Latest: No back torque generator.

[BWS]

Broli,
Please pardon my form, I havn't figured out how to use the quote function properly yet.  Yes, there are distinct advantages to using 2 counter rotating discs, 1 being that you can then use brushes on the shaft and not the circumference for output (well, you still must connect the rims of the discs, but my solution is to use rolling contacts there).  The next problem is that you can use an infinite brush around the circumference by using a conducting liquid.  This has been done by both Adam Trombly and Bruce DePalma, and there is quite alot of info on that alone; without going too far into it, Adam was harassed by the feds for using a classified liquid metal for a brush after his device proved 270% efficient in 1981.  He mentored me in this science.  Both those guys used solid discs, Bruce used mercury and never went over 100%.  In any case, in order to get over 100% the disc has to be saturated with current.  That takes whopperloads of current on a solid rotor, Adam had to draw 15,000 amps from a 6" rotor.  This presents serious load problems.  When the disc is not saturated with current, LL rears it's ugly head.  This is a big reason why I have radial segments that are all put in series.  My solution also then raises the output voltage considerably and reduces the current load requirement.
  In theory a single disc will work fine (it happens in nature all the time) but you would still have to segment the disc and load each segment the same to achieve a decent generator.

Paul-R
That device can measure only voltage really.  You're right that the potential there (especially in the magnet) is capable of huge current (maybe 10,000 amps from the magnet) but that a brush must be constructed that can carry all that current.  That device has sliding contacts of the type from those rc motors driving the device.  There were 2 brushes on the disc and 2 brushes on the magnet at similar radii for a decent voltage comparison.

Remember that a homopolar generator has a fixed field source and a rotating disc while a unipolar generator has the field source fixed to and corotating with the conductive disc.  Since the magnet is electrically conductive, it makes a terrific unipolar generator.  I have a reference for a homopolar device built by the University of Texas in Austin that was built to supply power for the rail gun of SDI fame and could generate pulses of 1 million amperes.
-BWS

[broli]

BWS I believe your topic is kind of side tracking from the original idea I started this thread with. So far no one has made a serious experiment of it. The setups of some people here put my experimental setups to shame. So why not balance it out with theory and professional experiments.

Lumen can you modify your setup to try and perform the experiment I pointed out?

[lumen]

I was looking for a way around the LL problem with the plan of testing an new design without brushes.

Maybe use a gas like argon for the perimeter contacts and a coil of only a few turns of heavy copper or a spiral in the disks center to create a secondary flux in the RF spectrum.

A single high voltage arc at the disks edges to charge one disk and light the argon into a conducting plasma. The instantaneous short would produce a huge flux in the coil before the voltage became to low to support the plasma arc which would then collapse.
Then the collapsing RF field would again induce a large voltage between the plates and again start the plasma arc. The process would continue to oscillate and output a large RF signal that could induce its output into an external coil at a good usable voltage.

Now I'm looking back at the original concept of this thread and am thinking of the AC homopolar generator which is close to what Broli had at the start.

[lumen]

@Broli
I might have some ferrite beads that have a solid wire already through them. I will see what I can come up with.

I did try a similar test using a small steel tube to try to shield the flux on the wire loop experiment but it seemed to make no difference.

[broli]

@Broli
I might have some ferrite beads that have a solid wire already through them. I will see what I can come up with.

I did try a similar test using a small steel tube to try to shield the flux on the wire loop experiment but it seemed to make no difference.

Yes you cannot confine the field of a wire with the beads. What you can do is bend the field of the magnets around the wire using the beads. This means that the magnet does not see the moving charge and thus no force is acting on the moving charge but the magnet has a force acting on it due to the moving charge. So this would hopefully violate newton's third law.

If the assumption is true producing a unidirectional force would be child's play. But I have a hunch that magnetic fields do not directly act on moving charge but on their magnetic field. But this again is contradictory to what induction is. Because then stationary charge without any magnetic field is forced to move. Which proves that the magnetic field does act on charge. Nature can be confusing and interesting.