I lately came across this very well written thesis on the subject of the Magnetic Vector Potential. A mathematical construct to some but to others a very real field with very real implications see:
Aharonov–Bohm effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect)
Basically what this thesis does is take the material (aka total) time derivative of the Magnetic Vector Potential and instead of throw away the spatial dependent, it is used to come up with new force terms.
One consequence of this is that for instance the Stefan Marinov motor actually can generate energy by seemingly extracting magnetic potential energy from the PM itself. I confirmed this in some experiments however more proof is still needed. Enjoy.
So you are saying that this has no armature reaction generated? I thought this true in all types of generators. That reaction also being 90 degrees diff.
For me, Marinov's motor is the one in the black image below.
I built a proof of concept in May of this year. See attached picture.
This is a simplified version without sliding contacts, however I should observe a torque tending to rotate the conductive ring when injecting current into the two wires that also support the ring.
I didn't see any effect.
Hi F6FLT,
Could you put your magnet + core assembly onto the middle of a freely rotatable platform which has very low friction?
I say this because if there is any torque as supposed, then it may be so small / weak that it gets lost in your relatively rigid ring-supporting wires. Maybe you could fasten the bottom middle part of your core with a plastic or wood piece into the inner diameter of a single ball bearing while you fix the outer diameter of the bearing into say a vice.
Unfortunately, the magnetic flux as close to the magnet assembly as is shown with your ring distance in your setup may be rather low due to the closed magnetic circuit, this is why I think the developing torque could be very weak (if there is any torque, that is).
When I suggest this, I suppose that the setup would operate 'backwards' i.e. the magnet + core assembly should turn or at least react a little the moment the ring current appears. Maybe a pulsed input should also be tried to see any small initial reaction if the backward operation is possible at all. Perhaps an AC input to the ring could also be considered if the magnet+core assembly is the rotor, I wonder.
Gyula
Quote from: Thaelin on November 13, 2018, 10:39:10 PMSo you are saying that this has no armature reaction generated? I thought this true in all types of generators. That reaction also being 90 degrees diff.
That is correct. There is an armature reaction but this is due to the Lorentz force, which can be seen to be acting radially on the rotating cylinder and having no mechanical contribution in the rotational direction. This is in contrast to moving a coil to or from a magnet to induce voltage, the induced current and the lorentz force acting on this current would be in the motion of movement (trying to impede it).
I have attempted to explain this device many times. Perhaps my explanations and descriptions of its behaviour have been too complicated, I don't know.
For an easily accessible description of some experiments, see Jeffrey Kooistra's articles in Mallove's old Infinite Energy Magazine. He called it the "Warlock's Wheel".
It is important to realize that this is a _current_ driven device, so have available a high current, low voltage source of DC power for your experiments. If you can supply 10-20 amps it should be sufficient to see all the effects in a well constructed apparatus.
Anyone experimenting with this device should strive to accomplish the following in the finished apparatus:
1. Make your apparatus so that all three elements are co-axial and free to rotate independently. The three elements being the magnet armature, the 'stator' ring, and the brush structure/power supply. Early explorations can use fixed "brush" contacts to the non-mobile ring to see how the magnets behave alone when current is injected into the ring.
2. The stator ring should be planar, not cylindrical as shown in the first drawing above. That is, something like a flat copper vacuum gasket (which are ideal for this use and readily available on Ebay.)
3. The brushes should be arranged so that they can make contact with the stator ring in two ways: Either on the outer edge of the flat ring, or on the INNER edge of the flat ring. Mercury, GalInStan, or similar liquid metal brushes will be best. It is this comparison that is the most revealing, and also the most unbelievable, and also the most neglected by researchers.
4. Preferably, the entire power supply including the brush structures should be also mounted coaxially and be free to rotate independently. You want to be able to see if there is a back reaction to the _brushes_.
5. Use some kind of remote control to turn the power supply on so that the apparatus isn't perturbed.
I used mercury brushes, two nine-volt batteries in parallel, and a simple laser-pointer actuated optical switch, along with a little logic circuitry, as my final build's power supply.
Marinov said to use a split cylinder magnet, with one half flipped and reattached. I simply used two cylinder magnets side by side NS and SN (on either side of the axis of course) with iron keepers connecting the ends. Kooistra glued his copper ring to a styrofoam cup and suspended it with a thread over his magnets, and used pools of mercury to make the brushes, and stuck feed wires in by hand. I think my own build of this is the most sophisticated I know about and is the only one capable of demonstrating all of the phenomena associated with this device. Unfortunately... it went missing when ISSO left the laboratory in SFO, and I haven't build another one.
I have however constructed a "Marinov Slab Motor" which simulates the one-turn ring with many turns of wire, and uses Hall effect commutation, and also... may not have an armature back reaction.
Quote from: gyulasun on November 14, 2018, 07:39:20 AM
Hi F6FLT,
Could you put your magnet + core assembly onto the middle of a freely rotatable platform which has very low friction?
I say this because if there is any torque as supposed, then it may be so small / weak that it gets lost in your relatively rigid ring-supporting wires. Maybe you could fasten the bottom middle part of your core with a plastic or wood piece into the inner diameter of a single ball bearing while you fix the outer diameter of the bearing into say a vice.
Unfortunately, the magnetic flux as close to the magnet assembly as is shown with your ring distance in your setup may be rather low due to the closed magnetic circuit, this is why I think the developing torque could be very weak (if there is any torque, that is).
When I suggest this, I suppose that the setup would operate 'backwards' i.e. the magnet + core assembly should turn or at least react a little the moment the ring current appears. Maybe a pulsed input should also be tried to see any small initial reaction if the backward operation is possible at all. Perhaps an AC input to the ring could also be considered if the magnet+core assembly is the rotor, I wonder.
Gyula
When set up properly, the ring and the magnets will both want to move when current is injected into the ring, in certain well defined ways. But it is these ways that are most interesting. Be sure to test with ring contacts on outer edge, and then compare with ring contacts on inner edge. The possible ring motions that can be seen are: driven in one direction or the other, and coasting freely. The possible magnet armature motions are: rotating to a position and locking there, and coasting freely. The directions of relative motion are important... and amazing.
