Officially christened on 08, Jan 2008

(I decided this thing deserves a thread of its own)
New PMM configuration and animation - someone please tell me why it won't work!.

My previous animation was limited to a 5x8 configuration mostly because that was as much as I could geometrically visualize. I finally took the time to draw a 8x13 configuration and animate that as well. This looks much more promising. In fact, I don't see how it can fail.

Here it is:
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-fast.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-slow.gif

If you want a detailed analysis of what's happening, I also have an annotated image of the first frame:

http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-Frame1.gif

Is there a sticky spot? Sure, there's a couple of them. But with all the other rotational forces in this rig, I don't see anything to stop it.

If you want to model this using some more sophisticated graphical and/or engineering software, go ahead ... and post some links to your work. Or just build the damn thing.

If anyone knows of any previous attempts to do this, I sure would appreciate some references.

Hey OC, your graphic skills have improved dramatically! I think its a nice concept
and I don't want to introduce critical comments, maybe just discussion points.
I know how hard it is to come up with an idea then present it.
You are showing 13 moveable stators with locking mechanisms. How would that be
accomplished? I'm just thinking in practical terms being somewhat mechanically
oriented. Would this all be geared somehow? How would the latches work? I tried
a fairly simple geared design with only 5 moving stators and even with good gears
the drag was sizeable. Would you try to do this with a computer servo controlling each stator? Just a 4 servo system and you're looking at about $3K US.
The main thing I ran into was back torque on the stators. You might try this with
a diametrically magnetized stator mounted on a pivot and a bar magnet as the rotor.
You won't believe the back torque produced when you try to escape the sticky spot.
It seems like all you would have to do is spin the stator effortlessly like a switch and away it would go but it just doesn't happen that way. As soon as you try and rotate
the stator it will create strong opposing torque to get back to the sticky.
Any time you enter the sticky spot, you will have to do just as much work to get out
of it as you gained so why not begin rotating the stator before the rotor catches up?
This way the rotor is continually seeking the stator but never has a chance to get
there. Think of it like a dog chasing its tail. The more the dog turns to chase it's
tail, the faster the tail has to move so the dog doesn't catch it. In the mean time
you're removing work from the system and changing polarity. Now what happens
when the dog catches its tail. Process stops - just like a sticky spot. Not saying that will work either but will at least eliminate the stickys. Now introduce asymmetry into the system from an intersecting plane. Thats kinda what I'm trying currently.
I think I might have found a way to introduce asymmetry very cheaply energy wise,
causing the dog to chase its tail and leverage the initial energy.
Anyway, just some thoughts. Good work!

@Cloud Camper,

I have considered a couple mechanisms for latching the rotating magnets. The first is a mechanical sliding or rolling stop, similar in concept to what Axle did over in the Test Rig thread (http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=59214). The second would be some sort of magnetically actuated spring latch that actuates when it hits the null point of the passing magnet and releases when it hits the median, balanced repulsion point between 2 of the rotating magnets.

NOTE: Magnetic Viscosity is optional with this machine. The magnets will last longer and you'll get more torque if you have it. There is a small opportunity to leverage some viscosity in the illustrated mechanism. Adding some viscous pole-pieces and a little creative thinking during the design can incease the viscous advantages.

OK, so you feel that you can use viscosity effects by letting the rotor catch up to the
sticky. I sure wish somebody would have some luck with that. That would be a great
advance. I was not considering these in my points above. I just felt that entering a
sticky spot is kind of like driving down a dead end street. Feels good for a bit, then
you just have to waste a bunch of energy turning around and driving back out the way
you came in! Net gain zero (without the elusive SV effect)

We drive down a dead-end street and when we get to the end, we flip the street around 180 degrees so we can just keep going forward.

Still too much structuring, randomizing is in order. Or so my inner child tells me.
Runtime varying stator positions, so distances keep changing.
Never stabilize !
Never surrender !
LOL
Still think my fluid-bobbing magnets is one heck of an idea, well, an idea anyway.

