Homopolar torqueless gear generator.

[Omnibus]

@OmniBot code
+4600 posts - spam

You shameless bastard!

spam

[spinn_MP]

spam

[broli]

Another interesting read mainly inspired by Graneau:

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm

And some on suppressed knowledge in the field:

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html

It's funny how far people keep going in having to "fix" or tweak things untill they fit a worshiped model, instead of throwing it all away and starting with one that doesn't come with all the flaws or even starting from scratch. The irony in this particular case is that ampere's proposed model has so far never been disproved and it doesn't break Newtonian physics as all there's no such thing as the "weak form" of newtons third law. All forces act along the connecting line.

[Liberty]

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 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.

I appreciate your explanation from a physics point of view.  I have a different understanding of how electricity develops from the Homopolar Generator or Faraday disk. 
As the disk spins in a magnetic field, the brushes come in contact with the center point of the disk and also with the outside rim of the disk.  This makes an electrical circuit with a load attached.  A "virtual wire" is established at this point and that is when power generation starts.  There are no separation of charges until this point occurs.  Why?  The virtual wire spans from the center of the spinning disk to the outside rim.  Fewer lines of flux are crossed by the virtual wire near the center of the disk, compared to the position of the other end of the wire near the outside rim.  (More flux lines are cut by the virtual wire near the outside).  This difference of number of crossed flux lines within the wire, cause the electron imbalance to occur according to the speed of the spinning  disk.  The faster the disk spins, the more difference of charge will occur across the wire.  Or the larger the disk, the greater the difference of charge. 
As soon as the brushes are removed, the wire is gone and produces no more imbalance of electrons. 
If the disk is spun from a different direction, the imbalance will reverse polarity.  Why?  Flux lines are traveling across the wire from the other direction, therefore the electron imbalance is reversed.

I prefer this simple explanation to the operation of the Homopolar Generator, as opposed to the Lorentz force explanation.  It's less complicated and it works.

[exnihiloest]

...
If the disk is spun from a different direction, the imbalance will reverse polarity.  Why?  Flux lines are traveling across the wire from the other direction, therefore the electron imbalance is reversed.

I prefer this simple explanation to the operation of the Homopolar Generator, as opposed to the Lorentz force explanation.  It's less complicated and it works.

Hi Liberty,

You are right, it works. The explanation by the crossing of flux lines is correct, nevertheless it is more a calculus method than a physical theory, for several reasons.
- the "flux lines" represent nothing else than theoretical lines along which the intensity of the magnetic field is constant (we could name them "magnetic geodesics"). There are no real lines.
- we have to account for a surface enclosed by the circuit and through which the flux crosses (crossing flux lines is related to the Gauss law).
- the flux method says nothing about the cause of the real force that an isolated electron feels but physically, it is only such a force that acts onto an electron, generating a current.

So my preference goes to the Lorentz force and/or to the treatment by SR.