another way to fight lorentz

[gravityblock]

....the possibility is that it will produce twice the voltage potential as has been mentioned as a standard HPG or Faraday disk.

The voltage would be more than doubled, it would increase to the 4th power.  The downside is the drag is increased to the 4th power while drawing current negating our power output gain.  This is how I currently understand this at the moment.  Let's say a 2 ft. radii magnet produces 2 volts at 1000 rpm.  A 4 ft. radii magnet of the same strength would produce 16 volts at 1000 rpm.  The input requirements for the larger 4 ft. radii magnet would only increase to the square thereof in order to get it to 1000 rpm as compared to the 2 ft. radii magnet.  In order to maintain the system of the larger magnet at 1000 rpm while drawing current, then the input requirements will increase to the 4th power due to the drag or counter torque as compared to the smaller magnet.  I believe this has already been confirmed.

In the standard HPG, each additional brush that is added doubles the amps due to the brushes being connected in parallel and the input requirements double.  In this setup, each additional brush that is added will double the voltage due to them being connected in series and will double the input requirements.  Voltage is not a problem in the HPG with the right design.

I think your design has potential.  I have many designs that increase the voltage to the 4th power, but we won't achieve OU until we overcome this drag.

[jadaro2600]

its ingenious that you use conductive bearings instead of brushes, i don't know why i never thought of that but i would imagine it cuts out on friction a lot

where do you plan on going with your design? im interested to hear it

Well, if I were to create a disk Faraday style - where there were one pole to the side, ..the disk would be supported by three bearings - there would be no center axis, and it would simply be supported by those, I would have a brush at the center of rotation, as it would be an area of low relative surface feet per minute, the friction would be lower. I would pull current from any or all of the outside bearings, ..the rim of the disk would be grooved to the height of the bearing, that way it doesn't go flying off, etc.  By systematically, I should say, altering which bearing I took current from in such a way that it was extracted at frequency, ... no two at a time.  I think an interesting thing might occur if this were to be done.

5 bearings may be a bit much, but cycling the output may have better than expected results. Additionally, the two extra bearings gives it rigidity.

Given the nature of the oscillations, I think it possible to increase the voltage substantially - the joule thief is a simply way to boost voltage, a similar method could be employed if you were to alter the path by which energy were extracted.  Do this at a high rate of frequency may cause an electromagnetic wave to form to counter the most recently extracted current.  Doing so may also have beneficial effects.

I would draw current from the formerly discussed method ( diameter method, except I think I ) would groove the rim, and use four bearings, I'm not sure how I would orient them though.  The diametric model is simply to demonstrate matters-of-fact.

This is an interesting thing about the voltage, I don't know too much about the math behind the HPG, but i do think that a roller bearing would conserve friction forces.. I worry though about the high amps that one puts out might weld a brush or melt it.

[gravityblock]

@mr_bojangles:

I setup a small little test device for your original design and have been playing around with it.  I think the weights can be done away with. 

Glue a bearing on the outside axis of each disc.  The side of the bearing fixed to the disc I will refer to it as the fixed side and the other side of the bearing that can freely rotate I will refer to it as the rotating side.  Run a small non-magnetic rod from the rotating side of the left disc to the fixed side on the right disc. Then run another rod from the rotating side of the right disc to the fixed side on the left disc.  I haven't tested this idea yet.  Let me know what you think.

To my surprise, there is much more relative motion between the magnets and discs than I expected.  Below is an illustration in how the rods are connected to the bearings.

GB

[mr_bojangles]

that is a brilliant idea, i either see the rods "canceling" out the motion, as one rod will seek full rotation as compared to the other which will want to stay relative to the other disc, however the other might be that they will lock up and no relative motion will occur

I've been trying run it in my mind, but it is proving a difficult feat, and drawing i fared the same. the only issue i see is where they are fixed to the axis, because they will have a tendency to move with the machine as opposed to the slipped one, but at the same time i think it could result in the disc seeking the rotation of both which will result in the disc staying upright

maybe i will get time to build it, until then however

i thought of something, is there any way we can use centripetal force to give us the desired rotation pattern?

i messed around with a couple configurations that employed various gears attached to the axis with different placements of weight but in the end they all seemed to stick and rotate with the mechanism

so far i think it might be a lost cause but maybe itl spark an idea in your head

if you get a chance to test yours let me know, it looks promising

if we do get this i feel like it could at least be PM

[gravityblock]

I've been trying run it in my mind, but it is proving a difficult feat, and drawing i fared the same.

I haven't been able to fully run it through my mind either, and although the drawing helps with the concept, it doesn't help to determine if it would work or not.  At least I have a model to play around with so I can see and understand the problem at hand more clearly.  I'll try to test this idea and will let you know the results.

GB