A Word On Permanent Magnetic Motors...

[astron]

I never said I know it all, these are your words, not mine.

If you thought what I said is wrong or useless, there are more educated and constructive ways to reply.

Third, I didn't copy and paste, that's again your wrong supposition. I spent some of my time making the drawing on 3dsmax.

Forth, I had already read all the thread even before I posted for the first time. Thanks for your kind advice.

And finally, if this thread is exclusively for those who have already built and test their prototypes and nobody else can post here, sorry but I didn't read that anywhere.

[Matthew Jones]

Here's your cut and paste job. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post135993

I Started the thread to help people explore building the tracks or replicating the one I have done. Theory based on the device is welcome, including yours.

All I am simply saying is get some experience before you post. I do not know how tell you constructively that with out the proper measuring device your thoughts on this are a waste of time. Most do not have the initial investment or skills to produce this machine. You may be the exception.
My experience has lead me to believe this is not as critical as you state. When you have some experimental results that show other wise, I would be happy to look at them.
Until then talk is cheap. Build something or go away. Its easy to quete a book. Make an investment and try. Until then your opinions are not of much use.

Do you wish to go on?

Matt

[Matthew Jones]

SO lets talk about the meter your gonna need just in case you don't have all the fact. I spent a good bit of time looking into how to come a with a 3d representation of a magnetic field.

Your going to need to need a gauss meter that has 3 channels. Because you have to measure x,y,z value at each vector in time. That will tell you which direction the photon is going. The flux density of the photon also need to be measured at the same time.
So here's how you go about putting this together with CNC type device. You need the CNC controller to output its total area of movement. Then you have to some how find the corners of the magnet or magnetic assembly and subtract this space from the total space so that now the CNC knows it has to look within a given area around the subtracted. Thats big algorithm but its easy to find. You mentioned 3dsMax. Maybe your familiar with game engines. The unreal engine uses a subtractive BSP algorithm. So do many other game engines. Find an open source one to hack the code out of and build your own BSP editor for your CNC. Build and exporter for max then you can model you shape and export it subtractivly to the CNC editor.
Oh ya make sure the editor can output to a second set of software (Call it Gauss point collector, it can be a small database) that keeps track of the position of the gauss meter at all times. And reports XYZ of the open space.

Now you got that done. You have to have the gauss meter probes aligned to X,Y,Z. So you can start using the CNC part because you got everything modeled at this time. Now take a reading on every 1/2 or maybe 1/4 step of the motors all the way around your shape and feed that back to the gauss point collector. You need to record the time each time a reading is taken so all the variations can recorded to.
You also have to collect info on the flux density at that point.

Now it has to expand and go further in space.
Now we gotta get slick. We need a tool to unravel the database and make a point representation of the recording. Only the strongest points need to be drawn, that shows us the actual current of the photons and not just residual magnetism. But that strongest point has to be defined based on the layer it came from. So thats not a big deal if we have a good database and every things real organized. Heck I could write somthing like that to make the models using MAXScript. You mentioned 3dsmax it can help alot.

So then we have to renderer.

Now lets talk about a gauss meter. Heres a 3 channel that will work
FW Bell 7030: Gaussmeter, 3 Channel
Thats a cool $7k with shipping. But there are cheaper ones. You'll write a software package to read the IO from this machine and collect it.

And maybe for instance you don't want to wreck your existing CNC so you can build one with controllers and everything for maybe another $1500. Remember the better the stepper motor the finer the resolution.
And of course as far as I know none of the open source CNC software packages report position into IO so that you can grab it. But don't get discouraged there may be one out there, but if not you can get many open source, i think even windows compatible that you can modify.

Then for modeling heck 3ds MAX script can handle it, so you got that one in the bag.

I know my writing is kinda of convoluted but there is some things to think about in there. We actually look at it seriously and realized we didn't want to spend that much time and money to come up with. It would be a real neat thing to learn from. It just you gotta kinda pick your battle out there keep yourself pointed in the right direction of research.

