Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.

Started by PolaczekCebulaczek, August 05, 2016, 04:09:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Magluvin

Quote from: allcanadian on August 13, 2016, 02:45:51 PM
What is the truth when the truth is unacceptable?.


The truth is very simple even if it is unacceptable to most, the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) are tied to the source which created them but are a property of the space surrounding them. If a cork in a lake oscillates creating waves in the water are the waves a property of the cork?, well no that is absurd. The waves are a property of the water created by the oscillating cork. The cork can be rotated and yet the waves do not rotate with the cork... Do you understand?.
The cork is the source and the waves created by the cork in the water the field and the lake water external EM waves modified by the waves from the cork.


The Primary Fields are tied to the source but stationary in the space relative to the axis of rotation. The field is stationary around the source and moves with the source but does not rotate with the source... because the field is stationary. I have no idea how in the hell everyone can make something so fundamentally simple so complicated. Assume the field is stationary relative to the source and everything works... so what's the problem?


Here is your proof, tie some thread onto a the most powerful magnet you have so the magnet is free to rotate on the axis of the poles. Now let the magnet hang from the thread 1 mm away from a thick copper or aluminum plate. You will find there is zero drag due to eddy currents on the axis of rotation and it rotates freely but there is huge drag due to the motion of every other axis... what does this tell you?.


The field is stationary with respect to source which created it and I have spun free floating magnets up on axis to 5000 RPM 1mm away from a 1" think aluminum plate with no measured drag and no eddy current generation, why? because the field is stationary with respect to the source and does not rotate with it that's why.


AC

I really liked that explanation. ;) Ive tried to explain that, but you did a much better job.

So what if you put a cylinder of aluminum the size of the magnet on the magnet face so they both spin. Will the aluminum heat up? And will it have any opposing force to the drive motor?

Mags

Magluvin

Quote from: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 13, 2016, 03:23:44 PM
the problem is: why there is E field around spinning magnet (detected by test charge) if field does not rotate.

that is an excellent question. ;)   

What more interests me about these things is, when we use a magnet and coils in a generator or even what goes on in a transformer, we are told the fields must be changing in order for the induction of the gen coil or secondary of the transformer to happen. But here there is no field changing and the only explanation would be flux cutting in order to induce current in the disk.

Mags

PolaczekCebulaczek

QuoteSo what if you put a cylinder of aluminum the size of the magnet on the magnet face so they both spin. Will the aluminum heat up?

or coil with led as I suggested.

QuoteBut here there is no field changing and the only explanation would be flux cutting in order to induce current in the disk.

field does not need to by changed , its just all about movement of one thing relative to other, collapsing or expanding mag field is a moving field.

allcanadian

@pola
Quotethe problem is: why there is E field around spinning magnet (detected by test charge) if field does not rotate.


I see several problems with the picture/experiment you posted. First a spinning disk, magnetic or not, produces air flow like a fan due to adhesion of the air particles/dust to the disk producing an air flow/force and a build up of static charges. Even if the the test charge or disk were physically isolated, in vacuum or insulated there is still induced charge due to the air flow/moving charges across any dielectric medium. The test charge would need to experience a force well above and beyond all the experimental errors I see off hand. It is simply lacking in details relative to the large number of variables which could influence the result.


However in my experiment I can say that no charges moved because no eddy currents were generated ie. Faraday's Law. I used a very powerful neo magnet with a 400 lb pull force levitated from the top by a solenoid magnetic levitation circuit I developed. It levitated the magnet 1 mm above a 1" thick aluminum plate and I could flick it with my finger and it would rotate for hours. To be honest I found it a little disturbing that it rotated that long because it seemed unnatural. However air drag falls by the cube of velocity thus at absurdly low RPM with no friction because it is levitated the drag is essentially zero.


If the magnet was moved in any other direction it was like pushing the magnet through jello and the drag forces were very large. Obviously the magnet could not rotate for one minute let alone hours if any charges moved generating eddy currents but it did.


So my question is... which experiment do you think has more credibility?, my experiment or the one you have shown?. Which experiment is more likely to be influenced by experimental error?. Obviously my experiment is superior in every respect because it is based on a known law... Faraday's Law. If a charge had moved in my experiment then it must induce a current to oppose the change which caused it to move... but it didn't.


The best experiments are the one's which reduce experimental error and the number of variables which could influence the result towards zero in my opinion.


AC
Knowledge without Use and Expression is a vain thing, bringing no good to its possessor, or to the race.

lumen

Quote from: allcanadian on August 13, 2016, 02:45:51 PM

The Primary Fields are tied to the source but stationary in the space relative to the axis of rotation. The field is stationary around the source and moves with the source but does not rotate with the source... because the field is stationary. I have no idea how in the hell everyone can make something so fundamentally simple so complicated. Assume the field is stationary relative to the source and everything works... so what's the problem?


Here is your proof, tie some thread onto a the most powerful magnet you have so the magnet is free to rotate on the axis of the poles. Now let the magnet hang from the thread 1 mm away from a thick copper or aluminum plate. You will find there is zero drag due to eddy currents on the axis of rotation and it rotates freely but there is huge drag due to the motion of every other axis... what does this tell you?.


AC

That's only half the experiment.
What about spinning a solid aluminum plate on the axis of a large magnet and because no eddy currents exist in the plate then the field must rotate with the plate.

Or spinning both the plate and the magnet, OR both in opposite directions and still no eddy currents in the plate.

Is that not proof that the field rotates with the plate?