"RICK'S PIPE DREAM" Magnetic Motor-Generator

[Cloxxki]

I can see it now.
A circular monorail on the underside of the wooden flywheel. Like a vertical bit of plating. 4 short bends around the wheel. The stator arms have low-friction wheels (or even magnets) following the monorail, and getting the stator magnet to be where it needs to be.
With the monorail in place, and the timing time, as many stators can be added as will fit.
As long as each movement of the stator arm takes less energy than 2 magnetic power bursts, the wheel should keep going. With multiple stators, it would subsequently be a self-starter from (most?) any position. Imagine 8 stator arms, 4 of which are always propelling the wheel.

@Rick,
Nothing I can imagine to improve on your system as proposed. And I must now agree with you, stator arm weight is important. Especially with the short movements you're looking for, at speed it might jerk a bit. The wheel should not want to get hung up from that.

Please quit pleasing the critics, and "just" build the tracking mechanism, show us the goodness!

Enjoy the trip,

J

[Jbignes5]

Heya Rick.

Another option to think about is use a servo type actuator to flip the poles while running. Looking at the servo the left pole would be north and the right pole would be s. Then rotate it half way and the poles are reversed. Allowing you to flip the pole as it does the final burst push. This could be done with very little power I would assume. I think I saw that kind of a version from one of the replicators but he had it on the side of the wheel. Since the maximum force would be from above this should allow you to switch the force acurately and with purpose to sync the timing.
Just a suggestion. Pick it apart and see if it helps.

[rickoff]

Reply to jbignes:

Another option to think about is use a servo type actuator to flip the poles while running. Looking at the servo the left pole would be north and the right pole would be s. Then rotate it half way and the poles are reversed. Allowing you to flip the pole as it does the final burst push. This could be done with very little power I would assume. I think I saw that kind of a version from one of the replicators but he had it on the side of the wheel. Since the maximum force would be from above this should allow you to switch the force acurately and with purpose to sync the timing.
Just a suggestion. Pick it apart and see if it helps.

Hi J,

No question as to whether or not that would work, but my aim is to accomplish everything with no external power input. Since the end product is hoped to be a motor-generator, one could tap a portion of the generated power to flip the servo, and of course that would still be deemed appropriate from a purist point of view since no external power would be applied. I do think, however, that there are enough alternative options available to us that will allow the movement we seek without diminishing the available generated power output.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to Cloxxki:

I can see it now.
A circular monorail on the underside of the wooden flywheel. Like a vertical bit of plating. 4 short bends around the wheel. The stator arms have low-friction wheels (or even magnets) following the monorail, and getting the stator magnet to be where it needs to be.
With the monorail in place, and the timing time, as many stators can be added as will fit.
As long as each movement of the stator arm takes less energy than 2 magnetic power bursts, the wheel should keep going. With multiple stators, it would subsequently be a self-starter from (most?) any position. Imagine 8 stator arms, 4 of which are always propelling the wheel.

@Rick,
Nothing I can imagine to improve on your system as proposed. And I must now agree with you, stator arm weight is important. Especially with the short movements you're looking for, at speed it might jerk a bit. The wheel should not want to get hung up from that.

Please quit pleasing the critics, and "just" build the tracking mechanism, show us the goodness!

Enjoy the trip,

J

Hi Cloxxki,

Yes, I see you are getting a clearer picture of the main elements now, and the reasoning behind their use and construct. We want as little force applied to the sides of the monorail track as is possible, since that would have a certain braking effect even if using premium rollers. So any weight causing such a resistive element, at the 4 push points per revolution, would be best trimmed to the bare minimum that is possible.

We certainly could place the track on the wood side, although I decided some time ago to place the track on the magnet side of the wheel. I am laying down some 1/4" thick spacing wedges between the magnets, and some additional spacers within the interim wide spaces between the magnet groups, and will be applying a 1/4" thick Lexan ring above that. Holes will be drilled through the Lexan, each of the wedges, and on through the rim at those points, and #8-32 x 1" nylon binding head screws and locknuts used to fasten it all down. The monorail will ride at the outer perimeter of the Lexan, which will extend perhaps 3 inches beyond the wheel rim edge. I'll be showing these construction steps shortly.

