Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010
     
    Posted By: overconfident
    Posted By: novaThis is the principle of OC's design.
    <http://www.fdp.nu/cack_movie/JanPCack.htm>
    It's easy to see why it won't work.
    I must say, it's a good thing they animate or draw an arrow so you can tell which way the creator thinks it should rotate.


    That device was mentioned almost 3 years ago and I discussed it at that time:
    http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=58463&page=9#Item_3It does have rotating magnets and opposed fields. But the rotor and stator magnets are lock-step. In my design the rotation can vary as the magnetic relationships change. There is an odd/even relationship between stators and rotor magnets. And of course there are the latching and pivot mechanisms.
    LOL! You've been taking the same pointless piss for three years now! How time flies!

    I see you are still holding onto to making pointless empty assertions. Do tell what is the specific physical basis for your claim that scheme can't work due to fixed phase relationships, and what does unlocking the phase do to correct it? Where does unlocking the phase create energy?
  1.  
    Posted By: joshs
    Do tell what is the specific physical basis for your claim that scheme can't work due to fixed phase relationships, and what does unlocking the phase do to correct it? Where does unlocking the phase create energy?


    I realize you won't be satisfied with my answer, but here goes anyway:

    The only "phase shifting" that is of benefit is when latching to allow repulsion to be leveraged, and when the latch is released it allows the spinning stator to speed up and resync with the rotor.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010
     
    Posted By: overconfidentand when the latch is released it allows the spinning stator to speed up and resync with the rotor.


    ...which is slowed down by spinning up the stator, etc., etc.,etc.
  2.  
    Posted By: Angus
    Posted By: overconfidentand when the latch is released it allows the spinning stator to speed up and resync with the rotor.


    ...which is slowed down by spinning up the stator, etc., etc.,etc.


    ... which allows the stator to sync with the upcoming rotor magnet for better attraction and acceleration. When unlatched the rotor magnet which has just completed its latched repulsive transaction with the stator has already reached the approximate midpoint between stators and will retain its repusive orientation with the previous stator due to its growing attractive interaction with the subsequent stator.

    As I said before, you really can't do this with just 2 magnets.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010
     
    Posted By: overconfidentAs I said before, you really can't do this with just 2 magnets.


    Or N magnets, where N is any number.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010
     
    Posted By: overconfident
    Posted By: joshs
    Do tell what is the specific physical basis for your claim that scheme can't work due to fixed phase relationships, and what does unlocking the phase do to correct it? Where does unlocking the phase create energy?


    I realize you won't be satisfied with my answer, but here goes anyway:

    The only "phase shifting" that is of benefit is when latching to allow repulsion to be leveraged, and when the latch is released it allows the spinning stator to speed up and resync with the rotor.
    LOL! The Steorn loss is a gain claim.

    There is no favorable leverage. Preventing a magnet from rotating in response to the field means that you are opening the reluctance gap faster than had the magnet been allowed to turn. That takes extra work. Do you wish to represent yourself as so fucking clueless that you do not realize it takes work to separate magnets?
  3.  
    Posted By: joshs
    There is no favorable leverage. Preventing a magnet from rotating in response to the field means that you are opening the reluctance gap faster than had the magnet been allowed to turn. That takes extra work. Do you wish to represent yourself as so fucking clueless that you do not realize it takes work to separate magnets?


    There's 2 parts to the magnetic equation and you are describing half, the attractive part. Without the latching, it would be the overwhelmingly significant part. By incorporating latching, a repulsive interaction can also be exploited. I have not found any way to mitigate the negative effects of the attraction, but the latches reduce the amount of time spent in that relationship and allow a repulsive transaction to take place. That presents problems of its own, but the pivots are designed to reduce some of the negative torque and allow for a net gain in the repulsive relationship.

    Will it work? Still unknown.
    • CommentAuthornova
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010
     
    It is known, it is unknown to you.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeMar 28th 2010 edited
     
    Posted By: overconfident
    There's 2 parts to the magnetic equation and you are describing half, the attractive part. Without the latching, it would be the overwhelmingly significant part. By incorporating latching, a repulsive interaction can also be exploited. I have not found any way to mitigate the negative effects of the attraction, but the latches reduce the amount of time spent in that relationship and allow a repulsive transaction to take place. That presents problems of its own, but the pivots are designed to reduce some of the negative torque and allow for a net gain in the repulsive relationship.

    Will it work? Still unknown.
    LOL! Still playing the torque / force game when it is all about energy. You insist on presenting yourself as completely ignorant of the physics you say you understand.

    If you wish to claim that you can get net energy out of a cycle where two magnets operate for part of the cycle in attraction and the other in repulsion, then you need to demonstrate that. It's too bad for you that you can't.