I don't know why I didn't share this concept before but here it is now. The idea and built should be straightforward. I attached a theoretical but graphical point of view and a 3D rendition of a potential setup. However I have a hunch that the voltage would not be 2x that of a standard setup, it's probably lower, but you still would get no back torque.
Nice :)
Btw.: Do you mean no back torque or no back EMF?
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on December 26, 2010, 05:22:25 PM
Nice :)
Btw.: Do you mean no back torque or no back EMF?
Vidar
This is a generator, so no back torque.
Also the magnets don't have to be glued on, they can be left stationary, which may make things easier if you want really high rpms or want to use an electromagnet.
Quote from: broli on December 26, 2010, 05:30:22 PM
This is a generator, so no back torque.
Also the magnets don't have to be glued on, they can be left stationary, which may make things easier if you want really high rpms or want to use an electromagnet.
The contact between the 2 disks is always at rest for the observer. It is the same as 2 separated Faraday disks with a fix common sliding contact at the points where they touched one another. So there is a back torque applying to each disk, as if each one was a solitary Faraday disc.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 27, 2010, 09:20:57 AM
The contact between the 2 disks is always at rest for the observer. It is the same as 2 separated Faraday disks with a fix common sliding contact at the points where they touched one another. So there is a back torque applying to each disk, as if each one was a solitary Faraday disc.
Nope, not if the polarity is as shown. The left disc is torqued by the right magnet and left magnet equally and so is the right disc. If it wasn't then the magnets would spin and we would already have free energy from a spinning magnet without any need to spin the conductor. It's called newton's third law.
Quote from: broli on December 27, 2010, 09:27:46 AM
Nope, not if the polarity is as shown. The left disc is torqued by the right magnet and left magnet equally and so is the right disc.
...
I agree but it doesn't change anything, each back torque being opposed to each torque. You have nothing else than two conventional Faraday disks, magnetically independant, electrically in series, and mechanically coupled.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 06:26:23 AM
I agree but it doesn't change anything, each back torque being opposed to each torque. You have nothing else than two conventional Faraday disks, magnetically independant, electrically in series, and mechanically coupled.
I think you have the fundamentals wrong. Do you actually know what causes the back torque in a homopolar generator? Or do you assume it's some witchcraft that you don't need to understand?
Quote from: broli on December 30, 2010, 06:32:35 AM
I think you have the fundamentals wrong.
You think wrong.
Quote
Do you actually know what causes the back torque in a homopolar generator? Or do you assume it's some witchcraft that you don't need to understand?
As I say that a homopolar generator works according to conventional laws of physics, it is only you who imagine witchcraft.
A Faraday disk can be used as generator or motor.
In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially. We can rewrite the equation by using preferably the Faraday's law: (1) e=B*(dL.v) where dL is a radial segment, v the linear speed of electrons, both being vectors and their product is vectorial. Here v and dL are perpendicular.
In motor mode, the easiest way is to used the Laplace's law which here gives the tangential force acting on a current element dL: (2) dF=I*(dL.B). dL and B are also vectors and perpendicular.
Now if we loop the external circuit in order the generator disk to provide a current, from equation (1) we get the current I that is drawn: I=e/R, R being the resistance of the circuit.
We put this current I in equation (2) in order to get the counter force which generates the counter torque. And by simply integrating along the radius the product of the force dF by the distance from the disk's center, we get the counter torque.
What you missed is that as soon as a Faraday disk is used as generator
and a current is drawn, then the current makes the Faraday disk to function as a motor whose torque opposes the torque you apply to rotate the disk. Both phenomena work together.
The fact that you group 2 disks doesn't change anything in the fact that the two counter torques still apply to each disk. If you are unable to understand the theory, you should build your "invention", make a real device, and observe what will be going on (nothing new), instead of providing a pretty but useless cartoon.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 31, 2010, 09:20:12 AM
You think wrong.
As I say that a homopolar generator works according to conventional laws of physics, it is only you who imagine witchcraft.
A Faraday disk can be used as generator or motor.
In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially. We can rewrite the equation by using preferably the Faraday's law: (1) e=B*(dL.v) where dL is a radial segment, v the linear speed of electrons, both being vectors and their product is vectorial. Here v and dL are perpendicular.
In motor mode, the easiest way is to used the Laplace's law which here gives the tangential force acting on a current element dL: (2) dF=I*(dL.B). dL and B are also vectors and perpendicular.
