In 1988 Prof Francisco J. Muller completed a series of experiments (http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_113.pdf), substituting Faraday's rotating disk and magnet by a filamentary circuit, one portion of which is immersed in a magnetic field (inside a gap between ceramic magnets) while the other remains outside the magnetic field. (The field is confined within iron plates). By introducing a capacitive branch he could demonstrate that the induction occurs, indeed, in the wire that moves with the magnet, without need of relative motion. A variation of the experiment in rectilinear fashion makes this anti-relativistic conclusion totally unavoidable, invalidating the recourse to General Relativity. A list of other publications by Muller can be found at the World Science Database (http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=260).
For the rotational case in Figure 1 there is a potential difference induced between O and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system, in-spite of the absence of relative motion between the magnet and wire. In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges. For the translational case in Figure 2 there is no induction between O and R. In figure 2, the B field is the same, the speeds also are similar, and no relative motion exists as in Figure 1. Why the difference?
In Figure 1, all of the velocities are parallel or tangential to the magnetic edges. In figure 2, most of the velocities have components perpendicular to those edges. As a result, in Figure 2 the edges of the magnet produce magnetic "storms" by motion through space (an absolute effect) which are equivalent to negative (VxB) effects. The latter cancels the positive (VxB) fields thus yielding zero net induction. In summary, we can have induction without relative motion between a local magnet and wire by avoiding all transversal edges, even in the case of rectilinear (inertial) motion.
Gravock
A circularly rotating SQF (Space-Quanta-Flux or magnetic field):
According to the authors of a publication titled, "Central Oscillator and Space-Quanta-Medium (http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf)" in Chapter 15 on page 148 & 149, a voltage can be measured using a non-moving contact with a rotating magnet and a stationary conductor disk during the acceleration and/or deceleration phase (which must be carried out rather quickly). However, at a constant rotational velocity a stationary flow is formed (as with a non-rotating magnet) again around the free conductor-electrons and therefore no voltage can be measured. According to the Monstein-Effect (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hoopmnst.htm), the flow intensity (and thus the magnetic field strength of the permanent magnet) of the SQF changes when rotating the permanent magnet as opposed to the resting state (depending on the direction of rotation, the rotational velocity and the magnetic field strength).
Videos:
The Oliver Crane's Theory of the Universe (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/crantheo.rm)
Space Quantum Field Flux or RQSm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/rqsm.rm)
Hooper-Monstein Explanation and Experiment from RQM (http://jnaudin.free.fr/videos/rqmstn.rm)
Gravock
The image below is a snapshot of the Oliver Crane and RQM view of the magnetic field along with the conventional view.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on July 16, 2012, 05:12:15 AM
A circularly rotating SQF (Space-Quanta-Flux or magnetic field):
According to the authors of a publication titled, "Central Oscillator and Space-Quanta-Medium (http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf)" in Chapter 15 on page 148 & 149, a voltage can be measured using a non-moving contact with a rotating magnet and a stationary conductor disk during the acceleration and/or deceleration phase (which must be carried out rather quickly). However, at a constant rotational velocity a stationary flow is formed (as with a non-rotating magnet) again around the free conductor-electrons and therefore no voltage can be measured. According to the Monstein-Effect (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hoopmnst.htm), the flow intensity (and thus the magnetic field strength of the permanent magnet) of the SQF changes when rotating the permanent magnet as opposed to the resting state (depending on the direction of rotation, the rotational velocity and the magnetic field strength).
Gravock
A Brush-less Unipolar Generator:If a voltage is induced during the acceleration and/or deceleration phases in a stationary disc by a rotating magnet, then a brush-less generator is possible. We can extract the current from the stationary disc with a non-moving contact (brush-less). We can have a constant change in velocity by alternating the acceleration/deceleration phases between magnets on separate shafts (--N- Disc -S--).
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on July 16, 2012, 06:48:35 AM
A Brush-less Unipolar Generator:
If a voltage is induced during the acceleration and/or deceleration phases in a stationary disc by a rotating magnet, then a brush-less generator is possible. We can extract the current from the stationary disc with a non-moving contact (brush-less). We can have a constant change in velocity by alternating the acceleration/deceleration phases between magnets on separate shafts (--N- Disc -S--).
Gravock
No Counter Torque or BEMF:If the rate of deceleration is matched to the rate of acceleration or vice versa, then I don't see any BEMF or counter torque associated in this particular setup. If this configuration works as a generator, but won't work as a motor, then there can be no opposing forces at play. I don't see how this configuration can work both as a generator and as a motor.
Gravock
Transformer - Stepped-up voltages:
A voltage induced during the acceleration and/or deceleration phases in a stationary disc by a rotating magnet is analogous to a secondary being induced due to a varying current (AC or pulsed DC) in the primary of a transformer. There is no voltage induced in a secondary when there is a steady current in the primary which is also similar to no voltage being induced with a steady rotational velocity in this mode of operation. If the unipolar generator in this mode of operation is the mechanical analog to an electrical transformer, then the voltages may be easily increased in the homopolar generators.
Gravock
Bismuth is a metal with a relatively low melting point. 520.6F degrees.
The temperature of dry ice is about -109F degrees. Get a NdFeB magnet of N50 grade and cool it to dry ice temperature. Pour a bit of melted bismuth on the face of the cold Neo magnet. As the bismuth is nearly instantly quenched on the face of the Neo, it's crystalline structure will change a bit. Enough to conduct some interesting experiments.
TS
Finally found some time to read the paper AND make a post. The results are quite interesting and in line with many "what if" thoughts I abandoned a a long time ago. These experiments can only be truly appreciated when you have dug deep into this subject and I don't know of any other subject that I got so deep into. The experiment is very noteworthy and important to say the least.
One thing that caught my eye was this line "(The yoke PP' never moved)". This is an interesting statement because another "what if" suddenly pops up. What if this moved as well, would a voltage still be produced? This part of the puzzle would mean you would have a FULLY rotating system with no static parts and still produce an EMF, in other words, an unequivocal case of a generator that produces 0 torque.
It honestly would be surprising if that happened and even equally surprising if it didn't.
The funny part is that the other experiment of accel/decel magnets can also be applied to the above if it was found that the yoke had to be stationary. A very fast servo could oscilate the circuit back and forward.
I think you also may see that the biggest advantage with these setups is voltage multiplication. You can easily use multiple loops even hundreds of turns, to multiply the voltage beyond the inherit limit of a classical homopolar generator.
Quote from: TechStuf on July 17, 2012, 06:17:58 AM
Bismuth is a metal with a relatively low melting point. 520.6F degrees.
The temperature of dry ice is about -109F degrees. Get a NdFeB magnet of N50 grade and cool it to dry ice temperature. Pour a bit of melted bismuth on the face of the cold Neo magnet. As the bismuth is nearly instantly quenched on the face of the Neo, it's crystalline structure will change a bit. Enough to conduct some interesting experiments.
