Oke this is my latest design in the on going quest of either eliminating back emf in a motor or back torque in a generator. This design fits the latter. Also I am aware that the magnetic setup is similar to Marinov's Siberian Coliu, but that's also where the similarity stops. This design should NOT work as a motor. I you push current through the conductors nothing will happen.
For initial tests a brush and collector are not needed. One could wire a small light bulb on the rotor along the conductor to observe current flow. I the process is reverses i.e. having a battery, the rotor should not spin at all as all the forces cancel out according to newton's third law.
So where's the catch? It's in the permanent magnets. We all know the famous "magnets can't do work" argument. Well they sure can, you have almost an infinite amount of electrons spinning without any voltage source. The catch is if you start spinning this and current starts to flow in the conductor this same current will in response cause the electron spin to slow down. But since the speed of spin is nearly the speed of light it shouldn't matter much. So the only side effect I predict is that the magnets will decrease a nearly unmeasurable amount in field strength when it's spinning.
This is why you can't replace the magnets with an electromagnet. The electromagnet will drop in voltage as the main conductors rise in voltage so you end up with no gain.
I need to cut my ring magnets in half for this experiment? :P
Oh, that's not a ring magnet in the illustration. I just wake up, my bad.
LOL
You don't really have to use a round magnet. You could use a rectangular one like you can see below. Keep in mind that both have to be stuck to each other to rotate together.
Edit: Ah crap some green arrows point in the wrong direction.
Hi All
Any idea of the rpm. needed to get some sought of result?
and how many turns on the coils?have it been tried for real yet?
peter
Here is the formula I came up with for this particular setup. It may be wrong though.
This includes the summed voltage of both windings/coils/halves or w/e you want to call them. As you can see in the example the voltage is quiet modest. Regardless of the amount of current you let flow at this voltage the generator will have no back torque.
So you could have 100A (depending on winding resistance) at 25 volt which is 2500 watt.
Oke attached is a diagram that I hope will make things more clear. It's explained using the Lorentz force law which I don't like to use much but since it's a closed loop it doesn't matter. The "catch" as I mentioned earlier is that you have to apply the same idea on the electrons that are spinning to form the strength of the field. But this is not important since we're dealing with a permanent magnet. Try and substitute the magnets by an electro magnet and you'll see what I mean. All you have to do is flip the current conductors 90 degrees if you wanted to replace the PM with an electromagnet.
Again this is why only magnets can be used. Or else as the the voltage is increasing on one pair of conductors it's decreasing at the other and you have gained nothing. While a permanent magnet has a permanent current flow (http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif).
An additional note: In textbook when induced current starts to flow we see a counter force arising impeding the motion that is inducing the current (in our case the applied rotation). But what these textbook don't talk about is the reaction force. We know it's on the magnets but how exactly can we define it. This is where things start to get very misty as they try to make it look complicated by saying "ah yeah it's in some exchange of momentum and kinetic energy of the magnetic field" w/e that crap means. If you use the old forgotten ampere force law you will see exactly where this reaction force applies to and agrees with newton's third law in the strong form (the weak shouldn't even exist).
Now the point I'm trying to make is. This flowing current will produce a counter torque trying to stop our rotation but that's the beauty of this setup. Because the magnets will experience a reaction torque due to newton's third law. SOOOOO if we attach them both to each other both forces cancel out and we have no lenz effect with free flowing current.
I hope I don't mess up too much, but I have a few questions:
in the latest drawing you show the rotation of the parallell wires. Left is going up, and right are going down, causing a clockwise spin.
The magnetic field is going towards me at the left side and away from me at the right side.
So there should therfor flow electrons in the same way on both sides of the parallell wires.
I assume the magnet are spinning and the wire is fixed.
This will generate AC.
I then wonder why you don't get back emf if you load the wire. It is simply a magnet that is crossing a wire. Pr. definition, all loads will prevent the magnet from generating current flow through the conductor - then force it to slow down.
How can this generator then have no back emf? And why can it not be used as a motor - at least an AC motor?
Vidar
Hi Low-Q
As I understand it,the coil and mags. are glued together,they rotate together,bit like a Faraday disk,I think.
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 06, 2009, 05:00:27 PM
Hi Low-Q
As I understand it,the coil and mags. are glued together,they rotate together,bit like a Faraday disk,I think.
peter
Yes petersone you got it right. Also more up to date information can be read here:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/4176-latest-no-back-torque-generator.html
Hi Broli
Thanks,I got something right!! It don't get that very often.
peter
Hi All
I know it's of topic,but I can't seem to get an answer anywere with regards to Thane Heins Perepiteia,why can't 2 coils do the same thing,1 being fed with a sine wave at the right hz,and the other collecting the juice,his coils are only seeing a magnetic field coming and going at the right hz.
peter
I have done much testing in the area of the homopolar generator and eventually come to the conclusion that the field does indeed rotate with the spinning magnet.
A coil or disk spun with the magnet produces no current without the external circuit that now acts as the coil.
The trick for this would be to find a combination of metals and or coil winding method that would show a voltage when placed in the field of the magnet spinning on it's axis. This should be some type of dissimilar metals junction or semiconductor where the field would cause electrons to be pushed across the junction to produce a voltage much like a solar cell with photons.
Quote from: lumen on May 06, 2009, 08:26:33 PM
I have done much testing in the area of the homopolar generator and eventually come to the conclusion that the field does indeed rotate with the spinning magnet.
A coil or disk spun with the magnet produces no current without the external circuit that now acts as the coil.
The trick for this would be to find a combination of metals and or coil winding method that would show a voltage when placed in the field of the magnet spinning on it's axis. This should be some type of dissimilar metals junction or semiconductor where the field would cause electrons to be pushed across the junction to produce a voltage much like a solar cell with photons.
You can make a homopolar generator with magnets the same size as the disk. Sandwich them all together so the magnets are attracting thru the disk. Now spin the whole thing. You can draw a current from the axle and the disk edge (or even the magnet edge), and you can arrange your leads so that the only place a conductor cuts flux lines is in the radius of the disk connecting the axle and the edge contact. If the flux was spinning with the magnet, even this radius wouldn't be cutting flux and so shouldn't generate a voltage.
The reverse situation with "simplest" homopolar motors also illustrates that the flux need not rotate with the magnet. You can even use the magnet itself as the disk, and only the current path within the magnet (or on its surface) is producing a ponderomotive force on the disk--the edge brush doesn't feel a push if you approach the disk from the right direction.
OR does it?
TK that's the mistake people make. If the magnet is the conducting disk as well there is no way the force is caused by the current flow on the disk. Think about it this would violate newtons third law as the force and reaction force are glued together, so there can't be any net torque. The only thing that is causing a torque is the wire outside. There is not a single way you can approach the magnets that would not cause the torque. This is the law of electric currents.Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
@broli: Can you make a drawing on how you are suppose to get the energy out of the spinning wire/magnet? I don't understand this if you have two coils as in the drawing glued on a magnet, there must be a wire outside to get the energy.
Are the coils connected to a conducting ring so the brush can take energy out of it?
Vidar
Hi Low-Q
I think Broli had in mind,just for a simple test,to wire an led. into the coil and spin the lot to see what happens.Hope he do'snt mind me answering.
peter
Quote from: broli on May 01, 2009, 09:04:43 AM
...
For initial tests a brush and collector are not needed. One could wire a small light bulb on the rotor along the conductor to observe current flow.
...
Why do you think that when the magnet and conductors are spun together, a current will result?
The current results only from the Lorentz force on the charges which is F=q*v|B where
v is the speed of the charge relative to the observer. A bulb on the rotor having a null speed relative to the conductors, no current can be expected. It is the same thing as the Faraday disk: brushes at rest are needed for a current to flow in the circuit.
Hi Ex
I think you are right,but I hope you are wrong.
peter
Here's something you can think of. When I stand on a rotating plate I feel a centrifugal force even though the plate is not moving for me...hmmmm.You don't have to be outside the system to see the force. Maybe that's something einstein brainwashed us with? Apply ampere's old force law and see what you get...
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/Lynn/ampdip/eq01.gif
And yes eventually you'll need a brush and collector to get the current out.
Quote from: broli on May 07, 2009, 04:36:22 AM
TK that's the mistake people make. If the magnet is the conducting disk as well there is no way the force is caused by the current flow on the disk. Think about it this would violate newtons third law as the force and reaction force are glued together, so there can't be any net torque. The only thing that is causing a torque is the wire outside. There is not a single way you can approach the magnets that would not cause the torque. This is the law of electric currents.Trust me I know what I'm talking about.
I know you know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about actual experimental results, not necessarily their explanations. Are you familiar with Jeffrey Kooistra's work, that he did when he was Gene Mallove's technician/scientist, with Marinov and homopolar motors? He was able to show convincingly that there wasn't a back-reaction onto the brush leads in several configurations of Marinov and hp motors.
And there are multiple disk rotating homopolar generators that use only the axles for output current, and these axles are, well, axial to the magnetic field until well clear, so no relative rotation whether or not the field turns with the magnet.
I'm just sayin'... :)
Have you read Tom Valone's Homopolar Handbook, which describes his own research and also collates a bunch of others? It's a fascinating read.
I agree with you about reaction. That's what makes it weird, or experimental error, or something. That's also why that Mylow fellow's motor can't be driven by the stators.
Quote from: broli on May 07, 2009, 04:36:22 AM
If the magnet is the conducting disk as well there is no way the force is caused by the current flow on the disk. Think about it this would violate newtons third law...
I shouldn't get too hung up about violating the Third Law. Its been done already with all those gyroscopes producing a reactionless force.
Paul.
Quote from: exnihiloest on May 07, 2009, 08:22:38 AM
Why do you think that when the magnet and conductors are spun together, a current will result?
The current results only from the Lorentz force on the charges which is F=q*v|B where v is the speed of the charge relative to the observer. A bulb on the rotor having a null speed relative to the conductors, no current can be expected. It is the same thing as the Faraday disk: brushes at rest are needed for a current to flow in the circuit.
This is also what I think. There must be a relative motion between the coil and the magnet. But I think it is right to build it with an LED to determine if it works or not - most people, me included, must learn that way.
If you some day want to collect that power outside the spinning system, you must use brushes and a fixed wire. Then it will collect current, but that current is made in the fixed and still wire outside which is "bombarded" with the rotating magnetic field... That is how I understand it anyway.
Time will show. But this far I have seen only 3D drawings and plenty of text that is some how convincing, but still are open to question.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on May 07, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
This is also what I think. There must be a relative motion between the coil and the magnet. But I think it is right to build it with an LED to determine if it works or not - most people, me included, must learn that way.
If you some day want to collect that power outside the spinning system, you must use brushes and a fixed wire. Then it will collect current, but that current is made in the fixed and still wire outside which is "bombarded" with the rotating magnetic field... That is how I understand it anyway.
Time will show. But this far I have seen only 3D drawings and plenty of text that is some how convincing, but still are open to question.
Vidar
The collector wires are stuck together positive and negative so they are invisible to the chaotic field of the magnets.
QuoteYou can make a homopolar generator with magnets the same size as the disk. Sandwich them all together so the magnets are attracting thru the disk. Now spin the whole thing. You can draw a current from the axle and the disk edge (or even the magnet edge), and you can arrange your leads so that the only place a conductor cuts flux lines is in the radius of the disk connecting the axle and the edge contact. If the flux was spinning with the magnet, even this radius wouldn't be cutting flux and so shouldn't generate a voltage.
The reverse situation with "simplest" homopolar motors also illustrates that the flux need not rotate with the magnet. You can even use the magnet itself as the disk, and only the current path within the magnet (or on its surface) is producing a ponderomotive force on the disk--the edge brush doesn't feel a push if you approach the disk from the right direction.
OR does it?
This depends where you believe the flux lines end. The center shaft causes no addition to the load because the flux lines move away from it while looping to the other side of the magnet but the outer contact is the problem because any direction cuts the lines of force.
I have done the tests with the magnet spinning with the disk or just the disk spinning and even a stationary magnet and disk with only spinning contacts!
There is no way to escape the rotating field and the current will be induced in the external circuit or whichever is moving in relation to the magnet.
You already know if you rotate a meter with a large disk, no current will show, that's because the current is induced in the external circuit.
I had only one idea on how to escape this problem and I have not tried it..... yet.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 07, 2009, 09:08:46 AM
And there are multiple disk rotating homopolar generators that use only the axles for output current, and these axles are, well, axial to the magnetic field until well clear, so no relative rotation whether or not the field turns with the magnet.
The common conversations about these devices never seem to touch on the above fact. The wire loop standing on a battery then on a magnet is so easy.
Quote
I agree with you about reaction. That's what makes it weird, or experimental error, or something. That's also why that Mylow fellow's motor can't be driven by the stators.
Perhaps not directly.
I hope we aren't drinking from the same bottle. Sure sounds like it. Good thing it is only Snapple.
Using the axial connection was the next step but was a bit more involved and this is the test.
Using two large ring magnets placed face to face in attraction with one stationary on one rotating.
On the rotating magnet is the disk, and on the face of the stationary magnet are the brushes.
The connection to the brushes run close to the face of the stationary magnet to shield them from the field of the rotating magnet, then to a center connector and out through the center of the stationary magnet.
This will either continue to output a current as normal OR it will output virtually nothing because all the output comes from the rotating field crossing the brush leads like any conventional generator.
Quote from: Low-Q on May 07, 2009, 02:19:29 PM
This is also what I think. There must be a relative motion between the coil and the magnet....
It's not what I meant. There is no need of a relative motion between the coil and the magnet (in Faraday disk, it doesn't change anything the magnet to be rotating or at rest).
There is need of a circuit in two parts with a relative motion between them in order charges in one side see the others moving in the B field thus submitted to the Lorentz force.
In F=q*v|B, v is the speed of charge relative to the observer. It is not the speed of charge relative to the source of the B field.
Hey Lumen.
Here is my clip to show the field does not rotate in the setup you describe...2 ring magnets in attraction..one spinning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlUY3snoWI8)
I don't think Broli's idea will make current if the wires spin with the magnet because the wires will not cut any flux.
In Broli's drawing the flux lines will be in motion with the magnet and so will the wires..so no current is made.
It can't be like a Homopolar, because the poles spin aound a secondary axis and not their own axis.
Only when the pole rotates on its own axis is there no rotation of the flux lines (see my clip)...then Broli's wires would cut the lines of force.
Of course I could be wrong.. ???
Scotty.
Replace the magnets in my design with an elctro-magnet. Then calculate the Lorentz force or the ampere force and see what you get. Even if the conductor is rotating with the magnet that conductors secondaryvelocity due to the rotation will create a magnet field that will interact with the magnetic field of the magnets. This is not bound to obseravle law. It's like having two wires in parallel atrracting.
I ordered these magnets which arrived today:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250340185691
So now I'll have the painstacking fun of sticking them to each other to form a bigger rectanglular magnet.
It should'nt be long Broli,just like a detective story.
peter
@Scotty1 Yes you are correct, I have done this test myself and it is interesting that the bottom magnet can be anything and still not rotate.
I believe that the lines of force DO indeed rotate with the magnet but do not affect other objects simply because the amplitude does not change so not actual work is applied as we perceive it.
I think in your demonstration that the lines of force lines of the rotating magnet simply attract to the nearest force line on the stationary magnet in an effort to conserve energy as they always do.
So they simply continue to disconnect and reconnect and do no actual work to the bottom magnet.
The test setup I described earlier may possibly confirm this principal.
Quote from: exnihiloest on May 08, 2009, 06:54:37 AM
It's not what I meant. There is no need of a relative motion between the coil and the magnet (in Faraday disk, it doesn't change anything the magnet to be rotating or at rest).
There is need of a circuit in two parts with a relative motion between them in order charges in one side see the others moving in the B field thus submitted to the Lorentz force.
In F=q*v|B, v is the speed of charge relative to the observer. It is not the speed of charge relative to the source of the B field.
What I meant was that in a faraday disc, the magnet and the collector can be stationary. And the eddycurrents that appears in a rotating metal disc between the stationary magnets can be taken partialy out by the stationary collector. Some part HAVE to rotate to take out energy. If both disc an magnet are stationary, the collector must move relative to these, and the current appears in the collector, and use the disc as a conductor to close the loop - instead of generating currents in the rotating disc and use the collector as a conductor to close the loop. It is pretty much the same thing.
I do not believe that an LED will lit in @brolis experiment by rotating a magnet with a fixed coil on it where the LED is connected to. But it is worth a try. I have a 30mm neodisc with a small hole in center to attach a screw. So I can use a dremel to spin the magnet with the coil on it. I have LED's too that I can solder to the coil. If I get a rotating light, I will tell.
Vidar
Oke noone told me hot glue is useless on ferrite magnets, it comes right off due to their smooth surface, so I can't form a big magnet with these small ones. Any ideas?
Gorilla glue
Takes a while to harden but holds like a weld. I've used it on many types of magnets and it's only problem is it is almost impossible to remove the magnet once it dries.
Vince
Quote from: broli on May 08, 2009, 08:22:05 AM
Oke noone told me hot glue is useless on ferrite magnets, it comes right off due to their smooth surface, so I can't form a big magnet with these small ones. Any ideas?
CA should do. Clean all surfaces, add some CA activator on one part, let it dry, have CA on the other part. Put them together, and there you go.
Can't you just use two barmagnets magnetized through thickness, snapped together in the ends so you get opposite polarity on both sides - like the disc you showed, and let the exsess vindings go outside in thin air instead along the edge of the round magnet? So only the parallell windings are going along the bar magnet. That should in theory do the very same thing.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on May 08, 2009, 04:16:24 PM
CA should do. Clean all surfaces, add some CA activator on one part, let it dry, have CA on the other part. Put them together, and there you go.
