Hi Guys, I'm new here ;) and would like to suggest a new category for 'free energy' generators a quick (rather long read) of it's nature http://www.rexresearch.com/kinchelo/kinche~1.htm
simple experiment:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/farhom.htm
Homopolar (Faraday) Generators has been known for 150 years and is very simple, see links, and is capable of 200 to 300% overunity. Most of the time, it generates low voltages 1 to 30 volts but with very high current.
N-machines do not work over 100 % efficiency.
This was all well worked out during the 80s and 90s.
I have visited Bruce de Palma in 1987 and had good cobntact with PSITRONICS,
who had tried all things and put 200.000 DM into machines and never got
over around 100 % with an error rate of +-5 %.
The Kinchelo report seems to be flawed. Also only incremental efficiencies are compared.
The brushes have a nonlinear resistance, that is why these reports are flawed or wrong conclusions
are drawn from it.
The N-machines are a "dead horse".
Regards, Stefan.
Hello,
Quote
N-machines do not work over 100 % efficiency.
That's true, but they can deliver high current! Maybe useful for electrolysis!
Greetings
Quote from: hartiberlin on December 01, 2005, 04:31:24 AM
N-machines do not work over 100 % efficiency.
This was all well worked out during the 80s and 90s.
I have visited Bruce de Palma in 1987 and had good cobntact with PSITRONICS,
who had tried all things and put 200.000 DM into machines and never got
over around 100 % with an error rate of +-5 %.
The Kinchelo report seems to be flawed. Also only incremental efficiencies are compared.
The brushes have a nonlinear resistance, that is why these reports are flawed or wrong conclusions
are drawn from it.
The N-machines are a "dead horse".
Regards, Stefan.
The N-machine might be a 'dead horse', but I believe that the Faraday disk generator (homopolar generator) holds the best solution and opportunity to produce electricity of any method now available. It induces current constantly, as opposed to a standard alternator that only produces pulses of power. I am working on designing a method to possibly greatly enhance the ability of the Faraday disk generator. It appears to be feasible, so far, but is only in the design stage. I will release more if I end up building and testing it. But that is all I can say about it for now.
Liberty
Very good Liberty!. This topic has needing a revival.
The Faraday Disk (the primitive version of generator homopolar) was the first electric generador being replaced by the alternating current system we use today invented by Nikola Tesla. Paradoxally also Nikola Tesla was the first to say that back-torque may be artfully reduced to much less than a classically-figured level on a Faraday Disk machine. Here the document written by Tesla: http://www.stardrivedevice.com/Tesla_notes.html
It is interesting that still today the physics are looking for a satisfactory explanation, as this very good paper from the University of Maryland that strongly suggests the real explanation may lie within the purview of Special Relativity: http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
What think you about this experiment?
One resistive load connected to disk and rotating together.
Note that no brushes are required and no relative movement between electric parts.
The temperature of the resistance might be measured by Thermography. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography)
I can't find a similar experiment on Internet.
The US Navy is using them in its
new class of warship:
http://www.ga.com/atg/homo.php
Quote from: penguin hood on July 01, 2006, 07:35:58 AM
Very good Liberty!. This topic has needing a revival.
The Faraday Disk (the primitive version of generator homopolar) was the first electric generador being replaced by the alternating current system we use today invented by Nikola Tesla. Paradoxally also Nikola Tesla was the first to say that back-torque may be artfully reduced to much less than a classically-figured level on a Faraday Disk machine. Here the document written by Tesla: http://www.stardrivedevice.com/Tesla_notes.html
It is interesting that still today the physics are looking for a satisfactory explanation, as this very good paper from the University of Maryland that strongly suggests the real explanation may lie within the purview of Special Relativity: http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
What think you about this experiment?
One resistive load connected to disk and rotating together.
Note that no brushes are required and no relative movement between electric parts.
The temperature of the resistance might be measured by Thermography. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography)
I can't find a similar experiment on Internet.
Hi Penguin Hood,
By the way, the penguin picture is very original, I like it.
To answer your question, I think that relative motion from the point of power draw to the magnetic field is necessary in order to cause electron flow from a Faraday disk (homopolar generator). My guess is that no power would flow to the resistive load spinning with the generator.
I am working on designing a way to make a homopolar generator produce a much higher voltage output (making it much more useable) while maintaining high current from one device. It is untested, but I think that it will work, (at least it works in my head at this point). ;)
Liberty
Thanks Liberty for give your viewpoint.
Unlike all other dynamos, the homopolar generador cannot be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction because the magnetic field is stacionary. Moreover, the circuit in the Faraday disc is parallel to the magnetic flux vector and therefore encloses no magnetic flux.
Instead, the Lorentz force law is used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. Which prompts the question, "velocity relative to what?". Seems that the correct interpretation of the velocity of the electron is that it is relative to the static parts of the machine, which are the sliding contacts and the circuit to which they are connected... as you said before.
Penguin Hood... another Tesla fan ;)
I would say to an enterprising man....Read the works of Edward Leedskalnin...then go and read that Tesla article on Faraday discs....
There is no such thing as electricity.....it is magnets.
I tell you the truth....there is a whole new theory in the above mentioned works....and it has nothing to do with electrons.
To make magnetic currents from a single wire, the wire must be placed so that the magnets are going from the center to the outside or ends of the wire...and both north and south pole individual magnets....they are so small...they can pass through anything.
When they run side by side in the same direction, they are not attracted to each other.
The magnets can only run against each other!!!! Contradiction....i think not.
When a large solid mass is put in an induction furnace, it is easier to melt than many small iron flakes....When the iron flakes are in the furnace then they throw out magnetism at their edges and it is wasted, so they melt at the bottom and can easily form a crust on top of the furnace. If a crust is formed then the center will begin to superheat. At this point the crust must be fractured to vent the gasses formed underneath.....so you see that our Earth is the same...or the Earth is subject to the same forces as an electric induction furnace.....that's why we need volcanoe's....
Since the Earth has many types of matter, it has a large crust....but it still needs venting....
In the southern hemisphere the N pole magnets are going up, and the S pole magnets are going down...In the northern hemisphere it is the opposite......
The magnets are the base of everything.
Lenz's law is incomplete in its descriptons.
The works first mentioned will refine it.
Quote from: scotty1 on July 07, 2006, 08:12:58 PM
I would say to an enterprising man....Read the works of Edward Leedskalnin...then go and read that Tesla article on Faraday discs....
There is no such thing as electricity.....it is magnets.
I tell you the truth....there is a whole new theory in the above mentioned works....and it has nothing to do with electrons.
To make magnetic currents from a single wire, the wire must be placed so that the magnets are going from the center to the outside or ends of the wire...and both north and south pole individual magnets....they are so small...they can pass through anything.
When they run side by side in the same direction, they are not attracted to each other.
The magnets can only run against each other!!!! Contradiction....i think not.
When a large solid mass is put in an induction furnace, it is easier to melt than many small iron flakes....When the iron flakes are in the furnace then they throw out magnetism at their edges and it is wasted, so they melt at the bottom and can easily form a crust on top of the furnace. If a crust is formed then the center will begin to superheat. At this point the crust must be fractured to vent the gasses formed underneath.....so you see that our Earth is the same...or the Earth is subject to the same forces as an electric induction furnace.....that's why we need volcanoe's....
Since the Earth has many types of matter, it has a large crust....but it still needs venting....
In the southern hemisphere the N pole magnets are going up, and the S pole magnets are going down...In the northern hemisphere it is the opposite......
The magnets are the base of everything.
Lenz's law is incomplete in its descriptons.
The works first mentioned will refine it.
scotty1, could you please elaborate on your description above regarding the magnets and the wire? Is there a simple experiment one can do to see what it is you are saying? Sounds very interesting, and I would like to understand it completely.
Regards,
z_p_e
What Scotty is saying is true both he and I have done simple experiments with magnets and proved this concept.
That is why I am able to make some headway with magnetic power.
All the wire testing is from Ed Leedskalnin's notes.....
Ed Leedskalnin said that his best machine uses the winding, or rotation to increase the strength of the permanent magnets......
I have a coil with an iron core and the coil is put in a N/S position. I make the N end of the core a N polarity by running current in the wire.....Now i place a steel tube around the coil and notice that the N end of the tube is a South polarity.
Each polarity is made by the way the currents are running in the wire. The currents are running in a right hand twist and the wire becomes a magnet itself.
Whenever the currents stop then there is no pressure in the wire and magnets from the air jump onto the wire....As they do they become elongated and run in the wire when the pressure is raised again.....though others jump out of the wire due to centrifugal force and crowding......
Light is the product of putting something in the magnets way....and pushing many through it.....It is not the fastest thing.
QuoteEach polarity is made by the way the currents are running in the wire. The currents are running in a right hand twist and the wire becomes a magnet itself.
Are you saying the wire that you refer to (mentioned twice above) is the steel tube around the coil?
z_p_e
Ok..i'll use my PMH to demonstrate.....
(//)
I have marked the poles of the cores and tubes (actual steel pipes)
All the poles are caused by the way the currents run in the copper coil wire.
If 1 end of the tube be joined to the core, then you have a stronger electromagnet still.
Interesting to note, my pmh can sustain its own weight even with the steel pipes on it......indefinately!
The keeper is a laminated transformer core.
I don't remember where I got these pics from, but it looks a lot like the item in your last post. As I recall, the description of its capability to store the energization indefinately, also sounds very familiar.
z_p_e
Yes..that is Matt....we share a web site together...
Here is my latest addition to it
//http://leedskalnin.com/Magneticinductionclip.html
Hope you like it ;D You will need to turn up your volume...sorry about that.
Scotty!
Scotty,
Very interesting stuff on your website. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of descriptions however, especially about the video clips of your experiments.
Was there a magnet on the ruler in the clip showing intermittent lighting of the LED? What was the setup?
Do you have a schematic of your PMH, and of the induction experiment? Why was there an iron wire winding on the coil as well?
Regards,
z_p_e
Hi Scotty,
Thanks for the very interesting postings indeed. Got questions too:
1) Does the U shaped core of your PMH become perpetually magnetized after doing some tests with it? Would you check it? (I mean the U shape core may become kinda horseshoe magnet if the core is able to keep magnetism.)
2) This U shaped core is a normal soft iron rod?
3) The coils on the U shaped core are wound with normal enamelled copper wire, right? No iron wire on it?
4) Regarding your PMH: you close the U shaped core with the laminated keeper, then switch on the electric current with polarities shown in your picture, then you switch off the current and the keeper remains at the ends of the U shaped core, what is more the keeper needs outside mechanical energy to be separated from the U core? Is that all correct I understand?
Maybe too many questions, sorry for that.
Regards
Gyula
Ok...with the Led on the ruler...the ruler was sitting on my PMH as it was running my motor....so no keeper..just an electromagnet pulsing alternately, but only slowly, maybe 3htz....
The schematic of the PMH is on our site....
My U bar is mild steel so it does retain magnetism, but it goes away if i leave it for a week or so.
Coils are 1500 turns of 16g copper enameled wire...
Once the keeper is locked on, yes, it needs much mechanical force to pull it off..if you pull it straight off...if you twist it, it takes less force of course.
When the magnets go in the PMH from the battery, then they start to orbit, and so long as the orbit is not broken, they will never stop. When the keeper is pulled off, those magnets which came out of the battery will come out of the coils and can be used for other purposes.....even after one year.....
The induction test is a trick i learn't......I've put up a drawing with the clip now!!!
you must remember that the magnets come out of a wire both above and below...if you have a conductor there.....magnets run better in iron than copper...
You see in that test i got 14v, but with a smaller coil arrangement i get less. This would mean with a bigger setup i could get more....
Whatever polarity of magnets you send out..the other kind is coming back to you.
It is similar to Tesla's transmitter....he said he could send a single polarity to the stepup coil via the primary...When those few primary windings are pulsed then the magnets come out of each side of the wire and effectivley divide the secondary into 2 polarities...1/2 going to ground the other in the air...when divided in this way the magnets need a path for closure of the loop, and will gain pulling power as the opposite magnets come towards them...because the winding in your car coil is thin, the magnets cannot pass through with force, so they use speed to run in the wire....In the case of Tesla, the magnets must go around the Earth for closure, and did so with great speed.
470,000 kilometers per second......faster than light ;)
Hi Scotty,
Thanks for your replies, especially for the drawing.
I have some more questions because I find your tests interesting:
1) Have you tried loading the 14V output DC voltage with a small incandescent torch lamp or any similar load? I am affraid of you are getting microampere currents only... I mean loading the 14V both with the 9V supply + wave gen on and then off. The best would be if you would pull out the 9V supply completely from the mains and then check for the loadability of the 14V. I have often been tricked by the mains + earth leakage somehow...
2) Regarding the U bar, you say it retains magnetism and goes away only in a week or so: Doesn't it mean that you "simply" made a temporary horseshoe magnet from the mild steel U bar by switching on the current into the 2 x 1500 turns of copper wire and this explains why a mechanical force is needed for the locked keeper to separate? What is the "extra catch" here?
Many thanks again for sharing your findings.
Gyula
Hehehe......you see i wrote....it's a trick i learn't....
All the voltage is from the mains gremlins.....they get into all my tests so i thought i'd show people how it works....it can run a small load like LED but that's all...
I do see however that i could induce alot more with a good setup, and store the energy.
The main test i was doing was with the coil with 3 windings.....In a normal coil with an iron core, the core only gets 1/2 of the magnets it could get from the coil wire..the other 1/2 is wasted as it goes on the outside of the coil wire...
The (pmh) only has an extra catch if you believe that there is 2 magnetic particles that govern all matter......
"All that has to be done is to start the North and South pole individual magnets in an orbit and they will never stop" Edward Leedskalnin.. "It demonstrates how all magnets are made" E.L "It (the pmh) has little power but could be made stronger by making bigger dimensions" E.L....
"U shaped magnets have a broken orbit, but under the proper conditions, it is permanent." E.L
;)
Hey,
Did anyone try putting two perpetual motion holders together and energize them at the same time?
Mike
A previous post by someone who visited Bruce said that the "N" machine was a 'dead horse' and did not achieve over unity.
Bruce claimed that it was possible to achieve over unity with the "N" machine. Here is a quote from a popular site:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/centrifuge.htm
"On the basis of his above discoveries, dePalma invented his 'N-Machine', which has over 330% efficiency, i.e. it produced 230% of free energy, in independent tests!"
I spent about a week with Bruce in 1991 and then about 6 weeks with him in April and May of 1992. The month of May we (Bruce, Andrew and myself) were in Australia. Interestingly enough, we left LA International airport the 3rd day of the LA Riots. Was odd seeing all those plumes of smoke from burning buildings...
Attached is a picture showing Bruce, Andrew, myself (on the right with the "Indiana" hat on - I still have that hat and light jacket). The two in front are Claudia and Paul. We stayed at Paul and Claudia's house for several days before continuing on our 'journey'. BTW, the picture below has never before been previously released to the public, it is from my private album. The picture was taken in Brisbane, Australia. Even though it was May, it was actually the cooler season for Australia - hence the extra clothes we had on.
Bruce had different concepts in regards to the physics of our universe. He specifically believed that energy IS created and detroyed and does not change form. That energy can be derived from the stresses caused in space, such as those caused with magnets. Simply put, when you cause a stress in space, energy is there to be released, used, etc.
The biggest problem with the final "N" machine built, was that it was constructed with magnets that were hexagonal in shape. Simply put, the magnet disc (or pie as it was referred too) was actually a conglomeration of hexagonal shaped magnets that were glued together. The 'problem' was that at higher RPMs (which is important to achieve) the unit had vibration problems and further acceleration of the unit was not possible without the possibility of the unit tearing itself apart. The "N" machine by all means DOES produce electrical energy. EVEN IF the "N" machine does not achieve over-unity, then a very important consideration is that the "N" machine shows a barely measureable slow down when a load is applied. In the demonstration I witnessed, a rather large (about the size of my body) resitive load was applied to the generator and while it produced a measureable slow down (induction I beleive?) it was not significant and compared to coil-based generators is significant in it's efficiency (at the very least).
Today, you can purchase neodymium magnets of various shapes and, if manufactured well, should be quite balanced and higher RPMs would be achieveable - hence the test for "over-unity" is now possible - whereas it really was not when Bruce built his last prototype. The data collected with the final unit had shown the potential for over-unity. There was not reason to expect a plateau of the energy being drawn from space.
Even if you only considered the amount of energy IN space - emitted only by the sun - there exists incredible amounts to be harnessed. This isn't really even considering the possibility of zero point energy concepts.
At the time I wasn't as interested in the "N" machine as I was more interested in 'solid state' power supplies (think Moray, Radiant Energy, cold fusion, zero point, etc..). However, the "N" machine should not be thought of as a 'dead horse'. The "N" machine is doing something that other devices could do, it's just something that people can relate to easier.
Sadly, Bruce died several years later in New Zealand. I came back the US about the time Andrew and Bruce decided to go to New Zealand. I fully expected to travel to New Zealand to see them again and received several more pictures with requests to get my butt back over there. I regret not making it back sooner. I believe Andrew made his way back to the US and I'm not entirely sure what he is up too these days. I hope he too is doing well.
Best Regards,
Robert - aka Neologic
Hi all,
I just discovered Tesla had patented a design for a unipolar generator. May have been missed all these years because it is titled "Dynamo Electric Machine".
Look up patent #406,968.
He cleverly ganged two with reverse polarity together with steel belt, the belt eliminating the need for brushes at the outer high speed edge, with the power output only at the slow moving inner brushes.
Tishatang
www.keelynet.com/tesla/00406968.pdf
That's amazing Tesla built such a machine so long ago. What blows me away is Tesla "free energy" electric car. It is so fascinating. Tesla's nephew, Petar Savo, swears by it.
A few links:
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslcar.htm
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm
http://waterpoweredcar.com/teslascar.html
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Tesla's_Pierce-Arrow
scroll down to "Tesla's Electric Car"
http://rexresearch.com/feg/feg2.htm
Telsa's letter about the car:
http://www.nuenergy.org/rare/tesla_car.htm
Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tesla+%22Electric+Car%22+Pierce+Arrow&btnG=Google+Search
Paul Lowrance
Well, I can't tell if one can get OU out of a setup like this but I've tried the concepts and they work.
Rotating the magnet along with the disk, in essence an statorless motor. There is no BackEMF there right?
No windings no stators for back drag. The magnet was spinning nicely, pretty fast I might add.
I also tried to get a homopolar generator going. It works! No stator there either. I had to spin it pretty high,
to get 22 millivolts out of a 18mm(0.7?) dia x 3mm thick Ni plated neo 2000 gauss craft magnet. Used a 5/64" titanium drill bit for the center hole. Heck took about 30 mins to drill. It's tough and I went slowly so the magnet didn't heat up much.
Then used a Dremmel tool to spin it, about 1/2, 2/3 full scale speed it's about 20000 rpm I'd say.
I was reading this and it was intriguing to get such high amps with no back EMF no drag. So I wanted to try it. Remember the magnet is spinning along with the pickup disk. This is NOT the same as stationary magnet and disk spinning as per Faraday
http://www.gerrior.net/AdvancedTech/01.BruceEDePalmaNMachine.htm#Second
DePalma was using smaller speeds but much larger mags in OD and 2 of them, where as I used one.
?A typical machine constructed with ordinary loudspeaker ring magnets of dimensions o.d. 2-7/8", i.d. 1-1/3" and ?" thickness, two of each epoxy-cemented on either side of a conducting disc 1/8" thick, delivers 30 millivolts at 3450 rpm. The field strength of the magnets as supplied is about 1000 gauss.?
Someone mentioned the Navy, well they have some interesting things going, 6000 Amp units nice!
http://www.vektrex.com/Products/homopolar%20motor.html
Also:
?Under this contract, GA will deliver a 36.5-megawatt, 120-rpm advanced design prototype motor, motor drive, and support equipment..?
http://www.ga.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1109623897&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&
Some nice size power there using homoplar designs.
Not sure if DePalma?s designs/ideas are that insignificant?..There is a lot going on here.
The main obstacle seems to be the ability to draw the huge currents the device is capable of, through the rotaing contacts. Maybe mercury wetted pickups might do the trick? Since there is no BEMF, no stator to act the drag against, maybe an OU device is possible?
hello there is a new liquid superconductor that will do the job fine liquid a room temp
Higher voltage for the faraday disk possible ???
If we replace the solid metal disc with a "spiral coil" instead, would it generate more voltage (less current) ?? please see picture 1. The center end of the spiral coil connects to the metal shaft, while the outer end connects to the metal ring.
The number of spiral turns could be somehow related to the voltage output. I guess we can also use a circular PCB with spiral trace pattern instead of a wire coil, that is if not much current is extracted.
Then this spiral coil would be sandwiched between 2 disc magnets, and rotate them all together (no stator). Voltage output is between the shaft and the metal ring. Please see picture 2.
What do you guys think ? would this work ? Sorry, I want to try to build one, but now on extreeeemly limited budget. ;D So for now just an idea.
kentoot
I have a generator that looks almost like the one in your drawing. It has two huge speaker magnets with a winding between. My winding loops from near the shaft past one magnet around the top edge and back around toward the shaft next to the other magnet. I had hoped to increase the voltage this way. It didn't work. The voltage remained the same.
Perhaps a spiral winding will work.
Thanks for the comment Gearhead.
Well, actually the spiral winding idea is not entirely mine, I got a hint from Tesla's note here :
http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/index.html
He did suggest to subdivide the disc into "spiral" form sections, and also mentioned the importance of the spiral direction.
Quote from: kentoot on February 15, 2007, 01:05:12 AM
Thanks for the comment Gearhead.
Well, actually the spiral winding idea is not entirely mine, I got a hint from Tesla's note here :
http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/index.html
He did suggest to subdivide the disc into "spiral" form sections, and also mentioned the importance of the spiral direction.
Hi Ken,
Here?s some more pages that you might find interesting
Tesla's Fuelless Generator,
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/Fuelless.pdf
from this page which has some good articles,
http://tesla.nichelson.googlepages.com/home
in my opinion and parden my spelling it has always sucked anyhow if you want more voltage turn it faster or add more brushes or add severl togather and you will get higher voltages and current hear is a pic of my redesigned n machine it is a simple pic
now i will use 2 of thease to get 12dc at a given rpm just my thoughts
Hey guys, this is good stuff- If the postings here are correct an the efficiency of these machines is (say) 90 percent, how about using an "N" machine (or whatever you call it) as the generator attached to a super-efficient motor as might be seen in other forum threads? The coupling of the two would then produce a very, very good output to input ratio . . . . . ;)
My english is not the best: I was reading all the links given in this topic but I'm not clear at one point:
Taking a Bruce de Palma N-Machine, running it and connecting a load: is there or is there not a power increase needed in the motor which drives the machine?
Regards
Well, I think what this guy is doing is similiar to the faraday disk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrhmA23L8cE
and another demo:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9056583546058572745&q=resonance+motor&total=35&start=20&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9
Dirt
See http://youtube.com/watch?v=aiuZQVrTCy4 (http://youtube.com/watch?v=aiuZQVrTCy4) william lyne describeshow the wwhmeter is a tesla homopolar generator, if some one can prove it...congratulations!!! it have to much similarities , aluminum disk, cooper coils and magnetshttp://www.redrok.com/images/whrmeter.gif (http://www.redrok.com/images/whrmeter.gif)
it think you all will find that the homopolar generator will have no backtorque when assembled in the proper configuration magnets opsosing the problems lies with the extraction of power ;)
murcury was used as a wetted contact but now
no need for murcury there many syintethic materials avable witch can replace murcury use superconductive liquid metal on the edge of the disc and the brushes
william
If i am understanding this principle correctly, you could essentially save yourself all the trouble, and take an existing permanent magnet transformer coil (or induce a field in a paramagnetic one) and spin it around??
A homopolar generator consists of a conductor which rotates in front of or with a magnetic pole. There is an electric potential generated between the center and the od of the conductor. This configuration has not proven to be OU. These generators can be used for huge current flows at low voltage such as needed for rail guns and magnetic containment on partical accelerators.
The broken tether of an experiment done with the space shuttle glowed bright enough with induced electricity from traveling in the magnetic field of the earth to be seen clearly from 100 miles away by those on the space shuttle. Perhaps it was good that it broke or it may have fried the electronics on the shuttle.
I have thought of using a coil spinning with the generator to increase the voltage and decrease the amperage. This might make it easier to pick the current off of it.
that that is actually discussed earlier in this thread, what i am suggesting is, that using a manifactured coil, that is easy to obtain from junk devices, you wouldnt have to worry about winding one yourself, and could easily pull the tech specs on the particular coil for reference when calculating your results.
then just tie the inner lead to a pick-up on or near the shaft and another to an outer ring or possible a secondary (insulated) shaft ring. turning it so the coils are alligned with the direction of rotation, and placing a ring/circular magnet over one of both ends then rotating this all together should achieve the desired higher voltage/medium current that we are attempting to obtain.
an afterthought:.....
if the coil has a ferromagnetic inner core, you want to put a magnet on top AND bottom so the entire core is under influence, that way the rotating magnetic field will be "stationary". (no back EMF) which is a primary requirement of these devices.
Hi I am new to this forum but I couldn't resist the topic as homopolar generators have been an interest from way back. I have never understood how they came to be associated with over unity energy. The university of Texas http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/homopolar%20generators.html (http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/homopolar%20generators.html) has done lots of research on these devices in the field of pulsed power and none of their papers to my knowledge have mentioned any anomalous energy output not to say that there couldn't be any. I will try to explain what a homopolar machine is for people who dont know. Basically it relies on the magnetic thoery that when magnetic flux penetrates a conductor moving perpendicular to the lines of flux a voltage proportional to the length of the conductor and perpendicular to the direction of travel appears. This does not have to be a disk, the disk is just a mechanical contrivance to recycle the conductor or save on magnets. MHD devices use exactly the same principle except that they are linear motion using an expendable conductor. Rail guns are very similar as well.
One of the previous posts showed a spiral conductor as a possible means of increasing the voltage output, AFAIK this wont work, the conductor length perpendicular to the direction of travel (wheel outer brush contact radius - wheel inner brush radius) is the same with either a spiral or a disk so there is no increase in voltage. Before flaming me, remember vectors and the point "conductor length perpendicular to the direction or travel" This also invalidates the other proposed methods of increasing the voltage with long wires and the like I wish it were otherwise. Check out the Kollmorgan servodisc motors for an ingenious way around this, though they are not over unity by any stretch of the imagination.
The common methods of increasing a homopolar machines output voltage are increasing the rotor radius, increasing the field strength and increasing the rotor speed. Using these methods I designed a unit which would output 1Kv not a practical generator just a pulse power machine with a pulse duration of < 1 sec.
Anybody who thinks that a homopolar is a low torque machine is mistaken, with a 4T field one of the UNI's discharged a 140lb rotor running at 27000 rpm in around 1ms The torque reaction that a homopolar machine can exert is considerable, that is why many homoploar machines are built with 2 contra rotating rotors so all the torque reaction is cancelled in the unit body. Unlike an inductive generator the magnet does not see any torque reaction the reaction is between the rotor and the return conductor which happens to be the other rotor in a contra rotating setup.
The main technical issues with homopolar machines is that they are low voltage high current machines, the current pickup speeds are very high and the magetic circuit has a large air gap resulting in very large excitation power with non superconducting field coils.
Liquid metal pickup is one way to achieve current pickup, MHD forces and the mess factor are problems with this.
Permanent magnets are viable for small machines but eddy current losses with solid discs can be appreciable is the excition field if not uniform .
Hope this answers a few questions about these machines
Maybe this point hasn't been made here in this thread yet - but
If you attach the magnets to the shaft so they spin WITH the disk,
there IS NO BACK EMF.
theres nothing to push against, the magnetic source is spinning with the disk.
but the field, being circular, remains stationary.
What is so unusual about the homo polar generator is that it defies logic that it takes torque even with the magnet spinning with the conducting disk . Intuitively it seems impossible that the magnet can resist rotation when it is just spinning in space with the disk. Faraday was unable to prove if the magnetic field rotated with the magnet or not although it appears that it does not.
QuoteIf you attach the magnets to the shaft so they spin WITH the disk,
there IS NO BACK EMF.
theres nothing to push against, the magnetic source is spinning with the disk.
but the field, being circular, remains stationary
In my previous post I mentioned that there is no torque reaction on the magnets anyway in fact quite a few homopolar machines put the rotor inside a large air core solenoid. Because the magnetic field produced by rotor current flow is orthogonal to the magnet field there can be no torque reaction on the magnet. This is the case with a uniform field, if the field is not uniform in the direction of motion then there is a some induction in the rotor producing a field and consequently some torque reaction on the magnet assembly, If the magnets travel with the rotor then there will be no eddy currents induced in the rotor as even a nonuniform field will be unchanging with respect to the rotor. But as the magnets are not moving with respect to the return current path eddy currents can be induced in it instead. Non uniformity of the field in the radial direction produces no eddy currents. It is difficult to describe without drawing it. AFAIK as the previous poster mentioned having the magnets travel with the field will still produce voltage when measured from a stationary point most likely because the magnetic field is now moving with respect to the return conductor.
I am guessing that this lack of torque reaction with the field magnet is what you mean by nothing to push against, but the return current path provides plenty to push against the current in it sets up a magnetic field opposite to the current flowing though the rotor. That 27000 rpm 140 lb rotor mentioned in my other post didn't come to a stop by itself. I understand that there might be some difficulties measuring the power input to a homopolar generator if it is measured by running it on cradles like a brake dynanometer as some torque will appear outside the machine if care is not taken in locating the output terminals maybe this is why some people asociate them with over unity power output. Also the strong stray magnetic fields associated with them may also play havoc with the instruments used to measure the power input and output. In a pulsed power application the input power is well defined as the polar moment of inertia and the rpm of the rotor are easily quantified and the output power is measured with instruments which are designed to deal with the strong sources of interference associated with this environment
Quote from: PulsedPower on February 21, 2008, 02:05:27 AM
QuoteIf you attach the magnets to the shaft so they spin WITH the disk,
there IS NO BACK EMF.
theres nothing to push against, the magnetic source is spinning with the disk.
but the field, being circular, remains stationary
In my previous post I mentioned that there is no torque reaction on the magnets anyway in fact quite a few homopolar machines put the rotor inside a large air core solenoid. Because the magnetic field produced by rotor current flow is orthogonal to the magnet field there can be no torque reaction on the magnet. This is the case with a uniform field, if the field is not uniform in the direction of motion then there is a some induction in the rotor producing a field and consequently some torque reaction on the magnet assembly, If the magnets travel with the rotor then there will be no eddy currents induced in the rotor as even a nonuniform field will be unchanging with respect to the rotor. But as the magnets are not moving with respect to the return current path eddy currents can be induced in it instead. Non uniformity of the field in the radial direction produces no eddy currents. It is difficult to describe without drawing it. AFAIK as the previous poster mentioned having the magnets travel with the field will still produce voltage when measured from a stationary point most likely because the magnetic field is now moving with respect to the return conductor.
I am guessing that this lack of torque reaction with the field magnet is what you mean by nothing to push against, but the return current path provides plenty to push against the current in it sets up a magnetic field opposite to the current flowing though the rotor. That 27000 rpm 140 lb rotor mentioned in my other post didn't come to a stop by itself. I understand that there might be some difficulties measuring the power input to a homopolar generator if it is measured by running it on cradles like a brake dynanometer as some torque will appear outside the machine if care is not taken in locating the output terminals maybe this is why some people asociate them with over unity power output. Also the strong stray magnetic fields associated with them may also play havoc with the instruments used to measure the power input and output. In a pulsed power application the input power is well defined as the polar moment of inertia and the rpm of the rotor are easily quantified and the output power is measured with instruments which are designed to deal with the strong sources of interference associated with this environment
Hi Pulse,
It sounds like you know your homopolar generators.
I never thought of the lack of torque back into the magnetic source.
But just the closing path producing torque relative to
The rotor. that is interesting.
I?ve always wondered if there was a way to do away
with any slip rings. A ?one piece? device that would rotate as a whole
(Closing path included) driving a load.
But I think it would be fundamentally impossible.
But maybe there would be a way?
Btw , the spiral disk I believe was not for a higher voltage
But to counteract torque and reinforce the magnet?
"Because the current is flowing in a large circle at the rim of the disk, the magnetic field created
by the current not only does not work against the field magnet above the circular plate, as in
conventional generators, but it actually reinforces the magnet"
>Tesla's Fuelless Generator,
>http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/Fuelless.pdf
>from this page which has some good articles,
>http://tesla.nichelson.googlepages.com/home
our set-up in the lab was a 15-inch copper dsk
mounted between two disk-magnets.
S/N facing together on either side of the disk. Steady power from a power-supply to run a DC motor, which turned the device. The power produced was nothing near overunity, since our motor was grossly overpowered for the mass of our homopolar generator.
What i remember distinctly, was the fact that there was no difference in torque when current was being drawn off the disk - between a carbon-brush on the exterior rim and a slip-ring on the shaft.
I dont know what the set-up was on that massive disk that "came to a stop", but when we replicated the generator, using a rotating magnetic field, it essentially flywheeled to a stop, wether or not we extracted electricity from it.
The experiment was to show the difference between the disk rotating above the magnet, and the disk rotating WITH the magnet. Voltage/Current are constant, but with a stationary magnet, there is negative forces when electricity is drawn.
as far as back EMF from a pair of leads... that value is so rediculously small that it appears minute even to the drag effects of friction from the surrounding air.
Moving the magnets with the disk in this manner does not alter the induction effect whatsoever.
the magnetic field remains stationary (provided that your shaft turns straight).
@ Argona - if i understood Tesla correctly, the spiral cut sections of his disk were not to raise the voltage,. but to raise the CURRENT. as it forces the current to flow around the disk. instead of finding "shorter" paths across the radius of the disk as it spins around. - granted the overall current flow, does make a spiral around the disk, not all of it travels in that path and there is a great deal of curent loss with a non-spiral-cut disk. - at least thats how it works according to Tesla.
Hi argona, I am a bit rusty on these machines but I did the math on a 120MJ one just for the fun of it years ago, it is nice to dream, 120 MJ in a package weighing less than 3 tonne would have been an interesting but expensive toy to build.
QuoteBtw , the spiral disk I believe was not for a higher voltage
But to counteract torque and reinforce the magnet?
