Another clarification, if you please...

Is the gear with all north poles pointing outward the center gear, or one of the six?

It is one of the outside gears. The inside gear has all the magnets with their fields parallel to the tangent. I thought about it and I don't see any reason off-hand why the reverse situation would not work as well. The inside magnets' orientations just need to be opposite that of the outside gears' magnets' orientations, one perpendicular to the tangent and one parallel to the tangent. Now that I have said that..........I may be able to reverse them so that the adjacent interactions would be nullified, in which case the center gear would have all the fields perpendicular to the tangent. Thanks for the question........it made me think of something I had never considered before. I wouldn't even need shielding between adjacent gears and the "bumpiness" of the motion would be much less dramatic!!! After all this time, this thing is still a work in progress for optimization.

That poses a problem though.......... I chose the inside gear diameter based on the spacing between the magnets when I played around with them. The larger the spacing for a gear with all the magnets with fields parallel to the tangent, the more "free" they are to interact with the other gear's magnets. If the magnets are too close, their north and south attract to the other magnets on the same gear and not only tend to pull them all towards the center but the attraction causes a more "rigid" field that hinders it from fully interacting with another gear's magnets. I would need to adjust the gear diameters to a slightly larger size to prevent this from happening, or just get slightly less powerful magnets since I already have the gears made and the magnets are cheaper to replace.

This makes me want to reconsider building this until a complete design change overhaul. I can reverse the orientations, get N50 grade magnets that are much smaller instead of the N34 or N36 that I have, and have slightly smaller gears. I have also found, since the original design, that the ratio of magnetic force:system mass plays a great role in vibration. The larger the mass of the gears, when compared to a constant magnetic force for the magnets, the smaller the vibrations are due to the higher inertia per field interaction.

 

If you used slightly smaller magnets parallel to the tangent on the outer gears, wouldn't you be able to use slightly larger magnets on the inner gear?

But wouldn't interaction between poles on the outer gears be more problematic if they weren't all North poles pointing outward? At the very least, the interactions would be more complex.

 

If you used slightly smaller magnets parallel to the tangent on the outer gears, wouldn't you be able to use slightly larger magnets on the inner gear?

But wouldn't interaction between poles on the outer gears be more problematic if they weren't all North poles pointing outward? At the very least, the interactions would be more complex.

I guess you're right. I just really wanted to keep all the magnets the same size for mirroring purposes. The ideal magnet actually turns out to be a point source, which doesn't exist, so the smaller the magnets are with a higher density is better. When the magnets on a gear are parallel to the tangent, if the proper spacing is done, they will only have, say 5%, of their field lines interacting so that 95% of their field lines are free to interact with the field lines from magnets on another gear. The denser the field and the smaller the thickness of magnet, the closer together they can be because of the increased wrap-around of the flux lines. A smaller diameter also greatly increases this effect because they are not pushed out as far in order to connect a return path to the opposite pole within the same magnet. This is why I say a point source is an ideal magnet for this. The thinner the magnet is, the better it interacts with other gears' magnets, especially at the conjunction point. So, since there is no such thing as a point source magnet, there is a fine balance that needs to be observed between the thickness and the diameter of the magnets. The only way I have figured out how to find this balance is to actually play around with them by hand and make a best guess for the ratio. For the N34 or N36 ones that I have, the size is 1" for the diameter and 0.25" for the thickness. N50 will most likely be about the same ratio, just smaller dimensions. If they are too thick, it takes a performance hit at conjunction due to not flipping the poles quick enough. If the diameter is too large, they have to be spaced apart further on the gears where the field are parallel to the tangent and the unit takes up much more space for a given output. Without a minimum thickness and diameter, the magnets do not posess enough force to overcome friction. It is a huge balancing act that is made much easier with newer high density magnets. As the density grows, the design may be made smaller and more efficient. This this wouldn't even be possible without the field density of Nd-Fe-B magnets that can now be mass produced today.

 

I've been eyeballing these. They look like they have great potential (no pun intended) and they have the poles already marked as well. This is from the main site that thingmaker provided for anyone who wants to browse through them.