When you started you need some specifics, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Matt

[astron]

Here's your cut and paste job. http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post135993

I Started the thread to help people explore building the tracks or replicating the one I have done. Theory based on the device is welcome, including yours.

All I am simply saying is get some experience before you post. I do not know how tell you constructively that with out the proper measuring device your thoughts on this are a waste of time. Most do not have the initial investment or skills to produce this machine. You may be the exception.
My experience has lead me to believe this is not as critical as you state. When you have some experimental results that show other wise, I would be happy to look at them.
Until then talk is cheap. Build something or go away. Its easy to quete a book. Make an investment and try. Until then your opinions are not of much use.

Do you wish to go on?

Matt

Ok Matt, this is the type of answer I was looking for. I still don't know why you couldn't give me this type of answer from the beginning instead of starting a nonsense battle against me.

And yes, I copied the first 3 pictures from the book, but I clearly mentioned the source on the very first line of my post. I myself made the other 2 pictures on 3dsmax, as I already said above.

SO lets talk about the meter your gonna need just in case you don't have all the fact. I spent a good bit of time looking into how to come a with a 3d representation of a magnetic field.

Your going to need to need a gauss meter that has 3 channels. Because you have to measure x,y,z value at each vector in time. That will tell you which direction the photon is going. The flux density of the photon also need to be measured at the same time.
So here's how you go about putting this together with CNC type device. You need the CNC controller to output its total area of movement. Then you have to some how find the corners of the magnet or magnetic assembly and subtract this space from the total space so that now the CNC knows it has to look within a given area around the subtracted. Thats big algorithm but its easy to find. You mentioned 3dsMax. Maybe your familiar with game engines. The unreal engine uses a subtractive BSP algorithm. So do many other game engines. Find an open source one to hack the code out of and build your own BSP editor for your CNC. Build and exporter for max then you can model you shape and export it subtractivly to the CNC editor.
Oh ya make sure the editor can output to a second set of software (Call it Gauss point collector, it can be a small database) that keeps track of the position of the gauss meter at all times. And reports XYZ of the open space.

Now you got that done. You have to have the gauss meter probes aligned to X,Y,Z. So you can start using the CNC part because you got everything modeled at this time. Now take a reading on every 1/2 or maybe 1/4 step of the motors all the way around your shape and feed that back to the gauss point collector. You need to record the time each time a reading is taken so all the variations can recorded to.
You also have to collect info on the flux density at that point.

Now it has to expand and go further in space.
Now we gotta get slick. We need a tool to unravel the database and make a point representation of the recording. Only the strongest points need to be drawn, that shows us the actual current of the photons and not just residual magnetism. But that strongest point has to be defined based on the layer it came from. So thats not a big deal if we have a good database and every things real organized. Heck I could write somthing like that to make the models using MAXScript. You mentioned 3dsmax it can help alot.

So then we have to renderer.

Now lets talk about a gauss meter. Heres a 3 channel that will work
FW Bell 7030: Gaussmeter, 3 Channel
Thats a cool $7k with shipping. But there are cheaper ones. You'll write a software package to read the IO from this machine and collect it.

And maybe for instance you don't want to wreck your existing CNC so you can build one with controllers and everything for maybe another $1500. Remember the better the stepper motor the finer the resolution.
And of course as far as I know none of the open source CNC software packages report position into IO so that you can grab it. But don't get discouraged there may be one out there, but if not you can get many open source, i think even windows compatible that you can modify.

Then for modeling heck 3ds MAX script can handle it, so you got that one in the bag.

I know my writing is kinda of convoluted but there is some things to think about in there. We actually look at it seriously and realized we didn't want to spend that much time and money to come up with. It would be a real neat thing to learn from. It just you gotta kinda pick your battle out there keep yourself pointed in the right direction of research.

When you started you need some specifics, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

Matt

Convoluted? You can bet you tried your best to make your explanation look as convoluted as possible!

Maybe did I say that I want to make a 3D topographic map of the magnetic fields? NO.
Did I say that I want to build a replica of Jonhson's machine? NO.