It should reinforce the magnet, though it is far easier to put turns in the stationary return current path as is done with self exciting homopolar generators, they only need a small current to start them. Navel Research Laboratories built a 10MJ unit in the mid 70's. Only a car battery to start it but the current in the magnet rapidly reached 170kA before the current was diverted into the load. Alas there was plenty of torque with the pair of 170 lb rotors @ 18000 rpm initial speed almost stopping in 1 sec. In pulsed power there are good reasons not to spiral the rotor conductor:
1 it increases windage
2 it reduces the burst speed and thereby the energy which can be stored
3 it increases the rotor resistance
4 it increases the rotor inductance
Putting the spiral (coil usually) in the current return path only increases the system inductance and this can be switched out on pulse delivery without reducing the magnetic field (the field will drop slowly as the current decays in the now shorted coil).
SmOkey2, that sounds like a decent sized homopolar machine what sort of current was it putting out? How was the torque measured? measuring the shaft torque or cradling the motor are the safest, cradling the homopolar machine can introduce experimental errors easily. Did you know that an iron disk works fine for long rise time applications, with the advantage of greatly reducing the reluctance of the magnetic circuit (more voltage less magnet)
The setup on the high speed machine (27k rpm) from memory was a single aluminium slab rotor around 14" diameter with lots of brushes which could be brought into contact quicky with the rim and shaft, special attention was made to bring the current return conductor close to the rotor (to reduce system inductance and therby decrease the current rise time) The magnet was an air cored solenoid fed from another homopolar generator and energized seconds before the power was required (keeping a 4T magnet energised any longer than necessary gets expensive both in power and cooling) All the homopolar machines I have read about have been pulsed power ones and they stop very fast once current (40kA to 1MA) is taken from them. Maybe the current you were taking from it was small, being a low voltage machine it takes many amps to get appreciable power from it.
Over unity or not they are interesting machines for playing with high current :)
the torque was measured as a function of RPM on the shaft, vs current draw on the DC motor, which was metered at the source.
this rating was within some % error of , but close to the manufacturers specs for those motors.
as far as the actual measurements for voltage/current, i know we wrote them down, throughout several experiments in a table, for the lab project, but i couldn' tell you what the actual values were.. it could not have been over 100amps, with the equipment were using, We didn't have anything rated much higher than that. - though, to fathom a megaAmpere', i kind of wish we had!!
drawing current off of the disk did not make it stop spinning or even slow down when the magnets were attached to the rotating shaft
@smOkey2, I was sure I replied to this thread a few days ago but the post has gone anyway 100 amps is a very light load especially as the generator would put out less than 5V at 1440 rpm That is why pulsed power applications run the rotors so fast, voltage is propertional to speed and field strength. The 1MA generator had 80 tons of rotors but much smaller generators have been produced which produce similar currents
i dont have any way of moving 80-tons of mass as such high RPM,
but im sure i understood the principal that was being taught, as i have used this in other applications since, and it holds true in every case i have encountered it.
Unless there is relative motion between the source of the field and the inductor, there can be no
'back torque'.
Induction still occurs because the field is stationary.
@SmOkey2
QuoteUnless there is relative motion between the source of the field and the inductor, there can be no
'back torque'.
While I don't believe the torque reaction in a homopolar is between the moving conductor and the magnet but rather between the moving conductor and the stationary current return conductor. There is still relative motion between the source of the field and the inductor, otherwise it would violate faradays law or no voltage would be induced. I suspect that you assumed that the rotor is still the source of the induced voltage when the magnets are fixed to the rotor? Draw the complete electric and magnetic circuits including the load and you will see the field lines of the now moving magnet cutting the stationary electric circuit before looping around and entering the back face of the rotor. If the rotor was making the voltage it would be possible to rotate the load and magnets with the rotor and dispense with the brushes. If you still have access to this aparatus remove the brushes and connect a 3V light across the rotor with some hot melt glue to secure it and the wiring to the rotor, run the unit and see if the light glows. This makes sense, if no relative motion of the magnetic to any conductor is required why does the rotor need to spin at all and why is the output voltage proportional to the rotor speed? Something to think about, FWIW this was problem in a first year physics text.
I mentioned ANU's 80 ton machine, it is a very old machine but togther from a surplus betatron magnet and some large steel disks, The university of texas had made much more compact machines which deliver similar current.
Quote from: PulsedPower on February 27, 2008, 09:29:53 PM
@SmOkey2
QuoteUnless there is relative motion between the source of the field and the inductor, there can be no
'back torque'.
While I don't believe the torque reaction in a homopolar is between the moving conductor and the magnet but rather between the moving conductor and the stationary current return conductor. There is still relative motion between the source of the field and the inductor, otherwise it would violate faradays law or no voltage would be induced. I suspect that you assumed that the rotor is still the source of the induced voltage when the magnets are fixed to the rotor? Draw the complete electric and magnetic circuits including the load and you will see the field lines of the now moving magnet cutting the stationary electric circuit before looping around and entering the back face of the rotor. If the rotor was making the voltage it would be possible to rotate the load and magnets with the rotor and dispense with the brushes. If you still have access to this aparatus remove the brushes and connect a 3V light across the rotor with some hot melt glue to secure it and the wiring to the rotor, run the unit and see if the light glows. This makes sense, if no relative motion of the magnetic to any conductor is required why does the rotor need to spin at all and why is the output voltage proportional to the rotor speed? Something to think about, FWIW this was problem in a first year physics text.
I mentioned ANU's 80 ton machine, it is a very old machine but togther from a surplus betatron magnet and some large steel disks, The university of texas had made much more compact machines which deliver similar current.
dont confuse the 'source' with the field. a rotating disk magnet produces a stationary field.
relative to the field, the disk is spinning.
any moving field-lines relative to the return circuit would be a result of the EMF caused on the inductive surface of the disk, NOT from the magetic field - and this can be avoided by routing your wires at a different angle.
assuming the magnetic disk is polarized evenly, and not in sections, there is a stationary, uniform field sitting in space, as the magnet spins.
i could probably throw together a small unit if i find me a coper disk.
slap it between a pair of magnetron rings, and mount a shaft through it.....
resistor + LEDs...
tie it to multiple points around the outer edge of the disk to balance the load.
(since the brushes cannot slide when the entire circuit is moving)
Quotedont confuse the 'source' with the field. a rotating disk magnet produces a stationary field.
relative to the field, the disk is spinning.
I have never heard that one before but lets assume for the sake of argument that it is true. What is the field stationary with respect to, the planet the solar system the galaxy? what happens if you move the source, does the field get left behind? If the field was stationary with respect to the planetary rotation axis just the act of putting magnets near wires would make high voltages For example near the equator he velocity of the earths surface relative to the rotation axis is around 440 m/sec, if a 1.5T magnetic field was put near a conductor it would produce 1.5X440 V/m, I think 660V for every meter of conductor perpendicular to the the earths rotation axis and exposed to a 1.5T field would have attracted some attention by now, the case for the solar system and galaxy voltages are even higher. If you say the the magnetic field is stationary relative to the earths surface, why? There has to be some reason for this field to pick this particular frame of reference over the countless other possibilities. Maybe the field is stationary with respect to the the sources rotation axis, why the field is uniform it has no concept of rotation axis and linear generators also work and these can't have a rotation axis. The most obvious frame of reference for a magnetic field is the source as there is actually some reason for the field to follow the source, it is produced by the source whether it be electron spin or current flowing in conductors.
The homopolar generator derives its voltage from the motion of a conductor in a magnetic field, it doesn't have to be a disk a conductor travelling in a straight line though a field will produce a voltage. FWIW the Voltage is calculated by the equation e=LBV where e is the induced voltage, Length in Metres of the conductor perpendicular to the direction of travel B is the field strength in Teslas and V is the velocity of travel in metres per second. The faraday disk or homopolar generator came out of Faradays work involving motion of a conductor in a magnetic field it obeys exactly the same laws.
Quotei could probably throw together a small unit if i find me a coper disk.
slap it between a pair of magnetron rings, and mount a shaft through it.....
resistor + LEDs...
tie it to multiple points around the outer edge of the disk to balance the load
No need to balance the load the resistance of the disk is negligable, also there is no need to use copper even iron disk machines can put out MA. It doesn't even need to be a disk, a single spoke on a shaft rotated in a field will produce exactly the same voltage, a disk is used becuase it is easy to pick up current off, easy to balance and has a lower resistance than spokes.
As I mentioned a conductor moving in a straight line perpendicular to a magnetic field will also make a voltage, MHD generators and rail guns use this principle. Lets say you stick ten 30mm neos in a line to a bit of wood and stick a length of wire on top, if you lay the stick across the seat of a car and go for a drive, will there be a voltage produced? This is exaclty the same scenario as the rotating magnet Homopolar generator, if the theory of the stationary field is true the voltage will be 24.5 m/s x 0.3m x 1.5T or 11V at 55mph I say no because there is no conductor motion with respect to the magnetic field, if you had 2 sliding contacts behind the car and hooked up meter to them you would see the 11V but this is not very practical. hence the popularity of the disk rather than the linear setup.
You are forcing me to revisit old physics books :)
Quote from: PulsedPower on February 28, 2008, 02:23:05 AM
Quotedont confuse the 'source' with the field. a rotating disk magnet produces a stationary field.
relative to the field, the disk is spinning.
I have never heard that one before but lets assume for the sake of argument that it is true. What is the field stationary with respect to, the planet the solar system the galaxy?
The fact that rotating the magnet with a stationary disk produces no electrical potential leads people to the conclusion that the field itself is stationary. This has never been proven even though Faraday did numerous experiments in this line. Tesla thought that the magnet did not contain the magnetism but was merely distorting the field around it, the ether theory.
It is interesting that when the space shuttle broke a long tether that it glowed with potential so that it could be seen for more than 100 miles due to the effect of moving through the magnetic field of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox
"The magnetic field will be independent of any rotation of the magnet. In this configuration, the polarisation is determined by the absolute rotation of the disk, that is, the rotation relative to an inertial frame. The relative rotation of the disk and the magnet plays no role."
Quote from: Gearhead on February 28, 2008, 09:24:26 AM
Quote from: PulsedPower on February 28, 2008, 02:23:05 AM
Quotedont confuse the 'source' with the field. a rotating disk magnet produces a stationary field.
relative to the field, the disk is spinning.
I have never heard that one before but lets assume for the sake of argument that it is true. What is the field stationary with respect to, the planet the solar system the galaxy?
The fact that rotating the magnet with a stationary disk produces no electrical potential leads people to the conclusion that the field itself is stationary. This has never been proven even though Faraday did numerous experiments in this line. Tesla thought that the magnet did not contain the magnetism but was merely distorting the field around it, the ether theory.
It is interesting that when the space shuttle broke a long tether that it glowed with potential so that it could be seen for more than 100 miles due to the effect of moving through the magnetic field of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox
"The magnetic field will be independent of any rotation of the magnet. In this configuration, the polarisation is determined by the absolute rotation of the disk, that is, the rotation relative to an inertial frame. The relative rotation of the disk and the magnet plays no role."
Actually, it now looks possible (maybe) to have a true one piece
Homopolar generator that I?ve been discussing here,
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/message/30766
want to prove that the field is stationary?
rotate the magnet over another magnet, or over some iron filings... were the field not stationary, the field movement would affect these things would it not?
Tesla may have been right, the eather has never been disproven. Einstein's experiment only applies to light, you can do the same trick using sound to prove that air does not exist...
it has no bearing.
I would tend to agree that the magnet does not contain "magnetism", it contains energy - in its molecular structure - imparted upon it by a stronger field, alligning and amplifying the field produced by its cummulative electron orbits. - which causes a distortion-field.
wether or not this distortion occurs in a vacuum, or through an aether is not yet known. To know that, we would first have to devise a means of distinguishing an eather, that permeates everything.
how would we even go about doing such? would it matter if we did?
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 28, 2008, 11:10:52 PM
wether or not this distortion occurs in a vacuum, or through an aether is not yet known. To know that, we would first have to devise a means of distinguishing an eather, that permeates everything.
how would we even go about doing such? would it matter if we did?
There may be a simpler answer. The magnetic field may dislodge electrons that are collected or moved by the centrifugal force of the disk conductor. However, this brings up the question of inertial field of reference. How does the disk know that it is spinning? Obviously this proves a connection with the rest of the universe, spacetime or whatever.
i disagree there,
i think the disk is moving relative to the magnetic field.
i dont think this effect can occur any other way.
the charge separation on the disk is relative to both the strength of the field, and the rpm of the disk.
so, a disk spinning in free air, WOULD produce a charge - because of the earths magnetic field.
however, the RPM would have to be considerably high.... and may exceed the tensil-strength of some disks...
Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 29, 2008, 01:22:52 AM
i disagree there,
i think the disk is moving relative to the magnetic field.
i dont think this effect can occur any other way.
the charge separation on the disk is relative to both the strength of the field, and the rpm of the disk.
so, a disk spinning in free air, WOULD produce a charge - because of the earths magnetic field.
however, the RPM would have to be considerably high.... and may exceed the tensil-strength of some disks...
It is fine to disagree. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see the difference of a disk spinning in front of a magnet or in the magnetic field of the earth. Same thing.
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html
As I posted earlier the space shuttle was doing an experiment with a tethered satellite when the tether broke, melted by the electric current. This experiment was to produce electric power as a homo polar generator with a vertical line acting as the disk. The tether lit up with electrical potential so that it could easily be seen from a distance of over 100 miles.
yes and HOW fast was that tether moving?
the difference by putting the magnet right in front of the disk is the strength of the magnetic field.
you dont need to spin the disk nearly as fast to create the same charge imbalance.
also the earth's field is set up a little different than a single-magnetic face pressed against the disk.
I think this topic is very interesting...so i'd like to add some of Tesla's notes..
To return to the principal subject; assume the conditions to be such that the eddy currents generated by rotation of the disc strengthen the field, and suppose the latter gradually removed while the disc is kept rotating at an increased rate. The current, once started, may then be sufficient to maintain itself and even increase in strength, and then we have the case of Sir William Thomson's "current accumulator". But from the above considerations it would seem that for the success of the experiment the employment of a disc not subdivided would be essential, for if there should be a radial subdivision, the eddy currents could not form and the self-exciting action would cease. If such a radially subdivided disc were used it would be necessary to connect the spokes by a conducting rim or in any proper manner so as to form a symmetrical system of closed circuits.
--------------------------
the external circuit may also be arranged perfectly symmetrical to the field magnet, no reaction can occur. This, however, is true only as long as the magnets are weakly energized, for when the magnets are more or less saturated, both magnetizations at right angles seemingly interfere with each other.
---------------------------------------
Similar dispositions may, of course, be made in a type of machine in which, instead of a disc, a cylinder is rotated. In such unipolar machines, in the manner indicated, the usual field coils and poles may be omitted and the machine may be made to consist only of a cylinder or of two discs enveloped by a metal casting.
Instead of subdividing the disc or cylinder spirally, as indicated in Fig. 4, it is more convenient to interpose one or more turns between the disc and the contact ring on the periphery, as illustrated in Fig. 5........notes on unipolar dynamo....
----------------------------------------
Scotty.....Tesla was a funny guy....you see he writes all about various ways ect ect....subdividing......but in the end...he shows the best model is a non-divided disc....and also a concucting belt between 2 discs to form the circuit.......
----------------------------------------------
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00406968&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D0406968.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F0406968%2526RS%3DPN%2F0406968&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page (http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=00406968&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D0406968.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F0406968%2526RS%3DPN%2F0406968&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page)
-----------------------------------
Scotty
HI Folks,
Here is a link for any US patent download in PDF file format: http://www.pat2pdf.org/
and copy and paste this Tesla Patent#: 406968
The link Scotty provided to this patent needs TIFF picture file viewer that members may not readily have here.
Gyula
Gearhead writes:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox
>"The magnetic field will be independent of any rotation of the magnet. In this configuration, the polarisation >is determined by the absolute rotation of the disk, that is, the rotation relative to an inertial frame. The >relative rotation of the disk and the magnet plays no role."
This is not entirely true. The Barnett effect shows that the angular momentum of a ferromagnetic body changes when it becomes magnetized, as the electron spin of the unpaired electron orbitals align. Thie Barnett effect should exhibit reciprocity, although, I do not know if it has ever been demonstrated.
Isn't that MAGNETOSTRICTION?
I was going to make the Tesla double wheel design....I thought i could ues 2 brake drums from an old car...I still have them but never made the machine...
You see that Tesla spoke of a spoked wheel that must consist of many sets of closed circuits....I have one of those too....in fact...if you look at Ed Leedskalnin's magnet wheel...you can see that it can be made as a spoked wheel of symetrical closed circuits.....which I think is interesting....scince Ed wrote in his notes "when you start the magnets in an orbit, then they will never stop, until the orbit is broken."
Ed also wrote..."Imagine a wheel with many coils around the wheel turning, then you would be making all kinds of light.....do not make the machine...I already have application for Patent in the Patent office."
-----------------------------------------
If anyone ever found that Patent application...you would have the machine you are looking for...
Scotty
Seems we have healthy discussion going here and some good points cropping up
@Gearhead
QuoteThe magnetic field may dislodge electrons that are collected or moved by the centrifugal force of the disk conductor.
The effect is exactly the same with linear motion. One of physics books doesn't go into much detail but mentions that the hall effect is responsible for part of the behavior.
It makes things easier to forget this rotation stuff, the effect is purely related to linear velocity rather than angular velocity, to calculate the output of a homopolar generator I just work out the average velocity of the disk between my current pickup points and plug that into the equation e=Bvl using the radial distance between the pickup points as the conductor length. If you write this out as an equation and simplify it it gives the familar e=Bwr^2 where w = angular velocity (can't get the greek lower case Omega so w will have to do)
The space shuttle flying perpendicular to the earths magnetic field would generate considerable voltage but it would never be apparent to the people on the shuttle as they would all have the same induced voltage meaning no net potential difference, if the space shuttle was flying though a conductive atmosphere then current would flow because of relative velocity ditterence between the forward conductor (shuttle) and return conductor (atmosphere), this is an MHD generator run backward. Also even if the space shuttle and the tether wire were traveling in the same direction the field lines may bend to create a differing speed relative to the field, drum type homopolar generators use this technique.
Quotei think the disk is moving relative to the magnetic field.
i dont think this effect can occur any other way.
It can: if the magnetic field is not moving relative to the rotor then it is moving relative to the return conductor and the voltage will be generated in that instead but you will not know this because if you put a meter across the return conductor it will only read the voltage drop due to resistance the induced voltage will not show because the meter and the test leads are moving at the same speed with respect to the rotor and attached magnet. The return conductor is not any special device any wire connected to the current pickup point will be cut by the same magnetic field as the rotor, that was why I suggested to draw both the magnetic circuit as well as the electrical circuit. In a contra rotating homopolar generator the return conductor is a second rotor spinning in the opposite direction usually at the same speed, as the relative velocity between the conductors is doubled so is the output voltage and it is taken off the rims of the two rotors
As for the iron filings not being disturbed by a rotating magnet, the field is uniform in the plane of rotation, iron filings line up along lines of flux, for a circulary uniform field these do not change with rotation try it with a bar magnet and watch the filings shift as the field is not uniform in the plane of rotation.
A bit more reading later, the speed that the source of the magnetic field is travelling should make no difference,it is only the relative speed of the conductors though which that field passes which is important for making a voltage so in effect SmOkey2's assertion that the field is stationary is partially correct in that it doesn't need to have a sense of speed provided it is uniform. This idea is similar to Gearheads Interial frame of reference. Unfortunately that blows the idea that making the magnets travel with the rotor will make the machine over unity as if the field has no sense of speed then no torque can appear on the magnet no matter whether it is stationary, rotating, provided by the earth sun or anything else the speed is only a function of the relative motion of two conductors meaning that any torque will be between these conductors. This is how I believed homopolar generators to work, torque on the magnet was never a part of the engineering design but torque and forces on the conductors was.
An interesting point touched on in one of my physics books is that if you calculate the rate of change of flux enclosed between any 2 arbitrary forward and return conductors it will give the same voltage as if that rate of change of flux were happening in an equivalent induction loop so even though the flux is not changing in value the conductor had moved on to a new bit of flux and that counts as a change.
@scotty If you look back about 10 posts I mentioned very similar points about self excited homopolar generators, they have been built and self excite very well, even an air cored field can go over 2T, A design I had a play with went to 8T though you only get a fraction of a second at this field strength because the current required to sustain it (500kA in my design) slows the rotor very rapidly not to mention heating up the field coil.
@ Pulsedpower
The point im trying to stress here, which is exactly what Tesla explained in the patent mentioned above ---
is that the magnetic field is not moving at all !!!
you can spin the magnet all day long, the (uniform) field stays stationary. if your field is truly uniform, and rotating parallel to the flux meridian, a bar magnet placed in the field does not move.
the induction caused by the return circuit is from the (moving) electromagnetic -field generated on the charged disk. This can be avoided via the angle at which your return circuit crosses the field-lines of the EMF. [ im not sure how/if that could be achieved w/ a spiral-cut disk]
the back torque caused by the magnet is not a fuction of the current drawn. it is a function of the voltage induced, which is proportional to the rotational speed, and is often attributed with other losses, such as that of friction, inertia, ect. - the point about moving the magnets with the disk is that, even though the mass increases (as do inertial losses) the drag from the stationary magnet drops out of the equation, making the disk easier to turn, (less losses from back torque). this is irrelevant to the current drawn off the disk, and does not effect the output power in any way.
what IS effected is the INPUT power- the energy required to rotate the disk through the magnetic field.
thus making the generator more efficient.
@ smOkey2
Quoteis that the magnetic field is not moving at all !!!
you can spin the magnet all day long, the (uniform) field stays stationary. if your field is truly uniform, and rotating parallel to the flux meridian, a bar magnet placed in the field does not move.
My problem is with the concept of stationary, the word stationary means locked to a particular frame of reference, The point I was tying to make was the field wasn't stationary just that with no field gradient then the concept of movement means nothing.
Imagine driving in a place with no features and perfectly even lighting, even if you were moving it wouldn't be apparent to your eyes. A uniform field has no features, my point about the bar magnet but I wasn't clear enough was to rotate the bar magnet lengthwise so that there is a nonuniformity in the field, then rotation would be aparent.
Quotehe back torque caused by the magnet is not a fuction of the current drawn. it is a function of the voltage induced, which is proportional to the rotational speed, and is often attributed with other losses, such as that of friction, inertia, ect. - the point about moving the magnets with the disk is that, even though the mass increases (as do inertial losses) the drag from the stationary magnet drops out of the equation, making the disk easier to turn, (less losses from back torque). this is irrelevant to the current drawn off the disk, and does not effect the output power in any way.
The magnet has never been a significant source of drag on a homopolar generator, as long as the field is uniform there will be no eddy currents set up in the rotor, Eddy current drag is the only form of drag that I know of associated with the magnet. I have said all along that the drag (torque reaction) on these machines never appears on the magnet if the field is uniform. There is no way of avoiding the torque reaction between the forward (moving) and return (stationary) conductor as it is a product of the current flowing in them, if you reduce the torque by some means then the available voltage from the system will reduce accordingly. While homopolar generators are thoeretically quite efficient in practice, friction from the current pickups (liquid metal is the best) and magnet losses reduce their efficiency.
There is no way of avoiding the return conductor as that is needed to have a circuit, a spiral on the rotor will not make any difference to power input at any given field strength becuase the vector sum of the radial component of the current flowing in the rotor ( what causes the torque reaction) is the same for both a spiral and a spoke.
AFAIK Tesla never demonstated a generator which was over unity and never proved such claims, OTOH there have been many well instrumented Homopolar generators (all using stationary field coils) which have not displayed over unity, A patent means nothing, it is just a legal instrument to give the patent holder a right to sue anyone who uses similar ideas, the inventor can claim anything that appears plausible, it is checked by patent clerks not people skilled in the respective art.
I must agree with PulsedPower on this one.
Although the homopolar generator may seem to be an extraordinary device
in the classical view as it may, depending on your interpretation, seem that no
"flux lines" are "cut" as the magnet may be rotated along with the conductor,
in a more realistic and modern view it is clear that there is actually nothing
odd going on. I don't see people getting all hyped up about the Hall-effect,
and that is actually almost the exact same effect, but instead of moving
a conductor through a magnetic field it depends on moving an electrical
charge through a magnetic field. Same resultant "induced" currents at same
angles to the direction of motion and the mag.field.
@PulsedPower: nicely said. :)
i dont think you or i could make one that was more than 80% efficient.. without precision machined parts.
even the best are less than 90 from what i understand. as most of them use electricity to create the original field, instead of magnets.
There are all kinds of losses in these things. But they are fun to play with.
it has been claimed that if you spin the disk fast enough to saturate the material. and do not collect the charge - that it will dissapate from the edges in a form of low voltage static-electric-plasma. though ive never seen this occur myself.
A few months back I stumbled upon a website that covered the Homopolar Generator in great detail.
The site showed nice detailed drawings of different models, even showed ideas for an AC version.
I was using a friends computer at the time and didn't write down the name of the site.
I have searched and searched on google but can't find the site anymore.
Does anyone here have any idea what site it might have been.
I recall something about a long thin cylinder version being more efficient then the large diameter disk type.
I hope someone can point me to that website again.
Google has over 200,000 links, it could take a while to search through them all.
Quote from: AbbaRue on March 12, 2008, 01:45:16 AM
A few months back I stumbled upon a website that covered the Homopolar Generator in great detail.
The site showed nice detailed drawings of different models, even showed ideas for an AC version.
I was using a friends computer at the time and didn't write down the name of the site.
I have searched and searched on google but can't find the site anymore.
Does anyone here have any idea what site it might have been.
I recall something about a long thin cylinder version being more efficient then the large diameter disk type.
I hope someone can point me to that website again.
Google has over 200,000 links, it could take a while to search through them all.
as far as efficiency goes the best designs use multiple disks stacked on the same rotating shaft. this forms a cylindrical shape i suppose.
depending on how the disks are interconnected/insulated will give you your actual power output, however i dont think these can achieve the high curent-bursts of the larger disks.
usually goes magnet/ disk/ magnet/ disk ect. keping the fields uniform is important. and the fields should be at least as large as the disks if not slightly larger.
also, many people use the shaft as part of their circuit, this is somewhat limiting. based on the resistance of the shaft material. it may be better to route the inner connections on the disks upwards through the center of rotation.
hollow shafts are great for this - and out of the field before you bend off the verticle. this gives you the full potential of the center side of the disks, rather than the downgraded potential running through a metallic shaft.
[ quote]The site showed nice detailed drawings of different models, even showed ideas for an AC version. [/quote]
AC homopolar generator? maybe you were getting mixed up with a compulsator, the site you might have been looking at is http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/ (http://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/) which is the university of texas's electromechanics department, they do a lot of work on homopolar generators and compulsators, if you are interested in them go to a university library and look up "Pulsed power proceedings" the best dates were from the mid 70's to the late 80's, compulsators are more popular these days in pulsed power applications.
Quotet has been claimed that if you spin the disk fast enough to saturate the material. and do not collect the charge - that it will dissapate from the edges in a form of low voltage static-electric-plasma. though ive never seen this occur myself.
Spun fast enough with a strong enough field it would produce a corona discharge at the rim, highly impractical but it can happen, look up magnetar (highly magnetic neutron star) for a homopolar generator on a grand scale, these things induce so much voltage in the gas around them it ionises and they slow down quickly. Check out the field strength, over 1 billion T.
Quote from: PulsedPower on March 12, 2008, 07:46:58 AM
Spun fast enough with a strong enough field it would produce a corona discharge at the rim, highly impractical but it can happen, look up magnetar (highly magnetic neutron star) for a homopolar generator on a grand scale, these things induce so much voltage in the gas around them it ionises and they slow down quickly. Check out the field strength, over 1 billion T.
the discharge i was talking about is a low-voltage/high-current plasma, its similar to a 'corona' discharge, in fact some may argue that they are the same effect. however in a high-voltage discharge the air itself becomes ionized.
from what i understand about a low-voltage discharge - is that the disk material saturates, and emits electrons into the air.
much lower than the ionization voltage. and this charge is quickly absorbed by the air a short distance outside the perimeter of the disk. When performed with applied electric current (rather than induced current), this occurs around the same time the metal glows red hot. the temperature is much lower when the effect is induced - because there is no current "flow", when it occurs.
It doesn't mention anything about OU or not, but the amount of current drawn sure is impressive:
1.6 million Amps
Nature 204, 1079 (12 December 1964); doi:10.1038/2041079a0
Tests with Solid Brushes on the Canberra Homopolar Generator
R. A. MARSHALL*
Research School of Physical Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.
*Present address: c/o Large Generator and Motor Department, General Electric Co., Schenectady, New York.
EARLY in 1963 a programme was begun with the view of establishing whether or not solid brushes could be used instead of liquid metal jets to collect the required current (1.6 million amp) from the rotors of the Canberra homopolar generator. Within the first few weeks of investigation it became clear that there were no insuperable problems. Many pilot tests were conducted and details of the design will be published later. Since then, brush gear has been designed, manufactured and installed, and large-scale tests have been made with this gear in the homopolar generator. The behaviour of these brushes has been very satisfactory.
Blamey, J. W. , Carden, P. O. , Hibbard, L. U. , Inall, E. K. , Marshall, R. A. , and Oliphant, M. , Nature, 195, 113 (1962). | ISI |
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v204/n4963/abs/2041079a0.html
QuoteIt doesn't mention anything about OU or not, but the amount of current drawn sure is impressive:
That is their main use, high current DC, the one in Canberra had a short and bent all the buss system due to the magnetic forces between the conductors, estimated fault current 6MA, Some newer machines make much more current but I do not know of any with a higher energy capacity, the Canberra machine is huge, it has a 2000Kw Dc generator to drive the magnet and bring it up to speed..
It would seem the best approach to building one of these would be to build a bunch of smaller units and connect them in series.
It would be very difficult finding semiconductors that could switch such high currents,
which would be needed to step up the voltage to a more useful level.
Also would be easier on the brushes to have a smaller current.
Brushless contacts, and the Return-curcuit at a Tangent, to minimize Back-EMF resultant from the drawn current.
multiple disks on a common shaft, to maximize output.
After looking at your drawing, an interesting idea just came to my mind.
Do we even need a brush to collect the power from the disks?
Couldn't you just connect a very thick conductor from the outside of one disk to the inside of the next,
all along the whole array of disks. and then just connect the end 2 conductors to the outside circuit.
If the shaft isn't a conductor the 2 ends could then be connected to graphite brushes.
Then you have a higher voltage with a controllable current level.
Perhaps the disks could be combined with metal cones placed on a shaft like this "o-l>l>l>l>-o"
That is a simple drawing but it illustrates what I mean.
That way the outside of one disk is connected to the inside of the next one, and so on, and so on.
Plus the cone shape would minimize air friction.
From your drawings, I thought maybe this was the same principle you were thinking of.
The brushless contact and the angle of the line you drew.
I don't see any reason why this shouldn't work.
I have never read anywhere that the disks have to rub against a brush to produce electricity.
Correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
Quote from: AbbaRue on April 01, 2008, 11:57:28 PM
After looking at your drawing, an interesting idea just came to my mind.
Do we even need a brush to collect the power from the disks?
Couldn't you just connect a very thick conductor from the outside of one disk to the inside of the next,
all along the whole array of disks. and then just connect the end 2 conductors to the outside circuit.
If the shaft isn't a conductor the 2 ends could then be connected to graphite brushes.
Then you have a higher voltage with a controllable current level.
Perhaps the disks could be combined with metal cones placed on a shaft like this "o-l>l>l>l>-o"
That is a simple drawing but it illustrates what I mean.
That way the outside of one disk is connected to the inside of the next one, and so on, and so on.
Plus the cone shape would minimize air friction.
From your drawings, I thought maybe this was the same principle you were thinking of.
The brushless contact and the angle of the line you drew.
I don't see any reason why this shouldn't work.
I have never read anywhere that the disks have to rub against a brush to produce electricity.
Correct me if I'm wrong on that point.
i want to stress the tangent line on a horizontal plane to the rotation of the disk.
cutting the lines back THROUGH the EMF to get to the center of the next disk, will greatly increase the back-torque on the disks. This is the first mistake made with this kind of machine. and the moment you draw current from it, the disks will come to a HALT. and generate a good deal of heat.
having the return path at a tangent minimizes the back-torque, and with small brushless contacts there is very little friction.
once the return-path is out of the resultant electro-magnetic field of the Disks - you can connect them in series/parallel however you like to increase your voltage or amperage accordingly.
the only way i cna see doing it like you are talking would be with sliding contacts (like a DC motor)
but this has been done before, and generates more friction than a bushless contact. as do brushes and slip-rings. - the latter two having additional back-EMF problems like described above.
Nice demonstration, polarities change, controlled setup and metrics.
It's a variation of the original Faraday's disk but same principle.
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/services/demos/demosk2/k2-64.htm
also as it possibly ties into special relativity
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
Please forgive me for possibly not knowing all the technical facts about this disc idea, i havnt had much time to read it all yet, but as far as i understand the principle is to use a rotating copper disc, turning with a stationary magnet up against it (is this correct?) with the centre of the disc being connected to the metal drive shaft which is one electrical connection, and the edge of the disc being the other electrical connection via a brush.
if this is correct, what would happen if it was the disc that was fixed stationary and the magnet was put on the drive shaft instead? like that the problem of brushes would be eliminated.
would the operating principle be the same? or have i got it all totally wrong?
Quote from: mfred68 on April 30, 2008, 02:13:46 PM
if this is correct, what would happen if it was the disc that was fixed stationary and the magnet was put on the drive shaft instead? like that the problem of brushes would be eliminated.
would the operating principle be the same? or have i got it all totally wrong?
You have come across the anomaly of the Faraday disk. A rotating magnet has no effect on a stationary disk while a rotating disk with a rotating or non rotating magnet will produce a potential. The effect seems to be that the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet. Actually it may be that the spin of the atoms within the disk may have something to do with relativity because the outer edge of the disk is traveling at a faster rate of speed than the portions of the disk nearer the axle.
Quote from: Gearhead on April 30, 2008, 03:20:44 PM
Quote from: mfred68 on April 30, 2008, 02:13:46 PM
if this is correct, what would happen if it was the disc that was fixed stationary and the magnet was put on the drive shaft instead? like that the problem of brushes would be eliminated.
would the operating principle be the same? or have i got it all totally wrong?
You have come across the anomaly of the Faraday disk. A rotating magnet has no effect on a stationary disk while a rotating disk with a rotating or non rotating magnet will produce a potential. The effect seems to be that the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet. Actually it may be that the spin of the atoms within the disk may have something to do with relativity because the outer edge of the disk is traveling at a faster rate of speed than the portions of the disk nearer the axle.
its not really an anomaly, the type of magnetic field used in these devices in a uniform, circular field. turning this field, still gives us a uniform, circular field. So with respect to the disk, the field is not "moving".
turn the disk, and the copper moves through the field - while it does not "cut through" and perpendicular flux lines, it still causes induction within the copper of the disk.