I wasn't able to upload video #19 from my daughter's house, but will be returning home later today and will get that done.

Catch you again later,

Rick

[rickoff]

Pipe Dream Update

Hi folks,

Video #19 is currently being uploaded to YouTube (90% completed as I write), so will be ready for viewing shortly. This video will entirely debunk statements made by critics and naysayers suggesting that all of the energy that makes the wheel revolve is being imparted by my hand movements. While I really don't care what the critics and naysayers believe, I thought that it was important to make these latest two videos so as to explain and demonstrate the actual methods and forces employed, and to do this in a manner that is clear and indisputable. First and foremost, it offers supporters firm footing to stand upon, and a way to demonstrate to others that these methods and principles really do work. For replicators who will be demonstrating these operational principles on their machines, this should also serve as a demonstration model.

I am still working on labeling the remainder of the flywheel construction photos, but hope to have all of that posted within the next 24 hours.
After this is done, I will then begin documenting the construction steps for the tracking components.

Thanks to all for your continued interest, participation, and support.

Best wishes to all,

Rick

[rickoff]

Reply to Mark:

Rick

I didn't make myself very clear. What I meant was just placing the rotor magnets on the inside and the outside of the 3 inch wide lip of the wheel, not actually moving them back and forth. All the magnets would be stationary and instead of moving the stator magnet in and out an inch the rotor magnets would be alighned that way. For example in the first set of 10 magnets the first 9 would be toward the inside of the rim and the last one would be mounted near the outside. The next set of magnets would all be mounted on the outside edge of the rim except the last one which would be mount toward the inside and so on.

Mark

Hi Mark,

One drawback to this method that I neglected to mention before is this:
Let's first assume that the first 9 magnets are all south facing up, and that the stator north pole is above them. After the 9th south magnet passes the stator, you say that you would place the 10th south magnet in line with the stator's south pole to afford the repulsion accelleration effect that is then wanted at the tail end of the magnet group. You would get the repulsion effect you are looking for, but only after the stator south approaches and passes over the 10th south magnet. There's no way of getting around the anti-rotational repulsion that this would cause, and it would have the effect of canceling out the benefit of 4 accellerative points that would otherwise have occurred if using a MOSTAT. In other words, the braking decelleration as the stator approaches the 10th magnet would offset the accelleration thrust seen after the 10th magnet passes the stator, resulting in zero net gain. And that's why stationary magnet layouts and orientations just don't cut the cake. Remember that the whole point of a moving stator is to avoid all anti rotational forces, and to turn these same forces into accellerative ones.

Rick

[Hoppy]

Great, well presented video Rick.

Just one observation - as you move the stator so as to repel the South Pole magnet group and attract the North Pole group the energy imparted to the stator by your hand is helping to 'push' and accelerate the South Pole magnet group because the distance between the stator and rotor magnets is being maintained for a very short distance due to the displacement of the stator in the direction of the reeding South Pole magnet group by hand movement. If this distance were not maintained, then the repulsion effect would diminish more quickly. The North Pole magnet group is also being 'dragged' by the moving stator over a distance greater than that which could be achieved with fixed stator.

If the net energy to move the stator mechanically works out to be less than the energy imparted to the rotor by the stator movement, then I can a see a self-runner emerging.

Hoppy

[FreeRadical]

hi res videos

Rick, could you make your hi-res videos available. Possibly on SkyDrive?

[FreeRadical]

Rick, I just watched #19.

A view from the top would be helpful, it's hard to tell exactly where the stator is located relative to the N group at around 2:15 where you let the wheel go.

Are you relying on the N-N repulsion at the beginning of the rotation to cause some momentum? If so, isn't that just releasing the energy used to move the wheel into the start position, kind of like a spring?

