum to magnetic force ratio is way off and the field diameter (reactive zone) is much too small to provide the familiar acceleration / deceleration timing of the smaller wheel. It's definitely going to take some time to 'feel' my way through this one.

There is definitely something good about the WhiPMag geometry that we need to identify and scale if possible.

I wish I had more ambition for this stuff. Rolling Eyes

I'll have to think on it some more later.

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:49 pm PostPost subject:
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
No Joy.

I kluged it together, sorted out the radial play etc. Spent most of the time getting the arm balanced and cannot get a good magnetic reaction. The angular momentum to magnetic force ratio is way off and the field diameter (reactive zone) is much too small to provide the familiar acceleration / deceleration timing of the smaller wheel. It's definitely going to take some time to 'feel' my way through this one.

There is definitely something good about the WhiPMag geometry that we need to identify and scale if possible.

I wish I had more ambition for this stuff. Rolling Eyes

I'll have to think on it some more later.

Cool


is it posible to design more big magnetic asisted pendilium about a 1 meter dia?(100 santimeters so so 40 inch?
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:24 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

This is one of the questions we are trying to answer.

The amount of gain is a very small amount of energy. The conservative nature of the field counteracts its extraction while at the same time being necessary for event.

I don't recommend spending any money on this. It is a curious event and requires research and identification, but experimenters should only use what materials they have already.

The shape and size of the field and the arc path of the pendulum seem to have a necessary relationship. This leads to issues regarding field strength and distribution along with negative effects if we want to maximize the swing length or look for 360 motion.

No ambition here... Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:59 am PostPost subject:
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
This is one of the questions we are trying to answer.

The amount of gain is a very small amount of energy. for 360 motion.

No ambition here... Neutral


Hi Harvey,
Experiment in the video title: "Can You replicate this" it is as if in a machine Perendev. Therefore no work.
I want to ask you again, Harvey, what do you think about the machinery of Djon Depew?
He says some related things, but his performances are interesting.
I find it important following clips:
1) Your and Glancer replication device of Alsetolackin with acceleration more than 1 seconds.
2) The device of Djon Depew.
3) The device with him washmashine - young man who washed his car with laundry in one garage.
4) Lec 28 MIT lenten you to Hedil.
5) Magnetic assisted pendullum.
6) I also write about what Turkish device mentioned in your answer to me from yesterday evening.

7)And the @OC's korrection - he is thinking very exactly
This is for now.
I wish You and al others here have a nice day
Cheers Cool
p.s.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQJi4pRWeac compass motor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBuOFB2ZNvA this one I am not very good understand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPFkp2HrEcs&feature=related elektric field and flame
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEwpmwealnI&feature=channel music


I think the path to undestand and succesful made a magnetic devise is when we make a domains(magnetic devices) maximall miniature and with maximal piece per wolume of the construction I think may be this is the cause for succesful John's Depew grid
cheers Cool Cool


P.S. Entertainment with dominoes:))))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ajg1G3vik&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHZGiGZlixM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFakxLpCoh0&feature=channel
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 15, 2009 10:53 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi Racho,

1. In my case the rare events seemed to be some type of EM pulse
2. The Equlibrius Grid is something Depew would need to explain, because i would think that the energy would be coming from the source motor.
3. Not sure which one?
4. These equations relate to how much energy is in 1 cubic meter of a magnetic and electric field
5. This is real and confirmed by Lostcauses. It has been witnessed by OC. It would be nice to have others confirm it as well.
6. If you understand the spoken words, I have questions to ask on this.
7. Not sure what this one is


Best regards,
Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:57 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Hi Racho,
5. This is real and confirmed by Lostcauses. It has been witnessed by OC. It would be nice to have others confirm it as well.


Racho,

This thread is about Harvey's magnetic pendulum. Please keep your comments about other topics in your own thread.

Thanks,
OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Aug 15, 2009 3:01 pm PostPost subject:
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
Harvey wrote:
Hi Racho,
5. This is real and confirmed by Lostcauses. It has been witnessed by OC. It would be nice to have others confirm it as well.


