question about magnetic shielding

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

Percentage shielding is the answer, total shielding acts like a repelling magnet, thus has the same problems, just a thought!

Regards Trevor

[greendoor]

Bessler had a lodestone and may possibly have use magnetism in his wheel ...

Rather than looking for shielding, have a think about what you are trying to achieve and perhaps you could use "variable reluctance" instead.

Think about this:

A piece of steel concentrates the magnetic flux a few thousand times better than air. As the piece of steel enters the magnetic field around a permanent magnet it experiences an attractive force. However, the force required to withdraw the magnet is equally the same in the opposite direction. So any energy gained by the steel being attracted to the magnet is lost when we try to remove the steel in order to reset the device.

This is very much like our problem with gravity motors - energy gained is matched by energy required to reset.

BUT: there might be a way around this ...

Imagine a rotary engine that brings a piece of steel INTO the gap between two permanent magnets (experiencing attraction) at the same time that is moving an identical piece of steel OUT of the gap between two identical permanent magnets. We now have a totally balanced mechanism.

Such a simple device would in theory require no more energy than minimal friction losses to keep rotating - perhaps with a flywheel to smooth out the energy gains and losses.

I can imagine that we could have some massive magnets and a massive flywheel - and once this was spun up to speed, we could keep this motor spinning with a very small input energy source.

What is the point of this? Well, for close to zero energy input, we can have massive magnetic fields permanently oscillating ... all we have to do is place some coils around them and draw off the current.

This is not a new idea - it is the famous Ecklin free energy generator.

[greendoor]

Bessler had a lodestone and may possibly have use magnetism in his wheel ...

Rather than looking for shielding, have a think about what you are trying to achieve and perhaps you could use "variable reluctance" instead.

Think about this:

A piece of steel concentrates the magnetic flux a few thousand times better than air. As the piece of steel enters the magnetic field around a permanent magnet it experiences an attractive force. However, the force required to withdraw the magnet is equally the same in the opposite direction. So any energy gained by the steel being attracted to the magnet is lost when we try to remove the steel in order to reset the device.

This is very much like our problem with gravity motors - energy gained is matched by energy required to reset.

BUT: there might be a way around this ...

Imagine a rotary engine that brings a piece of steel INTO the gap between two permanent magnets (experiencing attraction) at the same time that is moving an identical piece of steel OUT of the gap between two identical permanent magnets. We now have a totally balanced mechanism.

Such a simple device would in theory require no more energy than minimal friction losses to keep rotating - perhaps with a flywheel to smooth out the energy gains and losses.

I can imagine that we could have some massive magnets and a massive flywheel - and once this was spun up to speed, we could keep this motor spinning with a very small input energy source.

What is the point of this? Well, for close to zero energy input, we can have massive magnetic fields permanently oscillating ... all we have to do is place some coils around them and draw off the current.

This is not a new idea - it is the famous Ecklin free energy generator.

[Bill_Mothershead]

Greendoor said this:

... As the piece of steel enters the magnetic field around a permanent magnet it experiences an attractive force. However, the force required to withdraw the magnet is equally the same in the opposite direction. So any energy gained by the steel being attracted to the magnet is lost when we try to remove the steel in order to reset the device.

You just assumed this. It is wrong. Read here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... nergy_Gain

Extensive scientific data is presented to show that two permanent magnets of a particular shape can be pulled apart along a prescribed path using less work than the amount produced when the magnets come together along a different path.

[Rafael Ti]

Hi, all..
Interesting concept of magnet motor;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Mr208-B ... 93DD8E1ECC
No shielding here. Rotor whirls circularly.

[helloha]

a design concept using magnet, blend 2 ideas into 1

http://youtu.be/AcXvEjJJFkc
http://youtu.be/UOLPuvsXe9I

+

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkLfpXpO5sQ

=

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=11764

[Jon J Hutton]

Here is a good article on magnetic shielding.

You have to work with attracting forces, not repeling forces. The magnet will degenerate very fast by repeling.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magshield.htm

[rlortie]

Jon,

I have often heard or read of scammers using the phrase: The magnets degenerate very fast in a repelling. I need investment to purchase stronger magnets.