Giving the wheel a slight counter-rotational nudge at the start causes a trampoline effect (N stator bouncing off N rotor), thus giving the wheel added momentum in the desired direction. I tried it with my rig, and that's exactly what happens.

I'm not saying you did, but skeptics could argue that this is what happened at 2:15 when you released your hand in a sweeping counter-rotational motion. Again, a top view would show the rotation more clearly. I know you mentioned at one point that you were going to incorporate a release mechanism, so Mr. Hand won't be touching the wheel at all during release. Now I see why this is going to be absolutely essential to quell the naysayers.

Cheers

Carl

[Hoppy]

I'm not suggesting in my last post that the Mr. hand is responsible for the initial energy in video 18, just that when Rick operates the stator by hand in the previous videos, the energy imparted to the stator whilst turning it by hand adds to the energy imparted to the rotor. However, I agree with FreeRadical that a deliberate counter rotational nudge would result in the rotor gaining momentum in the desired direction.

As I see it, if the stator can be moved as necessary without draining the stored kinetic energy in the rotor / flywheel to a point where the energy imparted to the rotor by the stator is not diminishing over time due to frictional losses, then free running should be possible.

Hoppy

[Shamus]

Hi Rick,

I am more convinced than ever that even if you were to show the wheel rotating on its own (with the tracking system in place, of course) that people still would refuse to see what's in front of their eyes. I'm sure this is no news to you, but it's probably a waste of time trying to convince such people as it seems that nothing will convince them.

I just wanted you to know that I verified your findings on my little 6-inch wheel and things work just as you say. I tried switching in the middle of a magnet group and, while you can sustain rapid turning of the wheel this way, there is quite a bit of "stickiness" when trying to cross in the middle. Crossing at the end results in almost no stickiness. I don't know that I'll be successful with my build as I'm using relatively weak (compared to neo) magnets on my wheel, but I'm determined to see what I can do with proper switching.

I'm looking forward to seeing what happens once you get your tracking system in place. I think it will be interesting, to say the least.

[rickoff]

Rick, I just watched #19.

A view from the top would be helpful, it's hard to tell exactly where the stator is located relative to the N group at around 2:15 where you let the wheel go.

Are you relying on the N-N repulsion at the beginning of the rotation to cause some momentum? If so, isn't that just releasing the energy used to move the wheel into the start position, kind of like a spring?

Giving the wheel a slight counter-rotational nudge at the start causes a trampoline effect (N stator bouncing off N rotor), thus giving the wheel added momentum in the desired direction. I tried it with my rig, and that's exactly what happens.

I'm not saying you did, but skeptics could argue that this is what happened at 2:15 when you released your hand in a sweeping counter-rotational motion. Again, a top view would show the rotation more clearly. I know you mentioned at one point that you were going to incorporate a release mechanism, so Mr. Hand won't be touching the wheel at all during release. Now I see why this is going to be absolutely essential to quell the naysayers.

Cheers

Carl

Hi Carl,

The starting point was at the critical repulsion margin, at point #4 as marked on the flywheel.

If you move the elapsed time to 2:16 of the video, stop it just after I say, "watch what happens," then resume again at that point, you will see that I am not moving the wheel at all when I release it, so no trampoline effect involved. I was especially careful not to do that. My only purpose in bringing my fingers away in a right to left movement was to show that I definitely was not supplying any forward spin motion to the rotor with my hand.