TS
This would be a good experiment and it wouldn't be too difficult to perform. From what I've read, bismuth is a superconductor (hyper-conductor) at room temperatures with small diameter wires around 10 - 100 nanometers. I'm sure bismuth would be a hyper-conductor at -109
0F with much larger diameter wires. The crystalline structure changing due to being instantly quenched on the face of the Neo (magnetic field) would make this a very interesting experiment with a homopolar generator/motor. I think this idea is definitely worth pursuing.
Gravock
Quote from: broli on July 17, 2012, 12:34:30 PM
Finally found some time to read the paper AND make a post. The results are quite interesting and in line with many "what if" thoughts I abandoned a a long time ago. These experiments can only be truly appreciated when you have dug deep into this subject and I don't know of any other subject that I got so deep into. The experiment is very noteworthy and important to say the least.
One thing that caught my eye was this line "(The yoke PP' never moved)". This is an interesting statement because another "what if" suddenly pops up. What if this moved as well, would a voltage still be produced? This part of the puzzle would mean you would have a FULLY rotating system with no static parts and still produce an EMF, in other words, an unequivocal case of a generator that produces 0 torque.
It honestly would be surprising if that happened and even equally surprising if it didn't.
The funny part is that the other experiment of accel/decel magnets can also be applied to the above if it was found that the yoke had to be stationary. A very fast servo could oscilate the circuit back and forward.
I think you also may see that the biggest advantage with these setups is voltage multiplication. You can easily use multiple loops even hundreds of turns, to multiply the voltage beyond the inherit limit of a classical homopolar generator.
Muller has another publication, titled "Experimental Test of the Normal and Retrograde Railgun Accelerators", where the aluminum rod advanced in the forward direction as expected (away from the battery bridge) whereas the steel (magnetizable) rod advanced backwardly when they're allowed to roll. When the same system is setup vertically, however, and the transversal rod is suspended on a balance
(without rolling), no retrograde behavior is observed for the steel rod. Both, aluminum and steel rods, moved in the forward (expected) direction.
The conclusion is that rolling of the steel rod is essential to observe its retrograde motion. Any thoughts on this? I'm currently in the process of trying to locate this publication. If I find it, then I'll post a link to it.
Thanks for joining this discussion,
Gravock
There's been a heavy debate in regards to if the field rotates with the magnet or not. I don't want this thread to get caught up in that debate, but there is evidence the field may even be rotating while the magnet is stationary. Oliver Crane's theory is based on this concept with experimental observations to back it up. Here's a video titled, "Magnetic Vortex Spin Discovery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAl1LVPbYhY)" showing a vortex flowing around a stationary magnet and also where there is no vortex when using a stationary iron slug.
Gravock
Interesting thread. I haven't read all posts carefully (and can therfor be way off the topic discussed in the latest replies), but my experienc with unipolar generators is this:
Electric energy can be generated only if the magnetic field changes through a wire. If the wire is following the magnet, that part of the wire will not generate anything. However, that wire must be coupled to another wire in order to harvest electricity at all. That second wire cannot follow the magnet, so it will be in that wire the energy is generated from. That second wire will also affect the magnetic field through the first wire (which follows the magnet), and therfor, with help from the second (stationary) wire, generate electric energy.
In short: In order to generate electricity from a unipolar generator, you need brushes. There has to be a relative velocity between the field and a wire to generate anything. To reduce friction, you can use ball bearings as a "brush". The BEMF will be there, but the efficiency of such a generator is very low, it can be hard to measure any BEMF at all. If BEMF isn't there under load of the generator, it would mean that the generator is some how fed with negative energy - energy that is less than zero. That will hypotetically happen if the generator has an efficiency of >100%. Personally I don't think we are capable of handling negative energy - yet.
Vidar
Vidar thanks for the basic lesson on homopolar generators but we are already quite familiar with that.
This thread is mainly about 2 particular experiments.
One performed by Prof Francisco J. Muller shows that you don't need a "stationary" circuit piece in order to generate a voltage.
The other, comes from a book called "Central Oscillator and Space-Quanta-Medium", experiment shows that a voltage can be generated on the classical "disc" of a homopolar generator by spinning the magnet above clockwise and counter clockwise in an oscillating matter, showing the acceleration and deceleration being the cause of voltage generation.
Edit: Although mentioned a long time ago I would also like to add the work of Dipl. Ing. Andrija S. Radović. His experiment of confining the field is very simmilar to Muller's but the motor aspect of it is explored, see fig2; http://www.andrijar.com/dcmachines/index.html
There is always a lot of mysticism around homopolar generators, mostly because someone claims something that is not true.
Homopolar generators work like any other generator, a simple conductor cutting magnetic field lines, nothing more.
If you build a test rig of your own and test out every option, you will understand everything about it's operation. Even the mystery whether the field rotates with the magnet or not.
The real question in the end comes down to, Is there any way to get around the back emf?
After fully understanding it's operation,I have serious doubts that there is!
But it's possible someone could come up with something no one,s thought of before.
Quote from: lumen on July 24, 2012, 11:42:23 PM
There is always a lot of mysticism around homopolar generators, mostly because someone claims something that is not true.
Homopolar generators work like any other generator, a simple conductor cutting magnetic field lines, nothing more.
If you build a test rig of your own and test out every option, you will understand everything about it's operation. Even the mystery whether the field rotates with the magnet or not.
The real question in the end comes down to, Is there any way to get around the back emf?
After fully understanding it's operation,I have serious doubts that there is!
But it's possible someone could come up with something no one,s thought of before.
It is funny though. If the homopolar gen can produce current in the disk, with the magnets spinning with the disk, Faraday paradox, is there drag? And if so, what are we dragging against? And if we are dragging against something, what ever that is, if we apply power to the gen and use it as a motor, again, what are we pushing against in order for the disk and mags to be rotating together?
So if we can have drag and or acceleration, then we should be able to redesign, such a simple device as it is, and be able to move a vehicle or charge a battery, by moving the new design through thin air in say, a straight line instead of a circle. ;]
The thing that funny is, not all generators or motors will work paradoxically as the homopolar with mags attached to the rotating disk. So if it were not for Faraday and his dynamo, we would not know these things. ;]
Mags
A unipolar generator just confirms Einsteins theory that unifies electromagnetism and inertia. Which of course leaves us with gravity. The permanent magnet is physically spinning so we have electric charges moving and the virtual particle stream that creates charge is being altered. This current flows through a nearby conductor where the virtual particles streaming into the moving magnet induce a change in the virtual particles streaming into the charged particles in the conductor. The Earth as a whole is moving through space at 600km/sec so every charged particle is creating virtual particle currents. Because you have a moving charge so it warps the virtual particle flow. When we have a coronal mass ejection all of a sudden we have a whole bunch of charged matter conjoin with the Earth and surer then shoot it messes up the background currents and all hell breaks loose in anything relying on saturable core reactors and such. The north pole is now ringed with large emradiation devices that can be pulsed up to tetrawatts of power. They want to study a well understood phenomenon supposedly. What it will do is create on command coronal mass ejection effects. The last big one was in the 1800's and it cooked thousands of telegraph relays. It lasted for three days or so these assholes could make it last for months. No computers no cars no radios no power no anything electrical. Tactical studies have been done about emp devices and here they are ringing the north pole.
