Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

So should we take one non peer-reviewed "paper" as "fact" over 100's or 1000's of peer-reviewed papers that support what I'm saying?

I can see entertaining new ideas, but his concepts don't make any sense in view of how nature really works regarding cores and flux etc.
I don't understand the question. Can you elaborate?

What im asking is-if it is the flux from the primary cutting the windings of the secondary, on its way to the core,where the secondary is wound aroud the core along side the primary, thenthere would be no flux from the primary cutting the secondary in the diagram I posted, where the primary is on one side of the core, and the secondary is on the opposite of the core.

[tinman]

So should we take one non peer-reviewed "paper" as "fact" over 100's or 1000's of peer-reviewed papers that support what I'm saying?

I can see entertaining new ideas, but his concepts don't make any sense in view of how nature really works regarding cores and flux etc.

Peer review-->Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality.

So a peer reviewed paper written by those that carried out the experiments,and present there findings,are judged by those that think they know better. And those that know better follow those that knew better before them. So what you have with !peer review!,is an endless trail that leads back to the beginning of the subject in question. New findings that go against known !theories! are often shun by those that know better. In this very thread we have just seen a case of two great minds that !seem! to be at odds with each other-and this is a good thing,and worth looking into further-thus my new homopolar generator thread.

Anyway,you and most here know i dont just settle for stale science or physics,and this is one subject i intend on following through with till the end,and i hope that i can count on some answers to questions i ask of you,and others here Poynt.

So i have had a thought about this electric field deal in regards to a toroid transformer setup,and believe i have a way to prove it one way or the other. When the time come's,you will recognize this test setup,as i have delved into it a bit before. This will cost me both time and money,but it is something worth doing.

So i need some clarification on the electric field and field strength in regards to it's position on the toroid core.
1-Is the E field strongest at the surface of the core,and weakens as it nears the center of the core.
2-Dose that now mean that the magnetic field/flux is weakest at the surface of the core,and strongest at the center of the core?.

Cheers
Brad

[Vortex1]

Poynt seems to believe the the Led will still conduct (light) even if it is rotating with the disc, and you believe that there needs to be a difference in motion/time for the LED to conduct Vortex?

If poynt is right, then what could cause a ! Back torque! (as some call it) on the prime mover.

Yes, I am saying there need to be relative motion between the external circuit and the magnet rotation. Usually the external circuit is fixed and the magnets rotate.

As you know homopolar generators are also motors when driven with a current.

Now if you substitute a battery for the LED, version V1 will rotate, this is well known and in the oldest of textbooks regarding electricity and magnetism.

Now take the case of V2 and a battery circuit that rotates with the magnets...can you even imagine how torque and rotation can be produced in such a machine? It would be a reactionless motor drive that somehow sits in space and produces torque without counter torque, certainly a novel device worthy of a patent if not a Nobel Prize

I'd like to see this demonstrated, as it would be a new age of motor drives and generators. I say it won't work therefore it's inverse as a generator lighting the LED also won't work.
So my vote is that V2 will not work, will not light the led IMHO.

Was there a reason why you brought these two examples up for questioning as it seems to be left hanging?

I'd like to know what is your opinion or what have your experiments found?

Kind Regards
ION

[tinman]

Yes, I am saying there need to be relative motion between the external circuit and the magnet rotation. Usually the external circuit is fixed and the magnets rotate.

As you know homopolar generators are also motors when driven with a current.

Now if you substitute a battery for the LED, version V1 will rotate, this is well known and in the oldest of textbooks regarding electricity and magnetism.

Now take the case of V2 and a battery circuit that rotates with the magnets...can you even imagine how torque and rotation can be produced in such a machine? It would be a reactionless motor drive that somehow sits in space and produces torque without counter torque, certainly a novel device worthy of a patent if not a Nobel Prize

I'd like to see this demonstrated, as it would be a new age of motor drives and generators. I say it won't work therefore it's inverse as a generator lighting the LED also won't work.
So my vote is that V2 will not work, will not light the led IMHO.

Was there a reason why you brought these two examples up for questioning as it seems to be left hanging?



Kind Regards
ION

The reason i bought this up is because i believe it is related to the induction process in transformers,but in a DC manner.

I'd like to know what is your opinion or what have your experiments found?

I have started a separate thread on this,so as not to steer this one off coarse.
I will post my findings on some test i did some time ago on a very small setup-very low powered,as a large copper disc and large neo magnets were out of my reach. My setup was only 2" in diameter.

I would not throw Poynt's opinion out to fast.

[Vortex1]

The reason i bought this up is because i believe it is related to the induction process in transformers,but in a DC manner.

I have started a separate thread on this,so as not to steer this one off coarse.
I will post my findings on some test i did some time ago on a very small setup-very low powered,as a large copper disc and large neo magnets were out of my reach. My setup was only 2" in diameter.

I would not throw Poynt's opinion out to fast.

No opinions of Poynts are being thrown out, I'm merely stating if what he says is true it will be a heretofore unrealized invention in over the 150 years people have been playing with homopolar motor / generators.

Unfortunately I am not physically well off to run any experiments at this time or to refute any arguments. Typing is even a strain. There are plenty on the forum able bodied enough to do so. Let the V2 thumbs up guys step up to the plate with actual experiment.

Kind Regards
Vortex1