Hi TK good to see you around. And yes indeed you are one of few handful people who has performed experiments in this regard and would surely know what you are talking about. For this I have great respect for you as you are also part of the inspiration that kept me exploring this concept which has lead me on quite a journey. I don't agree on every point you made however out of respect I would like to respond piece way to each point if I may with my own experience and knowledge based on experimentation.
Quote
1. Make your apparatus so that all three elements are co-axial and free to rotate independently. The three elements being the magnet armature, the 'stator' ring, and the brush structure/power supply. Early explorations can use fixed "brush" contacts to the non-mobile ring to see how the magnets behave alone when current is injected into the ring.
This is very true in fact I would go one step further and suggest to use a multi turn coil instead if a high current source is a limiting factor. This was my own first experiment as well a few years back, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDS7KA3xfYQ
This experiment shows that the magnet assembly reverses rotation when current goes around it instead of across it.
Quote
2. The stator ring should be planar, not cylindrical as shown in the first drawing above. That is, something like a flat copper vacuum gasket (which are ideal for this use and readily available on Ebay.)
Things get more complex now, in fact I INTENTIONALLY made the ring cylindrical and would even recommend to reduce its planar dimensions as much as possible. See next comments for the reason.
Quote
3. The brushes should be arranged so that they can make contact with the stator ring in two ways: Either on the outer edge of the flat ring, or on the INNER edge of the flat ring. Mercury, GalInStan, or similar liquid metal brushes will be best. It is this comparison that is the most revealing, and also the most unbelievable, and also the most neglected by researchers.
The fact this has been neglected is very true besides your posts here I saw no other researcher pointing this out. However it is the very fact that the ring is of planar dimension that causes this. I have also shown this using an ionic liquid instead as you may know a few months back. And added 3 additional cases by having the brushes (electrodes) in all possible combinations. The behaviour could be fully explained by the Lorentz Force. The fact that there is NO rotating when the "brush" is centered on the planar ring proves this as well. This is the experiment as a reminder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frHOpzMDqSg
So this is why the ring needs to have little to NO planar dimension to it as we want to eliminate any sort of torque on the ring especially this classical Lorentz torque and hence the cylindrical ring.
Quote
4. Preferably, the entire power supply including the brush structures should be also mounted coaxially and be free to rotate independently. You want to be able to see if there is a back reaction to the _brushes_.
This is very important indeed. In fact I would even go one step further and say that any/all torque on the magnets is due to these wires coming from the power supply to the brushes and NOT due to the current going through the ring. This is actually seen in the first experiment mentioned in point 1 as the direction can be flipped. The challenge is to eliminate any motor effect as much as possible by using the correct geometry. And what you will see is that the induced
EMF still is produced when rotating the ring.
There is a reason why the torque is so very low and why some researchers could not find any at all while others did, because there is little to none if the ring has very little radial dimensions. However EMF remains the same.
Quote
5. Use some kind of remote control to turn the power supply on so that the apparatus isn't perturbed.
I used mercury brushes, two nine-volt batteries in parallel, and a simple laser-pointer actuated optical switch, along with a little logic circuitry, as my final build's power supply.
Marinov said to use a split cylinder magnet, with one half flipped and reattached. I simply used two cylinder magnets side by side NS and SN (on either side of the axis of course) with iron keepers connecting the ends. Kooistra glued his copper ring to a styrofoam cup and suspended it with a thread over his magnets, and used pools of mercury to make the brushes, and stuck feed wires in by hand. I think my own build of this is the most sophisticated I know about and is the only one capable of demonstrating all of the phenomena associated with this device. Unfortunately... it went missing when ISSO left the laboratory in SFO, and I haven't build another one.
I truly salute you for your work and sharing it all these years. But a new generation must continue to explore further and beyond to what the previous has done.
Quoteand also... may not have an armature back reaction.
This is really the main conclusion of any experimenter who has gone down this path :). It's just amazing how after so many years now this little forgotten device and pretty much theory on the Magnetic Vector Potential has not encouraged more to explore. However to encourage experimentation I keep sharing my work openly and freely and encourage any discussion on it, as this generator is doing something very strange very few have seen or explored.
The Marinov and Ampere force laws for moving charges predict magnetism-like forces along the direction of motion of charges. (longitudinal magnetism) Textbook magnetism only exerts forces at right angles to the motion. The longitudinal force tends to vanish for circular loops and symmetric shapes. The attached image suggests a possible experiment to try to demonstrate such a force. Circular and square coils are placed next to each other as shown, with the round coil on conductive bearings so it could turn if there is any force exerted along its wire. In classical magnetism the round coil should not move.
I had dabbled a bit with force laws a few years ago.https://overunity.com/2485/magnetism-without-the-magnetic-field/msg33676/#msg33676 (https://overunity.com/2485/magnetism-without-the-magnetic-field/msg33676/#msg33676)
I don't think classical EM is wrong it's incomplete. It does not account for movement of a charge through a Vector Potential field. Which the total time derivative (aka Material Derivative) does. In the end it's a more complete form of electrical induction but in your design I see no induction taking place so what am I missing.
Quote from: broli on November 20, 2018, 02:15:05 AM
I don't think classical EM is wrong it's incomplete. It does not account for movement of a charge through a Vector Potential field.
Yes it's all finally just about movement of electrostatic charges and electrostatic forces. A result of a dynamic process.
There is no classical induction, no time-varying B fields or line-cutting in this device. The B field exerts no torque on the rotor. The hypothetical longitudinal magnetic effect should manifest at the stator corners, where the corner near the rotor should push a nearby rotor current element along its length. This design is somewhat like a Faraday disk motor, but pushing a current element lengthwise rather than sideways, sort of a viscous drag effect between moving charges. In classical electromagnetics there is no longitudinal component, so the rotor should not turn. If you build it and it spins up, you have overturned classical theory.
Hmm//well if anyplace on the net is ripe to advance the understanding ..
its this place here and now.
Note to broli ..
did get a chance to speak with Smudge today ,turns out there are issues with his membership here will try to sort that with Stefan ... also some moderator discussions [NEW] happening here [hopefully]
for some new direction.
sending you a PM with Smudge contact [with his approval].
