Homopolar torqueless gear generator.

[broli]

The paradox is by far not solved. I have accumulated a big list of "what if" cases over the years that can boggle the mind. For instance bruce dapalma has shown that even the most fundamental HPG can generate back torqueless energy. The only assessment was for the magnet to rotate with the disc. However as far as I know depalma's OU experiments were performed using an electro magnet. Would the below COP be the same if a permanent magnet was used? Below I explain the potential significance of this.

Measured COP was around 3. Ironically this was not OU enough What I never understood was the argument of useless low voltage output. At the very least one could put this output back into a HPM that is hooked to some conventional alternator.

However the above fact made me think deeply about this. This is all my speculation but I have reason to believe that a ferromagnetic magnet source is not the same as a standard loop of wire. Even stronger, unlike a ferromagnetic magnet, a loop of wire cannot be torqued. I believe the torquing force on the magnet that causes the motor to rotate in the setup where the disc is glued to the magnet will not arise. The force will be electrical and thus have no mechanical effect on the system. If this prediction is true it would mean that you can indeed create a back torque less system by gluing the magnet to the disc. But the caveat is that it has to be an electro magnet with no core.

EDIT: I'm going to have to step back from what I just said here.

[exnihiloest]

You're so over the place it's sad. There's nothing wrong in what I said. In fact you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  I'm saying 1+1=2, you are repeating "wrong, it should be 1+1=2" which leaves me questioning your presence here. I'll repeat, IGNORE THIS THREAD.

I have not to ignore this thread. I have to denounce an erroneous diagram for the given reasons and say the truth about your 1+1=3. And you know the fallacy, you have obviously no intention to build it.

[exnihiloest]

I understand what you are saying.  But I am not convinced that the "Lorentz Force" actually exists.  The physics experiments show a wire hanging in between two magnetic poles.  And when a current is applied, the wire will swing in one direction or the other depending on the direction of current flow through the wire.  However, the wire can escape in it's travel to a place of less magnetic field in these experiments.

From what I understand, you are denying the Lorentz force and explaining the force on a moving conductor carrying a current by a "fall" in a gradient of magnetic potential.
This is not what we observe. For example in the tube of a magnetron, the magnetic field is constant and very homogeneous. Nevertheless the electrons rotate while going forward, because they are submitted to a force that is always perpendicular to their speed vector. This would not be explained by your theory.
The Lorentz force is also a consequence of special relativity. In F=q*v.B, v is relative to the observer. If we chose the referential of the electron, then v=0 and we should have F=0. It is false because from the moving electron, it is the source of the magnetic field that is seen to move, thus by applying the Lorentz transforms of special relativity, the magnetic field is changed into an electric field which is acting onto the electron perpendicularly to its motion, as the Lorentz force does viewed from an external observer.
Therefore we see that the Lorentz force really applies both in practice and theory. All is very consistent. Electromagnetism being fully compatible with SR, and also with mechanics, all the laws of physics would be false if the Lorentz force alone would not apply as usually presumed.

...
Additionally, if the Lorentz force is actual, you should be able to take two ring magnets in attract and place a current carrying wire in between them and propel off of the flux lines to make a motor.  I don't think that this will work, but I might be wrong.  Perhaps a motor has been made like this?

It is important to study the whole circuit of the current. As the magnetic flux is conservative, in such a setup there is always the Lorentz force applying in a direction on one part of the circuit and in the opposite direction on the other part, leaving us with a null effect. It is the very subtlety of the Faraday disk to break the symmetry, allowing for a homopolar functioning.

It seems to me that on the homopolar disk, that no voltage is being generated unless the contact is made on the disk to create the virtual wire.  Because when the virtual wire is created by making a contact with a load, then this wire is crossing magnetic lines of flux, due to the spinning disk, and then generating an electrical potential which flows out to the load.  When no connection is made, there is no voltage being produced on the spinning disk. 

Just something to think about??