I had a 13.5" magnetically suspended wheel weighing 7.75 pounds as a test bed. After 16 years of suspension the magnets showed no loss of force. I also have mounted on a roof cupola a magnetic bearing suspended anemometer which has required no maintenance for over twelve years. The suspension distance changes with temperature but the magnets appear to have lost none of their original force.

Some one has yet to prove to me that magnets degenerate in a repelling mode.

Ralph

[Bill_Mothershead]

Hutton said:

The magnet will degenerate very fast by repeling.

I have heard about things that weaken (as in destroy) magnets
( ie., heat, mechanical shock, etc). Have you got any URLs
that actually mention what you are talking about.

I suppose, if you glued two magnets together in a "repelling mode"
configuration and then let them sit around for a year or so
it would seem likely that something bad might happen.
But in normal use (ie. motors etc.) where repulsion happens
in brief pulses, do permanent magnets actually weaken?
(And do they do so "fast" as you have stated?)

[Jon J Hutton]

Hey Bill,

Actually I did an interesting experiment about a year ago. I taped 2 magnets together (repelling).....I think they were rare earth, and after a few days they had weakened considerable. After untapping them, I checked them again after a week and they had improved considerable in strength. I do not remember if I let them lay around north and south with the magnetic pole of the earth but I was surprised how they got their strength back. The degenerate rapidly with in days, but if left on a fridge or metal or with a metal keeper they can last up to 400 years.......so I have read. I started to buy a gaussmeter, but then I saw where Iphone and android have them built into their phones. You can download the apps free.

[Rafael Ti]

Hi
I think it is not a problem if the magnets are getting weaker in time. We can always re-magnetize them using simple coil and some DC current. Whole process is quick and takes not much energy.
Working with de-magnetized magnets when assembling motor is safer. It is possible to magnetize them again when the work is completed and magnets are seating in right place.
I've never done that but here is something;

http://oersted.com/magnetizing.PDF

[murilo]

In the 70's, I got some samples of absolutely new cobalt/samarium magnets, from the company Vacuumsmeltzer, aus Deutchland.

They was much more fragile than glass and a piece changed parts with the other, during all the time.

I guess that before the factory, I was the first one to recover those small expensive pieces with epoxy in paste.

Yes, to my surprise, I also observed spontaneous loose and recovery of force in some other rare earth magnets ( maybe neomidium + whatever ceramic.)

If you want to block magnet field, better to use coils and electromagnet, with power expenses.

TC!
M

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi all,

to save me time, on this thread, go to my web site, on page two there is some of my Ideas on the best ways to make a magnetic motor work!

When I have more time and cash I will buy the two custom made magnets to prove the concept, until then its work in progress, just another 6 or 7 builds on the list of about 30 builds.

www.real-free-energy.co.uk

Regards Trevor

[jim_mich]

Ugh, your website is painful on my eyes. Nobody uses white text on black anymore.

[greendoor]

Greendoor said this:

... As the piece of steel enters the magnetic field around a permanent magnet it experiences an attractive force. However, the force required to withdraw the magnet is equally the same in the opposite direction. So any energy gained by the steel being attracted to the magnet is lost when we try to remove the steel in order to reset the device.

You just assumed this. It is wrong. Read here:
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... nergy_Gain

Extensive scientific data is presented to show that two permanent magnets of a particular shape can be pulled apart along a prescribed path using less work than the amount produced when the magnets come together along a different path.

Hey - who is assuming what here? Are you assuming that this Eden project (last post dated 2007?) has discovered a new scientific truth about magnets? Maybe they have, but considering the vast number of non-running magnet motor inventors, I would not be prepared to assume that yet ...

I'm just saying what the experience of a couple of hundred years of electric motor design has taught most people regarding the attractive force of magnets. It's common sense: if a magnet is pulling a piece of steel with X number of Newtons of force, it's going to require exactly the same force in the opposite direction to counteract this and allow it to be removed from the field.

My point is that we can work with this, instead of against it. We can make a balanced system, where one piece of steel is being pulled in while the opposite piece of steel is being pulled out. This allows us to oscillate or divert the magnetic flux with close to zero energy input.