🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18$VlS6KR1lK079yn@gate.net> jstanley@gate.net (John A. Stanley) writes:
>In article <5j67tQ49ldB@shb.contrib.de>,
>harti@shb.contrib.de (Stefan Hartmann) wrote:
>> Well, I have worked together with the inventor and another "magnet freak"
>> during this weekend on the design and we found the solution how to power a  
>> motor just via using Permanent Magnets !
>
>Oh, Jeez... not again. Ya know, some dude named Howard Johnson
>was issued a patent back in the 70's for a motor using only
>permanent magnets; nothing ever became of it. Gee, I wonder why.
>

Doesn't suprise me.  About a year ago a genuine US patent crossed my desk
for a "non-radial drive" motor.  Believe it or not, the idea was that the
rotor contained salients which had a slight dog-leg in the iron, such
that they weren't oriented radially from the shaft.  The idea was that
with this offset orientation, some of the reluctance force normal to the
air gap would be coupled into torque.  And it would work--for about 1/16 of a
turn, until the next salient goes KA-CHUNK! against the stator pole piece.

The inventor also failed to incorporate a flux return path in his stator,
and used wound coils for the stator field instead of putting the windings
into slots at the air gap.

In a way it is admirable that this particular inventor was undaunted by
an ignorance of basic machine theory, pursuing his vision to gain a US
patent.  But it also shows that the patent office is ignorant or uncaring
of the laws of physics when considering such inventions.

And no, using permanent magnets won't fix the problems here.  :-)
>--
>John A. Stanley                      jstanley@gate.net

--Tom Gorski