In a sense you are right when you say there is no field before the connection. In fact there are two fields which cancel one another. The electrons really move from the center to the rim because of the Lorentz force (or from the rim to the center, depending on the direction of the magnetic field). This makes a separation between positive and negative charges, creating an electric field inside the disk conductor: thus the Coulomb force balances the Lorentz force and the phenomenon ends with a balanced charge pattern. But this static pattern is viewed as a simple potential difference by an observer at rest because this observer is not submitted to the Lorentz force, breaking the balance. When the connection is made, the part of the circuit which is at rest (not submitted to the Lorentz force) allows the electrons to flow due to the potential difference between the two contacts.

In summary, the Faraday disk is no more than a circuit in two parts, one moving relatively to the other, and we can take the viewpoint of each part to study the functioning.
We can view it as one part moving in a magnetic field where the Lorentz force acts onto the electrons, transforming this part into a voltage generator, and one part at rest through which the electrons can move freely, looping the current.
Or we can view it from the rotating referential which become a static part submitted to an electric field thanks to SR (the magnetic field viewed by the electrons of the disk) creating a voltage, and an external moving part (this at rest in the first view), outside of any field, in which the first part acting as a voltage generator, provides the current.

[Omnibus]

From what I understand, you are denying the Lorentz force and explaining the force on a moving conductor carrying a current by a "fall" in a gradient of magnetic potential.
This is not what we observe. For example in the tube of a magnetron, the magnetic field is constant and very homogeneous. Nevertheless the electrons rotate while going forward, because they are submitted to a force that is always perpendicular to their speed vector. This would not be explained by your theory.
The Lorentz force is also a consequence of special relativity. In F=q*v.B, v is relative to the observer. If we chose the referential of the electron, then v=0 and we should have F=0. It is false because from the moving electron, it is the source of the magnetic field that is seen to move, thus by applying the Lorentz transforms of special relativity, the magnetic field is changed into an electric field which is acting onto the electron perpendicularly to its motion, as the Lorentz force does viewed from an external observer.
Therefore we see that the Lorentz force really applies both in practice and theory. All is very consistent. Electromagnetism being fully compatible with SR, and also with mechanics, all the laws of physics would be false if the Lorentz force alone would not apply as usually presumed.

It is important to study the whole circuit of the current. As the magnetic flux is conservative, in such a setup there is always the Lorentz force applying in a direction on one part of the circuit and in the opposite direction on the other part, leaving us with a null effect. It is the very subtlety of the Faraday disk to break the symmetry, allowing for a homopolar functioning.

In a sense you are right when you say there is no field before the connection. In fact there are two fields which cancel one another. The electrons really move from the center to the rim because of the Lorentz force (or from the rim to the center, depending on the direction of the magnetic field). This makes a separation between positive and negative charges, creating an electric field inside the disk conductor: thus the Coulomb force balances the Lorentz force and the phenomenon ends with a balanced charge pattern. But this static pattern is viewed as a simple potential difference by an observer at rest because this observer is not submitted to the Lorentz force, breaking the balance. When the connection is made, the part of the circuit which is at rest (not submitted to the Lorentz force) allows the electrons to flow due to the potential difference between the two contacts.

In summary, the Faraday disk is no more than a circuit in two parts, one moving relatively to the other, and we can take the viewpoint of each part to study the functioning.
We can view it as one part moving in a magnetic field where the Lorentz force acts onto the electrons, transforming this part into a voltage generator, and one part at rest through which the electrons can move freely, looping the current.
Or we can view it from the rotating referential which become a static part submitted an electric field thanks to SR (the magnetic field viewed by the electrons of the disk) creating a voltage, and an external moving part (this at rest in the first view), outside of any field, in which the first part acting as a voltage generator, provides the current.

You have no clue, as I've said many times and as is confirmed by the above text. You don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you should stop cluttering with your gibberish not only this thread but other threads too where you are interrupting useful discussins with your nonsense.

[exnihiloest]

You have no clue, as I've said many times and as is confirmed by the above text. You don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you should stop cluttering with your gibberish not only this thread but other threads too where you are interrupting useful discussins with your nonsense.

You have no idea of what I'm speaking about, and it is the reason of your ad hominem attack. Science is obviously not for you. Your inclination to ignorance due to your innate knowledge prevents you to understand the basic of physics and to make any progress.
You should rather try to understand instead of preaching free energy as a pseudo-science and a real religion among other nuts.