Quote from: Magluvin on July 25, 2012, 12:01:04 AM
It is funny though. If the homopolar gen can produce current in the disk, with the magnets spinning with the disk, Faraday paradox, is there drag? And if so, what are we dragging against? And if we are dragging against something, what ever that is, if we apply power to the gen and use it as a motor, again, what are we pushing against in order for the disk and mags to be rotating together?
So if we can have drag and or acceleration, then we should be able to redesign, such a simple device as it is, and be able to move a vehicle or charge a battery, by moving the new design through thin air in say, a straight line instead of a circle. ;]
The thing that funny is, not all generators or motors will work paradoxically as the homopolar with mags attached to the rotating disk. So if it were not for Faraday and his dynamo, we would not know these things. ;]
Mags
There is no paradox, it only appears to be because current can be generated whether the magnet spins or not, but both cases are the same thing.
In a standard generator, current is generated when field lines are forced across conductors by using field intensity or changing polarity.
In the homopolar generator, you do not have this luxury because the polarity remains the same and the intensity is constant, but because cutting field lines is what generates the current, you don't need changing polarity or changing intensity.
Now here's the real problem, moving the conductor through this constant field will generate a charge, but if a current flows in the conductor, it will generate an opposing field that will repel the field lines from the constant PM field. (back EMF)
Only, this back EMF cannot exist, because as soon as you push on any of those constant field lines, they simply push on the others and they all just move away from the conductor! This is because there is no intensity or changing polarity to push them through the conductor.
Enter the second conductor! Now, with a second conductor, these constant field lines are trapped. They cannot simply move away from the conductor or they would have to cross the other conductor and in effect that's what they do. The current is generated in both conductors, moving and stationary and without two trapping conductors, no current can be generated.
Examine what is occurring in the world's smallest and most advanced electric motor, 8 million of which would fit end to end in the cross section of a human hair:
http://ws5.com/lifenotes/annurevbiochem.pdf (http://ws5.com/lifenotes/annurevbiochem.pdf)
Materials can be engineered, that make use of quantum scale principles for the purpose of producing power at the macro level. That man is VERY close to producing such devices, (already having succeeded in certain areas) and is clearly not even close to being ready to handle it, is but one of the many reasons he finds himself at his current collective precipice.
[size=78%]
[/size]
[size=78%]What is the frequency of a ferromagnetic flux string? A gravitational one? If one aims a blue laser beam perpendicular through a beam of yellow laser light, what occurs and why?[/size]
One may think of the flux strings in a magnetic field as "coherent gravity" and conversely, gravity as "full spectrum magnetism". If one is able to level the playing field so to speak, and produce a meaning full analogy, one may see that there is a correlation to the ratios of inequality between the strength and efficiencies by which laser/white light is produced and those of Gravity/magnetism.
Light, being of much lower frequency than gravity or magnetism, impinges the Aether on a small scale. Imagine if the flux strings emanating from a magnet were visible, what a view! Or, say, the coherent photonic strings from a laser impinged greatly on the Aether such as flux strings, such that they pushed away from one another and were forced into an arcuate path!
At any rate, we will see the answers to these and much more, soon enough. And it won't come from the hands of men...
But the Hand of God.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
Quote from: lumen on July 25, 2012, 07:21:52 AM
There is no paradox, it only appears to be because current can be generated whether the magnet spins or not, but both cases are the same thing.
In a standard generator, current is generated when field lines are forced across conductors by using field intensity or changing polarity.
In the homopolar generator, you do not have this luxury because the polarity remains the same and the intensity is constant, but because cutting field lines is what generates the current, you don't need changing polarity or changing intensity.
Now here's the real problem, moving the conductor through this constant field will generate a charge, but if a current flows in the conductor, it will generate an opposing field that will repel the field lines from the constant PM field. (back EMF)
Only, this back EMF cannot exist, because as soon as you push on any of those constant field lines, they simply push on the others and they all just move away from the conductor! This is because there is no intensity or changing polarity to push them through the conductor.
Enter the second conductor! Now, with a second conductor, these constant field lines are trapped. They cannot simply move away from the conductor or they would have to cross the other conductor and in effect that's what they do. The current is generated in both conductors, moving and stationary and without two trapping conductors, no current can be generated.
The topic of this thread, in case you didn't notice, is relative motion isn't needed, nor is it a requirement for induction. As Broli already posted, Prof Muller shows that
you don't need a "stationary" circuit piece in order to generate a voltage. The other experiment shows that a
voltage can be generated on the classical "disc" of a homopolar generator by spinning the magnet clockwise and counter clockwise in an oscillating matter, showing the acceleration and deceleration being the cause of voltage generation. This experiment shows
you don't need a "rotating" circuit piece to generate a voltage. The two experiments shows there can be induction without having relative motion between a stationary circuit and a rotating circuit. In other-words, a rotating magnet with a constant rotational velocity (RPM),of any value, will have the same effect as a stationary magnet which has a constant rotational velocity of 0 RPM (both cases are the same thing), since they both will have a non-varying RPM). However, a rotating magnet varying in RPM (acceleration/deceleration) as compared to a magnet with a non-varying RPM, including a magnet with a non-varying RPM of 0 (stationary magnet),
will not produce the same results (
both cases are not the same thing).
Gravock
It amazes me how so many people can miss the boat.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on July 26, 2012, 12:32:12 AM
The topic of this thread, in case you didn't notice, is relative motion isn't needed, nor is it a requirement for induction. As Broli already posted, Prof Muller shows that you don't need a "stationary" circuit piece in order to generate a voltage. The other experiment shows that a voltage can be generated on the classical "disc" of a homopolar generator by spinning the magnet clockwise and counter clockwise in an oscillating matter, showing the acceleration and deceleration being the cause of voltage generation. This experiment shows you don't need a "rotating" circuit piece to generate a voltage. The two experiments shows there can be induction without having relative motion between a stationary circuit and a rotating circuit. In other-words, a rotating magnet with a constant rotational velocity (RPM),of any value, will have the same effect as a stationary magnet which has a constant rotational velocity of 0 RPM (both cases are the same thing), since they both will have a non-varying RPM). However, a rotating magnet varying in RPM (acceleration/deceleration) as compared to a magnet with a non-varying RPM, including a magnet with a non-varying RPM of 0 (stationary magnet), will not produce the same results (both cases are not the same thing).
