This video is a continuation of videos #22 and 23, and shows the configuration and testing of the second test track layout. A pull test is also shown, which demonstrates the resistive pressure encountered between the track and stator carriage wheels during the previous tests. The pull test shows that the resistive drag force encountered ranged from 3 to 6 ounces. To avoid this drag, the second track is configured so that there is minimal resistance throughout the progressing rotor magnet group, with stator movement only at the tail end of the group. This allows full rotational movement through the group, but leaves the North pole of the stator positioned above the tail end of the rotor group, and this of course is undesirable since it will cause a strong attraction that will slow down the rotor, stop rotation, and even cause it to reverse direction once the last magnet of the South rotor group has passed beyond the stator’s North pole. To avoid this, there must be rapid movement of the stator carriage, at the tail end of the rotor magnet group, so that the South pole of the stator is brought into repulsion with the last rotor magnet. It appears that such rapid movement may be impossible to achieve with the track system, and that other means will need to be employed for this purpose. I will be exploring such methods in the coming days, and these will include mechanical and magnetic means. In order to achieve continuous rotation, both the attraction and repulsion forces …
17. July 2009 at 6:15 pm
Rickoff, what if you added some weight to your wheel, say 5 pounds or so, would that give it enough inertia to over come moving the carriage at the end?
17. July 2009 at 6:44 pm
Yes, I am sure that if I add my birch flywheel ring then it will perform better. It would also perform better if I give the rotor a hand spin to start things. I can also lower the stator to get a much stronger rotation, and tha would probably drive the rotor past the track curvature. The problem, though, is that I really need to gain at least a portion of the available repulsion at the tail end of the magnet groups, and that is only possible through rapid movement of the stator carriage.
17. July 2009 at 6:48 pm
Without that added repulsion, the rotations will be weak at best. That’s because the attraction acceleration at the lead end of a rotor magnet group would be more or less canceled out by the reverse attraction seen at the tail end of the group if the stator magnet poles are not immediately moved into repulsion.
17. July 2009 at 11:23 pm
Rick – May I suggest to eschew the mechanical mechanism – there is too much inertia and direction changing with that setup, as neat as you have it, is. Rather, get rid of that mechanical slider, instead, put an inductor near the rotor magnets, and a capacitor, to cause a resonance in that circuit, which then collapses into another say iron core inductor above your rotor. The point is this, temporarily store that small amount of electrical energy that can be generated.
17. July 2009 at 11:24 pm
I have tried a simple setup using geomagnets, and one can expect about 100 mv to be generated in an small coil as the magnet rolled by). The key will be to get the correct value of the inductor, capacitor and iron core inductor so te resonance of that circuit times (and discharges) with the rotational speed of your rotor to help it rotate out of the sticky spot.
18. July 2009 at 4:30 am
IMHO, WM2d has learned me light ballast in great diameter is “better” than the same mass at a central axis point. For what it’s worth,Thanx for posting!
18. July 2009 at 4:45 am
Try sliding moving stator to inner diameter instead of outer. Just a thot. Magnet mass is stonger in central location
18. July 2009 at 7:13 pm
The stator must slide outwards at the tail end of a South rotor magnet group, and inwards at the tail end of a North group. No getting around that if the stator is to be aligned properly forthe next approaching rotormagnet group.
30. July 2009 at 7:25 am
What if you had two wheels working in conjunction. Each wheel has a like a cam which moves the stator of the other wheel allowing it to pass the “hump” the cam would activate at the opposite position of each other. At ones power stroke the other one disables and vise versa does that make sense? It does to me I’m not sure if im explaining it write. But I share the same pipe dream as you only I have not made any models due to lack of funds.
30. July 2009 at 8:32 am
You could certainly do this, but of course it would complicate the build. It would be easier to employ cam actions and multiple stators on a single wheel, and this is a concept that I do favor and will be experimenting with. I suggest that you construct the basic Pipe Dream apparatus and begin experimenting. It is easy to build and inexpensive. You can start with just a few magnets and perform many experiments this way. Best 2 U, Rick
24. March 2010 at 4:48 pm
If there was an inkling of evidence that your prototype could indeed run by itself (let alone produce some power) I would have been cutting PVC pipe 10 months ago! I believe the truth is that you have come to the impassable point, joined by all the ghosts of those who have also hit this same point over the millennia.
I would rejoice in your success if I ever thought is would come to pass.
VB
25. March 2010 at 12:02 am
If you truly believed, 10 months ago, that replicating the prototype would have been a waste of time, then why have you wasted 4 hours watching my 25 videos? What you believe is your business, and it doesn’t defray me from continuing to pursue my Pipe Dream. The project continues, and progress is still being made. I don’t believe in impasses. Obstacles and challenges – yes, but never an impasse. If I had your negative frame of mind then I, as you, never would have started with this effort.