 

Can anyone provide a link to a United States manufacturer of nylon gears that can do custom designs for cheap without requiring CAD designs. I was able to do it the first time with India over the phone in about 3 minutes and they got it right, despite the language barrier. The problem I have with U.S.-based companies I have contacted so far is they all require CAD files for custom stuff, even though the specs are so simple that a middle-schooler could correctly interpret them over the phone. Help with this would be greatly appreciated.

 

Can anyone provide a link to a United States manufacturer of nylon gears that can do custom designs for cheap without requiring CAD designs. I was able to do it the first time with India over the phone in about 3 minutes and they got it right, despite the language barrier. The problem I have with U.S.-based companies I have contacted so far is they all require CAD files for custom stuff, even though the specs are so simple that a middle-schooler could correctly interpret them over the phone. Help with this would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.emachineshop.com/

 

http://www.emachineshop.com/

Sweet........I'll look into this over the weekend. Thank you.

 

http://www.emachineshop.com/

I couldn't wait for the weekend. I attached a screenshot of one of the gears in 3D mode. This software with it's capabilities is awesome!!!!! Thanks GS3 It is going to run me a little under $2,000 due to the materials, quantities, and specifications.........not bad at all considering the holes are already made. I changed the design to reduce vibrations, size, and magnet dimensions based on the newly available N48 magnets from the site thingmaker provided me. Thanks guys

 

I'm new here, and I've just scanned these nine pages with some interest- sorry if I bring up a point which has already been made...

Mike,
on the newer, and clearer diagram which shows the orientation of a magnet 'pair' at five time steps:

As it is drawn it surely seems to indicate that steps 1-5 will be carried out. I'm unconvinced however that when one considers ALL of the interactions between ALL of the magnets present that there will be constant torque.

Consider another image... it looks the same as the one you've posted but now 1-5 are labels for the magnets, not time steps. I mean here that the image is static, showing one instant in time, and several of the magnet pairs. Now consider the pair in equilibrium (3). Magnets (2) and (4) are BOTH exerting a force on magnet (3) which is OPPOSED to the direction of perpetual motion. Each of these forces will be weaker than the "positive" force between any like pair; say (2) and (2), but there will be MORE of them.

If you ONLY consider the nearest pairs of magnets which rotate past each other, then this certainly looks like an over unity device (I just threw up a little in my mouth). But if you consider ALL of the forces between ALL pairs of magnets, this is no longer obvious. My intuition fails me- and I can't off hand assert that the sum of all of the applicable forces will be zero, but I don't feel very silly about ASSUMING they are anyway. If you can show explicitly that they are not- I will certainly pay attention to your argument. I don't expect that this will ever come up, however.

If you believe in what you are doing- then go for it. I shouldn't matter to you, but as a physics major with SOME LIMITED experience in mechanics, even I feel like I know enough to assume this is impossible.

The ramifications extend beyond your designed machine. So much of the framework of physics is dependent upon the conservation principles. To disprove one of them would mean that hundreds of years worth of observations simply coincidentally agree with the theories which assert conservation laws. If our species has been so wrong for so long, we should certainly revel in the opportunity to finally see things differently. I feel very confident that there is a flaw in your design, however.

I don't mean to discourage- only to impress honest criticism.

 

I'm new here, and I've just scanned these nine pages with some interest- sorry if I bring up a point which has already been made...

Mike,
on the newer, and clearer diagram which shows the orientation of a magnet 'pair' at five time steps:

As it is drawn it surely seems to indicate that steps 1-5 will be carried out. I'm unconvinced however that when one considers ALL of the interactions between ALL of the magnets present that there will be constant torque.

Consider another image... it looks the same as the one you've posted but now 1-5 are labels for the magnets, not time steps. I mean here that the image is static, showing one instant in time, and several of the magnet pairs. Now consider the pair in equilibrium (3). Magnets (2) and (4) are BOTH exerting a force on magnet (3) which is OPPOSED to the direction of perpetual motion. Each of these forces will be weaker than the "positive" force between any like pair; say (2) and (2), but there will be MORE of them.