I truly hope your hard work and dedication bears fruit ,you are indeed a talented and wonderful fellow.the open source community is fortunate to have you.... and men like you.
with gratitude and respect
Chet K
The classical forces on moving conduction electrons are at right angles to the movement, but we observe the force on the lattice ions, on the material itself. Clearly the electrons get dragged sideways within the conductor where they then apply force to the ions via classical Coulomb attraction. If there is a longitudinal force why do people expect the lattice ions to move under that force? Classical voltage induction is a longitudinal force on the electrons, do we see that as a driving force on the conductor? No we see it as induced emf. Surely any longitudinal effect associated with electron current would merely show up as a change in conductivity, the induction would alter the voltage drop. Has anyone done a measurement across a stationary ring to see whether the resistance changes slightly when the magnets are placed inside the ring? Is that resistance asymmetric depending on the current direction? I think that is a better way to look for the longitudinal effect. Or stop looking for a motor effect, the heading of this thread says Marinov generator so try driving the ring and look for a voltage.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on November 21, 2018, 11:54:34 AM
The classical forces on moving conduction electrons are at right angles to the movement, but we observe the force on the lattice ions, on the material itself. Clearly the electrons get dragged sideways within the conductor where they then apply force to the ions via classical Coulomb attraction. If there is a longitudinal force why do people expect the lattice ions to move under that force? Classical voltage induction is a longitudinal force on the electrons, do we see that as a driving force on the conductor? No we see it as induced emf. Surely any longitudinal effect associated with electron current would merely show up as a change in conductivity, the induction would alter the voltage drop. Has anyone done a measurement across a stationary ring to see whether the resistance changes slightly when the magnets are placed inside the ring? Is that resistance asymmetric depending on the current direction? I think that is a better way to look for the longitudinal effect. Or stop looking for a motor effect, the heading of this thread says Marinov generator so try driving the ring and look for a voltage.
Smudge
Hi Smudge it's an honor to have you here finally. Your papers are part of my research on the magnetic vector potential as well so it's cool to have the source himself weigh in.
I totally agree with your statement and that is also why I choose "generator" as the topic's name. The motor effect was calculated by Wesley in his paper "The Marinov Motor, Notional Induction without a Magnetic B Field". This then was also referenced by others such as Phipps and you. However I discovered a flaw in Wesley's equation which lead him to believe there would be a torque. I attached the relevant piece in the paper.
First of all it does not make sense as to why a torque on the electrons would make the material itself spin instead of generating a spinning current as you also mention. Second of all he deduced the force for 1 quadrant (90 degrees) and assumed the other 3 quadrants would have an equal contribution, hence he multiplies his equation by a factor of four. And this is where the slip up happened. His reasoning was correct for the first and second quadrant however for the third and fourth quadrant the sign should be reversed, which would render total torque to be 0 if you integrated all around.
For good measure I also added the result of a simulation I'm working on to visualize the A field of magnets (or any circuit for that matter).
Hi Broli,
Yes your simulation of the A field for Marinov's two half magnets is spot on. I use FEMM for 2D magnetic simulations, and you can use the similarities relating conduction current (into the page in FEMM) and magnetic field around it to magnetic flux (into the page in your simulation) and the A field surrounding it where the equations are of similar form. Then pretend that FEMM current is actually flux and the FEMM H field lines become A field lines.
I would be most interested in any results you get for the Marinov generator, especially if (unlike my experiments) your magnetic circuit is closed. Then there can be no doubt that any induction does not come from classical flux cutting. Output voltage will always be low because of the low drift velocity, but other methods could be used to get greater electron velocity. It is possible to get faster velocity using surface electrons, and they can be produced simply by high voltage DC on an outer electrode ring so that the slip-ring is one plate of a charged capacitor. It is also possible to bunch those electrons and move the bunches around the (stationary) ring using the electrical analogue of the linear magnetic motor. This uses a sequence of small ferrite ring cores around the conductor each driven with AC but with a 90 degree phase advance between successive rings. The higher the frequency the greater the speed of the electron bunches. I think this could lead to a solid state version of the generator.
Smudge
Hey Smudge,
Indeed I have also used FEMM to "manipulate" it in showing something similar to an A field but be aware that the A field depends on 1/r whilst the B field FEMM produces has a 1/r² relation. I figured it would be easier to just code my own simulator as I also want to calculate the predicted voltage.
To get back to the corrected force drawing, do you agree with that analysis? Because the implication of this is that this would (should?) produce a voltage, see attached. Now if you go even one step further and analyze the hypothetical induced current it shows that it would have an ANTI lenz effect on the primary current. Hmmmm.
Quote from: TinselKoala on November 15, 2018, 01:19:42 AM
I have attempted to explain this device many times. Perhaps my explanations and descriptions of its behaviour have been too complicated, I don't know.
For an easily accessible description of some experiments, see Jeffrey Kooistra's articles in Mallove's old Infinite Energy Magazine. He called it the "Warlock's Wheel".
It is important to realize that this is a _current_ driven device, so have available a high current, low voltage source of DC power for your experiments. If you can supply 10-20 amps it should be sufficient to see all the effects in a well constructed apparatus.
Anyone experimenting with this device should strive to accomplish the following in the finished apparatus:
1. Make your apparatus so that all three elements are co-axial and free to rotate independently. The three elements being the magnet armature, the 'stator' ring, and the brush structure/power supply. Early explorations can use fixed "brush" contacts to the non-mobile ring to see how the magnets behave alone when current is injected into the ring.
2. The stator ring should be planar, not cylindrical as shown in the first drawing above. That is, something like a flat copper vacuum gasket (which are ideal for this use and readily available on Ebay.)
3. The brushes should be arranged so that they can make contact with the stator ring in two ways: Either on the outer edge of the flat ring, or on the INNER edge of the flat ring. Mercury, GalInStan, or similar liquid metal brushes will be best. It is this comparison that is the most revealing, and also the most unbelievable, and also the most neglected by researchers.
4. Preferably, the entire power supply including the brush structures should be also mounted coaxially and be free to rotate independently. You want to be able to see if there is a back reaction to the _brushes_.