Yes, I am showing that the N to N repulsion at the tail end of the north facing up group does have an accelleration effect, and therefore produces inertial momentum energy that is then stored in the flywheel. True, I had to move the rotor into the position where that was possible, and that required some effort, but less energy than the two succesive acceleration effects that were produced as a result. And it must be remembered that this was from a dead stop, and this was therefore the only means available of demonstrating the additive effect of the two accelerative forces which occur in each 90 degrees of rotation. If the wheel is already in motion, the repulsion starting point that I demonstrated is easily brought into position, and this is clearly demonstrated nearer the end of the video when I intentionally slow the rotor down to a very low speed. You can see that the rotor easily reaches that strong repulsion margin on its own while the rotor is barely moving, and that this is a property caused by the stored inertial momentum. What's more is the fact that this is being done with a fixed stator where the inertial force required to overcome the anti-rotational repulsion effect, as the first and last rotor magnets approach the stator, is at a maximum value. With the moving stator, these anti-rotational forces are avoided, so will not pose a problem. Also remember that the fixed stator arrangement caused a further decelerative action to occur at the tail end of the south facing up group due to attraction. So in all, there were two accelerative actions and two decelerative actions. This, coupled with bad bearings and wind resistance, eventually brought the rotor to a standstill. What is especially important to realize from this video is the obvious acceleration effects that occur at the repulsion and attraction points, and these are clearly seen when the rotor is moving very slowly. The rotor is quite clearly seen to speed up after passing the repulsion margin, and again as the next magnet group approaches the stator in attraction.

Yes, I did mention employing a rod that could be used to hold the rotor steady, and then be withdrawn by removing it in a straight outwards direction. I still intend to do that, but just haven't had the time yet. I would also have preferred showing a top down view for this demonstration, but that doesn't even show as much since the stator arm and mounting block obscure a clear view of what is going on. I'll be mounting the new stator assembly and tracking carriage on clear Lexan so that this will give a far better opportunity to see all of the relationships involved during an overhead view.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

reply to Hoppy:

Great, well presented video Rick.

Just one observation - as you move the stator so as to repel the South Pole magnet group and attract the North Pole group the energy imparted to the stator by your hand is helping to 'push' and accelerate the South Pole magnet group because the distance between the stator and rotor magnets is being maintained for a very short distance due to the displacement of the stator in the direction of the reeding South Pole magnet group by hand movement. If this distance were not maintained, then the repulsion effect would diminish more quickly. The North Pole magnet group is also being 'dragged' by the moving stator over a distance greater than that which could be achieved with fixed stator.

If the net energy to move the stator mechanically works out to be less than the energy imparted to the rotor by the stator movement, then I can a see a self-runner emerging.

Hoppy

Yes, Hoppy, the effect of the repulsions is definitely greater when the pivoting stator "chases" after the retreating tail end of the magnet group for that very small distance produced by the curvature of the arc that is swung, and this is definitely beneficial during that very brief period while the distance is maintained. This action has no increased demand on the energy required for the stator movement, as repulsion is only momentarily prolonged - not increased in force.

Each magnet group uses the exact same magnetic interactions. Therefore, I'm not quite sure what you meant about the north facing magnet group "being dragged by the moving stator." Could you elaborate, please?

Thanks,

Rick

[rickoff]

Another reply to Hoppy:

I agree with FreeRadical that a deliberate counter rotational nudge would result in the rotor gaining momentum in the desired direction.

I agree with that assessment too, if it were the actual case, but as I pointed out in post #184 there was no movement seen at the actual time of release (2:16 of the video). I was very careful not to do that. Prior to the release, I did show twice how removing my fingers in a right to left motion could produce a small but definite amount of clockwise motion, but when the actual release occurred there was no motion whatsoever.

As I see it, if the stator can be moved as necessary without draining the stored kinetic energy in the rotor / flywheel to a point where the energy imparted to the rotor by the stator is not diminishing over time due to frictional losses, then free running should be possible. Hoppy

That's exactly what is needed, and I do think it is achievable. My first attempt may not be successful at producing the desired result, but I think it will at least be somewhere close. And that will give us a really good idea of what additional forces may need to be employed to get us "over the top." Adding further flywheel heft may be one such solution, since the heft already added definitely produces beneficial effects. And that's by no means the "end of the trail," as possible solutions go.

Best regards,

Rick

[rickoff]

Pipe Dream Update

Hi folks,

I have all of the photos labeled for the flywheel construction, and am now working on the actual post. I just need to add some extra instructions between a few of the photos and it will then be ready to go, so you can definitely expect to see it posted tonight.

After that, I will be posting construction steps for the tracking and timing system components as my work progresses.

Thanks for you patience and support,

Rick