Now if we loop the external circuit in order the generator disk to provide a current, from equation (1) we get the current I that is drawn: I=e/R, R being the resistance of the circuit.
We put this current I in equation (2) in order to get the counter force which generates the counter torque. And by simply integrating along the radius the product of the force dF by the distance from the disk's center, we get the counter torque.
What you missed is that as soon as a Faraday disk is used as generator and a current is drawn, then the current makes the Faraday disk to function as a motor whose torque opposes the torque you apply to rotate the disk. Both phenomena work together.
The fact that you group 2 disks doesn't change anything in the fact that the two counter torques still apply to each disk. If you are unable to understand the theory, you should build your "invention", make a real device, and observe what will be going on (nothing new), instead of providing a pretty but useless cartoon.
I don't know why I bothered responding. It's not like you have a reputation of constructiveness and open mindedness. For your to lecture me on homopolar theory using wikipedia is an insult. So do us both a favor and just ignore this thread.
The homopolar generator is another experimental proof showng what dead-end mainsteam physics is in. That can be seen at once -- Maxwell's equations cannot derive the voltage produced by the homopolar generator and they should if they are truly the equations describing the electromagnetic phenomena. To escape from this obvious defficiency the mainstream is foisting on us that said voltage arrives from the Lorentz force. Lorentz force, however, has nothing to do witeh the Maxwell equations, it cannot be derived from these equations.
The sorry attempt by Einstein to derive the Lorentz force from the Maxwell equations (by using Lorentz transformations, transformations both unphysical and having nothing to do with his unfortunate "theory") fails miserably, as can be seen in his 1905 paper by inspecting paragraph 6 of said oaper.
Thus, at present, physics is in a very bad crisis and a dead-end, the result of the lies and manipulations throught the entire 20th century. The only hope for it to recover its integrity is in efforts such as these in forums like this one, no matter how much of a fringe science it may appear to be at present.
To all whom it's concerned if you want a very condensed and well written document on the history of the physics behind such things as the homopolar mo./gen., rail guns and other similar tech read this thesis:
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/LongitudinalMSc.pdf
I also suggest to research some of Jorge Guala-Valverdea work.
The above will give you a very good base to truly understand the real physics and nature of the tech.
@broli,
Thanks a lot for the link. Brings back memories when we used to gather in Peter Graneau's office at the Northeastern U. in Boston for discussions. He had just invited Assis form Brazil as a visiting scientist. Those were wonderful times. Long gone.
I hope you're familiar with Konstantin Meyl's work on the same topic and the criticism of it by Bruhn. Would be curious to know your take on that.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 31, 2010, 09:20:12 AM
You think wrong.
As I say that a homopolar generator works according to conventional laws of physics, it is only you who imagine witchcraft.
A Faraday disk can be used as generator or motor.
In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially. We can rewrite the equation by using preferably the Faraday's law: (1) e=B*(dL.v) where dL is a radial segment, v the linear speed of electrons, both being vectors and their product is vectorial. Here v and dL are perpendicular.
In motor mode, the easiest way is to used the Laplace's law which here gives the tangential force acting on a current element dL: (2) dF=I*(dL.B). dL and B are also vectors and perpendicular.
Now if we loop the external circuit in order the generator disk to provide a current, from equation (1) we get the current I that is drawn: I=e/R, R being the resistance of the circuit.
We put this current I in equation (2) in order to get the counter force which generates the counter torque. And by simply integrating along the radius the product of the force dF by the distance from the disk's center, we get the counter torque.
What you missed is that as soon as a Faraday disk is used as generator and a current is drawn, then the current makes the Faraday disk to function as a motor whose torque opposes the torque you apply to rotate the disk. Both phenomena work together.
The fact that you group 2 disks doesn't change anything in the fact that the two counter torques still apply to each disk. If you are unable to understand the theory, you should build your "invention", make a real device, and observe what will be going on (nothing new), instead of providing a pretty but useless cartoon.
"In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially."
Just a question/statement. Could this step be viewed as: The shortest (lowest resistance path) on the spinning disk/magnet is from the center of the disk to the outside. This "path" creates a wire on the disk in essence that passes through the magnetic field, which collects a charge and also creates an electron path for power to flow when a load is applied. It appears that the magnetic field has the effect of suspending the charge on the area of the disk, avoiding discharge through the disk, rather preferring the low resistance path of the "wire" to the load.