5. Use some kind of remote control to turn the power supply on so that the apparatus isn't perturbed.
I used mercury brushes, two nine-volt batteries in parallel, and a simple laser-pointer actuated optical switch, along with a little logic circuitry, as my final build's power supply.
Marinov said to use a split cylinder magnet, with one half flipped and reattached. I simply used two cylinder magnets side by side NS and SN (on either side of the axis of course) with iron keepers connecting the ends. Kooistra glued his copper ring to a styrofoam cup and suspended it with a thread over his magnets, and used pools of mercury to make the brushes, and stuck feed wires in by hand. I think my own build of this is the most sophisticated I know about and is the only one capable of demonstrating all of the phenomena associated with this device. Unfortunately... it went missing when ISSO left the laboratory in SFO, and I haven't build another one.
I have however constructed a "Marinov Slab Motor" which simulates the one-turn ring with many turns of wire, and uses Hall effect commutation, and also... may not have an armature back reaction.
Quote
When set up properly, the ring and the magnets will both want to move when current is injected into the ring, in certain well defined ways. But it is these ways that are most interesting. Be sure to test with ring contacts on outer edge, and then compare with ring contacts on inner edge. The possible ring motions that can be seen are: driven in one direction or the other, and coasting freely. The possible magnet armature motions are: rotating to a position and locking there, and coasting freely. The directions of relative motion are important... and amazing.
Hi TinselKoala,
Thanks for the very clear description of how to build a functional Marinov's motor, and the advices!
So I understand why my setup in reply #2 couldn't give any effect, it was obviously too rough, by far not enough current and the question of sliding contacts is critical (it seems, even more than in the Faraday's disk in motor).
Like many, I am mainly interested in knowing whether the principle is explainable with current theories or whether something new is needed. Of course, before I think about it, I want to be sure of the facts that's why I tempted to build a simple duplication but I'm not good in mechanics.
You didn't say explicitly that your motor version worked, but I suppose so. Do you confirm this point and could you give details about related observations or measurements (speed, torque and so on)?
Quote from: broli on November 21, 2018, 03:19:45 PM
Hey Smudge,
Indeed I have also used FEMM to "manipulate" it in showing something similar to an A field but be aware that the A field depends on 1/r whilst the B field FEMM produces has a 1/r² relation.
I think you are muddling two aspects there. The H field (and therefore the B field) around an infinitely long conductor does not depend on 1/r
2. The closed integral of any circular H field line equals the current in the wire. That is identical to the A field around an infinitely long core carrying flux, its closed integral equals the flux in the core. That much misused 1/r
2 relationship applies to a fictional point magnetic pole. FEMM actually deduces the A field values from the current densities then uses those A values to get the B field.
QuoteTo get back to the corrected force drawing, do you agree with that analysis? Because the implication of this is that this would (should?) produce a voltage, see attached.
Yes I agree, and my slip-ring experiments gave me 3 millivolts.
QuoteNow if you go even one step further and analyze the hypothetical induced current it shows that it would have an ANTI lenz effect on the primary current. Hmmmm.
You are right to say Hmmmm. We are dabbling in a little used area of EM theory based on so called hidden momentum. Early researchers thought that charge q in a magnetic vector potential
A inherited an electro-dynamic momentum q
A and as we all know a change of momentum results in a force. Current travelling along the brushes approaching the slip-ring see rising
A at right angles to the drift velocity, no induction there. They then get accelerated as they pass from the brush onto the slip-ring. (That acceleration radiates an
E field and it is my contention that
E field induces voltage into the atomic current circulations (electron spins or orbits) that produce the magnetization. That is where the anomalous energy is accounted for.) On the slip-ring those electrons now move through the
A field pattern where they see changing A components along their (slip-ring) velocity hence obtaining the quadrant forces you show because their electro-dynamic momentum changes.
Another area of research that might interest you comes from
F = -d(q
A)/dt which by the product rule yields
F = -qd
A/dt or
F = -
Adq/dt. I am not aware of any work using that second possibility that suggests changing charge on the electrodes of a capacitor could result in a force.
Smudge
Hi Smudge and Broli,
In line with your ideas, I try to understand the situation in terms of a potential vector. I redrew the schematics with the potential vector and specified where there is a strong gradient A that the ring passes through. It is a spatial gradient. But from the point of view of an electron moving at a constant speed in the ring because of the current, the spatial gradient results in a time variation of A.
It is known that the temporal variation of the potential vector creates an electric field E=-∂A/∂t.
Imagine 2 electrons coming from the lower sliding contact, then separate, and each follows a different branch. The ring is assumed to be at rest. Considering the direction of A vector, each electron approaching the high gradient area sees an E field that is of opposite sign to the other. So one electron is accelerated when the other is slowed down. If the electron forces are transferred to the conductor's crystal lattice, then the resultant force is not zero and the ring must actually rotate.
It should be interesting to quantify the expected torque, but it is a tedious calculation.
Even if this principle is correct, I am not sure that a voltage can be measured according to Broli's proposal, because the field E=-∂A/∂t does not derive from a potential. Therefore along the measurement loop we will have the opposite effect that will cancel the one we want to see.
Finally, it is interesting to note that this principle leads to induce EMF on sections of a conductor and that these EMF are only felt by moving electrons, not by electrons at rest, because only their displacement can make them appear the spatial gradient of A as a time variation. I don't know if this idea could lead to design a simpler setup to produce the opposite effect where it is the mechanical rotation of the ring that would cause a voltage, or even a purely solid state setup that would only involve currents, both being experimentally easier than Marinov's motor. I think we have an interesting track.
Hi F6,
You have it exactly right so we are looking for proof that this induction really does exist. It needs someone to do the generator experiment using a driven slip-ring where the magnetic circuit is closed so there is no B field at the ring. If that develops a voltage then this can be taken further. My own experiments used small disc magnets near the brushes, and people will argue that what I measured was classical flux cutting induction. In case you haven't seen my paper it is attached here.
If this is real it opens up the possibility of using rolling contacts between contrarotating cylindrical parts, with some parts acting as a Faraday disc motor driven by low voltage high current and other parts acting as this Marinov generator, all connected in a feedback loop so as to self run. Shades of Searl's runaway system of magnets.