They perform better when the magnet and disk are both moving together. (taking into consideration the additional mass that is being rotated)
I can get my hands on some 12" copper discs, but i only have several 1" magnets, how do i place the magnets onto the disc? do they have to be evenly spaced n,s,n,s and do the magnets have to attract each other through the disc by placing some on both sides?
or have i got it totally wrong again?
do lots of small magnets work or would i need two equal sized 12" magnets to the same size as the disc?
Also is the output ac or dc?
at a constant RPM, the output will be a high current DC.
(in most situation, load on the drive motor will increase as power is taken from the leads.)
The magnet can be a single magnet, presssed against the face (or slightly spaced) of the disk.
an alternative method i have seen uses two magnets, one below and one above: s -disk- n (or vise versa)
with a 12" disk, the magnet should be 11 inches at least,. so that the disk is entirely inside the magnetic field.
you dont want portions of your disk extending out past the field - this causes an adverse effect and will cause extra 'drag' as well as lower the total power output of the device.
Quote from: mfred68 on May 01, 2008, 08:49:24 AM
I can get my hands on some 12" copper discs, but i only have several 1" magnets, how do i place the magnets onto the disc?
Can you lay your hands on a dumped video recorder which actually works? Take the lid off,
and when you see the main video head, it is, in effect, most of a homopolar generator but
without the magnets. Dismantle the recorder making sure that the head is running (you
will need to put an old tape in, set it going, and try to dismantle it whilst keeping the head
rolling.
Find out what lever is the thing which is forced back to tell the recorder that the tape is there.
Glue it fast. When the tape runs out, it should keep rolling unless there is another sensor
(which is in the tape path with a light bulb).
You will then need to get magnets as close as possible, maybe form an old micrwave oven
(inside the magnetron - a bit of a hassle). Mount them in position, and meter from the edge
of the video head to the shaft (maybe on the other side of the main board.
You should get a low vloltage but with a surprising amouunt of current.
Quote from: mfred68 on May 01, 2008, 08:49:24 AM
I can get my hands on some 12" copper discs, but i only have several 1" magnets, how do i place the magnets onto the disc? do they have to be evenly spaced n,s,n,s and do the magnets have to attract each other through the disc by placing some on both sides?
or have i got it totally wrong again?
do lots of small magnets work or would i need two equal sized 12" magnets to the same size as the disc?
Also is the output ac or dc?
Hi mfred68,
That would be a very good experiment to do.
If you have access to some basic machining, you?d need 2 wafers with holes the size of you mags and sandwich the disk between them. Poles as an example would be N-S-CopperDisc-N-S. With such a setup the expectation would be a DC out Voltage.
Also see
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stardrivedevice.com%2Fdynamo_stator_matrix.v2.jpg&hash=1e561d1aa7bebec92b704c25168e8e15d5e5560a)
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stardrivedevice.com%2Fdynamo_rotor.jpg&hash=a763284aa74cbe75fd84a54d4ec12a2ed0a9adfa)
more complete info pics and explantions here
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html
I?ve attempted to contact them numerous times, as they indicated on their site that they would be posting results out soon after the build, but they have not replied.
The build had started back a a couple of years, but no results yet.
If you could replicate this and post some results either proving or disproving the design setup it would be much appreciated.
Thanks
the "magnet sandwich" isnt necessary, as the magnetic field from one magnet (either top or bottom) already encompasses the disk.
the "sandwich" is used out of convienence to hold the disk. but a second mag. actually increases your input energy, as a function of mass having to be spun up to speed.
Hi all,
Have any of you looked at Trombly's homopolar generator?
It seems relativly easy to build except for the wet brushes.
I would love to build one with some help from you all. Maybe down size it with multiple disks?
I have some machine tools and time and some money.
Thanks, Scot
very many different designs, like this one - Voltage homopolar machine - Patent 5451825
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5451825.pdf
or´
George D. Hathaway´s machine United States Patent 5587618
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5587618.pdf
cheers,
khabe
@scotwhite: you might like to look into the metal called "Gal-In-Stan", which is the alloy of gallium, indium, and tin, and is liquid, and non-toxic, and has very low vapor pressure.
You can avoid the complications of molten solder, mercury, sodium, or Trombley's top-secret liquid metal.
Or you can use conductive bands or belts, like Hathaway, and even Tesla.
The homopolar motor produces lots and lots of amps but very little voltage. Since voltage is the ability to overcome resistance, it doesn't take much resistance to kill even a very powerful homopolar motor. Reduce resistance wherever you can in your design. If your HPM produces one volt on a high-impedance meter, and a thousand amps into a dead short (a one-kilowatt machine, not unusual for the home experimenter) a resistance of even a single ohm will kill it completely.
Hi,
Thanks for the advice, i checked out the other patents very interesting.
Bryan Strohm who has one patent lived in Indianapolis but i can't find him listed in the phone book.
Maybe i should look into an Adams motor I really want to build something that has the potential to produce enough electricity to run a house.The homopolar generator with high current seems to be problematic, especially converting the hi current to 120v.
Open for sugestions Thanks, scot
Tinsel Koala have you looked at Bryan Strohm's generator? What do you think?
What about the homopolar generator?
Sometimes it can be quite hard to see just where the current loop is. Faraday discovered that if you turn a conducting disk in a magnetic field you can measure a voltage between the shaft of the disk and its rim. This device, the homopolar generator and its equivalent, the homopolar motorhave been baffling people ever since.
Consider a disk which is rotating in a uniform magnetic field. The field passes through the disk at right angles to its surface. Any radius of that disk is moving through the field. The parts of the radius near the shaft are moving slowly and the parts near the rim are moving quickly but they are all moving in the same direction so the voltages generates by each little bit of the radius all add up. The result is a voltage all round the rim of the disk which is higher than the voltage at the center.
If you mount a sliding contact at any point on the rim you can measure this voltage. It won't be a large voltage since only a single conductor is moving through the field and parts of it are not moving at the full speed. Suppose you had a copper disk 20 cm (8") in diameter, turning at 10,000 revolutions per minute, and that you could put it in a uniform 0.1 weber field. (This would be a very dangerous thing to try!) The rim will be moving at 105 m/s so the mean velocity of a radius is half that. The length of the radius is 0.1 meters and the field is 0.1 webers so the voltage will be 0.52 Volts, about a third of what you'd get from an alkaline cell!
If your disk had a low resistance, and if the brush contact and the external circuit also had a low resistance, then quite a substantial current would flow from the shaft to the rim. Because the voltage is generated on all radii of the disk you could put brushes all round the rim and reduce the effective generator resistance. Unfortunately the frictional forces on the edge of the rim chew up a lot of input power. As in any other generator, the motion of the disk is resisted by the force which the magnetic field exerts on the output current. Thus homopolar generators are only useful if you need a high current at a low voltage and don't care how much energy it takes to turn the disk.
As a footnote, I mentioned using a uniform magnetic field. You might think that having a field just between the shaft and the point on the rim where the brush is placed would be more efficient. Unfortunately, when the field is not uniform over the whole disk local currents are generated in the disk, heating it up and wasting input power. This "eddy-current" effect is the basis of the magnetic brake. Electricity meters are one common application and some car speedometers also depend on this effect.
The homopolar motor
If you pump a huge current into the disk the magnetic field will generate enough force on it to make it rotate despite the brush friction. (Early experimenters made contact to the rim of the disk by making it pass through pools of mercury. Since mercury vapor is rather poisonous this is not done any more.) Unfortunately, generating large direct currents at low voltages is a notoriously inefficient process. AC can be transformed down to get a low voltage but the rectifying device needed to convert the output to DC tends to drop about half a volt, making the efficiency less than 50% before you start moving anything. About the only device which can generate large currents at low voltages at all efficiently is, you guessed it, a homopolar generator.
http://phact.org/e/z/freewire.htm
Anyway - homopolar machines are devilishly interesting things ::)
regards,
khabe
Devilishly interesting things indeed! I´ve read all I can find, there isn´t lots of info out there about the N machine. It´s as if the magnets coax the aether to produce some kind of lined up stationary field which then interacts with the conducting cylinder somehow causing the electrons to act much more massive and succumb to the centrifugal forces.
The following facts scream to me that something good is going on:
Back torque doesn´t increase as it´s electrically loaded.
Generating conductor does not cut flux gradients.
Its a one way process. (wont act as a motor when current is applied)
One idea I´ve had that would use an N machine is this:
Make a griggs hydrosonic pump, but instead of having a solid spinning cylinder make the cylinder out of thickish copper disks sandwiched between thickish axially polarised neo disks. Maybe 3 coppers with 2 neos in middle. Now machine the outer edge of the coppers for the cavitation holes just like a regular griggs. Could also optionally machine outer edges of neos if you use oil lubricated grinding tools.
Insulate the end faces of the sandwich using epoxy based marine paint, make sure the copper faces are nicely roughed up using fine grit emery before painting.
Make sure the shaft is well electrically connected to the outer casing, may need hefty brushes for this, Brush cooling will be enhanced by the fact that they are immersed.
Now fill the pump using water with a good amount of electrolyte in it and spin her up.
This should produce good heat from the cavitation alone but also lots more heat as a very high current will also flow between the cylinder and the drum wall, the stronger the electrolyte the higher the current. What´s more the friction of the power take off using water and electrolyte will be just the usual friction encountered in a griggs machine, the extra heat produced electrically will be for free!
All conducting surfaces in contact with the electrolyte may need to be coated or sputtered with graphite or some other inert conductor to prevent ion migration for a long life.
Maybe a house could be heated very cheaply by filling its radiator system with electrolyte and then running a good sized one of these using a rotoverted motor.
If the diameter or speed or both is increased enough then a high enough voltage could be produced for electrolysis to take place, coupled with the cavitation it may produce interesting HHO yields, but then maybe the HHO will recombine if its ignited by the cavitation recompression and thus just give more heat. So if electrolysis is the main goal then maybe better to do away with the griggs bit.
I may get hold of some neo disks with holes in the centre to mount on a fast motor and start playing, no griggs to start with just an electrolyte heater, It would be an easy way to check for OU in the system because you could just insulate the whole thing and then do simple calorimetry while monitoring the motor power.
Yucca.
What ever happened to the N-machines. Ages ago when Bruce DePalma lived in Santa Barbara I used to periodically visit him. Wow, what a beautiful home he had on the coast! He was a very nice person. He showed me all of his N-machines, some incredible large. Anyhow, I used to have several of his reports that showed "free energy," and also Dr. Tewari's reports on his versions showed the same results. Has anyone here tried to replicate the fascinating N-machine?
PL
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 08, 2009, 03:59:20 PM
What ever happened to the N-machines. Ages ago when Bruce DePalma lived in Santa Barbara I used to periodically visit him. Wow, what a beautiful home he had on the coast! He was a very nice person. He showed me all of his N-machines, some incredible large. Anyhow, I used to have several of his reports that showed "free energy," and also Dr. Tewari's reports on his versions showed the same results. Has anyone here tried to replicate the fascinating N-machine?
PL
@Paul,
It´s great that you met Bruce De Palma in person. I´d like to see and hear about replications and experiments with his N machine too. The reports you speak of, are they available on the net or where they papers he gave you?
I think many are tending to overlook the machine because they think, oh it´s just a normal homopolar generator, but it´s not. The fact that it generates any juice at all is quite weird when you consider no mag flux is being cut. The electrons just seem to be being thrown out of the disc due to centrifugal force??
@All
I´ve ordered some 40mm diameter neo discs with small center holes in, I plan on making a mini N machine using these,some 50mm diam washers and a high speed high efficiency model plane motor I have.
I´m thinking If I run this at speed in a body of strong electrolyte then resistive heating of the solution may occur and calorimetry can be employed to check COP. Can also vary electrolyte strength and so easily check the motor behaviour for backdrag under different output loads.
Fraser.
Quote@Paul,
It´s great that you met Bruce De Palma in person. I´d like to see and hear about replications and experiments with his N machine too. The reports you speak of, are they available on the net or where they papers he gave you?
It's a thick booklet that DePalma gave me. Never seen it online, but Rex Research has some of it,
Dr. Tewari
http://rexresearch.com/tewari/tewari.htm
Bruce DePalma
http://rexresearch.com/depalma/depalma.htm
What intrigues me perhaps the most about DePalma's work is his detailed experiments on Gravity and spinning balls. They are fascinating! DePalma once told me that a skeptic scientist was replicating his spinning ball experiment in a vacuum, that he completed the experiment, but never told DePalma the results. DePalma did all kinds of fascinating experiments, even with slow turning disc (record player) underneath a potted plant. The plants would grow at an angle.
You know, I just did a youtube search and see nothing on Bruce DePalma's work. Such a shame! He had two huge high rpm highly balanced gyros that showed highly unusual inertia effects. I don't even see a single photo of these machines online. I'm wondering if Andrew (his living partner) has any of these photos.
PL
I found the idea of a conductive magnet rotating in its own field interesting. It's probably the simplest setup to make for testing ideas.
It would seem the key here is making a device where the physical friction of the contacts and resistance of the circuit are low, but more importantly, finding some way of drawing current from the device without experiencing a counterforce. As far as I can tell, drawing current radially will result in a force against the existing rotation. One alternative is to draw the current in a circular fashion (like a flat coil) to avoid this effect, but I am told that this will cause a field that couples with the external field reducing its effects on the rotor. In other words, the counterforce works to nullify either the rotation of the disk or the external magnetic field, both of which are factors in generating the voltage.
What we need is a novel geometry for the current flow such that it does not act against the forces which are creating the voltage. I am guessing at what might work. Let's take a case where the natual current flow direction is from the inside of the disk to the outside; we would need to force the current to go in the opposite direction as well near the surface of the disk to negate the side effects of that flow which is necessary for the circuit.
The first picture is the traditional path, while the second picture is an idea for doing this; dotted lines are pathways that are in rotation, while solid lines are the external circuit wiring. Some form of contact like a brush is implied where solid and dotted lines intersect. The yellow pathway represents an insulated wire that is connected to the rim of the disk, glued to the surface of the disk as it travels toward the center, then follows the shaft until it connects with the external circuit. The rest of the path is as normal. Somehow, I suspect this setup could have problems with the resulting flux pattern or the fact that both paths on the disc want to flow toward the rim of the disk.
A more creative solution is found in the third picture. The path of the wiring runs through a field that's far enough away that it doesn't interfere with the first one, and is of an opposite orientation (not necessarily shown properly). The second disk is just a platform for the wires. I tried all the combinations I could think of but a current flow that goes with the natural flow is always going to push back on the rotation, unless somehow it can be redirected into internal mechanical force that doesn't affect the rotation. However, we need to have some design where the current flow on the second disk counters the force of the first disk. You can see where I'm going with this ...
If using a coil type path, a bifilar counterwound coil path should have a neutral field so that's a starting point for that path design, but it's a lot more complicated I think.
Reed did it. Conductive belt runs with zero contact velocity and electrically links discs (drum at perimeter).
US pat 5241232
Take power offa shafts.
Turtle, looking into this
Few posts back, I mentioned attempting to contact stardrivedevice
“http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html
I’ve attempted to contact them numerous times, as they indicated on their site that they would be posting results out soon after the build, but they have not replied.
The build had started back a couple of years, but no results yet.â€
Still no response from them, however;
The following appears to be the first real measured overunity backed by controlled experiment, data collection and analysis:
HOMOPOLAR "FREE-ENERGY" GENERATOR TEST
by Robert Kincheloe
Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus), Stanford University
Paper presented at the 1986 meeting of the Society for Scientific Exploration (San Francisco, June 21, 1986) Revised February 1, 1987
...
Conclusions
We are therefore faced with the apparent result that the output power obtained when the generator magnet is energized greatly exceeds the increase in drive power over that needed to supply losses with the magnet not energized. This is certainly anomalous in terms of convential theory. Possible explanations?
1. There could be a large error in the measurements resulting from some factor such as noise which caused the digital meters to read incorrectly or grossly inaccurate current shunt resistances.
If the measured results had shown that the computed generated output power exceeded the input drive power by only a few percent this explanation would be reasonable and would suggest that more careful calibration and measurements might show that the results described above were due to measurement error.
With the data showing such a large ratio of generated power to input power increase, however, in my opinion this explanation of the results seems unlikely.
(A later test showed that the digital meters are insensitive to a large AC ripple superimposed on the measured DC, but within their rated accuracy of 0.1% give a true average value).
2. There could be a large difference between the measured voltage at the metering brushes and the actual generated voltage in the output brush circuit due to armature reaction, differences in the external metering and output circuit geometry, or other unexplained causes.
As discussed above the various data do not seem to support this possibility.
3. DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source.
This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of physics, and if true has incredible implications.
4. Perhaps other possibilities will occur to the reader.
The data obtained so far seems to have shown that while DePalma's numbers were high, his basic premise has not been disproved. While the Sunburst generator does not produce useful output power because of the internal losses inherent in the design, a number of techniques could be used to reduce the friction losses, increase the total generated voltage and the fraction of generated power delivered to an external load.
DePalma's claim of free energy generation could perhaps then be examined.
I should mention, however, that the obvious application of using the output of a "free-energy" generator to provide its own motive power, and thus truly produce a source of free energy, has occurred to a number of people and several such machines have been built.
At least one of these known to me [13], using what seemed to be a good design techniques, was unsuccessful.
For complete, setup, data, graphs, results analysis, and references see
http://books.google.com/books?id=hnBoneACQV0C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Robert+KINCHELOE+paper&source=bl&ots=-1CZXZCuyD&sig=kUjIfIU447aF96aTjt3_CwB2QTM&hl=en&ei=HAMZS-P5C4rRngfs6rnXAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCMQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Robert%20KINCHELOE%20paper&f=false
The setups and experimentations seem pretty thorough.
I’ve also tried to look up Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering. Robert Kincheloe
The closest and apparently credible reference is from
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/registrar/bulletin_past/bulletin01-02/pdf/ElectrEng.pdf
“Emeriti: (Professors)… William R. Kincheloe…
This may very well be the real deal, in terms of proving excess energy in principle, however, the practicality of overcoming friction and other losses appears to be difficult to achieve.
If anyone has additional info or has done research and/or experimentation with measured results and error analysis it would be appreciated if you post them.
Thanks
Mike
I'm focusing on a DC application where low voltage is not an issue- direct to a parallel stack electrolyser.
The losses in conventional wind turbine setups are over 70%, what with the Betz limit, genny losses, rectifier losses, etc.
If this one-pole disc gen can be made to work, that has some serious ramifications for wind-to-hydrogen setups. A VAWT has not the contact issues of a regular tracking horizontal wind turbine; hence, the hi amps are not an issue.
Just use big cables down the mast.
Thanks for that post, Mike
Turtle, still at it
No prbb keithturte.
It would be interesting to see if anyone else has repeated/confirmed
Robert Kincheloe's verification experiment.
this link maybe easier to read, graphs and test results also included.
http://www.rexresearch.com/kinchelo/kinche~1.htm
Yes, would someone who has the means ***PLEASE*** build an N-machine. For like 2 decades I've been waiting for someone. What's his name, Dr. Tewari has replicated them and claims it works, but they say he was forced to stop researching it.
It's so simple, but you have to have some $. Two NdFeB disc magnets. A metal disc. About 4 carbon brushes. And a DC motor. It would also have to be balanced to high rpm's relative to it's size to get a lot of g forces on the outer rim. I would go for at least 3000 g's. Bruce's large N-machine had 9000 g's.
I also met Bruce DePalma couple of times at his home in Santa Barbara. He had made a lab in his garage with a number of experiments, not only the unipolar generator. Wonder what happened to that beautifully manufactured generator, one of two paid by that religious cult from Colorado? The downside was that mercury from the brushes which affected Bruce's health. Also, I wonder what happened to prof. Kincheloe who showed me Lentz's law violation results from his studies on that generator, in his office at Stanford U. Soon after he retired (he was a professor of electrical engineering at Stanford U.) and moved to Oregon only to lose any connection with him until today. He was very interested in studying Bruce's homopolar generator further but didn't have the $60,000 Bruce was asking to allow experiments w/ the machine. Prof. Kincheloe told me he and a friend of his were planning to build their own but I lost track of him and don't know what happened with that project. Couple of times I called Stanford U. and got in touch with his friend, prominent professor Sturrock who tried to help me find him. All in vain. That, whether or not Bruce's OU claims are valid, remains one of the unresolved problems of my life. These two machines must be somewhere. DePalma had two helpers who might know where they are. What happened to professor Kincheloe? These are questions on par with what happened to Water Torbay? Was his a really working pmm? Now we have Steorn on the line. etc. etc.
Bruce had some amazing, stunning experiments. The ones that showed a change in inertia from spinning objects. Bruce said there was a skeptic who kept telling him his spinning disc inertia experiments were flawed, so this skeptic built one that worked inside a vacuum. Bruce said the skeptic never told him of the results, lol.
Anyhow, not that long ago someone emailed me who knows where Bruce's N-machines are. I'll see if I can dig up his info.
Also there's Andrew, the guy that lived with Bruce. I've contacted him every now and then, but trying to get info out of him is like pulling teeth.
I'll let you know when I find the info of the guy who knows where Bruce's N-machines are.
Hey, what about Dr. Tewari? Has anyone contacted him to find out the truth about his story?
I found the guy who sent me an email who was working with Bruce DePalma up to the point where Bruce died, and who knows it *all*.
If you want, contact me by email and I'll forward it to him. Maybe we can have a 3 way email conversation.
My contact page:
http://globalfreeenergy.info/contact-me/ (http://globalfreeenergy.info/contact-me/)
I just sent the guy an email. Hopefully he's still alive & well & interested in the N-machine. If anyone's interested, lets try to get something going and once & for all verify the N-machine! I don't have $ to spend on this at all, but I'm good at testing, so could offer help there.
This N-machine has been on the back of my mind for over 2 decades! Lets get something going. It doesn't have to be expensive. Is anyone interested in doing the numbers for cost for a shoestring project? The goal here is not to power some house or car, but to just verify the cop>1 effect.
Take a look at this NdFeB magnet for only $29. It's small compared to Bruce's machine, at only 3" diameter, but definetely good enough to show a significant effect. Lets remember that Bruce was dealing with hundreds of killowatts!
http://cgi.ebay.com/Rare-Earth-Neodymium-Magnet-3-ODx1-IDx1-2-NdFeB-Ring_W0QQitemZ120505885462QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item1c0eb5e316
We would need 2 of them, which comes to $58 + S&H.
Here are a few DC motors, and I'm sure there are much better ones. Perhaps someone knows of a company that has great deals on powerful high rpm DC motors.
Here's a GE 1 HP DC High RPM (up to 9000 rpms) Treadmill Motor for $60,
http://cgi.ebay.com/GE-1-HP-DC-High-RPM-Treadmill-Motor_W0QQitemZ290382155559QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439c200f27 (http://cgi.ebay.com/GE-1-HP-DC-High-RPM-Treadmill-Motor_W0QQitemZ290382155559QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item439c200f27)
As for the metal disc, that could be found at a metal warehouse. Out here there's M&K metal. They always have scrap metal around for practically nothing. They would definitely have a disc at least 3" diameter that would cost almost nothing. Also the metal rod that would go through the magnet and disc would cost practically nothing.
Motor brushes also cost practically nothing.
What's that come to,
NdFeB magnets 3"OD x 2 = $30 * 2 = $60
DC Motor: say $100
Aluminum disc ~ 3"OD x 1: $3 for scrap. If we need copper, then it will be more
Aluminum rod x 1: ~~ $10
Motor Brushes x 6: $3 * 6 = $18
Balancing: Free. I've seen people here offer such work for free. Hopefully we can find someone.
===========
Total: $191 + S&H
The part I have no clue about is balancing, but I am certain someone here could offer to do that for free. Wow, for ~ $200 we could for once and for all verify the N-machine. Is anyone interested in doing this?
The following is a snippet of an email I just send:
Yes, good instruments is always nice. :-) But even a cheap DMM is good enough since it will be *relative* measurements. That is, so long as the DMM is linear, lol. If the DMM is say 2% off, then both the input & output will be off by 2%, so the cop calculations will be correct. Ahh there's nothing like DC measurements. :-) So that's my only tiny requirement for my involvement is to keep it all 100% DC.
The measurements may seem involved, but they're really not if you take some precautions. The important part is to keep the entire motor completely symmetrical; i.e., brushes on both sides of the motor. This will prevent changes in torquing between the control (no DC current / not-loaded) & main (DC current / loaded) measurements, which will allow us to accurately obtain the total losses for a given rpm. And that will allow us to find the cop.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 22, 2009, 11:14:13 AM
A metal disc. About 4 carbon brushes. And a DC motor. It would also have to be balanced to high rpm's relative to it's size to get a lot of g forces on the outer rim. I would go for at least 3000 g's. Bruce's large N-machine had 9000 g's.
I'm just curious about why you keep saying to obtain a lot of g forces on the
outer rim. Yes, speed does increase the voltage....but the g's on the outer rim doesn't have anything to do with it.
I'm under the impression you believe the electrons always flows from the axis to the rim. This is not always the case. Electrons can also flow from the rim to the axis depending on the direction of rotation and what magnetic pole the disc is rotating through. Here is an excellent video by lumen showing how the polarity of the current can flow in the opposite direction in the HPG just by changing the direction of rotation,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8wThe voltage is the same regardless if the current is moving from the axis to the rim or from the rim to the axis. It makes no difference and centrifugal force does not play a role in the HPG or the N-Machine.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 05:08:02 PM
I'm just curious about why you keep saying to obtain a lot of g forces on the outer rim. Yes, speed does increase the voltage....but the g's on the outer rim doesn't have anything to do with it.
You can't say there's no unknown effect related to the g forces due to the centrifugal force.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 22, 2009, 05:08:02 PMI'm under the impression you believe the electrons always flows from the axis to the rim.
Your impression was wrong and insulting. I know a little more about physics than you might imagine.
Here is a diagram that might help from the following site.
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html
.
For me, it's not a question of money. I don't have the time.
Will small things work? I have the magnets above. I have the heavy copper . I have the drive mechanism. I have the machinery to make the parts.
I just need the time to put it all together.
I'll get there, slowly
Turtle, slow
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 22, 2009, 05:49:13 PM
You can't say there's no unknown effect related to the g forces due to the centrifugal force.
Your impression was wrong and insulting. I know a little more about physics than you might imagine.
Maybe around 100,000 RPM you may see some observable affects due to the g forces, but everything will be flying apart before this happens. I will say the g's have an almost negligible affect in the HPG at currently achievable RPM's.
I apologize for you being insulted so easily just by bringing something to your attention that I thought was important. I was only trying to be helpful. I now realize my opinion and my view will cause you grief. If we all had this mindset then it would defeat the purpose of sharing ideas, thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and information here.
Take care,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on December 23, 2009, 09:13:03 AM
Maybe around 100,000 RPM you may see some observable affects due to the g forces, but everything will be flying apart before this happens. I will say the g's have an almost negligible affect in the HPG at currently achievable RPM's.
You could take a look a Bruce's spinning disc experiments. He's done numerous experiments. A group of people also replicated one where they took a metal disc (not a magnet), spun it a reasonable rpm (less than 10000 rpm), dropped it. They observed the effect noted in Bruces experiments, which appears to be a change in inertia.
One commonality in all of Bruce's experiments, including the N-machine, is high g-forces. So yes, I think it's important for an N-machine replication to have high g-forces.
Quote from: keithturtle on December 22, 2009, 07:39:19 PM
For me, it's not a question of money. I don't have the time.
Will small things work? I have the magnets above. I have the heavy copper . I have the drive mechanism. I have the machinery to make the parts.
I just need the time to put it all together.
I'll get there, slowly
Turtle, slow
Looking forward to when you start. Do you know when that might be? Also if you have some photos of the parts such as the magnet, then that would tell me if for example the magnet will work well enough.
Can anyone start making an N-machine soon and spend a good amount of time on it per day? I think the cost could be as low as $200 in parts.
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 23, 2009, 09:40:46 AM
Can anyone start making an N-machine soon and spend a good amount of time on it per day? I think the cost could be as low as $200 in parts.
Don't count on anything outa the turtlelab till the end of February. I'll be poking around with some components here and there, testing for integrity at speed, but so many other things on now...
Is gravity a factor in this? If so, would not a vertical shaft design with the disk in the horizontal plane be beneficient?
Turtle, slow
Quote from: PaulLowrance on December 23, 2009, 09:39:15 AM
Looking forward to when you start. Do you know when that might be? Also if you have some photos of the parts such as the magnet, then that would tell me if for example the magnet will work well enough.
I was reviewing Strohm's patent and he referred to a unified field of the magnet, as in, one big magnet doing the deed.
Would an array of, say, 40 magnets, [1/2, 5/8, 3/4 and 1"] all with same polar orientation, serve to create the massive area of flux in proximity of the disk, or would "all them little eddys" ruin the field?
To this end, I bought, along with the big rings, enuf smaller ones to populate the attached. The disk [made out of Nylatron] is only about a two hour job on my knee mill, and if you add up the pull values of all 40 mags, it's in the hundreds of pounds.
I really doubt it will work, but it's only time and money. I have some dandy 8" round slabs of 7/8" mild steel with which to make an electromagnet, as well as a 16" x 1 1/2" round monster.
I am thinking big in this whole thing
Turtle
when has a magnet never acted as a magnet, when it reaches its curie point of course!
it doesn't matter what shape or configuration it is in.
Hey everyone, if I had $200 to spend of excess energy research, I'd jump on this in a nano second. The parts & cost list I posted was from maybe 15 minutes worth of online searching and there are probably even better deals out there.
Ciao
There are aspects in the homopolar generation that I think deserve to be investigated.
Certainly there has never been easier to experiment, experiment more interesting and more controversial since the beginning of 'electromagnetism, as the magnet of Faraday rotation and the disk.
Because of their simplicity and beauty have always captured the attention of the physical and many researchers.
According to Poincare "the most curious experiments in electrodynamics are those where there is a continuous rotation, called unipolar induction experiments."
Einstein, in his first paper "on the electrodynamics of moving bodies," says this: "it is clear that Maxwell's electrodynamics - as current interpretation - once applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be related to phenomena .
The hypothesis of a hybrid config spiral, the turbine electrodynamics
The reversal of cause and effect in the classical description of electromagnetism, causes a misconception that is the basis of many paradoxes and exceptions. Currently, the curious fact that the induction unipolar or the disc is an exception to Faraday's law induction Faraday is generally accepted. When we establish a proper relationship between cause and effect is evidence of a link between mechanics and electromagnetism, as a new law of induction for which the paradoxes or exceptions do not occur. The difficulties in interpreting the disk flow directly from Faraday's law induction Faraday and the equation that defines and measures the magnetic induction. The electromagnetic force and torque generated in the disc Faraday unipolar dependent figure of the circuit that connects the hard drive, a provocative duality "absolute-relative" of emf and torque unipolar. This leads to different interpretations. The analogy with mechanics suggests that this duality derives from the dual nature of the inert and gravitational mass electromagnetic. You can describe some experiments paradoxical unipolar induction involving the unique geometry of the spiral that demonstrate this duality and reversal of cause and effect. L 'emf and the torque of the Faraday disk with a spiral of conduct is due to the continuous variation of the angular momentum of the electromagnetic current. These experiments confirm the strength of Lorentz and invalidate the law of induction Faraday. They show how an emf in a closed loop and a unipolar torque are not produced by the change in magnetic flux, which is constant, but with two variations in the electromagnetic angular momentum. The three possibilities of change in the electromagnetic angular momentum generated by the movement of charge causes different forms of electromagnetic induction.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
Tesla, from an article written for the electrical engineer in 1891
note entitled "The Unipolar Dynamo."
Here Tesla presents a detailed analysis of the Faraday disk generator, explains why it was an inefficient generator, describes its variations and improvements on the device of Faraday, in the bottom of the third page of the article, declares that he has invented a AGENER where " the current, once started, may then be enough to maintain itself even to 'increase the resistance. " Then, at the end of the article, states that "... several machines were built by the producer and ranging from two years." Two years before the writing of that article was 1889. All points show evidence of a unipolar dynamo model of Tesla's turbine being, first, the design of a machine that can continue to produce electricity after the separation from an external source of power.
CURRENT self-sustaining
Before going into the details of this invention would be interesting to have an idea of how all the generator, even in theory, could be capable of generating a current self-sustaining. This was clearly explained by Walter M. Elsasser in an article on scientific-american (May 1958) called "the land as a dynamo."
Elsasser models the earth-dynamo, conveniently for this explanation, the Faraday generator, as a metal disk spinning over a bar magnet placed on the edge of the disc. Note also that the bar magnet could be replaced by an electromagnet can get its power from the rotating disk, by attaching an electromagnet wire to the outside of the disk and the other wire through the center axis metallic disc .
Elsasser then specifies that an ordinary disk generator "could not maintain a current for very long because the current induced in the disk is so weak that he would soon be dissipated by the resistance of the conductor [the disk]." This convention provision does not explain "how currents could be developed and perpetuated to make the magnetic field of the earth proposes three options, although the model of the dynamics that explain the persistence of terrestrial magnetism.
If we had a material that could conduct electricity a thousand times better than copper, the system actually make a current self-sustaining. We could also make this feasible
Working rotating disk very fast ... A third possibility to make such a dynamo self-sustaining would increase the size of the system: the theory says that the bigger we make such a dynamo, better work. If we could build a device rotating disk of its kind in scale of many miles, we would have difficulty making the currents self-sustaining.
Tesla did not have a material a thousand times more conductive than copper, neither was able to rotate a disc at ultra-high speeds needed to produce such a current, or planned to use a metal disc rotating several miles in diameter. Tesla knew he had to use the energy normally wasted in a generator to transform it into a power source.
UNIPOLAR DYNAMO
Tesla's design varied from that of Faraday in two important ways. First, he used a magnet that was larger than the diameter of the disc so that the magnet completely covering the disc. Second, he divided the disk into sections with spiral curves radiating from the center toward the outer edge.
In the Faraday unipolar generator, known Tesla, the current can never come entirely to the external circuit ... e. .. by far the largest of the current produced will not appear externally ... not having full coverage of the magnetic disk.
Tesla used the entire surface of the disk in power generation instead of a small section directly adjacent to the bar magnet, as happened in the Faraday device. This not only increases the amount of power generated, but it will be all transferred from the center to the outer edge of the disc, making it available to the external circuit.
The most important changes made by Tesla to design Faraday is one that has removed one of the biggest problems in the physics world [the reaction to every action]. It is this reaction that works to cancel the force generated from the original. In an electrical system if there are two turns of wire wrapped below and a current is passed through the wire, the current passing through the first loop will install a magnetic field that will work against the passage of current through the second loop.
