Latest: No back torque generator.

[broli]

@BWS

So at a given disk speed you get a set voltage and rotating the magnet in the same direction or in the opposite direction makes no difference on the output?

If this is true then this should work!

That illustration will produce a current. This would be not the case if both the setups where spinning in the same direction. I don't see what's so interesting about that though.

To me the interesting thing is first of still wanting to confirm what I started this thread with. So if you are willing to use that on your setup I would appreciate it. And second of all, the effect of any kind of shielding on a homopolar motor/generator.

[lumen]

What's interesting is there is something still not right here.
If you go ahead and figure the field is stationary in space then you would need to assume it was locked to something in space itself and this could explain some things but this still does not always work.

Why would a simple homopolar MOTOR that should be pushing off the very same symmetrical field, induce a back torque into the magnet generating the stationary symmetric field?

It should not be different for each case.

[BWS]

With regard to reducing lens' law; the only way to do it (from my research) is to saturate a homopolar or unipolar generator with current.  Any field arrangement other than that will reduce or eliminate the possibility.  Your sketches at the beginning of this blog will not have such unipolar effects and could never reduce LL losses due to the opposing fields in rotation. 
  Any current draw from machines that do not have a circumferential symmetry (current saturation and field uniformity) will also reduce or eliminate the possibility of Lens law violation.  The field dynamics that can reduce LL is shown in the attachment from my 2003 patent.  This is why I'm here; I've actually patented the only known/possible way to do it.  Believe me or not, it's patented.
  When the disc is saturated with current, the secondary field splits and no longer has a component that is in repulsion to the primary.  This is all in the attachment.  To understand this further, you must fully understand how the primary and secondary field interact to cause Lens' Law losses.  I have never seen this identified, but I know how it works.
  If you want to see the rest of my patent, goto www.magvortechs.tk
-BWS

[BWS]

@broli,
for some reason that didn't load right so here goes again.
You are right to assume that this will work as a generator, not as a motor because I have decoupled the secondary field from the primary.
  It is not possible nor useful to eliminate LL losses from a motor, in fact it is LL that allows a motor to operate.
-BWS

[broli]

So BWS, what have you been doing over the course of 7 years now? Where is the generator, where is the data, where is the product  .

On a more scientific note. If you can make a simple drawing I'll try and make a thoughtful comment. Patent drawings and lawyer language is not really my thing, "current saturation" is a vague term to my simple mind.