Liberty
Quote from: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 05:00:28 PM
@broli,
Thanks a lot for the link. Brings back memories when we used to gather in Peter Graneau's office at the Northeastern U. in Boston for discussions. He had just invited Assis form Brazil as a visiting scientist. Those were wonderful times. Long gone.
I hope you're familiar with Konstantin Meyl's work on the same topic and the criticism of it by Bruhn. Would be curious to know your take on that.
Yes I'm a little familiar with Meyl. But his work is based more on time variant EM, while ampere's original formulation relates to time invariant EM. The force between current elements to be exact.
Quote from: Liberty on December 31, 2010, 05:54:17 PM
"In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially."
Just a question/statement. Could this step be viewed as: The shortest (lowest resistance path) on the spinning disk/magnet is from the center of the disk to the outside. This "path" creates a wire on the disk in essence that passes through the magnetic field, which collects a charge and also creates an electron path for power to flow when a load is applied. It appears that the magnetic field has the effect of suspending the charge on the area of the disk, avoiding discharge through the disk, rather preferring the low resistance path of the "wire" to the load.
Liberty
You must first see why the voltage is created, the rest is just standard ohm's law.
The generator I posted above has some real caveats. But I would be surprised if anyone could point them out. As I made one assumption which could only be verriefed experimentally or using a finite current element simulation software. I tried to make the later but it got a bit too complex. So I guess I'll have to go with the former now.
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2010, 06:04:35 PM
You must first see why the voltage is created, the rest is just standard ohm's law.
Would you care to expound on why the voltage is created?
In a simple homopolar motor you don't even need the Lorentz force. If you take a disc and a magnet the best thing to do is immediately reduce your magnet to its surface current. A simple disc magnet can be represented by a single current loop, seen as the red current loop in the drawing.
Then if you spin the disc, the electrons will spin with it as shown by the orange circle. Now we know that current going in same direction attract and vice versa for opposite direction, thus the spinning electrons have a radial force applied on them. This radial force translate into a voltage in an ohmic circuit. In reality the spinning disc would make many concentric current loops, but for simplicity I just drew one. And that's all there is. No mysterious action at a distance or needing a middle man Mr. Field.
If you want to analyze more complex magnetic setups you need to use ampere's current formulation.
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2010, 04:31:50 PM
http://www.df.lth.se/~snorkelf/LongitudinalMSc.pdf
Excellent publication.
GB
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2010, 11:51:13 AM
I don't know why I bothered responding. It's not like you have a reputation of constructiveness and open mindedness.
This second personal attack proves that you are unable to reply about scientifical objections.
Quote
For your to lecture me on homopolar theory using wikipedia is an insult. So do us both a favor and just ignore this thread.
You asked me "Do you actually know what causes the back torque in a homopolar generator?"
I replied. And now you are accusing me to insult you because I answered your question! ;D
What I explained is not from wikipedia. It is what the engineers code of practice says, what science says and what I observed myself when I was working with Faraday's disks.
Your double disks is a nonsense due to your ignorance of "fundamentals" (that you reproached me!) and your denial of scientifical knowledge. Sorry if you consider that science insults you because it dismisses your ideas. It is your problem, not mine.
I guess you know you are wrong but you prefer to swagger with simplistic technical drawings. Instead of wasting our time, why don't you waste yours by building yourself your device? And please, let us know only when it will sustain itself.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 01, 2011, 07:11:28 AM
This second personal attack proves that you are unable to reply about scientifical objections.
You asked me "Do you actually know what causes the back torque in a homopolar generator?"
I replied. And now you are accusing me to insult you because I answered your question! ;D
What I explained is not from wikipedia. It is what the engineers code of practice says, what science says and what I observed myself when I was working with Faraday's disks.
Your double disks is a nonsense due to your ignorance of "fundamentals" (that you reproached me!) and your denial of scientifical knowledge. Sorry if you consider that science insults you because it dismisses your ideas. It is your problem, not mine.
I guess you know you are wrong but you prefer to swagger with simplistic technical drawings. Instead of wasting our time, why don't you waste yours by building yourself your device? And please, let us know only when it will sustain itself.
What part of "ignore this thread" didn't you understand.
Quote from: Liberty on December 31, 2010, 05:54:17 PM
"In generator mode, the Lorentz force F=q*v.B makes the electrons flowing radially."
