Miller Colson Magnetic Motor

[vidbid]

Slow Motion

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SdM0MxDegI[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SdM0MxDegI

An advance in the art is provided by a magnetic drive apparatus having a novel magnet arrangement that is particularly suited for reciprocating operation. In an embodiment, the magnetic drive apparatus includes first and second magnet carriers carrying first and second permanent magnet arrangements. An intermediate magnet carrier is disposed between the first and second magnet carriers, and carries a third permanent magnet arrangement. The intermediate magnet carrier and the first and second magnet carriers are arranged for rotation relative to each other (relative rotation). During such relative rotation, the magnet arrangements produce magnetic interactions that result in power stroke forces. The power stroke forces cause the intermediate magnet carrier and the first and second magnet carriers to undergo reciprocation relative to each other (relative reciprocation) in first and second stroke directions during power zone portions of the relative rotation. The magnetic interactions impart substantially no power stroke forces during dead zone portions of the relative rotation. The dead zones encompass relative rotational positions of the magnet carriers wherein opposing magnetic poles of the first, second and third permanent magnet arrangements are mutually coaxially aligned but produce a substantially equal balance of push and pull magnetic forces. The relative rotation and the relative reciprocation between the intermediate magnet carrier and the first and second magnet carriers can be synchronized so that the dead zones occur proximate to top dead center and bottom dead center relative reciprocation positions of the magnet carriers (which is where relaxation of power stroke forces is desired), and so that the power stroke forces occur between the top dead center and bottom dead center relative reciprocation positions (which is where maximum magnetic force is desired).

I thought I'd make a slow motion video of the "intermediate magnet carrier" in action.

Perhaps, somebody could figure out how to build a simpler version of this "motor."

Perhaps, the first and second magnet carriers could be made to rotate, according to a proper timing sequence, being advanced by stepper motors or servo motors, while the intermediate magnet carrier could be made to only reciprocate and not rotate. I'm speculating that construction would be simpler.

[citfta]

I thought I'd make a slow motion video of the "intermediate magnet carrier" in action.

Perhaps, somebody could figure out how to build a simpler version of this "motor."

Perhaps, the first and second magnet carriers could be made to rotate, according to a proper timing sequence, being advanced by stepper motors or servo motors, while the intermediate magnet carrier could be made to only reciprocate and not rotate. I'm speculating that construction would be simpler.

That is a very good idea.

[Ufopolitics]

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SdM0MxDegI[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SdM0MxDegI

I thought I'd make a slow motion video of the "intermediate magnet carrier" in action.

Nice job Vidbid,

We could see there that center spinning disc works in a combination of attract-repulse mode against frt and rear static discs, even though it can not be exactly seen, since slow motion from a video filmed at normal speed looses a lot of in between frames, so, it looks like it "jumps".

In order for a real, real slow motion to be observed in perfect detail, it must be filmed at a much higher rate of FPS, than normal speed.

Still, we could see the same "power zones" in the beginning of your slow motion, being at 9-3 o'clock based on FIG 5 from patent where it is at 90º, So, it does a power stroke at 3 with rear disc (further away from vid) and at 9 o'clock with frt. disc (closer to screen).

They choose TDC and BDC at 12 and 6 o'clock, with dead zones at 45º.

Perhaps, somebody could figure out how to build a simpler version of this "motor."

I would love to, but I can't at this time...I already thought of a good start to be a small gas engine from an R/C Model...or even an old weed eater engine... basically to use the crank, weights and piston arms...and of course the casing...then just replacing the piston by the moving disc plus allowing it to spin on bearings. Must of this small engines are made of aluminum housing so, it is very easy to modify.

Perhaps, the first and second magnet carriers could be made to rotate, according to a proper timing sequence, being advanced by stepper motors or servo motors, while the intermediate magnet carrier could be made to only reciprocate and not rotate. I'm speculating that construction would be simpler.

