Cause and Effect in Electro-Magnetic systems

[erfinder]

That's three wrong answers...

[Beamgate]

Yes, I'll have to admit: Now that THAT (3 alleged fails) is out of the way, my curiosity is at maximum.

[Hrothgar]

simplest form

1 axle aligned ring, with an axle aligned cylinder nested in the ring and the orientation depends on if you are hanging from or balancing on top of the bearing. Orient your axis vertically to balance the load and keep the bearing pressed into place.

[boguslaw]

Let me say you something.... When I was in High School my teacher has given us the riddle.
You have two metal rods : one is iron and one is permanent magnet, but they exactly the same. How you can tell which one is piece of iron and which one is permanent magnet ?
The point is not in giving the answer but in the method to look for. 90 % of class has given up at the end of that lesson and the rest has given up till the end of school day. I was the one who has given the corrent answer ...next day afetr many hours of thinking. HOWEVER I had in my hands a magnet and an piece of thick iron wire and I experimented all day long.....

Now, i know many of us here has something unique : ask youself : is that becouse you have been here for years thinking about different combinations or maybe took the hard path of collecting needed parts and experimenting ?


oops sorry it it's offtopic

[Allcanadian]

@All
it looks like were good to go

First I will repeat my description:

It is a passive system which utilizes two (2) permanent magnets to fully support the load on a shaft which is stable on all axis

I know what your thinking and No I did not mislead you, your mind did.
The field of force supporting the load is passive, it utilizes 2 magnets and is stable on all axis.

Here is the story behind this device---

I spent months and hundreds of hours developing ultra fast response low hysterisis electromagnets. I developed fast response controls and complex micro-controller code. Then at some point I had this weird feeling, stopped what I was doing and looked down on the monstrosity I had created. I was not thinking .... I was following, I was simply repeating what everyone else was doing and there was nothing creative or unique in it.

I set it all aside and started over with a new mindset, everything I need is right in front of me I just can't see or understand it. So I grabbed two magnets and thought I only need to understand one thing and this thing is the field of force between those two magnets. This is simple and intuitive and I will never succeed unless what I create with my own thoughts is simple and intuitive. So I set everything aside and started over at the beginning.

Now we could ask what is the load on a rotor shaft?, over 99% of the load isn't actually a load it is a failure to understand the problem. Weight is an illusion and 99.99% of the rest of the universe as we know it has no construct for a "weight". Weight is due to a field of force we call gravity and if we want to negate this force all that is required is an equal and opposite force. So we remove "weight" from the equation in which case our ball bearings are no longer required to support a load we call weight.

We remove the ball bearing seals and add lapping compound to loosen the bearing. Then we wash it out and add a very light low friction synthetic oil so the bearings turns perfectly free. The bearings are not there to support any load they are there to "guide" the shaft to keep it centered. The bearings should chatter a bit because there is no load and it is never in continuous contact with any given surface... it is in levitation.

That was my moment of understanding, the bearings cannot support anything and is simply a guide to keep the system stable. A magnetic field must balance the force of gravity perfectly. This is nothing new or unique or extraordinary other than the fact it is stupid simple and we only need two magnets which can be added to a system already in place.
I have developed better magnetic bearings with no ball bearings however they are not necessarily better because they are much more complicated.

I believe the most important point here is that fundamentally we are dealing with fields and forces and it is very easy to negate one pervasive force with another.

AC

[boguslaw]

Magnet rotor levitation - YouTube

[dward]

I'd love to give you an answer, to be honest i'm having difficulty even picturing what you're talking about. I have no clue how 2 passive magnets could lift 100lbs. Unless we're talking about something very large. Is that what we're talking about? However, I'll give it a go.

The only thing that i could even come up with is some sort of movable PMH.

As far as knowing anything, all I can say is that I am limited by my ability to perceive rightly or wrongly any phenomenon. The truth comes, not in formulating theories and concepts, but in rightly describing phenomena, without inferring anything. Steiner reminded me of this when reading one of his lectures recently; saying that we really don't need concepts and theories but that right perception and description will often lead one to truth more profound than anything made up in the mind.

I'm open to learning all about this, I've just begun investigating Ed Leedskalnin's statements about what he observed...

