Aspiring inventor here, of sorts. I have some questions. Posted this on another site but I think the forums are dead.
So, I was reading about this stuff. www dot dtic dot mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a094910.pdf
That with a switching mechanism, current could be directed from the disk into a primary winding, which would, using a switch, interrupt its own current over and over, creating a high voltage spike in a secondary winding.
What I'd like to know is, would it be practical to use a high voltage "voltage multiplier" (cockcroft-walton) to get static DC from the high voltage pulses? Would I need custom diodes and capacitors in order to achieve this? I'm thinking of using the biefeld-brown effect since the pulses will be over 50 kV, and I can use asymetrical capacitors pulsed with over 50 kv to generator thrust with each pulse in the direction of rotation.
This would be a Faraday disk generator that doesn't require brushes and generates it's own high voltage. Self excited. I am not the only one to think of this but I'm considering using the static DC to supply voltage/current from tungsten rods connected to the disk, in the form of a spark gap. So instead of brushes, it uses plasma contacts. There would need to be a timer probably, because it would generate a lot of heat. so it could only be static for so long, then switched off to cool down, and allow another Faraday Disk generator to take it's place. Suggestions?
Was also wondering if it would be possible to use the static DC generated from the multiplier and pulses to charge the Faraday disk itself. As in, have two disks, one positive and one negative.
From Science Exxience at YouTube you can learn a lot!
See the films Exx-001 to Exx-019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19XAN7io4c
Regards Arne
This is also a working variant.
Regards Arne
Quote from: seaad on February 21, 2019, 05:47:46 AM
From Science Exxience at YouTube you can learn a lot!
See the films Exx-001 to Exx-019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j19XAN7io4c
Regards Arne
I believe it (voltage on the axle).
You could be interested in this related setup (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3738.msg72930#msg72930).
Pdf here (http://exvacuo.free.fr/div/Sciences/Exp%c3%a9riences/Em/Homopolaire/MyHomopolar/F6FLT%20-%20Ferromagnetic%20Axle%20Homopolar%20Generator.pdf).
Your setup is twice that one, provided that your axle is ferromagnetic.
For me, it's no more the Faraday disk principle.
It would be interesting to replace the axle with a non-ferromagnetic one, for instance aluminium. The effect should disappear or becoming very weak.
A quick test at the same speed.
Axis; a thin hollow brass.
In my post above. The voltage across was about 8 - 9 mV.
Regards Arne
Hi Arne,
Could you try this, in both configuration with a ferromagnetic axle and non ferromagnetic?
Quote from: F6FLT on February 28, 2019, 05:44:21 AM
Hi Arne,
Could you try this, in both configuration with a ferromagnetic axle and non ferromagnetic?
Hi With the "naked" brass axle and the same speed as before and a distanse between the meas. points about 2 cm (=.8 ") only 0.1 mV
With a soft Fe rod inserted inside the brass tube, that gave 0.4 mV
Not much to put in a christmas tree!
Regards Arne
Quote from: seaad on February 28, 2019, 08:40:21 AM
Hi With the "naked" brass axle and the same speed as before and a distanse between the meas. points about 2 cm (=.8 ") only 0.1 mV
With a soft Fe rod inserted inside the brass tube, that gave 0.4 mV
Not much to put in a christmas tree!
Regards Arne
It's strange, because on my side I easily reach 100 mV between my 2 sliding contacts on the ferromagnetic axis, in front of the two ferrite magnets recovered from a microwave oven. With an aluminium axle, the voltage is too weak to be measured
The largest magnet diameter, the better the effect. A much stronger neodynium magnet but with half the diameter gives weaker voltage. That's why I think that the magnetic field gradient plays an important role.
It is important that both contacts are on the same side of the magnet, one as close as possible and the other further away.
The difference with my setup is that in yours the magnet rotates, not in mine. But this should not change anything.
Hi F6FLT
You can use my readings as a rough comparison to different set ups. I only used 2 Volt to my motor here. But feeded with maximum 12V it produced about 30 - 35 mV at my first test with two magnets. 8 -9-mV with 2 Volt to the motor.