Can't you just use two barmagnets magnetized through thickness, snapped together in the ends so you get opposite polarity on both sides - like the disc you showed, and let the exsess vindings go outside in thin air instead along the edge of the round magnet? So only the parallell windings are going along the bar magnet. That should in theory do the very same thing.
Vidar
You can use barmagnets as illustrated on the first page. Just make sure you understand why certain things are done the way they are.
I gave up on on building big magnet out of small ones. Since I have one single bar magnet laying around I'm going to attempt a new setup. Something like you can see below.
Quote from: broli on May 08, 2009, 06:02:29 PM
You can use barmagnets as illustrated on the first page. Just make sure you understand why certain things are done the way they are.
I gave up on on building big magnet out of small ones. Since I have one single bar magnet laying around I'm going to attempt a new setup. Something like you can see below.
That is exactly what I had in mind except you show only the half part of it and you use a rectangular coil.
I'll have two barmagnets but turn the other half so south is facing up - and the windings will go in the same direction over both barmagnets. The part of the winding that is in air I guess must follow the a half circle so it will not be affected by the magnetic flux. More like a D-shaped coil. I have all parts needed to build it so I'll try to se what happens when I fire it up.
Vidar
I don't think you'll see any LED light with the size of your magnets. The length of the conductor over the magnet is the most important one. Make a brush and collector and have a multimeter ready.
3M Super Weatherstrip Adhesive (also Permatex brand). Commonly called "yellow snot glue". It's a rubber cement type adhesive, slightly flexible when cured, so your magnets won't come spalling off at high speeds like with CA or epoxy. Available at big-box car parts stores. Don't get the black kind, it is not nearly as good as the yellow.
It is also the only adhesive I've found that will reliably glue Velcro to almost anything solid. And it's a lot faster than Gorilla Glue (which is really good for permanent bonds, once you get used to the swell factor).
Quote from: broli on May 08, 2009, 07:44:28 PM
I don't think you'll see any LED light with the size of your magnets. The length of the conductor over the magnet is the most important one. Make a brush and collector and have a multimeter ready.
Even a big fast homopolar generator will only produce a small voltage--lots of current, but the least resistance will kill it. ( V=IR, so if V is small, R must be small too if you want much I) Since most LEDs have fwd voltages of 1.2 volts or more, you might have to get up to ridiculous speeds in a small generator to overcome even that tiny barrier...better put a whole JouleThief on there, it will light up a blue LED with as low as 0.38 volts.
If it's even possible at all, that is.
@broli. The brush will be the generator as it is fixed near a rotating magnetic field. The coil will therefor just be a conductor to close the current-loop, and not be a generator at all - even with plenty of windings/turns. At least this is how I strongly beleive it will work. Vidar.
Quote from: Low-Q on May 09, 2009, 05:59:14 AM
@broli. The brush will be the generator as it is fixed near a rotating magnetic field. The coil will therefor just be a conductor to close the current-loop, and not be a generator at all - even with plenty of windings/turns. At least this is how I strongly beleive it will work. Vidar.
If this is what you believe then I would recommend you
NOT to build anything. The stationary wires can't be any source of generation like I said earlier. One wire comes in and the outer goes out so they cancel eachother's field and they are invisible to the rotating magnets.
One has to carefully analyze all the velocity vectors of this system to come to a conclusion. The simplest thought experiment is the linear one. If you understand that then you'll understand what I'm trying to do. Imo the mistake people make is thinking that uniform movement of a whole system doesn't matter. Sure newton told us a frame moving at constant speed is a reference frame. But this does not apply to EM.
When a conductr is moving over a magnet it will induce an EMF wether said magnet is attached to the conductor doesn't matter. Usually the same conductor will induce another EMF which cancels out the first one and brings 0 result. But in the designs I have been posting the total EMF is non 0. Think about it. Why does it matter wether the magnet is stationary or not. The magnetic field is a property of space/aether or w/e you want to call it. This is the absolute reference frame. Imagine taking a snapshot at some given time from this outside frame of reference and analyzing all the velocity vectors and then calcultating the forces.
Below you see a very simple linear setup that should prove the point. The front and back parts are what cause the EMF. The left and right sides are what will make you think about relative motion and what not.
Now that I think about it the latest design doesn't even need to have the point of rotation that close to the setup. It can be arbitrary far which helps increase that velocity like you see below.
At least now I can test it on the rim of my bicycle wheel.
It's time to get the bike out Brolli
peter
Do you think the smallest stranded litz wire ,type 7 0r 8 maybe,might pick it up better rather than just one solid wire?
Quote from: IotaYodi on May 09, 2009, 12:47:05 PM
Do you think the smallest stranded litz wire ,type 7 0r 8 maybe,might pick it up better rather than just one solid wire?
The point is to have numerous windings even though the illustrations don't show it. The more windings the more the voltage theoretically gets multiplied.
Edit: Attached an illustration of what the setup would like like if I had two bar magnets.
Quote from: broli on May 09, 2009, 06:29:40 AM
If this is what you believe then I would recommend you NOT to build anything. The stationary wires can't be any source of generation like I said earlier. One wire comes in and the outer goes out so they cancel eachother's field and they are invisible to the rotating magnets.
One has to carefully analyze all the velocity vectors of this system to come to a conclusion. The simplest thought experiment is the linear one. If you understand that then you'll understand what I'm trying to do. Imo the mistake people make is thinking that uniform movement of a whole system doesn't matter. Sure newton told us a frame moving at constant speed is a reference frame. But this does not apply to EM.
When a conductr is moving over a magnet it will induce an EMF wether said magnet is attached to the conductor doesn't matter. Usually the same conductor will induce another EMF which cancels out the first one and brings 0 result. But in the designs I have been posting the total EMF is non 0. Think about it. Why does it matter wether the magnet is stationary or not. The magnetic field is a property of space/aether or w/e you want to call it. This is the absolute reference frame. Imagine taking a snapshot at some given time from this outside frame of reference and analyzing all the velocity vectors and then calcultating the forces.
Below you see a very simple linear setup that should prove the point. The front and back parts are what cause the EMF. The left and right sides are what will make you think about relative motion and what not.
I understand your idea - no doubt about it. What I have doubs about, is whether the coil will generate currents or not just by moving the whole thing in circle or straight forward. If velocity difference on the inner and outer part of the coil is important, this should rotate as you will try with your bicycle wheel.
If you then have, let say 1000 windings of thin wire, it would put out 1000 times the voltage compared to 1 winding. If it is possible to get 2 or 3mV with one winding, it would be possible to get 2 or 3 volts with 1000 windings. So soldering an LED in series with that 1000 winding coil should lit the LED just by moving the whole thing through the eather.
But you want to use an input and output wire to collect the energy. If so, I understand why there cannot be generated EMF in total in those two wires.
If I still misunderstand, you should build one and take some pictures of the build, and make a video on how it suppose to work and how you take out the energy. It is not allways given how it works by your drawings as they doesn't show the whole picture on how it is supose to look like in every detail. Good detailed drawings tells more than 1000 words of explanations ;)
Vidar
Vidar I'm not a mechanical engineer. I'm very limited when it comes to building stuff. So I can't put some A to Z instruction list together that covers everything. All I can do is spread the concept as best as I can and hope other will contribute to it by either improving it or using their skills to build it.
To come back on the principle. A homopolar motor/generator induces an EMF in the rotating plate the same way as this does. Even though the magnet is glued to the conductor and no relative motion is seen from their frame. If this wasn't the case the motor would accelerate to oblivion with the torque remaining constant at any RPM. In the case of the motor the brushing wire is the cause of torque while the moving conductor is the cause of back EMF that fights your applied current.
In the case of the generator aspect the rotating plate induces an EMF thus a current starts to flow. When the current leaves the system through the brushes in the stationary wire this will like the case with the motor result in a torque. If you analyze this torque you'll discover it is impeding your applied motion.
That is all there is to a homopolar motor/generator, I just took the idea a bit further.
This concept takes away the torque part and only keeps the induced EMF part. That is why this can't work as a motor. But with these latest designs I discovered something on paper that I would like to share when there's at least an induced EMF present.
Also the bicycle idea isn't coming along nicely. The frame of the bike is a problem and the brushing system is not straightforward. What I need is a flat wheel like mylow is using with maybe a ring and a pin for the brush/collector system. For someone with the right tools this is a half hour setup or less, but I'm a dimwit when it comes to building things.
Quote from: broli on May 09, 2009, 03:35:58 PM
Vidar I'm not a mechanical engineer. I'm very limited when it comes to building stuff. So I can't put some A to Z instruction list together that covers everything. All I can do is spread the concept as best as I can and hope other will contribute to it by either improving it or using their skills to build it.
To come back on the principle. A homopolar motor/generator induces an EMF in the rotating plate the same way as this does. Even though the magnet is glued to the conductor and no relative motion is seen from their frame. If this wasn't the case the motor would accelerate to oblivion with the torque remaining constant at any RPM. In the case of the motor the brushing wire is the cause of torque while the moving conductor is the cause of back EMF that fights your applied current.
In the case of the generator aspect the rotating plate induces an EMF thus a current starts to flow. When the current leaves the system through the brushes in the stationary wire this will like the case with the motor result in a torque. If you analyze this torque you'll discover it is impeding your applied motion.
That is all there is to a homopolar motor/generator, I just took the idea a bit further.
This concept takes away the torque part and only keeps the induced EMF part. That is why this can't work as a motor. But with these latest designs I discovered something on paper that I would like to share when there's at least an induced EMF present.
Also the bicycle idea isn't coming along nicely. The frame of the bike is a problem and the brushing system is not straightforward. What I need is a flat wheel like mylow is using with maybe a ring and a pin for the brush/collector system. For someone with the right tools this is a half hour setup or less, but I'm a dimwit when it comes to building things.
Thanks for being patient with me. I will make a prototype in my workshop, as it seems I have understood your idea.
Vidar
Here is the very first prototype. Not many windings, but this is how I understand the idea.
Quote from: Low-Q on May 09, 2009, 04:08:40 PM
Here is the very first prototype. Not many windings, but this is how I understand the idea.
Yes that's pretty much the idea. But I would recommend you use more magnets. If you have more try to build a bigger bar. Since they are neo's you'll probably have a hard time keeping them together. But you could force them with your bench vice leaving a part sticking out which you then wrap around with electric tape.
See attached image.
Quote from: broli on May 09, 2009, 04:17:09 PM
Yes that's pretty much the idea. But I would recommend you use more magnets. If you have more try to build a bigger bar. Since they are neo's you'll probably have a hard time keeping them together. But you could force them with your bench vice leaving a part sticking out which you then wrap around with electric tape.
See attached image.
I'll make a try, but what is the benefits?
Edit: I have tried, but it is impossible by hand to control the forces. It takes approx 20kg to push them together. And three of them is to much to handle with control. I have several times got blood blisters on my fingers because they have snapped together. It hurts too :'(
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on May 09, 2009, 04:45:41 PM
I'll make a try, but what is the benefits?
Vidar
More force contribution thus more voltage.
Quote from: broli on May 09, 2009, 05:04:20 PM
More force contribution thus more voltage.
Look at the edited previous post.
EDIT2: Isn't it better to have more magnets arranged as NSNSNSNS and use several coils upon each NS? That should do the same thing but better?
Vidar
Good thinking. Yes you can do that! Sorry about the misery you had to endure :P . The cool thing about what you just suggested is that you can make a complete radial set but that's for later. For now just keep add as much as you like. But use electrical tape around the windings to keep the windings nicely packed together.
Edit: Oh yeah remember to hook all the windings in parallel or you end up canceling everything. The current has to go in the same direction where the conductors meet. See below.
Quote from: broli on May 09, 2009, 05:19:16 PM
Good thinking. Yes you can do that! Sorry about the misery you had to endure :P . The cool thing about what you just suggested is that you can make a complete radial set but that's for later. For now just keep add as much as you like. But use electrical tape around the windings to keep the windings nicely packed together.
Edit: Oh yeah remember to hook all the windings in parallel or you end up canceling everything. The current has to go in the same direction where the conductors meet. See below.
You did mean ofcourse to hook them up in series, not parallell. You just wind one coil, and continue with the other coil using the very same wire but winding the next counterdirectional to the first one, etc., etc.. This will automaticly end up in having the wire going in the directions as you whish.
Vidar
@Broli ,
QuoteThe magnetic field is a property of space/aether or w/e you want to call it. This is the absolute reference frame. Imagine taking a snapshot at some given time from this outside frame of reference and analyzing all the velocity vectors and then calcultating the forces.
I believe this is wrong! The magnetic field is a property of the electron spin in the atoms of the magnetic material generating it.
The field is directly attached to the magnet! If you spin the magnet you spin the field.
The homopolar generator works with the disk attached to the magnet because in this case the current is generated in the external circuit.
Your idea is the same as not spinning anything and still collecting the current in the windings and this just don't work.
Quote from: lumen on May 09, 2009, 07:23:41 PM
@Broli ,
I believe this is wrong! The magnetic field is a property of the electron spin in the atoms of the magnetic material generating it.
The field is directly attached to the magnet! If you spin the magnet you spin the field.
The homopolar generator works with the disk attached to the magnet because in this case the current is generated in the external circuit.
Your idea is the same as not spinning anything and still collecting the current in the windings and this just don't work.
How does that make sense to you? The external circuit just provides a path for the current to flow due to the EMF on the attached disk. If this path was attached to the magnet as well no current would flow. Because again if you analyze the velocity vectors the path will induce an EMF now that will cancel out the EMF induced on the disk. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.
If you don't believe me setup the disk and magnets and spin them attached to each other. Then use some electrostatic "compass" to show you that the rim of the disk will be more positively or negatively charged due to the electrostatic induction that has taken place caused by the induced EMF.
Yes it seems absurd that there's a local EMF even if from the local frame's point of view there's no relative movement. But to me that's as absurd as why the homopolar motor/generator works.
@Broli,
I have a setup that I built just for that purpose. It can test spinning just the disk, spinning just the magnet, spinning the disk and the magnet, spinning the external brushes, spinning the disk and brushes, spinning a magnet and a disk in opposite directions.
I have already tested all the combination's! I can tell you that spinning the magnet does spin the magnetic field. It is hard to know the field is spinning but I know how to prove this.
@ Broli,
QuoteThe external circuit just provides a path for the current to flow due to the EMF on the attached disk. If this path was attached to the magnet as well no current would flow. Because again if you analyze the velocity vectors the path will induce an EMF now that will cancel out the EMF induced on the disk.
In the case where the disk and magnet rotate together, the disk is simply a conductor in the same frame as the magnet and is not breaking any lines of force and all the current is generated in the external conductors that are being cut by the rotating magnet. This is 0% on disk 100% from external circuit.
The faster the magnet and disk rotate, the more is generated.
Quote from: lumen on May 09, 2009, 08:33:40 PM
@ Broli,
In the case where the disk and magnet rotate together, the disk is simply a conductor in the same frame as the magnet and is not breaking any lines of force and all the current is generated in the external conductors that are being cut by the rotating magnet. This is 0% on disk 100% from external circuit.
The faster the magnet and disk rotate, the more is generated.
According to you, the size of the disk would be irrelevant since it is simply a conductor in the same frame as the magnet and is not breaking any lines of force.
So, a 24 inch diameter magnet with a 1 inch diameter disk would generate the same amount of current as a 24 inch diameter magnet with a 24 inch diameter disk when they rotate together?
If there is current flowing in the disk, then that current will be cutting through the lines of force. I don't think the external circuit is 100% and the disk is 0% like you said.
Just a thought.
Lumen I already know all the results you mention. You seemed to have missed what I asked you.
I told you to spin both magnets and conductor together and use an electrostatic compass near the rim of the disk. This will show you whether the rim is more negatively charged or positively charged due to electrostatic induction. You can probably use a different method to show it as well. But if this is the case then this proves the EMF on the plate caused the charge gradient right?
Doing the experiment that I suggested with the different size disks and same size magnet, would also prove the EMF on the plate caused the charge gradient and not the external circuit.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 10, 2009, 04:30:37 AM
Doing the experiment that I suggested with the different size disks and same size magnet, would also prove the EMF on the plate caused the charge gradient and not the external circuit.
GB your experiment makes sense if you already accept that the EMF is caused on the disk. But I'm sure lumen has a reason why this is not the case, even though it's as clear as black and white.
I tried to measure something with my prototype by holding it and spinning myself with a voltmeter in my hand - imagine how that looked like: Dancing with magnets ;D
Anyway, my voltmeter can measure as low as 1 mV, but I did not see anything on the voltmeter. Now I have very few turns, only 10 or so, but very strong magnets. I tried to flip the magnet from side to side like wipers on a car, but faster, and could not measure anything in both AC or DC on the voltmeter. However, if I moved the coil back and forth over the same magnets, I measured up to 5mV.
This means the wire has to cross the magnetic lines in order to get a measureable result. I cannot confirm if there is voltage indicated below 1mV in @brolis setup or not, as my voltmeter cannot measure anything below 1mV.
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on May 10, 2009, 07:37:43 AM
I tried to measure something with my prototype by holding it and spinning myself with a voltmeter in my hand - imagine how that looked like: Dancing with magnets ;D
Anyway, my voltmeter can measure as low as 1 mV, but I did not see anything on the voltmeter. Now I have very few turns, only 10 or so, but very strong magnets. I tried to flip the magnet from side to side like wipers on a car, but faster, and could not measure anything in both AC or DC on the voltmeter. However, if I moved the coil back and forth over the same magnets, I measured up to 5mV.
This means the wire has to cross the magnetic lines in order to get a measureable result. I cannot confirm if there is voltage indicated below 1mV in @brolis setup or not, as my voltmeter cannot measure anything below 1mV.