If you ONLY consider the nearest pairs of magnets which rotate past each other, then this certainly looks like an over unity device (I just threw up a little in my mouth). But if you consider ALL of the forces between ALL pairs of magnets, this is no longer obvious. My intuition fails me- and I can't off hand assert that the sum of all of the applicable forces will be zero, but I don't feel very silly about ASSUMING they are anyway. If you can show explicitly that they are not- I will certainly pay attention to your argument. I don't expect that this will ever come up, however.

If you believe in what you are doing- then go for it. I shouldn't matter to you, but as a physics major with SOME LIMITED experience in mechanics, even I feel like I know enough to assume this is impossible.

The ramifications extend beyond your designed machine. So much of the framework of physics is dependent upon the conservation principles. To disprove one of them would mean that hundreds of years worth of observations simply coincidentally agree with the theories which assert conservation laws. If our species has been so wrong for so long, we should certainly revel in the opportunity to finally see things differently. I feel very confident that there is a flaw in your design, however.

I don't mean to discourage- only to impress honest criticism.

First off, I appreciate the criticism and it is very welcome to anyone who can provide a logical argument such as you have done. That and questions by others has led me to a dramatic increase in stability and efficiency by making me think of things I had never considered before in the original design. You hit the nail on the head when you said there will not be a constant torque. The torque generated increases and decreases in intensity forming the "M" shape as the influences in the inverse square law and the COS of the force, along with its vector direction, are interacting differently at any given point along the 80 degree interaction region.

Take this for example.....
If the timesteps indicated -40, -20, 0, +20, and +40 degrees, for steps 1-5 respectively:

At step 2, the COS of the angle between the attractive force vector and the tangent of the gear circle multiplied by the gross force at that distance will give the corrected tangentenal force vector for each of the gears which represents the net torque. It will be smaller than the gross force exerted between the magnets due to the nature of the vector-induced minimization of force to calculate the net torque, which is always a value associated with a vector parallel to the tangent of a rotating body, when the original gross force is other than parallel to the tangent to begin with. This force however is applied such that the lower gear turns CW while the upper gear turns CCW. The left side of the lower gear is pulled up and the left side of the upper gear is pulled down.

At step 4, the exact same amount of force is exerted between the magnets but the polarity of only one of them has changed and therefore the force vector has had a 180 degree reversal. Seeing as how the interaction now takes place on the right side of the gears, the right side of the lower gear is pushed down and the right side of the upper gear is pushed up.

To summarize.......

Step 2:
Lower gear - left side up (right side down)
Upper gear - left side down (right side up)
Similar to a stretched rubber band on the left side

Step 4:
Lower gear - right side down (left side up)
Upper gear - right side up (left side down)
Similar to a compressed spring on the right side

The action produces a mirror image force vector with a mirror image side of gear where the action is taking place. This represents a dual negative..............sort of like flipping a coin and calling "heads I win, tails you lose". Both outcomes are the same due to the dual negative applied relative to both sides of the statement.

The forces are equal and opposite but the vector of net torque is the same in both circumstances due to the opposite force acting on the opposite side of the gear. I hope this helps.

P.S. The conjuction point (3) is attracting and repelling equally due to the mirror image N-N repulsion and the N-S attraction where the field interaction is identical on both sides, just opposite in directional vector. The flipping of one magnetic field RELATIVE to the other without ANY ENERGY EXPENDED by using geometric mirroring would be analogous to a physical regauging. Once the potential energy is converted to Kinetic energy on one side of the conjunction, a mirror image potential energy is automatically generated on the other side of it just due to the single pole reversal in conjunction with the gear side reversal. This potential energy also gets converted to kinetic energy that acts in the same direction as the initial conversion. The extra magnetic potential energy comes at no cost due to the geometric regauging at the conjunction point within the length equal to the thickness of the magnet. The thinner the magnet, the quicker the transition. Nd-Fe-B magnets, relatively new to the scientific community, are essential to this thickness reduction to approach instantaneous transition as the thickness approaches zero. Any magnetic material before Nd-Fe-B would not be capable of overcoming friction due to the low field force from such a thin material with low field strength density. It takes extremely high field density and a very thin magnet to produce enough force to overcome friction as well as provide a short enough transitionary angle.

