Levitation with Permanent magnets

[excel110]

Hi everyone, I've been trying to find info about getting an object to levitate and how strong the magnets need to be but haven't had much luck. I'm trying to build a levitating picure frame using permanent magnets rather electromagnets. The plan was to take apart a lamp and put in two ring magnets at the base and at the end of it. I wanted to put two magnets at the top and bottom of the picture frame as well. I included a picture of what i want it to resemble as well.

First of all... will this work the way i have it?

Secondly, assuming that the picture frame and photo will be a few pounds in weight, and I want it to be about .5-1 inches from each magnet, how strong do the magnets need to or what kinds of magnets should I be trying to find?

 

[Nabeshin]

How in the world do you plan on making this stable? Sure, if you set this up, the thing will kinda undergo SHM at any little perturbation along the axis aligned with the magnets, but any other slight change in position will cause the magnets to torque the picture, and there goes grandma :(

 

[excel110]

Well, shouldn't the ring magnets keep the magnets on the frame in the inner circle of the ring?

This, except upsidedown. And having that on both the top and bottom of the frame makes it stable. I could be wrong?

 

[mgb_phys]

It can be done - you can get small map globes that do this.
Balancing the fields is a little tricky, I don't know if you can do it with a flat picture frame - I think you might need a ring of magnets in the horizontal plane on the floating part.

 

[excel110]

I definitely know it's possible, simply because the idea comes from this: http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/06/maglev.JPG

The main problem is that they use electromagnets, and from my understanding they are stronger than permanent magnets? Either way, my main problem is figuring out how strong the magnets need to be? Is there an equation that relates the amount of lift or push a magnet gives at a point away from it's surface?

 

[Topher925]

The problem is not with the strength of the magnets its balancing the force created by the fields of the magnets. Because of this, you have two choices, use an electromagnet on the top or bottom of the cradle with a control circuit, or use some type of di-magnetic materials. If you look at all the floating picture frames and globes out there they all require power to operate their control circuit and electromagnets.

http://www.gadgets-reviews.com/uimg_new/magnetic-floating-globe-10cm-diameter.jpg

I strongly suggest you just build something with an electromagnet and control circuit like the globes use because its much more practical, simpler, and cheaper. Or you can do it the hard way.

http://www.fieldlines.com/other/diamag1.html

 

[excel110]

I would use an electromagnet, but batteries die out and plugs are limited to where they can reach an outlet. The whole point of using the permanent magnets is that they will not die out. And though I understand that the batteries will last a while and this and that, I wanted to make this so that you can put it somewhere and no longer worry about it and also, on the chance that the batteries do die out, there goes the picture frame.

Having said that, what kind of dimagnetic materials are we talking about here. I've been looking at neodymium magnets, but I'm not exactly savy in magnetics if you haven't noticed yet. Do they work the same as regular magnets, just with a particularly high strength?

 

[DaveC426913]

I've always wondered about this. Every device I've seen uses electromagnets.

I'm not convinced it's possible in principle to build one with permanent magnets.

 

[excel110]

Why wouldn't it be possible?

 

[f95toli]

It is quite literally impossible to create a stable configuration using a static field unless you use a diamagnetic material (and AFAIK the only materials that are "diamagnetic" enough to be practical are superconductors), this is known as Earnshaw's theorem.
Look at the wiki if you want to know more.

Hence, in order to "balance" something you either need a control circuit which continuously adjusts the field or a rotating field, the latter is what is normally used for e.g. magnetic traps.

 

[Danger]

Excel, there is a very simple solution to this, but you probably won't like it.
Magicians use something called 'invisible thread' for levitating cards, cigarettes, etc., and it can be obtained at any magic supply house. You can't see the stuff from more than a few inches away. It's strong enough that you could suspend your picture from a couple of strands, and nobody could tell that it wasn't defying gravity.
I know that it isn't what you want, but it might serve your purpose.

 

[Topher925]

It is quite literally impossible to create a stable configuration using a static field

Indeed. The second link I posted shows how to perform magnetic levitation without super conductors but for an application such as this it is impractical.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Hi, excel110. I only have a couple of minutes here, but would a setup something like I've sketched below work for you? That is, if it must be the case that the picture frame "hangs" on magnetic threads (as it were) from above rather than being supported by a magnetic cushion from below. Both would work to achieve the levitation effect, although I think the "hanging" method would be more stable.

http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=diagram1wy9.png

What you could try is to place a powerful permanent magnet (in the diagram: the large magnet at the top) which is more than strong enough to support your picture frame at a 1-inch distance (or whatever distance you choose). It is important that it be more than strong enough.

Below this magnet I have placed a much weaker magnet, with poles oppositely aligned with the larger magnet.

The picture frame has a magnet embedded in it as shown. The picture frame magnet is therefore attracted to the strong magnet and repelled by the weak magnet. It seems to me that the picture frame would hang stably at a certain distance. If the frame were to vibrate or wobble such that it drifted slightly downwards, it would quickly fall out of the range of the weak, repelling magnet above it, but only very slowly fall out of the influence of the stronger, attracting magnet. This is because the two control magnets are at different distances from the picture frame's embedded magnet, and their magnetic fields diverge in a roughly inverse-square manner. Well, I'm out of time now, but am I hopelessly wrong here or would this work?

- m.e.t.a.

 

[RonL]

I definitely know it's possible, simply because the idea comes from this: http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/06/maglev.JPG

The main problem is that they use electromagnets, and from my understanding they are stronger than permanent magnets? Either way, my main problem is figuring out how strong the magnets need to be? Is there an equation that relates the amount of lift or push a magnet gives at a point away from it's surface?