Vidar
Stick it on a rotor and crank the rpm up and then see what you get. If you still get nothing then we have a problem.
Broli,
QuoteI told you to spin both magnets and conductor together and use an electrostatic compass near the rim of the disk. This will show you whether the rim is more negatively charged or positively charged due to electrostatic induction. You can probably use a different method to show it as well. But if this is the case then this proves the EMF on the plate caused the charge gradient right?
You are talking electrostatic effect and not conductor current. I don't believe you even need a conductor to see this effect.
On one experiment I was working on I was using PVC pipe and some magnets and noticed a large electrostatic buildup on the PVC pipe. The effect was strong enough to rotate the pipe on it's pivot using my finger but never touch the pipe.
This would not work first thing in the morning but would again work after rotating the pipe through the magnets again. It did seem that the magnetic field was causing the electrons to align and move to one end of the PVC pipe.
This was totally an electrostatic effect and I did not think too much about it because I figured it was only a static build up and not directly related to the magnetic field.
In any case, the accumulated electrons would still be affected by Lenz's law, or would they if they are not in a conductor?
This is an example of some Homopolar generator designs showing the suspected outputs and some known outputs. If the last example did produce current it would be over unity so therefore it could be concluded that a magnetic field does rotate with the magnet even when rotated about it's axis.
Quote from: lumen on May 10, 2009, 11:53:48 AM
This is an example of some Homopolar generator designs showing the suspected outputs and some known outputs. If the last example did produce current it would be over unity so therefore it could be concluded that a magnetic field does rotate with the magnet even when rotated about it's axis.
I agree on the first, I don't know what you were smoking on the second one. And what's wrong with the last one it's a classic homopolar generator :o . Lumen your homopolar knowledge is a bit distorted. Get some time off and rethink some of the things you're saying because I don't like discussions that do nothing but spread confusion.
I should have noted that the output on ALL these setups are out the axial connections and not at any other point.
Also, you need to look closely at what is moving in each configuration.
#1 setup cannot produce output because both legs of the loop cut the field in the same direction and the output is canceled.
#2 Has output because the loop is stationary and the field magnets are rotating in opposite directions. This configuration still suffers from Lenz's law and as the load increases so will the energy to rotate it.
#3 Will produce no output for the same reason as #1 above it.
#4 If this configuration actually did work then the search for an over unity generator would be over. However because the FIELD ROTATES WITH THE MAGNET there will be no output because the lines of force are never cut by the disk or the external circuit.
This is the setup that I have not tested! It also will prove that the field actually does rotate with the magnet. (If there is no output)
If you indeed got current from 2 counter rotating magnets with a completely stationary output circuit you should make your own thread about it. Because that is NOT normal behavior and you may have discovered something new whether you realize it or not.
@All, this thread of Brolis is a good read.
Somewhat related: I spun a 2inch diameter 0.25inch thick neo disk mag, poles on the faces, at about 4000RPM.
I measured about 150mV open circuit between axle and rim, and 300mA closed circuit. I did not have proper brushes, just my meter probes pushed against the moving surfaces so very noisy, with proper brushes the values would probably be much higher.
I presume most of the electons flow through the thin nickel magnet coating which has much lower resistance than the neodymium bulk.
Like many of you I would like to remove static brushes and have the takeoff and load rotate in the same frame as the disk. If the takeoff and load is rotating with the mag and it still produces this current then something weird is going on that the books don´t mention.
With such a low voltage, the only thought I have at the moment is to charge a small electrolytic cap rotating on the magnet. charged via a diode so as not to discharge when stopped. Spin it all up, then stop it and quickly measure the cap. Whether I can find a diode that would pass such a small voltage I don´t know yet? If I can´t then I will use a very high resistance instead, spin it up for along time then stop and read the cap very quickly before it discharges.
The capacitor and takeoff leads will need to be seperated from the magnet using a moderate shielding material like multiple tin and card laminations, otherwise the takeoff leads will produce a current (via the same effect) that fights against the disk current.
Hi Yucca
Would your demo have been subject to Lenz's law?
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 10, 2009, 06:08:58 PM
Hi Yucca
Would your demo have been subject to Lenz's law?
peter
hi Peter,
I´m not sure myself, I´ve heard many say that homopolar generators with static brushes will suffer from lenz. But I fail to see how when I imagine the field which will behave for all intents and purposes just the same as if the magnet were still.
The only mechanism which I can see slowing the mag disk (in the static brushes config) is conservation of momentum, as the electrons are thrown off the disk they would tend to slow the disk, like an ice skater spins faster with their arms pulled toward the body and then slows when the arms are extended.
To draw any conclusion I will have to test myself by measuring the disk RPM very accurately with the brushes in contact but the takeoff circuit open, then close a switch to short out the takeoff circuit and see if the RPM drops.
To do this I will need to create some mechanicaly stable brushes, at the moment I push probes against the magnet and the speed is all over the place as my hand pressure varies slightly. Any ideas on easy brushes with fairly low friction are appreciated.
Hi Yucca
Thanks for your very comprehensive answer,from what I have read some say it has Lenz,some say it doesn't,about 50/50, I can't see Lenz being coursed by the electrons being thrown out,as I understand it they have no mass.
peter
Quote from: petersone on May 10, 2009, 07:13:44 PM
Hi Yucca
Thanks for your very comprehensive answer,from what I have read some say it has Lenz,some say it doesn't,about 50/50, I can't see Lenz being coursed by the electrons being thrown out,as I understand it they have no mass.
peter
Peter,
electron mass is said to be approx 9 × 10^-28 grams. So very lightweight but it´s the only backdrag mechanism I can think of happening because Lenz backdrag can´t happen when no flux lines are cut as is the case with true homopolar generators in which the magnet rotates along with the disk.
With one amp current flow 6.24 x 10^18 electrons will leave the disk edge every second which would weigh only about 6 nanograms. It would take over 5 years to shift 1 gram of electrons with 1 Amp, So yes, I agree with you, for all intents and purposes they are weightless and my theoretical backdrag mechanism would be pretty impossible to detect. So if I notice slowing when I close the switch it will not be due to this effect.
@Yucca
QuoteI´ve heard many say that homopolar generators with static brushes will suffer from lenz. But I fail to see how when I imagine the field which will behave for all intents and purposes just the same as if the magnet were still.
Why do you think that when a magnet is rotating on it's axis that the field is not rotating also?
This is a very difficult condition to detect because any conductor placed in the field will generate a current but the measuring conductor will generate the reverse current and the result output will be zero.
You guys are going to make me get my homopolar test rig back out and make some video if you keep it up. I would really like to finish the project I am working on now first.
Hi Lumen,
I agree that the field will also be rotating, but if the disc magnet is span axially and the magnetisation of it is uniform then the flux strength at any point in space around the magnet will remain constant regardless of its rotation. Standard induction requires a conductor to experience a change in flux over time. If there are no changes then no induction will occur. You stick a gausmeter anywhere near an axially rotating disk mag and it will be flatline, so how can induction occur? Of course if you spin a bar mag, poles on the circumference then your making big flux sinusoids which will induce current in any nearby conductor, but in this case the flux around remains still, all conductors nearby experience steady state flux.
I look forward to you bringing your homopolar rig off the back burner, no rush, finish up your other project first. also would love to hear your opinion on the mechanism that causes electron flow here.
In my mind it as if electrons when exposed to a constant magnetic flux will become more susceptible to diplacement through acceleration, maybe they become more massive, maybe they become slippier, Maybe the surrounding stuff becomes slippier, I don't really know, but these things are quite fascinating and mainstream science tends to ignore them, probably because they jeopordise the status quo being a mechanical electromagnetic device that does not obey Faradays law.
Yucca,
Quotewould love to hear your opinion on the mechanism that causes electron flow here.
The method is the same method that has always worked, it's simply the magnetic lines of force cutting a conductor.
The misconception is that you need changing polarity or a field changing in strength to induce a current flow but in fact all these cases only work on the same principal, lines of force cutting the conductor.
The problem with a magnet rotating on it's axis is the current can only flow from the center to the outer edge. This leaves the problem that all the lines of force that cut the conductor to generate a current will also cut the conductor again in the opposite direction as the force lines are looping back to the other side of the magnet.
This effect will generate the same current in the conductor in the opposite direction at another point along the conductor and appear as though no current flow was generated.
It is totally balanced, every single force line that cut the conductor must cut it again to reach the other side of the magnet. That's why the disk is used in the homopolar generator.
If the disk rotates with the magnet, it only serves as a conductor that the lines of force do not cut because it rotates with the magnet and the returning lines generate the current flow through the external conductors.
If the magnet is still, then the spinning disk is cutting the lines of force and generating current flow while the external conductor does not cause current flow since it's not cutting any lines of force.
Once you see this, it becomes clear why the homopolar generator is not overunity unless it actually worked in the last schematic on the picture I posted. ( I have not tested this but believe it not to work)
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 05:53:29 PM
Yucca,
The method is the same method that has always worked, it's simply the magnetic lines of force cutting a conductor.
The misconception is that you need changing polarity or a field changing in strength to induce a current flow but in fact all these cases only work on the same principal, lines of force cutting the conductor.
The problem with a magnet rotating on it's axis is the current can only flow from the center to the outer edge. This leaves the problem that all the lines of force that cut the conductor to generate a current will also cut the conductor again in the opposite direction as the force lines are looping back to the other side of the magnet.
This effect will generate the same current in the conductor in the opposite direction at another point along the conductor and appear as though no current flow was generated.
It is totally balanced, every single force line that cut the conductor must cut it again to reach the other side of the magnet. That's why the disk is used in the homopolar generator.
If the disk rotates with the magnet, it only serves as a conductor that the lines of force do not cut because it rotates with the magnet...
Correct.
Quote from: lumen
and the returning lines generate the current flow through the external conductors.
If the magnet is still, then the spinning disk is cutting the lines of force and generating current flow while the external conductor does not cause current flow since it's not cutting any lines of force.
Once you see this, it becomes clear why the homopolar generator is not overunity unless it actually worked in the last schematic on the picture I posted. ( I have not tested this but believe it not to work)
Not so correct there.
You seem to have the misconception that the magnetic field actually is rotating along the magnet. Do you know how ridiculous this is?
Imagine a circular hoop that only exists of electrons. Now you apply a voltage to this hoop thus the electrons start to move around. This movement will generate a magnetic field. Good now remove the voltage and spin the hoop by hand. Again the electrons will move around and thus a magnetic field arises. Do you see how both result in the same thing although one was mechanically moved while the other was electrically moved. This is why rotation has no result on the field. Because the electrons are moving already. If you added mechanical movement you would be either slow the overall current speed down or speed it up. So in a very controlled experiment you might see the field increase or decrease. In a true conductor you see nothing. Because as you speed up the electrons, the "positive" part of your conductor will speed up in the opposite direction thus the field strength will always remain the same. A cylindrical magnet can be seen as a hoop with a certain height. Basically a cylinder without it's top and bottom. Think about that.
This is why your field cutting argument is ridiculous if you accept the above.
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 05:53:29 PM
The misconception is that you need changing polarity or a field changing in strength to induce a current flow but in fact all these cases only work on the same principal, lines of force cutting the conductor.
lines of mag force cutting the conductor implies that the conductor does see a changing field. You cannot have one without the other. The arbitrary lines that we use to visualise fields (ala FEM) are just like contour lines on a topographical map, if you move accross a line you are changing height, it´s just the same with mag fields. Brolis mention of cylindrical field lines around the mag is pretty much how I see it also. You spin the mag and the cylindrical field will remain the same.
One more thing to consider is that it theoretically impossible to achieve continuous DC current using induction alone, to achieve that you would need a field that increases in strength forever.
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 05:53:29 PM
unless it actually worked in the last schematic on the picture I posted. ( I have not tested this but believe it not to work)
I would love to test this also, I have never seen reference to any attempt at this experiment. On the peswiki site that particular combination is listed as "untested".
If the magnet, disk, wires and load are all rotating and current still flows then the doors will be open for overunity.
I could imagine a drum like device, one end containing the disk magnet, in the middle some mag shielding, the other end containing a storage capacitor being constantly charged by the homopolar effect. The cap would periodically pulse a high current electromagnetic coil (also in the drum) which would in turn drive the drum against external stator mags. Such a drum once started might selfrun up to equilibrum speed governed only by mechanical and electrical resistance.
Quote from: Yucca on May 11, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
I would love to test this also, I have never seen reference to any attempt at this experiment. On the peswiki site that particular combination is listed as "untested".
If the magnet, disk, wires and load are all rotating and current still flows then the doors will be open for overunity.
I could imagine a drum like device, one end containing the disk magnet, in the middle some mag shielding, the other end containing a storage capacitor being constantly charged by the homopolar effect. The cap would periodically pulse a high current electromagnetic coil in the drum which would in turn drive the drum against external stator mags. Such a drum once started might selfrun up to equilibrum speed dictated only by mechanical and electrical resistance.
Any type of asymmetry can be easily tested. Your capacitor idea you mentioned earlier is the best to do this. Just spin everything up together and then stop it and measure the voltage on the cap. My belief is that it would give 0 voltages but maybe with some combination of ferrite shielding around the wire it might give a net voltage. The advantage of this is the fact you can wind many turns and if there was voltage generation it can be measured easily.
These type of experiments have been performed by noone as far as I know. They could lead to new and interesting results.
Quote from: broli on May 11, 2009, 08:39:21 PM
Any type of asymmetry can be easily tested. Your capacitor idea you mentioned earlier is the best to do this. Just spin everything up together and then stop it and measure the voltage on the cap. My belief is that it would give 0 voltages but maybe with some combination of ferrite shielding around the wire it might give a net voltage. The advantage of this is the fact you can wind many turns and if there was voltage generation it can be measured easily.
These type of experiments have been performed by noone as far as I know. They could lead to new and interesting results.
Yes, it´s an experiment which I´d love to do, the only problems I have at the moment is getting everything to stay together and be well balanced enough for a high speed spin. I will probably end up getting some clear epoxy and trying to pot everything up then statically balance it by drilling holes in the epoxy.
My first experiment will just use a neo disk as the generator (no windings) next to this some shielding, probably laminate of food tin and cereal box card, then a 10k resistor feeding an electrolytic with external probe points. My DMM has 1mV resolution.
Quote from: lumen on May 09, 2009, 08:13:38 PM
@Broli,
I have a setup that I built just for that purpose. It can test spinning just the disk, spinning just the magnet, spinning the disk and the magnet, spinning the external brushes, spinning the disk and brushes, spinning a magnet and a disk in opposite directions.
I have already tested all the combination's! I can tell you that spinning the magnet does spin the magnetic field. It is hard to know the field is spinning but I know how to prove this.
I've been away for a while and I see there's been a lot discussed, but I just wanted to address this one old point. I think I have experimental evidence from several sources that seems to support the idea that the field does not spin with the magnet, at least not in a simple physical sense like little springs or something.
It's hard to see how the magnet could spontaneously begin to rotate over a superconductor, because we know for sure (I think) that the SC pins the flux lines so they can't be rotating in the SC, yet the magnet physically spins---I even made a video of this phenomenon, it's pretty weird, on my YT channel.
Also, the one-piece homopolar motor, with just a magnet, brush and axle contacts--it spins, and it seems to react against the brush--but where's the relative motion, unless the field is "stationary"? EDIT I mean of course the motive force which moves the disk acts only on the disk, it isn't the brush pushing the disk, even though the brush reacts oppositely...
And of course there are the brushless one-piece HP generator/motors, that use a band or belt to take power off the disk...
So I think this issue isn't decided, and our experiments should be compared and extended in an effort to answer the question. At some point.
Quote@Yucca,
One more thing to consider is that it theoretically impossible to achieve continuous DC current using induction alone, to achieve that you would need a field that increases in strength forever.
That cannot be true, the field in the homopolar generator is of constant magnitude and outputs DC current.
I am sure the source of operation is just as I said! When a magnet spins on it's axis the magnetic field rotates with it. This accounts for the operation and non operation of every configuration of the homopolar generator.
If the magnetic field was stationary in space then a homopolar motor (like the simple ones everyone build on youtube) would generate no torque back into the magnet, but indeed it does.
And, the last configuration shown on the picture I posted would operate, would violate lenz's law and be extremely over unity!
The field around a axially spinning magnet would look the same as always, like a doughnut.
So you can see that any conductor running from the center of the magnet towards the outer edge would cut all the lines of force leaving the face of the magnet, then again as the force lines curve to reach the other side of the magnet.
You are just going to make me get the test rig out and hopefully prove myself wrong!
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 11:03:45 PM
You are just going to make me get the test rig out and hopefully prove myself wrong!
@lumen
Please do. Not to prove yourself wrong. Think of it with expectation to see the reality of an HP generator.
A rather nutty old friend of mine once put it this way: The magnetic flux is like a bowl of Jello. Stick a pencil in the middle and spin the pencil. Does the Jello spin? NO you friggin' idiot! Your G.D. magnet is just a grape suspended in that Jello. Move it and the Jello just adjusts for the presence. Spin it and the Jello doesn't spin. Spin your f'n homopolar motor. It doesn't work by induction anyway!
That was in late '79 and he was talking to me. He also retired from NASA last year.
I know how much you all love stories :)
Quote from: BEP on May 11, 2009, 11:26:55 PM
@lumen
Please do. Not to prove yourself wrong. Think of it with expectation to see the reality of an HP generator.
A rather nutty old friend of mine once put it this way: The magnetic flux is like a bowl of Jello. Stick a pencil in the middle and spin the pencil. Does the Jello spin? NO you friggin' idiot! Your G.D. magnet is just a grape suspended in that Jello. Move it and the Jello just adjusts for the presence. Spin it and the Jello doesn't spin. Spin your f'n homopolar motor. It doesn't work by induction anyway!