[erfinder]

@All
it looks like were good to go

First I will repeat my description:


I know what your thinking and No I did not mislead you, your mind did.

Here is the story behind this device---

I spent months and hundreds of hours developing ultra fast response low hysterisis electromagnets. I developed fast response controls and complex micro-controller code. Then at some point I had this weird feeling, stopped what I was doing and looked down on the monstrosity I had created. I was not thinking .... I was following, I was simply repeating what everyone else was doing and there was nothing creative or unique in it.

I set it all aside and started over with a new mindset, everything I need is right in front of me I just can't see or understand it. So I grabbed two magnets and thought I only need to understand one thing and this thing is the field of force between those two magnets. This is simple and intuitive and I will never succeed unless what I create with my own thoughts is simple and intuitive. So I set everything aside and started over at the beginning.

Now we could ask what is the load on a rotor shaft?, over 99% of the load isn't actually a load it is a failure to understand the problem. Weight is an illusion and 99.99% of the rest of the universe as we know it has no construct for a "weight". Weight is due to a field of force we call gravity and if we want to negate this force all that is required is an equal and opposite force. So we remove "weight" from the equation in which case our ball bearings are no longer required to support a load we call weight.

We remove the ball bearing seals and add lapping compound to loosen the bearing. Then we wash it out and add a very light low friction synthetic oil so the bearings turns perfectly free. The bearings are not there to support any load they are there to "guide" the shaft to keep it centered. The bearings should chatter a bit because there is no load and it is never in continuous contact with any given surface... it is in levitation.

That was my moment of understanding, the bearings cannot support anything and is simply a guide to keep the system stable. A magnetic field must balance the force of gravity perfectly. This is nothing new or unique or extraordinary other than the fact it is stupid simple and we only need two magnets which can be added to a system already in place.
I have developed better magnetic bearings with no ball bearings however they are not necessarily better because they are much more complicated.

I believe the most important point here is that fundamentally we are dealing with fields and forces and it is very easy to negate one pervasive force with another.

AC

I figured it had something to do with induction between the magnet and the load, as did Ren when he asked if the load was constructed out of ferrous material. You also hinted at this being the possible answer with that image you posted before with induction between a permanent magnet and iron.

I should have known about the "illusion of weight" especially after all those discussions we had on this subject in the past, damn...was sleeping again man. I feel that there will be some issues, and or limitations with this, but that's neither here nor there.. Good work AC!

Now back to the matter at hand. Magnetism, what it is, and what it isn't. I really want to understand it so that I can better comprehend whats happening inside my rig. Understanding or not...the device is doing something that we are taught it shouldn't be doing.

Regards

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

I should have known about the "illusion of weight" especially after all those discussions we had on this subject in the past, damn...was sleeping again man. I feel that there will be some issues, and or limitations with this, but that's neither here nor there.. Good work AC!

Yes there was a little slight of hand involved, lol, it is by no means perfect and simply meant to be an example of context and perspective.

Now back to the matter at hand. Magnetism, what it is, and what it isn't. I really want to understand it so that I can better comprehend whats happening inside my rig. Understanding or not...the device is doing something that we are taught it shouldn't be doing.

I will have to think of some examples a little more because as we all know something relatively easy can get out of hand in a big hurry. People tend to want to jump into aether whirls from other dimensions before examining the basics of what we actually know as fact. At this point we know something in a space appears to produce a force and the rest seems to be wild theory, lol.

AC

[Turion]

Allcanadian,
You said frictionLESS bearing with magnets. Meaning NO friction. What you have done is REDUCE friction, not eliminate it. In the example you posted, if your adjustment is off even the tiniest bit you have friction, either by not having ENOUGH attraction, or by having TOO MUCH. Not to mention both adjustments must EXACTLY match each other or the shaft is not perfectly level and THAT creates friction. I call this "suspension" friction--trying to neutralize gravity or "suspend your object in a magnetic field. Any time you are trying to "adjust" magnetics to reduce gravity, you will have that problem. I abandoned this early on in favor of trying to adjust the side to side friction, which I call "displacement" friction. These are not MY terms. I read them somewhere years ago, and terms are useless...it is concepts that matter.

In boguslaw's video he posted, there is also a friction point, (displacement friction) although probably less than in the example you have given us.