The divisions into sections in the spiral disk, lead the current to cross the full radius of the disk or, as in his alternative version of the generator, the current is forced to make a complete circle around the outer edge of the disc. Since the current is going into a big circle on the disc, the magnetic field generated by the current does not work against the field magnet above the circular plate, as in conventional generators, but actually strengthens the magnet. The disk cuts the magnetic lines to produce a current, the current that is detached from the disc reinforces the magnet, allowing a greater output current.
Like the conventional DC power generators, the unipolar dynamo also functions as a unit if the power is connected to the disc and this seems to be the last element that could make the device self-sustaining, that is, able to generate power after the detachment from a external source of power.
The rotation is started for example by a motor powered by line current. Is a generator that a disk drive motor are mounted in the magnetic circuit. Since the disks gain speed, the current produced reinforces the magnets, this causes the generation of more current. Current probably is primarily directed toward the disk motor which increases the speed of the system. At some point the speed of the disks is large enough that the magnetic field generated by the current balance of the resistance dynamotore that goes without saying.
You can make assumptions about what is the process that could maintain the unipolar dynamo operating after the start-up power, however, two characteristics of the generator are significant. First, when a resistive load, like a light bulb is added to the circuit, it lowers the voltage at the center of the disc. This lower voltage at the center, it means that there is a major difference in the tension between the core and the outer edge of the disc than before the bulb had been added. While the difference between the center and the outside increases, the generator increases and makes it more current. Secondly, however, the most important thing is that the generator loses very little, or nessun'energia be preserved because of the current that is detached from the generator is doing double duty. The current makes the bulb glow, but on its direction from the generator to the filament in the bulb, through a route that adds momentum to the dynamo and, therefore, energy consumption is at a very low rate.
The process continues, it would seem, until heat losses in the filament are not equal to the energy of rotation of the flywheel generator. In terms of Elsasser criteria for self-sustaining generator, the Tesla unipolar dynamo comes to meeting the condition of the electrical conductor better. This is not to use new materials, but a new geometry applied so that the current does not generate its own opposing forces. This is similar but not equivalent to having a better conductor.
Whether or not a dynamo "fuelless" This generation seems to be indeed a clever invention of engineering that takes one of the basic principles of nature, an equal and opposite reaction for every action and turns, through the use of a new geometry of the circuit, in a reaction that is cumulative action original. Instead the opposite reaction that slows the system that generated it, the reactions add energy to the system.
Patents:
http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&NUM=US406968&ST=number&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true
Ciao
TRIBUTE TO NIKOLA TESLA
Nikola Tesla, physicist, inventor and serbian engineer naturalized U.S. in 1891, his laboratory has built an electric generator that produces more energy that used to work. A real multiplier that apparently contradicts one of the laws of physics for which the output can never be higher than the input.
Originally from Smiljan in Serbia, Nikola Tesla had this brilliant idea from the end nineteenth and early twentieth century, but he was never allowed to go beyond the prototype ... In addition, Nikola Tesla decided never to give the patent to multinational companies and people you trust to deliver projects for further distribution in the world ...
It is believed that the genius has necessarily attended the university classrooms, have an austere air, and especially not wearing blue overalls. The likeable and very human Nikola Tesla, who for years has been without a penny, is the living image of a free thinker, demonstrated the link that runs between the world's harmony and truth, between universal laws and the game of life.
Good Luck, Mr. Nikola Tesla.
Science education shops for kids
they sell hundred dollar miniature steam engine kits,
they sell Wimshurst kits.
they sell many kits.
But they DON'T sell Faraday disc kits,
Because they don't want you playing with one. Hmmmm?
Also as would be expected, places like this are crawling
with power company pay roll disinfo agents.
May guess is you can power a faraday Disc based genny,
with the guts of a replica wind up grandfather clock.
Damn the torpedos
FN
Thanks for the posts. Good info from Serra-Vall and Nick.
Conspiracy or not, I'm moving ahead with this. Magnets for the swiss cheese plate are here, as is copper sheet, steel shaft and bearings.
Just came up with a roll of 16 ga cu mag wire and and a stout 12" x 1" thick round steel slab for the big e-mag. Nick sez make the mag bigger than the disk. Copy.
Progressing slowly, as per MO
Turtle, slow
Who wins, the tortoise or the hare?
<grin>
Hi keithturtle,
That's great news. I too will make a N-machine, when I get $200 to spend on it, but pretty much broke right now.
I added another 16 of the 1" magnets to the swiss cheese plate for a total of 56 magnets all pointing the same direction. Diameter increased to 7" from 5.23".
Scored some 3/4" thick phenolic for the base that will grip the epoxy way better than nylon would.
I may have some time to put into this next week.
Working overtime at the mill to pay for the habit.
Progressing, slowly
Turtle
Quote from: Hypercom Patents:
http://v3.espacenet.com/searchResults?locale=en_EP&NUM=US406968&ST=number&compact=false&DB=EPODOC&submitted=true
/quote]
No patent there. Got a better link?
Thanks,
Turtle
It seems odd of so many here, that nobody has tried this before now.
Once you get it together and running, will it run itself or just to try as a generator?
Magluvin
Hi keithturtle,
Are you using strong NdFeB magnets?
Quote from: Paul-R on July 01, 2006, 09:59:15 AM
The US Navy is using them in its
new class of warship:
http://www.ga.com/atg/homo.php
ah, so that's what the 'don't ask, don't tell' fuss was all about.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2010, 06:02:28 AM
It seems odd of so many here, that nobody has tried this before now.
Once you get it together and running, will it run itself or just to try as a generator?
Magluvin
Good point, you don't see many, (or any) and only one video of it on youtube, using an aluminum disc, as of now,and he dare not speak about the actual current flow, only the voltage. And as I said those whom erased Tesla's name from most school text books, also manage to ensure no Faraday Discs kits are sold in science hobby shops. De Palma whom went public with his findings, is dead. Hmmmmm? ok, no need to post your results if the formentioned intimdates you, for me it all but confirms the output current rumors. So lets just build them and use lots of smiley faces ;D in other posts, if we liked the results. (wink)
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2010, 06:02:28 AM
It seems odd of so many here, that nobody has tried this before now.
Once you get it together and running, will it run itself or just to try as a generator?
Magluvin
Some info about Tesla seems to indicate that it might, but that is not what I'm concerned about.
If the machine can put out thousands of amps at two or three volts, driven by a comparatively small motor, that hi-amp lo-volt output can be directed to a separating electrolyser for H2 production, 24/7.
H2 has more potential uses than low voltage, in my applications
Turtle
Quote from: PaulLowrance on January 02, 2010, 10:16:14 AM
Hi keithturtle,
Are you using strong NdFeB magnets?
Yes. I have two primary sources; you get what you pay for
http://www.magnet4less.com/index.php?cPath=1&gclid=CPHN-7-Uh58CFZZ75QoddRVlMw [cheaper, poorer quality and service
and http://www.kjmagnetics.com/ these guys are good, and email specials ease the pain a bit.
Some on-line specials with other merchants proved disappointing. Stick with magnet people.
Any way you go, you will have copius turtlebucks tied up.
It's only time and money...
Turtle, wearing out the overtime at the mill
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 02, 2010, 06:01:13 PM
Good point, you don't see many, (or any) and only one video of it on youtube, using an aluminum disc, as of now,and he dare not speak about the actual current flow, only the voltage. And as I said those whom erased Tesla's name from most school text books, also manage to ensure no Faraday Discs kits are sold in science hobby shops. De Palma whom went public with his findings, is dead. Hmmmmm? ok, no need to post your results if the formentioned intimdates you, for me it all but confirms the output current rumors. So lets just build them and use lots of smiley faces ;D in other posts, if we liked the results. (wink)
If it works with OU results, you can be assured that it will not be buried this time.
Turtle
I had a discussion of this elsewhere and thought of aluminum disks. I wonder if the voltage would be higher due to less resistance than copper. But then maybe a copper ring to the outside for commutator as AL. would prob not be good there. Off topic for some, hard drive disks, are the coated with platinum? Those may be great for hho.
Being not many have delved into these devices, I would like to consider some facts that may not be true. Maybe the magnets can spin and the disk stay still. This would be a great advantage. It is very possible the very simple to be discouraged. That said, if I take my pulse motor coils and mount them to my rotor magnets, add a commutator and brushes, will it generate power if it spins? If the answer is no, then I would like to see some facts on that. Or come up with my own. =]
Is it possible that suppressive actions on this go all the way back to Faraday? Could it be that the paradox does not exist? If we had 10 of these in series, would the voltage add up to a very readily usable supply?
My Great Grand Father, With ties to Westinghouse AND posibly Tesla had 2 motors connected at the shaft and all wires went to a box with a switch, give it a spin and it never stops accelerating. The switch would have to be thrown. My Grand Father told me of this many times. GGF was approached and threatened due to showings all over town, about 60 miles from Pitt. where Westinghouse and Tesla had done some work. GF said that he tossed the box and that was that. Later when GF, who was young when this all happened and did not realize the value of such, searched for that box, but could never find. But maybe GGF was as clever as Tesla. Maybe one of those motors was just internally different, or both.
Just food for thought.
Anyway, Im glad there are some here whom are willing to talk about this, and I am willing to hang in if you are. =]
Magluvin
Quote from: keithturtle on January 02, 2010, 09:21:28 PM
Some info about Tesla seems to indicate that it might, but that is not what I'm concerned about.
If the machine can put out thousands of amps at two or three volts, driven by a comparatively small motor, that hi-amp lo-volt output can be directed to a separating electrolyser for H2 production, 24/7.
H2 has more potential uses than low voltage, in my applications
Turtle
uh? yeah, or there's that thing Tesla patenteded on November 2, 1897,
for some other applications I can think of.
Good points. Rotational dynamics must be tested in every embodiment: Fixed mag, rotating mag, co-rotating mag and disk, counter rotating... These differing configs will benefit from the simplicity of permags.
As fer resistance, I thought Al was a bit more resistive than Cu.
For economy's sake, I will laminate my 26 ga Cu to heavier Al and balance it. I do not intend to intentionally electrically bond the Cu to the Al plate, at least at first. I will use hi-dielectric epoxy and much pressure for the bond.
Too bad Gramps canned the motor. Mebbe it's lore, but if it's real, then that just fuels the passion here.
I still think gravity comes into play in some measure. To that end, I wanna run it on a vertical axis.
Turtle
Turtle
I correct myself, I meant to say as you did. Al has more res than copper. =]
Sorry.
Gf had more experience in mechanical vs GGF
GGF built radio transmitters, motors generators some of the first combustion engines of the time. In fact the first ones only had a cam on the exhaust valve and the intake was just spring and vacuum/pressure activated. And due to the amount of coal mining in the area, he even tried coal dust as fuel. He invented a special valve for the air brake on trains that he had a deal with Westinghouse that enabled the brakes to be applied more than once in a short period of time. Before that there had been many accidents with trains due to failure to be able to stop properly.
Where we are from, Ellwood city PA there was a park back then called Rock Point, that had ordered a merry go round from Switzerland, the first in the US, and GGF contracted to make the horses go up and down, of which he did and it was another first.
But since my GF told me of the 2 motors, it got me interested in perpetulal motion in 7th grade. I became involved in electronics even earlier but the gravity pulled me in. I learned a lot from it all.
Now Im here. It is very sentimental to me.
Mags
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 02, 2010, 05:41:49 PM
ah, so that's what the 'don't ask, don't tell' fuss was all about.
New link; the previous doesn't work any more:
http://www.ga.com/pdf/Readers_low.pdf
Quote from: Magluvin on January 03, 2010, 03:35:39 AM
Now Im here. It is very sentimental to me.
Mags
Good. Tap into that emotional drive and keep flogging the rest of us on.
Passion is power
Turtle
Im tappin Turtle =]
Im just imagining using small stuff to accomplish something here. Say 1 to 2 in. copper washers, neo flat ring mags, 10 or so in series connection. A lil baby homo. lol But it would be an easy, inexpensive way to experiment.
To get results, it doesnt always have to be big and expensive, hard to make deal.
Lets say it put out 10v at whatever huge amperage, a 10v motor to turn it. Bam Whos yo Grandaddy!
Magluvin
I ain't for certain you'd see much voltage at that small a diameter. I have Cu stock to make a 10" disk, or 34" disk if backed with Al. The PM field will be 7", all parts in stock.
Just gotta start drillin' and millin'. Other things in the way for the next week.
Won't get any more time on this project till after the 11th
Turtle
True that on the voltage turtle. I was just dreaming a bit. =]
Its worth a go though to see what we can see.
I have some big mags from a subwoofer, they are about 8 in. outer dia and 4 in. inner and 1 in thick. I have to take them apart by soaking is a solvent. But I will try the lil one first to get things going.
Mags
Have a Few Questions and there are so many pages
simply asking might be the fastest way to get answer.
How hot does a faraday disc get?
With eddie currents, or otherwise?
How hot do the bearings get?
Does the current have any effect on conductive bearings?
Would plexiglas hold up to the heat?
Would plexiglas/plastic be better than a wood housing?
I've heard in some cases wood can indeed conduct electricity
and if I try to incorporate HV, I don't want to take chances.
Thank you
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 08, 2010, 11:30:37 PM
Have a Few Questions and there are so many pages
simply asking might be the fastest way to get answer.
How hot does a faraday disc get?
With eddie currents, or otherwise?
The more load you put on it, the hotter the disc will get. Eddie currents aren't really an issue if the entire conductive disc is inside the magnetic field. This is the main reason not to have the diameter of the disc to be much larger than the diameter of the magnet.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 08, 2010, 11:30:37 PM
How hot do the bearings get?
Does the current have any effect on conductive bearings?
Assuming the bearings aren't part of the circuit then the current won't have any affect on the bearings and they would get hot just like the bearings in all other motors or generators.
Assuming the bearings are part of the circuit then drawing high current could cause the bearings to heat up and weld together. The bearings in this case would again heat up proportional to the amount of current you are extracting just like the conductive disc.
IMO we need to be focusing on eliminating the counter torque. Until this is achieved then no OU. If you want a welding machine or for hydrogen production then go for it.
Here's a few simple ways to increase the voltage:
1) Increasing the strength of the magnetic field.
2) Increasing the radii of the magnets and conductive disc.
3) Increasing the RPM.
A brief side note on the radii of the magnets. It is extremely difficult and expensive to find a very large radii neo magnet. You can stack many strong neo magnets in a N/S/N/S/N/S configuration to form a large cylinder magnet and extracting the current on the outside circumference at half the length of the cylinder magnet.
There are other ways to increase the voltage but they are a little more complicated.
GB
Well, if the bearings are metal and on the conductive copper shaft,
then the bearings are technically part of the circuit, no?
That is current is flowing through the shaft,
it will also flow through the bearings,
charged balls will be turing.
Hot based on load?
So I will have a heater (and) HHO for my Hot Water heater, cooking, etc?
Mobile HHO maker for my vehicle? Hmmmm?
But if magnets spin with the disc, "counter torque" is minimal, if any.
And why would I want to use neodymium (conductive) magnets?
Are we making a magnetic brake, the opposite of what we want?
Ferrite Magnets are the correct magnets for N-Machines.
"There are other ways to increase the voltage but they are a little more complicated."
Oh? But not a one word helpful hint? Not even a link eh?
Well I think I'll just spin 20 discs on one non-conductive shaft
with 40 mages and one tiny motor, and brush wire them all in series
to get as many gains in voltage.
Man you people are everywhere.
I think that the bearings would make an excellent main shaft electrical contact to replace a brush. Even if it required more than 1 to handle it. The thought that the current going through the small contact points within the bearing races, the heat that can build up, can be negated some due to an always changing contact point.
Now it would be great if the bearing motor effect worked in a positive direction to turn the gen while acting as brushes.
I wonder if there is a 2 or 4 race bearings as in 2 to 3 rows of bearings, and how much torque it would produce. This bearing motor sounds like it needs high current, and the HP gen produces that. The bearing I believe can be considered an official HP type except no magnet required, for motor, I cant say gen without a mag.
Ok so lets add a mag to the bearing motor, will it generate just as it can be a motor?. If we stacked a row of 10 large bearings on a shaft then put a cylinder mag over the bearings , and the mag is magnetized inner dia N and the outer S. Will it be a more powerful bearing motor and a generator?
Then there are roller(pin) bearings.
I dont know if anyone has seen my graphite vids on YT where I remove the grease and work in graphite powder and these things spin dude. Even a dry bearing cannot compare. Not the thinnest oil.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTfFIetYPY
We have to think that the bearing grease need be removed for good electrical contact, and the graphite fills in the gaps of the imperfect bearing surface, which lessens the resistance compared to a dry bearing to a level of magnitude. So the electrical contact will also be increased as well.
So we consider a copper or aluminum tube that slides over the outer row of bearings on a shaft and an extended portion can have a large bearing slid onto that, to act like a brush for the outer contact, And the big bearing will act as a motor also. lol this is just silly
Mags
Lot of things to think about.
Shaft bearings as brushes sounds interesting,
not sure I understood the outer brush idea but it's late.
Any heat can be handled with electrostatic cooling if need be.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 09, 2010, 05:40:40 AM
Well, if the bearings are metal and on the conductive copper shaft,
then the bearings are technically part of the circuit, no?
That is current is flowing through the shaft,
it will also flow through the bearings,
charged balls will be turing.
Not if there is a non-conductive insulator between the conductive bearings and conductive shaft. That is the reason why I gave you both examples.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 09, 2010, 05:40:40 AM
But if magnets spin with the disc, "counter torque" is minimal, if any.
And why would I want to use neodymium (conductive) magnets?
Are we making a magnetic brake, the opposite of what we want?
Ferrite Magnets are the correct magnets for N-Machines.
There is counter torque when the disc and magnet spin together when drawing current off the disc. I once thought as you do. Build it and find out for yourself or use ampere's old force law to do the calculations. The conductive coating on the neo magnets is the same as having a conductive disc and magnet rotating together on the same axle. You say the disc and magnet has minimal to no counter torque when they rotate together and then go and say the conductive neo's would be a magnetic brake (that is a big contradiction in your statement). The strongest and biggest magnet you can find is the correct magnet. If you don't want to use the conductive coating on the neo's, then put a thin insulating material between the coating of the neo magnet and disc. A thicker disc would be better than the thin conductive coating on the neo, especially since we're talking about drawing high amps.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 09, 2010, 05:40:40 AM
"There are other ways to increase the voltage but they are a little more complicated."
Oh? But not a one word helpful hint? Not even a link eh?
Well I think I'll just spin 20 discs on one non-conductive shaft
with 40 mages and one tiny motor, and brush wire them all in series
to get as many gains in voltage.
Man you people are everywhere.
It would be an engineering nightmare with extreme losses to connect all of those discs in series to gain voltage on one shaft if it's not done properly. Yes, it's easy to connect them in parralel to increase the amps but it's not so easy to connect them in series without the proper setup. You can always use slip rings to extract the current on the axis instead of using the bearings. Brushes can be totally eliminated on the rim with the right set up by using slip rings to extract the current from each side of the axis. Please don't tell me it can't be done. It can be done with the correct setup.
Here are the links to the more complicated methods to increase the voltage without an engineering nightmare. Just remember, when you increase the voltage you also increase the counter torque by the same ratio when drawing current from the disc.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8409.0
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5662.msg205207#msg205207
You can do it with a halbach array also, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8409.msg213451#msg213451
Use the search feature of this forum for more ideas. Don't let any tools go to waste.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
There is counter torque when the disc and magnet spin together when drawing current off the disc. I once thought as you do. Build it and find out for yourself or use ampere's old force law to do the calculations.
I (will) be building it, I (wont) be using your convinient corrupt laws
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
The conductive coating on the neo magnet is the same as having a conductive disc and magnet rotating together on the same axle.
It is not the same has having a FERRITE magnet next to a disc.
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
You say the disc and magnet has minimal to no counter torque when they rotate together and then go and say the conductive neo's would be a magnetic brake (that is a big contradiction in your statement).
What part of "FERRITE" do you not understand?
You see folks? He goes on and on pretending he didn't see what I wrote,
(And) goes on and on with misleading advice while trying to sound "expert"
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
The strongest and biggest magnet you can find is the correct magnet. If you don't want to use the conductive coating on the neo's, then put a thin insulating material between the coating of the neo magnet and disc.
No, the correct magnet is the strongest FERRITE magnet you can find.
Don't use a Neo at all, this guy is trying to steer people wrong.
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
A thicker disc would be better than the thin conductive coating on the neo, especially since we're talking about drawing high amps.
True, but the devil tells some truth to sell some lies.
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 07:46:15 AM
It would be an engineering nightmare with extreme losses to connect all of those discs in series to gain voltage on one shaft if it's not done properly.
The same could be said for picking one's nose, what is your point?
You try to make it sound difficult when it is not.
This guy desperitly does not want us to succeed,
your cover is blown dude.
His Method of Op is to pretend fight with what he calls "Naysayers"
So he looks like one of us, and then steers us wrong when he can.
At least that is the feeling I'm gathering here.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 09, 2010, 06:56:06 PM
I (will) be building it, I (wont) be using your convinient corrupt laws
It is not the same has having a FERRITE magnet next to a disc.
What part of "FERRITE" do you not understand?
You see folks? He goes on and on pretending he didn't see what I wrote,
(And) goes on and on with misleading advice while trying to sound "expert"
No, the correct magnet is the strongest FERRITE magnet you can find.
Don't use a Neo at all, this guy is trying to steer people wrong.
True, but the devil tells some truth to sell some lies.
The same could be said for picking one's nose, what is your point?
You try to make it sound difficult when it is not.
This guy desperitly does not want us to succeed,
your cover is blown dude.
His Method of Op is to pretend fight with what he calls "Naysayers"
So he looks like one of us, and then steers us wrong when he can.
At least that is the feeling I'm gathering here.
A conductive coating on a neo magnet that is rotating is the same as having a disc glued to a ferrite magnet and rotating together.
Please enlighten and educated us to why a ferrite magnet is better to use than a neo magnet. Don't tell me it's because the neo has a conductive coating on it and will cause it to act as a magnetic brake, because that is the same as having a conductive disc glued to the ferrite magnet and will act as a magnetic brake just like the neo when you're drawing current.
You have a ferrite magnet with a conductive disc attached to it, then you have a neo magnet with a conductive coating attached to it. What will be the difference in the results? Why is a weaker ferrite magnet better than a neo?
I'm an Op because I disagree with you about the neo and ferrite magnets? LOL. You asked questions, then after an attempt is given to answer your questions, then all of the sudden you know the answers and I'm an Op. I won't even try to understand that, because the is very irrational thinking on your part. You're a homopolar newbie IMO.
This is a good read but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears because you won't even consider someone else's view, http://www.andrijar.com/fte/index.html
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on January 09, 2010, 08:28:10 PM
This is a good read but I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears because you won't even consider someone else's view, http://www.andrijar.com/fte/index.html
Thanks for the link. Good stuff. Indeed, building it will provide some answers, and generate more questions. Talking about it will only further necessitate building it to provide some answers.
Turtle, building it
Ferrite magnets
Hard ferrite (ceramic) magnets were developed in the 1960's as a low cost alternative to metallic magnets. They are made from strontium carbonate and iron oxide both of which are readily available and low in cost.
Key words above? Ferrites are not considered "Metallic Magnets" though they use some iron particals the particals are not connected to each other, which would allow the magnet to actually cinduct electricity, like a Neo. We dont want that. That at least is what I was told.
The positive benefits of ferrite magnets are
• They retain their magnetism for a very long time.
• They have a high stability and do not demagnetise very easily even in high temperatures. ****
• They are relatively low cost to produce.
• They can be manufactured to be flexible, by mixing the ferrite with plasticized rubber compounds, which creates a bendy and pliable magnet.
The main drawback of ferrite magnets is that they are quite fragile and tend to break easily, so they should be handled with care.
Neodymium magnets
Neodymium magnets are also referred to as NdFeB magnets, or NIB, because they are composed mainly of Neodymium (Nd), Iron (Fe) and Boron (B). They are a relatively new invention, first manufactured in 1984 and have only recently become affordable for everyday use.
Neodymium rare earth magnets have a high resistance to demagnetization, unlike most other types of magnets. They will not lose their magnetization around other magnets or if dropped. They will however, begin to lose strength if they are heated above their maximum operating temperature, which is 176°F (80°C) Thus if your copper or aluminum disc N-machine will get hot according to Moe, he can't have it both ways.
Further more they are conductive solid metal, (not a ceramic-metal mix like Ferrites) Ferrite (are) a ceramic metal mix, which will not conduct an electrical current, nor create the problems associated with that when it comes to certtain applications. This spook disinfo agent knows that quite well! This place gives me the freakin willys.
Even a coated neo exhibits conductive properties, or behavior assiciated with same.
Neodymium magnets also have some limitations due to their corrosion behaviour. In humid applications, a protective coating is highly recommended. Coatings which have been used successfully include E-coat (a liquid dip epoxy coating), dry electrostatic spray epoxy, nickel plating and combinations of these coatings. Changes in composition and processing over the past several years have resulted in significant improvements in corrosion resistance and high temperature performance.
But such coatings and the magent base itself can also interfere with certain electrical behavior. It is my understanding that though a Neo is stronger, you want to use Ferrites.
MAGNETIC BRAKING
Roll your Neodymium magnet cylinder down an inclined wooden plane. Now roll it down a piece of aluminum "U"-shaped extrusion (1/2" x 1/2", or whatever size fits your magnet.) The magnet will move much slower in the aluminum. And if you affix a couple of thick aluminum plates to different spots on the extrusion (or even below the wood!) you will see obvious braking effects.
Key word "Neo"
...maybe it is just the stregth, but i know Neos are conductive inside and Ferrite are not.I could be wrong about alll this,,
my advice is to try both and compare results.
FEEL THE DRAG DIRECTLY
Get a thick slab of aluminum or even copper (thicker than 1/4".) Hold an NIB (Neodymium) magnet in your hand and slide it back and forth. You can definitely feel the "syrupy" friction caused by electromagnetic inductive braking effect. If you rub the magnet back and forth for long enough, you will even feel the metal plate's temperature begin to rise. (copper discs or Aluminum disc such as in N-machines will react the same, both being alloys.)
Source: http://amasci.com/amateur/neodymium.html
Copper Losses The power lost in the form of heat in the armature winding of a generator is known as COPPER LOSS. Heat is generated any time current flows in a conductor. Copper loss is an I2R loss, which increases as current increases. The amount of heat generated is also proportional to the resistance of the conductor. The resistance of the conductor varies directly with its length and inversely with its cross- sectional area. Copper loss is minimized in armature windings by using large diameter wire. Q14. What causes copper losses?
Eddy Current Losses The core of a generator armature is made from soft iron, which is a conducting material with desirable magnetic characteristics. Any conductor will have currents induced in it when it is rotated in a magnetic field. These currents that are induced in the generator armature core are called EDDY CURRENTS. The power dissipated in the form of heat, as a result of the eddy currents, is considered a loss. Eddy currents, just like any other electrical currents, are affected by the resistance of the material in which the currents flow.
The resistance of any material is inversely proportional to its cross-sectional area. Figure 1-11, view A, shows the eddy currents induced in an armature core that is a solid piece of soft iron. Figure 1-11, view B, shows a soft iron core of the same size, but made up of several small pieces insulated from each other. This process is called lamination.
The currents in each piece of the laminated core are considerably less than in the solid core because the resistance of the pieces is much higher. (Resistance is inversely proportional to cross-sectional area.) The currents in the individual pieces of the laminated core are so small that the sum of the individual currents is much less than the total of eddy currents in the solid iron core.
source: http://www.tpub.com/content/neets/14177/css/14177_24.htm
I'm exhausted from arguing with Oil Company Disinfo Agents, they would destroy the whole earth for a pocket full of gold, which tells you something about their intellifgence, which is why it is so easy to expose them. but yes after a while one can get paranoid andor just come to expect them, around each corner because after all, that is where they lurk. but you have already said other things that clearly pin you as disinfo in my eyes, If you're not one, than don't take offense.
Good day.
@foggy-Notion:
I'm not a disinfo agent and I do take offense. I have done extensive research in this area. I am only sharing with you my own research, experiments, and observations in addition to others on this forum.
I think you said in a previous post that not much information or research has been done on the HPG/HPM. This is not true. The HPG does have OU properties and can be proven mathematically, but the counter torque kills the OU properties.
Doubling the radii of the disc and magnets increase the output power to the fourth power while the input requirements only increase to the square thereof.
The problem is the counter torque increases to the fourth power also and this is what needs to be overcome in order to achieve OU. I would love to be proven wrong on this and I hope it gives you motivation to prove it wrong. This is my opinion only and you have a right to your own opinion, but don't call me a disinfo agent because our opinions are not the same.
Take care and good luck,
GB
What "Counter Torque"? ha ha ha,
I'll take Tesla's word over yours &
that of the power co. media folks.
As for Neo mags, they conduct electricity,
they are used for homopolar motors like what
you see when someone puts a magnet on a battery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkU_JmtH3PU
The motor works because the neo magnet conducts electricity.
I don't see them making homopolar motors with Ferrite Mags,
Because it wont work, ferrite magnets don't conduct electricity.
The "Counter Torque" effect is what makes a homopolar 'motor' go.
That is why Farrite Magnets are used for homopolar 'generators',
Because they have no motor effect, no "counter torque"
Non-conductive coating may indeed stop outside conductivity but I'm
just going to try both and see which is best, how's that?
And that Sir, is my opinion.
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 10, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
The motor works because the neo magnet conducts electricity.
I don't see them making homopolar motors with Ferrite Mags,
Because it wont work, ferrite magnets don't conduct electricity.
Gluing a conductive disc to a ferrite magnet is the same as having a conductive coating on a neo magnet. The conductive coating on the neo magnet replaces the copper disc that could be attached and glued to a ferrite magnet. If you glued a copper disc to the ferrite magnet, then you could make a homopolar motor with a ferrite magnet. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Lol
homopolar motor made from a non-conductive magnet,
http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.wmvHere's additional information on the video,
http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/index.htmlQuote from: Foggy-Notion on January 10, 2010, 08:26:51 PM
The "Counter Torque" effect is what makes a homopolar 'motor' go.
That is why Farrite Magnets are used for homopolar 'generators',
Because they have no motor effect, no "counter torque"
A conductive coating on a magnet or a copper disc glued to a magnet will have the same results. Let's say you put a conductive coating on a ferrite magnet. Now, how will this conductive ferrite magnet have a different result if there was no conductive coating but instead had a copper disc glued to it? The results will be the same. The results will be a counter torque.
In a homopolar generator with a ferrite magnet and a copper disc glued together, it will have the same counter torque as a neo magnet with a conductive coating glued to it. It doesn't matter if the copper disc and magnet are physically glued together or if they're not physically glued together, they will both be rotating together on the same axle and will have the same results if they're glued together or not. The magnet, disc, and axle is one piece when they're all rotating together. This will have the same results as if the disc and magnet were physically glued together or not.
I can't believe you're not grasping this simple concept, unbelievable.
GB
Quote from: keithturtle on January 09, 2010, 09:06:55 PM
Thanks for the link. Good stuff. Indeed, building it will provide some answers, and generate more questions. Talking about it will only further necessitate building it to provide some answers.
Turtle, building it
Hi Turtle,
I can hardly wait till you finish! How is going, and how much further to go?
BTW, do you know of a place to get good low prices on good NdFeB magnets?
Progress. See pic. 3/4" sheet phenolic scrap.
Magnets
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/categories.asp?gclid=CKXEprqZnZ8CFQMNDQodO3nXcg
http://www.magnet4less.com/
Turtle
I'm annoyed,
I wanted to post,
but the friggin pages are a mile wide
on all of my OS's (And IE 6,7,8 +FireFox) I have
because of that pic above being to big I guess...
Or I can scroll left to right for every friggin sentence...
Why does Simple Machine's forum engine do that.
Damn, you think it would crop it to fit...
SUCKS !
Anyway... Keith, The whole row of smaller water jets
adding up to one bigger homogeneous jet has me waiting.
I want to see if an accumulative structure like this works.
When done, and you have a workable setup completed.
I hope you will (Still) have room to entertain one idea.
A ferrous disc on the face of all those magnets
perhaps to disperse the magnetic poles evenly?
I want to see if an increase occurs
from the combines homogeneous accumulation of mag's
Hey Foggy, calm down dude ??? ::)
Sorry about the big pic. I cain't find the edit function to replace it with a smaller one.
If I covered the magnets' collective face with a piece of steel, would it exhibit the opposite polarity on the exposed face?
Turtle
I dont think so turtle. The plate would act as a path to the nearest opposite poles.
May be better to get some large ferrite speaker magnets. Some large subwoofers use them.
Mags
Actually, for 100 bux you could get 2 of these bad boys
http://cgi.ebay.com/1-Pc-N42-4-ODx2-IDx-5-H-Neodymium-Ring-Magnet_W0QQitemZ310193542112QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4838f9d3e0
Mags
Quote from: keithturtle link=topic=626.msg221953#msg221953 A=1263355163
Sorry about the big pic. I cain't find the edit function to replace it with a smaller one.
Yeah, we have something like 12 hours to correct any errors,
then we loose the right to keep our posts up to date.
Sure wish that would get turned off (Hint, hint)...
I have already made posts here I'd like to update and/or correct
as I learn from those here that have been-there/done-that.
Sad they shall always be wrong
and may mislead others into following
my (Now known to be) faulty steps.
**************************************************
Nice N42 strength ring magnet. :)
2" hole leaves a lot uncovered though.
Here's a 1" ID (3" OD) N42 too for smaller discs.
http://cgi.ebay.com/1-Pc-N42-3-ODx1-IDx-5-H-Neodymium-Ring-Magnet_W0QQitemZ310193983552QQ
Or bringing it right down to a 1/4" shaft,
(For small toy DC motor projects)
and up to a 2" OD disc (At a low RPM).
http://cgi.ebay.com/2-Pcs-N42-2-ODx-25-IDx0-5-H-Neodymium-Rings_W0QQitemZ310193983379QQ
**************************************************
I have been looking for a disc magnet
with the smallest hole / no hole
that matches a 3-1/2" hardrive disc's OD.
I have 5400 and 7200 rpm ones to play with.
They seem to have used a spot weld style machine
on the assembly line to embed a hardened ball bearing
into the end of the shaft.
And the grounded static dissipation finger
touching it is certainly overkill too.
They spot welded a hardened pad on it too.
So one contact is already fashioned with these test units.
I figure three roller bearings at the 1/3 points
around the edge of the hardrive platter's disc
on spring fingers with matching pressure
should provide three take off points to test with.