Man, as it is, is a pretty complicated combination of movements, two or more rotations plus linear strokes that require high sync between them...So, I would concentrate first on just replicating the original, and the simpler one (red one, with single drive)...and seen how it goes...

Almost every single motor out there must have a "Static Side" where it serves as the base, the "fulcrum" to gain acceleration on the spinning end...

I can't even start to imagine a spinning stator engine...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Slow mo

I thought I'd make a slow motion video of the "intermediate magnet carrier" in action.

{Originally Posted by Summary, US8487484B1}

Thanks vidbid for the slowmo and summary. Something that bothers me about this contraption is the distances between magnets. It is difficult to determine exact scale from what is shown, but it appears that the magnets on the intermediate carrier never get closer than about one inch to the magnets on carriers one and two. This occurs at TDC and BDC where the summary tells us that the rotational position is such that magnet alignment minimizes the forces between the intermediate carrier and carriers one or two.

Then when the intermediate carrier is travelling between TDC & BDC, during the power stroke, presumably the rotation of the intermediate carrier has aligned the magnets for maximum repulsion on one side and maximum attraction on the other side. That would make sense and in agreement with the summary I believe. However during this power stroke where maximum force is desired, the distances between magnets appears very great like on the order of 2 to 8 inches.

The force produced by a magnet is inversely proportional to the distance squared. It appears that the machine's design poorly utilizes the magnetic potential. Even using strong rare earth magnets of the size shown, with those distances, and magnetic paths, I seriously doubt that enough force is developed to do more than slide the intermediate carrier back and forth so a power input is required to rotate it and change its direction of travel.

Regards,

bi

[Peter Lindemann]

That IS the issue, alright!

Thanks vidbid for the slowmo and summary. Something that bothers me about this contraption is the distances between magnets. It is difficult to determine exact scale from what is shown, but it appears that the magnets on the intermediate carrier never get closer than about one inch to the magnets on carriers one and two. This occurs at TDC and BDC where the summary tells us that the rotational position is such that magnet alignment minimizes the forces between the intermediate carrier and carriers one or two.

Then when the intermediate carrier is travelling between TDC & BDC, during the power stroke, presumably the rotation of the intermediate carrier has aligned the magnets for maximum repulsion on one side and maximum attraction on the other side. That would make sense and in agreement with the summary I believe. However during this power stroke where maximum force is desired, the distances between magnets appears very great like on the order of 2 to 8 inches.

The force produced by a magnet is inversely proportional to the distance squared. It appears that the machine's design poorly utilizes the magnetic potential. Even using strong rare earth magnets of the size shown, with those distances, and magnetic paths, I seriously doubt that enough force is developed to do more than slide the intermediate carrier back and forth so a power input is required to rotate it and change its direction of travel.

Regards,

bi

Hey Bistander,

I agree with what you are saying here. EVERY ENGINE has a power stroke where it makes mechanical energy and the equivalent of the "compression stroke" in an internal combustion engine, where some of that mechanical energy must be re-invested in the mechanism to set up the next power stroke. But even an ICE won't run without a flywheel that can store the mechanical energy when it is made and carry it through to when it is needed.

This machine has a big flywheel on the crankshaft and a lot of moving mass. And clearly, its going to NEED it to turn the rotating magnets out of a pure attraction mode into an "neutral mode" right when the magnets are closest to each other. It all looks wrong. The power stroke is when the magnets are far away from each other and the re-set stroke is when the magnets are close to each other. It is really quite counter-intuitive to believe this could work!

Enter Kenneth Kozeka's studies. This is an image from one of his Power Point presentations from 2009. Here is what Kozeka found is:



When two magnets were allowed to approach each other from the side, a long attraction stroke was produced whose net work (force times distance) was greater than the work necessary to move them apart vertically, even though the maximum force of the power stroke was never higher than the peak force needed to produce the reset. This test showed a 12% net benefit and was specific to the size and shape of the magnets used in this physical arrangement moving through the specific set of right angle motions. This amount of gain may not seem like much, but it does illustrate the point.