Just a question/statement. Could this step be viewed as: The shortest (lowest resistance path) on the spinning disk/magnet is from the center of the disk to the outside. This "path" creates a wire on the disk in essence that passes through the magnetic field, which collects a charge and also creates an electron path for power to flow when a load is applied.
I agree.
Quote
It appears that the magnetic field has the effect of suspending the charge on the area of the disk, avoiding discharge through the disk, rather preferring the low resistance path of the "wire" to the load.
Liberty
Liberty, I'm not sure to understand exactly what you say. So if my reply is not clear relative to your remark, please let me know.
The Lorentz force applying onto the electrons is always directed perpendicularly to their speed.
When the circuit is open, the electrons tend to accumulate toward the disk rim until the Coulomb force due to the field gradient inside the disk (because of the electrons displacement), balances the Lorentz force.
When an external circuit is connecting the center of the disk to a sliding contact on the rim, the force on the electrons is still acting only radially. The electrons are still pushed to the rim, but they can now travel toward the external circuit when they pass near the sliding contact. Therefore from a macroscopic sight, the current can only be viewed as flowing through a virtual wire between the center and the sliding contact.
Quote from: broli on January 01, 2011, 07:43:49 AM
What part of "ignore this thread" didn't you understand.
I'm in a hurry to see videos of your self-rotating double Faraday's disk.
Permit me to thank you in the name of the mankind for your great invention!
:D
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2010, 06:38:24 PM
...This radial force translate into a voltage in an ohmic circuit.
...
It is false when the external circuit is not connected.
You forgot that the Coulomb force inside the disk balances the Lorentz force after the initial charge displacement toward the rim.
It is only the external circuit that breaks this balance, allowing a current to flow.
If you put a voltmeter connecting the center of the disk to the rim, and rotating with the disk, you will observe no voltage (well known result of experiments).
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 01, 2011, 08:23:12 AM
It is false when the external circuit is not connected.
You forgot that the Coulomb force inside the disk balances the Lorentz force after the initial charge displacement toward the rim.
It is only the external circuit that breaks this balance, allowing a current to flow.
If you put a voltmeter connecting the center of the disk to the rim, and rotating with the disk, you will observe no voltage (well known result of experiments).
You're so over the place it's sad. There's nothing wrong in what I said. In fact you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm saying 1+1=2, you are repeating "wrong, it should be 1+1=2" which leaves me questioning your presence here. I'll repeat, IGNORE THIS THREAD.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 01, 2011, 07:53:23 AM
I agree.
Liberty, I'm not sure to understand exactly what you say. So if my reply is not clear relative to your remark, please let me know.
The Lorentz force applying onto the electrons is always directed perpendicularly to their speed.
When the circuit is open, the electrons tend to accumulate toward the disk rim until the Coulomb force due to the field gradient inside the disk (because of the electrons displacement), balances the Lorentz force.
When an external circuit is connecting the center of the disk to a sliding contact on the rim, the force on the electrons is still acting only radially. The electrons are still pushed to the rim, but they can now travel toward the external circuit when they pass near the sliding contact. Therefore from a macroscopic sight, the current can only be viewed as flowing through a virtual wire between the center and the sliding contact.
I understand what you are saying. But I am not convinced that the "Lorentz Force" actually exists. The physics experiments show a wire hanging in between two magnetic poles. And when a current is applied, the wire will swing in one direction or the other depending on the direction of current flow through the wire. However, the wire can escape in it's travel to a place of less magnetic field in these experiments. (Indicating that the wire may just be propelled from or to a magnetic pole. If you take a magnet in between the two poles, it only reacts with the field of the magnet and does not push off of the flux lines. To truly make this test valid, (proving the force is on the charged particle) the wire would have to be suspended in between two magnetic poles in attract, where the wire can not escape to a place of less magnetic field, to prove that the current flow in a wire will repel or attract off of flux lines only and not just the spherical magnetic poles of the two magnets in attract. Perhaps this has already been done? I just haven't seen it.
Additionally, if the Lorentz force is actual, you should be able to take two ring magnets in attract and place a current carrying wire in between them and propel off of the flux lines to make a motor. I don't think that this will work, but I might be wrong. Perhaps a motor has been made like this?
It seems to me that on the homopolar disk, that no voltage is being generated unless the contact is made on the disk to create the virtual wire. Because when the virtual wire is created by making a contact with a load, then this wire is crossing magnetic lines of flux, due to the spinning disk, and then generating an electrical potential which flows out to the load. When no connection is made, there is no voltage being produced on the spinning disk.