Look at this link, and see if the principle will apply to what you are trying to do.


http://www.centralhobbies.com/props/balancer.htm

 

[f95toli]

Well, I'm out of time now, but am I hopelessly wrong here or would this work?

- m.e.t.a.

You are wrong

As I pointed out above: it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a stable configuration using static fields, i.e. unless you have stumbled across a flaw in Maxwell's equations you are wrong...

 

[m.e.t.a.]

I don't seem to see my own image. Assuming others can't view it either, the link is http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/9196/diagram1wy9.png.

f95toli, may I ask you to explain where my design falls to pieces?

 

[f95toli]

f95toli, may I ask you to explain where my design falls to pieces?

I don't have to, that's the nice things with theorems: they apply to ALL designs.

However, your design is so simple that if you think about it a little you will realize that it is critically unstable, ANY disturbance will cause it to collapse. The point of Earnshaw's theorem (which follows directly from Gauss law) is that this is true for all designs that use static fields;in mathematical terms: there are no local maxima or minima; only saddle points.

Or, to put it another way, if you were to analyze your system using control theory you can be sure that you would find that you will always end up with poles in the right hand plane...

 

[excel110]

m.e.t.a., unfortunately it is impossible with permanent magnets. Anything balancing in the middle would be too unstable -- if it moved even a little in either direction (assuming you could get it to that perfect place in the center, it would fly off or flip. I was fortunately able to get my hands on a former physicist and some big ring magnets, and he was able to show me why it wouldn't work. Thanks everyone for your help though.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Shame -- it would have made things so much easier! I still haven't managed to spot the flaw, so perhaps understanding will dawn if I prove it to myself with real magnets. Good luck, Excel.

- m.et.a.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have a Levitron. It is awesome. It suspends a weight in air using only permanent magnets, i.e. seemingly defying everything we've just established.

The catch of course, is that it needs to spin to keep balanced. As soon as the spin slows the weight flips over and crashes down.

 

[m.e.t.a.]

The catch of course, is that it needs to spin to keep balanced. As soon as the spin slows the weight flips over and crashes down.

What if we prevent the magnet from so easily flipping upside down by embedding it in the picture frame? And what if, instead of the gyroscopic force, we let gravity be our restoring force (as in my diagram)? I will have to accept the prevailing opinion that such a system would break equilibrium and fall apart. But in what manner would it do so? I've ordered some magnets so that I can watch it happen for myself, but in the meantime it still bothers me that I can't picture it. Could somebody explain in simple terms why my hanging picture frame is unstable?

 

[m.e.t.a.]

Perhaps I see now. Using gravity as the restoring force would only slow the rate at which the magnet "flipped" or drifted to one side; it would not prevent the drift altogether.

On the plus side it does seem like it would require very little energy to power a feedback circuit to balance the picture frame. Alternatively, you might be able to use same principle as Dave's Levitron device. A small solar cell & rechargeable battery might even provide enough power.

- m.e.t.a.

 

[DaveC426913]

What if we prevent the magnet from so easily flipping upside down by embedding it in the picture frame?

Then the frame itself would flip upside down.

Remember, it's the frame that's unstable and that you're trying to stabilize; you can't use it to stabilize your stabilizing mechanism. i.e. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Charlie G]

Lol, I have a pair of neodymium magnets that I spent hours one night trying to suspend a paperclip inbetween the two. I never got it, but I still see no reason why it wouldn't be possible if you could place the object where the forces are perfectly balanced. I saw a floating globe that used electromagnets and its description claimed that the device constantly adjusted the fields strenght to keep it suspended, so maybe electromagnets are the best way to go if the field needs to adjust itself to keep an object suspended.

 

[DaveC426913]

Lol, I have a pair of neodymium magnets that I spent hours one night trying to suspend a paperclip inbetween the two. I never got it, but I still see no reason why it wouldn't be possible if you could place the object where the forces are perfectly balanced.

Sure. It's also possible to balance a pencil on its point. There too the forces would be balanced.

 

[Charlie G]

Sure. It's also possible to balance a pencil on its point. There too the forces would be balanced.

Lol, good point

 

[yalin]

I find study of levitation very interesting. I did some research online. I did not find any working demo out there that allows permanent magnet levitation without spinning the magnet or attaching strings or electromagnet lifting. If you do find any, please let me know.

There's levitation with electromagnets but that require large energy. Because electromagnets are doing the actual lifting.

Part of the problem is static magnets alone cause stability problem. However, there could be a solution where a control mechanism could stabilize while permanent magnets do the lifting. In that case, small batteries could supply energy for months without dying out. No plug-in to wall necessary. In theory, it's doable. In practice, I found it to be almost impossible. I have a few ideas how to stabilize the top magnet while keeping bottom magnet stationary.

I want to hear from you if you come across any technology that allows permanent magnet levitation with a control mechanism (stabilizer) that uses very little energy?

 

[bksree]

Hi
The system is not possible using permanent magnets alone because , as others have pointed out earlier, of Earnshaw's theorem.
Physically the moment the frame shifts infintesimally from the stable position, due to some disturbance, the attractive force ofthe top magnets decreases as square ofthe distance while that due to the lower magnet increases as the square of the distance. For thesystem to return the initial stable position the attractive force of the top magnet should increase and that of the lower magnet decrease and not vice versa. Thus the system collapses.
Wityh electromagnets the system can be restored to its intial config by adjusting the control currents and thence the magnet strength.

Hope this helps

 

[Tlor Fett]

http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=LEV2

Does this not blow the not being able to do it without an electromagnet out of the water? Just getting into/back into all of this so correct me if I am wrong.