To rotate the round magnets into this position..

[url]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/903/46446027ls3.jpg[/url]

..takes energy and for awhile they are in the wrong orientation to aid rotation. This happens elsewhere around the circle at different times. Add up all this "lost" energy over one rotation and I'm sure it will exceed any gains.

[quote]
New PMM configuration and animation - someone please tell me why it won't work!.
[/quote]
Magnets do not generate energy, no matter how complicated your configuration.

[quote]
Is there a sticky spot? Sure, there's a couple of them. But with all the other rotational forces in this rig, I don't see anything to stop it.
[/quote]
You don't see anything because you have made it complicated enough to fool yourself.

The whole concept of "sticky spots" is just a nonsense - it is mearly where the device has run out of potential energy, and has no new energy is entering the system it will simply stop.

[quote][cite] FLD:[/cite][quote]
New PMM configuration and animation - someone please tell me why it won't work!.
[/quote]
Magnets do not generate energy, no matter how complicated your configuration.

[quote]
Is there a sticky spot? Sure, there's a couple of them. But with all the other rotational forces in this rig, I don't see anything to stop it.
[/quote]
You don't see anything because you have made it complicated enough to fool yourself.

The whole concept of "sticky spots" is just a nonsense - it is mearly where the device has run out of potential energy, and has no new energy is entering the system it will simply stop.[/quote]

Actually what most people call "sticky" spot are minimum of potential energy. But I agree for the rest, even if it does not show up clearly, there are minimum of potential. The wheel will generate friction as it rotate, and even with a good kick, after a while it will slow down at the minimum points (be it a really low minimum or a local higher but still minimum in the curve). In absence of additional energy input, this is a complicated magnetic unbalanced wheel.

Now if you want to use this with a slow in, fast out, I can imagine ways of generating such movement, but there is still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER, be it from Steorn or anybody, that this is anything but[b]an energy loss mechanism[/b].

If you can , build it, one can learn a lot from building stuff, but don't invest hard cash money in this...

CWatters:To rotate the round magnets into this position..

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/903/46446027ls3.jpg

..takes energy and for awhile they are in the wrong orientation to aid rotation. This happens elsewhere around the circle at different times. Add up all this "lost" energy over one rotation and I'm sure it will exceed any gains.

The only magnets in the wrong orientation are those that are passing through the sticky spot, upon completing the flip. Rotating the magnets does consume some energy, the sticky spot requires even more. But Axle showed in his "Test Rig" thread that it was possible. In this configuration, we have the sum of magnetic forces from a number of additional magnets contributing to keep things moving (Axle's experiment was just 1 on 1).

For anyone who has been following the "Overconfident Theory" thread, you will again note that I used adjacent odd/even pairs of Fibonacci numbers. 2/3 in the triangular experiment in the Test Rig thread, 5/8 for the first graphics I posted, and now 8/13 for this experiment. I'm not absolutely certain this is essential, but it is interesting as well. Next odd/even adjacent pair would be 21/34 or 34/55. Anyone care to draw or model what those would look like?

FLD:
Magnets do not generate energy, no matter how complicated your configuration.

Correction: Magnets have never generated energy without the assistance of an externally provided source of motive power, no matter how complicated the configuration.

You don't see anything because you have made it complicated enough to fool yourself.

Sorry, this is as simple as I could make it and still get the ideas across.

The whole concept of "sticky spots" is just a nonsense - it is mearly where the device has run out of potential energy, and has no new energy is entering the system it will simply stop.

A sticky spot in my terms is anyplace where there is a resistance to favorable movement. In this case, we have 2 forms of magnetic resistance in addition to such well-known things like friction and back EMF. The flip consumes a bit of energy, but not as much as most people might think. The major energy consumer is at the completion of the flip, the 2 magnets are in an attractive state, side by side, and we need to separate them such that they are in a repulsive position. This takes a lot of effort. Fortunately there are a lot of other magnets in this configuration contributing to that effort.