Just something to think about??
The paradox is by far not solved. I have accumulated a big list of "what if" cases over the years that can boggle the mind. For instance bruce dapalma has shown that even the most fundamental HPG can generate back torqueless energy. The only assessment was for the magnet to rotate with the disc. However as far as I know depalma's OU experiments were performed using an electro magnet. Would the below COP be the same if a permanent magnet was used? Below I explain the potential significance of this.
Measured COP was around 3. Ironically this was not OU enough What I never understood was the argument of useless low voltage output. At the very least one could put this output back into a HPM that is hooked to some conventional alternator.
However the above fact made me think deeply about this. This is all my speculation but I have reason to believe that a ferromagnetic magnet source is not the same as a standard loop of wire. Even stronger, unlike a ferromagnetic magnet, a loop of wire cannot be torqued. I believe the torquing force on the magnet that causes the motor to rotate in the setup where the disc is glued to the magnet will not arise. The force will be electrical and thus have no mechanical effect on the system. If this prediction is true it would mean that you can indeed create a back torque less system by gluing the magnet to the disc. But the caveat is that it has to be an electro magnet with no core.
EDIT: I'm going to have to step back from what I just said here.
Quote from: broli on January 01, 2011, 09:10:04 AM
You're so over the place it's sad. There's nothing wrong in what I said. In fact you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm saying 1+1=2, you are repeating "wrong, it should be 1+1=2" which leaves me questioning your presence here. I'll repeat, IGNORE THIS THREAD.
I have not to ignore this thread. I have to denounce an erroneous diagram for the given reasons and say the truth about your 1+1=3. And you know the fallacy, you have obviously no intention to build it.
Quote from: Liberty on January 01, 2011, 12:42:44 PM
I understand what you are saying. But I am not convinced that the "Lorentz Force" actually exists. The physics experiments show a wire hanging in between two magnetic poles. And when a current is applied, the wire will swing in one direction or the other depending on the direction of current flow through the wire. However, the wire can escape in it's travel to a place of less magnetic field in these experiments.
From what I understand, you are denying the Lorentz force and explaining the force on a moving conductor carrying a current by a "fall" in a gradient of magnetic potential.
This is not what we observe. For example in the tube of a magnetron, the magnetic field is constant and very homogeneous. Nevertheless the electrons rotate while going forward, because they are submitted to a force that is always perpendicular to their speed vector. This would not be explained by your theory.
The Lorentz force is also a consequence of special relativity. In F=q*v.B, v is relative to the observer. If we chose the referential of the electron, then v=0 and we should have F=0. It is false because from the moving electron, it is the source of the magnetic field that is seen to move, thus by applying the Lorentz transforms of special relativity, the magnetic field is changed into an electric field which is acting onto the electron perpendicularly to its motion, as the Lorentz force does viewed from an external observer.
Therefore we see that the Lorentz force really applies both in practice and theory. All is very consistent. Electromagnetism being fully compatible with SR, and also with mechanics, all the laws of physics would be false if the Lorentz force alone would not apply as usually presumed.
Quote
...
Additionally, if the Lorentz force is actual, you should be able to take two ring magnets in attract and place a current carrying wire in between them and propel off of the flux lines to make a motor. I don't think that this will work, but I might be wrong. Perhaps a motor has been made like this?
It is important to study the whole circuit of the current. As the magnetic flux is conservative, in such a setup there is always the Lorentz force applying in a direction on one part of the circuit and in the opposite direction on the other part, leaving us with a null effect. It is the very subtlety of the Faraday disk to break the symmetry, allowing for a homopolar functioning.
Quote
It seems to me that on the homopolar disk, that no voltage is being generated unless the contact is made on the disk to create the virtual wire. Because when the virtual wire is created by making a contact with a load, then this wire is crossing magnetic lines of flux, due to the spinning disk, and then generating an electrical potential which flows out to the load. When no connection is made, there is no voltage being produced on the spinning disk.
Just something to think about??
