h a l f b a k e r yI heartily endorse this product and/or service.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Seen one of those "shake and light" Faraday induction flashlights. Well i based a method of semi-passive energy generation bases on the principle using magnets and their fields
It is comprised of two identical plate wheels. (a top and a bottom) Made up of 8 separate magnets. The bottom plate's polarity
is meant to face upwards and the top downwards. Magnets 1-8 are polarized differently. 1 is attract-north, 2 is repel-south, 3 attract, 4 repel, so on and so forth, 8 is repel. The bottom and top plates spin with each other in sync.
Between the two plate wheels. Is the middle housing, it sort of looks like a 8 shot revolver cylinder. Each of the 8 bores contains copper wire coils. A centrifuge in the center that spins the two plates powered by a small motor. Each of the 8 bores also contains a cylindrical magnet "Cylinders 1-8 magnet's polarity are "attract" upwards, "repel" downwards. the center housing remains still, and the plates do the spinning.
At first top and bottom plates magnets # 1 are aligned with Cylinder # 1 and the internal magnet inside cylinders 1,3,5, and 7 will rest on the bottom plate. Cylinder magnets 2,4,6 and 8 will be pulled to the top plate. but when spun. Plate magnets # 2, 4, 6, 8 coming in contact with the internal magnets of cylinders 1, 3, 5, and 7 will send "odd" numbered Internal magnets up along the copper coil and even numbered internal magnets down the coil. Due to polar conflict generating electricity as they go. Magnets constantly moving up and down (oscillating) counter to each other, as the two plates spin. Cylinders 1-4 send the energy generated back into motor to perpetuate the spin. 4-8 send power to your house or battery pack. Even the top and bottom plate magnets could capture energy against woven copper stators. Ideally I would also try to eliminate as much friction as I could by enclosing the generator in a vacuum sealed container and remove as much air as I could.
The HB Help file
http://www.halfbake...editorial/help.html
Please read and understand before posting [csea, May 16 2010]
How to make a home made Generator
http://www.otherpower.com/trips2.html
[MisterQED, May 17 2010]
Ogden Pump
http://www.spiraxsa...pdfs/IM/p015_12.pdf
Useful, in it's own way. [8th of 7, May 17 2010]
[link]
|
| |
Sigh... How is this "over-unity?" |
|
| |
Please read [link] especially about "bad science." |
|
| |
Perhaps [Aeolus] has simply misunderstood the meaning of
"over unity"? |
|
| |
If so, then what you're left with is a design for an electrical
generator (which may or may not work - it's too early in the
morning). |
|
| |
So, why not delete/disregard the "over unity" phrase and
evaluate this as a generator? |
|
| |
//over-unity// what's that mean ? |
|
| |
so, if you don't mind paraphrasing... you have 2 pie plates divided into a number of sections of alternating magnetic polarity. In between the plates is a "revolver" which contains a number of linear generators. |
|
| |
When you spin the plates, the core of the linear generators goes up and down. |
|
| |
neat but a real difficult read. |
|
| |
It's a neat solution for getting oscillating movement from rotary movement, and the coils don't move, either.
If it had a vertical axis, then friction would be reduced further.
(I won't get hung up on the over-unity thing - the rest of the idea is quite good) |
|
| |
There is a couple of problems, most have been mentioned above, but the two I will add is inertia for the linearly moving magnet and conflicting magnetic fields seen by the coils. To get any kind of efficiency out of a generator, you need to up the oscillating frequency and in this design that will be set by the resonance of the linearly moving magnets. The second issue is that the generating coils are getting conflicting messages from each of the magnets. |
|
| |
I think I see your thought process on this but I think you misunderstand the crucial point which is what the purpose of all this is. Yes, you can generate electricity by moving a magnet up and down a coil, because that changes that magnetic field that the coil is exposed to. If you alter the design to move the magnet WITH magnets weird things are happening and they are not good. |
|
| |
Weirdly enough if you take out the linerly moving magnets, you have described a standard generator, see link. |
|
| |
I'm not convinced the idea is that good in the first place [Ling]. A linear generator is going to tend towards lower effeciency than a rotary generator simply because the mass has to be stopped and counter accelerated with each reverse. |
|
| |
To be (almost) fair, some steam-driven shuttle pumps (like the Ogden pump) work just like this. |
|
| |
OMG if only we had polarized gravity |
|
| |
anyway here is a variety of moving a "magnet up n down" that could outlast the solar system |
|
| |
You have likely read about computer controlled gliders that keep aloft permanently using predictable solar powered atmospheric events known as "thermals" just as birds use these to stay aloft; Now if the glider wing were magnetizable plus the atmosphere had frictive particulates then just like rubbing a piece of iron with another object the wing would magnetize; to harvest the energy the magnetic wings computer would have it fly near an area full of conductors known as the "windings"; this is obviously solar powered as it uses atmospheric density variations to generate electricity |
|
| |
You could also do this with an atmosphereless planet |
|
| |
Imagine a talented juggler They toss magnets far far up to near earth orbit Then on return they get tossed again; on a planet without an atmosphere yet with stripes of meteoric dust cloud The magnet can generate electricity or recharge as a result of its path; so the juggler tosses the magnet up through clear path then has it remagnetize as it returns through particle laden air |
|
| |
Now as the amount of energy used to toss it up is equalled with the gravitational pull back to the planet the only energy leak is the non magnetizing collisions (arbitrary as the path length of the glider is nondefinite; hours or eons) plus friction of the toss mechanism on return the magnet moves near conductors generating energy |
|
| |
Imagine a torus planet with a debris cloud at the middle; really minimal energy to toss the thing to the frictive magnetizer cloud; then the thing is shaped like a wing so it could take months gradually drifting through magnetizing particles on a newtonian pathway back to the "windings" area that made electricity when the magnetized wing passed near it; the wing can take any arbitrarily long path to become fully magnetized; the absence of atmosphere minimizes launch friction losses; this appears to make energy from the angular momentum of the planet, which is a side effect of the galactic motions that transfer energy between gravitational systems |
|
| |
There is a possibility that you could use whats called cosmic background radiation to power it though absent the sun |
|
| |
now heres why the OMG if only we had polarized gravity part; kind of obvious but you could toss the thing up on both paths if the gravity were stripey radiants from a core |
|
| |
actually visualize a big deepspace magnet shaped so it has radiating N or S poles kind of like a Tibetan flag a wing shaped object might rush towards the N core yet as a result of wing shape gradually move to be be antipolar when it got near thus suddenly switched to the repel mode travelling again then out along the radiant; I think it eventually finds a midpoint with a bunch of lateral motion although you could keep it going a long time; Now you might be able to use it to make energy if it were very big where the core was like 273K with the outer radiants at space temperature A peltier effect or thermomagnetic could harvest the temperature difference while doing a whole bunch of radiant core cycles from a big magnet absent gravity |
|
| |
[admin: Since the "over-unity" claim features only once in the subtitle and doesn't matter to the construction of the generator, about which other, meaningful criticism has been made, I'm disregarding the bad science claim - it can't be a perpetual motion machine, and it would be nice if the author acknowledged that by fixing the subtitle, but we can still talk about whether it's good.] |
|
| |