That was in late '79 and he was talking to me. He also retired from NASA last year.
I know how much you all love stories :)
That is a good story, but stories don't always tell the whole truth.
Somehow when the electrons spins are aligned causes this jello to move. If the jello didn't move, then you wouldn't have a magnetic field that is outside the presence of the magnet or outside the presence of the electrons. These electrons are capable of moving this jello when their spins are aligned. If they didn't move the jello, then their would be no external magnetic field.
If a fan didn't cause the air to move, then you wouldn't have air flow or an external force. If the electrons didn't cause the aether to move, then you wouldn't have a magnetic field or an external force away from those electrons.
The reverse is true also. When the jello, magnetic field, or aether moves, then the electrons move.
I don't like sour grapes. ;D
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 11:03:45 PM
So you can see that any conductor running from the center of the magnet towards the outer edge would cut all the lines of force leaving the face of the magnet, then again as the force lines curve to reach the other side of the magnet.
The conductor disk has nothing to do with cutting through the lines of force, but has everything to do with how the electrons in the conductor are cutting through the lines of force.
Don't forget the conductor disk will be following an orbital path through or with (where the field isn't changing it time) those lines of force . The question is does the electrons in the conductor follow a parabolic path from the axis to the rim or a more circular path towards the rim?
Why does the homopolar generator produce high current with low voltage? Could it be how the electrons are cutting through the flux, more parabolic path or more circular path?
I don't think I'm very helpful here. This is one area where the text books have failed miserably, and this definitely needs more research. I'll being doing some experiments soon to answer some questions that have never been raised surrounding the homopolar generator.
Gb, the reason a hp motor produces high current is due to the very low resistance. The whole disk is a very good conductor with very little resistance.
To get to your second point. Instead of thinking how the electrons bend (which is an interesting question anyway) you could just simplify the experiment. Below you see this. Instead of using a disk you use a hoop and a single wire going to the middle. Now you are absolutely sure on the path of the electrons.
Still going.. ;D
I think some people here should read Tesla's notes on unipolar dynamo's....and also his dynamo patent.
"The armature current tends to set up a magnetization at right angles to that of the field current, but since the current is taken off uniformly from all points of the periphery, and since, to be exact, 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."
Nobody talks about that!!
" Again, the facility with which such a machine may be made to excite itself is striking, but this may be due â€" besides to the absence of armature reaction â€" to the perfect smoothness of the current and non-existence of self-induction."
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.
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/Tesla_notes.html (http://www.stardrivedevice.com/Tesla_notes.html)
And
Dynamo Electric Machine... Pat No 406,968
--------------------
I've done many tests to show the field does not rotate with the ring magnet.
Even a vertical ring magnet over a horizontal spinning one, will not feell the rotation of the horizontal magnet.
When the copper disc and the magnet all spin....then the copper is cutting the flux because it is stationary!!!
The more experiments I do the less I agree with the atomic domain theory...if that were true then the field should rotate at the same speed as the magnet metal.
Electrons have to move with atoms which move together with the mass.
Also...If I were to put a coil over a horizontal ring magnet, so that the coil core was parallel to the magnet (between the inner and outer dia), and spin the magnet up...then, If the field rotates with the magnet, I would see a voltage rise in the coil AS LONG AS I INCREASED THE SPEED OF THE MAGNET. but it's not so!!!
We know that is true because if we pass a magnet over a coil slowly we get little current, but pass the magnet over faster and we get more current...because the time is important ;)
When I get time ;D I'll record some more clips for you tube.
Scotty.
Quote from: lumen on May 11, 2009, 11:03:45 PM
That cannot be true, the field in the homopolar generator is of constant magnitude and outputs DC current.
I am sure the source of operation is just as I said! When a magnet spins on it's axis the magnetic field rotates with it. This accounts for the operation and non operation of every configuration of the homopolar generator.
I think my statement is true for induction. In inductioon, the generated power is the first derivative of the field strength. That is to say it is proportional to the flux change. That is why transformers can only pass AC and will block DC. You can pass large DC current through a trafo primary and the secondary will be dead.
Think about it, every atom in the metal disk of a homopolar genny will experience constant flux regardless of whether the disk is spinning or not. Also even the static takeoff brushes will always experience constant flux.
Now I might be in partial agreement to you with the whole notion of a spinning field. This could be some kind of aether dragging effect. But Scotty1 says he has performed an experiment where a spinning axial disc mag is brought close to a stationary mag, one would think this aether dragging would cause some rotation of the static mag, but it appears not to?
Make no mistake these homopolar gennies are weird things and I think we owe it to ourselves to get to the bottom of it through real experiments followed by theorising.
Quote from: broli on May 12, 2009, 06:49:25 AM
Gb, the reason a hp motor produces high current is due to the very low resistance. The whole disk is a very good conductor with very little resistance.
I agree with you, but would like to expand on this.
The electrons that cut perpendicularly through the lines of force will encounter more resistance than cutting through the lines of force in a more parallel direction.
If this isn't correct, then please correct me. Because this is how I currently understand it.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: scotty1 on May 12, 2009, 07:02:51 AM
When the copper disc and the magnet all spin....then the copper is cutting the flux because it is stationary!!!
The more experiments I do the less I agree with the atomic domain theory...if that were true then the field should rotate at the same speed as the magnet metal.
Electrons have to move with atoms which move together with the mass.
Scotty.
That is mind boggling. What about the free electrons in a magnet that are not bound to the atom? Could they play a role in the flux appearing to be stationary when the magnet is rotating on it's axis?
I'm not convinced that the flux is stationary when the magnet is spinning. Although, I will agree that the flux isn't changing in time when rotating on it's axis.
If the magnet is spinning while the flux is stationary, wouldn't this cause the flux to twist or to spiral?
Why would the flux remain stationary when spinning on it's axis, but isn't stationary when rotating on it's poles.
What is real and what is not? LOL
QuoteIf the magnet is spinning while the flux is stationary, wouldn't this cause the flux to twist or to spiral?
If the flux is traveling at sub light I would say no since the flux totally encompasses the disk. You would need some type of impedance to create another "vortex". A magnet already has one between the poles. I would think you would have to overcome that one in order to create another one from the same mass/magnet. Which if possible would make that pole extend into midair perpendicular to the magnet itself and create the opposite pole on the other side. You would then have 2 sets of poles perpendicular to each other. +
QuoteYucca, Now I might be in partial agreement to you with the whole notion of a spinning field. This could be some kind of aether dragging effect. But Scotty1 says he has performed an experiment where a spinning axial disc mag is brought close to a stationary mag, one would think this aether dragging would cause some rotation of the static mag, but it appears not to?
If you place a magnet on an aluminum or copper sheet and move it you feel a huge drag to the metal but if you rotate the magnet on it's axis and move the metal into the spinning you do not feel any drag!
Does this indicate the field is not spinning? At first you would think so but when you realize that metal is only responding to a change in field density and not the field itself.
A magnet spinning on it's axis is a constant density field and brinning a coil into the field will only show a change as you bring it near or pull it away. The time in the field shows no output because for every force line cutting into the coil there is one leaving, so over all no change.
The field does spin with the magnet, you just need a better method to detect it!
Quote from: lumen on May 12, 2009, 12:24:52 PM
The field does spin with the magnet, you just need a better method to detect it!
Maybe so, I couldn't say otherwise at the moment. But as you agree an inductive pickup coil placed in the proximity of an axially spinning disc mag does not produce voltage then I think we are both in agreement that standard induction does not produce the current in a homopolar gen. But some aspect of the whole field moving may produce the effect. It's all uncharted territory, which makes it a fascinating subject. I think more experiments are needed. :)
@TinselKoala
I enjoy all your vids, great stuff especially like your mini van-de-graffs!
RE Homopolar gennies, what are your thoughts on everything rotating, the magnet, the conductive disk, the takeoff wires and the load. Do you think any current would flow if the load and takeoff were partially shielded from the flux?
Quote from: Yucca on May 12, 2009, 12:53:04 PM
@TinselKoala
I enjoy all your vids, great stuff especially like your mini van-de-graffs!
RE Homopolar gennies, what are your thoughts on everything rotating, the magnet, the conductive disk, the takeoff wires and the load. Do you think any current would flow if the load and takeoff were partially shielded from the flux?
Thanks. I don't know, but I think probably not. I do know that Tom Valone has done some experiments along those lines, and so have I, but with a Marinov variant using a ring instead of a disk. I think I've made a Siberian Coilu motor that has no or much reduced back-reaction, and I believe it qualifies as a homopolar variant. I hope the researchers on this thread do try the various experiments, because I know these motor/generators (I include Marinov's) have much to teach about the unknown or at least ambiguously known features of electromagnetism.
Quote from: IotaYodi on May 12, 2009, 11:25:28 AM
If the flux is traveling at sub light I would say no since the flux totally encompasses the disk. You would need some type of impedance to create another "vortex". A magnet already has one between the poles. I would think you would have to overcome that one in order to create another one from the same mass/magnet. Which if possible would make that pole extend into midair perpendicular to the magnet itself and create the opposite pole on the other side. You would then have 2 sets of poles perpendicular to each other. +
I accept that there is a vortex between the poles. So, the vortex is dynamic and is changing while the poles are static and not changing.
The static field interacts with other magnets, while the dynamic vortex field between the poles interacts with iron and steel. Don't confuse the terms static or not changing with being stationary.
This is one of the experiments I previously mentioned about doing with the homopolar generator that has yet to be asked.
I still don't see how the field is stationary and doesn't rotate with the magnet when spinning on it's axis, but the field does move with the magnet when spinning on it's poles. If the magnet is spinning on both it's axis and poles, then how would the field be? It would then be possible to have 2 sets of poles and 2 sets of vortexes between the poles which would be perpendicular to each other like you mentioned, and I don't think this is the case (although it may appear to be the case due to the magnet's movements even if the field is moving with the magnet? LOL). I don't think the field is stationary no matter how the magnet is moving, rotating, or spinning.
Maybe everyone is partially correct and partially wrong.
Oh, and I could be totally wrong. ;D
QuoteI don't think the field is stationary no matter how the magnet is moving, rotating, or spinning.
If the magnet is revolved the field is revolving with it. But the direction or orbit of the field itself should stay the same. Sort of like taking a bearing (field) and putting it on a rod (magnet). Then tie a string on the rod and spin it around over your head. The rod is moving horizontally,and the bearing (field) is moving horizontally with the rod, while the bearing (field) has its own vertical orbit.
I know Sweet tuned a magnet to a certain frequency for producing cold electricity. I assume it was the "Vortex","Neutral" or center of the poles that was the cause for it. The bigger the load the colder it got and to the point of freezing. The "tuning" may have been to totally separate the poles given you free space, and then using the Vortex as a conductor in some manner. It would eventually de-tune and he would have to keep re-tuning the magnet. Some scary anomalies happening with this. Anyone who can conquer this will have the ultimate power source and maybe even anti gravity.
If you have never seen these videos check them out. They all deal with how magnetism works contrary to quantum theory.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evfUTmx0uh8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmE11_E-rdE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvWeYJg9Oxs
I've been watching this thread with much interest and just wanted to throw in this point for your consideration.
If you just consider the physical properties of the flux as it is radiated away from the magnet then the field cannot be spinning with magnet unless it has an equal or greater mass than the magnet... however, it could very well be spiraling slowly. The mass of the magnet flux (???) itself could not sustain the speed of rotation once separated from the magnet. Similar to throwing a handful of dust from the window of a speeding car, the mass cannot sustain the speed once the motive power is removed. Just a thought for pondering, not a conclusive answer.
Thanks! ::)
edit: Another thing to consider is the speed at which the flux travels in its circuit to the other pole.....
Quote from: groundhog on May 13, 2009, 03:25:01 AM
I've been watching this thread with much interest and just wanted to throw in this point for your consideration.
If you just consider the physical properties of the flux as it is radiated away from the magnet then the field cannot be spinning with magnet unless it has an equal or greater mass than the magnet... however, it could very well be spiraling slowly. The mass of the magnet flux (???) itself could not sustain the speed of rotation once separated from the magnet. Similar to throwing a handful of dust from the window of a speeding car, the mass cannot sustain the speed once the motive power is removed. Just a thought for pondering, not a conclusive answer.
Thanks! ::)
edit: Another thing to consider is the speed at which the flux travels in its circuit to the other pole.....
The field does move with the magnet when rotating on it's poles, so why can't it move with the magnet when rotating on it's axis?
If the field didn't move with the magnet, then the north and south poles would always face the same direction regardless of the orientation or movement of the magnet.
If you move a magnet from left to right on a table, does the field stay stationary or does it move with the magnet? It doesn't matter if the magnet is moved in a straight line or an orbital path, the answer is the same.
Am I missing something that everyone else sees?
In my opinion, the flux is traveling faster than light speed. It is a continuous stream and not delivered in packets or quanta that would otherwise make up the electromagnetic spectrum which contains visible light. If the magnetic field can get out of a blackhole, then this suggests faster than light speed travel.
So, the flux would have left and entered the magnet before there is another plank length of rotation. On the next plank length of rotation, then the flux would move accordingly with the magnet on a plank scale. I'm using plank as a reference to only refer to the smallest amount of movement in order to be considered a change in location.
The flux may leave and enter the magnet millions of times before there is another plank length of rotation of the magnet. Between these plank lengths of rotation, the flux is stationary. The flux does move with the magnet, but the movement of the flux with the magnet is extremely minute in comparison to it being stationary.
Edit: @groundhog, Welcome to overunity.com I'm a slow learner, so bear with me. lol
@gb
True, I would agree with your theory if indeed the flux is a continuous 3 or 4 dimensional stream. I just have a hard time grasping that as a reality. I see it like a 'stream' of light...continuous to our frame and yet still a sequence of individual photon 'packets' if you will. Hence, to our frame of reference the flux would appear static even if the 'packets' were of plank size. whether or not the magnet was rotating on its axis or not. Your other point, (ie physically moving the magnet) I don't see as related to an axis rotation of a ring manet that is magnetized through it's thickness.
I guess it really depends on whether the flux is truly an 'aetheric' force that is only measurable by it's interaction with matter, or not.
I do know that my understanding of magnetic forces is limited, so please take my thoughts lightly, just something that I didn't see discussed or considered here yet. ;D
edit: I think this only applies to homopolar gen, as broli's orig concept appears like it would create an alternating field. I can't yet grasp why he believes it should produce current....I'll have to go back and study his vector theory more :???
Quote from: gravityblock on May 13, 2009, 04:35:37 AM
In my opinion, the flux is traveling faster than light speed. It is a continuous stream and not delivered in packets or quanta that would otherwise make up the electromagnetic spectrum which contains visible light. If the magnetic field can get out of a blackhole, then this suggests faster than light speed travel.
I will offer my understanding here:
THE magnetic flux is an all permeating ambient. A black hole only disturbs this ambient structure, not much different than a magnet.
As you move the magnet you are only changing your area of disturbance (you move the so-called magnetic field but you are not moving the magnetic flux).
Spinning a magnet around its own axis is no different than spinning a bead on a string. The string will not spin, only the bead.
There is no need to calculate the speed of travel as it is already there. The path of 'travel' is like another string, or rope, already connected and not breakable, under most circumstances.
If you break this rope it will always reconnect. When it reconnects there would be a massive conversion of energy.
Everyone is avoiding the question about spinning the magnet on it's poles.
You could apply spinning the bead on a string, to spinning the magnet on it's poles also, which makes no sense.
According to this, the north and south poles will remain stationary when the magnet is rotating on it's poles just like it does on it's axis.
You can't have one part of the field remain stationary while the other part of the field is moving with the magnet, because the field is going to move or flow in the same way in the magnet, regardless if the magnet is rotating, moving or at rest.
I give up
Where is the power out?
If you would like to see a more developed generator design that reduces back emf in a generator, goto www.magvortechs.tk I would be happy to explain how to reduce back emf through the unipolar generator, I have been studying it for 20 years.
-Bryan Strohm
Quotebecause the field is going to move or flow in the same way in the magnet, regardless if the magnet is rotating, moving or at rest.
Thats what I think. I also think the field may be nothing but forced inertia creating a gravity wave. All the electrons are lined up side by side in strings and adding to the strength and direction of the spin. Just like a spinning centrifuge. That it seems is why the field is a constant but with minute fluctuations. The fluctuations in the field may be caused by the central points (+) because the 2 poles repel each other at the closest points. Just conjecture.
My understanding is simply my understanding.
The hole for the 'string or rope' can only be through the polar axis. If otherwise the poles rotate around the axis in varying degrees. The rope I'm speaking of will only exist passing pole to pole no matter how you drill another hole. The rope concept holds regardless. If you twist the magnet so the poles are not aligned with the rope the magnet will attempt to snap back in alignment wit the rope. The rope will stretch but will not break without very special attempts.
Poles and plus or minus really mean nothing except to allow most to have some understanding of what is going on. Same for field lines. All are just a means for us to quantify and apply vector math.
It works until you try to describe an hp gen or similar.
There is no speed to consider from a to b because there was no transit. The only speed to consider is stretch and contraction. The only thing to consider for polarity is spin direction. Spin direction and frequency or speed of rotation are the only common factors to consider.
Attraction is when two spins mesh together. Repulsion is when two spins do not mesh.
Schmecks of Leedskalnin, doesn't it?
My understanding works in all cases for me. Including the hp tests here said to not have been done before.
By all means use what works for you. Some of the descriptions on this thread I understand but have thrown them out a long time ago.
I have not seen an argument that woild change my understanding. I must admit my understanding is still very limited.