In a sense you are right when you say there is no field before the connection. In fact there are two fields which cancel one another. The electrons really move from the center to the rim because of the Lorentz force (or from the rim to the center, depending on the direction of the magnetic field). This makes a separation between positive and negative charges, creating an electric field inside the disk conductor: thus the Coulomb force balances the Lorentz force and the phenomenon ends with a balanced charge pattern. But this static pattern is viewed as a simple potential difference by an observer at rest because this observer is not submitted to the Lorentz force, breaking the balance. When the connection is made, the part of the circuit which is at rest (not submitted to the Lorentz force) allows the electrons to flow due to the potential difference between the two contacts.
In summary, the Faraday disk is no more than a circuit in two parts, one moving relatively to the other, and we can take the viewpoint of each part to study the functioning.
We can view it as one part moving in a magnetic field where the Lorentz force acts onto the electrons, transforming this part into a voltage generator, and one part at rest through which the electrons can move freely, looping the current.
Or we can view it from the rotating referential which become a static part submitted to an electric field thanks to SR (the magnetic field viewed by the electrons of the disk) creating a voltage, and an external moving part (this at rest in the first view), outside of any field, in which the first part acting as a voltage generator, provides the current.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 03, 2011, 05:30:29 AM
From what I understand, you are denying the Lorentz force and explaining the force on a moving conductor carrying a current by a "fall" in a gradient of magnetic potential.
This is not what we observe. For example in the tube of a magnetron, the magnetic field is constant and very homogeneous. Nevertheless the electrons rotate while going forward, because they are submitted to a force that is always perpendicular to their speed vector. This would not be explained by your theory.
The Lorentz force is also a consequence of special relativity. In F=q*v.B, v is relative to the observer. If we chose the referential of the electron, then v=0 and we should have F=0. It is false because from the moving electron, it is the source of the magnetic field that is seen to move, thus by applying the Lorentz transforms of special relativity, the magnetic field is changed into an electric field which is acting onto the electron perpendicularly to its motion, as the Lorentz force does viewed from an external observer.
Therefore we see that the Lorentz force really applies both in practice and theory. All is very consistent. Electromagnetism being fully compatible with SR, and also with mechanics, all the laws of physics would be false if the Lorentz force alone would not apply as usually presumed.
It is important to study the whole circuit of the current. As the magnetic flux is conservative, in such a setup there is always the Lorentz force applying in a direction on one part of the circuit and in the opposite direction on the other part, leaving us with a null effect. It is the very subtlety of the Faraday disk to break the symmetry, allowing for a homopolar functioning.
In a sense you are right when you say there is no field before the connection. In fact there are two fields which cancel one another. The electrons really move from the center to the rim because of the Lorentz force (or from the rim to the center, depending on the direction of the magnetic field). This makes a separation between positive and negative charges, creating an electric field inside the disk conductor: thus the Coulomb force balances the Lorentz force and the phenomenon ends with a balanced charge pattern. But this static pattern is viewed as a simple potential difference by an observer at rest because this observer is not submitted to the Lorentz force, breaking the balance. When the connection is made, the part of the circuit which is at rest (not submitted to the Lorentz force) allows the electrons to flow due to the potential difference between the two contacts.
In summary, the Faraday disk is no more than a circuit in two parts, one moving relatively to the other, and we can take the viewpoint of each part to study the functioning.
We can view it as one part moving in a magnetic field where the Lorentz force acts onto the electrons, transforming this part into a voltage generator, and one part at rest through which the electrons can move freely, looping the current.
Or we can view it from the rotating referential which become a static part submitted an electric field thanks to SR (the magnetic field viewed by the electrons of the disk) creating a voltage, and an external moving part (this at rest in the first view), outside of any field, in which the first part acting as a voltage generator, provides the current.
You have no clue, as I've said many times and as is confirmed by the above text. You don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you should stop cluttering with your gibberish not only this thread but other threads too where you are interrupting useful discussins with your nonsense.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 03, 2011, 05:38:10 AM
You have no clue, as I've said many times and as is confirmed by the above text. You don't know what you're talking about. Therefore, you should stop cluttering with your gibberish not only this thread but other threads too where you are interrupting useful discussins with your nonsense.
You have no idea of what I'm speaking about, and it is the reason of your ad hominem attack. Science is obviously not for you. Your inclination to ignorance due to your innate knowledge prevents you to understand the basic of physics and to make any progress.
You should rather try to understand instead of preaching free energy as a pseudo-science and a real religion among other nuts.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 03, 2011, 06:21:09 AM
You have no idea of what I'm speaking about, and it is the reason of your ad hominem attack. Science is obviously not for you. Your inclination to ignorance due to your innate knowledge prevents you to understand the basic of physics and to make any progress.