Smudge
Here are a few more papers written over the past decade in case they are of interest.
Smudge
Quote from: F6FLT on November 22, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
Hi Smudge and Broli,
In line with your ideas, I try to understand the situation in terms of a potential vector. I redrew the schematics with the potential vector and specified where there is a strong gradient A that the ring passes through. It is a spatial gradient. But from the point of view of an electron moving at a constant speed in the ring because of the current, the spatial gradient results in a time variation of A.
It is known that the temporal variation of the potential vector creates an electric field E=-∂A/∂t.
Spot on. Great to see others following along.
Quote from: F6FLT on November 22, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
If the electron forces are transferred to the conductor's crystal lattice, then the resultant force is not zero and the ring must actually rotate.
It should be interesting to quantify the expected torque, but it is a tedious calculation.
How so? In my previous post I showed the forces for each quadrant end up in a nill torque if you integrate all the way around. Even if this was not the case why would the conductor rotate? If we take the "established" (temporal) induction law (for example moving a magnet in front of a coil) we don't see the coil of wire start spinning around while current is being induced simultaneously do we? Wesley made a mistake in his torque deduction and this mistake went on without correction in other publications that cite it. In fact one paper (see attached) actually could not produce a torque which seems to be inline with the correct torque analysis I posted earlier.
Quote from: F6FLT on November 22, 2018, 08:51:32 AM
Even if this principle is correct, I am not sure that a voltage can be measured according to Broli's proposal, because the field E=-∂A/∂t does not derive from a potential. Therefore along the measurement loop we will have the opposite effect that will cancel the one we want to see.
This I don't get. To me this is like measuring the Hall voltage for a piece of material. The problem, as Smudge mentions, is that drift velocity is incredibly small for metals. To measure anything meaningful you will either need an amplifier to measure the microvolts, an expensive microvolt meter or you use a material that has a low enough charge carrier density just like Hall sensors use semiconductors to amplify the Hall voltage. Copper has a
charge carrier density of 8.5E28 while most semiconductor have a
charge carrier density TEN orders of magnitude smaller than this. So a potential solid state design could employ a material that has both a high charge carrier density and a low enough resistivity.
Here's a cool list of compound semi conductors and their specs: http://www.el-cat.com/III-V-wafers-products.htm (http://www.el-cat.com/III-V-wafers-products.htm)
Despite the fact that copper is not a good material choice to measure these low voltages I did a test. Sadly my cheap multimeter could not measure any voltage. It can supposedly read up to 0.1mV however I have no clue about its accuracy. As a control test I also tested the Hall voltage for a very thin strip of conductive copper tape, this also showed no Hall voltage implying my measurement device not being sensitive enough to pick up the microvolts involved. A quick spreadsheet calculation also shows that my meter is way below the sensitive required to measure this 5 micro volts.
Hi broli
You could use carbon fiber instead of copper:
https://pengyuping08.en.ec21.com/Carbon_Fiber_Wire--7261841.html
I bought some for past experiments. It is multi-stranded. A single strand can be removed and it has a high resistance. I had used it for a single wire transmission experiment (and it had burned out, a sign of a significant current...).
Practical if you want wire with enough resistance to be able to measure large potential differences.
Quote from: Smudge on November 22, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Here are a few more papers written over the past decade in case they are of interest.
Smudge
Thank you for the attached files. I agree with Cyril Smith on his third article which is the most related to the Marinov motor.
The first article asks an interesting question that I hadn't thought of before. It's good stuff.
Quote from: F6FLT on November 22, 2018, 03:38:28 PM
Thank you for the attached files. I agree with Cyril Smith on his third article which is the most related to the Marinov motor.
The first article asks an interesting question that I hadn't thought of before. It's good stuff.
Cyril Smith and Smudge are the same guy btw :)
Quote from: F6FLT on November 22, 2018, 03:37:01 PM
Hi broli
You could use carbon fiber instead of copper:
https://pengyuping08.en.ec21.com/Carbon_Fiber_Wire--7261841.html (https://pengyuping08.en.ec21.com/Carbon_Fiber_Wire--7261841.html)
I bought some for past experiments. It is multi-stranded. A single strand can be removed and it has a high resistance. I had used it for a single wire transmission experiment (and it had burned out, a sign of a significant current...).
Practical if you want wire with enough resistance to be able to measure large potential differences.
What's important here is high electron mobility, as far as I know Carbon has a poor electron mobility. Besides some exoctic materials like graphene, Indium Antimonide has the largest known mobility in any semi conductor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium_antimonide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium_antimonide)
Being a commercial product a wafer could perhaps be ordered and cut to the shape needed with laser or waterjet.
http://www.wafertech.co.uk/products/indium-antimonide-insb/ (http://www.wafertech.co.uk/products/indium-antimonide-insb/)
However it would probably be much easier to measure the voltage on the rotating version as Smudge already did in his paper. Honestly I have performed a similar experiment with similar results but I would rather redo it more correctly before I share the data.
Quote from: Smudge on November 22, 2018, 10:10:26 AM
Here are a few more papers written over the past decade in case they are of interest.
Smudge
Thank you. This is a Thanksgiving feast for the mind, filled with lots of that deee-licious fancy cypherin'. :)
Quote from: broli on November 22, 2018, 03:58:37 PM
Cyril Smith and Smudge are the same guy btw :)
I missed that, thanks. Fortunately, my review was positive! :D
Ok, i try to explain these things only by movement of charged particles. This looks like a different effect than induction. At first it looks like that it shouldn't do anything, just move electrons along the side (call it sidewise) of the rotating cylinder, parallel to its axis. But there is one more thing to consider, the electrons in the cylinder move pass the atom in the magnet. This means that they are not just moved sidewise, but just tilted to the side, when still moving forward. What that causes is that after passing the atom, the electrons in the cylinder will be longer affected by the repulsive force of the electron in the atom, than before passing the atom. That should mean that the summary force to the electron in the cylinder supposed to be in one direction. As this is a different effect than the induction, then there also should be no Lenz effect back. I don't know more about forces that there may be. You indeed found a puzzle where is the most difficult to see what happens.
