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

[Bruce_TPU]

The idea 2 doesn't really make much sense as you will have the same potential on all of the brushes (all on top ring and all on lower ring) and you will end up only with additional friction because of the additional brushes.

Hi Airstriker,

Once again, I could not agree with you more.  But, for some reason, Tesla thought otherwise, as I have highlighted again in his notes.  I truly hope that the first idea will work just fine, as this is the easiest, with the least friction. 

Idea 3 with the bearing is interesting, because it allows the bearing balls to act as the brushes along the entire perimeter, like idea 2.  Again, not my favorite idea, but it must be experimented with (the idea of pulling from multiple locations, I have read even, 6 to 8 brushes) because of the words of Tesla.  (Please see below:)

From Tesla's Notes on the Unipolar Gyro:
"Considered as a dynamo machine, the disc is an equally interesting object of
study. In addition to its peculiarity of giving currents of one direction without the employment of commutating devices, such a machine differs from ordinary dynamos in that there is no reaction between armature and field. The armature current tends to set up a magnetization at right angles to that of the field current, but since the current is taken off uniformly from all points of the periphery, and since, to he exalt, the external circuit may also be arranged perfectly symmetrical to the field magnet, no reaction can occur. This, however, is true only as long as the magnets are weakly energized, for when the magnets are more or less saturated, both magnetizations at right angles seemingly interfere with each other.

For the above reason alone it would appear that the output of such a
machine; should, for the same weight, be much greater than that of any other
machine in which the armature current tends to demagnetize the field. The
extraordinary output of the Forbes unipolar dynamo and the experience of the writer confirm this view.

Again, the facility with which such a machine may be made to excite itself is
striking, but this may be due â€" besides to the absence of armature reaction â€" to the defect smoothness of the current and non-existence of self-induction."

AND

"A Forbes dynamo may, for instance, be excited in such a manner. In the experience
of the writer it has been found that instead of taking the current from two such discs
by sliding contacts, as usual, a flexible conducting belt may be employed to
advantage. The discs are in such case provided with large flanges, affording a very
great contact surface. The belt should be made to beat on the flanges with spring
pressure to take up the expansion. Several machines with belt contact were
constructed by the writer two years ago, and worked satisfactorily; but for want of
time the work in that direction has been temporarily suspended. A number of
features, pointed out above have also been used by the writer in connection with
some types of alternating current motors."

Nikola Tesla, 1896

Available on: http://www.andrijar.com/physics.htm


@ ALL
What I have begun to do, is to study the design and engineering of professional tops.  Some can spin up to 15 minutes. (Quirk Top) The part of my idea that I am sure of so far, is that I want as much "spin down" time as possible.  And will be testing differant configurations to achieve this.  My thinking is as follows...if I can achieve a very long spin time, due to inertia and momentum, design, center of gravity, center of mass, etc.. Then the time between pulses, needed to keep my "Relativistic Unipolar Generator" will be extended, minimizing input power.  My unit will hereby be known as the BRUG, standing for Bruce's Relativistic Unipolar Generator.     A mouthful, so it will be called the BRUG Device for short.

I have already started in on this process.

Cheers,

Bruce

[gravityblock]

@Bruce:

I believe pulsing the HPG is the way to go as you mentioned.  Spin it up to it's maximum RPM.  Extract the current for 10ms without any input power, then stop drawing current.  When not drawing current, then provide input power until you reach maximum RPM again.  If the mathematics is correct, then you should have more power output during the 10ms than the input power required to reach maximum RPM again.  This would be a good test.  Magnetic bearings would be a plus.  A spin down time with very good conventional bearings at 300 RPM's would be 2 or 3 minutes at the most, while with magnetic bearings would be 20 -30 minutes as shown by Clanzer.  Conventional bearings create a much higher drag on the rotor than most realize and is probably essential in order to have any chance of OU in a rotary system.

I hope you don't put too much effort into Tesla's pancake idea.  If you understand his reasoning behind using the pancake coil or subdividing the disc into spirals due to the Eddy currents, then you will understand it's not necessary in our modernized age, and the same can be accomplished by ensuring the disc and magnets are of the same diameter.  In his day, the pancake coil or subdividing the disc into spirals were probably necessary in order to reduce the Eddy currents.....but reducing these Eddy currents isn't going to self-excite the system.

In regards to the "Forbs Dynamo", it says, "Several machines with belt contact were constructed by the writer two years ago, and worked satisfactorily; but for want of time the work in that direction has been temporarily suspended."

Working satisfactorily doesn't mean it was a self-exciting Dynamo.  Do you really believe if it was a self-exciting Dynamo, that the work in that direction would have been temporarily suspended due to want of time?  The work had already been suspended for two years at the time of Tesla's writing.  That doesn't sound temporary to me and the work in that direction was probably abandoned due to it not being efficient or able to self-excite itself.

GB

[gravityblock]

Hi Airstriker,

Once again, I could not agree with you more.  But, for some reason, Tesla thought otherwise, as I have highlighted again in his notes.  I truly hope that the first idea will work just fine, as this is the easiest, with the least friction. 