Quote from: BEP on May 13, 2009, 07:01:57 AM
THE magnetic flux is an all permeating ambient. A black hole only disturbs this ambient structure, not much different than a magnet.
As you move the magnet you are only changing your area of disturbance (you move the so-called magnetic field but you are not moving the magnetic flux).
How can the magnetic flux be an all permeating ambient, if it has no transit to permeate anything? How can you disturb the flux if the flux don't move? The flux is the intensity of the field within a given area. How can the field move but not the flux, when the flux is just the intensity of the field?
Quote from: BEP on May 13, 2009, 01:40:16 PM
There is no speed to consider from a to b because there was no transit. The only speed to consider is stretch and contraction.
This stretch and contraction must have a spin also in order to cause attraction and repelling. How can this have a spin since the flux doesn't move, it only stretches and contracts?
How can you have 10 beads all connected to the same rope and spinning, without the rope spinning also in order to cause a stretching and contracting of the rope? The rope must spin with the beads, cause the flux doesn't have a transit towards or away from the magnet in order to cause repelling or attraction. How can the rope not spin, but yet causes it to stretch and to contract? How can the beads spin without causing the rope to spin in order to cause stretching or contracting. You can't have one without the other.
If the rope breaks, then it can reconnect. How can it reconnect if it's not able to move or to have a transit?
The flux having no transit from point A to B is contradictory to the rope thing and vice versa.
I understand the concept of what your saying, but when you dig deep to analyze this concept, then things don't add up. If this makes sense to you, then fine......but it totally makes no sense to me and is very difficult to explain. If I'm not understanding it correctly, then I hope someone can find the words so I can grasp the concept correctly.
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Only trying to grasp the concept correctly.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 13, 2009, 08:07:30 PM
How can the magnetic flux be an all permeating ambient, if it has no transit to permeate anything?
My best guess is because it is fundamental to existence - a stretch I know but where it begins and ends is a bit beyond me.
Quote
How can you disturb the flux if the flux don't move? The flux is the intensity of the field within a given area. How can the field move but not the flux, when the flux is just the intensity of the field?
My definition of flux/field...
Flux: think of a weightless bubble of water. It adheres to itself. Without outside influence it would stabilize to a sphere shape. Maybe the equivalent beyond a sphere if it exists in more than three dimensions.
Field: a tiny bubble within the above flux. This bubble would be bound to something causing an increase or decrease of density of an area of the flux. It consists of flux but the change in density is enough for us to measure and use. Basically, a measurement of variations of density of the flux.
I know this is a bit simplified but I've been writing tech docs all day. I need a break.
Quote
This stretch and contraction must have a spin also in order to cause attraction and repelling.
I have no doubt it does. I'm hoping an advancement in spintronics will answer some of the questions I have in that direction.
Quote
How can this have a spin since the flux doesn't move, it only stretches and contracts?
I doubt the the flux is as simple as a bubble of fluid. I also doubt the conceptual rope is as simple as a rope. How they or better interpretations actually work together, I can only imagine.
I must think about the rest so I can explain it without writing a thesis.
For magnetic reconnection see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection ... Where it says 'different magnetic domains' replace that with 'different perturbances of THE magnetic domain'.
For a more in-depth view of most of my understanding of magnetics please look up explanations on 'Time-independent perturbation theory'.
I'll try to elaborate later.....
Quote from: BEP on May 13, 2009, 09:16:37 PM
My best guess is because it is fundamental to existence - a stretch I know but where it begins and ends is a bit beyond me.
I can accept that it is everywhere and fundamental to existence. What I have a hard time accepting is if the flux is all permeating, then how could it cause the electrons to flow along a conductor since it is permeating through the electron before, during, and after the change of flux over time? How can the electron disturb this flux since the flux would permeate through it (there would be no torque or force if the flux permeated through the electron as the electron cut the line of flux). There is no evidence to support this idea and is not logical.
The flux is capable of permeating through empty space and not fundamental particles. There is space in the atom, in the molecules, and in an object at the micro level. It permeates through matter due to the space in the matter. Electrons don't have empty space within it because it is a fundamental particle, so the flux can't permeate through the electron.....instead it will cause the electron to move.
The electrons are moving around the nucleus of an atom due to this flux filling the empty space of the atom. It is this fact and this fact alone that causes electrons to move and to keep the electrons in orbit around the nucleus of the atom. The flux can't permeate through any of the fundamental particles.
Quote from: Loner on May 14, 2009, 01:41:20 AM
Do you really accept the "Electron" as a fundamental particle? Would a Positron then be a different Particle? Or are they the same particle with different charges? Either way, where/what is the charge? For me, not everything is quite as "Cut and Dried" as the books like to make it out to be.
If the electron isn't a fundamental particle, then it sure does behave like one. The positron would be the anti-matter of the electron. The electron having forward time flow while the positron would have reverse time flow. An aether unit is made up of forward and reverse time flow as you can see in the picture below. It appears the picture has the time flow backwards, but I am sure it is for illustration purposes only.
If anyone wants to talk about this or other things I mentioned that is more than likely not correct, then feel free to send me a private message. I feel we are getting off topic here and should be discussing broli's design. I think I lost my mind for a minute. :o
Thanks,
GB
I've been on these subjects of electric and magnetic fields for 20 years. I have a significant patent on a device that (I believe) will reduce Lens Law losses. I have prototypes that validate my research and claims. The attachment is of the only documented violation of Newtonian physics directly relating to induction. Note that you can never violate Newton with a coil, but if you induce voltage in wire segments you are home free. I can explain this further if requested.
The magnetic field is not an independent field. It is a direct product of the electric field. The electric field is the primary field of our physical world, all other fields (magnetic, gravitation, strong nuclear force) are products of the electric field. The electric field is a transformation/warpage of the quantum field by the electron and the proton.
Induction neither adds energy to the electron nor takes it away. It simply deviates the path of an electron in motion reactionlessly. The force acting on the induced electron does not act on the source of the magnetic field.
Imagine that 2 boats are traveling at speed parallel to each other on calm water. The boat in the lead is a proton making a big wake in the water, the water is the quantum field. The second boat (electron) can turn off it's engine and get pushed by the wake of the first boat. Although the first boat is now propelling the second boat, there is no reactive force on the first boat, and this will not change the fuel consumption of the first boat no matter how many small boats or surfers ride it's wake. This is a reactionless drive just like basic induction. Another example is that of the cyclotron; in a cyclotron particles are shot into a magnetic field where they circulate indefinitely. The cyclotron demonstrates the basic experience of induction. In it energy is never added or subtracted to the particle, yet it's path is continuously deviated.
-BWS
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 14, 2009, 08:02:01 AM
I've been on these subjects of electric and magnetic fields for 20 years. I have a significant patent on a device that (I believe) will reduce Lens Law losses. I have prototypes that validate my research and claims. The attachment is of the only documented violation of Newtonian physics directly relating to induction. Note that you can never violate Newton with a coil, but if you induce voltage in wire segments you are home free. I can explain this further if requested.
The magnetic field is not an independent field. It is a direct product of the electric field. The electric field is the primary field of our physical world, all other fields (magnetic, gravitation, strong nuclear force) are products of the electric field. The electric field is a transformation/warpage of the quantum field by the electron and the proton.
Induction neither adds energy to the electron nor takes it away. It simply deviates the path of an electron in motion reactionlessly. The force acting on the induced electron does not act on the source of the magnetic field.
Imagine that 2 boats are traveling at speed parallel to each other on calm water. The boat in the lead is a proton making a big wake in the water, the water is the quantum field. The second boat (electron) can turn off it's engine and get pushed by the wake of the first boat. Although the first boat is now propelling the second boat, there is no reactive force on the first boat, and this will not change the fuel consumption of the first boat no matter how many small boats or surfers ride it's wake. This is a reactionless drive just like basic induction. Another example is that of the cyclotron; in a cyclotron particles are shot into a magnetic field where they circulate indefinitely. The cyclotron demonstrates the basic experience of induction. In it energy is never added or subtracted to the particle, yet it's path is continuously deviated.
-BWS
-BWS
BWS, this discussion has been going on for more than a century. I already mentioned this a few times. This is the biot savart paradox. This is why I am promoting the old ampere force law where the paradox doesn't arise. The biot savart law only holds for a closed loop circuit while the ampere force law would give the same result as the BS law in that case BUT also gives the correct result for single current elements. Using the ampere law in the case you mention gives 0 newton. J naudin has a nice animation of this paradox but he doesn't correct it with the old ampere force law...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/lorentz/index.htm
I had a nice article about this subject but I can't seem to find it anymore. But online you'll find lots of papers (most are not free) favouring the old ampere force law. Basiclly the old ampere force law agrees with newtons third law in its strong form (which is the only form there is) that says the forces are equal and oppesite on the same working line.
I believe newton's third law can be violated though by using shielding. If you wrap some shielding around the wire the external field will "bend" around the wire and not affect it while the field of the wire will remain unaffected and act on the cause of the external field. This is action without reaction.
Your reference is noted, but I have some concerns about it. Clearly they are trying to explain a TT Brown type drive system, but I will argue strongly against the magnetic or electric fields having ANY moment of inertia, especially in the opposite direction of motion. This is clearly just an attempt to balance the equation. Second, the last image in your reference appears to show the magnetic field passing through the source of electric field, which it does not. So I can only agree with the first 2 animated bits of your reference.
With regard to the biot savart law, clearly it applies to currents in a wire and can be applied to wires of some width.
A major problem then arises in unipolar generators that have rotors saturated with current. The application of those equations falls apart because the current ends up having an infinite width. You should recognize that infinite values destroy standard mathematics and new mathematical models must then be developed. I've attached below a hand written analysis done for me personally by the Head of Forward Development at Delco-Remy America in Anderson Indiana where I gave a technical presentation in 2003. In it you will find his textbook analysis to be flawless, but I note the same thing (in colored text) as here. The unipolar generator (when saturated with current) is the only stable way to continuously violate historical mathematics, and further; it exists in nature as hurricanes, tornadoes, galaxies, the Sun, the Earth, and the atom to name a few examples. Please look to see if you can find another way to explain the stability of tornadoes, they are quite real as is the violation of Newtonian "Law" on a swingset.
-BWS
The only thing I can see wrong with this formula is the sign is wrong. This is because the current was not generated in the disk but in the wire connected to the brushes. The disk is not cutting any field because it spins with the magnet.
The magnetic lines of force are generated by the electron spin in the atoms of the magnet. The atoms at the outer rim of the magnet are not just spinning on their axis but moving in a circular path. Why would it not drag it's force lines around with it? Answer: It does!
@lumen
Indeed, you do have a wonderful quality. You are wonderfully persistant!
BEP
@all:
Glue a dime in the center of a quarter. On the dime place a black dot at the 12, 3, 6, and 9 O'clock position. The dime is the electron and the quarter is the magnet. Now rotate this quarter any way you like and you will see that the black dots move with the magnet. If this doesn't convince you, then let's do another test.
Imagine the quarter is stationary with the dime spinning at 100,000 rpm around its axis. Now rotate the quarter while the dime is spinning. If the electron's spin is independent of the quarter, then if the quarter is moving at 500 rpm, then the dime is moving at 100,500 rpm, thus the field or flux is moving with the magnet. If the electron's spin is not independent on the quarter or magnet, then the dime or electron would be spinning at 999,500 rpm relative to the quarter or magnet, thus the field or flux is moving with the magnet. If the quarter matched the speed of the electrons rotation, then the field would be stationary when the magnet is moving. So, as you can see, the field can only be stationary if the electrons speed is not independent on the the spin of the quarter and the magnet is rotating at the same speed of the electron. If the speed of rotation of the electron is independent from the speed of rotation of the magnet, then the speed of the magnet can never reach the speed of the electron in order for the field to be stationary.
I think most of us will agree that the speed of rotation of the electron is independent from the magnet (wouldn't surprise me if most disagree....LOL). As you can see with the quarter and dime, the field or flux can never be stationary when the magnet is rotating on it's axis if the electron's speed is independent of the magnet.
@BEP, Persistence is a powerful force. A persistent drop of water can carve out deep valleys over thousands or millions of years. If we didn't believe as strongly as we do, then we wouldn't be as persistent.
Quote from: BWS on May 14, 2009, 08:02:01 AM
Note that you can never violate Newton with a coil, but if you induce voltage in wire segments you are home free. I can explain this further if requested.
Could you please explain for me. As you may have noticed, my imagination runs wild.
Quote from: BWS on May 14, 2009, 08:02:01 AM
The force acting on the induced electron does not act on the source of the magnetic field.
-BWS
-BWS
The force being the magnetic field and the source of the magnetic field being the electron?
That is a very clever statement. At first I thought that statement was contradictory to accepted physics, but then after analyzing the statement, it isn't contradictory. Your statement is different from saying the induced electron has a magnetic field that opposes the force that induced it.
I think the electrons do undergo an opposing force and it is the orbital momentum of the electrons that overcomes this force to give us torque (this is another reason why the field or flux can't be stationary when the magnet is spinning on it's axis, cause the electrons has an axial and orbital spin or intrinsic 1/2 spin meaning the electron has to turn 720 degrees before seeing the same face again). No opposing force, then no torque. I have to think about your statement more. ;D
I'll allow broli to mention how having many turns of the wire may overcome this problem in the classical homopolar generator. Although he's already posted while I'm still editing this post (A bad habit of mine).
I apologize for being so technical and persistent.
Thanks BWS,
GB
I'm kind of confused here with who believing what. I'm just going to stay with the simple believe of voltage being induced on the disk itself. The other thing I'm thinking about now is whether the field caused by moving electrons interact only on each others field. Or wether the moving electron itself is interacting with the field of another moving electron. If the latter is the case then shielding can be used to screen one electron from the field of others. But their fields would still be exposed, so it would only work if indeed the electron is interacting with the field.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 15, 2009, 02:01:59 AM
@BEP, Persistence is a powerful force. A persistent drop of water can carve out deep valleys over thousands or millions of years. If we didn't believe as strongly as we do, then we wouldn't be as persistent.
Sorry GB
To me your coin experiment is saying the flux rotates on its axis with the magnet because the flux rotates on its axis with the magnet.
As far as persistence goes it is only persistant, not factual. I can spend my life telling people the sky is red. That doesn't mean it is or will be. Maybe it only means I should remove my glasses with red lenses.
I will agree to disagree on both points and wish you all well on your experiments as I see it all fruitless. I have already travelled that road.
Quote from: BEP on May 15, 2009, 06:04:39 AM
I will agree to disagree on both points and wish you all well on your experiments as I see it all fruitless. I have already travelled that road.
Many people will travel on the same road before a breakthrough occurs. Just because you have traveled down this road and didn't find a breakthrough, doesn't mean someone else won't. The road doesn't produce the fruit. The people who travel on the road produces the fruit.
Just because your efforts were fruitless, doesn't mean someone else's efforts will be fruitless. I wish you the best of luck in finding a road that is fruitful to you.
GB
I believe that the voltage is induced on the disk and not the external circuit. I also believe the field or flux rotates with the magnet. I am at odds with myself on this, but have a possible explanation.
The free electrons on the disk that are not strongly bound to the nucleus of the atom could be flowing off the disk in a parabolic path from the axis to the rim due to the centrifugal force (CF). Now I realize some will say the (CF) is not a real force. That is irrelevant because the effect is real.
I also realize some will say that this will occur even without the presence of a magnetic field. This is true, but without the presence of the magnetic field, the electrons will flow in a parabolic path at random times and in random directions, thus no current or voltage will be detected.
With the presence of a magnetic field, the electrons will cut the lines of force due to the CF, which will induce a force that causes other electrons to move in the same direction and not at random times, thus current will be detected.
The electrons then may travel in a more circular path from the axis to the rim as it cuts through the lines of force. This would cause the electrons to cut through the lines of force many more times as compared to a parabolic path.
Questions that need to be asked that could support this idea.
Why do the electrons flow from the axis to the rim? Is it due to the CF?
If the electrons flowed from the rim to the axis, then a centripetal force could be responsible, but this force or effect is not present.
How could a single external wire cutting through the magnetic field produce so much current? If this is the case, then a single external wire that has many turns, would then cut the lines of force more times and induce more current if the magnet and disk rotate together. This should put to rest if the field rotates with the magnet or not and if the voltage is induced on the disk or external circuit. This should be easy to test.
I am not saying the CF starts the process. I am saying it is possible, but it leaves me at odds with myself.
Maybe somebody can take this idea, correct the errors, and come up with a solution.
This is just another wild and crazy thought of mine.
Thank you to those who thought about my ideas.
What I tell you is based on solid experimentation; I have working prototypes for everything I mention except a finished device (which I can not afford to build yet).
The magnet is just like a lens in the manner that if you rotate a lens on it's axis of focus, the image does not rotate; so when you rotate a magnet on it's axis of magnetization, the field does not rotate. A simple way to demonstrate this involves a strong round (disk or cylindrical) magnet and a thick piece of aluminum. Slide the magnet laterally on the aluminum and you will find great resistance due to induction (hysteresis) but if you spin the magnet (on its axis of magnetization) on the aluminum (or other nonferrous metal) you'll find there is no magnetic resistance. This is because the field does not rotate with the magnet. This is how/why the unipolar generator works even though there is no relative motion between the inductors and the source of field. This is a serious textbook anomaly. This starts to explain how systems of circulating charged particles get big because the circulating particles are circulating around the field they are also producing (just like a coil).
With respect to centripital forces; electrons have basically no mass. There is no detectable difference between the electrons being induced to the axis or to the circumference. They are happy to go either way. The EM forces greatly override their momentum.