I don't know what happens when the electrons are pushed to the edge of the cylinder. Maybe make this rotating thing a sphere instead of a cylinder, then maybe this tilting might be continuous. The electrons supposed to go then, through that sphere, somewhat like in a vortex.
Quote from: ayeaye on November 24, 2018, 11:40:39 AM
Ok, i try to explain these things only by movement of charged particles. This looks like a different effect than induction. At first it looks like that it shouldn't do anything, just move electrons along the side (call it sidewise) of the rotating cylinder, parallel to its axis. But there is one more thing to consider, the electrons in the cylinder move pass the atom in the magnet. This means that they are not just moved sidewise, but just tilted to the side, when still moving forward. What that causes is that after passing the atom, the electrons in the cylinder will be longer affected by the repulsive force of the electron in the atom, than before passing the atom. That should mean that the summary force to the electron in the cylinder supposed to be in one direction. As this is a different effect than the induction, then there also should be no Lenz effect back. I don't know more about forces that there may be. You indeed found a puzzle where is the most difficult to see what happens.
I don't know what happens when the electrons are pushed to the edge of the cylinder. Maybe make this rotating thing a sphere instead of a cylinder, then maybe this tilting might be continuous. The electrons supposed to go then, through that sphere, somewhat like in a vortex.
It's about the change the
charge particle sees in the A-field due to its own movement. Faraday's law of induction assumes that the charge particle is stationary while the A field is changing whereas the complete equation also considers the change of the A field due to the movement of the charged particle. We know this happens because when we move a coil to or from a magnet an EMF is induced. However this change in A-field can happen in all directions including longitudinal to the charge particle's movement as you have in the previously shown setup.
I'm currently extending my simulation software to show the induced E field due to the rotation of charged particles around these type of magnets.
I think it's just said in the other words what i said. Because i believe that this is all only about movement of charged particles, in the atom and in the wire, cylinder or whatever. I think that there is really no magnetic field or any other special field, these are only emergent dynamic phenomena of the movement of charged particles and forces between them. Yes one thing coincides as you explain it or as i see it. It is indeed because of the movement of charged particles in the cylinder, without it there were no such effect. But i don't want to think only in the terms of magnetic fields, or other fields, without understanding what really happens. Like magnetic field, likely some time someone decided, we don't really understand what happens there, so let's call it magnetic field.
What i still cannot understand, it supposed to create opposite currents in both halves of the cylinder if the thing is completely symmetric, or not? How then can there be one current not zero, i still cannot quite comprehend it.
And then one heretic question, what if we don't rotate the cylinder, but let just a small current through it, might it then amplify the current? I don't know because i don't know everything that happens there, but as much i see it so far, i yet don't see why that cannot happen. Movement of charged particles, does it matter whether it's caused by rotation or by current? I'm sorry, that may well be naive, it is just as much as i can think by the limited way i see it so far.
There may be a caveat though, charged particles. In that there need to be many charged particles. In the wire there may not be many. Like i have this coil, a few turns, and a hard drive magnet on it, the one they say in Youtube to be overunity device. This is somewhat similar to Marinov, the magnet is oriented the same way at least. There is no voltage on it, there is 1 mV on me. But if there is a circuit, me, that coil, and the voltage meter, it measures 74 mV on me and the coil in series, and this is constant. Where does it come from, why does that coil with magnet increase voltage so much? I guess one possibility is, i am a great source of electrons, and when there are many electrons in the circuit, such things might generate current. So to warn you, don't expect much, unless you maybe include in the circuit something, that contains a lot of electrons.
Well boys and girls. Perhaps for the first time in history here is the calculated induced E field caused by a rotating velocity field around a split face magnet. I must say that I have stared at this for hours and still can't get enough of it. More exploration to come but I bet this will keep the mind occupied for the meantime.
Notice the lorentz force in such uniform loop is 0 everywhere :) .
Also might add that this explains and shows eddy currents quite nicely.
And the double disc magnet version.
Thanks for the visualizations, Broli.
I ask the problem on a physics forum. Here is a proposed approximate solution of the torque we can expect.
To simplify, suppose that the variation of A is linear on the path and equal to ∆A on one side, -∆A on the other side.
∆S = π*R (half-perimeter that is covered on each side)
Assume
I = Q/T I current, T travel time of charges
v = π*R/T v charges speed
v = I/Q * π*R
dA/dt ≅ v ∆A/∆S = I/Q * πR * (± ∆A/πR) = ± ∆A * I/Q
The force on the right:
F=Q*E = -Q * dA/dt = - Q * (+ ∆A * I/Q) = - ∆A * I = M*a (right)
The force on the left:
F=Q*E = - Q * dA/dt = - Q * (- ∆A * I/Q) = + ∆A I = -M*a (left)
It is thus found a torque of intensity: 4 * R * ∆A * I.
This torque depends on the intensity of the magnet (which gives A and ∆A), the radius of the ring, and the intensity of the current.
It's an approximation but it should give us the order of magnitude, provided that this torque which applies to the electrons is transferred to the ring.
After seeing the simulation data my previously corrected version was wrong. After carefully analysing it intuitively the direction in Wesley's paper was in fact correct and is also showing in my simulator. However as Smudge points out this force should induce an EMF on the freely mobile electrons not a Torque. See below simulation and illustration.
This has a huge implication as we can have a stationary coil with many windings. And if we apply a current to it and bring it at the right location this current will get amplified due to the longitudinal E-field over the closed path Integral.
This is the mind boggling setup that induces a DC emf in the direction of current flow in a coil which goes around the magnet in an arc and folds back the same path. This is all according to the change of magnetic vector potential experienced by the electron moving around in such wire.
Can we build it? The thing is due to the small EMF's (micro volts /turn) it will need a significant amount of turns. However if this is correct you only need an initial current source and then current would grow due to the EMF which could cause a chain effect because as the current grows the drift velocity increases, which in turn increases the E-field which in turn increases the current.