FrictionLESS is very difficult to engineer. REDUCED friction just requires thinking outside the box a little. I myself have used two ring magnets on a vertical shaft: K&J Magnetics - Products
with a rotor attached to the top ring magnet. The rotor (call it a load for this example) "floats" on a magnetic field, and you can compress that field by adding weight and the load STILL floats, but you can add a GREAT DEAL of mass without increasing friction because you can have two very small rings that touch the central pole. (one at the top and the other at the bottom of the load) These could even be your bearings without much grease, since they bear no weight but hold the rotor from moving from side to side. When you get a large mass spinning with greatly reduced friction, it takes VERY LITTLE to keep it going and we can achieve some very, VERY interesting results, and here you can add a LOT of mass because all you do is compress that magnetic field. I have NEVER gotten the two magnets to touch, no matter how much load I put on it. So how many rotors could you have on this shaft without affecting the setup? As MANY as you want.

I am not trying to throw a monkey wrench into the works. I read what you posted and it hurt my brain trying to come up with an answer that met your criteria. I could not, and awaited your example.

Dave

[ren]

I think that's the point Dave

I don't hurt my brain enough (in a good way) these days, I think it's vital we challenge all our preconceived ideas. It's funny to look back now at ACs design and see where my mind was taking it. But silly me just kept asking for more specifics.

Also, I find the word frictionless funny. It would seem to be defined by said thing containing NO friction. Whereas when I break the word up into its obvious portions I am left with said thing having LESS friction than usual. I guess the same thing could be said about massless, pointless etc etc. a funny thing language is, especially English. My Uncle is a highly academic gent, lecturer of multiple subjects at University, one of them being English (and French). I'm constantly subjected to little trivial insights into the derivatives of words at family luncheons amongst other puns and dad jokes.

But back to the task at hand. Perhaps I can suggest a most basic understanding of magnetism and we can dissect it from there, change or add to it?

If I was asked to sum magnetism up with my current knowledge I would probably say something like this:

Magnetism is a complementing, polarizing force unseen by the human naked eye that is present in all things. Any step beyond that and I start describing effects or properties of magnetism, which I'm trying to steer away from. Even the above isn't devoid of that unfortunately. I guess we generally define something by its properties don't we...

So, anyone care to elaborate or criticize on this?

Regards

[Turion]

ren,
As long as we're thinking outside the box, let me throw this out there...

If a vacuum is the absence of air, perhaps magnetism is what takes place when something is removed, rather than when something is added or created. I realize this is probably a worthLESS idea, but I couldn't resist.

Dave

[Hrothgar]

really?

I'd love to give you an answer, to be honest i'm having difficulty even picturing what you're talking about. I have no clue how 2 passive magnets could lift 100lbs.

check this magnet
K&J Magnetics - Products

[Beamgate]

Enough fun with the lubricated or levitated axis!

We have a newfound puzzle to solve!

My belief:
All that is gravitic has been touched by a current (even if in minute proportion).
One could consider that "without the electric there can be no gravity".

There, it's done.

So, @ERFinder, what do you feel about your configuration has influenced your CEMF to depart (beneficially, with minimal influence) your system in such a willful manor (seemingly defeating the effects of capacitive/inductive reactance and ultimately potential loads in the process)?

Curious, no doubt. But, some may be wondering (at this early stage of the thread) just what you've built. Can you describe (show if comfortable) the design of this puzzle?

[Allcanadian]

@Ren

I don't hurt my brain enough (in a good way) these days, I think it's vital we challenge all our preconceived ideas. It's funny to look back now at ACs design and see where my mind was taking it. But silly me just kept asking for more specifics.

I know the feeling, we keep hammering away day after day and nothing of substance occurs. However every now and then we have a singular thought and this thought keeps expanding so fast we can hardly keep track of where it's going or where we have been. I live for these moments of discovery and it seldom requires proof ... we know.

It springs from an apparent nothing, an instantaneous comprehension, that Ah ha moment. I have often wondered where this comes from and how the mind can pull such creativity from the depths of mediocrity.

That is why I started this thread, I have no interest in old facts nor repeating past mistakes, if someone can show me one creative and original thought I would be forever grateful.

AC