I'm sorry I don't have any wider magnets at home to make some comparison tests.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
Regards Arne
Hi Seaad
After seeing the video, I think it is the angular velocity that makes the difference in the amplitude of our voltages. My motor seems to run much faster.
On the principle, there is no paradox, it's only a misinterpretation of relativity that leads us to say that the result should be different depending on whether the magnet rotates or not.
Relativity is not between the circuit and the magnet, but between the two parts of the circuit, which rotate relative to each other in a magnetic field.
Each half-circuit between the two sliding contacts sees the other rotate. So the charges of one half-circuit see the charges of the other half-circuit subjected to the Lorentz force F=q.VxB, when they see themselves at rest (F=0). This creates the imbalance of forces and therefore the current. This is why turning the disc OR turning the sliding contacts is the same.
A magnetic field is only a set of vectors assigned to point positions in space. As the magnet rotates around its axis of magnetic symmetry, the vector field remains the same. B is constant and the same whether the magnet rotates or not.
In the video what would be the result if you spin the stator and magnet?
One in both the same direction, the other in opposite directions?
I would think the voltage would double.
artv
Quote from: shylo on March 01, 2019, 04:54:39 AM
In the video what would be the result if you spin the stator and magnet?
One in both the same direction, the other in opposite directions?
I would think the voltage would double.
artv
agreed.
The answer was above. Here are all cases:
1. Disc rotating + stator at rest: voltage
2. Disc at rest + "stator" rotating : voltage
3. Disc rotating + "stator" rotating in the same direction : zero voltage (due to no relative speed)
4. Disc rotating + "stator" rotating in the opposite direction : twice the voltage (due to twice the relative speed)
In any case, magnet rotating or not rotating: same effect
If case 3 provided a voltage, you could charge a capacitor connected between the axle and the rim of a Faraday disk and rotating with it. I did this experiment to be sure: no voltage.
I rotated the disc with the capacitor for a while, then I accelerated the motor, which disconnected the capacitor by centrifugal force on the rim contact. But at the arrival after stopping the motor, the capacitor was not charged!
Quote from: F6FLT on March 01, 2019, 09:26:39 AM
In any case, magnet rotating or not rotating: same effect
Right motor is constantly spinning. Readings center to rim.
Left motor: magnet rotating + or -,
or not rotating at all: same effect
Quote from: seaad on March 01, 2019, 11:35:00 AM
Right motor is constantly spinning. Readings center to rim.
Left motor: magnet rotating + or -,
or not rotating at all: same effect
Never believe without verification! ;)
Good point, and nice demonstration!
So the stator has to see the disc in motion,and as long as a magnetic field is present a voltage is produced.
If you put on a second stator,could you collect double the voltage?
Or stators on both sides of the disc,reverse polarity but still a voltage?
artv
The voltage depends on the direction of rotation and the polarity of the magnet.
If on one side we see the pole N turning CW, on the other side we see the pole S turning CCW. So the effects are compensated, the voltage is the same on both sides.
No one has yet found a way to add voltages of a homopolar generator without going through as many sliding contacts as rotating elements, which is why we do not know how to make homopolar generators generating a high voltage, whereas it is very easy to do so with alternating currents, simply by increasing the number of turns of the coils.
The patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US6603233B2/en (https://patents.google.com/patent/US6603233B2/en) is an example of the increase in the voltage of a homopolar generator, but by the multiplication of sliding contacts. The sliding contact being the weak point of any homopolar generator because it is too resistive when the domain is that of low voltages and high currents, multiplying them multiplies the problems without innovating anything on the theoretical level (contrary to what its promoters say by insinuating violations of Newton's laws or relativity ::) ).
I made a test with a disappointing result
Regards Arne
Ps: F6FLT Posts: 345 :)
@F6FLT, have a design/mod/expansion of Teslas unipolar dynamo on paper. It's brushless, strengthens its field as current is taken off, and you can add resistance to determine voltage. I never posted or worked up cad drawings for it as i knew i wouldn't havd time to build it (other projects). Also, didn't think it would get much traction either as it works on situation # 2 of the paradox where the magnets move with stationary disk. If anyone is interested I guess i can whip up something in sketchup (trying to learn fusion/inventor), just dont expect it fast.