So what did I said? I just said that it could be a very interesting thing to find the strong vortex of the magnets.

How to do?
I have thought 2 different ways to do it:
-The first way would be using a 3-axis CNC machine and a gaussmeter (a cheap one would be ok), and the process would be really much much easier than you said (according to you, it's so extremely expensive and complicated that it should be a job for the NASA at least!). In fact, I can tell you very clear: nowadays making a topographic representation like the "illustration 2" I posted is really simple if you have a CNC machine and a cheap gaussmeter... and it would perfectly OK to see the difference between the strong and the weak vortex, which is what I'm talking about.
-The second way... it doesn't even require a CNC machine!

But it's ok, these are only ideas on my mind, only theory, so I'm not going to talk anymore about it, I wouldn't like to offend the sir again! I will test my ideas on real life, only if I get something interesting I will post here. Happy now?

[Matthew Jones]

Thank you. Looking forward to your in depth results...

Matt

[astron]

Thank you. Looking forward to your in depth results...

Matt

You're welcome.

[wayne.ct]

Understanding Magnets and the Imperfect Analogy

Many thanks to Matthew Jones and Yannick (yannicksonic) for leading me to my to my present understanding of magnets and magnet
motors. I now firmly believe that an unlimited number of magnet motor designs are possible. The limits
are defined only by the imagination.

This is my 'imperfect' analogy. The north end of a magnet emits a pressure wave that pushes
magnetic flux 'particles' out and around to the south pole. This is, of course, symetrical and
can be imagined as reversed if necessary.

Now imagine a cylinder. One end will be north, etc. Instead of a "single' magnet, there are a
large number of slender magnets around the circumference. The inside of the cylinder is now empty.

With all the peripheral magnets parallel to the central axis of the cylinder we have nothing to
remark about. So, now we skew (or cant) the magnets at some common angle. Imagine an angle of
about 15 to 45 degrees.

We now have a vortex or whirlpool of flux "particles". How you visualize that is up to you but I
imagine water going down a drain. A leaf is drifting in a circular pattern in the vortex.

Now, imagine the cylinder set on end and a magnet on a string dangled above the cylinder. This
is what I built as an experiment. Since the flux lines, i.e. "particles" are no longer moving
straight up and down, i.e. more or less parallel to the gravity vector, there will / should be
a tangential force on the dangling magnet.

The actual dimensions, masses, magnet strengths, etc. may be difficult to describe precisely, but
I think intuition can probably guide most of you from this point.

My independent variables are the length of the string and the initial kinetic energy I give to the
pendulum. The dependent variables are the motion (position over time) of the lower end of the
dangling magnet in the horizontal plane. Coordinates polar or rectangular are your choice. I can't
show you a video at this point but I can describe what I found from my experiment.

1. There definitely seems to be a force tangential or perpendicular as I expected.
2. The field in my setup is not uniform and the motion has a lot of apparent random nature.
3. It seems to me the magnets need to be much longer than these I am using here.
4. The best position for the "rotor" is not clear.
5. The radius at which the tangential force is apparent can be either less than the radius
of the cylinder or greater than the radius of the cylinder, There are two active zones.

I think #2 and #3 are closely related.

Regarding #3, The actual magnets are very short. The black rods have a small magnet in each end and the
length of the magnet appears to be equal to the diameter of the magnet.

Further details of the setup.

The black rods are 4 inches long and 5/16 inches in diameter.
The cardboard form is 3 1/2 inches long and 3 3/8 inches in diameter.
The dangling magnet is suspended from a point about 2 1/2 feet above the top of the cylinder.

The magnets come from Roger's Connection
(Magnetic Building Set L80682)
P.O. Box 871,
Fairfield, Iowa 52556

I will be happy to try and answer questions you may have about the experiment.