You should rather try to understand instead of preaching free energy as a pseudo-science and a real religion among other nuts.
Didn't mommy teach you that trolling is bad. Go do something constructive, like banging your head against a wall or something. Your addition so far has been worth very little not only in this thread but in almost all of the ones you have posted. There are places where your kind is very welcome, this isn't one of them. When someone politely asks you to leave his thread alone, you respect that request and do it, no matter how right or wrong he is in your eyes. If you have problems with that then it gets personal.
Broli, calm down, please, and listen to what Exnihilo says... Maybe you two would came to the same conclusions, after all...
No need to argue something so obvious.
+++++++++
In the mean time, I'd like to kick OmniBot's ass..
(Well, not really...)
Is THE Pretender still giving his shit away, all for free?
Oh, lucky we...
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 03, 2011, 06:21:09 AM
You have no idea of what I'm speaking about, and it is the reason of your ad hominem attack. Science is obviously not for you. Your inclination to ignorance due to your innate knowledge prevents you to understand the basic of physics and to make any progress.
You should rather try to understand instead of preaching free energy as a pseudo-science and a real religion among other nuts.
Like I said, you are the one who has absolutely no clue. Don't project on others your defficiencies. Just stop spewing your gibberish in this forum.
Quote from: spinn_MP on January 03, 2011, 07:19:44 AM
Broli, calm down, please, and listen to what Exnihilo says... Maybe you two would came to the same conclusions, after all...
No need to argue something so obvious.
+++++++++
In the mean time, I'd like to kick OmniBot's ass..
(Well, not really...)
Is THE Pretender still giving his shit away, all for free?
Oh, lucky we...
spam
@OmniBot code
+4600 posts - spam
You shameless bastard!
Quote from: spinn_MP on January 03, 2011, 10:01:34 AM
@OmniBot code
+4600 posts - spam
You shameless bastard!
spam
spam
Another interesting read mainly inspired by Graneau:
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm (http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm)
And some on suppressed knowledge in the field:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html)
It's funny how far people keep going in having to "fix" or tweak things untill they fit a worshiped model, instead of throwing it all away and starting with one that doesn't come with all the flaws or even starting from scratch. The irony in this particular case is that ampere's proposed model has so far never been disproved and it doesn't break Newtonian physics as all there's no such thing as the "weak form" of newtons third law. All forces act along the connecting line.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 03, 2011, 05:30:29 AM
From what I understand, you are denying the Lorentz force and explaining the force on a moving conductor carrying a current by a "fall" in a gradient of magnetic potential.
This is not what we observe. For example in the tube of a magnetron, the magnetic field is constant and very homogeneous. Nevertheless the electrons rotate while going forward, because they are submitted to a force that is always perpendicular to their speed vector. This would not be explained by your theory.
The Lorentz force is also a consequence of special relativity. In F=q*v.B, v is relative to the observer. If we chose the referential of the electron, then v=0 and we should have F=0. It is false because from the moving electron, it is the source of the magnetic field that is seen to move, thus by applying the Lorentz transforms of special relativity, the magnetic field is changed into an electric field which is acting onto the electron perpendicularly to its motion, as the Lorentz force does viewed from an external observer.
Therefore we see that the Lorentz force really applies both in practice and theory. All is very consistent. Electromagnetism being fully compatible with SR, and also with mechanics, all the laws of physics would be false if the Lorentz force alone would not apply as usually presumed.
It is important to study the whole circuit of the current. As the magnetic flux is conservative, in such a setup there is always the Lorentz force applying in a direction on one part of the circuit and in the opposite direction on the other part, leaving us with a null effect. It is the very subtlety of the Faraday disk to break the symmetry, allowing for a homopolar functioning.
In a sense you are right when you say there is no field before the connection. In fact there are two fields which cancel one another. The electrons really move from the center to the rim because of the Lorentz force (or from the rim to the center, depending on the direction of the magnetic field). This makes a separation between positive and negative charges, creating an electric field inside the disk conductor: thus the Coulomb force balances the Lorentz force and the phenomenon ends with a balanced charge pattern. But this static pattern is viewed as a simple potential difference by an observer at rest because this observer is not submitted to the Lorentz force, breaking the balance. When the connection is made, the part of the circuit which is at rest (not submitted to the Lorentz force) allows the electrons to flow due to the potential difference between the two contacts.