Quote from: phoneboy on March 04, 2019, 09:53:30 AM
@F6FLT, have a design/mod/expansion of Teslas unipolar dynamo on paper. It's brushless, strengthens its field as current is taken off, and you can add resistance to determine voltage. I never posted or worked up cad drawings for it as i knew i wouldn't havd time to build it (other projects). Also, didn't think it would get much traction either as it works on situation # 2 of the paradox where the magnets move with stationary disk. If anyone is interested I guess i can whip up something in sketchup (trying to learn fusion/inventor), just dont expect it fast.
It must be understood that "sliding contact" is just a way of talking about an electrical contact between two conductors that move relative to each other.
Two counter-rotating discs that touch each other by their rim make a "sliding contact" in the electric sense, even if nothing really slides mechanically. Because I assume you're talking about Tesla's patent 406968. This does not derogate from the rule that a sliding contact is required every time you want to increase the voltage without increasing the speed. With two counter-rotating discs, the relative speed has been doubled, it's only a practical way to do it but it remains a classic homopolar generator with its two half-circuits in relative speed.
If your design is based on a different idea, even partly based on this patent, I'm interested and would appreciate that you give a description.
@Arne
Could you give a brief description? I don't really understand the principle.
ok, i'll wip up some drawings, prob be a couple days
Quote from: F6FLT on March 04, 2019, 11:15:42 AM
@Arne
Could you give a brief description? I don't really understand the principle.
I created a bunch of overlapping consecutive pulses that made the transistors go low (ON) one after the other in a row, (on resistance 3 - 4 ohm) instead of a brush sweeping around (a part) of the copper disc.
Regards Arne
Quote from: seaad on March 04, 2019, 11:39:38 AM
I created a bunch of overlapping consecutive pulses that made the transistors go low (ON) one after the other in a row, (on resistance 3 - 4 ohm) instead of a brush sweeping around (a part) of the copper disc.
Regards Arne
It can't work because the charges have to move for Lorentz's force to operate.
If you analyze from an electrical point of view, all the points of the disc are equipotential (ground potential). Your switched circuits connect two points of equal potential, so there is no current.
I had also thought about it :( . Murphy's law.
I recently thought of experiments to replace the mechanical movement of charges with a current, to make a solid-state homopolar generator from an alternating current that would simulate rotation, especially in dielectrics. I tried and failed. Nevertheless, I think this should be possible.
what creates the potential, the disc spins in the magnetic field,
the field causes movement of the free electrons in the disc's molecules?
the farther apart the collection points (the stator),the greater the potential?
If you put more collection points in place does that just divide the potential, resulting in the total sum?
artv
Quote from: shylo on March 04, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
what creates the potential, the disc spins in the magnetic field,
the field causes movement of the free electrons in the disc's molecules?
Yes, the Lorentz force forces the electrons to move perpendicularly to their speed vector, e.g radially.
Quote
the farther apart the collection points (the stator),the greater the potential?
If you put more collection points in place does that just divide the potential, resulting in the total sum?
artv
The potential is not the cause of the current but the effect. The Lorentz force on the electrons, therefore a current, is the cause. This force depends only on the charges, their speed and the B field. Of course if your disk is larger, with a magnet of same size, you will have more moving charges thus more current.
the voltage is a result of electrons being forced to move inside the disc which has it's own resistance?
Voltage=Current(electron flow)x resistance?
Do the stators contact points absorb all of the moving electrons,or can we add more collection points?
Or since there is only a given amount of resistance, there can only be a given amount of flow?
artv
Quote from: shylo on March 05, 2019, 12:34:19 PM
,or can we add more collection points?
Or since there is only a given amount of resistance, there can only be a given amount of flow?
artv
I've tried with four collecting "brushes" (2 + 2).
Nothing extra only more brush braking.