From Tesla's Notes on the Unipolar Gyro:
"Considered as a dynamo machine, the disc is an equally interesting object of
study. In addition to its peculiarity of giving currents of one direction without the employment of commutating devices, such a machine differs from ordinary dynamos in that there is no reaction between armature and field. The armature current tends to set up a magnetization at right angles to that of the field current, but since the current is taken off uniformly from all points of the periphery, and since, to he exalt, the external circuit may also be arranged perfectly symmetrical to the field magnet, no reaction can occur. This, however, is true only as long as the magnets are weakly energized, for when the magnets are more or less saturated, both magnetizations at right angles seemingly interfere with each other.

Bruce

Tesla is wrong about there not being any reaction between the armature and the field.  It is this reaction that provides a torque to make a HPM work, and in a HPG this reaction provides a counter torque against the rotation of the system.   If the magnets are weakly magnetized, then the power output and counter torque will drop proportionally.

GB

[Bruce_TPU]

Hi GB,

Pulsing my BRUG is the way that I will for sure be going.  I had a wind down tonight of a "mini brug", using a penny between the magnets to simulate the coil. 

I am not looking for the eddy currents to excite my brug, (lol...that sounds bad  ) but I am looking for the current to flow from the inside to the outside perimeter of my pancake coil and hoping that it's magnetic field will reinforce the field.

Talk is cheap and I like to experiment.  I never believe something will not work, until I have tried it...thoroughly. 

Is Tesla wrong... Build something and find out.  I do not argue physics. I build and experiment based on my understanding. Can that understanding change?  Of course.

For instance tonight, I took two small magnets on a nail.  spun it up nice.  Placed a penny between them and could only get it to spin once.  Bigger batteries, nothing.  But you are correct about needing greater magnetism.  I then added one additional magnet to the top and one to the bottom.  It spun up real nice.  I then spun it up with a 9 volt... when it started to speed up, it made the most beautiful spark show on the negative on the bottom one could imagine.  Spun up so fast, that it took 3 minutes to spin down.  And somehow, my penny is now slightly warped upwards. 

I have only just begun.  Magnetic bearings are an idea, so also is levitation.  My personal favorite.  So also is the "top" method with friction limited to one point.  I'm going to build and test and see what works best.  Not as easy to spin up copper in this manner as one thinks...but it can be done!   

Cheers,

Bruce

[gravityblock]

It was mentioned that if a bulb is attached to a copper plate (coil in my case) to rotate with said plate, it will not light!  It is in the wrong "time reference frame".  It will only produce a flow of electrons that are usable, if another "reference frame" (brushes, etc, not moving..) are drawing off the current stream.

Bruce

I agree with this, but it may only be partially correct.  Experiments show that there is an EMF and the charges have been separated and pointing in a particular direction, but the voltage/current isn't able to be brought out of the system in a rotating frame due to no return path.  In other words, there is a static electric field (the external circuit is just part of the disc when they are both rotating together, and the electric field of both will be pointing in the same direction and will cancel each other's EMF, either at the rim or the axis, according to the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of rotation).

Take a single axle rotating CW which is represented by a broken line as shown below, while everything is rotating together, and the two discs are electrically connected at the rims and the axis's.  Pay careful attention to the orientation of the magnetic field for each disc,

===N/S/disc/N/S======S/N/disc/S/N===

The electric field of the left disc will be pointing in the opposite direction as the electric field of the right disc (This has already been proven experimentally).  The axis of the left disc will have an opposite polarity than the axis of the right disc.  Likewise, the rim of the left disc will have an opposite polarity than the rim of the right disc.  As you can see, the EMF of each disc will not be canceled, and should provide a net voltage either in the rotating frame or in a stationary frame by extracting the current from the discs with slip rings on the axis of each disc (the greatest potential will now be between the axis of each disc due to this setup). 

One of the discs will behave as an external circuit.  The external circuit must have an opposite EMF as the disc.  Relative motion between the disc and the external circuit is the normal way to accomplish this.  There may be another way to accomplish this, by having one of the discs to move through an opposite magnetic field as I previously described. I would love to be proven wrong on this. 

It won't work with one disc.  There must be two discs and the two sets of magnets must have enough distance between them so they don't interfere with each other, and each disc must be moving through an opposite field.

I will list some quick and indisputable facts about the HPG that is already been proven through experimentation.

1)  Changing the direction of rotation will change the polarity of the voltage (yes, the current can flow from the rim to the axis, just like it can flow from the axis to the rim).
2)  Changing the direction of the magnetic field or poles will change the polarity of the voltage.
3)  A disc, magnet, and external circuit all rotating together will have a static electric field, but voltage and current isn't able to be taken off the disc (no net voltage due to the EMF of the external circuit canceling the EMF of the disc, or vice versa).
4)  Increasing the radii of the discs and magnets will increase the voltage.
5)  Higher strength magnets will increase the voltage.
6)  Higher RPM's will increase the voltage.

GB