In summary, the Faraday disk is no more than a circuit in two parts, one moving relatively to the other, and we can take the viewpoint of each part to study the functioning.
We can view it as one part moving in a magnetic field where the Lorentz force acts onto the electrons, transforming this part into a voltage generator, and one part at rest through which the electrons can move freely, looping the current.
Or we can view it from the rotating referential which become a static part submitted to an electric field thanks to SR (the magnetic field viewed by the electrons of the disk) creating a voltage, and an external moving part (this at rest in the first view), outside of any field, in which the first part acting as a voltage generator, provides the current.
I appreciate your explanation from a physics point of view. I have a different understanding of how electricity develops from the Homopolar Generator or Faraday disk.
As the disk spins in a magnetic field, the brushes come in contact with the center point of the disk and also with the outside rim of the disk. This makes an electrical circuit with a load attached. A "virtual wire" is established at this point and that is when power generation starts. There are no separation of charges until this point occurs. Why? The virtual wire spans from the center of the spinning disk to the outside rim. Fewer lines of flux are crossed by the virtual wire near the center of the disk, compared to the position of the other end of the wire near the outside rim. (More flux lines are cut by the virtual wire near the outside). This difference of number of crossed flux lines within the wire, cause the electron imbalance to occur according to the speed of the spinning disk. The faster the disk spins, the more difference of charge will occur across the wire. Or the larger the disk, the greater the difference of charge.
As soon as the brushes are removed, the wire is gone and produces no more imbalance of electrons.
If the disk is spun from a different direction, the imbalance will reverse polarity. Why? Flux lines are traveling across the wire from the other direction, therefore the electron imbalance is reversed.
I prefer this simple explanation to the operation of the Homopolar Generator, as opposed to the Lorentz force explanation. It's less complicated and it works.
Quote from: Liberty on January 03, 2011, 09:18:38 PM
...
If the disk is spun from a different direction, the imbalance will reverse polarity. Why? Flux lines are traveling across the wire from the other direction, therefore the electron imbalance is reversed.
I prefer this simple explanation to the operation of the Homopolar Generator, as opposed to the Lorentz force explanation. It's less complicated and it works.
Hi Liberty,
You are right, it works. The explanation by the crossing of flux lines is correct, nevertheless it is more a calculus method than a physical theory, for several reasons.
- the "flux lines" represent nothing else than theoretical lines along which the intensity of the magnetic field is constant (we could name them "magnetic geodesics"). There are no real lines.
- we have to account for a surface enclosed by the circuit and through which the flux crosses (crossing flux lines is related to the Gauss law).
- the flux method says nothing about the cause of the real force that an isolated electron feels but physically, it is only such a force that acts onto an electron, generating a current.
So my preference goes to the Lorentz force and/or to the treatment by SR.
Quote
...
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm (http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/obvious-flaws-relativistic-electrodynamics.htm)
...
Robert Neil Boyd confuses EM waves whose the traveling electromagnetic energy is directed by the Poynting vector, with static or quasi-static fields of a rail gun in which energy doesn't flow.
He mixes anything and everything. He doesn't properly apply the equations. The flaws he saw are only his misunderstanding.
Quote from: exnihiloest on January 04, 2011, 03:00:03 AM
Hi Liberty,
You are right, it works. The explanation by the crossing of flux lines is correct, nevertheless it is more a calculus method than a physical theory, for several reasons.
- the "flux lines" represent nothing else than theoretical lines along which the intensity of the magnetic field is constant (we could name them "magnetic geodesics"). There are no real lines.
- we have to account for a surface enclosed by the circuit and through which the flux crosses (crossing flux lines is related to the Gauss law).
- the flux method says nothing about the cause of the real force that an isolated electron feels but physically, it is only such a force that acts onto an electron, generating a current.
So my preference goes to the Lorentz force and/or to the treatment by SR.
Thank you for the discussion. It has been enjoyable and informative.
Liberty
http://www.dynamaticmotors.com (http://www.dynamaticmotors.com)
I think same as Liberty
The current pass linear between two brush and cut flux line from center to outside
nothing happen in disk if nothing check from outside view
The flux turn with magnet and the current doesnt turn in disk
the back torque come from external brush and cut flux line outside of the magnet with current pass in brush and wire
i like to test it with mumetal around external brush and wire and isolate external flux with mumetal who pass in cooper disk
or to build this generator with two disk