Statistics: Posted by Hybrid — Thu May 22, 2008 9:00 am
]]>
They can coat & magnetise #1 & #3 after cutting & drilling.
http://www.magnet.au.com/magnet_directions.php
In this pic I made, #3 I want made with 2 opposing poles.
I'm asking them to make the "A" section strong & "B" to be weaker.
#1 also to be weaker on the right trailing side.
#2 is for braking.
#1 is the std magnet that they sell.
If #1 draws & repels from #3 as I hope, I have a design for the rest.
Statistics: Posted by Hybrid — Thu May 22, 2008 8:56 am
]]>
Try to imagine the spatial existence of a magnetic field.. how it 'flows' (for lack of a better term), and what the field's geometry would look like.
Magnetic fields are toroidial. That is to say... Like a doughnut. The doughnut could be tall or short, stretched way out, or flat like a pancake.. But the field will always travel in that donut shape.. out from the top center of one pole on the magnet.. around the outside of the magnet, and back in to the bottom center of the other pole on the magnet.
If we shield one pole of the magnet, one of two things will happen, depending on the material used- The field will either pass through the shielding, totally unaffectedly as if the shielding weren't even there... or the field will accept the material as part of the magnet itself, and will travel along the outside of the shielding, and into the center end of the shielding. You will have a slight manipulation of the geometry of the field itself, but not significantly enough to do anything practical with it in terms of a spinning wheel.
But this is really an un-necessary element of discussion when we talk about gaining energy from a magnetic wheel, because only two poles are significant in the system.
To gain acceleration, you have to use either attractive effect, or repulsive effect. One or the other at any point in the rotor's rotation. You can flip them around, but if we freeze-frame the rotor at any point in it's rotation, you'll either see a net attraction, or a net repulsion acting on the rotor.
Let's examine a hypothetical magnet with only one pole.. a sphere with either a N charge, or an S charge, representing the North or South pole of a magnet.
You have two of them, coming closer together, and the change they experience will either be repulsive or attractive. Either way you look at it, you'll have the same net effect-
If an N sphere nears an S sphere, you will have an initial 'pull' until they reach equilibrium. Much like a pendulum, and Earth's gravity. It will fall, until it can't fall any more, at which point it will either stop, or begin trying to leave the field in the opposite direction.
When the N and S try to separate from one another, they both experience an identical attraction. The very same attraction that pulled them together to start with. If the wheel gains 'x' units of energy on the way in, it will lose 'x' units of energy on the way out.
The same goes for a repulsive effect, only in reverse... It takes 'x' units of energy to push them together, and they will gain the same 'x' units of energy as they push each other away.
This is how I understand the reality of permanent magnets. I wish it were different, but I have not been able to observe any evidence that suggests they will behave any other way.
However, there is one thing to consider... And I'm not sure if this could be applied to an OU design at all, since I haven't been able to experiment significantly with it yet.
If we wrap a magnet in copper wire.. building an electromagnet, with a permanent magnet core. You could theoretically nullify the net effect of the magnet core for a brief moment, at the rotor's apex... producing a net gain in rotational energy experienced by the rotor.
How much energy it takes to reduce the magnetic field of the magnet core is up for debate at this point, but it's something to think on for the moment.
Statistics: Posted by Cryptonic26 — Wed May 21, 2008 11:46 am
]]>
]]>
If there were no friction, and every magnet were somehow PERFECTLY identical in both power and orientation.... yes.
It would however, be the equivalent of a flywheel with no magnets at all, here's why:
When two magnets near each other, their fields interact with each other like static forces.
The 'push' effect has an equal but opposite 'pull' effect just beyond the threshold that marks the center of the magnetic field.
That is to say, once a magnet enters another magnetic field, the power gained by being 'pulled' will be equally lost by the 'push' effect as it leaves the magnetic field. They nullify, and no net effect is produced.
Statistics: Posted by Cryptonic26 — Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:31 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
As flawed as it may be, I'd like to examine the fundamentals:
With a static force like gravity or magnetics, it's easy to calculate the energy flow.
Based on observations, it's easy to see that when an object is pulled by a static force, it takes an equal but opposing force to lift it back to where it fell from. If you want to lift it further than that, then more energy is required.
So the conventional overbalanced wheel idea is out. When one weight is pulled down, you can capture that energy to lift an opposite wheel by the same distance only. Any time you take energy away, the lifted weight wont lift as far... this is your basic pendulum oscillation. friction taking some of the energy out.
At any rate, The problem lies with static forces.. if you could capture and apmlify variations in this force, you could pull this idea off with a perfectly balanced wheel.
For example.. If one could find a location on earth where an isolated space has a gravity field weaker or greater than the space just next to it, all you need to do is position one side of a wheel over this variation, and the wheel will start turning with a force equal to the difference between the two gravitational fields. (give or take some variables, this is good enough for general calculations)
Do these gravitational variations exist? could they be the cause of tornados and related whirls of fluid?
Can a variation in the gravitational field be manipulated? Some researchers in Australia think so.
There was an article published a year or so ago, in which a team of researchers claimed to reduce the force of gravity over a spinning superconducting ceramic disk.
If these claims can be replicated, what are the implications? Could one simply build a gigantic steel disk, over a spinning superconductor to produce enormous horsepower for free?
Just to play devils advocate for a second, There is a chance that you're simply re-directing gravity fields, creating something of a vacuum. If that's the case, then the laws of physics strike again, and you're only reducing gravity over a point proportional to the power you put into the spinning of such a superconductor. In which case, you end up getting out what you put in, and this idea is useless.. Even if it turns out to work this way, it should make some interesting advancements in energy generation, and/or space travel.
Just some thoughts, please discuss.
Statistics: Posted by Cryptonic26 — Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:54 pm
]]>