Regards Arne
what if you just make notches on the wheel? To make the current pulse
Then make one coil in the rotor and then another coil in the stator. Would that not gather the current and no need for brushes?
Quote from: shylo on March 05, 2019, 12:34:19 PM
the voltage is a result of electrons being forced to move inside the disc which has it's own resistance?
Voltage=Current(electron flow)x resistance?
Not exactly. The electric field that electrons feel is E=VxB (vector product, V their linear speed, B the field). This has to be integrated along the radius to get the voltage because V=∫E.dl.
Say v=10m/s at the half-radius, B=1T, disk radius = 10 cm, then V ≈ 0.5V.
Then I=V/R gives you the short-circuit current.
Quote
Do the stators contact points absorb all of the moving electrons,or can we add more collection points?
Or since there is only a given amount of resistance, there can only be a given amount of flow?
artv
I don't understand the question. The contacts simply add a resistance in series in the circuit.
Quote from: seaad on March 05, 2019, 02:33:09 PM
I've tried with four collecting "brushes" (2 + 2).
Nothing extra only more brush braking.
Regards Arne
That's why in Tesla's patent brushes at not on the rim. The rim is the worst position for brushes because the speed is maximum and so is the friction.
An AC variant.
A new suggestion.
Quote from: seaad on March 23, 2019, 09:26:29 AM
A new suggestion.
It will work, 100% sure (I presume the magnets present opposite poles).
A probably more efficient method is to remove the central wheel and use two counter-rotating disk-magnets touching each other by their rims and having same poles. I wrote "probably" because their weak point is that they repel each other.
Yes this was my first thought also but the magnets polarity [your way] makes it near impossible to make them touch each other, because they repeal themselves extremely strongly sideways and radially.
If we force them to touch each other, I presume that the braking action in the axis bearings will be greater than as in my suggestion above.
I wanted to avoid a build with these hateful brushes at the rim.
Regards Arne
Hi Arne,
The repulsion will not result in a slowdown, because it is not a torque that is applied against rotation. We have a linear force in the plane of the magnets, and if it is not perfectly balanced, which will certainly happen, there will be also a torque tending to rotate the plane of the discs. A solid mechanical system can solve the problem. An easy way would be to fix the magnets in front of rotating conductive discs and only the discs rotate.
The possible demagnetization of opposing magnets may remain a problem.
With intermediate wheels, we increase mechanical losses, and electrical losses since we increase the number of contacts, so not sure if the method is better. I don't think so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7x-6J-V_EQ
Quote from: Azufrito on March 24, 2019, 06:38:11 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7x-6J-V_EQ
Nice setup. The idea of the conductive chain for the mechanical coupling of the discs is excellent, it avoids the problem of repulsion of the magnets by allowing them to be moved away.
However, I wonder why the voltage is so low.
.
The constriction of the gears and chain locks the magnetic field.
The field changes as rpm increases or changes.
It all balance's that's why ou is not possible.
Use the balance to your advantage, throw it out of balance.
Use the offset,
Just what I'm trying.
artv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33Jm1rsM4Yw
AC
Quote from: seaad on April 08, 2019, 06:08:32 AM
AC
It's still a homopolar motor/generator with counter torque acting on it. And the advantage of AC is overrated if you are not extracting a ton of current.
But if you want something new, put the axle brush on the opposite side of the rim instead, leave the magnet stationary and only spin the ring around the rim of this split pole magnet.
Up to 92% efficiency low parts generator
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=78&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990930&CC=DE&NR=19741256A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=78&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=19990930&CC=DE&NR=19741256A1&KC=A1#)
simple motor:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=6&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20031204&CC=US&NR=2003222512A1&KC=A1# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=6&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20031204&CC=US&NR=2003222512A1&KC=A1#)
From started by curbe generator to motor :
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070201&CC=JP&NR=2007028879A&KC=A# (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?DB=EPODOC&II=0&ND=3&adjacent=true&locale=en_EP&FT=D&date=20070201&CC=JP&NR=2007028879A&KC=A#)
homopolar machines ad-/dis-vantages and improvement : f. e.
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=2003052564A1&KC=A1&FT=D#