Quanten:If you can , build it, one can learn a lot from building stuff, but don't invest hard cash money in this...

I agree 100% with this. Build it and see what you think. If it looks like what you built might have some potential, then invest in what you have created.

[quote][cite] overconfident:[/cite][quote][cite] CWatters:[/cite]To rotate the round magnets into this position..

[url]http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/903/46446027ls3.jpg[/url]

..takes energy and for awhile they are in the wrong orientation to aid rotation. This happens elsewhere around the circle at different times. Add up all this "lost" energy over one rotation and I'm sure it will exceed any gains.[/quote]

The only magnets in the wrong orientation are those that are passing through the sticky spot, upon completing the flip. [/quote]

Perhaps, but they are closer together than the others.

CWatters:

overconfident:

CWatters:To rotate the round magnets into this position..

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/903/46446027ls3.jpg

..takes energy and for awhile they are in the wrong orientation to aid rotation. This happens elsewhere around the circle at different times. Add up all this "lost" energy over one rotation and I'm sure it will exceed any gains.

The only magnets in the wrong orientation are those that are passing through the sticky spot, upon completing the flip.

Perhaps, but they are closer together than the others.

Yes, they are closer together. That's why it takes the combined forces of so many other magnets to keep things moving.

Note: I found a "flipping" magnet machine at the "Museum of Unworkable Devices".
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/newacqui.htm#flip

There are some similarities. But there are also some significant differences.

1) My machine does not need gears to flip the magnets
2) Once past the sticky point, my machine uses both repulsion and attraction to provide the motional force instead of attraction alone.

[quote][cite] overconfident:[/cite] Yes, they are closer together. That's why it takes the combined forces of so many other magnets to keep things moving.[/quote]

..but do they? I say they won't.

[quote][cite] overconfident:[/cite]Note: I found a "flipping" magnet machine at the "Museum of Unworkable Devices".
[url]http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/newacqui.htm#flip[/url]

There are some similarities. But there are also some significant differences.

1) My machine does not need gears to flip the magnets
2) Once past the sticky point, my machine uses [u]both[/u] repulsion and attraction to provide the motional force instead of attraction alone.[/quote]

But you are ignoring the main point of why it don't work :

[quote][cite]museum of unworkable device[/cite]Ask yourself why the rack devices are needed to flip the magnets 180°. Simply because they won't flip by themselves. Something must do work to flip them, and that work comes at the expense of something else. The work required to flip the magnets comes from the rotational kinetic energy of the armature, and that slows it down.[/quote]

With or without gear or whatever, make the same mistake. The flipping (sic) energy of the magnet has to be taken from somewhere.

Quanten:

museum of unworkable deviceAsk yourself why the rack devices are needed to flip the magnets 180°. Simply because they won't flip by themselves. Something must do work to flip them, and that work comes at the expense of something else. The work required to flip the magnets comes from the rotational kinetic energy of the armature, and that slows it down.

With or without gear or whatever, make the same mistake. The flipping (sic) energy of the magnet has to be taken from somewhere.

I never denied that it takes energy to flip. I just happen to think it's possible to gain more energy from attraction+repulsion than is expended to perform the flip.

1) Harvest energy from attraction on the way in.
2) Gain some viscous potential by dwelling in attraction.
3) Consume some energy to do the "flip".
4) Harvest energy from repulsion on the way out.

If we can optimally manage these 4 phases, we should be able to harvest more energy than we lost in the "flip".

OC,
What you are talking about can be described by an analogy.

You have several buckets of water and a large tank. You find some ingenious way of pouring the water from the buckets into the tank at one end and collecting the water back into the buckets at the other end. By careful timing and the right procedure(flipping the buckets at the right time and so on) you will take out more water from the tank than you pour in, but the water level in the tank does not decrease. Like that you have made a very useful device that will produce water from nothing - something very useful for Africa and other places where water is a problem.