So if anyone finds the ideal magnet
to match these hardrive platters OD
please post a link for all of us to use.
Old hardrives are ubber-inexpensive,
They are all coated in conductive material,
they all have platters near identical in size,
and the motor + drive electronics are included.
That eliminates machinists costs for test units.
**************************************************
Quote from: Magluvin on January 12, 2010, 11:13:41 PM
Actually, for 100 bux you could get 2 of these bad boys
http://cgi.ebay.com/1-Pc-N42-4-ODx2-IDx-5-H-Neodymium-Ring-Magnet_W0QQitemZ310193542112QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4838f9d3e0
Mags
32 turtlebucks from the supplier
http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_13&products_id=221
But how big a field will it create? 4" dia? I guess I'm thinking that the overall diameter has much to do with the output as far as voltage goes.
BTW- that soft-iron sheet that transformer laminations are made from- does anyone have experience with that stuff?
A source? Methinks it would be better than plain old sheet metal for to smooth out the eddies, no?
Turtle
Quote from: CompuTutor on January 13, 2010, 01:46:56 AM
Or bringing it right down to a 1/4" shaft,
and up to a 2" OD disc.
I have 5400 and 7200 rpm ones to play with.
They seem to have used a spot weld style machine
on the assembly line to embed a hardened ball bearing
into the end of the shaft.
And the grounded static dissipation finger
touching it is certainly overkill too.
They spot welded a hardened pad on it too.
So one contact is already fashioned with these test units.
I figure three roller bearings at the 1/3 points
around the edge of the hardrive platter's disc
on spring fingers with matching pressure
should provide three take off points to test with.
Given the weight of the magnet collective, the speed and the laminations of Cu, Al and polycarbonate for the actual disk, I'm looking at 3/4" shaft cold rolled, minimum. There are places to cut corners, and this ain't wunnathem.
You won't catch the turtle in the same room as a 1/4" shaft setup, I don't care how many bearings you have.
That's scary
Turtle
Mike,the pm won't work.
These are the biggest rings I have,
http://www.magnet4less.com/product_info.php?cPath=1_13&products_id=322
but I have not set up the dynamo yet.
That's still a couple weeks away. Working against a deadline with another project
Turtle
Quote from: keithturtle link=topic=626.msg221981#msg221981 A=1263367946
Given the weight of the A collective, the speed and the laminations of Cu, Al and polycarbonate for the actual disk, I'm looking at 3/4" shaft cold rolled, minimum. There are places to cut corners, and this ain't wunnathem.
You won't catch the turtle in the same room as a 1/4" shaft setup, I don't care how many bearings you have.
That's scary
Turtle
Heheh, I agree !!!
I meant the 1/4" ID ones for people here
to spin a small disc at a much more sane speed
like that of a toy's DC motor or something. :)
I realize in the same post I talked about
5400 and 7200 RPM HD discs,
and your setup too without segway
(Except for three spaces to attempt to indicate separation)
in an overlapping sort of way.
Sorry 'bout that.
I've gone back and edited the post
to included astericks, and indicate low RPM's
Thanks for pointing out the possibility
of my post's being misunderstood. :)
**************************************************
Hey, when the economy fails (And it seems it will),
will Turtle-Buck's be the new currency ??? :)
**************************************************
??? Wunnathem ??? ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Wunnathem
**************************************************
Wunnathem = colloquialism for the phrase "one of them", written as it is spoken in my buckeye dialect of the king's english.
Turtlebucks- them greenbacks that the turtle spends on projects, usually sourced in overtime worked at the mill, since Mrs T keeps tabs on the rest.
<grin>
I knew you'd not spin too much of a load on the pencil shaft, CT; just keeping things safe, I hope.
Anyhow, since all of the mags will be one pole on that brown disk, would it make sense to assemble an identical one with the opposite pole exposed? As in, if one didn't work, mebbe the other would? It's only turtlebucks...
I'm thinking "magnetosphere interaction" as an element of this thing generating anything, and might the fact that I'm north of the equator having anything to do with it?
Just an honest question... cheaper than flying it to Australia to test it there... BTW, is that why DePalma did tests in New Zealand?
Turtle
Okay,
now I don't know if I sound mentally challenged or what.
Quote:
"In order to make full use of the current capabilities of an N generator and to accommodate the use of non-conducting "ferrite" permanent magnets or electromagnets, an N-machine is constructed as in Figure B. The N-machine utilizes a copper or bronze conducting shaft and disc and ferrite ring magnets cemented together as shown." - Bruce De Palma
Bruce wrote that in 1977
Source: http://www.rexresearch.com/depalma/depalma.htm
But Neo magnets were not invented until the early 1980s, I hear.
That may be why De Palma didn't mention them in (in that article)
Never the less I recomend trying both, Neos and Ferrites, and see which do what different etc..., never take a stranger's word for it, expecially in a forum, some are disinfo and some are just people whom are simply quoting the misleading books they were taught from. Such experiments can be done cheap on a small scale, small mags, with aluminum discs, and string pull like a toy top.
Also I would assume the thicker the disc, the more current you get, so a coated Neo acting as the disc too, might not be the same as a fat disc between two megnets.
Good luck.
I have a couple dozen ferrite ring magnets, about 3" dia with a 1.5" hole, probably 3/8" thick.
Someone mentioned magnetron, but I dunno what their application was. Bought 'em surplus
http://www.mendelsons.com/the_store.html
Bought 'em years ago and they only have about half the pull as back then. Several of them stuck to a 12" metal plate still leaves a goodly void in the middle, but this should satisfy the request to test with ferrite. I can pot 'em in epoxy.
Has anyone any thoughts on remagnetizing the ferrite rings? I could put 'em all polarity one way between two 1/2" bare steel plates and hit 'em with up to 120 amps from a DC welder.
Not sure of the volts, but since electric DC is introduced to the neos at birth, might it enliven the ferrites a bit?
I guess I could sacrifice a few- they ain't done nothin' in the past 7 years but get weaker...
Does anyone know if north = positive or negative?
Turtle, working overtime to support the habit
turtle
I would try them the way they are. The strength of the mag is not as important as the effect learned from it. And I remember somewhere someone using mags like that and added some neos to the mix to increase the strength. You could apply many tiny neos to the outer face and the ferrite should diffuse it and have a stronger field. But I would go for it the way they are then experiment. The hard part is putting it together, just leave room for improvements.
Ebay has copper plates about the size of your mags fairly cheap, and have them machined to size. Polish them babies.
Mags
ewwwwww, this place is crawling with spooks.
The number of stars next to name indicates how long they've been here, and/or how many posts they've made, which would indicate alot of reading too, even displays knowledge of re-vitalizing magnets, yet suggests to the reader that Ferrite Magnets lose half their power in 7 years. (First ploy to under sell the ferrite)
Ah but what's this?...
Quote:
A permanent magnet will retain its magnetism unless it is affected by a strong outside magnetic or electrical force, or elevated temperatures. If they are not exposed to any of these conditions, permanent magnets will lose magnetism on their own, however this degradation is very slow, on the order of one percentage point every ten years or so.
(Meaning it takes 400 years to lose half it's power)
What materials are "permanent magnets" made from?
Permanent magnets may be made from any for the following materials:
- Strontium-Iron (Ferrite or Ceramic) non-conductive
- Neodymium-Iron-Boron (Sintered or Injection Molded)
- Samarium Cobalt (a type of Rare Earth)
- Aluminum-Nickel-Cobalt (Alnico)
End Quote
Source: http://www.magnetkingdom.com/faq.htm
So his first ploy was to under sell the ferrite with down right deliberate lie disguised as misinformation, but doesn't stop there, goes on to rehash the same chit we've already gone over, that being, you (can not) use several magnets each plasterd to the face of the disc, and yet that's exactly what he suggests, and then using his other ID, follows up with suggesting readers try adding neos in multiple spots too.
These guys are trying to mislead readers into failure. They come out of the wood work like cockroaches.
The ring magnet must rotate with the disc, parallel to disc, same size as disc or as close as possible...
As shown here: http://www.libertyandlove.org/AdvancedTech/images/dp2.gif
Are you tawkin bout me Foggy?
If I remember correctly, the last time I got talking about this, I said that mounting the mags to a steel plate would not work as in combining the lil mags to create 1 big N or S pole. I said that the steel will just provide a pivot point for the magnets to feed back to their opposite poles.
But if Turtle has some mags to play with, he can tell you the same by trying. His ferrite rings are a different story. Adding a magnet to another will reinforce the field as a whole. Stack 2 magnets and it will be stronger than either of the 2 alone. The same will go for the ferrite rings. Try it turtle, even if you stack the rings, they will stick to the fridge better than 1, but with a big washer on 1 mag, then try to stick the mag to the fridge on the washer side, weak if any pull at all. But a metal plate, no, the field from the side of the mag that is facing the plate, will not extend through the plate, according to thickness of course, if you can imagine iron foil, it would not take much to saturate it, so some may extend beyond that, but not all.
Also turtle, those mags you have there are probably better than Faraday had strength wise. ;]
Mags is the name, neos are my game
Stay below
A hundred and fitty degrees yo
If you wanna keep yo fields
Werd
Thank you for clarification Mr Turtle. :)
A-Them, gotcha
Like: "Didgaeatyet, jhagonna"
Or: "Ya didn't bring ya truck widgadidga"
Funny about your hidden black-op's project budget too.
**************************************************
Yeah, It's hard when what should be (By now...)
proven facts, often turn out to be wrong or incomplete.
That almost 150 years of this has gone on is even worse.
Especially because many text books printed also
tend to perpetuate these horrible errors too.
I started a thread with a need for only one answer.
I needed someone here that has what I do not (Yet)
to do one simple test so I could confirm a fact
before I purchased items for an idea I have.
Both myself and others contributed several ways
that this one idea could be accomplished even.
The thread wound up all over the road instead,
and I still am without a solid confirmation.
So yeah, I hear ya'.
**************************************************
Quote from: Foggy-Notion on January 15, 2010, 04:11:00 AM
.....The ring magnet must rotate with the disc,
parallel to disc,
same size as disc,
or as close as possible...
Parallel yes,
same size yes,
close yes,
but it need not turn.
At one point I spent about three days surfing youtube.
I do that to find odd or stupid ideas that might trigger good ones.
Buried in the stupidest (Not sure that's even a word BTW) vid
there might hide a concept that CAN be new and usable after all.
Anyway, there was this one college teaching lab vid.
On the left was a shaft held by two bearings
and a disc at the end of that shaft.
One the right was the same shaft/bearings/disc arrangement.
The discs met in the middle with a little space.
The left one had a disc magnet on the shaft's disc,
the right one finger contacts on the shaft and disc edge.
The two finger contacts had clip leads to a load resistor,
then an old analog voltmeter was attached to the same resistor.
(Because it is easier to see voltage trends I suppose...)
I hope I described that good enough to get a mental picture...
When the right disc with contacts was turned,
the meter would indicate a potential of course.
But the thing that stuck in my mind was that the left shaft/disc/magnet
could be stationary, spun the same way, or spun the opposite way.
The readings where not substantially different in all three cases.
Hope that helps somehow Foggy (And others).
**************************************************
All the above was not just to indicate the magnet
need not turn with the disc though.
It was also about the really low
curie effect temp that Neo's exhibit.
homopolar's by nature are going to get hot,
Neo's should be able to be used as their strength
should overcome the gap needed to keep them cool.
Again, hope that helps somehow.
**************************************************
Quote from: keithturtle on January 15, 2010, 01:42:43 AM
.....Does anyone know if north = positive or negative?.....
This isn't so much for you Turtle,
but for others that may not have considered this.
When using a mechanical magnetic polarity indicator,
like a standard camping compass.
Remember that the needle that is (Usually) red for north,
is actually magnetized SOUTH because opposites attract.
It indicates the north end of the magnet
because the compasses north is actually a south...
I know that's amazingly obvious to most,
but electronic sensors don't do this,
and mechanical compasses do.
So I can see where someone might get tripped up.
Anyway, the memory Mnemonic has always been N=N,
meaning North=Negative (South=Positive).
So magnetic field lines go from north to south.
Of course, that is the "Assumed" answer,
it could have been wrong for over a century too...
**************************************************
OK, I have to post something stupid now too
in the interest of keeping humor present.
So does a mag-machine that works spun one way
in the northern hemisphere of planet earth,
need to be spun the other way instead
once in the southern hemisphere
(Like water down a drain...) LOL ? ? ?
(Rhetorical question, only for a chuckle...)
**************************************************
The curie effect is a repeatable phenomena,
as this toy's implementation shows.
The magnet will hold until
the curie effect temp is reached,
then let go and cool off enough
to repeat the process over and over.
EDIT:
I cannot attach the Ani-GIF it seems,
attachments are limited to
barely over a megabyte (1,100-Kb)
Go peek here instead:
http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/magnets/curie_engine/curie_engine_closeup.gif
Heavy current will kill a Neo, and N-machines make heavy current.
Maybe ok if the neo has a non-conductive coating to insulate it, not sure.
Yes, it will get warm, if magnet is not moving with the disc,
those are eddy currents. Moving magnet with disc, allows you to
cement the magnet to the disc (closer to disc = more power) they say.
I know this, if magnet is not rotating with disc, it creates an eddy brake,
used on trains in europe, drop a magnet down a copper tube, it will slide slow.
this is drag, and means your spin drive has to do much more work.
if magnet rotates with disc, this is elliminated. That's what De Palma said.
The guys in here saying otherwise, are nobody. Their superiors at Langley VA
make fun of them around the water cooler.
CT, I think that if the disk generator is extracting energy from dark matter, the aether, vacuum ZPE, gravity, whatever ya wanna call it, I would think that quite possibly the coriolis effect may come into play. I don't know.
[The longer I work with this stuff, the more comfortable I am with that phrase... I don't know]
Foggy, the reason the setup will take so long is that I am incorporating the capacity to spin the copper [composite] disk and mag field separately, together, in opposition, one fixed-- all possible embodiments must be addressed, with quantification on everything.
I can take it to about 5000 rpm with the equipment I have in the turtlelab, but hope to find a 2:1 gearbox to double that very soon. Looking for a kevlar transmission tunnel blast shield as well, drag car variety.
Since I feel [only a notion] that orientation to earth does matter in this, I hope to spin it on a vertical axis as well, eventually, though the setup there is unclear at this point.
I should be jumping into this with both feet by later next week
Thanks for the input, all.
I cannot do this alone. That's what the collective is all about.
Turtle, plowing ahead
An easy first start would be to have both disk and magnet spinning to be as close as possible to the original DePlama generator setup
A test to see if this is over unity can be fairly simple but maybe not that easy.
Have the pickup brushes in contact appropriate points, e.g. outer rim of conductive disk and shaft.
Spin the rotor to your max safe rpm, let’s say 5000rpm. Measure the constant power needed to maintain that rate of rotation.
Next do the same with closed circuit over a small value known resistor, so power can be dissipated over the resistor and measured.
Compare the power needed to maintain the 5000rpm again with the resistor in place and current circulating.
If it’s the same, then it is OU, the excess is the energy fed over to the resistor.
Measuring accuracy repeatability and detailed measurement error analysis needs to be accounted for, in order to have comparative statistical significant results.
I hope this helps
Good work
Mike
I've made a small amount of progress. The pic is a variable speed setup for spinning a smaller disk. 18 VDC, PWM control, the tool spins 2500 - 20,000 rpm, no load. I reckon that's too fast for the wimpy 1/4" threaded rod shaft to contain that heavy brass impeller. Still have to set the end bearing. Ain't tried turning it yet.
Only using the junk piece of brass since it has the obligatory flat surface and it's already balanced. Even has a nice pickup point on the center. Might have to replace the rivets that hold it together with countersunk screws to get the magnet close enough.
Also, I'll probably do a jackshaft 3:1 reduction with some pullies I have. I picked up some 1/2" cold roll stock today to machine a sturdier shaft.
It takes time. Lots of time.
Turtle, still at it
Hi keithturtle,
Nice work so far, yes it takes a lot of time to do it right pay attention to details. How are you coming along?
To all readers interested in the DePalma designs tests and machines, these following videos maybe a great interest, especially from #9 and on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGwAFHsVasA
Many thanks again to youtube user/member dollar12 for collecting the footage and uploading the clips.
One puzzling issue on the actual build they have shown, they are indicating vibration issues at 2000 rpm and since the early 90’s when the actual tests have been performed not much has surfaced in terms of solving that problem, and achieving the higher speeds demonstrating overunity with this particular set up.
Also, on the earlier video numbers there some very interesting tests, demonstrating, measuring/confirming antigravity effects.
It maybe a good idea to download/archive some or all of these clips…
Enjoy.
Thanks
Mike
Man, ya gotta love that DePalma guy; "They wouldn't show me anything 'cause they know I'll show it to the public". Too bad he's gone.
A man after mine own heart...
Thanks for posting this
Turtle
No, I have not given up on this, but I've been redirecting my energies toward an invitation to participate in wind and solar systems research at a local green energy center. A foot in the door, so to speak, and eventually a respected platform to demonstrate this unit, I hope.
That's the plan, at least. I'll probably post pertinent wind turbine stuff I build elsewhere on this site.
More to come, much later
Turtle, still at it
Time to flare up this topic and enlist the global community to help further my experiments by open sourcing them, as we need a Over Unity Device made available on ebay to shut up the nay sayers and force industry and science to move on to the next chapter in the pages and annals of history and civilization.
I became aware of the homo-polar generator about 2001. By 2004 I had researched, postulated, then constructed coarse experiments to verify my insights into the homo-polar generator. Based on the results further experiments into the marketable design of a functioning overunity homopolar generator have been postulated and experimented with by me and a couple colleagues. The results are promising.
Now, I am not here to sell snake oil, I am here to see progress! The economics of life have dampened the research and development progress of my experiments. I therefore enlist the thinkers and tinkerers around the globe to peruse third party verification, and to a much greater extent to fire up thier own small shops and to manufacture and flood the online markets with functioning devices.
I will no longer hold my cards close to the vest, protecting any intellectual rights or ego of discovery. I would rather be able to just buy one at wallmart so here goes.....
My next post will include what I have on hand to offer in the spirit of open source, that we may all participate in our open source future civilization. Because eventually we must leave this solar system or become extinct, so no time like the present to start....
Brent Hasty
www.hasty-solutions.com
Howdy Brent;
Your sentiment of getting the information out where we can all collaborate and (hopefully) make good use of it is appreciated. In fact, I have seen this particular action on other boards, where the realization of our current energy paradigm and the state of things in the world in general, these almost demand that the information goes public if any progress is going to be made. Maybe you should begin a thread specific to your design. You are welcome to post here if you wish, of course.
There is the "lack of incentive" component, as in, "Why should I do all this work if all I'm gonna get out of it is scorn and ridicule by the establishment?" Indeed, those who made a difference were those who were willing to upset the status quo, regardless of the consequences.
I'm still on task from the last post, as I have limited time for all this. I hope to return to this homopolar generator by winter. I still have a long way to go on the VAWT, but it is progressing nicely. Pics when I have some output numbers
Turtle, still at it
Now begins the GPL Open Source posting of the best information I have on hand from my research, theory, and experiments into building a marketable homopolar generator that will yield some level of easily measurable overunity output.
I will attach a couple blueprints that should make replicating simple. I only require (request) all resultant discoveries, and improvements built upon and in addition to, be likewise added to the public knowledge base in the spirit of GPL Open Source evolution. As the worlds need this day, yesterday and tomorrow are too great to worry about patent capitalization. If any have the the ability for minor or mass production, it is highly encouraged; I would smile to just see the market flooded by this or any other functional zero point energy generator.
The first key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
For the same Axial Magnetic Orientation the flow of DC Current Reverses with a reversal in the Direction of Rotation, clock wise + rim - axle --- counter clock wise - rim + axle.
Second key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
If two or more homopolar generators are placed on a non conductive common shaft and electrically wired in series, with their magnetic axises in opposition (that is north to north or south to south or N/S S/N N/S S/N etc....) The sum of the output voltage will be the additive of each of the individual homopolar generators on the common shaft. In this manner it would be possible to build a homopolar generator with a 14 VDC output that would feed a plethora of common off the shelf electric appliances, including a grid tie inverter, hence anything.
I will coin a phrase to describe this as a Homopolar-Stack
Third key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
When placing a even number of opposing homopolar generators on a non conductive common shaft, intelligent design can yield a center positive on one end and a center negative on the other end of the shaft. This will allow for the elimination of the rim or peripheral pickup brush and an enormous amount of drag, by allowing stationery pickup brush to be located in the center point of rotation with the least Feet Per Minuit of rotary contact.
Forth key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
Two or more independent homopolar-stacks can be wired in series or parallel to multiply the power as needed.
Fifth key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
Multiple spiral slots cut in the copper discs by laser/plasma can induce a complementary electromagnetic field to that of the permanent magnet during discharge of the homopolar stack, further increasing output when oriented intelligently to the magnetic axis and direction or rotation of each of the stacks sub homopolar generators.
Sixth key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
Support it on a magnetic bearing in an evacuated bottle to reduce parasitic losses.
Seventh key of the homopolar generator I found through experiments is:
In a homopolar stack to maximize output and minimize eddy currents it is important to circumferentially provide a complete conduction path from one generator to the other on the periphery and near the center point around the axle.
Yet to determine:
First:
what effect does the opposing spacing of the homopolar stack have on output.
example -n/s-----------s/n- or -n/s--s/n-
If greater spacing improves output then
what is the effect of a diamagnetic material (such as bismuth or Bucky ball carbon) separating the individual homopolar generators on a homopolar stack?
Brent Hasty
www.hasty-solutions.com
ps.... more to come..... looking forward to everyones participation and feedback.
Thanks for sharing. Your experiences and detailed descriptions will save us all much time and effort.
Now to get back on this
Turtle
I took your advice and started this in its own topic at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9706.new#new
cheers....
@all
1. Unipolar or acyclic induction.
Possibly, there has been no simpler, more curious and polemical experiment since the beginnings of electromagnetism than Faraday’s rotating magnet and disc. For their simplicity and beauty they have always attracted the attention of the physicist.
According to Poincaré “The most curious electrodynamics experiments are those where a continuous rotation takes place, called unipolar induction experiments.â€1
Einstein, in his first paper “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies,†states that: “It is known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics â€"as usually understood at the present timeâ€" when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomenaâ€. “Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the “seat†of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point.â€2
It would seem the Faraday disc contributed to the development of the Theory of Relativity.
When studying unipolar induction back 1961, and finding the conducting spiral to be a universal unipolar generator I imagined that this must have been known since the beginnings of electromagnetism. In that year I had begun my Ph. D. course in Physics at Grenoble University and found to my surprise that the conducting spiral was unknown to my professors of electromagnetism. They suggested that I choose this for a second subject for my doctoral thesis3. It turned out to be very polemical, for as is well-known, unipolar induction continues to be the object of discussions and publications. On completing my thesis, the Board of Examiners recommended my second subject for publication; something I was only able to do years later, for in the opinion of the journal’s referee the conducting spiral was but a “mind experiment†and couldn’t possibly revolve. Only on checking the experiment (presumably), was the article accepted. This publication4 had involved considerable difficulties and scarce attention. To start with, I - the supposed discoverer - had failed to grasp the significance of the spiral. Curiously, this experiment, as straightforward and beautiful as the Faraday Disc, is just as paradoxical. Twenty-seven years after publishing my article I began my studies of unipolar induction anew with a series of experiments on conducting spirals which led me to a new understanding of electromagnetic induction, the Faraday Disc and the conducting spiral itself, establishing a new analogy between mechanics and electromagnetism. In November 1998, I attempted to publish these findings in the same journal which in 1970 had published my first article, only to have it rejected out of hand by the editor who alleged “articles announcing new theoretical results or experiments are not accepted in this journalâ€. Maybe he should have added: especially if they come from an unknown third-world Physicist, for this publication continues to carry articles on Faraday’s Induction Law and the Lorentz Force 5, 6, 7, 8, all of which deal with the old question as to how and where emf is generated in the Faraday Disc. Regarding the substance of the matter, some authors are of the opinion that the revolving magnet and the Faraday Disc are exceptions to Faraday’s Induction Law or flux rule9, and assure us that unipolar induction is due to the Lorentz Force, others deny any exceptions10, and still others see exceptions to the Lorentz Force11.
The difficulties in understanding the Faraday Disc derive from Faraday’s Induction Law and the equation F = il x B, which defines B and allows it to be measured. This assumes that magnetic induction B, generated by the circuit to which the segment l belongs, is negligible with regard to B. The emf and torque generated in the Faraday Disc depend on the shape of the circuit that connects the disc, giving rise to an “absolute â€" relative†duality of emf and Lorentz Force, which in turn, occasions different interpretations. This duality becomes much more evident in the conducting spiral and when the symmetry of the Faraday Disc is enhanced.
Some paradoxical experiments in unipolar induction which make use of the unique geometry of the spiral are described in this article. These experiments show that the paradoxes and discrepancies that arise with unipolar induction are resolved when the following analogies between mechanics and electromagnetism are established:
a) Charges, in the same way as mass, have a dual nature,
inert and gravitational, in each of these pairs neither
element is independent of the other.
b) In electromagnetic interaction among charges, both
mechanical and electromagnetic angular moments are
conserved.
c) Electromagnetic induction is due to the variation and
conservation of the angular moments of mass and
charge.
d) The possible ways of varying the electromagnetic
angular moment of a current in a circuit correspond to
the forms of electromagnetic induction.
e) The deformation of a circuit by electromagnetic forces tends to diminish the rate of change of the electromagnetic angular moment of the current’s charges, i.e. it will tend to conserve the angular moment.
The circulation of the charges of the continuous current in a Faraday Disc, as also in a conducting spiral, generates a continuous rate of change of angular electromagnetic moment and angular moment of matter, this works in the same way as an electrodynamic turbine. Due to the coexistence and conservation of the angular moment of the electromagnetic field and of matter, in all closed circuits there are always two equal and opposite variations of the angular moment generated.
In closed circuits, constant emf is not produced by the variation in magnetic flux, which is constant, but by two variations in the electromagnetic angular moment.
This means the new induction law will be e= -dL/dt de/dt=-df/dt in which L is the electromagnetic angular momentum and f is the magnetic flux density.
According to this new induction law, unipolar induction is a consequence and not an exception.
The generation and variation of the angular moments of the electromagnetic field and of matter, occur through the normal constraint forces acting along the path of the charges in the conductors. These constraint forces are not explicit in Maxwell’s equations. However, without these forces it would not be possible to generate or measure electric or magnetic field.
The conducting spiral allows us to see that unipolar induction is produced by a vortex of charges, confirming the Lorentz Force and invalidating Faraday’s Induction Law, furthermore it allows us to see the true origin of electromagnetic induction and its dual nature. In the conducting spiral, an inversion of cause and effect in the description of electromagnetism also becomes evident.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
Hypercom
@All
After reading Hypercom's paper, via the link in the above post,
I am impressed that what I am looking at is an extension to
existing scientific theory. It is either completely correct or
correctable to being completely correct. You will need to study
this paper if you want to understand the operation homopolar
motors/ generators.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi hypercom,
could you please repost your fascinating message in this other thread, for reference.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9706.new#new (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9706.new#new)
Thanks
Hi
In this project, spiral config. becomes essential ...
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=3616761A&KC=A&FT=D&date=19711102&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_gb
Hypercom
@Brent and Hypercom: Thanks for the information and welcome to the Forum. I look forward to seeing how this thread develops from here.
GB
Was just thinking about it, do the homo polar motors only cause electron flow outward from the center?
My point is, that is the way I have always seen it described. But if you spin it the other way, will current flow from the outer to the center?
Like left hand rule. Now if we can get one conducting plate to be in a situation that the current flows outward, and another that flows inward, we can eliminate the outer brushes all together. Then make a big magnet and plate club sandwich that has the appropriate plates connected physically on the outside and inside in series. Then just have brush commutators on the shaft at each end.
Mags
@Magluvin
In this discussion you can find some ideas, some answers ...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9706.new;topicseen#new
Here is another example to greatly increase the efficiency of the system.
Hypercom
Hey Hypercom
I get the basics of what happens in these ideas, but the question is, does anyone have any knowledge of if the current can only move from the center of the conductive plates outward, or can it be made to have the currents work inward to the center from the outer edge? If it can be done, we can eliminate the outer brushes all together, of which seem to be an issue with these devices. Of course the mercury, or other liquid metal contacts will work, but for the common man, we dont need any more mercury in our lives.
If the direction of current in the plates can be reversed, then the connection to those plates can be done in a much better fashion. Lets say we have a 2 plate/magnet sandwich, and the commutator for the first plate is connected toward the center of the plate. This plate will have currents flowing outward from center. Then we connect the outer part of the first plate to the outer part of the second plate in the sandwich, physically, via wire, copper tube slice, how ever, but the second plate has to be arranged in a way that its currents flow inward from the outside. Now we have the connection to the second plate also toward the center of the plate or shaft with a commutator. This would reduce the friction and commutator surface speed and allow more pressure to be applied to the brushes.
But if it cannot be done, getting the currents to flow inward instead of outward, then this post is nill. =]
I dont quite understand the drawing above, but I will check out your thread suggestion.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on September 29, 2010, 12:40:51 AM
Now if we can get one conducting plate to be in a situation
that the current flows outward,
and another that flows inward,
we can eliminate the outer brushes all together.
I tried to fly that concept earlier in some thread,
possibly this one even.
There were no takers on the idea.
Even with only one disc,
if the load turned WITH the disc,
brushes would not be needed either.
I posed the concept of radial shunts
like bicycle wheel spokes in arrangement.
Make a heck of a heater,
with minimal rotational input.
But picking up off the edge
at multiple points around the edge,
and bringing it back to the shaft
opens doors to many clever ideas.
Think of how a brushless alternator works,
or your induction charged toothbrush charges.
Put that much current at low voltage
through heavy-gauge inductor windings,
your bound to wind up with something usefull..
Sadly,when we spin a magnet
the field won't spin with it though,
so that rules a few ideas out...
homopolar without centrifugal current,
flowing inward instead you postulate,
hmmm ... interesting observation ...
To many people disagree on what "Current" is,
yet nature stares us in the face with it daily...
I like your idea though
Then again,
the physical manifestation of outer to inner current
might be best visualized as a cone instead of a disc.
http://books.google.com/books?id=QkuzsHT_U7sC&pg=PA357&lpg=PA357&dq=centrifugal.current&source=bl&ots=AIi2AcbKo-&sig=SQqx4miaFrndV76v0O1UBoplH9k&hl=en&ei=COOjTIrGE8T7lweKysG_DA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=centrifugal.current&f=false
(PDF)
http://caps.space.swri.edu/caps/publications/Hill06.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/j741823t5466p8j3/
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/centrifugal+current
Thanks for the insight Comp
This is what I was wondering, if you spin the single plate/mag sandwich in one direction, will the current change direction, from out to in if we spin it the other way? Like left hand rule. Im just wondering if it is possible, as most may assume that the currents will always just flow outward, because that is all we have ever seen. Not many if any try to replicate this project. But if it were to be, then going down the line with many discs in series, there would still only be just 2 brushes, one at each end, and on a much smaller circumference commutator for each. Every other disc would have current goin inward and the others going outward, and if all is spinning at the same time then all the connections between plates in series could be solidified as part of the whole.
I like the idea of the load strapped to it. But as you said, coils could be mounted to the outside to transfer power to pickup coils. Very good idea also.
I have seen what tesla presented as a spiralized disc. I wonder if it could be a pancake coil?
Hmmm just came to me, if my idea is correct and we can have currents flow inward, we could just wrap a big toroid mag with heavy wire and spin the mag with the wire as a whole. As the wire on one side of the mag gets north field and the other gets south. hmmm, And the end leads could be terminated on commutators at the shaft. And lets say that both sides of the mag need to be north outward to cause the inward and outward flow, who would ever think to do that? um I just did. ;]
Man thats just crazy. but if she works, it solves a lot of the hard work that the original way needs.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on September 29, 2010, 12:40:51 AM
Was just thinking about it, do the homo polar motors only cause electron flow outward from the center?
My point is, that is the way I have always seen it described. But if you spin it the other way, will current flow from the outer to the center?
Like left hand rule. Now if we can get one conducting plate to be in a situation that the current flows outward, and another that flows inward, we can eliminate the outer brushes all together. Then make a big magnet and plate club sandwich that has the appropriate plates connected physically on the outside and inside in series. Then just have brush commutators on the shaft at each end.
Mags
Yes, the current can flow in both directions. It will either flow from the axis to rim (centrifugal current) or flow from rim to the axis (centripetal current). Changing the direction of rotation will change the direction of the current. Likewise, changing the direction of the magnetic field or poles, will also cause a change in the current direction. Be careful with this idea though, because both the north and south pole of a single magnet (N/S) will generate a current of like polarity. This is why you need to use multiple magnets with opposing poles (disc/N/S /S/N/disc) or have separate shafts.
You are 100% correct in being able to eliminate the brushes at the rim and extract the current on the shaft at each end with the correct configuration.
Watch this video courtesy of Lumen, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w
GB
Thanks GB
That is the first I have seen of the currents flowing inward. Very nice.
So if we have 2 speaker mags, force them together with like poles facing out and wrap that as a toroid winding, we can mount the gidget on a free spinning shaft that holds commutators for the ends of the windings to go to, and we should get more voltage with the more windings. Of course the wire should be thick for current handling.
Seems like the way to go for this device.
So the magnet is just a lens of sorts that brings field lines in high concentration to the spinning plate/disc/conductor, and as the conductor moves withing those lines of force that are apparently stationary, per say, within the "vacuum" but the magnet just concentrates them in the area of the spinning disc.
Thanks there GB Good show by lumen also
Mags
Hi
Remove the brush devices in a system of multiple disks and use only the axis of rotation, it would be a great innovation ...
If someone managed to solve the problem please post a diagram of principle to discuss with all the researchers ...
Homopolar Experiment. In this video you see a ammeter used as a tester, a voltmeter is actually Vdc 60ma. full scale (without SCHUNT ammeter). The magnetic configuration is neodymium NS><SN.
The rotation of the trunk of copper tube is made with a mini drill.
Hypercom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u1IZStSkHk
Quote from: Hypercom on September 30, 2010, 05:09:55 AM
Hi
Remove the brush devices in a system of multiple disks and use only the axis of rotation, it would be a great innovation ...
If someone managed to solve the problem please post a diagram of principle to discuss with all the researchers ...
Homopolar Experiment. In this video you see a ammeter used as a tester, a voltmeter is actually Vdc 60ma. full scale (without SCHUNT ammeter). The magnetic configuration is neodymium NS><SN.