I think you have to consider not only the change in the A field component along the semi-circles of wire around the magnets but also around the bends joining the two semi-circles. As drift velocity is the same everywhere you find that the induction around those sharp bends completely nulls the overall induction.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on November 26, 2018, 10:22:12 AM
I think you have to consider not only the change in the A field component along the semi-circles of wire around the magnets but also around the bends joining the two semi-circles. As drift velocity is the same everywhere you find that the induction around those sharp bends completely nulls the overall induction.
Smudge
Smudge very good point indeed I have not considered that.
However if you consider this region and draw a small semi circle there and follow the change in A-Field around this path. From the charge's point of view the A-Field was at max and then starts decreasing as the charge moves along the path. When it exists it's at the A-Field's min (from its point of view). so A-field going from a max value to a min value is negative rate of change thus a positive E-field (E= MINUS dA/dt).
Or have I flopped somewhere?
EDIT: I guess I did flop. I was considering the wrong direction. Attached the correction. At Least the folded setup is indeed a no go as all the EMF gain is canceled out in that small u turn.
I made what i call wrapped magnet, on the figure below.
I took a hard drive magnet, wrapped it with insulating tape, then with aluminum foil, then again with insulating tape, to hold it tightly together.
Measured the current between both ends, it was zero. Measured the current through my body, holding the probes with both hands, the current was zero. Measured the current through my body and an aluminum foil in series, my body became a battery, the current was 0.07 uA. Measured the current through my body and the wrapped magnet in series, the current was 0.22 uA, almost stable.
Measured the current through the wrapped magnet and a big metal object in series, the current was zero. Made a circuit, a battery, a 5 k resistor, and wrapped magnet, the wrapped magnet generated no emf.
So how do you explain these results? My one guess is, my body is massive, and provides electrons, and the wrapped magnet really amplifies current. But this is only one guess. One may try with another objects that may supply electrons, such as ground.
My idea was, in that aluminum cylinder, the magnet creates vortex of electrons.
I've tried to measure a possible voltage difference between the two branches.
Each branch consists of 2 resistors of 120K in series, the two largest being placed in the area of the strongest vector potential gradient, the other two being used to balance the bridge.
The magnets are neodynium magnets from old SCSI hard disks.
The HP3468A multimeter allows stable measurements up to ten µV.
When the magnets are removed, or the poles are switched: no difference in voltage.
I have no explanation for this negative result, except that the effect, if any, is below 10µV in my configuration.
I took this picture before I realized that the magnets were not correctly positioned, but the same negative result after correction (90° rotation).
Hi F6FLT
Thanks for the contribution. The problem with the solid state setup is that you are pretty much relaying on the drift velocity of a material which for copper can be a few mm/s. At this rate the rate of change of the potential vector is very low. Compared to a conventional generator where the magnetic potential is flipping intensity 100 times per second in front of a coil that has N turns. This is quite a big difference. The challenge is to find ways to amplify this small effect, if it's possible we would be sucking energy directly from permanent magnets and see if they truly are permanent 8) .
There are three solutions to amplify this.
1. Use a material that has a much higher drift velocity than copper, For instance the semi conductor Indium Antimonide can have an electron mobility 10000x higher than copper. This is also why almost every Hall sensor uses a semi conductor sample because the very high electron mobility amplifies the lorentz force considerably. This option is pretty expensive as you need to order a wafer and perhaps also laser cut it.
2. Using multiple turns somehow. So far this proves impossible as can be seen any "return" causes the oppesite effect.
3. Use mechanical motion to move the electrons at high speeds. This method is as shown on the very first post of this thread. The advantage is that this is very easy and much cheaper to test. Both rotational and linear variants can be build very similar to Smudge's conveyor belt idea.
Here are some other key points after playing with the simulation
1. there can be a gap between the magnets, this does not affect the intensity of the induced E-field that much
2. Disc must have a hole in it to prevent eddy currents as these induced E field are the cause of eddy currents to begin with
3. Brush points do not need to touch the outermost sides, they can be at the location where the ring and magnet's edge "intersect" as this gives the max possible E field
Quote from: broli on November 26, 2018, 12:26:09 PM
...
There are three solutions to amplify this.
1. Use a material that has a much higher drift velocity than copper, For instance the semi conductor Indium Antimonide can have an electron mobility 10000x higher than copper. This is also why almost every Hall sensor uses a semi conductor sample because the very high electron mobility amplifies the lorentz force considerably. This option is pretty expensive as you need to order a wafer and perhaps also laser cut it.
Hi Broli,
I'm aware of the problem of the drift velocity, it's a critical point, that's why I placed the biggest 120K resistors in the maximum gradient area. The drift velocity is Vd=µ.E with µ the mobility. Across the resistor, we have half the generator voltage, that's why I put resistors, otherwise with copper wires only, E would be very small (less than 1 mV). So I was expecting Vd to be thousands times higher in the resistor than in the copper wire.
Quote
2. Using multiple turns somehow. So far this proves impossible as can be seen any "return" causes the oppesite effect.
I agree. It's the same problem as Faraday disk or homopolar generators in general.
Quote
3. Use mechanical motion to move the electrons at high speeds. This method is as shown on the very first post of this thread. The advantage is that this is very easy and much cheaper to test. Both rotational and linear variants can be build very similar to Smudge's conveyor belt idea.
This should work but in mechanics, I'm the problem, I'm not good at it :(. I'll try to calculate Vd first, to know if I should have seen something or not in my setup, and then prospect for other materials like Indium Antimonide that you suggested.
You bring up a good point about resistors. In particular carbon. I did not do enough research into this to explore carbon based materials to amplify the drift velocity. I know graphene has a very high electron mobility. I don't know about graphite. I guess a good test is to perform a Hall voltage test. If it is in the mV range near a B field it would be very good.
A setup that could use such material would be one where a high mobility material would leave between two magnets. As the A field decreases longitudinally the charge would be pushed in the same direction of motion. Alternatively this can be done mechanically by a timing belt and a stepper motor.
It's actually surprising to see how cheap a graphene sheet can be these days: http://aliexpi.com/NVf (http://aliexpi.com/NVf)
I understood the measurement problem last night. It is not an experimental question, but a question of principle.
It is impossible to measure anything with the voltmeter connected between the two mid-points of the two branches. The result is null because the same rule that makes us see a potential difference between these two points by applying the effect of the vector potential along the measured circuit, also makes us see an equal potential difference but in opposite direction along the voltmeter measurement circuit.