To see why you can never violate Newton with coils, go back to the first reference I posted showing 2 perpendicular current elements, it explains it pretty well. The perpendicular current elements do violate Newton, so they even make a point to say that you cant make isolated current elements which is dead wrong. To make an isolated current element you simply need a straight wire segment with sliding (or rolling or arc gap) brushes at each end. My patent involves many such elements (www.magvortechs.tk) in series.
Another explanation for this could be that you can not violate Newton using 2 magnets moving past each other; many of us have tried this to no avail. Coils act just like permanent magnets, so the same is true there. You have to take advantage of the unipolar fixed field effect, the perpendicular current element Newton violation, and a uniform geometry to realize over-unity.
-BWS
@BWS:
It is because the field is uniform or near uniform when rotating the magnet on it's axis over aluminum with no magnetic resistance and has nothing to do if it's stationary or moving with the magnet. Just because the field is uniform doesn't mean the uniform field can't rotate with the magnet. The field would still be uniform if it rotated with the magnet or not. This is a mute point as far as I am concerned.
Hello all,
Sorry to keep banging on about homopolars in general, I know this thread is about Brolis idea, but I thought you'd all like to hear about my experiment.
I tried the experiment of spinning The magnet disk along with the takeoff and load. Took me a few tries and a few flying capacitors to get it balanced well enough. I just stuck the cap to the axle using super glue.
Magnet: N52 Nickel Coated Neo (diam=38mm thick=6.5mm)
Electrolytic cap: 6.3V 1000uF
Resistor: 100k metal film
Outer rim is connected to the -v cap terminal.
The magnet axle is connected via the resistor to the +v cap terminal.
In this configuration the cap will discharge at about 2mV per second.
I discharged the cap by shorting and then did a spin up to 3000RPM for 2 minutes.
I noticed no difference in the capacitors charge after measuring as soon as it stopped. spinning, GUTTED!
I wondered if the centrifugal force made my rim connection go open circuit as it's only bound on with tight sellotape so I also tried precharging the cap to 300mV and then left it to discharge for 30 seconds. Tried this spinning and static, same discharge rate.
GB I think the CF has a very minor role in the system. The speed must be VERY high for it to near the size of the centrifugal force. According to my quick analysis the speed must be 10 000 times higher than the speed of light for the CF to be equal to the electromagnetic force. In a normal setup that turns around 1000 RPM the CF is about 100 000 000 000 times weaker and the EM force. This is because the the charge of an electron is much higher than its mass.
BUT it's interesting that you brough this up because last night I was thinking how one could turn the homopolar generator into a hydrodynamic model. You would have a liquid spinning that has a pressure gradient going from the center to the rim due to the centrifugal force. At the rim you have a point where the liquid can escape. A week ago I built a magnetic stir for another project but this might be helpfull for this one as well.
The idea is that as the stir is rotating the water the water starts to press against the sides of the container due to the centrifugal force. At the top the liquid is allowed to escape due to this pressure. Just like the homopolar generator now you introduce a "load" namely the turbine to generate some electricity or w/e. But UNLIKE a homopolar generator wether there's a load or not it will not slow down the motion of the water AFAIK. After it has done the work the water is circultated back in the container.
Since I already have a magnetic stir I might play around with this concept.
If you do not know what a magnetic stir is here's a good youtube video showing it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMR_E2ZJarU
You can built these yourself for the fraction of the retail price.
Your reply is notable because you are taking an EE's point of view. That is, you have probably been taught that induction can only occur only when there is a change (delta) in field strength on a charged particle. This is the system used when working with oscillating fields and induction in coils, and it has no application to the uniform/steady field physics we are talking about here. To see my point, take a strong look at cyclotrons. In a cyclotron induction is definitely happening even though there is no change in field strength relative to the particle, but the moving particle must move perpendicularly through the steady field, and then induction can not be avoided.
-BWS
Quote from: broli on May 15, 2009, 08:39:13 AM
GB I think the CF has a very minor role in the system. The speed must be VERY high for it to near the size of the centrifugal force. According to my quick analysis the speed must be 10 000 times higher than the speed of light for the CF to be equal to the electromagnetic force. In a normal setup that turns around 1000 RPM the CF is about 100 000 000 000 times weaker and the EM force. This is because the the charge of an electron is much higher than its mass.
The electromagnetic force has nothing to do with how strong the electrons are bound to the atom. The electrons that flow along a conductor are
free electrons and are not bound to the atom. Sometimes they move in random directions on there own along a conductor without any external force.
Once these free electrons start cutting through the lines of force due to the CF, then the electromagnetic force is responsible for the movement of the other electrons since a current was induced by those free electrons cutting the lines of force.
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 08:40:17 AM
Your reply is notable because you are taking an EE's point of view. That is, you have probably been taught that induction can only occur only when there is a change (delta) in field strength on a charged particle. This is the system used when working with oscillating fields and induction in coils, and it has no application to the uniform/steady field physics we are talking about here. To see my point, take a strong look at cyclotrons. In a cyclotron induction is definitely happening even though there is no change in field strength relative to the particle, but the moving particle must move perpendicularly through the steady field, and then induction can not be avoided.
-BWS
How could you have a tornado (electron) that is spinning, but the wind or force (magnetic field) is not moving with the spin of the tornado (electron), but is stationary?
I think Yucca's experiment suggests the field or flux rotates with the magnet. If the field was stationary, then the leads on the capacitor would have cut the lines of force and charged the capacitor.
The external circuit inducing the voltage by cutting the lines of force is disproven also since voltage is indicated with a rotating disk, stationary magnet, and stationary external circuit. The stationary circuit can not induce a voltage if the magnet is stationary also since it doesn't cut the lines of force.
QuoteThe external circuit inducing the voltage by cutting the lines of force is disproven also since voltage is indicated with a rotating disk, stationary magnet, and stationary external circuit. The stationary circuit can not induce a voltage if the magnet is stationary also since it doesn't cut the lines of force.
This is true, but what about the case where the magnet and disk both rotate. Is this not the same as a stationary disk and magnet with only the contacts rotating?
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 12:47:14 PM
This is true, but what about the case where the magnet and disk both rotate. Is this not the same as a stationary disk and magnet with only the contacts rotating?
Didn't we get over this already? When the outside circuit gets glued to the magnet as well, its mobile electrons will rotate and thus create a magnetic field. This magnetic field will interact with the magnet and cause a voltage. Incidentally this voltage gets canceled by the primary voltage that was created on the disk. So the net voltage is 0.
I don't like to keep talking in circles. We need to talk and experiment and then share the data.
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 12:47:14 PM
This is true, but what about the case where the magnet and disk both rotate. Is this not the same as a stationary disk and magnet with only the contacts rotating?
You are correct. After more thought, assuming Yucca's experiment is not flawed somehow, disproves my CF theory when both rotate together, cause this should have induced a voltage.
It appears to me, that whatever is inducing the current and voltage varies with the different types of arrangements.
@gravityblock
The magnetic field does not rotate with the wind or particles in a tornado. The magnetic field is just like an image from a lens, no matter how hard you try, you can not rotate the image by rotating the lens. The water rotating in a tornado is induced to circulate by induction just as it does so going down a drain. The motion of the particles does not move the B field, it only amplifies it, thus the tornado/hurricane can grow. In the case of the spinning capacitor, or any other inductor, no charging occurs because radial induction is happening in every conductor that is in motion. To see the voltage, you must have brush at an inner radius and an outer radius. There will be no current flow except for this differential. You are correct to assume that the leads going to the apparatus will have no induction as they are not moving relative to the field.
A somewhat frustrating mental experiment is realizing that there is a huge amount of induction going on everywhere around you due to our 1000 mph motion through the Earths magnetic field which is stationary. There is a calculable voltage for every foot of elevation change, but when you close the loop, you are also inducing in the other side of the loop. Accessing this voltage is further complicated by the breakdown of magnetic field shielding in this situation. I have performed experiments using "mu" metal (magnetic field shields made from nickel alloy) rated at 20 times the field strength, but in this geometry the shield completely breaks down and induction still occurs inside it. I am hesitant to write about this because the only explanation I can offer is that this is the point where the EM field acts like the gravitational field in that it completely pervades and affects everything.
-BWS
Quote from: broli on May 15, 2009, 12:53:07 PM
Didn't we get over this already? When the outside circuit gets glued to the magnet as well, its mobile electrons will rotate and thus create a magnetic field. This magnetic field will interact with the magnet and cause a voltage. Incidentally this voltage gets canceled by the primary voltage that was created on the disk. So the net voltage is 0.
I don't like to keep talking in circles. We need to talk and experiment and then share the data.
I see your point. Shielding the external circuit would allow the primary voltage that was created on the disk not to be canceled and Yucca's experiment isn't shielded?
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 12:57:45 PM
@gravityblock
The magnetic field does not rotate with the wind or particles in a tornado. The magnetic field is just like an image from a lens, no matter how hard you try, you can not rotate the image by rotating the lens. The water rotating in a tornado is induced to circulate by induction just as it does so going down a drain. The motion of the particles does not move the B field, it only amplifies it, thus the tornado/hurricane can grow.
-BWS
I never said the magnetic field rotated with the wind or particles in a tornado. That is a total insult to my intelligence. How could you even consider yourself to be that far above me.
I'll separate what I said for you:
How could you have a tornado that is spinning, but the wind is not moving with the spin of the tornado, but is stationary?
How could you have an electron that is spinning, but the force or magnetic field is not moving with the spin of the electron, but is stationary?
Also, the motion of the particles do not amply and allow the tornado or hurricane to grow. In the case of a hurricane, the growth is due to warmer water clashing with cooler air. In the case of a tornado, it is due to cooler and warmer air clashing with each other.
If the motion of the particles caused the cyclotrons to grow, then they would grow exponentially and consume the entire planet. This is total nonsense.
@gravityblock
well ok, please let me clarify:
Yes of course the wind is moving in a tornado, but the wind does not represent the magnetic field there, the wind is moving relative to (perpendicular to the B field causing it's induction/circulation) the B Field which is along the vertical axis of the tornado.
In the case of the electron's motion, the circulation of the electron is caused by and does cause the B field, they are intrinsically coupled. However, they can be somewhat separated as in the case of parallel current carrying wires, the B field expands and circulates around all the wires becoming a conglomerate field. I can not tell you why a circulating electron produces a stationary field, only that it is fully experimentally provable.
In the case of a tornado's growth; yes I admit that warm air, cold air and moisture are all necessary ingredients, but nothing in those 3 things alone explains the rotation nor the cohesion of a tornado. Once the rotation has begun from those 3 elements and assuming there is an adequate amount of water to fall down the tornado, then the tornado will grow in diameter and velocity due to induction. It is induction that is the cohesive force of the tornado. The other elements will do nothing without the initiating rotation and there is no other mechanism that will explain how winds will reach 200 mph in a circle. Remember that water is a highly polarized molecule even though it has no net charge. Since water spins down a drain in opposite directions in opposite magnetic fields, this should be enough to validate that induction has everything to do with tornadoes and hurricanes.
-BWS
Ok, I'm digging out my homopolar test device and going to test some things.
I will be back!
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 02:06:09 PM
@gravityblock
well ok, please let me clarify:
Yes of course the wind is moving in a tornado, but the wind does not represent the magnetic field there, the wind is moving relative to (perpendicular to the B field causing it's induction/circulation) the B Field which is along the vertical axis of the tornado.
-BWS
Planes fly in the eye of a hurricane because it is so calm on the inside. B Field lines always form closed loops. The closed loops can easily be seen in the circular spin of the wind. The B Field lines must not have a start or end point. The inside of a cyclotron can not represent the B Field cause there is no force there.
I'm going to say this and say it only once. God told me that the magnetic field or flux moves with the magnet. Go debate this with him, he offered no explanation to me why this is. I'm just trying to explain or understand this with the limited knowledge I have.
@gravityblock,
I'm hesitant to reply, so you can tell me to shut up and I will, but you've raised a great point about airplanes... The center of a hurricane would have a very large and very uniform magnetic field. The magnetic field is not force, only potential force needing the right circumstances (available reactive material which is usually other magnetic material). It is my belief that (similar to what EE's believe) a gradient of field is needed for there to be interaction. Since there is no focused source of the giant uniform field, there will be no net effect on the plane or anything in it.
Does moving a field include rotating a field?
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 02:52:07 PM
@gravityblock,
Since there is no focused source of the giant uniform field, there will be no net effect on the plane or anything in it.
Does moving a field include rotating a field?
-BWS
There appears to be a potential force where the winds are spinning. Maybe you should fly the plane there and see if the uniform field is a focused source or not. After doing this, you may learn where the field is actually located.
Well as for the test!
I used a stationary 3" dia. ring magnet and a .125 thick steel disk and by spinning only a single wire as a conductor to the edge of the magnet it is obvious that it does generate current.
I also tested spinning the magnet and tried to obtain a current flow by trying to shield the return line with another magnet. This setup was unable to produce any output!
I made a small video so anyone can see the results of this test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 03:50:43 PM
Well as for the test!
I used a stationary 3" dia. ring magnet and a .125 thick steel disk and by spinning only a single wire as a conductor to the edge of the magnet it is obvious that it does generate current.
I also tested spinning the magnet and tried to obtain a current flow by trying to shield the return line with another magnet. This setup was unable to produce any output!
I made a small video so anyone can see the results of this test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w)
That's a cool setup you've got there I wish I had something like that. But can you make some illustration of the two different setups because it's not very clear from the video.
Edit: nvm the hq version made everything clear. I'll think about something to say now.
Oke first I made some illustrations so there's no misunderstanding. Please correct me if they are wrong.
As for my comments on the experiments.
I don't know why you performed the first experiment. I'm not following the whole discussion in this thread so you probably have a good reason for it. But it seems a bit silly to me. I see no reason why a stationary circuit like that would generate a voltage. Even using a shield won't change anything. The movement of mobile electrons is the crucial thing which there is none in that case.
As for your second experiment I'm missing the point you are trying to show. This is again normal behavior of a homopolar generator. As the conductor moves its mobile electrons move with it. As these move they will start to interact with the magnetic field of the magnet. If you like you can use the Lorentz force law which gives you the force direction and is indeed along the length of the conductor.
Please don't take this negatively. I just want to know what your motivations are for these experiments.
You have a nice setup which I like to exploit if you allow me to :P .
Gee, your quick. I was about to post my sketches but you beat me to it. And you have color!
That is exactly what I tested.
wow, you guys really are fast!
Well, I can't post videos anything like that fast, I guess I'm too old or something, but I just took some of my setup, and dug some old ones out too.
In my setup I have a 4.5" dia magnet and a similar sized disc right next to it, but on a different shaft and motor so the magnet and disc can be counter rotated or clipped together to corotate, or independently rotate. This setup clearly shows the field remains fixed and induction occurs best in the magnet itself.
I should point out that the use of any field shielding or cancellation will only diminish results. The field must be symmetrically centered around the axis and only the portion of it that is so will generate output.
-BWS
some further info...
This prototype was made in 2001. It spent several years at Purdue university where it was nearly destroyed and abandoned.
Nobody there could figure out why the magnet alone generates the highest voltage. I couldn't find a good powersource so I used a remote controlled radio set with PWM drives.
-BWS
@BWS
So at a given disk speed you get a set voltage and rotating the magnet in the same direction or in the opposite direction makes no difference on the output?
If this is true then this should work!
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 06:26:27 PM
@BWS
So at a given disk speed you get a set voltage and rotating the magnet in the same direction or in the opposite direction makes no difference on the output?
If this is true then this should work!
That illustration will produce a current. This would be not the case if both the setups where spinning in the same direction. I don't see what's so interesting about that though.
To me the interesting thing is first of still wanting to confirm what I started this thread with. So if you are willing to use that on your setup I would appreciate it. And second of all, the effect of any kind of shielding on a homopolar motor/generator.
What's interesting is there is something still not right here.
If you go ahead and figure the field is stationary in space then you would need to assume it was locked to something in space itself and this could explain some things but this still does not always work.
Why would a simple homopolar MOTOR that should be pushing off the very same symmetrical field, induce a back torque into the magnet generating the stationary symmetric field?
It should not be different for each case.
With regard to reducing lens' law; the only way to do it (from my research) is to saturate a homopolar or unipolar generator with current. Any field arrangement other than that will reduce or eliminate the possibility. Your sketches at the beginning of this blog will not have such unipolar effects and could never reduce LL losses due to the opposing fields in rotation.
Any current draw from machines that do not have a circumferential symmetry (current saturation and field uniformity) will also reduce or eliminate the possibility of Lens law violation. The field dynamics that can reduce LL is shown in the attachment from my 2003 patent. This is why I'm here; I've actually patented the only known/possible way to do it. Believe me or not, it's patented.
When the disc is saturated with current, the secondary field splits and no longer has a component that is in repulsion to the primary. This is all in the attachment. To understand this further, you must fully understand how the primary and secondary field interact to cause Lens' Law losses. I have never seen this identified, but I know how it works.
If you want to see the rest of my patent, goto www.magvortechs.tk
-BWS
@broli,
for some reason that didn't load right so here goes again.
You are right to assume that this will work as a generator, not as a motor because I have decoupled the secondary field from the primary.
It is not possible nor useful to eliminate LL losses from a motor, in fact it is LL that allows a motor to operate.
-BWS
So BWS, what have you been doing over the course of 7 years now? Where is the generator, where is the data, where is the product :P .
On a more scientific note. If you can make a simple drawing I'll try and make a thoughtful comment. Patent drawings and lawyer language is not really my thing, "current saturation" is a vague term to my simple mind.
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 07:52:24 PM
Your sketches at the beginning of this blog will not have such unipolar effects and could never reduce LL losses due to the opposing fields in rotation.