 

Hi, i am studying systems engineering and i have read these posts with interest.

Two comments:

1. it is possible for you to actually make work with that device, but just as the device comes from a metastable state to a stable state... if you try to model your machine in a multiphysics program and plot you the magnetic force field you will notice that it is not at all as linear as you depict it, that is to say that a magnetic field involving more than 3 different magnets is far more complicated than any mind can possibly imagine! If you build your machine, maybe it will even run, but it will inevitably slow down and stop as soon as the magnets reach their magnetic equilibrium, that is to say when they all get as close as possible to the lagrangian points in the magnetic force field (summa summarum: when they are where their potential is lowest).

2. Even magnetic fields have friction. It has been proven, during works on magnetic levitation, that even magnets have some sort of "friction" due to the magnetic hysteresis: a magnet moving in a magnetic field will dissipate energy simply because it is a magnet!

 

If your looking for free energy this is not the way. It is imposable!!! for more out then in. Dont even think about it!! Do not waist your time. If you want free energy (not solar or hydro or ect.) you should try to get energy out of the ionosphere. http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+Missing+Secrets+(+part++of+4+)&search=Search
Nikola Tesla: The Missing Secrets ( part of 4 ) in youtube

Watch the video. He was able to get electricity out of the ionosphere and burn out the genorators at the power station. The frequency of the electricity up there is 8hz.

 

If your looking for free energy this is not the way. It is imposable!!! for more out then in. Dont even think about it!! Do not waist your time. If you want free energy (not solar or hydro or ect.) you should try to get energy out of the ionosphere. http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+Missing+Secrets+(+part++of+4+)&search=Search
Nikola Tesla: The Missing Secrets ( part of 4 ) in youtube

Watch the video. He was able to get electricity out of the ionosphere and burn out the genorators at the power station. The frequency of the electricity up there is 8hz.

Here is some NASA footage of an ionospheric-type conductive tether experiment (STS-75 mission clip is about halfway through). I found it to be somewhat difficult to concentrate on the tether part of the experiment though

 

If your looking for free energy this is not the way. It is imposable!!! for more out then in. Dont even think about it!! Do not waist your time. If you want free energy (not solar or hydro or ect.) you should try to get energy out of the ionosphere. http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...+Missing+Secrets+(+part++of+4+)&search=Search
Nikola Tesla: The Missing Secrets ( part of 4 ) in youtube

Watch the video. He was able to get electricity out of the ionosphere and burn out the genorators at the power station. The frequency of the electricity up there is 8hz.

How much energy would you need to use to enable you to realistically implement such a method? It's all down to economics at the end of the day.

Dave

 

There is a static potential difference of some volts/meter measured from the earth. I put together a static motor that worked indifferently supplied with electricity from a kite up a few hundred feet. This is really a static effect, so I suspect Nicola fried the insulation from overvoltage, rather than from all that power. Many things are represented as true on youtube.

Where does the 8 Hz come from? The Navy uses 7 HZ as the carrier freq for deep underwater comms with submarines. If there is some natural 8 Hz waveform present, I would expect they might have noticed it by now.

The power NASA generates with the tether is legit - it's a conductor cutting lines of force. It's not practical because it takes work to drag the tether through said lines of force, and anything in orbit seriously does not want to slow down and drop out of orbit.

 

We are utterly and completely surrounded and immersed in "free energy" - and this energy is increasing as our planet heats up..
Each mol of a monatomic 'ideal' gas has a kinetic energy of about 12 Joules / Degree K.. If this energy could be captured and converted to some other form, for example electricity (resulting in proportional cooling of the gas or matter from which this thermal energy is extracted) we could solve several problems at once..
I believe it extremely likely that Floyd Sweet stumbled across a method of extracting the thermal kinetic energy in ferrite materials, and converting this to electrical energy, in his "VTA".. Alas, the biggest free-energy fraudster monopolised this research and effectively destroyed it..

This method of energy harvesting is completely different to differential methods (such as peltier / seebeck devices) as it acts by removing energy from thermal movement of molicules / atoms (?) damping these oscillations in the process, therebye cooling the 'harvester' which can then collect more thermal energy with greater efficiency.