Racho,

This thread is about Harvey's magnetic pendulum. Please keep your comments about other topics in your own thread.

Thanks,
OC



Sorry sorry sorry not make again similar mistake very sorry
Sorry
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:25 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

You want results? Here ya go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3Z0t6kNMVw

Pretty crude, I know. But it does show that Harvey's anomaly can be replicated. It may be a while before I get 'round to doing anything more precise, there's other urgen matters in my life at the moment. This was just a before bedtime hack, to take my mind off other issues.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 18, 2009 3:15 am PostPost subject:
Magluvin
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 25 Nov 2008
Posts: 499
Location: USA

Reply with quote

Hey, hope everyone is doing well.
I was playing with the pen effect and had a thought. I wonder if there is a difference in how it works reversing all the poles. The difference im thinking of is, the demo of the N n S on aluminum. Just wonder if it changes anything.
I only had about a half hour to mess with it and my stator mag is not that big.
It looks like there is something there though.
What ever were you thinking to come up with this setup Harv? Nice thinking.

I tried to check out OU.com its not there. Any news?

Maggy
_________________
I always think of it like an electric motor, ya gota have pole switching.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:15 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Magluvin wrote:
Hey, hope everyone is doing well.
I was playing with the pen effect and had a thought. I wonder if there is a difference in how it works reversing all the poles. The difference im thinking of is, the demo of the N n S on aluminum. Just wonder if it changes anything.
I only had about a half hour to mess with it and my stator mag is not that big.
It looks like there is something there though.
What ever were you thinking to come up with this setup Harv? Nice thinking.

I tried to check out OU.com its not there. Any news?

Maggy


1. He's alive!

2. I'm not sure the effect is what Harvey was looking for. But it sure is interesting.

3. I thought maybe Stefan had banned my IP or something. Nice to hear I'm not the only one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 18, 2009 5:09 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

I was playing with a balanced rotor pendulum, just spinning it up and checking a few things, stator top and bottom. It seemed to spin longer with the stator magnets in place vs no stators. It was all subjective, so I decided to get out the tach and stopwatch.

I set the WhipMag II flat on the floor instead of standing vertical (gravity doesn't do much with a balanced rotor anyways). I tried a few baseline runs without stators. My whip ran down from 200 RPM to a complete stop in about 1:40 give or take a couple seconds.

Then I placed the Home Depot ceramics on opposite sides, stacks of 4 with N poles facing center of the rotor and spun it up. It stopped spinning at about 1:20 plus or minus. BUT it kept oscillatiing for almost a minute afterward. It generally took a total of about 2:15 to come to a complete stop from 200 RPM.

Spun the opposite direction, I consistently got results about 10 seconds less. Spin changed to oscillation at about 1:10 and oscillation came to a complete stop about 2:05. I did 3 spins of each type and they only varied about 2 seconds with other spins with the same conditions.

Now oscillation is energy too, right? Does that count?

Or was additional energy stored when I spun it up with the magnets in place? (It didn't feel much different.)

I guess I'll need to use Al's weight and string methods to find out for sure whether it still does this when the input is better known. Basically, all the tests I did were 200 RPM to complete stop of all motion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:42 pm PostPost subject:
diffident
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 89
Location: Florida

Reply with quote

Over the weekend I put a small bearing in the center of a 12-inch wooden ruler, balanced it by shaving off some wood on one end, mounted it on wooden blocks such that I could raise or lower it, taped a 1-inch x 1/4" neo on each end of the ruler, and stuck a very thin (1/2" x 1/2" x 1/16") magnet, north side up, on the surface below the mounted ruler. The bearing I used was one of those tiny radio-controlled helicopter bearings and it is quite wobbly. Nevertheless, I could nudge the ruler and when it swung around past the thin magnet it would strongly pop the ruler around 180 degrees, go through the resistance and pop around again.

It's a crude device and I need to work with it more (replace bearing and perhaps arrange structure so that I can add another magnet opposite the thin flat magnet) before I start running any tests, but I wanted you all to know that somebody else is working with Harvey's pendulum effect (Harvey, don't give up on it!). If anything of interest results I'll pass it on.

Cheers,

diffident
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