Ultimate proof of Magnetic Vortex, free book and videos

[gravityblock]

I have no confusion between the two.
The table from the book you quoted... well, he died the year it was published.
The source would seem reasonably trustworthy, except in case D and F are wrong.
Bruce deplama's N machine was permanent magnets sandwiched on a conductive plate and the whole thing turning.  This generated a voltage in configuration F both together with no relative motion between plate and magnet.  Also the experiment you originally submitted had both the conductor and magnet rotating together also declaring F wrong. 


http://amasci.com/freenrg/n-mach.html - is also wrong, but he declares "Note that these are all UNTRIED THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS"


90.4995% are a stationary magnet and moving disc. (E correct)
9.4995% are both moving disk and moving magnet; so as to disprove relativity... because there is no apparent relative motion between the two... but time and again this has generated a voltage.  Faraday himself did this one to show there was a voltage. (F wrong)
the other 0.001% moving the magnet and not moving the disc generates 0 current... as demonstrated experimentally by only that phsyclips single source. (D shown as wrong)  Unfortunately it's hard to search for "rotation of magnet and not rotation of disc".


But really that's no surprise... and simplifies things, to say that rotation along the axis of a homogenous magnetic has no effect on its field.  Since also a coil rotating would see no difference bewtween that motion and the supposed current already running through the coil.  A more difficult experiment to take a helmholz coil with a conditive plate mounted rigidly with the coil, and rotate the helmholz counter to its current at even 25% the speed of light i would expect that event at 100% the speed of light the conductive plate would still have a voltage across it.
Actually rotating either with or against the current... other than the polarity of polarity of generated voltage would be reversed, the quantity would still be the same as whatever speed disc rotating itself within such a field.  But that's just a thought... something along the lines of disproving current flow in a wire.

You missed the fact that tests d, e, and f were with a conductive magnet while the other tests were not.  Don't worry, I made the same mistake a few years ago.

Gravock

[d3x0r]

You missed the fact that tests d, e, and f were with a conductive magnet while the other tests were not.  Don't worry, I made the same mistake a few years ago.

Gravock

only because I don't own the book and couldn't find a shared copy. esp. for the section quoted.
what does it matter if the magnet is conductive or not?
It would appear that the magnet used in physclips is also conductive... at least on the surface... and the core of a Nd magnet is also conductive so... so?

[gravityblock]

only because I don't own the book and couldn't find a shared copy. esp. for the section quoted.
what does it matter if the magnet is conductive or not?
It would appear that the magnet used in physclips is also conductive... at least on the surface... and the core of a Nd magnet is also conductive so... so?

A rotating conductive magnet is the same as having the disc rotate with the magnet while using a stationary external circuit (closing circuit).  In other words, there is relative motion between the conductive coating of the magnet and the closing circuit.  There is a voltage/current induced in all cases where there is relative motion between the disc and closing circuit, regardless if the magnet itself is rotating or not.  You are forgetting there are two parts to the circuit.  There is both a rotating conductor (normally the disc), and a stationary external circuit (also know as closing circuit, wire piece, leads, etc).  We could have a single wire piece rotate while the entire disc is stationary and achieve similar results as if the entire disc rotates while a single wire piece remains stationary.  None of the tests in Table 3 or any other tests based on a conventional HPM/HPG configuration prove or disprove if the field rotates with the magnet or not. 

Gravock

[TheoriaApophasis]

Then please illustrate how rotating one, the other, or both changes the cuts of flux with the conductive plate

Mwaaaaah,   that is NOT 360 degree >>>pole to pole<<<  rotation of a magnet



Whoooops on you.



That however IS cutting centrifugal and centripetal, and 4 pressure zones

[d3x0r]

Mwaaaaah,   that is NOT 360 degree >>>pole to pole<<<  rotation of a magnet
Whoooops on you.
That however IS cutting centrifugal and centripetal, and 4 pressure zones

But it IS the situation that was being discussed(presented)... a homopolar generator.