I believe that some of the "free" energy occasionaly observed in magnetic / electromagnetic systems may well be due to thermal mechanisms - I am convinced that the pseudo science and incompetence which permiates the whole "free energy" field, and (rightfully) gives it a bad name, is disasterous - We NEED this energy now, and any distraction into baloney science has a huge cost.

1 mol of gas is about 22L.. Reducing the temperature of this volume by 40K could result in as much as 500W of available energy. Biological systems have managed to use the free thermal energy as a cellular transport mechanism (rectified brownian motion) - There is absolutely no scientific reason why this energy could not be harvested..

I have tried and failed - I KNOW it MUST be possible.. I have been (and still am)bound by a contract preventing me from discussing work I did.. But I cannot keep to this.. Too much is at stake - I drop this here in the hope that someone brighter than me will think of a way to tap this energy.

All my research into other "free energy" stuff backed up my belief that it is almost all a combination of incompetence and fraud.. But I think that certain magnetic configurations MIGHT act to harvest thermal energy.. This is certainly the case with the "VTA" (assuming the accounts are not a pack of lies) but may also account for some strange anomolies found in circuits using bifilar coils (?).

 

There is a static potential difference of some volts/meter measured from the earth.
.

I believe that the earth can be seen as a spherical capacitor - The ionosphere being one 'plate' and earth being the other, with the atmosphere between these 'plates' being the 'dielectric'. the potential gradiant is not linear, but is in the order of 10V/M.. However, the impedence is extremely high, making currents extremely small (except when discharges occur due to irregularities in the 'dielectric' and also due to other electrical events in the atmosphere).

I mounted a custom built collector on a 30M pole, and measured 500V with a (hired) electrostatic VM (in fact, this voltage varied between 200 and 500V over a period of a week - and the pattern was regular over most days)..

The ESVM did not have an output for a data logger, and was too expensive to retain for a long time, so I built an extremely simple circuit (anyone can build this..) A good quality capacitor of >1uF*, rated >100V, is connected between the antenna* and ground.. Across this capacitor, a small neon discharge tube is connected.. This tube (optical output) is coupled to a photodiode (or other optical detector).. The C charges until the trip voltage is reached, which outputs a 'flash' of light which is picked up by the detector (and discharges most of the charge on the capacitor).

*The size of the capacitor will determine the brightness (duration) of the flash, but the bigger it is, the longer it will take to charge.. With my large 'antenna' I got a flash every few hours (with a 1uF C) - I started by sitting under the pole at midnight looking for a flash for an hour before I gave up .. and relied on my counter which I left running..

My 'Antenna' was a huge (1M diameter) mesh sphere, with hundreds of alluminium foil streamers 5M in length hanging from it .. More current flowed when the wind was blowing.. (I was not down-wind from a power line - These grossly distort readings).

My conclusion (to my client who was paying me for this work) was that this was not (in my opinion) going to be a useful future source of electricity!

Beware - If storm clouds gather, move away from the pole! ... I had one electrical storm, but did not capture any data - I chose to ensure that my expensive counter survived, and disconnected it... However, for hours before the storm, there were no counts recorded at all - which surprised me.. I had expected counts to increase.

 

there is a 100v/m downward force or something and the ionosphere is only 50km up so 1000m in 1km so some math tells us that its only 5million volts(5,000,000) to get to the ionosphere. But with the 2some billion volts up there 5 mill is only a loss of .0025%. I have seen tesla coils that are said to produce 1mil volt. So im pretty sure this is posable and would pay for its self. even if copper costs $3.1017/lb(5 years ago it was only .65/lb)

 

At sea level, average is 120V/M.. However this reduces 'almost' exponentialy (at 30kM the potential difference is reduced to about 300mV/M). The potential difference between the Ionosphere and the sea is only in the order of 360kV MAX. Local zones of (much) higher PD do occur during electrical storms.. but the idea that the Ionosphere is at a potential of 5MV is simply wrong.

 

360kv is way better then 5mil! If im wrong and your right i would not mind being wrong this time!