It is a general measurement problem when a voltmeter is part of a loop through which there is a magnetic flux, or along which an induced electric field appears from the vector potential. It is no longer at all like measuring potentials in a simple network of resistors and generators.
Nevertheless, the question of drift velocity must be maintained. It reminded me of articles on how to detect the vector potential far from its source.
A plasma such as a neon bulb is used: a current flows in the opposite direction in the two branches of the lamp, with high drift velocity electrons. The opposite effect of A on the electrons of each branch causes a measurable phase difference between the two branches. See the attached file below "Confirmation Measurements of Vector Potential Waves". This article follows two theoretical papers which also contain descriptions of interesting experiments that have been done, and are within reach of non-physicists but well equipped in the RF field. These two other papers are here:
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4816100
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217984911026024
(Use sci-hub (https://sci-hub.tw/) to get full articles from the DOI number).
This is a high frequency varying vector potential, but the idea may be adaptable when, as here, we are looking to detect a spatially varying vector potential. I'm thinking about it now.
.
Interesting read. However the attached paper concludes that they can't confirm nor deny the existence of the vector potential.
But indeed a CCFL gas discharge tube could also be highly desirable method to test the effect of this longitudinal induction force. Electrons can reach speeds of 100,000m/s in these tubes. Doing some research I found a paper where the hall voltage is measured in such tube. Since the hall voltage and this longitudinal force would be in the same range. This is quite a significant voltage.
The cool part is that the high voltage AC that usually drives these tubes has no effect on. The electron will be accelerated in either direction AS LONG as the tube is kept on the same side. An interesting test is to check if the voltage would drop if the tube is put on the other side!
EDIT: Infact the plasma CCFL does not even have to be curved at all. Analyzing the induced E field for uniform movement from left to right shows a longitudinal E-field as well (which makes sense).
Quote from: broli on November 27, 2018, 07:16:46 AM
Interesting read. However the attached paper concludes that they can't confirm nor deny the existence of the vector potential.
Hi Broli,
It is very difficult to conduct such an experiment because there is a terrible pollution by the classical hertzian wave. I also tried at 144 and 435 MHz, and failed to get a conclusive result: any mm of conductor, for example the lamp terminals, act as an antenna and disturb the measurement with signals much stronger than those expected from the potential vector.
When working with RF frequencies, everything must be shielded, coaxial cables of excellent quality, and the slightest leakage is catastrophic if the measured effects are weak.
Nevertheless what gave credibility to Zimmerman's second paper was the phase shift of the signals in each branch of the lamp. This phase shift is impossible as an effect of the classical hertzian wave. Without this information, I would not have attached any value to his paper. It's a pity that KJ6VW couldn't confirm it.
Quote
But indeed a CCFL gas discharge tube could also be highly desirable method to test the effect of this longitudinal induction force. Electrons can reach speeds of 100,000m/s in these tubes. Doing some research I found a paper where the hall voltage is measured in such tube. Since the hall voltage and this longitudinal force would be in the same range. This is quite a significant voltage.
Very interesting track to detect the effect of A because we avoid a current measurement loop. I'll think about it.
I tell such thing needs more electrons. I don't know why, but such thing seems to need a lot of electrons. I may guess that tilting the movement of electrons may happen better at low speed. It creates the vortex of electrons better at low speed. Many many years ago I tested a circuit with a microcontroller in it, and this was on the territory of a high voltage substation. There was so much interference that it did weird things, started to run code from an arbitrary addresses, etc. What helped to decrease the interference, was adding more metal to the ground of the circuit, and it worked well. This provided electrons, and with more electrons, everything seems to work much better.
The more you think about it the easier the concept gets and it pretty much distills to the core essence of breaking symmetry, ie having the charge carriers move (much) faster in one portion of your closed loop than the other, that is all there is to it.
Perhaps as a reminder to some I would like to add that all the designs I shared and potential build plans fall under open source hardware license and any patent derived from these would be rendered void because of this.
In that regard, attached is another simple design with a single magnet. I currently have a huge 100mm diameter magnet, all I need is some graphene sheet to test this concept. But apparently laser induced graphene from Kapton is also a dirt cheap method to get this material.
Hi all,
I assume this thread is discussing my MS thesis, available at https://skemman.is/bitstream/1946/29521/3/KOK_MagneticVectorPotential.pdf
Its good to know of others pondering these fundamental concepts.
Throughout the years, many have thought along these lines.
As pointed out in the top post of the thread,
equation 5.11 on page 51. expresses the convective derivative of the magnetic vector potential
in a set of terms, each relevant to a specific geometry.
I am writing a paper to illustrate these term better graphically.
Seeing that the main theme of this forum is the quest for over-unity,
we must keep in mind the validity of the second law of thermodynamics.
There is the loophole of population inversion, which remarkably might hold ground for nuclear spins.
The last chapter of the thesis covers this a little bit.
Our quest however is most likely that of transduction, converting one form of energy to electrical energy.
The sources could be ambient heat, nuclear spins, ELF signals, the vacuum itself or another unknown phenomena.
It is easy to get lost in experimental setups and mathematics if the ground plan is unclear.
Setting out for a specific energy source might be a more fruitful way of exploration in this field.
But let us keep on searching and hopefully stumble upon a fresh way of transduction.
Warm regards from Iceland!
-Klaus
Just Bumping this Topic, I know a few open source fellows are preparing and pondering methods to investigate .
As mentioned in this topic , TinselKoala had seen things which were very weird in well built versions and variants ]years ago].
nothing but gratitude for him sharing that here.
To Note member F6FLT is presently sharpening the tools and preparing some experiments
Smudge also has some simple idea which TinMan has agreed to attempt when he gets the time .
Here it seems the boundary between what is possible and what _may_ be possible can actually be experimented with on the "everymans" work bench, the well prepared "everyman" that is.
IMO doing real science.... peering into the "Whatifs"
A privilege these men are here .....
men Like broli and others ... a true gift !!
respectfully Chet K
PSand welcome to Klaus from this open source community [sorry so late