Wayne

[wayne.ct]

A Practical Design

One note before I continue. I have applied for one U.S. patent in my life and I do NOT intend to appply for one for
the device I am about to disclose. I declare that I know what I am doing. I positively intend that THIS is to be
a disclosure here and NOW. I call any and all readers of this disclosure to defend this invention against ever being
patented and stolen from the FREE PEOPLE. I can easily imagine this being in court some day. I have never seen
this configuration before. I now think the whole thing is very obvious. Does any reader know if this is
already protected by a patent? I doubt that it is because it is obvious perpetual motion from only magnets.

Let me continue.

I have decided exactly where I would like the rotor and stator to be positioned. I am still deciding how to build
a model that I can photograph. So, you will have to imagine it according to my word picture.

First, imagine a cylinder. This is the same cylinder as described earlier but now it is much shorter and the diameter
has been increased a bit. The proportions are important but the actual size is not important. The model builder
should choose a size that is easy to construct. I suggest a diameter of 6-8 inches.

The rotor has the shape of a disk and is naturally positioned in the center of the cylinder. Any number of magnets
are positioned along the rim of the disk. All the north (or south) poles should face away from the axle. They all
face the same relative to the center of the disk. Actually, three or four would work fine.

At this point the stator magnets are arranged around the rotor tipped slightly to one side as described earlier. I think
I have adequately described the arrangement. Some people will doubtless be forever confused regardless.

Now for some observations.

If you build this the way I have it constructed in my imagination, the whole thing will be very unstable. The disk
will want to twist and move out of position. Construction needs to be sturdy.

The disk should be free to rotate but nothing else. The magnetic force will have a component that wants to make
the rotor spin and a perpendicular force vector that wants to lift or shift the rotor from its preferred
alignment in the center of the cylinder.

If all this is achieved, the rotor will spin up to its natural resonant frequency. An appropriate load needs
to be built into the system to prevent undesired consequences. Please be careful. This may be dangerous.

I would like to suggest that an electric generator be directly attached to the disk as the load. In fact, I
suggest a permanent magnet DC generator would be excellent. It should be selected according to the
overall size of the build. I think a power source of 50 to 250 watts could easily be held in one hand.

I keep thinking how obvious this is, so please ask questions. I am blind to what I have omitted but should
be telling.

I would like to expand briefly on the two force vectors mentioned above. Imagine you have two bar magnets. You
are in a place where there are no stray EM fields. You arrange the two magnets in a T. Let's say the north of
magnet A is pointing toward the center of magnet B. The force vector on the north end of magnet A will be aimed
more or less directly toward the south pole of B. In x-y-z space, let's say that is x. The force vectors in
directions y and z are zero. When we tilt the stator magnets we are dividing that one force vector into two.
We now have a reduced force vector in the x direction and the additional new force vector in the y direction.
In this case, the y direction is the direction that causes the disk to rotate. If you can help me by
drawing a picture of what I am trying to explain, please do so.

I would like to suggest that the stator magnets be designed in a sort of clam shell arrangement so they can
be swung toward or awsy from the rotor. Some Perendev implementations use this idea.

I would like to suggest that an inexpensive proof on concept could be built with a very limited number of
magnets in the stator. It might be possible to do this with only one magnet in the stator. The problem I
see with having fewer or only one magnet in the stator is that the position adjustment of that one magnet might be very
critical. Also, some of these variants may require some energy input to get them started. I don't really
like the idea of having to put any energy into the device to get it started. If the energy is there, after
all, why not just take. Why the give and take?

This could be another reason, however, to have a permanent magnet DC motor generator on the shaft of the
disk. The motor could be used to bring the device up to working speed. It would certainly give one more
variables to play with.

I am sure there are one or more deficiencies in my description. I will be happy to try and answer
questions you may have about what I have tried to describe.

Wayne

[wayne.ct]

Magnetic particles

I see I'm not the only one that thinks in terms of magnetic particles. If the thought is new to you, read this:

Felix Ehrenhaft: Magnetic Current --- 9 articles

I've done a small experiment to further develop my design, but the construction was not strong enough. There was too much play in the construction, etc. I'll report when I have more to offer.