While the Miller-Colson machine appears to be using the vertical movements (pole face to pole face) for the power stroke and the horizontal movements (side to side) for the reset, which is the opposite of what Kozeka is showing in this slide, is not the point. The point is that there are non-linearities in these respective movements and the Millers may have found a different one of these "windows of opportunity" and built a machine to exploit it.

We are not going to definitively know whether this works from the films or from reading the patent. Attempts at replication may be the only way to find out.

Peter

[bistander]

Cycles

Hey Bistander,

I agree with what you are saying here. EVERY ENGINE has a power stroke where it makes mechanical energy and the equivalent of the "compression stroke" in an internal combustion engine, where some of that mechanical energy must be re-invested in the mechanism to set up the next power stroke. But even an ICE won't run without a flywheel that can store the mechanical energy when it is made and carry it through to when it is needed.

This machine has a big flywheel on the crankshaft and a lot of moving mass. And clearly, its going to NEED it to turn the rotating magnets out of a pure attraction mode into an "neutral mode" right when the magnets are closest to each other. It all looks wrong. The power stroke is when the magnets are far away from each other and the re-set stroke is when the magnets are close to each other. It is really quite counter-intuitive to believe this could work!

Enter Kenneth Kozeka's studies. This is an image from one of his Power Point presentations from 2009. Here is what Kozeka found is:



When two magnets were allowed to approach each other from the side, a long attraction stroke was produced whose net work (force times distance) was greater than the work necessary to move them apart vertically, even though the maximum force of the power stroke was never higher than the peak force needed to produce the reset. This result was specific to the size and shape of the magnets used in this test, but it illustrates the point.

While the Miller-Colson machine seems to be using the vertical movements for the power stroke and the horizontal movements for the reset is not the point. The point is that there are non-linearities in these respective movements and the Millers may have found one of these and built a machine to exploit it.

We are not going to definitively know whether this works from the films or from reading the patent. Attempts at replication may be the only way to find out.

Peter

Hi Peter,

Here we are dealing with a cyclic machine. When you have a cycle where a mass is at a particular point in a constant or cyclic field (such as a magnetic or gravitational field) once each cycle, then the net work done on the field or by the field is zero per cycle (neglecting losses like friction). So the path of the mass is irrelevant if it returns to its starting position at the completion of the cycle, which it does in this case.

Regards,

bi

[Peter Lindemann]

For One Dimensional Motions, you're right, but...

Hi Peter,

Here we are dealing with a cyclic machine. When you have a cycle where a mass is at a particular point in a constant or cyclic field (such as a magnetic or gravitational field) once each cycle, then the net work done on the field or by the field is zero per cycle (neglecting losses like friction). So the path of the mass is irrelevant if it returns to its starting position at the completion of the cycle, which it does in this case.

Regards,

bi

Bistander,

For simple back and forth motions, you are right. But this is a complex, two dimensional set of motions. If you look at the illustration from Kozeka that I posted before, imagine that both magnets can move in a single, back and forth motion. The magnet on the left moves horizontally, back and forth, closer and farther away from the interaction point, and the magnet on the right moves vertically, up and down, closer and farther away from the interaction point. Both of these motions could be actuated by crankshafts that were 90* out of phase with each other.

So, as the cranks turn the vertical magnet moves up while the horizontal magnet is far away. Not much force needed. Next the horizontal magnet moves toward the vertical magnet and produces the power stroke. Next, the vertical magnet moves down, removing 88% of the energy produced by the power stroke to get away. Next, the horizontal magnet moves back to the right without needing much force. At this point, the cycle repeats. So, as long as the frictional losses are low, the complete "four motion cycle" CAN produce a net gain in force. This is not a "spring" with no gain, it is a real, four stroke engine cycle.