Gravock
Well I must say, I'm certainly no Professor!.
I do agree that a voltage IS generated during acceleration and deceleration, OR anytime during rotation, and with only a single pole piece.
It's just too bad that everything goes to crap as soon as you try to generate any CURRENT!
Have at it!
But please, you be sure to let me know though, next time the boat comes in.
Quote from: lumen on July 26, 2012, 04:31:14 AM
Well I must say, I'm certainly no Professor!.
I do agree that a voltage IS generated during acceleration and deceleration, OR anytime during rotation, and with only only a single pole piece.
It's just too bad that everything goes to crap as soon as you try to generate any CURRENT!
Have at it!
But please, you be sure to let me know though, next time the boat comes in.
You missed the boat again! You now agree that a voltage is generated during acceleration and deceleration (OR anytime during rotation) of a rotating magnet with everything else being stationary? This statement is not inline with the first 120 seconds of your own video, HPG02 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w), showing a rotating magnet produces no voltage regardless if it's shielded or not. You care to explain this contradiction between the statement you just made and the video you produced. You do realize when I say an accelerating/decelerating (oscillating) magnet induces a voltage that there is no co-rotating disc or rotating circuit involved? It appears you have been reading this whole thread out-of-context, or should I say skipping most of the posts and references cited in this thread, just as Vidar admitted in doing.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on July 26, 2012, 05:33:33 AM
You missed the boat again! You now agree that a voltage is generated during acceleration and deceleration (OR anytime during rotation) of a rotating magnet with everything else being stationary? This statement is not inline with the first 120 seconds of your own video, HPG02 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w), showing a rotating magnet produces no voltage regardless if it's shielded or not. You care to explain this contradiction between the statement you just made and the video you produced. You do realize when I say an accelerating/decelerating (oscillating) magnet induces a voltage that there is no co-rotating disc or rotating circuit involved? It appears you have been reading this whole thread out-of-context, or should I say skipping most of the posts and references cited in this thread, just as Vidar admitted in doing.
Gravock
I understand how frustrating it becomes when something not well understood is held as a hope for a new energy source only to find it isn't. I thought of oscillating the magnets, the disk, a wire, anything to avoid brush contact and back emf, but it's all to no avail. Back EMF will exist anytime a CURRENT flows, and without current no work can be done.
Any conductor moving in a magnetic field will experience charge separation and is not news, but to test for charge separation is a trick in itself. In any of my videos I do not even attempt to show this charge separation because it is extremely difficult and because it is of no use without current. So in my videos, the voltage is only registered because it has current.
Even Einstein did not fully understand the aspects of the Homopolar generator.
I believe I fully understand how and why it works but continue to read these threads trying to find something I may have missed but so far have not.
The best thing is to verify for yourself the results given in the first post, fig #1 and #2. You can rotate any conductor in Earths magnetic field alone and have charge separation but to simply translate it and produce a charge is something different again. Did the Professor even take into account Earths field? There is no way to know without duplication.
If you think something here is out of the ordinary, then continue on, I'll check back later on your developments.
I too agree that Lumen missed the boat, but at the end of the day it comes down to one thing, experimentation all the rest is meaningless.
Anyway I got so curious about that "the yoke never moved" statement that I sent an email to Prof Francisco J. Muller about it:
QuoteDear Prof Francisco J. Muller,
I have been fascinated for a while in the subject and physics of the classical homopolar motor. My research has led me across many areas and I have learned so many things on the subject.
However the more depth I gained on the subject the more I realized how little this subject has been explored across history let alone in todays academic establishments.
I fell upon a lot of paradoxical experiments across the years that really piked my interest. These involved either a generator that has no stationary circuit parts or a motor that has no moving circuit parts. Your experiment is a good example of the former.
To cut this email short I actually mainly contacted you because I had one specific question. It concerns the paper you wrote; "AN EXPERIMENTAL DISPROOF OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY THEORY (Unipolar Induction)".
In the paper you performed a very interesting experiment, where you confined the field and saw an induced E when you rotated the whole circuit together with the magnet assembly. My question is this:
Somewhere in the paper you mentioned, in my opinion, a very important fact. I quote "The yoke PP' never moved". After reading this paper I was left with one very piercing thought, namely; What if the the whole circuit, the magnet assembly AND the yoke were all moved together, would this scenario stlll induce a voltage???
If it doesn't then this sure would be an very interesting fact as I predict that the very motion of the yoke relative to the circuit to be the main cause of induction, opening up a new paradox. However if it does induce a voltage then I'm sure you can realize the implications this might have; it would open doors to a truly torque-free electrical generator. As the whole assembly can be rotated as one, canceling out any torque in accordance to Newton's third law.
I will be eagerly awaiting any answer from you so I will thank you in advance for your time.
Best Regards,
Najib
Let's see what the prof has to say ay :p.
I wish I did miss the boat on this, but I suspect that if "the yoke PP" were to rotate with everything else, the voltage would be gone. (can anyone say second conductor)
After all, if everything rotates, then it's the same as everything sitting still and you rotating, which we are so it should produce a voltage all the time as the earth rotates!
That brings up the basic problem of this concept. How do you check the charge in the single conductor without the testing method altering the results?
Quote from: lumen on July 26, 2012, 08:17:51 AM
Any conductor moving in a magnetic field will experience charge separation and is not news, but to test for charge separation is a trick in itself. In any of my videos I do not even attempt to show this charge separation because it is extremely difficult and because it is of no use without current. So in my videos, the voltage is only registered because it has current.
What if I can show a rotating magnet does produce a current? Look at table 3 in the below image taken from a publication titled, "Challenging Modern Physics (http://books.google.com/books?id=XVLmihZnsvUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)", in chapter 9 on page 194. Rotating the magnet and the leads at equal speeds in opposing directions (case f, ii) gives a result which is
double the result of rotating the leads alone (case e). This indicates a rotating magnet can produce a voltage with a current, contrary to your video experiment and other statements you have made. If it didn't, then rotating the magnet in opposing directions relative to the leads would generate the same voltage and current, but this isn't the case. Guess what, there was no tricky charge separation test necessary in order for us to clearly see that a
rotating magnet does induce a voltage, and with a current in the right configurations. I think Oliver Crane was correct in saying, "all experimenters so far have been deceived by the Monstein-Effect".
Gravock
Sorry, but there is nothing NEW in that chart!
My tests do not conflict with any of those results and how can they be wrong? The results you see are the results you get.
Spinning the magnet in opposition to the spinning leads is the same result as spinning either one twice as fast and only supports what I have been saying. The magnet body is one conductor and the lead is the other conductor and if you could count that makes two (2). The result is always the difference between the TWO.
I often find the same thing about Homopolar generators, someone writes a paper thinking they have discovered something special because THEY don't fully understand that the principals are exactly the same as any other generator.