To make sure it works you can arrange a system of narrow pipes and such to apply delays to the water going into the tank so as to take advantage of the hydrodynamic viscous potential of the water.

@Discobob,

Steorn might be interested in your water supply for the Africans still waiting to power their wells.

@ overconfident

there's only one way to find out: you should build it.

At the moment, it looks like it will be at least the end of the year before I could possibly start building it. I'm just throwing out my ideas to one-and-all. I'd very much like to hear comments, tips, and criticisms. If anyone knows of another machine like this one, please let me know. Or if anyone has a sound magnetic simulation that shows why this will not work, please show it to me.

So far, all I have seen is some armchair quarterbacking.

In the meantime the world will have to wait.

>So far, all I have seen is some armchair quarterbacking.


It's not just armchair quarterbacking, your configuration idea is not new, there have been 100s of variations on this theme, eg adjusting/flipping magnets at the right moment.

Flipping magnets while in the presence of another magnet will take all the energy available to do so, of course you could try flipping the magnets at a null point, of course variations on this theme have been tried.

But I do understand where your coming from OC, until you build it you won't really know why it does not work.

Yours is pretty much the same as this... uhh... toy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wcy0tedYBMg
(kind of same concept)

@RB,

You claim there are 100s of variations on this theme. So far, I am only aware of 2: the flipping device above and the Cack machine Cloud Camper mentioned in another thread. There are significant differences between these and the one I am presenting.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/newacqui.htm#flip
http://www.fdp.nu/cack_movie/janpcack.asp

Please give me some references on other machines with magnets that mechanically flip to opposite polarity.

Thanks

A9:Yours is pretty much the same as this... uhh... toy:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wcy0tedYBMg
(kind of same concept)

I have already commented on that device. It does present some interesting ideas, but I think it's actually a fraud. I'll add it to the list, so now we have 2 unworkable devices that use flipping magnets and 1 probable fraud. None do it like I do it.

Thanks for contributing.

Just a little more detail. This graphic shows one concept for how to provide a stopping mechanism to prevent the rotating magnets from flipping out of repulsion. All materials except the magnets themselves should be nonmagnetic.
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-RotatingMagnetDetail.GIF

This is not the only locking/latching idea I have, just the simplest.

And a quick reference to the earlier images:
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-fast.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-slow.gif
http://www.imgbolt.com/files/view/100653/OC13-Frame1.gif

@OC: nice graphic. It took me a minute to figure out just what was intended, but when I did I saw that this version of your idea is practically identical to one tried recently in the lab where I work. I mentioned it in an earlier post. The problem that the experimenter encountered was in designing the precise slope of the part you label "ramp" in your drawing. He incorporated a cam mounted on the rotor (two actually) to achieve the flipping/stopping action of the rotating magnets. But at least in his design the shape of the cam (analogous to the slope and positioning of your ramp) needed to be modified in order not to produce unacceptable drag, and eventually converged on a perfect circle, which rolled the magnets fine but could no longer stop them in position.
Now he's abandoned that idea and is working on something that he calls a "macro-domain" which is essentially a Halbach array wrapped up out of a sheet of flexible magnetic material and a bunch of Neos strategically positioned around its inside circumference.

alsetalokin:@OC: nice graphic. It took me a minute to figure out just what was intended, but when I did I saw that this version of your idea is practically identical to one tried recently in the lab where I work. I mentioned it in an earlier post. The problem that the experimenter encountered was in designing the precise slope of the part you label "ramp" in your drawing. He incorporated a cam mounted on the rotor (two actually) to achieve the flipping/stopping action of the rotating magnets. But at least in his design the shape of the cam (analogous to the slope and positioning of your ramp) needed to be modified in order not to produce unacceptable drag, and eventually converged on a perfect circle, which rolled the magnets fine but could no longer stop them in position.
Now he's abandoned that idea and is working on something that he calls a "macro-domain" which is essentially a Halbach array wrapped up out of a sheet of flexible magnetic material and a bunch of Neos strategically positioned around its inside circumference.

