## Recommended Posts

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.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

If you have any two discs, one driving the other using friction, chain, pulley, or teeth between them will make them both, turn at the same rate with the same torque.

##### Share on other sites
If you have any two discs, one driving the other using friction, chain, pulley, or teeth between them will make them both, turn at the same rate with the same torque.

This is my fault, I'm not explaining the fact pattern well enough. Perhaps a visual will assist.

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.

##### Share on other sites

How much loss is there in current induction to local metals. Whats the cost ratio between a normal gear and one of these of equivalent strength. How much force can be applied before contact between teeth. Are the teeth inherently brittle?.

##### Share on other sites

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?

##### Share on other sites

you may have problems with gears in close proximity. most hobby gears are stacked very close together, magnetic ones will rack up quite a lot of vibration.

have you considered using a shaped field around a cylinder instead? that would reduce load on the brittle magnetic material and allow a higher rpm to failure as carbon fiber can be wrapped around each gear.

it opens a few possibilities but magnetic strength isn't sufficient for high power applications

you may want to consider that a mechanical gear is inefficient due to friction yet a clean, dry gear set off a bicycle has been measured to 98% efficiency.

##### Share on other sites

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.

##### Share on other sites

Maybe another way to look at gears is to consider saw blades. Usually saw blades with a lot of teeth are only good for fine finish and tend to cut slower. While blades with fewer teeth are able to cut much faster but leave a lot of ragged edges in the wood. Metal cutting blades tend to have small teeth, while ceramic blades have tiny teeth such a diamond grit.

This distribution is connected to heat, stress and metal fatigue. The larger teeth tend to undergo more stress, which causes heat. The smaller teeth tend to have a shorter stress impulse for less heating. Too much heat can cause changes in the properties of the metal, causing failure.

With machine steel, after a certain temperature, the atomic structure begins to change away from the small crystals used to create the original hardness properties. These little crystals imply atomic strain. The heating allows larger crystals since these contain much less atomic potential. This turns the steel into more flexible steel. Now your torgue becomes transmitted into softer steel, increasing metal fatigue problems. A gear breaking at 20,000 rpms is a bullet that will destroy a machine.

##### Share on other sites

i wouldn't worry about voters or industry partners just yet, you're far from getting the most out of this idea.

true you can get better efficiencies out of magnetic gears under low power scenarios, but you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the potential here. so far i've only seen one or two configurations of identical gears

your main design issues involve high rpm failure and high torque blade contact.

also consider electromagnetic losses to nearby conductors/ferromagnetic objects.

##### Share on other sites
i wouldn't worry about voters or industry partners just yet, you're far from getting the most out of this idea.

true you can get better efficiencies out of magnetic gears under low power scenarios, but you haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the potential here. so far i've only seen one or two configurations of identical gears

your main design issues involve high rpm failure and high torque blade contact.

also consider electromagnetic losses to nearby conductors/ferromagnetic objects.

One of a number of successful applications:

No products for sale, not looking for investors. Just raw R&D toward "perfection."

D-

## Create an account

Register a new account