I could just box up my little test rig and send it to you so you can perform all the tests yourself and finally understand.
Sorry, same stuff, different day.
Quote from: lumen on July 26, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
I wish I did miss the boat on this, but I suspect that if "the yoke PP" were to rotate with everything else, the voltage would be gone. (can anyone say second conductor)
After all, if everything rotates, then it's the same as everything sitting still and you rotating, which we are so it should produce a voltage all the time as the earth rotates!
That brings up the basic problem of this concept. How do you check the charge in the single conductor without the testing method altering the results?
You're confusing relative motion with absolute motion. A sting in the tail is as follows. In mechanics, all states of uniform motion (including that of rest) are equivalent. For any one body, it is equally true to say it is at rest or moving at any uniform velocity we choose to assume. This indifference is expressed in Newton's first law of motion. However, in electromagnetism, it is quite another story. An electric charge at rest is said to be surrounded by only an electric field, but an electric charge in motion is equivalent to an electric current and is surrounded by a magnetic field.
From this, the motion in electromagnetism is not merely relative but absolute. Einstein's theory was aimed at reconciling these two systems of kinematics and electromagnetism. Assis et al. (1999) show that there is another complication in which there is an electric field outside a stationary conductor carrying a constant current. This causes a problem for relativity theory because, as they say, "As regards those who consider magnets as a relativistic effect, we have shown that a resistive current carrying wire generates not only an electric field but also a magnetic field."
Gravock
Quote from: lumen on July 26, 2012, 07:08:22 PM
Sorry, but there is nothing NEW in that chart!
My tests do not conflict with any of those results and how can they be wrong? The results you see are the results you get.
Spinning the magnet in opposition to the spinning leads is the same result as spinning either one twice as fast and only supports what I have been saying. The magnet body is one conductor and the lead is the other conductor and if you could count that makes two (2). The result is always the difference between the TWO.
I often find the same thing about Homopolar generators, someone writes a paper thinking they have discovered something special because THEY don't fully understand that the principals are exactly the same as any other generator.
I could just box up my little test rig and send it to you so you can perform all the tests yourself and finally understand.
Sorry, same stuff, different day.
I never said your
individual tests conflict with any of the results in the table. However, your
overall conclusions based on each of those individual tests are wrong. There is no current generated when spinning the magnet only (disc is stationary). However, spinning the magnet and the disc in opposing directions will produce double the result as compared to only spinning the disc. This indicates a spinning magnet can produce a current, which is contrary to the other experiment with only spinning the magnet. In reply to magluvin in post #16, you said, "There is no paradox, it only appears to be because
current can be generated whether the magnet spins or not, but both cases are the same thing". This statement of yours implies a spinning magnet doesn't effect the results anymore than a what a stationary magnet does. This is not true, as the experiment with the magnet and disc rotating in opposing directions clearly shows.
Gravock
Gravoc:
Ok, now I understand where you went off track here.
The chart contains information from two different types of machines, one has a disc and one does not because the disc is the structure holding the magnet and cannot be rotated separately.
In the chart, where you refer to the double output because the magnet is spinning in opposition to the lead, this in reality is when the second conductor rotates in opposition to the rotating leads.
This test was never shown in the disc generator (lower in the chart) but the results are the same.
The output is double when the disc is rotating opposite the leads, whether the magnet IS rotating or NOT again proving that the state of the magnet is irrelevant.
Like I said, the double output from opposite rotation is the same as rotating either conductor double the speed, the magnet rotation is irrelevant.
I do wish I was wrong.
Thanks for playing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njWwyynLrdo&feature=uploademail
What are you going to show us?
I also notice that the voltage generated is so small that it is hardly usable. Could you offer any explanation? Are you sure this is what you have expected?
Quote from: Dave45 on July 28, 2012, 08:22:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njWwyynLrdo&feature=uploademail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njWwyynLrdo&feature=uploademail)
Quote from: lumen
There is no paradox, it only appears to be because current can be generated whether the magnet spins or not, but both cases are the same thing.
By Faraday's law, emf = eeff * d flux/ dt. If there is no paradox, can you use this formula to evaluate the voltage output from a homopolar generator?
Some years ago, I posted a thread about my finding on a brushless homopolar configuration. Unfortunately, I cannot find the thread.
The homopolar configuration I built generates an AC voltage rather than a DC voltage. The current is not zero.
EDIT: FOUND IT
http://www.overunity.com/11087/need-some-help-for-my-homopolar-experiment/msg295132/#msg295132 (http://www.overunity.com/11087/need-some-help-for-my-homopolar-experiment/msg295132/#msg295132)
build a pulsed coil system using the bucking homopolar configuration
DC output
Quote from: lumen on July 27, 2012, 11:21:23 AM
Gravoc:
Ok, now I understand where you went off track here.
The chart contains information from two different types of machines, one has a disc and one does not because the disc is the structure holding the magnet and cannot be rotated separately.
In the chart, where you refer to the double output because the magnet is spinning in opposition to the lead, this in reality is when the second conductor rotates in opposition to the rotating leads.
This test was never shown in the disc generator (lower in the chart) but the results are the same.
The output is double when the disc is rotating opposite the leads, whether the magnet IS rotating or NOT again proving that the state of the magnet is irrelevant.
Like I said, the double output from opposite rotation is the same as rotating either conductor double the speed, the magnet rotation is irrelevant.
I do wish I was wrong.
Thanks for playing!
Lumen,
I never disagreed with you on opposite rotation being the same as rotating either conductor at double the speed. Our disagreement is on the rotation of the magnet being irrelevant. In table 3 which I previously posted, I did miss the fact that tests d, e, and f were with a conductive magnet while the other tests were not. However, this doesn't change the fact that the rotation of the magnet is relevant and can produce a voltage/current. I would like to now draw your attention to test d, which gives a result. In case (d), the standard explanation of this phenomenon has been that the conductive magnet cut it's own lines as it rotates (field remains stationary as the conductive magnet rotates). The following explanation is now being proposed due to being able to carry out more detailed experiments on the Faraday generator by using the configuration as shown in Figure 41 below. In case (d), spinning the conductive magnet generates a voltage in the lead from the rim of the magnet to the galvanometer (A-G) because the rotating lines cut that lead mainly once, as in figure 41. In case (b), where the non-conductive magnet only rotates, then there is no result because the rotating lines of the magnet cut the circuit twice. Again, the rotation of the magnet is relevant in the correct configurations where the rotating field doesn't cut the whole circuit twice in the same direction. If we look at case (c) and assume the field doesn't rotate with the magnet, then the stationary field would cut the circuit twice giving a no result. If we assume the field does rotate with the magnet, then the rotating field doesn't cut any part of the circuit because the whole circuit is also rotating with the field (no relative motion between the field and the circuit). While Faraday commented that the conductor crossed the lines once in case (d), he did not consider
this important distinction in his other tests
(this is where you went off track). If we can measure a lack of back torque from homopolar generators, then for the first time in history, we will be able to distinguish a rotating magnetic field from a non-rotating one.