Wayne

P.S. Matt, this is your thread. If you want me to start a new / different thread for my project, just say the word.

[Matthew Jones]

Your fine. Just get the work done and show us what you got.

Cheers
Matt

[wayne.ct]

Your fine. Just get the work done and show us what you got.

Cheers
Matt

Thanks for the encouragement. I'm still in the design and construction phase, but you'll be the first to know my progress!

[wayne.ct]

Comparing my idea to the Howard Johnson Magnet Motor

Let me continue.

In doing a bit of research I discovered, for the first time, the work of Howard Johnson. I was
inspired especially by the physical configuration of his device. He is not using the
idea I am talking about, but a slight modification of this physical arrangement is to me a great
construction idea. So, I am putting all this together. The attached image should be enough to
put the right picture concept in your mind.

The phrase in a search engine will give you plenty to ponder, but none of the videos or replications
that I looked at show any understanding of the principle that I am trying to communicate. So I will
use HJ's motor as a take off point and try again to explain the working principle of my idea.

I am still very excited about what I am doing and I think this may help you with your construction.
I was talking to my brother about this and he said I could do a better job of explaining my
concept in writing. So, here is a fresh description that does not depend on my earlier one.

Imagine you are looking at the top surface of a disk. The disk is free to rotate around the axle in
the center. Around the edge are magnets. All have the same polarity. For example, all the north ends
are pointed toward you. Going foreard I am going to refer to these as edge magnets. Now, focus your
attention on the edge magnet furthest to your right.

A bar magnet is located above this edge magnet. Viewed from the side these two magnets form a T.
The center of the bar magnet is directly above the edge magnet. The longitudinal center line of the
bar magnet is running left to right with north on the right. Because of the symmetry, no force is
being exerted perpendicular to the longitudinal center line of the edge magnet. This is NOT to say,
of course, that NO force is being exerted. That should be obvious.

In order to be very clear, I would like to establish a coordinate system. I am going to use a
rectangular coordinate system with the origin at the center of the bar magnet. As pictured above,
the longitudinal center line of the bar magnet currently lies along the x-axis. With the broad
surface of the disk facing you as before, the y-axis is up and down. The z-axis measures how far
the plane of the disk is from the bar magnet. We are going to rotate the bar magnet in the x-y
plane keeping z-distance constant.

Now, imagine everything being held in place so you can think of the instantaneous forces at work. The
independent variable in our mental experiment is the angle of the bar magnet as it is rotated
around its center point keeping it in the x-y plane. The dependent variable is the force on the disk.

Play with that idea and get it firmly in mind. We want to imagine the angle as we vary it through
90 degrees of arc. Let zero be horizontal and 90 degrees be vertical. At zero the force on the disk
is zero. At 90 degrees the force will be maximum as the north pole of the edge magnet seeks the
south pole of the bar magnet. In between the force will follow the sine rule, or, if you prefer, the
cosine rule. If you build a physical model of this you will be able to observe the typical cogging
or gate-like action typical of all such constructions.

If you already have an experimental setup you can modify to try this out please do so and report here.

I am sure there are still deficiencies in my description. I will be happy to try and answer
questions you may have about what I have tried to describe.

Wayne

[wayne.ct]

Shaped Magnetic Flux

Another way to visualize or verbalize what I am thinking is captured in the phrase "shaped magnetic
flux". The flux density needs to be shaped and manipulated into a particular density pattern that
can affect the pole of a magnet in a nonlinear way. If, for example, you impose a 5 Newton force
in the clockwise direction for 10 degrees and then for any reason you had to also impose a 7 Newton
counterclockwise force for 5 degrees you might be able to do something creative to pull energy from
the magnets you are using to create the situation.

Using these hypothetical numbers, if the rotor was relatively massive, the speed would change slowly.
Lets say the rotor is moving about 1 degree per second. So over the 15 degrees you would have 50
newtons clockwise and 35 newtons counterclockwise. The difference would do work. It would either
increase or decrease the kinetic energy in the rotor. That much seems pretty simple. The problem gets
back to how do you create the nonlinear flux field.