The rotation of the trunk of copper tube is made with a mini drill.
Hypercom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u1IZStSkHk
see also
http://www.electrogravity.com/ABUnits_1/ABUnits_1.pdf
http://www.electrogravity.com/ProofConceptTest/ProofConceptTest.pdf
from
http://www.electrogravity.com/
Faraday Brushless Concept
http://www.youtube.com/user/JEBAYLES#p/u/0/AWN1hZZDCJo
http://www.youtube.com/user/JEBAYLES
Thanks wings
Very interesting document, you need a little time to study ...
I wanted to ask you a question, in this video we see magnetic resonance (Marcos Dancing Magnets)... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5540717206741162529
This physical phenomenon is somehow related to this testing? (Successful Brushless AC Power Extraction From The Faraday Acyclic Generator) ... (A resonance at 2Ï€ Hz and 8:00 Hz Occurs During testing. At the 2Ï€ Hz resonance, THE ENTIRE test bed and vibrates at 8:00 Hz, the balance magnets in figures 3 and 4 swing back and forth violently.)
http://www.electrogravity.com/ABUnits_1/ABUnits_1.pdf
Regards. Hypercom.
Hi
Is there anybody who has replicated this experiment?
(Successful Brushless AC Power Extraction From The Faraday Acyclic Generator)
What do you think? What is your thought?
A small power production A.C. could also be induced by differences of magnetization in the material of permanent magnets in turn, as in the case of multipole magnets.
Question: What happens if a magnetic disk with axially magnetized NS rotation in place, has no magnetic field evenly distributed?
It is said that the earth's magnetic field does not rotate with the planet, ok, as well as our neodymium magnets placed in rotation, but if there are abnormalities or differences of magnetization of the material, they certainly can occur in a coil placed in the immediate vicinity, then the AC induced, may be the result.
Hypercom
Here is a link to my old thread. (I had forgotten it was in the Half Baked Ideas section)
It's only one page long but it has pictures. ;D
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8333.msg209874#msg209874 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8333.msg209874#msg209874)
Hey Angs
Very nice. Have you tried it yet? I had got to thinking and there may be an issue where the connections from the outer of 1 plat to the outer of the other, this area is riddled with south pole field, and very strong.. As in my idea to force the mags together and wrap them in wire would increase the voltage easily, but its got me thinking that the S field on the outer edge of the wheel may counteract the current flow. The S poles dont just go away. lol
this is the pic I am referencing. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8333.msg214497#msg214497
It will have yo be tried.
Mags
Hi
Resonant unipolar generator
Abstract of US 7459823 (B1)
An AC unipolar generator provides high power at high frequencies without requiring a source of high-frequency mechanical power. A rotor having a plurality of spaced magnetic disks and two sets of rotating capacitor plates is coupled to a source of mechanical power, the two sets of rotating capacitor plates being spaced apart along the outside of the rotor and electrically connected via a conducting channel. A stator surrounding a portion of the rotor that includes the magnetic disks and one of the two sets of rotating capacitor plates includes a magnetic stator core that forms a magnetic circuit with the magnetic disks of the rotor, a stator field coil, and a fixed set of capacitor plates that capacitively couple the stator field coil to the rotor conducting channel through one of the sets of rotating capacitor plates. A second fixed set of capacitor plates located outside of the stator capacitively couples the rotor conducting channel back to the stator field coil through the other set of rotating capacitor plates. The stator field coil and the two sets of capacitor plates form a resonant LC circuit that characterizes the AC frequency of the power generated by the generator.
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=7459823B1&KC=B1&FT=D&date=20081202&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
Magluvin,
I'm sorry to say I haven't tried it yet. I don't have a mechanical shop and I've been focused on electronics lately.
The connection the edges of the plates was a concern to me also. Your correct that the magnetic field would be much stronger there do to the opposing S poles. The fields would be compressed into a small space then would have to exit where the connection of the two plates are made.
If the connection where continuous, as like a solid sleeve or pipe, then there might be a problem with current being directed in a way that would not be beneficial. It could go sideways which could increase the resistance or, worst case, create energy wasting eddies.
The solution would be to simply segment the connection. If bolts are used, as in the drawing your referring to, then those would be the segmented connections. I believe that would prevent any problems of the current going sideways in the connection between the two disks.
It might be helpful if the bolts where non-magnetic so as to prevent any unevenness in the magnetic field. Then again, that could increase the cost of device without much benefit to efficiency. I'm sure some kind of improvement could be made in the design.
Hey Angs
Maybe use choke inductors that physically reach from 1 plate to the other, toroids, as from steorn experiments, the induction from the motion there could be minimal. I thought a lot of diodes, but the voltage would suffer severely with the diode drop.
Just thinkin =]
Mags
Mags,
I'm not sure I your reasoning. I don't believe anything other than a simple conductor would be necessary.
Hey Angs
I dont know if you had read it above. I had the idea that if you put 2 lets say speaker magnets N poles facing or S, squeeze them together then wind them with heavy wire like a toroid. Naturally an axle and bearing would have to be made to accommodate the structure for rotation. Then the ends of the wire can be attached to your end of shaft commutators, and produce what ever voltage you want depending on the no. of turns.
But as the wire, or any conductors are introduced to the opposite poles at the outer and inner rim may counteract what we want to do. As that potion is spinning also. I dont know yet, havnt tried. You did prove that you have had this idea for some time before I thought of it, and in many ways. Very good work. =]
Mags
Hi
This configuration should give a bipolar AC 50Hz at 3000 rpm, it would be interesting to analyze with an oscilloscope waveform, may also connect a voltage transformer with an appropriate ratio, 1> 10, or 1> 100 seconds needs.
With respect to the DC faraday generator, how significant was the fact that Bruce's magnetic field was created by numerous hexagonal magnets? There was really no other way to make that large a field, and I doubt my 56 magnet array of round magnets would work at all.
Is a large single-winding electromagnet a better approach?
Turtle, slow
If there is any unevenness in the field it will cause the electron to have a voltage gradient across the disk. New currents will form and reduce periphery voltage.
The path of least resistance gets the most current flow. In this case the electrons see a path, within the disk, of much less resistance than your external load would have.
@ AngryScientist
A few questions:
Magnet and disk running together?
The waveform was monitored with an oscilloscope?
You can post a picture of your experiment?
Some considerations:
In the AC generation, fields must rotate with the disk, magnets and disk are coupled together.
I think that studying AC generation can understand the secrets of the Homopolar Faraday Disk.
Hypercom.
@ Keithturtle
Archer Enterprises has achieved excellent results with this setup ...
''The Faraday Disk Dynamo as the original overunity device''
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisk.htm
Thanks for that link. I tried to maximize the magnetic surface area with my layout, but I fear the dissimilar sizes will create uneven field; kinda like flux in one spot reaching farther than flux in another. Maybe it'll work "a little bit".
I dunno; it's gonna take a lot of turtlehours to machine out that base, and that's the one thing I have little of... time.
My base is that brown thick plastic you find in HV panel components; I chose it because the flux would not be compromised by a steel backing plate, and the mags will all be epoxied in their little slots. Gotta read and see what these blokes used for a backing
Turtle, slow
I am still working with this as time allows; right now I am assembling the copper-aluminum-copper sandwich that will make up the actual rotor. I bought some really stout 3x3x1/4" neos to create a field over just a section of the disk, rather than the full-area multi-magnet assembly, in the interest of time.
Turtle, working on it a few minutes a week
I've also given some consideration to the possibility of using thick pink foam, the 2" foundation insulation variety as the sandwich material. If the flux reaction in the copper disk is all we are concerned with, why would it matter? I have a couple brass flange collars to use as hubs.
With a greater separation of the N and S fields due to the greater gap (multiples of 2"), might that be an advantage?
The copper I am working with is 22 gauge, or about 0.030" thick. It's all I could afford
Turtle, still at it
Does anyone know what happened to Keith and his research? It looked like an interesting and promising line of experimentation.
I have wondered about re-arranging the machine so the current runs axially instead of radially... I think it would make it easier to build. I can do a diagram if anyone's interested...
One problem these things have is that the individual magnet fields need to merge into a single
pole face field. If one simply sticks neodymium magnets to a metal disk the pole face is not unitary
and the face becomes a complex N/S pole mixture, with one pole squeezing through the other.
There is a youtube.com video where a person puts a plastic magnetic field diagnostic sheet
against a pole face configured in this way and the optical pattern shows that this occurs.
This simply means that a very low magnetic impedence return path (lower than free-space)
needs to be constructed so that only one pole transitions the gap between disks. Like a gaint
iron lamenent C. Experimenter's are loathe to create such a structure - hence their experiment's
homopolar don't work. You can see that a polar face mixture simply create an area on the
metal disk where the electrons spin in an eddy current loop contributing to lenz heating but not to
collective electron flow from center of the disk to the edges. Be ready to create a high magnetic flux
return path in homopolar instruments.
Quote from: tim123 on January 01, 2014, 03:17:41 PM
Does anyone know what happened to Keith and his research?
Thanks for your interest. Yeah, I'm still out here. Got mixed up in a hydropower project, spent a whole year in that, and then the 100 year flood came and washed half of it away. I still have the other half intact, so I'll use that dam design on the replacement side. Fact is, you cannot build your house on sand, or your dam for that matter. I hadn't had the time to purge the aggregate beneath and pump in cement before the big rains hit.
The Faraday disk is still on the workbench, waiting for more attention. I bought some 1x1x4" bar ceramic magnets to create a field in and around a copper drum. I was making good progress with my brass ends till I broke my last tap. Something fundamentally wrong with my approach there, so it's sitting too. Plan on using two sections of large copper gutter for the cylinder.
Life is getting in the way as well, as it always does. No worries, I'll get back at it soon
Turtle, living up to the moniker
Hi Keith :)
glad you're still around. I was enjoying your posts... The hydro thing sounds like a bit of a challenge...
On the HPG - i tend to agree with this, and it may prevent the design with many magnets from working:
Quote from: mscoffman on January 01, 2014, 05:17:40 PM
One problem these things have is that the individual magnet fields need to merge into a single
pole face field....
What do you think?
Some links:
http://projectearth.com/ - Adam Trombly's website
http://projectearth.com/closed-path-homopolar-machine - Patent - Closed Path machine
http://projectearth.com/articles/21-homopolar-generator - An interview with him - not technical, but interesting
http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/Cetinbal/faradaydisk.htm - An analysis of the HPG - some useful info
Quote from: Hypercom on October 02, 2010, 04:58:37 PM
Resonant unipolar generator
http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=7459823B1&KC=B1&FT=D&date=20081202&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
Just reading this - it's *very* interesting too.
As I mentioned, I have a design I'd like to discuss with anyone interested - will post a diagram in a bit...
Regards, Tim
Quote from: mscoffman on January 01, 2014, 05:17:40 PM
One problem these things have is that the individual magnet fields need to merge into a single
pole face field. If one simply sticks neodymium magnets to a metal disk the pole face is not unitary
and the face becomes a complex N/S pole mixture, with one pole squeezing through the other.
There is a youtube.com video where a person puts a plastic magnetic field diagnostic sheet
against a pole face configured in this way and the optical pattern shows that this occurs.
This simply means that a very low magnetic impedence return path (lower than free-space)
needs to be constructed so that only one pole transitions the gap between disks. Like a gaint
iron lamenent C. Experimenter's are loathe to create such a structure - hence their experiment's
homopolar don't work. You can see that a polar face mixture simply create an area on the
metal disk where the electrons spin in an eddy current loop contributing to lenz heating but not to
collective electron flow from center of the disk to the edges. Be ready to create a high magnetic flux
return path in homopolar instruments.
I believe I know what you are saying. The spinning ring magnet needs to be just that. Using separate mags, the fields moves with the magnet, but ring mag, as it spins, the field doesnt spin with it.
Mags
Here's the idea for an axial HPG. I don't know if it'd work, but I think it should... I'd appreciate feedback from the wise members of the forum...
Benefits of the design:
- Relatively easy to build
- Can use regular sized magnets
- Power take off is much easier
Drawbacks:
- Can't close the magnetic path
- Still will be low voltage DC. (Although they'd probably be easy to put in series...)
Images attached below:
1) This shows the inner and outer magnets - i.e. the 'stator'.
Inner magnet is a rod
Outer magnet is a tube. It could simply be steel - which will naturally polarise opposite the inner magnet, or it could be pre-magnetised...
2) This shows the rotor.
It's a copper tube that fits around the inner magnet, and inside the outer one.
It has end caps which attach to the drive shaft, and from where the power is taken off
Note: I'm *assuming* that the inner magnet can rotate with the conductor - as it does in a regular HPG - but in a different axis. If it can't, then that would probably invalidate the design...
3) This shows the current flow.
Current flows out from the center of the magnetic field towards the ends, or vice-versa if rotated oppositely.
Current flows back to the center of the field - i.e. the middle of the copper pipe.
Power would be taken off / returned using slip rings or brushes - but it should be easy due to the small circumference.
That's it, let me know what you think.
Regards, Tim
"That's it, let me know what you think"
I'm not sure my input ranks with those who are wise...
Tim, does the center magnet rotate with the copper tube? If so, is velocity differential between the two fields present, and would that negatively affect the excitation of electrons in the tube, thus limiting current output?
In my tube design, the center mag assembly floated on bearings, held in place by the attracting field outside, whilst the tube spun in the flux sandwich. This requires stainless and ceramic bearings, and an insulator between axle ends, from which current from each pole is extracted.
I never got beyond building the drum end retaining parts, but I still think the design is worth pursuing. As for your drawings, they bear much resemblance to my design. Keeping the surface velocity low at the brush contact point is critical.
I did find/purchase some electrocontuctive grease, to pack the shaft/pick-up bearings with, hoping to extract a measure of current there and thus reduce the drag on the brushes. Multiple brushes increase drag, but if the bearings can transfer some of the current load, there will be less drag total, I would think.
Then again, I'll never know until I build it
Turtle
Quote from: Hypercom on September 06, 2010, 04:23:45 PM
@all
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
Hypercom
I've been reading this thread from the beginning, and I'm amazed by the high-quality of info that has been posted...
This article by Hypercom is stunning and profound... It'll take a while for it to sink in though.
He posted more good info in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/9706/homopolar-stack-multiple-generators-on-one-common-shaft-brent-hasty/
Quote from: PulsedPower on February 21, 2008, 02:05:27 AM
I am guessing that this lack of torque reaction with the field magnet is what you mean by nothing to push against, but the return current path provides plenty to push against the current in it sets up a magnetic field opposite to the current flowing though the rotor. That 27000 rpm 140 lb rotor mentioned in my other post didn't come to a stop by itself.
PulsedPower clearly has lots of real experience, and his posts are excellent too...
I'll finish reading, and see where it goes...
Here's an updated version of the axial HPG design - including some new things i've learned from reading the thread...
1) The magnet doesn't have to move at all.
2) The current is generated because the rotor is moving relative to the brushes (& hence the rest of the circuit).
3) A log-spiral shape conductor is optimum for maximum efficiency.
4) There's every reason to expect a back-torque, as conventional HPGs do.
5) And if it's somehow avoided - that may mean no voltage, but who knows...
So in this version
- the conductor is an axial log-spiral. It could, in fact be many individual wires I guess, not just one...
- the central brush is *the* place where back-torque will manifest
- the central section could be made very thin to reduce that torque...
- the solenoid could be a PM tube, though it would need a hole for the central brush too.
It occurred to me that it might be possible to do it like this too:
Quote from: keithturtle on January 02, 2014, 04:08:55 PM
Tim, does the center magnet rotate with the copper tube? If so, is velocity differential between the two fields present, and would that negatively affect the excitation of electrons in the tube, thus limiting current output?
From what I've read - it seems not - as long as the rotor & external circuit are in motion...
QuoteIn my tube design, the center mag assembly floated on bearings, held in place by the attracting field outside, whilst the tube spun in the flux sandwich. This requires stainless and ceramic bearings, and an insulator between axle ends, from which current from each pole is extracted.
I never got beyond building the drum end retaining parts, but I still think the design is worth pursuing. As for your drawings, they bear much resemblance to my design.
I'm encouraged to hear you had similar ideas... :)
The article Hypercom posted seemed to suggest that a magnet wasn't even necessary - and the log spiral coil would generate power when rotated - all by itself - fascinating stuff...
Regards, Tim
Quote from: keithturtle on November 10, 2010, 01:33:05 AM
The copper I am working with is 22 gauge, or about 0.030" thick. It's all I could afford
OK, then I just came up with about 6 square feet of some 0.062" copper sheet. I hope to fashion some 11 inch disks to spin in some ferrite magnet fields. Nothing fancy, just something I hope to create some kind of point of reference with.
I have a PWM controlled DC motor capable of about 1/4 HP at around 3000 rpm to drive it with. Proper pulleys will take it faster.
Maybe after 4 years I can finally get something built.
Then again, maybe not
Turtle, really slow
Quote from: keithturtle on January 09, 2014, 09:39:14 PM
OK, then I just came up with about 6 square feet of some 0.062" copper sheet. I hope to fashion some 11 inch disks to spin in some ferrite magnet fields.
Maybe after 4 years I can finally get something built.
Progress notes; got three ~12 inch disks with 1 1/4" copper plumbing caps as center pick-up hubs made. Also cut out some 15" disks and plan on 2" caps for them.
For the cylinder model I have a section of 6" diameter copper pipe that can handle about 12 linear inches of internal field magnets. Got more bearings on the way.
Errata, the DC motor (it's 1/2 HP) will only spin 1750 rpm max, so I gotta get a bigger drive pulley. I can get upwards of 6000 rpm out of an old Shopsmith lathe motor, and will set up with that to start.
Nothing is done, assembled or tested yet, but I am making [comparatively] great progress on the hardware and equipment side of this project. I've done some practice "hard-solder" brazing of the copper scraps; I intend to add a stiffening perimeter strip to the edge of the disks to keep them true, and to pick off power radially without creating Z-axis lateral flex. The idea is to keep things from wobbling, as I'm convinced the tight spins in the field magnet's corners, near proximity, have much more potential than field effect at a distance (Howard Johnson stuff). I am optimistic.
No pics or data yet.
More later
Turtle, plodding along
Hi Keith :)
why more than one disk? Are you going to join them together?
I was wondering whether the copper would be hard enough to spin at a high speed? I would imagine that the outside of a 12" disk at 3000 RPM would have a lot of force on it... I guess the rims should help...
I was thinking about the magnets - and was wondering if perhaps a pair of pancake-type coils either side of the disk - but run as an induction heater - i.e. Hi Freq AC tuned circuit - might be good. The coils could be made of 4 or 6mm copper tube... Just a thought. It might make a more uniform field. It might not.
Regards, Tim
Quote from: tim123 on February 21, 2014, 03:31:13 AM
why more than one disk? Are you going to join them together?
Yes. With two identical 12" disks with a large copper plumbing cap [hub] soldered to the center of each, I can add an array of magnets in the middle with polarity facing each disk differently; the rims will allow a band of Cu to attach the disks and complete the circuit, pick off power at each hub.
There must be no electrical contact in the common shaft. I still have details to work out, but since I haven't even made any power off a single disk, I have no frame of reference for the dual disk design. I'm just now getting the arbors and perches set up so I can begin spinning next week.
Quote from: tim123 on February 21, 2014, 03:31:13 AM
I was thinking about the magnets - and was wondering if perhaps a pair of pancake-type coils either side of the disk - but run as an induction heater - i.e. Hi Freq AC tuned circuit - might be good. The coils could be made of 4 or 6mm copper tube... Just a thought. It might make a more uniform field.
So, copper tube conducts the field current, creating a field without steel backing? Will that truly be a uniform field? Why tube over solid conductor? I don't know, but I have some 6 gauge solid wire I can coil into a pancake to try. Tube I have is at least 10mm dia.
Turtle, slow
You might get some ideas from US Patent 5,587,618
Good stuff there, TK, I have not yet read this one, thanks
Turtle
You're welcome. I've seen the working prototype of that machine, and it works a treat.
Tesla also had some interesting ideas for homopolar dynamos.
TinselKoala
I'm looking for someone who can help me to answer simple question about DC-DC converter ordinary old boost type. Do you know DC-DC converters or maybe do you know somebody here who has experience practically AND theoretically in that topic ?
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 25, 2014, 10:23:00 AM
You're welcome. I've seen the working prototype of that machine, and it works a treat.
Tesla also had some interesting ideas for homopolar dynamos.
Indeed, his US406968 design appears to have had true OU potential, but look at the date - 1889. His polyphase works earned him his living. Why did he abandon something that might have COP >1?
I will try to find out by building this stuff, as my time, tools, tenacity, talent and turtlebuks allow. That's a lot of T's
Turtle, slow
Quote from: forest on February 25, 2014, 10:27:09 AM
TinselKoala
I'm looking for someone who can help me to answer simple question about DC-DC converter ordinary old boost type. Do you know DC-DC converters or maybe do you know somebody here who has experience practically AND theoretically in that topic ?
I'm not much of a theoretician, I mostly just do actual builds and I analyze them according to the theory that makes the most sense to me, that is, conventional electrical theory. However, I'm sure that if you post your question in a thread here, you'll get all kinds of interesting analyses. Some of them will be more "correct" than others, though.
I don't want to mention any names, but there are some real experts reading and posting here, so you will probably get the information you need, from them, or at least references that you can study.
Sorry I can't be more help, good luck in your search. I'd still like to see the question, though.
--TK
Here is the question : ordinary boost converter with no load but only a bufer capacitor on output - as you see nothing new.
However what I need to know is the voltage in output capacitor after single cycle of switching : ton + toff.
We know that output cap is charged first to the power source voltage minus voltage drop on diode, what would be the final voltage on that capacitor after ton and then toff passed ? Of course power source voltage is given, also inductance of coil, ton and toff also.
Quote from: keithturtle on February 24, 2014, 09:28:44 PM
Yes. With two identical 12" disks with a large copper plumbing cap [hub] soldered to the center of each, I can add an array of magnets in the middle with polarity facing each disk differently; the rims will allow a band of Cu to attach the disks and complete the circuit, pick off power at each hub.
I think that the connection at the rim between the 2 disks would have to be a brush - or a conducting belt as in the Hathaway patent...
From what i understand - if it's rotating with the disks - then nothing gets generated. I could be wrong...
QuoteSo, copper tube conducts the field current, creating a field without steel backing? Will that truly be a uniform field? Why tube over solid conductor?
It doesn't have to be tube - any conductor will do - but for induction heating tube's often used because of the high-frequencies - and skin effect - and because you can run water thru the tubes to cool them. They don't use ferro-stuff to enhance the field - because the freq's too high...
TBH - it's probably a bad idea. Last thing you want is red-hot copper plates... :) lol.
QuoteThere are some sea turtles that can swim up to 35 miles per hour...
ask.com (http://uk.ask.com/question/how-fast-can-sea-turtles-swim)
;)
Tim
Well, I'd just make the measurement of the voltage on the cap after the single cycle. I'm sure that it can be calculated though, just not by me (until I see the appropriate formulae).
These references may contain the equations you need:
http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/2031 (http://www.maximintegrated.com/app-notes/index.mvp/id/2031)
http://www.torex.co.jp/english/news/item/MKT-08E-6DCDC2.pdf (http://www.torex.co.jp/english/news/item/MKT-08E-6DCDC2.pdf)
(and 3 meters/second is about 6.7 miles per hour; 35 mph is about 15.6 m/sec, a truly fast turtle)
Hi guys!
Nothing happening here for a while...so i'll give it a try.
I have assembled an small HPG and after some tests , found some output under the spining magnet with a normal coil.
Here is the vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B92Xxx_fW28&feature=youtu.be
The smaller magnet is a 30 mm diam. radialy magnetised working as a pulse motor.
The bigger magnet is a 60mm diam. axialy magnetised. Under this one there is a coil that gives some output.
From what I know there should not be any kind of output under that magnet. What do you think?
Quote from: mariuscivic on April 04, 2014, 02:31:25 PM
Hi guys!
Nothing happening here for a while...so i'll give it a try.
I have assembled an small HPG and after some tests , found some output under the spining magnet with a normal coil.
Here is the vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B92Xxx_fW28&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B92Xxx_fW28&feature=youtu.be)
The smaller magnet is a 30 mm diam. radialy magnetised working as a pulse motor.
The bigger magnet is a 60mm diam. axialy magnetised. Under this one there is a coil that gives some output.
From what I know there should not be any kind of output under that magnet. What do you think?
Hey Marius
I wouldnt think there would be output in that config either. Even if the flux lines are moving with the magnet, the field is cutting both sides of the coil at the same time. Try turning the coil 90deg so just 1 side of the coil is close to the mag. Even try a core to further isolate that one side of the coil to the dense flux close to the mags surface. Just for giggles. Im assuming there will be little output then also. If not, then I would try a ceramic magnet next, to eliminate the possibility of the neo mags coating causing flux dragging due to lenz in the coating. there may be some serious losses due to the coating in any build honestly. I know non coated neos can be had. Just use a urethane to coat, or paint. Ive seen plastic coated neos.
There could be some inconsistency in the mags field strength and that could be causing the output with fluctuations as it spins. Lots of mags are inconsistent even from the same batch.
I had learned of those inconsistencies back working on the Whipmag over at Fizzx.org Tk was the one that discovered these issues. I had big issues with it in my Magluvin Magnet Motor MMM. Poles were not always centered, different field strengths. Things that adjustments to fix the problems threw off balance, etc. Big headache.
If someone were to attempt an all magnet motor, or any motor with many magnets, they should buy many mags and design a setup to find matched sets from the bunch. Similar to matched set output transistors in quality amplifiers. Even if we are just hoping for a weak , very slow, but running motor, such imbalances can screw everything up, and we may never see a runner, just because magnets were not somewhere near perfect. Or like in a bicycle hub motor, if all the magnets were consistent, there would be better efficiency. ;)
Mags
Quote from: mariuscivic on April 04, 2014, 02:31:25 PM
Hi guys!
Nothing happening here for a while...so i'll give it a try.
I have assembled an small HPG and after some tests , found some output under the spining magnet with a normal coil.
Here is the vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B92Xxx_fW28&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B92Xxx_fW28&feature=youtu.be)
The smaller magnet is a 30 mm diam. radialy magnetised working as a pulse motor.
The bigger magnet is a 60mm diam. axialy magnetised. Under this one there is a coil that gives some output.
From what I know there should not be any kind of output under that magnet. What do you think?
Why not try and get some balance magnets to spin around at resonance like Jerry Bayles?
Here's his oscillating satellies with one disk on the right side; Side makes a difference!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Jerry+Bayles
To all the current researchers of the N-Machine:
We did an investor funded project on this topic in the late 80's and built both a sophisticated liquid metal brushed Tewari type design (10kW) and then a replication of the Sunburst (2.5kW) with copper leaf brushes to get the resistance down.
There are many debates on the question of whether the field remains stationary or not and we proved conclusively that the field has inertial properties, meaning it stays stationary unless "compelled" to move by the geometrical shape of spining reluctance paths. The field will remain stationary enough to be used for reactionless drives hence the term "Inertial Field Generator" that we coined.
To cut a long story short we proved the Sunburst test results of Prof Kinchloe as being real and are a direct result of the geometry of the external stationary part of the circuit regardless of whether the field source (electromagnet) is spining or not. This was in fact shown (but not obvious until we discovered it) in one of the video demo's given by Bruce DePalma at a confernec with Mr Tewari, where the large output cables were moved by someone and you could hear the machine drive motor speed up and comments about output power increase. This is exactly what we found by chance in our testing and is what decreases the back torque and allows an over-unity result. Lenz's law says nothing about the direction of magnetic forces and can clearly be violated under specific conditions. Unfortunately Bruce depalma died without discovering why the N-Machine did what it did and Adam Trombly who built a sophisticated high power machine suffered under a gag order. A lot of people went to ground as a result but its time to put this out there now there is interest again.
There are significant technical challenges in making this a viable generation technology but someone may be able to take it much further than we all could. I have a whole bunch of Homopolar machine parts, rotor, brushes, electromagnet winding Kevlar encased and extensive data files with test results to give away to a good home if someone is interested and seriously into this topic. Cost will be in freight as most parts are very heavy.
Contact me if you are interested and good luck with all the great work being done. Often we discover the most profound just by chance.
Ashg
The two Homoplar machines from late 1980's project. They still exist but Sunburst replication was only one that proved sucessful.
Ashg
Quote from: ashg on April 05, 2014, 06:42:23 AM
Lenz's law says nothing about the direction of magnetic forces...
I thought that the essence is the word "opposes".
"An induced emf always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux".
Jerry Bayles points out that the neo magnet coating is a mixture of copper and nickle, and acts like a copper disk attached to the magnet itself. This "Copper Skin" builds a charge on the surface that has no place to go until it reaches a potential to carry it across "Energyy Space".
I always wanted to make research with Tewari / Bruce de Palma kind of generator, but the machinery and the need for precise machinery work was over my achievement.
Paul R : I thought that the essence is the word "opposes".
"An induced emf always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux".
Yes but the term "opposes" does not specify whether the the fields are truly anti-parallel and the back torque generated by such current acts directed against the action giving rise to the induced EMF.
The simplest open magnetic circuit Homopolar generators have the unique charcteristic that the disc and magnet (permanent or electro & symetrically concentric) spin in a stationary field where the magnetic forces generated by the radial current in the disc and in the external circuit apply forces transmitted through the open path magnetic flux.
Its now well established (De Palma Sunburst, Trombly-Kahan, Tewari and us) that under the right magnetic circuit conditions the normally expected generator back torque on the drive motor from current generation through the disc can be substantially reduced. To that effect the homopolar can be classed as a reduced Lenz force type generator. Generally speaking the mechanisim of back torque reduction and its engineering and optimisation have had little explanation or recognition in the public domain, to that effect that some designs of homopolar OU generators have not performed as desired. That's exactly what we experienced. One machine had a 10% reduction in back torque and could not be classed as outside experimental error the other showed a 235% reduction in back torque which was physically obvious because the effect could be observed with shifting of the heavy output circuit cables, when the motor would speed up and the output would increase. Every homopolar machine design for reduced Lenz force, will have different performance characteristics. That happened for us and Bruce Deplama, with the Sunburst configuration working well but others not so well. It was not necessarily the one-piece nature (magnet and disc co-rotating) of the design that caused the reduction in back torque but the physical geometry of the stationary part of the circuit and that is where the Lenz force reduction action happens. The inertial nature of the magnetic field must also play a role in this and that is not to say that there may be other conditions discovered that are essential to gain the best reduction in back-torque as well. More experimentation will confirm that but these are not cheap machines to build and experiment with and the low voltage and high current can provide some great technical challenges.
Ashg
Thanks for sharing your insights, ashg. Sounds like you could save me lots of legwork, your having already covered the ground I am just now treading. Maybe we could compare notes.
The units I am building don't have very tight tolerances. I think that getting the copper very very close to the magnets will be key to extracting that tight, high energy spin at the corners, like Howard Johnson mentions, IDK. Of course I don't know. If I did I wouldn't be doing this.
So Trombly ain't allowed to speak, eh? Imagine that.
" More experimentation will confirm that but these are not cheap machines to build and experiment with and the low voltage and high current can provide some great technical challenges." Amen to that, brother.
I still haven't got my units spinning yet. No matter, they probably won't produce any earth-shattering results
Turtle, really slow
No posting for 6 months?
Hey, Turtle, after reading through much of the last 18 pages it looks like you've been around here for awhile. How is your progress?
I first heard of the N machine in the early 80's and have made some components in order to learn how it is supposed to work.
In addition to my machine shop work I have spent an enormous number of hours in study, calculations and other paperwork exercises. I have not yet attempted to duplicate the 13 1/4" diameter Sunburst machine.
Before this effort I had a background in electronics and then went on to study magnetics and the math formulas for burst RPM of flywheels. Anyone seriously interested in building one of these machines would do well to understand these formulas so you can get an idea on which parameters need to be idealized for best results. The math is fairly simple for the voltage output to be expected, the bursting speed of a flywheel and the maximum current output and why these factors have the effects that they do.
The biggest obstacle, if used, are the carbon brushes. They have mechanical drag like disk brakes on a car which turns into heat which creates several other problems. They have a voltage loss across the sliding interface with the metal surface they ride on and they have a voltage loss through the carbon itself which is not nearly as conductive as copper. The liquid brush (pure gallium or with an alloy) or the conductive belt is a must, in my opinion. The series of 18 youtube videos includes some shots of a liquid metal machine.
Precision machining and balancing along with a strong and rigid frame are essential to avoid destructive vibration through the necessarily wide RPM range. While it may not be appropriate for the final product, a three phase motor running on a variable speed drive would be a great convenience for testing. Their prices have come way down and a unit with single phase input is available if you don't have three phase power available at your workshop.
To convert to high power (20Kw and up) of conventional 60Hz AC I would couple (on the same shaft) the N machine to a Faraday motor of similar construction (motor with magnet stationary) to provide rotating force and gear it down to a low speed 3600 or 1800 RPM AC generator, something like a gas turbine generator set due to the high RPM of the turbine and N machine.
I would like to get plans for that liquid metal N machine in the Youtube video as my next project and from there go to a large home power unit. Does anyone have more information on that machine?
Funny thing that this thread got a kick in the pants again today,as i was just discusing this on the magnet myth's thread.
Some intersting statements being made throughout this thread.
E.G-From Gravityblock-Electrons can also flow from the rim to the axis depending on the direction of rotation and what magnetic pole the disc is rotating through.
What magnetic pole the disk is rotating through ???
It rotates through a neutral field regardless which way the magnets are orientated-see pic below.North one side of the disk,and south the other side. This must mean a field flow direction through the disk-but they say nothing flows from north pole to south pole,or vice-versa.
Then there is talk that it is the electric field that causes the current flow-there is an imaginary wire created between the brush on the outer rim and the center brush on the shaft through the copper disk ???. OK,cool-where did this electric field come from if there was no current flow to create it in the first place?
Current must start to flow before an electric field is produced-in this case the egg comes before the chicken. Also a voltage can be measured across the disk radius before current is drawn from the HPG-->the open voltage.
I really think this deserve continued reserch,as i dont think it has yet been discovered exactly what is going on in a HPG. This will only come when you know exactly what and how magnetic fields are and work.So i think the sister thread for this thread should be the magnetic myths and misconceptions thread- http://www.overunity.com/14974/magnet-myths-and-misconceptions/msg420334/#new
U can use the disc generator for hydrogen generating from water.
Unlike a normal generator I believe the outer rim of a homopolar generator will always be negative polarity
independent of the direction of the disk rotation. And it is one way to tell whether the unit is homopolar
internally or not.