@Al, I would be very interested in any information you might be able to provide about the device you describe. If it has been done before, I'd like to learn something from someone else's experiences.

Thanx

@OC--I'll be seeing him on Tuesday (Monday is a holiday in these parts) so I'll ask him if he'll give me any details I can share. He's usually pretty open--in fact he has a video of his "macro-domain" device that shows it, sadly, "allllmosstt" going around, that may be up for viewing next week, if I can arrange it.

@Al,
I'll look forward to seeing and hearing more about his design. Anything I can learn from his experiment would be welcome. Please show him my graphics and see if he has any comments.

@RB,
If we wanted to scale down a bit, we could pick up a couple of these wheels and save some time designing the stator. We'd need to locate some tiny magnets of the correct type to go along with it.
http://www.teamspeedcop.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=18&pos=0

Or if we wanted to scale up a bit, there's some of these:
http://www.teamspeedcop.com/photos/displayimage.php?album=18&pos=0
(eddy currents could be a significant factor in this case, though)

Nice graphic. Neat machine.

I don't see any reason that it should turn unless some outside system was rotating the stator magnets.

[quote][cite] enginerd:[/cite]

I don't see any reason that it should turn unless some outside system was rotating the stator magnets.[/quote]

Absolutely.

There was a young man who said "God
I find it exceedingly odd
That the tree I see should
Continue to be
When there's no one about in the quod".

[color=darkred][i]"Dear Sir
Your astonishment's odd
I am always about in the quod
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by
Yours faithfully
God".[i][/color]

Of course, the young man from the limerick has little evidence that the tree does, in fact, exist when not being observed.

Schroedinger's tree.

What I meant regarding the machine in question (and perhaps I was not clear) was that when I look at the forces operating on the wheel, they appear to net zero re rotation.

@enginerd,
Try it. It'll surprise you.

@ enginerd

[color=darkred]Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.[/color]

Thanks Frank. That was great.

That poem was one of the few things I've copied out of this forum in many months. Well worth saving.

enginerd:Thanks Frank. That was great.

That poem was one of the few things I've copied out of this forum in many months. Well worth saving.

It's from a Monty Python comedy sketch about an Australian university philosophy department in which all the faculty are named Bruce. From the same sketch, we get the quote "Rule Six: there is NO Rule Six."

I think I may have seen that sketch back in the 70's. On my sorry TV and with their accents unfamaliar to my ear, I wouldn't have been able to appreciate most of the lyrics of a song like that. I do remember more than one sketch where everyone was named Bruce. One I think they were around a camp fire and may have been explorers or some such.

I have also heard the "there is NO Rule Six" quoted from Monte Python but didn't know which sketch.

When I was in high school I happened on a Monte Python episode that included a sketch about "what to do when attacked by a man with a banana, or a bowl of fruit". I was hooked. I had a couple of their records including "Matching tie and handkerchief" which I think was the three sided one.

It has been a long time since I have heard any Monte Python. In this internet age I bet I could dig up a clip or two on youtube or something.

Thanks Modervador and Grimer for reminding me. I think I'll go have a nostalgic humor fling.

enginerd:When I was in high school I happened on a Monte Python episode that included a sketch about "what to do when attacked by a man with a banana, or a bowl of fruit". I was hooked. I had a couple of their records including "Matching tie and handkerchief" which I think was the three sided one.

That's the one with the "Bruces" sketch, I'm pretty sure. I can remember our surprise at dropping the needle to listen to the record for the 3rd time and hearing material we hadn't before. For the first 3 sessions, we'd managed to "find" the same groove, which I now realize is 1 in 4 odds. We soon grew adept at selecting either of the two grooves on that side by using the label as an index.

