Bruce's Discovery, Tesla's Missing Link for his Unipolar Generator!

[Bruce_TPU]

Evening ALL,

Tonight was fairly interesting and I feel that I learned a lot. 

1.  I was able to drasticaly reduce the input power, while trying to rotate a copper disc (penny) by simply placing a non conductive paper between both the top and bottom side of the magnet.  To complete the circuit I simply ran a very thin piece of wire from top to base.  Now, this will create a little bit of an engineering challange in my larger design, but I think that I will simply run the wire on the BRUG, from the top, and then have a small air gap between the outer perimeter of the Tesla pancake coil and the loop of copper that will encircle it, to take power off, if brushes there, become my choice.

2.  I learned that you can not input power from the top, have it then run and touch the side.  It does not like that....at all!  It wants the power to touch the "edge" of the top magnet(s).  I found it strange and will retry this.  I tried going from nail on the top, to copper wire, to magnets edge.  No joy.  I am sure with enough power I could, but not what I am looking for.  I want to optimize every single step of the way.

3.  I learned that I can seperate the base, electrically from the bottom magnets and rotation is not effected.  In other words, my base is a nail.  From nail to cork, from cork to magnet.  Negative to base, wire completes circuit as describe in #1.  But, try to do this from the top, and no way!  LOL  At least not tonight.  If someone has accomplished this "seemingly" easy task, I would like to know.

Cheers,

Bruce

[gravityblock]

@Bruce:

After more thought on the pancake coil, it may be more promising than I first thought, due to overlooking the piece of the wire that runs radially from the center of the pancake coil to the rim of the coil.

The current flowing circularly in the pancake coil shouldn't couple with the field from the magnet, so there shouldn't be any counter torque here.  But, the field from the current flowing circularly will cross the field from the current flowing in the radial piece of wire at a 90^o angle and could provide either a forward torque or a counter torque, depending on the direction of rotation or of the pancake coil.

There will still be a counter torque from extracting the current between the pancake coil and the external circuit, but if there is a forward torque in the above, then this forward torque may be equal to the counter torque and the two forces will be canceled and Lenz will be defeated by using Newton's Third Law.

I'm not able to figure the forces involved to know if the forward torque will equal or be greater than the counter torque, but the pancake coil appears very interesting to me at the moment.  I now understand what Tesla is referring to with his pancake coil idea.  It's amazing how overlooking a small detail changes everything.  This is the reason why it needs to be tested, and I really appreciate you taking the time to do these experiments and sharing your results with us.  Thanks.

GB

[Bruce_TPU]

@Bruce:

After more thought on the pancake coil, it may be more promising than I first thought, due to overlooking the piece of the wire that runs radially from the center of the pancake coil to the rim of the coil.

The current flowing circularly in the pancake coil shouldn't couple with the field from the magnet, so there shouldn't be any counter torque here.  But, the field from the current flowing circularly will cross the field from the current flowing in the radial piece of wire at a 90^o angle and could provide either a forward torque or a counter torque, depending on the direction of rotation or of the pancake coil.

There will still be a counter torque from extracting the current between the pancake coil and the external circuit, but if there is a forward torque in the above, then this forward torque may be equal to the counter torque and the two forces will be canceled and Lenz will be defeated by using Newton's Third Law.

I'm not able to figure the forces involved to know if the forward torque will equal or be greater than the counter torque, but the pancake coil appears very interesting to me at the moment.  I now understand what Tesla is referring to with his pancake coil idea.  It's amazing how overlooking a small detail changes everything.  This is the reason why it needs to be tested, and I really appreciate you taking the time to do these experiments and sharing your results with us.  Thanks.

GB

Hi GB,

A very good post.  I was trying to picture what you were describing and think that I understand, about the inner wire running at 90 deg to the outside.  I would say that I agree with this.  In the days of yore, they always put a shaft in the center.  Here we have the spirals, but no shaft, and as you noted, the wire crossing at a 90 degree.

Evening ALL,

Tonight was the start of a "build night".  I am working on understanding the full magnetic levitation that I will imploy to eliminate much friction.  I have been successful at elivating the first end.  I am very excited with it's success!!  Now to build a real foundation, of wood and begin to put things together, for the "mini BRUNG".  It will give me a learning curve before I build the "level 2" BRUNG.

Washer to end of plastic base.  2 magnets in attraction to one another, to washer.  2 groups of three ceramic magnets each, in "repel" of mags on base.  Finicky, but not difficult.

Cheers,

Bruce

[gravityblock]

On the 3rd page of this article in fig. A, http://www.scribd.com/doc/28943990/Hypothesis-of-Homopolar-Atomic-Model-for-Cold-Fusion-Energy , I find an almost exact setup to what I posted in reply #14 of this thread in regards to the below illustration, 

==N/S/disc/N/S===S/N/disc/S/N==  (The "=" represents the axle.  Compare this and my description in reply #14 to the drawing below)   

I have posted many designs and illustrations on this forum in the past, based on this same technique in the article.

GB

[Airstriker]

On the 3rd page of this article in fig. A, http://www.scribd.com/A/28943990/Hypothesis-of-Homopolar-Atomic-Model-for-Cold-Fusion-Energy , I find an almost exact setup to what I posted in reply #14 of this thread in regards to the below illustration, 

==N/S/disc/N/S===S/N/disc/S/N==  (The "=" represents the axle.  Compare this and my description in reply #14 to the drawing below)   

I have posted many designs and illustrations on this forum in the past, based on this same technique in the article.

GB

This is actually Tesla's patent but made in the other completelly wrong way.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0406968.pdf
Tesla's patent ("Dynamo Electric Machine") describes an arrangement of two parallel discs with separate, parallel shafts, joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. Each disc had a field that was the opposite of the other, so that the flow of current was from the one shaft to the disc edge, across the belt to the other disc edge and to that shaft. This would have greatly reduced the frictional losses caused by sliding contacts by allowing both electrical pickups to interface with the shafts of the two disks rather than at the shaft and a high-speed rim.
In the setup of yours you just have a greater friction - not lower ;] Anyway, both have nothing to do with OU ;]