-BWS
From your perspective, I would think rotation of the magnet would be irrelevant or fruitless since you can't rotate the field, it would remain stationary regardless of the rotation. So, why are you trying to spin something, if spinning something doesn't change anything?
You should be spinning the wire or the disk, since spinning the magnet doesn't change the field cause it will remain stationary.
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 05:59:40 PM
In my setup I have a 4.5" dia magnet and a similar sized disc right next to it, but on a different shaft and motor so the magnet and disc can be counter rotated or clipped together to corotate, or independently rotate. This setup clearly shows the field remains fixed and induction occurs best in the magnet itself.
I apologize for not understanding your view on this. Your actions don't seem to be inline with your thinking.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 15, 2009, 08:31:01 PM
From your perspective, I would think rotation of the magnet would be irrelevant since you can't rotate the field, it would remain stationary regardless of the rotation. So, why are you trying to spin something, if spinning something doesn't change anything?
You should be spinning the wire, since spinning the magnet doesn't change the field cause it will remain stationary.
I apologize for not understanding your view on this. Your actions don't seem to be inline with your thinking.
You made me think about something that I haven't seen before for some reason.
I kept saying that the rotating wire or disk induces the voltage and that the stationary circuit is producing the counter torque. This counter torque applies only to the rotating magnet. SO the question is. What if indeed the magnet was stationary and the conductor rotating. Then according to my reasoning the stationary brushing circuit WILL apply a torque on the STATIONARY magnet. But who gives a damn, the magnet is not attached to the conductor anymore thus it will not produce the counter torque while current is being generated.
What I'm saying is that in lumen's second experiment power is being generated without a counter torque. Of course you cannot prove this on that setup ;D .
Edit: Please ignore this post ;D . Yes the counter torque of the stationary circuit doesn't count anymore. But the counter torque of the rotating wire counts now. If it were attached to the magnet we would again end up with what we started. So in one case it's the stationary circuit doing the back torque and in the other the rotating conductor is doing the breaking. Damn you Lenz. You guys confused me too much, I knew this already but somehow slipped up.
Broli,
Well, funny you should ask.
Mostly I've been broke. My complete story is very long winded. Please note that it took 24 hours of your attention here to get to the point where you might acknowledge my work. I've made countless presentations and proposals. I've suffered through harassing scammers and fallen victim to a few. I've been raising my daughter and finally have a decent wife. I've had countless bad contracting jobs, and been ignored by just about everyone who could help.
It takes very special people with specific technical questions to go far enough into this work to get anywhere. The national economy has not helped, and the hype about green energy has not found me.
Anyway, I'm ready to work on this but I need backing. I approach about 4 possible sources/week. A few months ago I found some guys in Fort Wayne IN through this site to take me seriously enough, but the company who expressed interest has dropped the ball. The next device will be expensive; it requires considerable CAD work and could cost $.1 Million. Much less if done on a shoestring, but I can't work on a shoestring anymore. I have 20 years and $1/4Million of my own invested already. I'm willing to divulge most of the information freely, but I will hold the highly complex brush design proprietary until I have a contract.
Current saturation means that the disc is filled with current flow in a uniform manner all the way around. The radial current will trickle in a solid disc and LL will rear it's ugly head. with many radial inductive elements, the secondary field is forced to split into 2 parts swirling on opposite directions on either side of each disc, but combining in unison between the discs. There are no easy answers here, there is no simple drawing. This is a complex device, and field dynamics are invisible, so it is very difficult to get engineers to look at it especially with the limited explanations of LL in textbooks.
If you want to review my designs, go to my website and look at the drawings. I have 2 more prototypes beyond the one I put pics up of. The balls shown in the last attachment are inadequate to carry enough current, so high rpm tapered roller pins will be the choice for the next device; hence the cost.
More info as you request it...
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 08:50:23 PM
Broli,
Well, funny you should ask.
Mostly I've been broke. My complete story is very long winded. Please note that it took 24 hours of your attention here to get to the point where you might acknowledge my work. I've made countless presentations and proposals. I've suffered through harassing scammers and fallen victim to a few. I've been raising my daughter and finally have a decent wife. I've had countless bad contracting jobs, and been ignored by just about everyone who could help.
It takes very special people with specific technical questions to go far enough into this work to get anywhere. The national economy has not helped, and the hype about green energy has not found me.
Anyway, I'm ready to work on this but I need backing. I approach about 4 possible sources/week. A few months ago I found some guys in Fort Wayne IN through this site to take me seriously enough, but the company who expressed interest has dropped the ball. The next device will be expensive; it requires considerable CAD work and could cost $.1 Million. Much less if done on a shoestring, but I can't work on a shoestring anymore. I have 20 years and $1/4Million of my own invested already. I'm willing to divulge most of the information freely, but I will hold the highly complex brush design proprietary until I have a contract.
Current saturation means that the disc is filled with current flow in a uniform manner all the way around. The radial current will trickle in a solid disc and LL will rear it's ugly head. with many radial inductive elements, the secondary field is forced to split into 2 parts swirling on opposite directions on either side of each disc, but combining in unison between the discs. There are no easy answers here, there is no simple drawing. This is a complex device, and field dynamics are invisible, so it is very difficult to get engineers to look at it especially with the limited explanations of LL in textbooks.
If you want to review my designs, go to my website and look at the drawings. I have 2 more prototypes beyond the one I put pics up of. The balls shown in the last attachment are inadequate to carry enough current, so high rpm tapered roller pins will be the choice for the next device; hence the cost.
More info as you request it...
-BWS
Yes we all have a story to tell. But bottom line is to never give up on your believes. I may not agree on the road you have chosen but you have to keep pushing forward.
I'm pretty sure I can understand why you did what if I "translate" it to my reasoning method. Besides the exotic things that can arise at very high speeds and what not, to me the homopolar generator/motors are not a mystery anymore. The big quest now is finding a loophole that will allow you to r@pe Lenz, and I feel we're getting close as the smell of shit is getting stronger.
With a stationary field, then any moving object will generate a current AND a back emf. There is no way around this or the current was never generated!
Just the electrons flowing from the center to the outer ring will cause a back emf no matter what path they take.
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 09:17:32 PM
With a stationary field, then any moving object will generate a current AND a back emf. There is no way around this or the current was never generated!
Just the electrons flowing from the center to the outer ring will cause a back emf no matter what path they take.
Please use the quotation function. Because I have no clue who you are arguing with.
Lumen here's an experiment I urge you to perform. Use ferrite beads around the rotating wire to shield it from the magnetic field of the magnet. This may show two things. Either the voltage will be substationally reduced showing that the magnetic field of the PM acts directly on the moving charge or the voltage has not changed at al at the same RPM showing that the fields only interact with each other and not with the moving charges that creates them. Either way this would give a nice conclusion.
With a stationary field, then any moving object will generate a current AND a back emf. There is no way around this or the current was never generated!
Just the electrons flowing from the center to the outer ring will cause a back emf no matter what path they take.
[/quote]
@lumen,
You are now at the center of controversy of induction.
Any CHARGED moving object will be induced, not every object.
Induction neither adds energy to the charged particles, nor takes it away, there is no change in energy in the particle, that is why the magnetic field can do no work.
Remember the sequence of back EMF; 1: a moving charge makes a magnetic field. 2: That B field deviates/accelerates another moving charge. 3: The second moving charge has a second B field. 4: The second field couples onto the first field causing resistance.
Nowhere did the first moving charge exchange energy with the second moving charge, and reactionless events took place at 2 and 4. Also, cyclotrons have no back EMF and induction is definitely happening there.
The answer to having no back EMF on a large scale is to have a uniform radial current in a disc as is shown in my patent drawing (attached earlier). There is no other way to do it; this brings the leading edge and the trailing edge of the current sheet around to touch each other (making an infinite width current element) where the fields there cancel each other forcing the secondary field to split into 2 loops (on either side of the disc) and there is no longer a coupling of the primary and secondary field, hence LL violation. As I said before this happens in nature in all systems of circulating charged particles.
-BWS
BWS I believe I know what you are trying to do now. This is exactly what lumen pointed out as well. Namely having two counter rotating disks.
To obtain what you call current saturation you'd need to adjust a homopolar generator to have theoretically an infinite amount of brushes around the perimeter?
What I don't understand is why you assume there is no back torque. Even though the combined field of the disks adds up to zero it doesn't mean their individual interactions add up to zero with the magnets. They do if the two disks where attached to each other but this is impossible because they are counter rotating.
Quote from: BWS on May 15, 2009, 06:09:30 PM
some further info...
This prototype was made in 2001. It spent several years at Purdue university where it was nearly destroyed and abandoned.
Nobody there could figure out why the magnet alone generates the highest voltage. I couldn't find a good powersource so I used a remote controlled radio set with PWM drives.
-BWS
Interesting table of RPM v. Voltage.
But were you drawing a current off this circuit? You should be able to
get a very large number of amps - very large indeed. (In fact, tread
carefully or you will take out your Avo).
Broli,
Please pardon my form, I havn't figured out how to use the quote function properly yet. Yes, there are distinct advantages to using 2 counter rotating discs, 1 being that you can then use brushes on the shaft and not the circumference for output (well, you still must connect the rims of the discs, but my solution is to use rolling contacts there). The next problem is that you can use an infinite brush around the circumference by using a conducting liquid. This has been done by both Adam Trombly and Bruce DePalma, and there is quite alot of info on that alone; without going too far into it, Adam was harassed by the feds for using a classified liquid metal for a brush after his device proved 270% efficient in 1981. He mentored me in this science. Both those guys used solid discs, Bruce used mercury and never went over 100%. In any case, in order to get over 100% the disc has to be saturated with current. That takes whopperloads of current on a solid rotor, Adam had to draw 15,000 amps from a 6" rotor. This presents serious load problems. When the disc is not saturated with current, LL rears it's ugly head. This is a big reason why I have radial segments that are all put in series. My solution also then raises the output voltage considerably and reduces the current load requirement.
In theory a single disc will work fine (it happens in nature all the time) but you would still have to segment the disc and load each segment the same to achieve a decent generator.
Paul-R
That device can measure only voltage really. You're right that the potential there (especially in the magnet) is capable of huge current (maybe 10,000 amps from the magnet) but that a brush must be constructed that can carry all that current. That device has sliding contacts of the type from those rc motors driving the device. There were 2 brushes on the disc and 2 brushes on the magnet at similar radii for a decent voltage comparison.
Remember that a homopolar generator has a fixed field source and a rotating disc while a unipolar generator has the field source fixed to and corotating with the conductive disc. Since the magnet is electrically conductive, it makes a terrific unipolar generator. I have a reference for a homopolar device built by the University of Texas in Austin that was built to supply power for the rail gun of SDI fame and could generate pulses of 1 million amperes.
-BWS
BWS I believe your topic is kind of side tracking from the original idea I started this thread with. So far no one has made a serious experiment of it. The setups of some people here put my experimental setups to shame. So why not balance it out with theory and professional experiments.
Lumen can you modify your setup to try and perform the experiment I pointed out?
I was looking for a way around the LL problem with the plan of testing an new design without brushes.
Maybe use a gas like argon for the perimeter contacts and a coil of only a few turns of heavy copper or a spiral in the disks center to create a secondary flux in the RF spectrum.
A single high voltage arc at the disks edges to charge one disk and light the argon into a conducting plasma. The instantaneous short would produce a huge flux in the coil before the voltage became to low to support the plasma arc which would then collapse.
Then the collapsing RF field would again induce a large voltage between the plates and again start the plasma arc. The process would continue to oscillate and output a large RF signal that could induce its output into an external coil at a good usable voltage.
Now I'm looking back at the original concept of this thread and am thinking of the AC homopolar generator which is close to what Broli had at the start.
@Broli
I might have some ferrite beads that have a solid wire already through them. I will see what I can come up with.
I did try a similar test using a small steel tube to try to shield the flux on the wire loop experiment but it seemed to make no difference.
Quote from: lumen on May 16, 2009, 10:49:55 AM
@Broli
I might have some ferrite beads that have a solid wire already through them. I will see what I can come up with.
I did try a similar test using a small steel tube to try to shield the flux on the wire loop experiment but it seemed to make no difference.
Yes you cannot confine the field of a wire with the beads. What you can do is bend the field of the magnets around the wire using the beads. This means that the magnet does not see the moving charge and thus no force is acting on the moving charge but the magnet has a force acting on it due to the moving charge. So this would hopefully violate newton's third law.
If the assumption is true producing a unidirectional force would be child's play. But I have a hunch that magnetic fields do not directly act on moving charge but on their magnetic field. But this again is contradictory to what induction is. Because then stationary charge without any magnetic field is forced to move. Which proves that the magnetic field does act on charge. Nature can be confusing and interesting.
@Broli
I put three ferrite beads on a wire and it still seems to produce the same voltage. I could not run it as fast because the added weight causes the centrifugal force to pull it away at high RPM's but it was producing about 15mv at about half the RPM that I was getting 30mv.
So it still moves electrons but I did not do a current test to see if this increases the load because I would need to make some changes to get a better test setup at this point.
Quote from: lumen on May 16, 2009, 12:31:19 PM
@Broli
I put three ferrite beads on a wire and it still seems to produce the same voltage. I could not run it as fast because the added weight causes the centrifugal force to pull it away at high RPM's but it was producing about 15mv at about half the RPM that I was getting 30mv.
So it still moves electrons but I did not do a current test to see if this increases the load because I would need to make some changes to get a better test setup at this point.
Thanks for the information. This is quite interesting. Because it begs the question whether the same would happen with good old induction. That is having bunch of windings and a changing magnet field. Would putting beads around the windings decrease the induced voltage? Can you somehow test this please?
Edit: Do you also by any means know the relative permeability of your ferrite beads or their ferrite type number?
@Broli
It should be a simple setup to test this concept. It's too bad this wasn't two weeks ago when I was trying a similar test.
I will get out the rotor I have with 4 magnets on it and spin it up, connect a scope to the wires with the ferrite beads, get some readings then simply smash off the ferrite beads and test again on the same setup.
This should show any changes.
Here's a must see video. Most of us have probably seen this video a time or two. I posted this for BWS to see cause he's a newer member (Welcome). There's not a need to discuss this video, since the discussion has already been disscused prior to this, but just in another form. I post this cause it does something to me, it represents what we're trying to do here, and is nature at it's best.
Dolpins playing with bubble rings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q
That video is fantastic! Apparently there are many such examples on youtube.
@Broli,
I'm sorry to post any comment on this for being diversive, but I would simply like to point out 2 things there, first that there must be a torroidal current in the water that is stable and keeping the bubble stable (probably making a magnetic field loop around inside the bubble), and second that a bubble ring on a vertical axis rises normally while a bubble ring on a horizontal axis does not rise at all showing further anomalous action perhaps suspending gravitation.
-BWS
Quote from: lumen on May 16, 2009, 12:31:19 PM
@Broli
I put three ferrite beads on a wire and it still seems to produce the same voltage. I could not run it as fast because the added weight causes the centrifugal force to pull it away at high RPM's but it was producing about 15mv at about half the RPM that I was getting 30mv.
So it still moves electrons but I did not do a current test to see if this increases the load because I would need to make some changes to get a better test setup at this point.
The current is determined by the wires internal resistance. At only 15 or 30mV it is hard to measure correct current, as the resistance in an amp-meter is relatively high to measure it accurately. If the wire is 1m long and area of 1mm
2 the current at 30mV is at max 1.7A when you short the coil.
(The maximum effect on a load is when the load has the same resistance as the wire in the coil/generator. Means it can produce at max 12mW.)
First: The resistance is equal with or without the beads on the coil. If the voltage is the same, the current will be the same. The back EMF will be the same.
Second: Beads does not shield magnetism away from the wire, but they increase the inductance, so it at any given AC frequency will increase the impedance in the coil. At DC-current it does not change anything.
Vidar
Quote from: gravityblock on May 15, 2009, 01:07:39 PM
I see your point. Shielding the external circuit would allow the primary voltage that was created on the disk not to be canceled and Yucca's experiment isn't shielded?
Yes, i would like to add shielding to the experiment. But think about this: even without shielding, the gauss level experienced by the nickel plating on the neo disk is much higher than the gauss level present on the circuit wiring.
Yes, shielding would reduce the gauss level at the wires even further and so should multiply any observed effect. But as my observed effect was zero, I think it would still be zero with shielding.
Quote from: lumen on May 15, 2009, 03:50:43 PM
Well as for the test!
I used a stationary 3" dia. ring magnet and a .125 thick steel disk and by spinning only a single wire as a conductor to the edge of the magnet it is obvious that it does generate current.
I also tested spinning the magnet and tried to obtain a current flow by trying to shield the return line with another magnet. This setup was unable to produce any output!
I made a small video so anyone can see the results of this test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w
Superb test rig! seems very well balanced.
@broli: At the beginning of June, I will attempt to build my homopolar test setup, so we can move forward.
@all: Since it appears this thread is at a stand still, until we have experimental test results, I will make my last attempt with saying the field does rotate with the magnet and I believe should be inline with others who say it is stationary. I've been give an explanation for this.
Since the fields are near uniform and is moving with time, the field is not changing in time relative to the rotation of the magnet.
The effect is that the field is stationary, even though it is rotating with the magnet, since there is no change in the field over time. This suggests that the flux is moving with time and is always in the present, and has no past or future.
If the flux was moving through time instead of moving with time, then there would be a change in the field over time even though the field is uniform, and then it would appear to be moving with the magnet.
Once you realize the field is moving with time and the field is uniform, then there is no longer a mystery.
@Broli and All,
One idea I have had for searching for the possibility of OU in homopolars in general is this experiment, I'm sorry I don't have diagram to explain my idea, but here goes:
Make the simplest homopolar genny, a good sized spinning N52 nickel coated neo disk mag, secured to a high speed motor by a metal shaft.