Peter

[bistander]

Bistander,

For simple back and forth motions, you are right. But this is a complex, two dimensional set of motions. If you look at the illustration from Kozeka that I posted before, imagine that both magnets can move in a single, back and forth motion. The magnet on the left moves horizontally, back and forth, closer and farther away from the interaction point, and the magnet on the right moves vertically, up and down, closer and farther away from the interaction point. Both of these motions could be actuated by crankshafts that were 90* out of phase with each other.

So, as the cranks turn the vertical magnet moves up while the horizontal magnet is far away. Not much force needed. Next the horizontal magnet moves toward the vertical magnet and produces the power stroke. Next, the vertical magnet moves down, removing 88% of the energy produced by the power stroke to get away. Next, the horizontal magnet moves back to the right without needing much force. At this point, the cycle repeats. So, as long as the frictional losses are low, the complete "four motion cycle" CAN produce a net gain in force. This is not a "spring" with no gain, it is a real, four stroke engine cycle.

Peter

So what you're telling me is that if I have a brick that weighs 10 pounds on a scale in my office and I take that brick around the block and up and down the hill and back to the scale in my office it will weight different than 10 pounds? It sure sounds like it.

Regards,

bi

[Peter Lindemann]

NO

So what you're telling me is that if I have a brick that weighs 10 pounds on a scale in my office and I take that brick around the block and up and down the hill and back to the scale in my office it will weight different than 10 pounds? It sure sounds like it.

Regards,

bi

Bistander,

No, I am not saying that. In your example, the brick is always in a uniform, gravitational field and the amount of work it takes to lift it is the same as the amount of work you get back when you drop it. It obviously doesn't matter if you take the brick around the block.

In the example I gave, the magnet moving toward the other magnet to produce the power stroke is moving through a different area of the magnetic field than when it is moved away at 90 degrees. It is the non-linearity of the strength and shape of the magnetic field that allows this situation to produce an advantage.

If I move one magnet in and out of the field of another magnet in exactly the same area of the field, you are right, there is nothing to gain. But Kozeka's studies show that if you move in to the field in one area and out through another area, there MAY be a non-linearity that can be taken advantage of.

This is all based on the shape and size of the magnets to produce these asymmetric shapes in the field. If you take a NEO magnet that is 0.125" thick and has a pole face that is 2" x 2", the field around it flattens out and projects much farther out to the sides than it does in front of the pole face. Two such magnets can produce a much longer, stronger attraction cycle approaching each other from the side than they can by approaching each other face to face.

This is what Kozeka's study found. If you change the shape of the magnet, you can change the shape of the field around it. If you accentuate these shape changes enough, you can produce a mechanical work cycle by entering the field in one location and leaving it through another region. All of Kozeka's data was produced by meticulous strain-gauge measurements. The science is really good.

If you don't believe, you may want to check it out.

Peter

[bistander]

Bistander,

No, I am not saying that. In your example, the brick is always in a uniform, gravitational field and the amount of work it takes to lift it is the same as the amount of work you get back when you drop it. It obviously doesn't matter if you take the brick around the block.

In the example I gave, the magnet moving toward the other magnet to produce the power stroke is moving through a different area of the magnetic field than when it is moved away at 90 degrees. It is the non-linearity of the strength and shape of the magnetic field that allows this situation to produce an advantage.

If I move one magnet in and out of the field of another magnet in exactly the same area of the field, you are right, there is nothing to gain. But Kozeka's studies show that if you move in to the field in one area and out through another area, there MAY be a non-linearity that can be taken advantage of.

This is all based on the shape and size of the magnets to produce these asymmetric shapes in the field. If you take a NEO magnet that is 0.125" thick and has a pole face that is 2" x 2", the field around it flattens out and projects much farther out to the sides than it does in front of the pole face. Two such magnets can produce a much longer, stronger attraction cycle approaching each other from the side than they can by approaching each other face to face.