Thanks for playing and game over (check-mate)!Gravock
Quote from: Dave45 on July 28, 2012, 08:22:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njWwyynLrdo&feature=uploademail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njWwyynLrdo&feature=uploademail)
I've been proposing this for a long time. If we combined the magnet configuration in the above video with a similar configuration as found in figure 41 where the rotating field of a rotating magnet only cuts the circuit once, then we could extract the current from both sides of the magnets at the shaft with slip rings (actually the circuit on each side of the magnet configuration will each be cut once, but with an effect as if the circuit were cut twice in opposing directions, generating twice the voltage without having to double the speed). This particular magnet configuration rotating together in the same direction would be similar in splitting a magnet in half at it's poles, then rotating it's north pole side in opposition to it's south pole side and extracting the current from both sides of the magnets with slip rings at the shaft. I think this type of magnet configuration with a multi-frame homopolar generator will work with no back torque, because we will then be able to distinguish a rotating magnetic field from a non-rotating one.
Gravock
Gravoc:
Fig. 41 is EXACTLY the same as a normal Faraday disc generator, YOU just fail to see the magnet is also working as the disc!
So you see it really is game over, just nobody wins!
Quote from: lumen on July 29, 2012, 07:40:33 PM
Gravoc:
Fig. 41 is EXACTLY the same as a normal Faraday disc generator, YOU just fail to see the magnet is also working as the disc!
So you see it really is game over, just nobody wins!
Fig. 41 is not the same as a conventional Faraday disc generator, and you fail to see how the leads have been repositioned so the rotating field only cuts the circuit once, instead of twice as in the traditional Faraday generator, and by using two slip rings at the shaft to accomplish this. I do see how the conductive magnet is the same as having a conductive disc glued to a non-conducting magnet and rotating with it (this is very elementary and isn't anything which I was unaware of). I only missed the fact that some of the tests in table 3 used a conductive magnet and some of the tests used a non-conductive magnet with a detached conductive disc, but this in no way changes the fact that the rotation of the magnet is relevant, as I showed in my previous post. The circuit (B-A) of the conductive rotating magnet (or a disc glued to the magnet) isn't being cut by the rotating field lines, so the circuit partially internal to the magnet (B-A) is only acting as a return path and isn't the portion of the circuit which is responsible for generating the voltage/current. The portion of the circuit which is being cut only once by the rotating field lines is the stationary portions of the circuit (A-G) which is responsible for the induction and not (B-A) or a disc if it were attached to the magnet. I guess the game is over for those who continuously miss the boat.
Gravock
The lead from point "A" can make any stright line path away from the magnet and still cut the field lines only once.
Just draw all the field lines from the N to the S face and you will see this.
The fact remains there is one stationary conductor and one rotating conductor.
Quote from: lumen on July 29, 2012, 08:32:15 PM
The lead from point "A" can make any stright line path away from the magnet and still cut the field lines only once.
Just draw all the field lines from the N to the S face and you will see this.
The fact remains there is one stationary conductor and one rotating conductor.
Lumen, you're missing the point.
The only role which a stationary conductor and a rotating conductor plays in the Faraday generator is to keep the whole circuit from being cut twice in the same direction. There is no induction when the magnet is rotated while the whole circuit is stationary, because the whole circuit is cut twice in the same direction. What if half of the stationary circuit is cut in one direction and the other half of the stationary circuit is cut in the opposite direction? We would have induction, right? Of course we would. In the right configurations, such as in reply #36, then this can be done. Half of the stationary circuit would be on the left side of the magnet configuration, while the other half of the stationary circuit would be on the right side of the magnet configuration. The stationary circuit on each side of the magnet will each be cut by the rotating field lines in the opposite directions, which would produce twice the voltage and be equivalent to twice the angular velocity of the system. If the field is always stationary, regardless if the magnet is rotated or not, then only the rotating conductor will be cut by the field and the stationary circuit will act only as a return path. If the field rotates with the magnet, then the stationary conductor will only be cut by the field and the rotating circuit will act only as a return path. If the whole circuit is stationary or if the whole circuit rotates with the magnet, then in either case there is no induction because either the entire circuit was cut twice, or there was no relative motion between the field and a conductor, depending on if the field rotates with the magnet or not.
Edited: Added the portion in bold.
Gravock
This is what I think ::)
I think electricity is no more than a magnetic monopole, in other words we dont split the pos and neg but north pole from south pole, the north pole will run back to the north pole and the south pole will run back to the south pole but they will not run back to each other.
When we spit the magnetic poles we create two forms of electricity, if we think about it flipping a magnet end over end cutting a conductor we create ac current but if spun like the Faraday disc with bucking magnets we should get a dc current.
In order to have a efficient system we must allow for both types of electricity, we must conduct both away from the source, by using the bucking coil system the two alike poles cancel each other allowing the other to flow unhindered.
We can think of the poles as a spring with a ccw angular momentum and another spring with a cw angular momentum they will run with themselves but will not run with each other unless cut into small segments like in ac current, this is what causes ac current to vibrate or move back and forth in a conductor, one is attracted to ground and one is repelled by ground, one seeks ground the other seeks to radiate.
If you've arrived at this tentative theory by your own observation, I commend you! However, the work of Maxwell, Johnson, Newman, and others, refer to similar observations. Simply sliding two ring magnets on a vertically held pencil with opposing polarities inward, then removing the magnets, flipping both, and doing it again to reveal that the distance between them remains the same, readily disproves the current field models as displayed in the "science" halls. You see, if their model is correct then the aforementioned demonstration is impossible. The future is all "solid" state, so to speak. Given the evidence, it is nearly mandatory for me to believe that the progression of man's technology follows a curve that was inevitable, considering the collective decisions which man nearly unfailingly defaults to choose for himself and those he dominates . The raw materials and progression of their implementation at the hands of man, and results.....We are living in another dark age, this one, largely technological. The large divide between the haves and have nots, isn't an accident. Misery loves company and abhors a vacuum. Or at least, 'vacuum' energy.
And speaking of 'vacuum', consider the ultra dense magnet that is the Black Hole. Here is what Harvard has to say:
Quote"A black hole is a true "hole" in space: Anything that crosses the edge of the hole - called the "horizon" of the hole - is swallowed forever. For this reason, black holes are considered an edge of space, a one-way exit door from our universe; nothing inside a black hole can ever communicate with our universe again, even in principle."