This is because in a homopolar generator the mobile charge carrier are the electrons. It is as if electron mass comes under the
influence of centrifugal force and they get flung outward toward the disk edges. It's always the mobile electrons which are
being flung. This helps one see why the magnets can be rotated with or not the main disk in a homopolar generator.
This is also the reason why one needs brushes or gears that are fixed to the non-centrifugal reference frame for it to
work.
A wire from the edge of the rotor to the center operating inside the magnetic field will show the same voltage gradient
as the disk and without a voltage difference no current can therefore flow.
The direction of the flux path is curved differently dependent on the direction of rotation. I believe if you have curved slots cut
in the disk, the disk will be different impedances dependent on direction of rotation.
By and large failure to produce homopolar generators are because the flux across the disk needs to be monolithic across the
entire disk-face from center to edges. This means a giant "C" shaped magnet generally to conduct the other flux polarity
outside the disk.
Arrays of powerful magnets allow some flux leakage between magnets. This allows electrons to form eddy current loops
in the disk before the electrons get to the edge.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on October 18, 2014, 09:23:01 AM
Unlike a normal generator I believe the outer rim of a homopolar generator will always be negative polarity
independent of the direction of the disk rotation. And it is one way to tell whether the unit is homopolar
internally or not.
This is because in a homopolar generator the mobile charge carrier are the electrons. It is as if electron mass comes under the
influence of centrifugal force and they get flung outward toward the disk edges. It's always the mobile electrons which are
being flung. This helps one see why the magnets can be rotated with or not the main disk in a homopolar generator.
This is also the reason why one needs brushes or gears that are fixed to the non-centrifugal reference frame for it to
work.
A wire from the edge of the rotor to the center operating inside the magnetic field will show the same voltage gradient
as the disk and without a voltage difference no current can therefore flow.
The direction of the flux path is curved differently dependent on the direction of rotation. I believe if you have curved slots cut
in the disk, the disk will be different impedances dependent on direction of rotation.
By and large failure to produce homopolar generators are because the flux across the disk needs to be monolithic across the
entire disk-face from center to edges. This means a giant "C" shaped magnet generally to conduct the other flux polarity
outside the disk.
Arrays of powerful magnets allow some flux leakage between magnets. This allows electrons to form eddy current loops
in the disk before the electrons get to the edge.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote: Unlike a normal generator I believe the outer rim of a homopolar generator will always be negative polarity
Mark-if you reverse the direction of rotation of the disk,the polarity changes-this is a know fact.
Quote: This is because in a homopolar generator the mobile charge carrier are the electrons. It is as if electron mass comes under the
influence of centrifugal force and they get flung outward toward the disk edges.
Electron flow is from negative to positive,so if the outer rim was the negative potential,then the electrons would be flowing against the centrifugal force-toward the center of the disk(positive).
The polarity of the voltage can also be changed by changing the magnetic field polarity on each side of the disk-this is also another know fact.
Can it be built solid state.
Quote from: ggx9 on October 18, 2014, 02:54:42 AM
Hey, Turtle, after reading through much of the last 18 pages it looks like you've been around here for awhile. How is your progress?
Yeah, it's the same place it was in April... stalled.
Not that I don't want to work with it, I just see the need to get some "proven" alternative energy stuff together in case SHTF.
I've got a real effective rocket stove going (Gabe Apostal's design), and some solar PV/hydrogen stuff coming together as well.
No doubt what you say about understanding the critical values and physics will play huge into success of this design; my "TLAR" (that looks about right) engineering approach falls well short of the true science. I'm not at all well versed in higher math, though I grasp the basic concepts of magnetic interaction that we have at work in this homopolar device.
I think there is merit to the solid-state idea.
Firewood and neanderthal-science take priority at the moment. When survival is the order of the day, having the right [marketable] stuff ready takes precedence over replicating DePalma. There's only so many hours in a day.
Thanks for your interest
Turtle, keeping warm
Been doing some experiments and found something interesting.
Below are 2 pics. Didnt have the camera at the shop, so I threw together 3d pics.
The pics show aluminum foil on a flat surface and a neo disk magnet, magnetized through length. Best if using 1/4in or more so it can roll without falling over. My 3/4in x 1/8in disks fall over or want to spin like a strong compass because of earths mag field when setting them up on edge. On the foil, thicker mags have a harder time spinning on edge so we can concentrate on the rolling.
The orange object depicts a solid copper wire 20awg or so, with bent end so the smooth outer elbow can contact the magnet with least drag on the magnets surface. Or something non magnetic.
I used 4 AA batts in series connecting one end to the foil, and one end of the batt pack to the wire, at the end that is not near the magnet, in case you use alligator leads to make connections.
In pic 1, depending on the magnet polarity and battery polarity, when the wire touches the top of the magnet, the magnet will roll in one direction. Reverse either the battery or the magnet, the magnet will roll the other direction.
In pic 2, if you touch the wire to the center of the circular side of the magnet, the magnet will roll in the opposite direction as when contacting the top of the magnet, with battery and magnet of the same polarity in each case. Also, if you touch the wire to the other side of the magnet(pic 2), it will roll the same direction as when contacting the side shown in pic 2.
So, contact the top, and the mag moves say left, and contact the center of either side(pic 2) the magnet will roll right.
The interesting part is, it doesnt matter the orientation of the magnet on the foil, or the orientation of the wire in respect to the magnet. So its not the field from current 'direction' in the foil with respect to where the magnet is on the foil and where the battery pack is connected on the edge of the foil. As long as current flows through the magnet(pic 1) either up from the bottom of the magnet, or down, the magnet will move on its own, without outside magnetic field influence.
More isolated tests to come. ;) As in, is the magnet 'rolling' (spinning) because of the current flow through the magnet, or, is the magnet as a whole 'forced' in that direction, and the roll is due to friction on the foil? :o :o ;) ;D A coil-less pulse motor with just mags on a rotor and top and bottom contacts? ??? ;)
Clearly if we change the orientation of how the wire beyond the contact point of the magnet back to the battery, we might expect different angles or even perpendicular from the magnets contact point to affect which way it might roll, or even how strong a roll. Also we might expect a different roll direction if we moved the battery contact to the foil to the opposite outer edge of the foil due to fields developed in the foil from current flow to the bottom rolling edge of the magnet. But no matter the external orientations of external conductors, the mag rolls the same direction as long as mag and electrical polarities are consistent. If the wire is parallel to the contact surface, the field of the wire can cause a little twisting of the mag as it rolls, but still rolls the same.
So, the point is, when the magnet rolls, what is it pushing against(and or pulling towards) if the conductors fields seem to not be in effect when it comes to the magnet rolling with current flowing through it? Its a strong roll. Like a coil was pulsed near it.
If any of you have these items to try yourselves, please chime in on what you think. I dont get why the mag rolls in the opposite direction when contacting the top or the sides of the magnet, yet. I used 4 AA in series to show nice moving effects without burning the magnets surface badly, as I did with a 12v 12ah agm batt. ;D Use safety goggles if wandering into the higher voltage/current sources. ;) 1 AA doesnt really get it going. Just a little jiggle. ;D
I tested the raw neo material of a broken like magnet for continuity, and it measures the same low ohms as the nickle shell coating, .00 ohms Wavetek 2030. So the magnet as a whole is conducting the currents, not just the outer coating.
Will be back for more on what I think about this in a bit. And also another test I did.
Mags
What got me started on this was the paradox. A while back actually is when I started pondering it, as I have posted here before.
Was looking at homopolar motors on YT, the ones with AA batt with magnet and spinning copper wire.
One of the vids, the guy had a small mag on the top of the batt and a larger disk on the bottom, and the batt/mags hung magnetically from the top magnet so the batt/mag could spin freely, and the bottom mag was contacted on the outer edge of the mag. The whole battery/mags assy was spinning. So I decided to test magnets without the battery mass attached.
I have some roller pin bearings of different sizes from car axle and transmission bearings, bunches of sizes, and used 2 small ones to make an axis in which to have a disk mag(3/4x1/8 disk) be able to spin. Centered the 2 pin bearings on the mag, both sides, and applied a bit of super glue to hold in place along with the mag holding them. Made a simple base and it spins ok. When I applied power to a pin and the outer mag edge, it spins. So, a simple traditional homopolar with the mag playing the magnet and disk all in one. lol, this is where I went up to using the 12v batt and it spun fast, but the outer edge of the mag got burned up pretty fast. At least it worked. And you can make the connection to either pin axle and it would spin the same direction. So both could be used as electrical contacts to make better connections. Would be nice to have a large thin disk mag with a hole in the middle to make an actual ball bearing axle. Larger diameter should have more torque.
The contact areas between the mag and pins had blackened around the edges under the clear super glue after running as the contact wasnt perfect for high currents there. But again, it worked and I moved on to the previous post tests, which were more defining of what actions occured and possibilities of what causes the actions.
The new tests I have devised from these previous tests will take this to the next level. What Im looking for at the moment is not power generation possibilities, yet, but going the motor route to get a grip on what is going on with different configurations other than the traditional disk setups.
Mags
I would find it very strange if your first rendering actually caused the magnet to rotate. This would mean an instant violation of many things. Can you show the experiment?
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2014, 01:14:14 PM
I would find it very strange if your first rendering actually caused the magnet to rotate. This would mean an instant violation of many things. Can you show the experiment?
Hey Broli
I have all day tomorrow to do some more experiments and Ill do a vid or 2.
Not sure if it violates anything. But I find it strange also.
One new test i plan is to have the magnet at the bottom of a pendulum swing arm, with twisted pair wires running down the arm from the upper pivot point. Would be odd and strange if the pendulum arm moves. ;D ;)
Mags
Mags
thanks for sharing these most intriguing thoughts and very simple observations/experiments...
I like your images too..
see you next year ! ;D
thx
Chet
Happy new year Chet, and all. ;D
Mags
@mags:
Yes, the "magnet mover 1.jpg" rendering is very strange, a new one on me. It might be possible to test this using the standard one-piece HPM that you described. By a curious coincidence I made one a couple of months ago myself, but I never thought to try it with two brushes on the edge, I've just run it with the single brush and the axle point connections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFMq1Cvtg1s)
What is being pushed against, even in the ordinary configuration? In my setup the copper braid brush is very limp, it doesn't seem like it could be taking the "stator back reaction" that we usually think must exist somewhere for the rotor to spin. Push against that braid and it just flops out of the way.
Tomorrow I'll try it with two brushes on the edge, diametrically across the magnet disk. This "may" duplicate the mover 1 configuration, or there may be something special about the extended surface of the aluminum foil that is needed. We'll see...
Thanks for the puzzler!
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 01:39:30 AM
Tomorrow I'll try it with two brushes on the edge, diametrically across the magnet disk. This "may" duplicate the mover 1 configuration, or there may be something special about the extended surface of the aluminum foil that is needed. We'll see...
Thanks for the puzzler!
I think you should try both, a brush on one side and a large conductive planar body on the other if that's possible. Honestly I tried this myself and got no indication of rotation. However I had major fusing issue where the wire would cause a spark upon touching the magnet and stick to it, even if there was a slight tendency for rotation I wouldn't have been able to notice it. The approaching angle of the top wire might also be important.
The reason I find the possible operation of this strange is that in this kind of operation there should in theory be no induced EMF as you go from rim to rim.
Quote from: broli on January 01, 2015, 04:37:01 AM
I think you should try both, a brush on one side and a large conductive planar body on the other if that's possible. Honestly I tried this myself and got no indication of rotation. However I had major fusing issue where the wire would cause a spark upon touching the magnet and stick to it, even if there was a slight tendency for rotation I wouldn't have been able to notice it. The approaching angle of the top wire might also be important.
The reason I find the possible operation of this strange is that in this kind of operation there should in theory be no induced EMF as you go from rim to rim.
I agree with all of that.
My fusing problem was somewhat reduced when I used a current-limiting power supply set to a maximum of 6 amps. With a battery that can produce a lot more current the problem is "sticky" all right, things weld together easily especially if you use a fine braid like I used. The braid wires also tend to burn away, even at 6 amps maximum, and the braid gets shorter.
Another thing that is interesting about using the current-limiting supply is that it lets you see that the voltage needed goes way down. I see readings of 1 volt or so, at 6 amps, as the supply automatically reduces voltage to keep the current at the set limit.
If you have some mercury or GalInStan liquid metal (I don't, at present) you could try that for contacts, but beware of the mercury vapor that happens when you have sparking and big currents in the mercury.
Hi guys i like to share my idea to know whether the magnetic field is stationary or not. My idea is to use capacitor to collect charge in the disc. If charge is collected, this means the magnetic field is stationary because there is voltage generated in the disc. If no charge collected this means the disc doesnt generate voltage because the magnetic field is rotating as magnet rotate.
Thanks for the interest guys
Tk
I see the braided brush, once it makes contact, it is magnetically pulled in for heavier contact, then releases at times. I have that with the mag on foil.
Was thinking last night about the 2 positions of the wire on the mags in my depictions, and the opposite movement direction of the mag. This could get very interesting. One thing, if you try to make contacts with opposite outer edges of the mag in your config, I myself, did not see spin with my setup as you have it. Only rotation with contacts of outer edge with either or both axles. Meaning current from the center of the mag to the outer edge, or outer edge to center causes rotation. Now on the foil, edge to edge does cause 'apparent' rotation, so you may see the mags in your setup possibly 'move' within the space tolerance of your axle looseness on the base. Like the mag will jump, up, or you will see a bit of movement, but no rotation. My setup like yours is a bit tighter at the axle holes on the base, so I was just burning the mags edge surface.
So on the foil, where the mag is more free to move instead of just rotate, if I make contact as in depiction 2, I believe that only the bottom portion of the mag is being pulled/pushed in a particular direction, causing the rotation we see on the fixed axle setup. But on the foil in depiction 1, I believe the mag as a whole is being pushed/pulled, perpendicular to the contacts.
Think about this, which Ill try today also. make a very light weight floating device. Arrange a magnet and a small battery, with + and - connected to the outer edges of the mag. Will the little boat move in water based on that? ;D Similar to the pendulum idea but possibly simpler to construct. ;)
Thanks again for showing. Will be taking camera to shop today.
Mags
Hey Electric Pirate
I do believe that the fields of the rotating disk mag is stationary as it rotates. Ive done tests with a large, very sensitive coil(5kohm 42awg wire) with a magnet attached to the coil, off center, and movement of the coil/mag through the air does not light an led, but moving the mag with the coil sitting fixed, the led lights with slow movements. So, I have seen some out there using a bunch of small magnets to replace the solid disk magnet in a traditional homopolar setup. In those cases, the fields are not stationary.
So in my pic 1, Im thinking that the current flowing through the mag, 90deg of the magnets pole alignment, moves the field within the mag, causing the mag material to want to move with the field. ;D
Mags
Ah...OK, I think I see it now. The magnet on the foil isn't rotating like a homopolar motor, it's trying to slide, like a railgun armature, and the sliding friction makes it rotate. I think.
So if you had, say, a brass tube that would be a good fit for the OD of the magnet, or even better just a long skinny cylinder magnet polled endwise, and you set it onto a pair of rails and then supplied current to the rails, it would scoot down the rails and also roll. Maybe.
Quote from: Magluvin on December 31, 2014, 08:40:38 PM
Happy new year Chet, and all. ;D
Mags
Happy new year to everyone, and especially to those determined to unravel this mysterious Faraday disk potential
Turtle, slow but still at it
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
Ah...OK, I think I see it now. The magnet on the foil isn't rotating like a homopolar motor, it's trying to slide, like a railgun armature, and the sliding friction makes it rotate. I think.
So if you had, say, a brass tube that would be a good fit for the OD of the magnet, or even better just a long skinny cylinder magnet polled endwise, and you set it onto a pair of rails and then supplied current to the rails, it would scoot down the rails and also roll. Maybe.
Not sure yet on the first part above, but been thinking it till I find out. ;) There could be more complexity to it all. But initial feelings from the experiments on the foil lead me to that possibility so far, from my experiences, so far. ;D
Well, not on rails. just connect the battery to the magnet, and the battery just goes along for the ride. :o ;) ;D Depending on the magnets orientation when the current is applied. I have some 1/2 x 1/8 x 1/16 bar neos. The 1/8 x 1/16 ends can be where the connections are made. Heck, Im already conjuring up configs with the lil bar mags stacked in series, yada yada yada. But tests first. Just got to the shop a bit ago. Cant upload pics n vids from here. Will do later at home.
Mags
The first pic below is of the magnet set up like a homopolar motor, as TK presented a vid of that in a recent post here.
The second pic is of the pendulum test and the magnet didnt move when I applied current to the wires on the pivot axle.
Got a YT vid loading of the mag on the foil. Will post the link when its done.
Mags
Mag on foil vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw&feature=youtu.be
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 01, 2015, 02:10:35 PM
Hey Electric Pirate
I do believe that the fields of the rotating disk mag is stationary as it rotates. Ive done tests with a large, very sensitive coil(5kohm 42awg wire) with a magnet attached to the coil, off center, and movement of the coil/mag through the air does not light an led, but moving the mag with the coil sitting fixed, the led lights with slow movements. So, I have seen some out there using a bunch of small magnets to replace the solid disk magnet in a traditional homopolar setup. In those cases, the fields are not stationary.
So in my pic 1, Im thinking that the current flowing through the mag, 90deg of the magnets pole alignment, moves the field within the mag, causing the mag material to want to move with the field. ;D
Mags
Hi mags
Like you said many believe that field is stationary but im still not satisfied without experimental proof. Experimenting is the only way i can see to end up this mind bogling paradoxes. If only i have a large magnet i will do that experiment.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2015, 12:17:56 AM
Mag on foil vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw&feature=youtu.be
Mags
Amazing vid but why the magnet move? If we apply left hand rule it shouldnt supposed to move?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
Ah...OK, I think I see it now. The magnet on the foil isn't rotating like a homopolar motor, it's trying to slide, like a railgun armature, and the sliding friction makes it rotate. I think.
So if you had, say, a brass tube that would be a good fit for the OD of the magnet, or even better just a long skinny cylinder magnet polled endwise, and you set it onto a pair of rails and then supplied current to the rails, it would scoot down the rails and also roll. Maybe.
I haven't looked at it this way but this seems completely possible. In fact if you prevent it from sliding and forced it to roll I can't tell how it will even induce a back EMF. Atached is my analysis of such setup. The upper illustration shows the generated forces, the lower images show the 2 different motion cases. Something to ponder on indeed.
Happy Belated New Years @All
Hi Magluvin,
Thanks for sharing. That is very interesting.
A small test platform could be setup to see if it's sliding or rolling as TK and Broli state.
If the friction is too great for the top rail it can be replaced with a smaller wire with a slight slack to it so it droops and touches the top of the magnet.
If you feed in a bipolar square wave into the rails it should oscillate back and forth.
These all need testing still but it opens some really interesting ideas like a linear homopolar generator.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2015, 12:17:56 AM
Mag on foil vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw&feature=youtu.be)
Mags
Hey Mags,
I have watched your video a few times and I noticed an uncertainty in the moving direction of the magnet when you touched its top with the wire (video time 1:03). The magnet "hesitated" to start up to the right hand direction and first went to the left a few mm, then moved towards the right.
I wonder if this "hesitation" came about because it may depend on which part of the magnet top the wire was touched to: just in the exact center where the Bloch wall is as I indicated in your drawing with the dotted black lines in the attched picture or the moving direction may depend on whether you touch the wire more towards one of the edges of the magnet? (I mean the area between the dotted center line and the pole edges of either the North or the South sides I indicated with a single red and blue line.)
I could not see from the video how much the wire was off from the exact center line or maybe this is not so important? Of course the Bloch wall is but one mm or less in thickness for that cylinder magnet thickness and you may have cared to always touch the wire within that 1 mm thick 'center line' i.e. in the Bloch wall area.
Thanks for showing this interesting phenomena.
Gyula
Quote from: ElectricPirate on January 02, 2015, 03:44:03 AM
Hi mags
Like you said many believe that field is stationary but im still not satisfied without experimental proof. Experimenting is the only way i can see to end up this mind bogling paradoxes. If only i have a large magnet i will do that experiment.
There are vid demos that show when 2 disk mags are held apart, in attraction, when one of them is spun, with a drill if I remember correctly, the other did not spin. But, if we allow the test magnet to be free in 2 or 3 dimensions, the magnet as a whole can be moved in many directions, so say a large disk mag is spinning on axis, the fields departing the face of the mag has no affect on a conductor in its path, but if we move the conductor and the mag stationary, the conductor will have current. In tests I have done, if we small mags mounted to the surface of a coil, each of those fields from the individual mags will not produce current in the coil, as the fields tend to remain as the are, whether the assembly moves through air or spins like an HP motor/gen.
Im sure that if we spin a disk mag on axis, we could sense(hall sensor, small pickup coil) highs n lows in field strength due to imperfections within the magnet, but no apparent dragging of the fields as if the magnet were moved in any other way, other than spinning on its axis.
So myself, if there are no field lines, it kinda has me thinking differently about how the fields induce current in a wire. More on that later as I gain more understanding on it myself. ;)
Mags
Quote from: broli on January 02, 2015, 08:51:57 AM
I haven't looked at it this way but this seems completely possible. In fact if you prevent it from sliding and forced it to roll I can't tell how it will even induce a back EMF. Atached is my analysis of such setup. The upper illustration shows the generated forces, the lower images show the 2 different motion cases. Something to ponder on indeed.
Nice illustrations. ;) Thanks for those
As you show it is like I envision what may be going on.But as I stated to TK, there may be more complex things going on within the mag with currents flowing as we have them. The currents flowing say downward should cause field 'around' the mag in a horizontal plane. I need to make a better axle for the stationary spinning disk so the mag is more free to move. It was snug till it snaps into the plexi frame so it would not jump out. Spins ok, but too much current needed causes damage and very short testing period.
Got a few new ideas for testing, as I will describe in my next reply to Gyula.
Mags
Quote from: gyulasun on January 02, 2015, 01:48:26 PM
Hey Mags,
I have watched your video a few times and I noticed an uncertainty in the moving direction of the magnet when you touched its top with the wire (video time 1:03). The magnet "hesitated" to start up to the right hand direction and first went to the left a few mm, then moved towards the right.
I wonder if this "hesitation" came about because it may depend on which part of the magnet top the wire was touched to: just in the exact center where the Bloch wall is as I indicated in your drawing with the dotted black lines in the attched picture or the moving direction may depend on whether you touch the wire more towards one of the edges of the magnet? (I mean the area between the dotted center line and the pole edges of either the North or the South sides I indicated with a single red and blue line.)
I could not see from the video how much the wire was off from the exact center line or maybe this is not so important? Of course the Bloch wall is but one mm or less in thickness for that cylinder magnet thickness and you may have cared to always touch the wire within that 1 mm thick 'center line' i.e. in the Bloch wall area.
Thanks for showing this interesting phenomena.
Gyula
Hey Gyula
The wire has bad spots on it so at times making contact would not happen. But I do get what you mean. It should be mapped out what effects making contact on the magnet have in different areas. I got some copper washers that I can press onto the mag where it could be centered or slid to the left or right edge. Also in the foil, set up a little plexi tracking walls to keep the mag straight with a back stop and arrange the wire to contact the mag consistently in particular areas. And some more ideas for free floating and to pivot on edge. Lots to do. Neat stuff though.
The pendulum didnt do anything. So as you say, possibly change the positions of the contacts, where possibly they are not directly across the mag, maybe at 1/4 turns. 1/3. etc
Mags
Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on January 02, 2015, 11:49:17 AM
Happy Belated New Years @All
Hi Magluvin,
Thanks for sharing. That is very interesting.
A small test platform could be setup to see if it's sliding or rolling as TK and Broli state.
If the friction is too great for the top rail it can be replaced with a smaller wire with a slight slack to it so it droops and touches the top of the magnet.
If you feed in a bipolar square wave into the rails it should oscillate back and forth.
These all need testing still but it opens some really interesting ideas like a linear homopolar generator.
Hey Dream
Good Idea. ;)
Probably good to just glue light weight plastic washers to the sides as to not add extra weight to the moving assy. Tk is getting very good rotation with 6 amps. My 4 AAs are pumping an even 4 amps, just to get it moving as shown. The 12v 12ah agm, things happen too fast to see what happened at times. :o ;D
Mags
One thing that gets me. We see these AA batt/mag with the wire rotating around, then the mag spin on its own where the field of the wire contacts dont seem to be part of the equation. The spinning wire has pretty much no torque, but the mag under the same arrangement does have torque. Even with the wire in a completely different orientation, the mag seems to spin just as well. ??? ;D So when the magnet is stationary under the battery, is there a field altering of the mag according to where the wire is contacting the outer edge of the mag and possibly changing that position in reference to where the outer wire is make a difference in how well the wire spins or not so well? :) All kinds of things are popping in the brain. :o :o ;D
Mags
Quote from: ElectricPirate on January 02, 2015, 03:44:03 AM
Hi mags
Like you said many believe that field is stationary but im still not satisfied without experimental proof. Experimenting is the only way i can see to end up this mind bogling paradoxes. If only i have a large magnet i will do that experiment.
I have a setup I plan to make that will show if the disk mag can spin or be stationary. Trying both ways. Will show when I figure out all the details.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2015, 04:50:27 PM
There are vid demos that show when 2 disk mags are held apart, in attraction, when one of them is spun, with a drill if I remember correctly, the other did not spin. But, if we allow the test magnet to be free in 2 or 3 dimensions, the magnet as a whole can be moved in many directions, so say a large disk mag is spinning on axis, the fields departing the face of the mag has no affect on a conductor in its path, but if we move the conductor and the mag stationary, the conductor will have current. In tests I have done, if we small mags mounted to the surface of a coil, each of those fields from the individual mags will not produce current in the coil, as the fields tend to remain as the are, whether the assembly moves through air or spins like an HP motor/gen.
Im sure that if we spin a disk mag on axis, we could sense(hall sensor, small pickup coil) highs n lows in field strength due to imperfections within the magnet, but no apparent dragging of the fields as if the magnet were moved in any other way, other than spinning on its axis.
So myself, if there are no field lines, it kinda has me thinking differently about how the fields induce current in a wire. More on that later as I gain more understanding on it myself. ;)
Mags
I also watched that video but still im not convinced. What if the magnetic field is a flow of particle or ether? Thus rotating the magnet will only create particle vortex and this woundnt affect the other magnet. Back to your video, can you make a picture with a current direction and polarity of magnet. I like to know this because there is still unsolved question here. Why would the magnet changes its rolling direction if the wire is touched to the center of the magnet?
Quote from: Magluvin on January 02, 2015, 05:38:37 PM
I have a setup I plan to make that will show if the disk mag can spin or be stationary. Trying both ways. Will show when I figure out all the details.
Mags
Okey, I will wait for this... I hope you discover again something different.. :D
Quote from: MagsSo myself, if there are no field lines, it kinda has me thinking differently about how the fields induce current in a wire.
It all depends on what you mean by " are ". ;)
Magnetic field lines have the same kind of reality as elevation contour lines on a topographic map of terrain. They are convenient mathematical fictions that allow us to describe consistently the direction and the strength of how "test particles" would move in the presence of magnetism. Just as a road really goes nowhere, but we travel along a road, field lines don't represent a "flow" of magnetism, they simply represent strength and direction of how other things would "flow" in the field. The concept of the field is itself a metaphor, a very useful one.
On a topo map, when the contour lines are close together you know that there is a steep slope in the reality and a ball, for example, would roll in a particular direction (at right angles to the lines and in the direction of lower elevation) and speed (fast where they are close). If the contour lines are far apart, the real place is flat or nearly so and the ball will roll slowly if at all ... but still at right angles to the contour lines.
And just as a standard topo map has contour lines that are well defined (as to the elevation change represented by successive lines) so too does a magnetic field line have a specific definition in terms of mathematical relationships between the quantities of the field and the test particle.
Tesla's "rotating magnetic field" is of course composed of stationary fields from separate coils, energized in sequence around a circle. A "test particle" like the Egg of Columbus rotates because it is following the sequence of stationary fields made by the separate coils as they are energized in the rotational sequence. The fields themselves do not rotate. Tesla used 4 coils driven by 2-phase AC in his demonstration to produce the "rotating" total field, but the field no more rotates than would LEDs blinking rapidly in a circular sequence.
ETA: Tom Valone did a very interesting experiment that he talks about in the Homopolar Handbook. He actually mounted a simple LED voltmeter arrangement directly to the disk of a homopolar dynamo, connected at the center and the edge. He found that when the voltmeter rotated along with the disk, he could detect no voltage generated. But when the voltmeter was stationary in the laboratory reference frame, connected by the usual radial and axial brushes, he did detect voltage from the rotating dynamo.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:39:12 AM
ETA: Tom Valone did a very interesting experiment that he talks about in the Homopolar Handbook. He actually mounted a simple LED voltmeter arrangement directly to the disk of a homopolar dynamo, connected at the center and the edge. He found that when the voltmeter rotated along with the disk, he could detect no voltage generated. But when the voltmeter was stationary in the laboratory reference frame, connected by the usual radial and axial brushes, he did detect voltage from the rotating dynamo.
This is kind of a flawed experiment, a volt meter is not the correct device to measure the electric field in the rotating frame. A voltmeter needs a closed loop circuit to do its thing. Rotating an entire closed looped circuit elliminates any induced voltage ergo the experiment proves that a voltage cannot be generated when the entire circuit is rotated.
A corrected experiment would use a sensitive electrostatic probe rather than a run of the mill volt meter. The reason is that when the disc is rotated the voltage induced will push charge to the rimm/center which causes a measurable electrostatic field in the vicinity. However commercial electrostatic probes are not meant to measure mV to 1V fields. Perhaps there's an IC circuit out there that does?
Hi :)
I watched the following educational video (from 3:55) and I thought this design MIGHT help to increase the output power of N machine. As you know the length of wire determines the voltage output and I believe the girth of wire will determine the current output. I think the reason for N machine to have high current and low voltage is a short distance between the rotor and edge of the copper disk and high current is cause by the thickness of the disk. The rotation cases the electrons to move from the center of the disk towards the edge (according to Fleming's left hand law). So I decided to use a solenoid, locate two magnets on one of the edges of the solenoid and rotate the solenoid around its Y axis. The same Fleming's left had law will push the electrons from the left hand corner of solenoid towards the right hand side and that is exactly what we need: Movement of electron in a long and thick copper wire. Please let me know what you think :)
Just to make it clear, I mean the magnets are going to be attached to the solenoid and solenoid is attached to the shaft of motor and solenoid, shaft and magnets all spin at the same time!
Here is the educational video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPUii-lwbFU&list=PL1yp1jmMk_BZ1eTVAL_YXmqM7wznFDLN5&index=1
Best Regards
Sam
No one wanna tell me "its not going to work"? I'm really disappointed. Not even MileHigh? :D Come on guys, tell me its not going to work, Otherwise I might think OU is possible ;)
Quote from: life is illusion on January 06, 2015, 09:38:44 AM
Hi :)
I watched the following educational video (from 3:55) and I thought this design MIGHT help to increase the output power of N machine. As you know the length of wire determines the voltage output and I believe the girth of wire will determine the current output. I think the reason for N machine to have high current and low voltage is a short distance between the rotor and edge of the copper disk and high current is cause by the thickness of the disk. The rotation cases the electrons to move from the center of the disk towards the edge (according to Fleming's left hand law). So I decided to use a solenoid, locate two magnets on one of the edges of the solenoid and rotate the solenoid around its Y axis. The same Fleming's left had law will push the electrons from the left hand corner of solenoid towards the right hand side and that is exactly what we need: Movement of electron in a long and thick copper wire. Please let me know what you think :)
Just to make it clear, I mean the magnets are going to be attached to the solenoid and solenoid is attached to the shaft of motor and solenoid, shaft and magnets all spin at the same time!
Here is the educational video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPUii-lwbFU&list=PL1yp1jmMk_BZ1eTVAL_YXmqM7wznFDLN5&index=1 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPUii-lwbFU&list=PL1yp1jmMk_BZ1eTVAL_YXmqM7wznFDLN5&index=1)
Best Regards
Sam
Good Morning Sam!
I've been thinking about that since I tried my first replication. As you said, if we can make the distance between the center until the edge of the disk "longer", probably we can get the voltage higher. I'm in the middle of other project, but I'm planing to build a device to test this thesis.
Ariovaldo
Quote from: ariovaldo on January 15, 2015, 08:08:15 AM
Good Morning Sam!
I've been thinking about that since I tried my first replication. As you said, if we can make the distance between the center until the edge of the disk "longer", probably we can get the voltage higher. I'm in the middle of other project, but I'm planing to build a device to test this thesis.
Ariovaldo
Hi Ariovaldo :)
Thanks for replying my friend. Good luck with the project that you are working on. I find N machine a very interesting setup and I hope we can make something out of it :)
Best Regards
Sam
Quote from: ariovaldo on January 15, 2015, 08:08:15 AM
... if we can make the distance between the center until the edge of the disk "longer", probably we can get the voltage higher.
Ariovaldo
I believe what you will find when researching this subject, is that yes: the larger the disk, the higher the voltage.
and thicker disks produce more current.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:39:12 AM
It all depends on what you mean by " are ". ;)
You take me back to the thrilling days of yesteryear.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word is is. "
Really, the meaning of the word is is is.
But, whether or not the meaning of the word is is is is not my main worry.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:39:12 AMMagnetic field lines have the same kind of reality as elevation contour lines on a topographic map of terrain. They are convenient mathematical fictions that allow us to describe consistently the direction and the strength of how "test particles" would move in the presence of magnetism. Just as a road really goes nowhere, but we travel along a road, field lines don't represent a "flow" of magnetism, they simply represent strength and direction of how other things would "flow" in the field. The concept of the field is itself a metaphor, a very useful one.
On a topo map, when the contour lines are close together you know that there is a steep slope in the reality and a ball, for example, would roll in a particular direction (at right angles to the lines and in the direction of lower elevation) and speed (fast where they are close). If the contour lines are far apart, the real place is flat or nearly so and the ball will roll slowly if at all ... but still at right angles to the contour lines.
And just as a standard topo map has contour lines that are well defined (as to the elevation change represented by successive lines) so too does a magnetic field line have a specific definition in terms of mathematical relationships between the quantities of the field and the test particle.
Uhhh, but just because somebody imagined field lines without actually seeing them, doesn't prove that they are
not "real". Surely you will agree that everything that any human "sees" is a metaphor for the sensory information that is gathered by human senses and transmitted thru nerves to the brain, then processed into "images" capable of being understood by the soul. Like bro. Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar really is a cigar."