Back to the topic

For those of you who don't quite believe that the magnets will rotate on their own, I took the time to set up a small demo experiment and photograph it. I created a linear representation of a small segment of the stator and rotor illustrated above. Now this is not anything that produces the overall effect, I don't currently have the proper magnets, materials, or time to do that. This is just a simple demonstration that the rotating magnets will flip polarity all on their own, without any gears or motors, etc.

http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/StatorRotor.jpg shows the two components I created. They are flattened out segments of the 13 magnet stator and 8 magnet rotor previously illustrated.

Here's the construction materials I used to build it with http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/Pieces.jpg, plus 9 half-inch cube neo magnets (I got careless and my 10th one shattered). The nonrotating magnets are actually 2 cubes each. The rotating magnets are 1 cube each. I attached roofing nails to the sides of the rotating magnets in order to kluge some sort of axle for them to rotate. Lots of tape and glue here. Pretty shoddy work, but maybe it will get the idea across.

http://imgbolt.com/files/100653/Exp1/RotatingMagnets.gif
In this animated sequence taken with a digital still camera, I am moving the stator instead of the rotor simply so you can see the magnetic relationships and the rotating magnets as the position changes. I actually only took one sequence of shots (17 frames from right to left) and then looped it backwards and forwards 10 times.

Nothing fancy, just a visual aid for those who don't think the magnets will rotate themselves. Have fun.

edit: I almost forgot to mention. In the static photos, you will see some toothpicks stuck into the rotating magnets. They are removed in the animation so you can see more rotation. The purpose of the toothpicks is to stop the rotation when passing through the sticky spot into a repulsive orientation. If I had kept the toothpicks in place, you would have seen only 1/2 flip.

Who would think that they wouldn't rotate, and why ?

Discombobulatorr:Who would think that they wouldn't rotate, and why ?

enginerd:Nice graphic. Neat machine.

I don't see any reason that it should turn unless some outside system was rotating the stator magnets.

The outside system in this case is your hand. I hope we're not going to have to put up with an OcH free energy device now. The ObH one has taken up more than enough space on this forum already.

overconfident:

Discombobulatorr:Who would think that they wouldn't rotate, and why ?

enginerd:Nice graphic. Neat machine.

I don't see any reason that it should turn unless some outside system was rotating the stator magnets.

"I am moving the stator instead of the rotor simply so you can see the magnetic relationships and the rotating magnets as the position changes."

WTF? You know I am in favor of your ideas, OC, but here I fear you tread perilously close to Omni-bus's S-N-OT.

(ETA I see Discombob's made essentially the same comment)

Discombobulatorr:The outside system in this case is your hand. I hope we're not going to have to put up with an OcH free energy device now. The ObH one has taken up more than enough space on this forum already.

Don't worry. If I ever get the real thing built, it will either turn all on it's own or sit statically holding my door open.

@OC

Nice graphics

The magnets will obviously rotate with that setup since they are being moved between attraction and repulsion positions caused by the magnets on the stator.

btw, I like cheerios as well, never buy them though because I scoff the contents of the box as a snack

Those pictures make me think it would`nt be too difficult for RB or someone to bodge something together as proof of concept with details of the magnets required etc.

@ RB, you would eat a whole box at one go??

alsetalokin:
WTF? You know I am in favor of your ideas, OC, but here I fear you tread perilously close to Omni-bus's S-N-OT.

(ETA I see Discombob's made essentially the same comment)

@Al, I only did this to visually illustrate that the magnets will rotate of their own accord. There have been comments in this and other threads claiming it couldn't be done without gears, servos, or cams. In attraction, the rotating magnets will actually align and keep themselves at an optimum angle. As we pass the sticky point, the magnets will want to flip back into attraction (as they do in this little experiment). The stop levers and ramps are designed to prevent this from occurring by locking the magnet into repulsion.