An "exit door", no coming back.....Reminds me of the Word of God, as describes the "bottomless pit" where lucifer, satan, and all those choosing his side are sent. Not only does this "one-way exit door from our universe" (according to harvard) truly have no bottom, but God also describes those being thrown in it, as being cast into "outer darkness" where their weeping and gnashing of teeth will be. Think of a black hole as a gravito-magnetic 'knot' in space. Tied by torsional stresses beyond human comprehension. http://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm (http://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm) Thinking 3 and 4 dimensionally, we see that such a 'knot' tied in our universe, essentially puts one 'outside' it and into 'outer' darkness. If light cannot escape, how does one think that energy beings such as the souls which now control the bio-mechanical suits we all wear, will fare? Get right with our creator dear readers, as all will be laid bare at the end of days, soon in coming. Nothing now hidden, will remain covered, all will be revealed. And as Christ Himself has said, no longer will one man work the field and another take the fruits of his labor, nor more will one man build and another take occupancy, but all will keep the fruits of their labor. Heaven is not a huge insect like collective, but instead, free will is maintained and the rights and respect of the individual are confirmed and upheld for the betterment of all.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
Quote from: TechStuf on July 30, 2012, 12:52:41 AM
If you've arrived at this tentative theory by your own observation, I commend you! However, the work of Maxwell, Johnson, Newman, and others, refer to similar observations. Simply sliding two ring magnets on a vertically held pencil with opposing polarities inward, then removing the magnets, flipping both, and doing it again to reveal that the distance between them remains the same, readily disproves the current field models as displayed in the "science" halls. You see, if their model is correct then the aforementioned demonstration is impossible. The future is all "solid" state, so to speak. Given the evidence, it is nearly mandatory for me to believe that the progression of man's technology follows a curve that was inevitable, considering the collective decisions which man nearly unfailingly defaults to choose for himself and those he dominates . The raw materials and progression of their implementation at the hands of man, and results.....We are living in another dark age, this one, largely technological. The large divide between the haves and have nots, isn't an accident. Misery loves company and abhors a vacuum. Or at least, 'vacuum' energy.
And speaking of 'vacuum', consider the ultra dense magnet that is the Black Hole. Here is what Harvard has to say:
An "exit door", no coming back.....Reminds me of the Word of God, as describes the "bottomless pit" where lucifer, satan, and all those choosing his side are sent. Not only does this "one-way exit door from our universe" (according to harvard) truly have no bottom, but God also describes those being thrown in it, as being cast into "outer darkness" where their weeping and gnashing of teeth will be. Think of a black hole as a gravito-magnetic 'knot' in space. Tied by torsional stresses beyond human comprehension. http://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm (http://rense.com/general54/babalc.htm) Thinking 3 and 4 dimensionally, we see that such a 'knot' tied in our universe, essentially puts one 'outside' it and into 'outer' darkness. If light cannot escape, how does one think that energy beings such as the souls which now control the bio-mechanical suits we all wear, will fare? Get right with our creator dear readers, as all will be laid bare at the end of days, soon in coming. Nothing now hidden, will remain covered, all will be revealed. And as Christ Himself has said, no longer will one man work the field and another take the fruits of his labor, nor more will one man build and another take occupancy, but all will keep the fruits of their labor. Heaven is not a huge insect like collective, but instead, free will is maintained and the rights and respect of the individual are confirmed and upheld for the betterment of all.
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
Awesome you are gifted with words my friend
I cant express how much truth are in your words
I have come to the same conclusion a black hole is nothing more than the magnetic core of our galaxy.
Our galaxy is the model although a rotating one.
I truly believe the answer to our present quest will be found in ice, I have played with it some and found that it can be structured with a magnetic field and can conduct electricity. The ice is a superconductor if structured, look at quartz crystals(used in crystal radio's) they work by allowing only one type of angular propagation to pass through, ice can be structured to do the same but on a larger scale.
Why not just use the lorentz equation to explain the problem ?
Remember --- the output of your configuration should give a DC, while faraday's magnetic line-cutting method is intended for AC analysis only.
My uneducated theory's are my own :)
I will follow my own path ;D
have a great day
Sorry. I am talking about the field-line cutting method.
I am not talking about your explanation shown in your video.
Quote from: Dave45 on July 30, 2012, 08:34:41 AM
My uneducated theory's are my own :)
I will follow my own path ;D
have a great day
Neutron type A cw spin Neutron type b ccw spin. Super imposed. Proton type 1. Smash proton type 1. Neutron type A Neutron type b wobble around a bit then settle down into being Proton type 1 which you just cant ever ever ever demolish because of it's negentrophic properties. Blackholes at the center of at least our galaxy are dipoles. Recent observations of a large gamma ray cloud above and below the galactic plane at the poles of the galactic proton have been used by various idots to cause panic that Earth is going to be bombarded with huge amounts of gamma rays. I am so tired of the bullshit these people put out. How do they know how long that cloud of gamma rays has been there. Could it be that the galaxy is alive. That it is making a consious effort to be creative. The Universe needs blackholes or magnetic monopoles to pickup space debris in order that it be recyled. The Universe is a combination of Negentrophic influences and radiative influences. If there was only one force all would have radiated away or condensed away. Give the Universe a little credit where credit is due. Hold it in awe because it is truly awesome.
Quote"Could it be that the galaxy is alive. That it is making a consious effort to be creative." "Hold it in awe because it is truly awesome."
Interesting ideas, Sparks. Fraught with so very many implications. Implications, which, when reduced to practice, reveal The Awesome Creative Intelligence Who sits at the Center of it all. The One Who revealed long ago, and in Great detail, just who would be in temporary power over the earth at this moment in time. What their technical capabilities would be. What their 'mark' would be, What would be happening on the earth Chronologically, Geologically, Atmospherically, socially, economically, Politically, Culturally, and Spiritually. I'm sure I'm leaving out alot in that short list.
The Grandest of Engineers sure has lot's of 'Allys', doesn't He....
Blessings in Christ Yeshua
In Fig. 3 & Fig. 4 below, taken from a publication titled "Successful Brushless A.C. Power Extraction From The Faraday Acyclic Generator (http://www.electrogravity.com/ABUnits_1/ABUnits_1.pdf)", by Jerry E. Bayles, two identical small magnets mounted on a rotor free to move on a low friction point of balance is brought to the sides of the magnet disks and if placed on the near side (fig. 3), the balanced magnet indicator lines up parallel to the axis of the disks. If however the balanced indicator magnets are placed on the far opposite side (fig. 4), the balance magnets line up towards the axis and between the disks! Since the disks are uniformly magnetized and uniform radially from the axis, this is most unexpected. If the disks are slowly moved in rotation, the same results are obtained. Is there a standing wave fixed around the magnets? Here's a video of the above test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OQmzv2W-Ys). Please note the difference in how the magnet indicator lines up at the starting position and at 1800 from the starting position. Also, the video shows a macroscopic version of a quantum effect where the electron must revolve twice to turn itself around once. Hence the so-called spin 1/2.