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:39:12 AMTesla's "rotating magnetic field" is of course composed of stationary fields from separate coils, energized in sequence around a circle. A "test particle" like the Egg of Columbus rotates because it is following the sequence of stationary fields made by the separate coils as they are energized in the rotational sequence. The fields themselves do not rotate. Tesla used 4 coils driven by 2-phase AC in his demonstration to produce the "rotating" total field, but the field no more rotates than would LEDs blinking rapidly in a circular sequence.
Bravo!! Before now, I was uncertain if you understood the distinction.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 03, 2015, 08:39:12 AMETA: Tom Valone did a very interesting experiment that he talks about in the Homopolar Handbook. He actually mounted a simple LED voltmeter arrangement directly to the disk of a homopolar dynamo, connected at the center and the edge. He found that when the voltmeter rotated along with the disk, he could detect no voltage generated. But when the voltmeter was stationary in the laboratory reference frame, connected by the usual radial and axial brushes, he did detect voltage from the rotating dynamo.
I have the book. And I read it too. Maybe twice. Or more. In all the excitement I lost count myself.
Do you think that this proves or disproves Special Relativity? Careful how you answer. Many are afraid of giving the "wrong" answer and losing their paycheck.
Cheers
CANGAS 146
Why would you get the idea that experiment conflicts with SR? SR can account for a magnetic field as the result of moving charge due to the charge's FOR. In order to induce voltage, we need a cross product of a time varying magnetic field across a conductor. When the voltage detector is placed across a fixed radial section of the disk, the expected induction across that radial is very low as confirmed by the experiment. But relative to the external contact it is another matter, which the experiment also confirms.
Quote from: MarkE on March 06, 2015, 01:44:39 AM
Why would you get the idea that experiment conflicts with SR? SR can account for a magnetic field as the result of moving charge due to the charge's FOR. In order to induce voltage, we need a cross product of a time varying magnetic field across a conductor. When the voltage detector is placed across a fixed radial section of the disk, the expected induction across that radial is very low as confirmed by the experiment. But relative to the external contact it is another matter, which the experiment also confirms.
QuoteWhy would you get the idea that experiment conflicts with SR?
LOL!
Are you illiterate? You seem to fail to comprehend that I ASKED A QUESTION.
I DID NOT STATE A POSITION! Are you delusional?
::)
CANGAS 149
Quote from: CANGAS on March 06, 2015, 02:09:26 AM
LOL!
Are you illiterate? You seem to fail to comprehend that I ASKED A QUESTION.
I DID NOT STATE A POSITION! Are you delusional?
::)
CANGAS 149
LOL. So, you are not prepared to answer your own question?
Quote from: broli on December 31, 2014, 01:14:14 PM
I would find it very strange if your first rendering actually caused the magnet to rotate. This would mean an instant violation of many things. Can you show the experiment?
A force applied at any point on a body in equilibrium results in an equal and parallel reactive force at the centre of mass of the body acting in the direction of the applied force.
This reaction causes such linear motion of the body as would occur if the original force were applied at the centre of mass, independent of any rotational motion produced by the moment of the applied force.
For additonal information, please see the thread on the Paradox Engine created by Tusk at http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.VP0CnPROmSw (http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.VP0CnPROmSw)
Thanks,
Gravock
Also, remember that electrons moving perpendicular through a magnetic field are deflected, while electrons moving parallel through a magnetic field are accelerated.
Gravock
The video by Mags is also empirical proof that our kinetic energy equation is wrong.
Gravock
Quote from: broli on January 01, 2015, 04:37:01 AM
The reason I find the possible operation of this strange is that in this kind of operation there should in theory be no induced EMF as you go from rim to rim.
I totally agree that their should be no induced EMF from rim to rim. In other words, I see this working as a motor, but not working as a generator.
Gravock
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
Ah...OK, I think I see it now. The magnet on the foil isn't rotating like a homopolar motor, it's trying to slide, like a railgun armature, and the sliding friction makes it rotate. I think.
So if you had, say, a brass tube that would be a good fit for the OD of the magnet, or even better just a long skinny cylinder magnet polled endwise, and you set it onto a pair of rails and then supplied current to the rails, it would scoot down the rails and also roll. Maybe.
I am in full agreement with your proposed analysis. The reactive force being applied to the center of mass induces a linear movement which causes rotation as it slides across the surface.
I believe we can easily convert this linear movement into a rotation to be used as a motor instead of a railgun by using the principals of the Paradox Engine ( video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs ).
Gravock
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 01, 2015, 01:39:30 AM
What is being pushed against, even in the ordinary configuration? In my setup the copper braid brush is very limp, it doesn't seem like it could be taking the "stator back reaction" that we usually think must exist somewhere for the rotor to spin. Push against that braid and it just flops out of the
This is an excellent question! If we don't ask the right questions, then we don't get the right answers. We have 4 possiible explanations I can think of:
1) It"s pushing against the floppy limp braid. IMO, I don't think this is the case.
2) It's pushing against space or the field itself.
3) The electrons are pushing against the conductive surface of the nickel coated magnet as they are being deflected by the magnetic field. However, the force is perpendicular to both the velocity of the charge and the magnetic field, so this doesn't add up either.
4) A combination of 1, 2, and 3.
Since the force is perpendicular to both the v of the charge and the B-field, then it is easy to see how the rotation is cancelled with a diametrical current (rim to rim), for the force is equal and in the same direction on each side of the pivot point (axle, which has traditionally been located at the center of mass or field).
Likewise, it's easy to see how there is a secondary reaction force at the center of the mass or field which would allow for a linear or orbital rotation if the pivot point is away from the center of mass and/ or magnetic field, for the force will then only be on one side of the pivot point allowing for a net movement in the direction of said force.
My guess is #2, assuming of course experiment shows there is a secondary reaction force at the center of the mass and/or field which induces a linear or orbital rotation in the direction of said force by using a diametrical configuration. We will only know through experimentation. If #2 is correct, then this could lead to an enertia drive.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 14, 2015, 08:16:49 PM
3) The electrons are pushing against the conductive surface of the nickel coated magnet as they are being deflected by the magnetic field. However, the force is perpendicular to both the velocity of the charge and the magnetic field, so this doesn't add up either.
Dont know if I had posted it here. I have a few broken neos of a few sizes. The inner magnet is very conductive. Using a meter that reads to at least .01ohm, it measures 0 ohms .
So it may be good to think of it as causing some serious changes in the magnets influence of the original field.
Dont remember if I posted it here also, with the mag on the foil, say a 3/8 lengh 1/2in dia mag, if I have the top contact wire in the middle, it rolls straight forward. Off center to the left, and it would go forward but also turn left. And likewise, contact to the right of center, forward and right turn.
An interesting test. Use magnetic film with a rectangular hole so it fits over the mag at half the mags height on the foil, or just some solid contact top and bottom, to see how the field changes when current runs down(or up) through the mag. Interesting indeedy. ;D
Mags
Mags
.
Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2015, 01:33:49 AM
Dont remember if I posted it here also, with the mag on the foil, say a 3/8 lengh 1/2in dia mag, if I have the top contact wire in the middle, it rolls straight forward. Off center to the left, and it would go forward but also turn left. And likewise, contact to the right of center, forward and right turn.
Mags
When the top contact is in the middle, then there is an equal current flowing over each of the poles inducing an equal force on both sides of the magnet and it will roll straight forward without making a turn.
However, if the top contact is off center, then there will be more current flowing over one of the poles than the other inducing an unequal force on each side of the magnet, and it will roll forward and make a turn.
IMO, a diametrical configuration may be the back door we have all been looking for. : )
I can't stress enough how big of a discovery this may be! Great job Mags!
Gravock
Deleted.....double post
Quote from: gravityblock on March 15, 2015, 11:40:07 AM
When the top contact is in the middle, then there is an equal current flowing over each of the poles inducing an equal force on both sides of the magnet and it will roll straight forward without making a turn.
However, if the top contact is off center, then there will be more current flowing over one of the poles than the other inducing an unequal force on each side of the magnet, and it will roll forward and make a turn.
IMO, a diametrical configuration may be the back door we have all been looking for. : )
I can't stress enough how big of a discovery this may be! Great job Mags!
Gravityblock
That all could be the case. But I was thinking that since the magnet itself is very conductive, just like the nickle coating, the current isnt just flowing through the coating, but the magnet as a whole. And should be the same effect. Most of the current will take the shortest path through the whole. Heck, there may be a particular path that the current flows through the mag due to the existing field in the mag.
There may be more flowing through the outer shell. I suppose one could remove the nickle from the pole faces and just leave the perimeter coating and do a comparison to a fully coated mag. ;)
Mags
Been thinking on this more...
There is a possibility that the magnets field causes electrons to flow in a particular pattern in the foil around where the magnet sits. ???
I did a suspended test of the magnets with connections at the top and bottom of the magnet, basically a pendulum. The magnet did not move, even with high voltage discharges from a precharged cap.
And the wire touching the top of the magnet could be in any orientation for basically the same effect each time. So the only thing left is what is happening in the foil. I was able to make the input connection to the foil at any side or corner, but the mag would move the same direction relative to pole positions and polarity of input. But the foil around the magnet is definitely influenced by the field of the mag, and that influence can affect what path the electrons will move in the area where the magnet sits. This all possibly producing push and pull of the magnet due to the odd fields developed in the foil from current flowing in controlled paths to the bottom magnet connection to the foil. ;)
Mags
Lol. And if that is the case, then the magnetic film should be laying on top of the foil instead of around the magnet. I suppose a hole in the film to let the mag make contact with the foil. Or better yet, have the film under the foil, no hole needed, and have it on a plexy or glass panel, then invert the whole thing to see the bottom. The magnet can be just mounted in place without moving, we just want to see the change in fields as current flows through the foil to the mag vs no current. ;D
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2015, 06:35:15 PM
I did a suspended test of the magnets with connections at the top and bottom of the magnet, basically a pendulum. The magnet did not move, even with high voltage discharges from a precharged cap.
Were both connections firmly attached to the magnet in order to move with it, or did you make both connections by hand, so the magnet would be free to move away from the connections?
Thanks,
Gravock
Solid connections using a small tie wrap. And being there wasnt even a jiggle, then the magnets ability to be 'able' to roll on the foil tells me that the foil was most likely having some force pushing it back as the mag pushes forward, except the foil was on a fixed platform so only the mag moved.
So here would be another test. Set the mag on the foil. and somehow have the wire that was toughing the top of the mag, touch the foil from underneath and the mag may roll away from center. Maybe not being the connection when using the mag moves with the mag.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2015, 07:26:26 PM
Solid connections using a small tie wrap. And being there wasnt even a jiggle, then the magnets ability to be 'able' to roll on the foil tells me that the foil was most likely having some force pushing it back as the mag pushes forward, except the foil was on a fixed platform so only the mag moved.
Mags
Can you repeat this experiment so the magnet is free to move away from the wire pieces? The edges of the magnet can produce magnetic storms (vortexes) by motion through space as shown below.
In 1988 Prof Francisco J. Muller completed a series of experiments, 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.
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.
Gravock
I can give it a shot.
Will just need to mount the mag at the bottom of a pendulum arm and suspend some contact wires to touch the bottom and top of the mag. Not at the shop at the moment. Maybe tomorrow evening.
Will have to be tried with wires to contact points from different angles. From the sides, front and rear, etc. Many combinations including a wire straight up to the bottom and straight down to the top.
Im still leaning toward the effects to the foil due to the mags filed and currents in the foil.
The wires cant have those effects due to only one path for the currents to go, so the mags field will have minimum effect on the wires as compared to what I have described the foil as having.
Mags
I have decided to try my idea on the inverted mag film tests of the foil also. Actually, I am going to do that first. Both tests are easy enough to do.
Will do this after work today. Would be interesting to see if the field in the foil changes around the mag when current flows compared to no current.
My mag film is 4 3/4 by 3 3/4in, so I will make the foil the same size to possibly get a full view of the foil while changing the input contact points of the foil. Again, I am leaning toward the foil reactions described earlier. The foil provides an odd mix in this being that the currents can flow through the foil as a whole conductor. So the mags field can definitely cause deflections in how that current flows to get to the bottom contact of the magnet. ;)
The new pendulum test will be done with the top connection using a wire to hang it from, then just need to make loose contact with the bottom to see if it moves with the bottom wire at different angles including a vertical connection.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 15, 2015, 09:48:46 PM
Im still leaning toward the effects to the foil due to the mags filed and currents in the foil.
The wires cant have those effects due to only one path for the currents to go, so the mags field will have minimum effect on the wires as compared to what I have described the foil as having.
Mags
Mags,
You may be partially right. In your initial experiment, there is more conductive material underneath the magnet than there is above the magnet, and this could cause an unequal breaking force between the top and bottom edges of the magnet, similiar to this video showing how a magnet will find the center of its own way on a conductive path, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KKeA3RI98 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KKeA3RI98)
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Gravock
Mags,
In the pendulum test, you could also place a conductive material that covers a larger area underneath the magnet that isn't part of the cicuit. There should be a gap between the magnet and this additional conductive material.
Thanks,
Gracock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 16, 2015, 01:21:18 PM
Mags,
In the pendulum test, you could also place a conductive material that covers a larger area underneath the magnet that isn't part of the cicuit. There should be a gap between the magnet and this additional conductive material.
Thanks,
Gracock
Try this test with both a solid connection and without a solid connection.
Gravock
I'm thinking about a cresent shaped conductive material that either surrounds half or most of the conductve magnet in a diametrical configuration. This may allow us to design a brushless motor without an induced net emf.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 16, 2015, 01:56:31 PM
I'm thinking about a cresent shaped conductive material that either surrounds half or most of the conductve magnet in a diametrical configuration. This may allow us to design a brushless motor without an induced net emf.
Gravock
Could this concept be similar or related to the notched objects observed in NASA's failed tether experiment.
Gravock
Broli,
I'm not sure if you're still following this thread or not, but wouldn't a conductive material that partially or mostly surrounds the rim of the magnet and is electrically isolated qualify as the open circuit we have been looking for? I don't see why not, and I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks,
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on March 16, 2015, 12:53:23 PM
Mags,
You may be partially right. In your initial experiment, there is more conductive material underneath the magnet than there is above the magnet, and this could cause an unequal breaking force between the top and bottom edges of the magnet, similiar to this video showing how a magnet will find the center of its own way on a conductive path, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KKeA3RI98 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4KKeA3RI98)
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Gravock
Well, like I said earlier, the foil floor is not the usual path for current to flow like a wire. There may be some push and pull for all I know. There may be possible upward push, levitation, etc.
But thinking about it more recently, the foil seems to be key. lol, what might be interesting is if we have a panel with foil on top also. Would the mag move still? Or would that want to make the mag move in the opposite direction, negating the original effect? That may be simple to do also. Would be neat if the mag shot forward and out of the foil sandwich. ;D The top plate could be very thin plastic to mount the foil, like a larger piece of bubble pack that products are sold in, as to not have too much weight on the mag keeping it from moving. ;)
Ok. Gunna start working on the film test. In your post showing the foil under but no electrical connection, Im not sure the foil would help being there or not. Might even slow things down due to lenz.
Mags
Hey Grav
Picpick is a free photo editor and screen capture and can do resizing of pics. That one needs to be brought down to about 30% to not stretch the page. ;)
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on March 16, 2015, 06:17:37 PM
Well, like I said earlier, the foil floor is not the usual path for current to flow like a wire. There may be some push and pull for all I know. There may be possible upward push, levitation, etc.
But thinking about it more recently, the foil seems to be key. lol, what might be interesting is if we have a panel with foil on top also. Would the mag move still? Or would that want to make the mag move in the opposite direction, negating the original effect? That may be simple to do also. Would be neat if the mag shot forward and out of the foil sandwich. ;D The top plate could be very thin plastic to mount the foil, like a larger piece of bubble pack that products are sold in, as to not have too much weight on the mag keeping it from moving. ;)
Ok. Gunna start working on the film test. In your post showing the foil under but no electrical connection, Im not sure the foil would help being there or not. Might even slow things down due to lenz.
Mags
Mags,
If you can understand what I was trying to convey with my crude sketch on the previous page.......
Foil is not necessary, this should do the exact same thing placing it on top of any flat conductor.
the motion is a function of the induction through the conductor and the wire,reacting against the magnet's field.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 16, 2015, 06:54:08 PM
Mags,
If you can understand what I was trying to convey with my crude sketch on the previous page.......
Foil is not necessary, this should do the exact same thing placing it on top of any flat conductor.
the motion is a function of the induction through the conductor and the wire,reacting against the magnet's field.
Sorry. I thought Grav posted that. ;D
But before we have induction due to the mag moving, the mag need to move first.
Back when I was messing around with the Whipmag, TK had little aluminum spacers mounted next to the rotor. He said he used them to regulate the speed of the rotor with magnets by way of adding drag due to lenz. I could try it with the pendulum test.
The mag film may not be a way of seeing anything. I just did a quick test with a thin strip of foil under the film and applied up to 30v 10A taps to the foil strip. The film showed no change. Gunna try anyway. Maybe we might see some altering of the magnets field.
Mags
Ok, just finishing up here. Waiting for pva to dry. Pva is used to make molds. After waxing and buffing, waxing and buffing, again and again minimum, then you spray pva over the whole waxed surface and let dry. It helps in separation of the mold and part being formed, and puts a layer between the new resin and wax so many more than 1 part can be made with the mold before the newer resins start gripping the wax and screwing up the mold surface.
Anyway, Im using a flat piece of BUBBLE PACK ;D backing for the top plate. I applied pva to the plastic and apply the foil. Then squeegee out the excess and wait a bit.
Then I thought about the bottom connection. Im just going to us the previous block with foil for that. Then set up the mag, hold the top foil above the mag and just let the weight of the top plate, hopefully, hold the mag in place. ;D Just incase, the mag may move on me. Either way, Im killing 2 birds here with top and bottom foil. the mag film will just be on the opposite(top) side of the bubble pack plate. I chose that for simplicity and weight. Might not get a flying mag with 1/4in plexi weighing it down. This will be easy to try things. The plastic is .2mm, but stiff enough, especially with the foil bound to it, to do an effective test, and thin enough for me to feel comfortable with the spacing between the foil and mag film.
Mags
Ok, nothing special with what we were wondering. The only effect that I got was the mag turning a bit, but only if it was off axis with the earths poles. I did a YT vid of disc magnets set up on edge on the table and they spin to align with the earths polls with surprisingly strong force. So if the mags I have are just a bit off of earth N n S, there isnt enough pull on it to be in alignment while sitting on the foil. So when I turn up the current, the mage rotated CCW just a bit. The only way to get the mag to sit way off alignment, it has to be reverse and balanced into position. So far, the mag rotated just about as many times, CW and CCW. And only when current was turned on. There were a few times the mag rotated from disturbing it while setting the top plate down. But if it stayed in place after setting down, adding current, around a few amps at 5v, depending on the mag, the mag tends to want to align with earth N n S more so than by the mags own strength itself.
Will see what I can think of next. If you have disk mags, foil and a battery you can play. Ace hardware generally carry 1/8 x 3/4 neo discs. And 1/8 x 3/8.
Put 2 together to make them wider.
Mags
Oh. There were a few times where I thought I saw some little changes tight on top of the mag in the film. But ut was the foil burning. lol Just tiny holes. Also, sometimes the mag would stick to the top plate when lifting. When looking at the foil surface, I didnt see burning, like welding to the magnet. So a couple more times and I was a little convinced that the foil was becoming magnetic. Lol. But when I removed the film from the top, I could see the burn holes more clearly. Ive had so many moments like that where I think Im seeing some crazy stuff, and it soon become it is me that is crazy. ;D Then Im brought back to reality.. ;)
Mags
Thinking.
Probably the top plate with currents flowing in the opposite direction relative to the magnet is producing an opposite push/pull on the magnet as compared to the bottom plate, so no roll.
So to get the current from top and bottom plates to flow to or from the mag, then say make both plates + and apply the - lead to the sides of the mag, possibly in the middle of each pole face, or, on the front and rear of the mag as it rolls.
Didnt see any field changes in the film. Ill retry using a magnifying glass to take a closer look.
Was odd that it helped the mag to align to earth poles. Possibly the mag is pushing up off the bottom plate and pushing the upper plate up. Just some, to reduce friction so the mag is free to spin easier than without the current. Its the only thing I can come up with. Will try all these things more tomorrow to be very sure on what ive seen so far. Wanted to do a vid. But not much to put up a vid about. The mag being able to align to earths poles easier doesnt need any more explanation.
At first when it did turn, i was kinda hoping for a full possibly continuous spin. But when I work it out in my head, there shouldnt be any spin in this config. So Im left with the possibility of levitation and friction reduction for a reason that the mag reacts as such when current is applied to the magnet.
lol. Could do the original config and put a wall in front of the mag, then dump a cap into the mag and see if it jumps being it cant go forward? Such a simple set of ingredients and finding many 'odd' things that apparently have not been done before. ??? ;D
Just thinking here right now, I wonder if I set the mag on the foil like before, then apply current to the foil from one side to the other, front and back, or side to side and see if the mag moves/rotates.
Never ending things to try and learn more from.
Mags
Mags
Looking to try a small test unit based on the AC experiment shown in that Knoxx-lindeman video shown earlier in thread, that destini paradox experiment is very similar and tends to invalidate the " edge " of the magnet theory from the IEEE paper and validates the ac experiment from what i can tell. Looking at 12 inch dia x .125" thick aluminum disc with n42 block magnets, will copper plate the Al and try to validate the brush pickup locations at the center shaft as mentioned in the video. Center brush locations would make this much more easy to build and connect in series many machines, AC output should be able to run through a transfo, run a 4 magnet AC disc at 1800rpm should give 60hz. Very interested to see if and how any back torque shows on input drive motor power.
More to come soon.....
-Boots
Ok, so I built something similar to what was shown in the lindmann video as the AC homopolar generator.... Only running a little over 500rpm but its 12' diameter .125" thick aluminum disc with 4 of those n42 magnets 2" long, .5" wide and .25" thick on each side of disc. Put a 100A ct with a large copper wire through the middle to serve as the brushes for detecting current with scope and 51 ohm ct load resistor. Seeing a few amps through ct with scope at outside 90deg apart locations and also at 90deg on center shaft. The catch is it also shows the same current(or even greater) if i touch the two ends of the wire together near the brush locations to form a loop! Looks like most of the induced current is from stray fields from the magnets so I put 4 steel bars on the magnets to close the flux through the disc through the adjacent magnets that are opposite pole direction to reduce the stray flux cutting across the "brush" circuit. Unfortunately the .25 inch thick plates/bars do not contain all of the flux so I still get induced current with brushes shorted near center of disc, but induced current with brushes at 90deg on rim shows almost no induced current now that most of the stray flux is gone near the rim. Will take some more precise voltage measurements with scope and post results with some pics when I have a chance for those that are interested.
Cheers;
-Boots
I'm going to build a mini-metal foundry (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHD10DjxM1g) to melt aluminum cans to cast customized aluminum logarithmic spiral discs. The logarithmic spiral is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque. A spiral conductor is a unipolar machine, whose rotation direction doesn't depend on the current direction. When the current direction in the conducting spiral is changed, this implies changing simultaneously the current and the field direction. The spiral disc is a universal machine, where it can run on both AC or DC. No external permanent magnets will be used in this configuration.
I'll be stacking the spiral discs to form a large single cylinder disc. The two outer most discs will have the spirals going in the same direction and will use either a centrifugal current (axis to rim) or a centripetal current (rim to axis). The inner discs will have half of the disc with cw spirals, and the other half using ccw spirals. The inner and outer discs will be connected in series. The inner discs will be using a diametrical current (rim to rim), thus the reason for using both a cw spiral and a ccw spiral. The external electrical contacts will be made at the axis of each outer disc in a conductive liquid using two sphere's that rotate in the conductive liquid.
Reference: Electromagnetic Induction and the Conservation of Momentum in the Spiral Paradox (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf)
Hi gravityblock
Great idea!
Everything is floating inside aetheric boiling waters with energy bubbles coming out of singularity,
creating electromagnetic pressure differentials, waves, vortices, streaming flows with all kinds of interactions between them.
It is logical to construct a complex 3D geometry to guide random eather streams of energy along paths of least resistance or
the opposite, ways we can build a virtual clockwork that can harness energy fluctuations from the eatheric environment.
Sacred geometry, genuine designs from crop circles...
I wonder how would a fractal 3D shape behave as an antenna on top of a Tesla coil?
Do you remember Arecibo reply glyph?
And here is a crop circle rconstruction site of Zef Damen (http://www.zefdamen.nl/CropCircles/en/Crop_circles_en.htm) - great for inspiration on the geometry!
Quote from: gravityblock on April 06, 2015, 07:07:30 AM
The logarithmic spiral is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque.
OK, then, GB, that's what I had in mind when I picked up a roll of bare #8 copper wire to form the spiral arms. I figured that by starting with a 2" copper pipe cap, I could then radially array as many of the individual bent pieces of wire as would fit, even tapering the center ends to pack as many as possible into the plane. By spacing the outer tips exactly, I would set a perimeter band of Cu to pick power off with a brush.
As far as laying out the radials so they create the opposite rotation, might the pair of disks benefit from an additional magnet disk between the two, joined at the outer rim, and picking power from the center caps?
Current flow:
^>>>>>>v
F ^ <field> v F
I ^ " v I
E ^ " v E
L ^ " v L
D ^ " v D
hub hub
Still haven't made any progress in the last year, but all the parts remain on the bench
Turtle
Quote from: keithturtle on April 06, 2015, 11:03:59 PM
As far as laying out the radials so they create the opposite rotation, might the pair of disks benefit from an additional magnet disk between the two, joined at the outer rim, and picking power from the center caps?
Yes, but you will need two magnets in opposition if you plan on picking power from the center caps ( --N/S--S/N ), or one magnet if you plan on picking power from the center and the rim (assuming of course I understand your question correctly). The spiral discs I plan on creating will be somewhere between 6" - 12" in diameter. A 6" - 12" diameter magnet will be too expensive to incorporate into my design, so this is why I'll be stacking the spiral discs in series to form a large cylinder without the use of any external magnets. It takes approximately 867 aluminum cans to produce 10 lbs. of aluminum. So, the thickness, diameter, number of cans, and the number of spirals on each disc will determine the overall diameter and length of the cylinder.
Gravock
Yes, it will take three magnet disks with polarity properly aligned. The center one must float, staying aligned with the outer two. I thought of a significant pair of neos, one on the center's perimeter, and the other outside the Cu band, held stationary. Not simple, but it allows stacking disks and economy of fields.
One-piece magnets are out of the question (not enuf turtlebuks) so I have a stack of 1x4x1/2" neos to array. I would think that since the Cu disks really are a collection of "strings", that a solid magnet would not be as important.
I also think the greatest power will be picked in close proximity to the magnet fields.
I ain't built it yet
Turtle, slow
Built some more test device configurations this time with 1.25" copper pipe in a drum type configuration to more easily test out some different ideas. I put steel in center for shaft with 6 of those n35 magnets 2"x.5"x.125" all with n pole facing out wards through surface of cu tube. Placed a piece of steel pipe 1.25" diameter x 2" long that fit perfectly over copper over the center of the copper tube directly over magnets to concentrate flux through copper tube. Spun it all at 1400rpm and get 14mv dc with brush locations as close to center on either side of steel pipe as possible. Put a 10 ohm resistor across contacts to ensure it wasn't brush noise but is definitely unipolar induction not noise.
Then I tried same setup but with 3 of the magnets north facing out through the copper and on other side 3 with s pole facing out to test the AC homopolar gen idea which seemed like great potential for number of reasons. I spun it at 1400rpm and got AC as expected!
Here is where it gets interesting.....
I found that there was a great deal of magnetic flux all around this thing that was inducing current in external cct and could be generating false output so I wrapped the center of the thing over the steel pipe with a few pounds of paddle wire to contain all the flux in center as it was saturating the steel over jacket in center previously. When I spun it I ago no measurable AC output. This is consistent with what I saw when trying to close the flux thru disc previously in disc style AC test.
I have one more test to do with closed flux in dc config to confirm but it is looking like this only may work if The brush cct cuts the return flux from magnet. Interesting because that portion of cct is what would experience the back torque due to Lorenz force. More to come!
-boots
Quote from: Real Boots on April 14, 2015, 08:40:35 AM
When I spun it I ago no measurable AC output. This is consistent with what I saw when trying to close the flux
thru disc previously in disc style AC test.
I have one more test to do with closed flux in dc config to confirm but it is looking like this only may work if The brush cct cuts the return flux from magnet. Interesting because that portion of cct is what would experience the back torque due to Lorenz force. More to come!
-boots
Boots,
I hate to tell you this but in a homopolar dynamo there is no AC signal generated. One way to get AC would be vary the speed
of rotor rotation - fix with a flywheel.
In the classic definition of a homopolar dynamo only *one* pole of a magnet completely covers the generator disk including slightly
over the edges. Electrons are pushed to the edge of the disk via centrifugal force so you can tell if you are homopolaring
because rotating the rotor in the opposite direction causes the electrons to wind up in the same place on the edge
collectors outside the disk. Thefore polarity will not reverse with reversal of rotor rotation.
If your disk gets covered by two magnetic poles you may have a "single turn rotor" dynamo which in not homopolar.
Use some of that coated plastic to visualize the n/s fields.
Note that neodymium magnets are often not optimal to use because the opposite poles can push through between magnets
this is not acceptable in a homopolar device as they simply cause eddy currents. So an optimal homopolar
device would consist of a giant "C" of magnet material as part of the magnetic flux path. A plane of neodymium magnets
would be very tough to use to get a pole face consistent. You will not be able to have flux paths bouncing around
inside your device.
Picture of magnet/inner assembly minus outer copper tube and center outer steel pipe piece. The small copper ring is just to hold magnets together while copper tube is off and slides off when copper pipe is slid ocer the entire thing.
@mscoffman, the AC test was to see if it would work as there is some talk out there claiming it is purely relative motion between the brush locations giving the voltage... i think I have now proved that is not the case, more complex than that. With the magnet setup shown with all n poles facing out wards it DOES produce a nice dc voltage as observed by my scope, I run a magnet n pole few inches away all around the assembly and the repulsive force seems even and not choppy, the magnets are very difficult to get in there as they repel strongly so appears that the individual fields are merging so it is very similar to the field that would be formed by two large cylinder magnets repelling at faces as per usual drum style homopolar configurations.
More tests to come, just upgraded rotation assembly with bigger motor to run at 3440rpm.
-boots
Quote from: mscoffman on April 14, 2015, 08:08:42 PM
Boots,
I hate to tell you this but in a homopolar dynamo there is no AC signal generated. One way to get AC would be vary the speed
of rotor rotation - fix with a flywheel.
In the classic definition of a homopolar dynamo only *one* pole of a magnet completely covers the generator disk including slightly
over the edges. Electrons are pushed to the edge of the disk via centrifugal force so you can tell if you are homopolaring
because rotating the rotor in the opposite direction causes the electrons to wind up in the same place on the edge
collectors outside the disk. Thefore polarity will not reverse with reversal of rotor rotation.
If your disk gets covered by two magnetic poles you may have a "single turn rotor" dynamo which in not homopolar.
Use some of that coated plastic to visualize the n/s fields.
Note that neodymium magnets are often not optimal to use because the opposite poles can push through between magnets
this is not acceptable in a homopolar device as they simply cause eddy currents. So an optimal homopolar
device would consist of a giant "C" of magnet material as part of the magnetic flux path. A plane of neodymium magnets
would be very tough to use to get a pole face consistent. You will not be able to have flux paths bouncing around
inside your device.
Polarity does reverse with reversal of rotor rotation (starting at 3m30s of this video by Lumen, we can see what I'm saying is correct, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w) ). Likewise, rotor rotation does reverse with reversal of polarity. In addition to this, the electrons can flow from axis to rim (centrifugal) or from rim to axis (centrepital) depending on polarity of current and the pole face. Also, a diametrical current (rim to rim) can be used in a logarithmic spiral configuration by using CW spirals on one half of the disc and CCW spirals on the other half of the disc, or by having two discs counter rotating.
Neo magnets don't induce eddy currents. A disc with a much larger diameter than the magnet will induce eddy currents because portions of the disc will be cut twice by the field in opposite directions.
Confined fields is another promising area of research and experimentation.
Gravock
Gravok,
You are translating the geometry of the *homopolar* machine incorrectly! That ring is obviously going to see multiple magnetic pole
polarities where current flows, ie it is not homopolar. I don't care if some main names used this geometery it's an incorrect translation.
It's not only neo's you can't use a face geometry where poles can push through the face short circuiting long range magnetic flow path.
There is a video on youtube with a person using a plastic sheet on a neodymium magnet plane to visualize what happens, opposite poles
push through the compressed spaces between magnets. This on the flat, imagine what happens when magnets are mounted with an angle
to one another. The only way around this is to have a large low reluctance magnet flow path to get the opposite polarity well away.
Having multiple magnetic pole on one disc will indeed cause an eddy current loop.
Also while mixing centripetal and centrifugal forces is creative, it is also incorrect. *Only the low mass electrons have mobility, so
only electrons will move towards the edge of the disk*. The positive polarity elements are all bond together as part disc mechanical
structure.
I know you wrong, because always having the same polarity on the outside of the disk is a major disadvantage for wiring multiple
discs together in series, the homopolar machine has that disadvantage. Thinking you can wire LV current from one disc to another
without traversing a magnetic field first is just wishful thinking. -> Try using rotating power conversion, if you have that problem.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8619/15368446833_1b18206b47_b.jpg
I know it's clunky, but that's nature. BTW I haven't reviewed the free energy experimental designs for this kind of problem because
those folks are often dunderheads.
.S.MarkSCoffman
Update: Spun this thing with the coper pope over it at 3400rpm and am getting max output of 39mV.
That's much better than previous low speed test that was in the 12 to 14mv range which was around 1400rpm.
Next experiment is trying to close the flux back through cutouts in the tube semi-symmetrical......not sure if I will get any output voltage at all but worth a try.
The center portion will stay the same but instead of the return flux going out in space then back through the tube symetrically it will be concentrated in 4 places where there will be holes cut in the copper.....pics to come when I finish the mods to the copper and steel outer portions of the assembly.
Not sure if it will work because portion of the mag field will no longer be symmetrical so the field may now rotate with the rotor and generate no voltage??
-Boots
Hi everybody,
First, sorry for my english, I will try to do my best.
I am thinking about the De Palma N machine project for many years now, and start to do some experimentations in order to make one or several prototypes, one is actually in construction and I already have some datas to share.
I have some ideas I have never read before, and want to share with people who have still an interest in this project.
This topic was very interesting, but seems to be dead...
Is someone interested to continue this topic, with I hope some new approach and ideas?
Regards
Nicolas from France