another way to fight lorentz

[gravityblock]

@mr_bogangles:

The magnet rotating with the axle is not the cause of the counter torque in the HPG.  The cause of the counter torque is drawing current between the rotating frame of the disc and the stationary frame of the external circuit, or vice versa.

It doesn't matter if the magnet is rotated or not, as long as their is relative motion between the disc and external circuit, then a voltage and current will be induced.  Either way the counter torque is proportional to the amount of current that is being drawn from the system.

Only way to eliminate the counter torque in the HPG is to avoid having relative motion between the disc and external circuit.  This can be accomplished with a rotating magnetic field with a stationary disc on each side of the magnetic field and connected in series.  Rotating the magnet does not rotate the magnetic field.  I have a few ideas on how to do this, but nobody is interested in those ideas. 

The TPU has a rotating magnetic field, thus you need no relative or mechanical motion in the system and no counter torque.  I believe I know why the TPU has yet to be replicated showing OU, but nobody is willing to listen......because a "motionless variant" of the HPG is better than spinning a mass. 

There is mathematical proof that spinning the magnet mass where the magnetic field is rotating with the magnet is much more efficient than keeping the coils energized in the TPU which creates a rotating magnetic field.  It may not be possible to have the magnetic field rotate with the magnet, but even if there was........nobody would care.

I'm so pissed off with this subject it's not even funny. 

[mr_bojangles]

@gravityblock

i understand your frustration, i find it hard as well to find serious people willing to talk about specific topics


it may be that no one can answer your questions, personally i only respond to topics i believe i have the capacity to answer

you are absolutely correct with where the counter torque originates, what i meant was because the stator is usually fixed and the magnet is not, it gets induced into the magnet almost completely, which in turn fights the mechanism that spins it. so i sought to reverse this and induce it into the stator. by fixing the magnet and allowing the stator to freely rotate, the counter torque trying to "spin" the stator due to the magnet being fixed. the counterweight on the stator is the only thing keeping it upright and the counter torque will be induced, trying to make the stator spin, which it wont, due to it being overbalanced

i dont even have to keep this an HPG, and instead use alternating poles of multiple fixed magnets, and if they were set in line with the stator would create the typical multi pole generator (which might not do a whole lot)

when i thought of this i wondered what could happen, because it seems to be a system that does not account for lenz law

the TPU is above my knowledge of understanding, my apologies for a lack of corroboration on my part in that topic, but it may be your duty to be an authoritative figure on the more advanced components of OU devices for those who are not at your level

you seem to have a fairly deep understanding of these types of interactions and i would personally trust your judgment over mine

this idea is fairly simple and mainly i ask is there any significance in only the fact that spinning this mechanism will not have to account for lenz law, therefore essentially creating lenz-less rotation?

i would love to hear any variations someone else might employ to make this more efficient, or anything anyone would do differently

[gravityblock]

this idea is fairly simple and mainly i ask is there any significance in only the fact that spinning this mechanism will not have to account for lenz law, therefore essentially creating lenz-less rotation?

Yes, your system will induce a voltage and current without the counter torque if my understanding of your drawing is correct.  I took a really hard look at your illustration this time, which I did not do before (my bad).  You won't need brushes with your system either, which is a plus.  You may need 1 slip ring at the center axle for all four discs, but this wouldn't affect the power output very much.  The four discs can be connected in series with each other to increase the voltage without an engineering nightmare.

The only issues I see is the weight on the discs and the rate per rotation of the magnets relative to the discs, which you are already aware of.  I agree that moving the magnets closer to the axle will increase the rate per rotation of the magnets.  If we could keep the discs upright while the system is rotating without the weights, then we could achieve a high RPM in the system.  Increasing the weight on the discs will allow a faster rotation, but the input requirements will increase as well.

Could we anchor the discs to another separate frame that is above and at the center of rotation which will remain stationary.  Would this allow the discs to remain upright or fixed while the system rotated?   If not, then I'm sure it could be done somehow without the weights.  I'll give this more thought.

I'm impressed, Excellent Job.

[mr_bojangles]

@gravityblock

I greatly appreciate your new found interest

I haven't thought of a seperate mechanism yet like your talking about, I'll give it more thought.

while thinking about the weight more, an idea hit me, instead of a counterweight, what if we just make the bottom portion of the stators thicker gauged wire? this would keep it off balance and with the right combination could make it more efficient

still it has the same limitations with potential rpms

however the bigger it is the slower we would want it to rotate, and the less it would matter

that was just an idea I decided to jott down, let me know if you think of anything else, as well as this idea

[petersone]

@mr bogangles
Hi,I have been looking at your setup,ingenious,but IF I understand it right,there will be lenz drag,but it is apposed by the weights,which would tend to be pushed out one side and pulled in the other,so unbalacing the wheel and making it harder for the prime mover.
If I have it wrong,let me know and I will look again.
peter