Don

No point in that. There would be no contest. Much can be determined by appllying vector mathmatics, gear ratios (gr = (π x d) / (π x D) = d/ D), and a little time to the task. Turning (or accelerating) a 4,400 lb rotor would be the lower limit of what MagGears can accomplish. Thanks for your comments.

One of a number of successful applications: http://www.elanetics.com/conventionaldesign.html No products for sale, not looking for investors. Just raw R&D toward "perfection." Thanks for your comments. D-

So, only two possibilities which are both ostensibly impossible. But, one has to be true. One, some deity created ALL (big bang, time universe, etc.). However, something/someone cannot come from nothing. Similarly . . . Two, a big bang set the universe in motion. We cannot fathom the amount of energy present within known galaxies, let alone our universe. However, energy can not be created only transferred. One is true. The "impossible" is possible as we live, breath, and ask these questions. D-

Thanks Rocket Man for the input! Some vibration can be seen as shown the the Feasibility Study: http://www.elanetics.com/thephysics.html This is overcome by configuring the blades in a straight line row of five. Carbon fiber coating is also discussed in a different area of the web site. My general impression from the feedback so far is that MagGears are more efficient, for the reasons described above. Please vote if you have a moment. Thanks again.

Diamagnetic levitation can be used to levitate very light pieces of pyrolytic graphite. Or, it can be configured to levitate small magnets as shown in your video link. Its force is not very large and has little utility in industrial applications. Thank you for the reference nonetheless.

Thanks for the Poll contribution. Using passive magnetic bearings in some applications so we've got that covered. Zero physical contact for all perimeter units (http://www.elanetics.com/design.html -active magnetic bearings shown here).

Agreed. Well, this resolves much of the eddy current and variable torque problems for the five units. Current configuration ...........+ ........+ + + ...........+ Reduced Eddy Currrent Config .........+ + + + + Much of it was due to the tips of perimeter blades coming too close to one another. Nevertheless, more work to be done. So, for any brave enough to opine, as to speed alone, any contributions to the poll above is appreciated. Thanks. don

Klaynos and Cuthber, thank you both for your observations. It's the critical eye that will refine a project. I'm not too concerned with the blades becoming demagnetized or changing polarity in some way. Their current configuration and proximety are less prone to those effects. It was mentioned that "These are not really gears." A standard definition of a gear is: a toothed wheel that engages another toothed mechanism in order to change the speed or direction of transmitted motion. A toothed wheel designed to transmit torque to another gear or toothed component. The teeth of a gear are shaped to minimize wear, vibration and noise, and to maximize the efficiency of power transmission. I believe MagGears do qualify under this general definition. Additionally, there is no LARGE diameter physical gear in existance that can rotate 90 degrees per tooth interaction. Energy is invested each time a physical gear tooth interacts with another. The larger the gear the more teeth the more energy loss through heat build up, etc. Of greater concern are losses due to variable tourqe and eddy currents between perimeter units as you've both noted. This is where I'll need to get MagSoft Corp to perform another feasibility study to identify areas for design improvements. Perhaps lesser strength magnets for perimeter blades, blade shape change, etc. I understand no amount of enginerring will cause these enthropic effects to completely "vanish". I am shooting for the optimal design that reduces these effects the most. Thanks again for the input. Any contribution to the poll above is greatly appreciated. don

Physical contact: Touching is having or getting a zero distance; in geometry it refers especially to a tangent line or curve (cf. collision). This term can be used to describe interaction between any physical objects. Will neodymium magnets lose strength over time? Very little. Neodymium magnets are the strongest and most permanent magnets known to man. If they are not overheated, neodymium magnets will lose only about 1% of their strength over 10 years - not enough for you to notice unless you have very sensitive measuring equipment. Resistance? Well none of us are escaping enthropy. Variable torque is present and negligable at one rotation. This "cogging" like effect "vanishes" when the array is accelerated to speed. Please see variable torque for each perimeter unit as illustrated in color graphs located on the Physics page of the website (see link - Magnetic Coupling - Feasibility Study). don

They are not practicle for mechanical (forceful) work like ALL physical gears. However, for inertial energy storage (http://elanetics.com/magflywheels.html) they are superior for a number of reasons. The most outstanding being 90 degree coupled gear rotation per tooth interaction. Others are, no physical contact, as a prime mover they can operate in a vacuum enclosure, gear teeth not bound to the circumfrence of the gear wheel, etc.

Thank you richard for your response. These are helpful questions to consider. Comparing a physical gear with a 6 foot radius with MagBlades may not be practicle. The number of teeth required on an involute physicial gear that size would would be great. Energy is invested at each coupled tooth interaction and that's to say nothing of losses due to heat build up at 8,000 RPMs and the cost of luburcation and maintence of physical gears that size. Additionally, the thick carbon Fiber coating as discussed on the site may remedy the brittle nature of the Neodymium blades. I make the comparison to physical gears only to illustrate the dramatic improvement in RPMs of coupled magnetic gears. 90 degree rotation per tooth interaction for a gear is unheard of. Physical gears are used primarily in producing mechanical work not energy storage. I'm more concerned with speed and minimizing losses. Increased efficiency is where a single transfer point for multiple turbines become attractive. All that said, I believe the only advantage of a system like this would be the single transfer site per array. Or, are there others?

This is my fault, I'm not explaining the fact pattern well enough. Perhaps a visual will assist. http://elanetics.com/physicalgears.html I'm trying to refine my project and make sure I have all the facts straight. Regardless of scale equivalent coupled gears cannot rotate as efficiently as the magnetic "involute" gears illustrated in the link above, correct? Just want to confirm the bold claims I make there. By the way, despite the professional appearance of the website it is my personal project webpage. There are no products or services for sale and I'm not looking for investors.

I might add that the two sets are seperate and are being spun by seperate motors supplying the same amount of energy. Is the only advantage to the second set less tooth interaction so less friction?

For a gear the number of teeth is proportional to the circumference of the gear wheel (the bigger the wheel the more teeth it has). The degree of rotation per tooth interaction for coupled gears increases with added teeth. I've figured out a way to break the relation between number of teeth and gear wheel circumference. As such, My question is: IF I have two sets of coupled gears (2 gears in a set) all having the same radius. One set has 42 teeth per gear and the orther set has 4 teeth per gear will both sets rotate at the same speed if the same amount of energy is supplied in rotating both? By the way, this is NOT a homework problem. If you want to see a link to my website illustrations for this protect just ask. Thanks any for your thoughts.

Is it true that no physical coupled gear with a two meter radius could spin (accelerate) as efficiently as these MagGears? http://elanetics.com/physicalgears.html Want to make sure this statement is correct.