So now, where do you see nonlinear force fields in nature? In vortex phenomena. Twisters, water going
down a drain, etc. All you have to do is create a similar vortex shaped environment in the electro-
magnetic world and you will start to see some progress.

Wayne

[wayne.ct]

Power, Energy, Goals, Basic Principles, Materials, Vortex, Conic Sections

Here are a few additional comments as I move forward to creating my demo.

Power and Energy

As every day goes by I am more and more convinced that I really understand how and why this can work. The principles are
fully scalable and you can get as much power out as you want by simply scaling up. You may ask where the power or energy
comes from to drive the rotation of a rotor. I have no doubt on this point. It comes from the magnets. The stored
energy in the magnets is being gradually depleted, just like a battery.

My goals at this moment

I am mainly interested at this point in designing a small toy-like demo model with a certain amount of
adjustability for demo purposes. I think the basic concept will be simple to explain.

A simple, cheap demo with a clear explanation will help convince those willing to learn. The cheaper the better
because it can then put something in the hands of people and put the sceptics on the defensive.

And, not to forget, I want to hook a small generator up the the rotor shaft to complete the demo.

The basic principles for understanding the design

There is a direct relationship between the principles that apply to electricity and those that apply to
magnetism. They are mirrors of each other. In particular, some materials conduct electricity and some are insulators.
Some with intermediate qualities we call semiconductors for lack of a better word. In the magnetic scheme of things
iron is a magnetic conductor. We say the flux is concentrated or magnified in iron. Air, wood, etc. is somewhere in
the middle of the magnetic conductivity spectrum. Some materials are magnetic "resistors". I have yet to complete
my research on the topic but I have seen talk about it and I just need to refresh my knowledge in order to pick a
suitable material for optimizing the device. In the meantime I am thinking wood will be good. At least it is not
a magnetic "conductor" and it won't disturb the flux in a negative way. It simply won't have any positive or
magnifying effect. Does Al act as a magnetic shield? If so, then it is to be preferred over wood.
I think wood is pretty much in the same class as air.

Imagine a grid with electrical conductivity along the vertical and magnetic "conductivity" along the horizontal. Each
material would have to fit somewhere in the chart. I just wish I had the chart ....

Again, I am thinking in terms of wood until something better is available. Wood will be good enough for now.

Vortex

Again, the idea is to create a vortex. There are a number of vortex magnet videos out there, so I will not belabor
the point. I only want to say the magnets need to be tipped in such a way that they create a vortex.
I think the problems experimenters have been having is precisely the result of not tipping the magnets
in the third dimension. If they had thought of arranging their bar magnets around a section of a cone instead
of a section of a cylinder they would have a much greater success rate. As it is, some are having some success
and a lot of them are very frustrated because they can't reproduce what they are seeing. A little inconsistency
in the amount of twist distributed around a circle and they start to see some results. As I continue to look at
what others are doing I just see it more and more. They don't understand the principle of the thing. And those
that do are keeping quiet.

Wayne

[Turion]

Matt,

Did you want to try to come up with enough $$ to put enough magnets on a 4' rotor for your V track? I know how expensive that is, but one of us needs to do it, and you are the logical candidate.

I've built the v track per your description and it works great. I had a straight track that will really shoot out the magnets.

Tried it with a four foot wheel and the wrong sized neos, and had a lot of fun with it.
YouTube - 11Turion's Channel

I also learned a lot. I now have my wheel mounted on a permanent portable steel frame from a treadmill, with really good bearings and have been saving up for $1,000.00 worth of the necessary magnets. But if you are closer to having a go at it than I am, I would gladly make a sizable donation to the cause as long as you share the results. As I have benefited in the past from your advice and help on too many occasions to count, and KNOW you share your results, I'm more than willing to chip in to see what results you get.

P.S. I haven't blown myself up yet working on the Lockridge motor!!
Dave Bowling