This is what Kozeka's study found. If you change the shape of the magnet, you can change the shape of the field around it. If you accentuate these shape changes enough, you can produce a mechanical work cycle by entering the field in one location and leaving it through another region. All of Kozeka's data was produced by meticulous strain-gauge measurements. The science is really good.

If you don't believe, you may want to check it out.

Peter

The brick has mass and contributes to the gravitational field just as the magnet contributes to the magnetic field. Your argument is that my brick will weigh different if I use the back door to leave my office instead of the front door when I cycle the position of the brick. If you start and end in the same place in the same field then the net work is zero. The path is irrelevant.

I don't think what you tell me about Mr. Kozeka contradicts my statement. But the subject machine is not gaining energy by cycling magnets. It gets it from the servo motors.

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

The brick has mass and contributes to the gravitational field just as the magnet contributes to the magnetic field. Your argument is that my brick will weigh different

bi

Hello Bistander

NO, that is not what he said. Here is a simple description of what
Kozeka's study found. Go to Magnet4less and buy a powerful magnet.
Next take the magnet out of the package to make your very first
test with it.

Test 1 = Put the magnet on flat some what sizable chunk of steel but
watch those fingers. Measure the pull force ( strain-gauge) in pounds
and record.

Test 2 = Now slide the magnet off the flat surface in a horizontal direction
record the amount in pounds required.

When you go to buy a magnet, this is what their instructional video's
show. So for example to directly pull a magnet straight off the table
might require 50 pounds of pull while the sideways struggle takes 10 lbs.

Many magnet engines have been in existences for decades, moving the
Bloch Wall thru the use of shielding or other magnets will influence the
pull force of the next magnet.

1 in and 1 out or the notion that energy can not be created or destroyed
is keeping you from moving forward. All arguments have their place and
many of the laws we base our science on are nothing more than
incomplete. I refuse to throw out the science I have learned thus far
so what I do is add to the table scraps my findings experimentally then
rearrange.

I really enjoy your break down Peter.

[Ufopolitics]

...I have a brick that weighs 10 pounds on a scale in my office ...

Regards,

bi

Hey Bistander,

Is your brick a neo magnet?

Am just saying for you to be careful while you are going around the block and off back or front doors...they tend to stick very bad to ferromagnetics...like door knobs, stairs side bars, elevator doors,...etc,etc




Ufopolitics

[pmazz850]

Hi,
I can't seem to understand why there are two stepper motors. If one does the timing, and there mechanically linked on both sides, why have the other motor? The side without the chain appears to be doing the timing. The shaft runs over and is linked through gears and a chain to rotate the other rotor. What function would the other motor have? I don't get that.

The gap between the magnets when fully extended (from center) is shown on the blue painters tape on the front bar of the machine. It appears to be about the same diameter as the magnets. I can't see it providing much force to the rotor. Not enough to throw it all the way back to the other side. It seems like the junction of the upper crossover shafts has to be pushing and pulling on some kind of worm gear...which means the steppers are driving the machine, not the magnets. Maybe I'm just not getting the whole picture. Still trying to wrap my head around it.

Just my observations,
Regards!

[BroMikey]

So what you're telling me is that if I have
a brick that weighs 10 pounds on a scale in my office and I take that
brick around the block and up and down the hill and back to the scale
in my office...........................

You can't sling one magnet over your shoulder and power a submarine.
I magnetic engine is not the same thing. Look at the video and you will
see that an engine is a compound effort, a series of individual cells all
working in unison. One magnet is out of the question as can be seen.

Shielding and timing makes the magnets work together to produce
usable power. If that magnet is a neo don't wear a belt buckle.




[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqopqHrpEMg[/VIDEO]

[charly2]

I think the servomotor is employed only for running the machine at low speed as he said for demostration. He removed the chain in the side of the servomotor, both sides of the machine are syncronized by the mechanical side (chain), that's why one side has mechanical timing, and the other side is what he calls electronic timing (btw I would not call it that way).
Running at full speed the servo is not needed.