A resonance at 2pi Hz and 8.00 Hz occurs during testing. At the 2pi Hz resonance, the entire test bed vibrates and at 8.00 Hz, the balance magnets in figures 3 and 4 swing back and forth violently. The meter also vibrates and seems to follow the action of the balance magnets. Further, the static alignment of the balance magnets remain relatively still as shown if the disks are rotated slowly by hand. Due to the alignments being 90 degrees out from one side of the disks to the other, it is postulated that there is some sort of active standing quarter wave across the disks even when they are not being rotated. Further, it is locked into an geographical North-South alignment for this setup. The North-South alignment may not be more than coincidence but the standing wave is locked into the above alignment. When the magnet disks are spun, the standing wave is force to degenerate and radiate (this is proof that the rotation of the magnet is relevant). This radiated field power has been measured and the results are encouraging. This means that no contacts are needed on the Faraday disk to extract power under the above setup conditions. Further tests reveal that free from any contacts, the near side balance test oscillates the test magnet balance the most at 8.3 Hz and the far side position oscillates at 6.28 Hz. Also, at 6.28 Hz, the entire support for the magnet disk rotors and drill motor is observed to shake vigorously with a sharp resonance point at 6.28 Hz.
Gravock
Proof Of Concept Test Report (http://www.electrogravity.com/ProofConceptTest/ProofConceptTest.pdf) - Abstract: A simple test is performed on a brushless a. c. pickup Faraday generator wherein it is shown that power extraction does not slow down the prime mover. Then it is shown that a conventional generator loaded at the same power does slow down the prime mover significantly. The result indicates a vast improvement over conventional power generation methods. Video demonstration (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWN1hZZDCJo) showing power extraction doesn't slow down the prime mover (no back torque). In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2ty0fVfEdI), it is proven that shorting the brushless Faraday Free Energy Generator coils not only causes an increase in rotation speed but also causes a decrease of drive current to the prime mover a.c. motor. This is opposite to conventional generator/motor action.
Gravock
@Broli,
Open Circuit!
The text in the image below, as found on page 7 of Jerry Bayles publication on a successful brushless Faraday generator, sounds very similar to the open circuit we have been looking for. When the magnet discs are spun, the standing wave around the discs will degenerate and an electromagnetic field will be radiated which is proportional to the rotational velocity. In the conclusions of that paper, Bayles says the dimensions of the magnets used develop a standing wave that yield the properties of being related to the golden ratio. For those who may be interested in duplicating the simple test arrangement, the magnets can be purchased from: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RY046 (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RY046). I'll be ordering two magnets before next week.
Gravock
I'm a bit critical concerning that specific experiment. Permanent magnets are inherently not perfect, these slight imperfections may be the cause of the induced voltage in the behemoth coil he's using at the rim to pick up the changing field. It would be interesting to see whether a single magnet has the same effect, what two magnets in attraction would do, and if the same voltage is generated using EM's instead of PM's
Quote from: broli on August 02, 2012, 11:11:03 AM
I'm a bit critical concerning that specific experiment. Permanent magnets are inherently not perfect, these slight imperfections may be the cause of the induced voltage in the behemoth coil he's using at the rim to pick up the changing field. It would be interesting to see whether a single magnet has the same effect, what two magnets in attraction would do, and if the same voltage is generated using EM's instead of PM's.
Here's a video showing a magnetic balance resonance tests using four strong magnetic disks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqxHAfKlcTc) instead of the previous two tests, with first two, and then one disk. Due to the number of magnetic disks,
slight irregularities of the field due to flaws in the magnetic fields can be ruled out as the cause of this unbalance and energy flow as these would tend to cancel out. Here's a video showing a magnetic one-disk resonance tests (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jEhLrIMlpk) utilizing a two-magnet balance system. For further information, please read the description of the videos. Also, here's the link to the website of Jerry Bayles (http://www.electrogravity.com/). I really find the electron 1/2 spin test, where the balanced magnets must revolve twice around the disc magnet in order to return to it's original starting position very intriguing.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 02, 2012, 11:36:00 PM
I really find the electron 1/2 spin test, where the balanced magnets must revolve twice around the disc magnet in order to return to it's original starting position very intriguing.
Gravock
It is intriguing indeed!
However, 1/2 spin is just because he encircles the magnets counter-clockwise. The spin would have been different, probably 2, for clockwise case. Agree? (I’m sorry but I’m too tired and lazy to prepare a setup and check it exactly with a compass).
Best regards,
Tinu
Quote from: tinu on August 03, 2012, 02:55:40 PM
It is intriguing indeed!
However, 1/2 spin is just because he encircles the magnets counter-clockwise. The spin would have been different, probably 2, for clockwise case. Agree? (I’m sorry but I’m too tired and lazy to prepare a setup and check it exactly with a compass).
Best regards,
Tinu
I don't think the spin is different for the clockwise case. Both a positron and an electron have a 1/2 spin regardless of their opposite spin directions (assuming of course they have opposite spin directions). I guess we could say going CCW around the magnet discs would be a macroscopic display of an electron 1/2 spin and going CW around the magnet discs would be a macroscopic display of a positron 1/2 spin. I ordered my magnets a few minutes prior to making this post and when they arrive I will try and duplicate this simple experiment for both the CW and CCW case. Thanks for joining this discussion, and it's good to see someone else is intrigued by this experiment. I do think this experiment shows an imbalance in energy around the magnet discs which can't be explained in having slight imperfections in the permanent magnets.
In one of the tests by Bayles demonstrating the chiral nature of the left and right sides of the magnets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l_O8vfyRu0), the magnetic balance rotates 360
o when the magnet discs are being rotated. Slight imperfections in the axially magnetized PM's rotating on their axis could never show such a huge imbalance in energy on the different sides of the magnets. In addition to this, the resonance occurs at the Schumann frequency of 7.83 Hz on the right side and at a frequency on the left side such that the difference frequency multiplied by the circumference of the disk magnets yield a calculated least quantum velocity equal to the square root of the fine structure constant in meter per second units. Since there is uniformity in the disk magnets strength and dimensions, and another pair of identical magnets demonstrate the same chiral energy difference between the left and right sides, it is herein postulated that the gravitational field of the Earth is creating the chiral standing wave around the disk magnets. Hence the 5 Hz resonance in test 5 as demonstrated in the movie. (5 Hz is 1/2 of the 10 Hz predicted in Bayles's unified field theory) located online at http://www.electrogravity.com (http://www.electrogravity.com)
Also, the Magnetic Potential Vector (A-Vector) is proven to penetrate iron pipes with no measured loss in this A-Vector test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR4-7w8Acd4) by Bayles. The A-Vector's ability to penetrate iron pipes with no measured loss is a good explanation in why an increase in current and voltage in the behemoth pickup coil(s) are close to equal regardless of whether the core is iron or air. This phenomenon is due to the A-Potential, and not because there may be slight imperfections in the permanent magnets.
Gravock