There should be 1 inch or so of free shaft between motor and neo disk.
Place a metal ballrace on the shaft between the drivemotor and disk.
Construct a static housing out of metal, could possibly use soldered food tins. The housing needs to sit on the bearing and be held still externally, possibly use copper pipe soldered to a hole in the flat face of the tin enclosure. This copper pipe is a push fit on the ballrace outer surface.
So we have a neo disk spinning within a metal enclosure that stays still.
Now we fill the enclosure with a saturated electrolyte solution, whatever is chemically stable and gives highest conductance. The bearing could be the common type with neoprene guard seals, these seals would prevent almost all leakage because the system would not be under pressure and we could arrange the apparatus vertically so the bearing was at the top of the container.
Now when we spin up the disk, a current will flow through the electrolyte between the magnet and the tin suround, which will cause heating of the electrolyte. Of course current will also flow in the mag, the shaft, the bearing and the tin encloseure which will also cause heating.
If we lagged the tin surround with lots of glassfibre mat and foil layers then it would be possible to test for OU using simple calorimetry taking into account the volumes of all the fluids and metals and there thermal coefficients. So after a timed run we could calculate how many Joules the system had gained.
The good thing to this approach is that nearly all energy out could be captured and measured, frictional heating (including electrolyte turbulence), electrical heating, vibrational heating etc.
If the shaft power was known then COP could be calculated fairly accurate. Especially if we took the thermal performance of the system into account by doing some static cooldown runs to measure thermal leakage. Shaft power could be calculated by removing the apparatus from the motor and fitting a simple DIY prony brake which is adjusted so that the drive motor experiences the same power draw and RPM.
Also one could seperate mechanical effects from electrical by machining a metal disk identical to the magnet and spinning that and performing the same calorimetry.
Well that´s an initial idea for a possible experiment that might reveal some interesting info.
note:
A thermal insulating coupler would be needed between the drive motor and the apparatus.
Yucca you'd need a very well equipped lab to build and perform those experiments. And all that to prove the cop is above 1? I'm looking for a solution that actually can benefit from the increased cop rather than just proving it.
Quote from: broli on May 25, 2009, 08:27:02 AM
Yucca you'd need a very well equipped lab to build and perform those experiments. And all that to prove the cop is above 1? I'm looking for a solution that actually can benefit from the increased cop rather than just proving it.
Hi Broli,
No expensive equipment required, just the jerry built rig described, a mercury thermometer, a stopwatch and a fair bit of time and fiddling. The prony brake to determine shaft torque can be made with a split nylon bushing with an adjustable hoseclamp around it with a coathanger wire lever pushing onto a cheap fishing spring balance. All pretty low tech stuff and then we could determine whether total system COP is OU. If it is then we can set about doing the expensive stuff, i.e. designing a system to harvest the energy, ideally electrically with minimal heat losses.
If system COP>1 is proved then it's big news, and everyone will have to agree. But then the Griggs hydrosonic pump (cavitation) is already proven to be thermally COP>1 and it seems to be ignored by mainstream science? But anyway I have not convinced myself yet that COP>1 for homopolar gennies.
To me, it just seems like the logical step to fill in the missing jigsaw peices. I will probably be conducting this experiment, before I set about it I would like to hear any ideas from anyone for experiment improvement.
q)RE the general homopolar case:
Do you believe COP>1 to be already proven, and if so how and why? I may well have missed some documented experiment, if so please tell me, I'm keen to learn more about these strange devices.
Best, Yucca.
@yucca,
I do believe the homopolar generator (preferably in a unipolar configuration) can be overunity and produce excess electricity, in fact I have patented what I believe to be the only practical way to do so. In 1985 I attended a "Free Energy Conference" in Hanover, W. Germany hosted by Dr. Hans Neiper. There were dozens of devices there claiming over unity. Most were frictional heaters represented that claimed o.u.. Remember that refrigeration systems and heat pumps were considered o.u. until the math was changed to account for them. Similarly I believe (and can completely document) that induction is a reactionless event between 2 charged particles under specific geometries and is expressed in nature in systems of circulating charged particles (which generate a magnetic field, which further amplifies the system thus attracting and accelerating more charged particles reactionlessly from the surrounding medium).
You should read earlier pages in this blog for more of my references.
-BWS
You guys really have me confused. Not that I wasn't confused to begin with.
When the magnet is rotating with a stationary external circuit going from the axis to the rim of the disk on it's "North Pole Side", then a voltage and current is detected. The external circuit is causing the back torque in this setup? What determines the direction of the current, from the axis to rim or from the rim to the axis? Is it the direction of rotation of the magnet relative to the field? We'll say for simplicity sake that the current will move from the axis to rim with a clockwise rotation of the magnet.
Now, connect another stationary external circuit on the other side of the magnet, "South Pole Side". Will the current move in the same direction on both sides of the magnet? I say the current on the "South Pole Side" will move from the rim to the axis with the same clockwise rotation which would be opposite to the "North Pole Side".
What will happen if we connect the two external circuits where the brush on the rim connects to both the "North Pole Side" and the "South Pole Side" axises? Will this cancel the field? I believe this may eliminate the back torque of the external wire because the back torque on one side would then enforce the torque on the other side, which would cancel the back torque while taking current off the disk.
Please help me, I am so lost now. :o
Quote from: BWS on May 25, 2009, 12:27:49 PM
@yucca,
I do believe the homopolar generator (preferably in a unipolar configuration) can be overunity and produce excess electricity, in fact I have patented what I believe to be the only practical way to do so. In 1985 I attended a "Free Energy Conference" in Hanover, W. Germany hosted by Dr. Hans Neiper. There were dozens of devices there claiming over unity. Most were frictional heaters represented that claimed o.u.. Remember that refrigeration systems and heat pumps were considered o.u. until the math was changed to account for them. Similarly I believe (and can completely document) that induction is a reactionless event between 2 charged particles under specific geometries and is expressed in nature in systems of circulating charged particles (which generate a magnetic field, which further amplifies the system thus attracting and accelerating more charged particles reactionlessly from the surrounding medium).
You should read earlier pages in this blog for more of my references.
-BWS
Hi BWS,
I'm not doubting OU in these devices and I'm not doubting your word, but there's a big difference between "believing" and "knowing". I would like to know, and calorimetry is the only way I can think to test at the moment. And it would yield real numbers for further work to use.
Also I totally agree with you that heat pumps are OU, I wasn't aware the books have been rewritten to accomodate them, I thought they were a dirty secret always pushed to the back of the closet by mainstream. If you could give me a hint to the rewrite I'd appreciate it, I don't need a link, just some words to google.
Heat pumps distill and then harvest the naturally occuring backround energies. I think if they were electrically based then they would cause alot more excitement than they do.
Cheers, Yucca.
edit: I will now read all of your posts on this forum.
@gravityblock
The current/voltage polarity reverses if the facing field reverses (north/south) and it also reverses if the direction of facing rotation reverses. So if you look at the other side of a spinning unipolar generator, both the direction of rotation reverses and the polarity of field reverses so the voltage/current polarity from the axis to the rim remains the same.
As for the external circuit, it has no effect on the voltage or the back emf. This may seem contrary to textbook theory or logic, but remember the field does not rotate in space (like the image from an optical lens) so there is no coupling between the external wires/circuit and the field except for perhaps some movement of the lead wires when current flows through them due to the presence of the large primary field. That movement will not noticeably affect the rotating generator.
There are 3 factors that dictate back emf; brush design, current load and current saturation. LL losses can not be avoided unless (first) a brush collects current evenly around the perimeter. Second, the higher the load the more evenly the current is distributed; leading to current saturation of the disc and ultimately to possible reduction/elimination of LL losses. Current levels may have to reach 10's of thousands of amperes in a solid rotor before LL losses are reduced. My solution is to radially segment the disc then put the segments in series through coupling to another segmented disc. This forces a relatively uniform current distribution and amplifies the output voltage by many factors. The amplified output voltage is then much more practical and the needed current load for current saturation is reduced by many factors.
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 25, 2009, 05:37:50 PM
@gravityblock
The current/voltage polarity reverses if the facing field reverses (north/south) and it also reverses if the direction of facing rotation reverses. So if you look at the other side of a spinning unipolar generator, both the direction of rotation reverses and the polarity of field reverses so the voltage/current polarity from the axis to the rim remains the same.
As for the external circuit, it has no effect on the voltage or the back emf. This may seem contrary to textbook theory or logic, but remember the field does not rotate in space (like the image from an optical lens) so there is no coupling between the external wires/circuit and the field except for perhaps some movement of the lead wires when current flows through them due to the presence of the large primary field. That movement will not noticeably affect the rotating generator.
There are 3 factors that dictate back emf; brush design, current load and current saturation. LL losses can not be avoided unless (first) a brush collects current evenly around the perimeter. Second, the higher the load the more evenly the current is distributed; leading to current saturation of the disc and ultimately to possible reduction/elimination of LL losses. Current levels may have to reach 10\\\\\\\'s of thousands of amperes in a solid rotor before LL losses are reduced. My solution is to radially segment the disc then put the segments in series through coupling to another segmented disc. This forces a relatively uniform current distribution and amplifies the output voltage by many factors. The amplified output voltage is then much more practical and the needed current load for current saturation is reduced by many factors.
-BWS
After more thought, you are right about the direction or polarity of the current being the same on both sides of the magnet, but I have a solution to this.
Take two magnets and put there South Poles together to form a larger magnet that would then have the North Poles on the outside. With this setup the current will have a different polarity on each side of the magnet. You could even put your segmented disks on each side that would rotate with the magnet. Instead of using tape to hold the magnets together, you could use a thin carbon sheet between the magnets (I read somewhere how to do this without tape and if my memory serves me correctly it was a carbon sheet).
This would be a much simpler way than having 2 counter rotating disks on separate shafts. Also the disks would already be coupled together to have the same effect you are referring to without all the trouble you are going through in order to accomplish this.
I understand your reasoning for having brushes that are 360 degrees around the disc. I am not concerned with this part at the moment, although I realize the importance of this.
Cheers,
GB
Edit: You may not even need the segmented disks or the tapered rollers in this setup due to the fact that it would already be coupled together.
[quote author=gravityblock
Take two magnets and put there South Poles together to form a larger magnet that would then have the North Poles on the outside. With this setup the current will have a different polarity on each side of the magnet.
GB
[/quote]
@gravityblock,
Well, there are 2 serious problems with your idea:
First, 2 opposing magnets (especially neo 52's) will have a terrific opposing force. You'd have to use something more like hardened bolts (not tape) to hold them together. The neo 33's I use (4.5" dia) would have a repulsive force of about 800 lbs.
Second, when you oppose 2 magnetic fields you effectively cancel the net field, so if you put an inductive disk between the 2 opposing fields, it would have no induction in it during rotation due to there being no net field. I learned all about this aspect of field cancellation and all about the inability to shield against the field in the rotating frame of unipolar generators (using mu metal) in my 1995 US patent which is also available at www.magvortechs.tk. That machine was constructed at 18" diameter and had 4000 1/2" dia neo 32's with 2000 in one direction and 2000 in the other; it failed miserably.
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 26, 2009, 07:24:22 AM
@gravityblock,
Well, there are 2 serious problems with your idea:
First, 2 opposing magnets (especially neo 52's) will have a terrific opposing force. You'd have to use something more like hardened bolts (not tape) to hold them together. The neo 33's I use (4.5" dia) would have a repulsive force of about 800 lbs.
Second, when you oppose 2 magnetic fields you effectively cancel the net field, so if you put an inductive disk between the 2 opposing fields, it would have no induction in it during rotation due to there being no net field. I learned all about this aspect of field cancellation and all about the inability to shield against the field in the rotating frame of unipolar generators (using mu metal) in my 1995 US patent which is also available at www.magvortechs.tk. That machine was constructed at 18" diameter and had 4000 1/2" dia neo 32's with 2000 in one direction and 2000 in the other; it failed miserably.
-BWS
This is funny. Of course you can't use tape to hold your magnets together (maybe my magnets, but not yours). That is why I suggested the carbon sheet. Also, there is a trick on how to bring those two opposing magnets together with very little effort. Maybe take a look at Butch LaFonte's threads to see how to do this.
I don't think you are correct about the carbon sheet canceling the fields. I have already done this without the fields being canceled or weakened with mu metal. Oh, and don't forget about a Halbach Array being able to accomplish this also.
The carbon sheet is used to hold the two magnets together without tape and would not be used as a conducting disk that would otherwise be on the faces of the magnets.
If your magnets have a conductive coating, then you wouldn't need the disks. If your magnets have a conductive coating and you need the disk to be segmented, then you could place a segmented disk on each side of the magnet that would rotate with the magnet.
You are not understanding me at all! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr
@gravityblock,
I apologize if I upset you, I had no such intentions.
My only intention here is to help to realize a successful machine which circumvents all or some of LL losses, and unfortunately my experience only seems to aggravate you.
Here's the thing; there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole. You can try all you want but the magnetic field needs a return path just like a circuit. In my 1995 patent I use a steel plate to attract the 2 opposing fields (did you notice that?) It really doesn't matter how you get the 2 opposing magnets together, you will reduce the field strength on the outer surfaces considerably, thus reducing voltage, and there is a bigger problem when you try to electrically connect the 2 circumferences of the discs; (this is harder to explain, so take your frustrations out on me if you need to) when you put the fields together you produce a very strong radial magnetic field. This radial magnetic field must then be crossed by your electrical connection around the perimeters of the 2 discs. This now makes a drum shaped unipolar generator that will generate a counter productive voltage. This can not be avoided or shielded. I have this device and can show the productive voltage and the counter productive voltage on such a machine in the attached photo. That machine has 2 opposing fields held together by a steel plate in the middle. The inductive disks on either side are connected around the perimeter with pins that were shielded from the strong radial magnetic field (unavoidably produced by the opposing fields) by mu metal rated at 20 times the field there. The shields completely failed to negate any of the counter productive voltage there.
But don't take my word for it, spend your own $100,000.00 and find out for yourself.
-BWS
@BWS:
Option 1:
Two Halbach Array Cylinders would accomplish this without the radial field. In fact the outside poles would be strengthened. The field of the other pole would be on the inside. No monopole, but will have the desired results without the radial field. For more info on the Halbach, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array)
Option 2:
If you only used enough carbon sheet(s) in order to dull the opposing fields, then you could glue or tape them together. There is no need in using more than what is needed.
Also just for your information. Your mu metal will fail as a shield unless both poles were going through it. Then the mu metal would guide the fields away. If you try to only shield one pole with mu metal, then that field will still go through the metal. The field will be weaker, but it will cover a larger area. There is no need in me spending $100,000 to know this. I already know this from experience without that cost. In fact, I have 2 short videos on youtube that demonstrates how the mu metal will work as a shield and how it won't.
Video 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_81SxByRNR8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_81SxByRNR8)
Video 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJFgMB5ezsE&NR=1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJFgMB5ezsE&NR=1)
Option 3:
Secret!
I would suggest to build your prototypes on a smaller scale to lower your costs until you know the outcome. Only a suggestion.
@gravityblock,
Thanks for the links. They are interesting.
I would note that the Halbach array has a north pole on one end and a south pole on the other. Perhaps I'm visualizing its' rotation wrong, but if rotated along the central axis of the blocks, it does not have the same pole at opposite ends and since the field in the center is convoluted, it will produce a pulsing field to the fixed observer when rotated which will greatly diminish radial induction as a unipolar generator. My speculation is that even if a Halbach array is made with the same pole at each end, it would fail as a homopolar/unipolar generator due to the pulsing/convolution of field in the middle; my experience is that the unipolar generator requires uniformity of field throughout. However, it would be an interesting experiment to construct such a machine and test it for induction. You would still need to saturate the ends with current in order to diminish LL losses.
If I understand your videos correctly, you have 2 magnets attached to a piece of mu metal, then you reverse one of the magnets producing a change in the attraction of the screwdriver tip. I speculate that when you have the same poles attracted to the mu metal you will get attraction to the screwdriver and when you have opposite poles attracted to the mu metal you do not have attraction to the screwdriver. If I'm correct, then the attraction to the screwdriver is just the result of excessive field of a single polarity having to bleed off to the screwdriver, and when the poles are opposite, there is a balance of field traveling through but not escaping the mu metal. Magnetic fields must have a return path or they diminish to zero.
-BWS
Quote from: BWS on May 26, 2009, 09:17:36 AM
@gravityblock,
I apologize if I upset you, I had no such intentions.
My only intention here is to help to realize a successful machine which circumvents all or some of LL losses, and unfortunately my experience only seems to aggravate you.
Here's the thing; there is no such thing as a magnetic monopole. You can try all you want but the magnetic field needs a return path just like a circuit. In my 1995 patent I use a steel plate to attract the 2 opposing fields (did you notice that?) It really doesn't matter how you get the 2 opposing magnets together, you will reduce the field strength on the outer surfaces considerably, thus reducing voltage, and there is a bigger problem when you try to electrically connect the 2 circumferences of the discs; (this is harder to explain, so take your frustrations out on me if you need to) when you put the fields together you produce a very strong radial magnetic field. This radial magnetic field must then be crossed by your electrical connection around the perimeters of the 2 discs. This now makes a drum shaped unipolar generator that will generate a counter productive voltage. This can not be avoided or shielded. I have this device and can show the productive voltage and the counter productive voltage on such a machine in the attached photo. That machine has 2 opposing fields held together by a steel plate in the middle. The inductive disks on either side are connected around the perimeter with pins that were shielded from the strong radial magnetic field (unavoidably produced by the opposing fields) by mu metal rated at 20 times the field there. The shields completely failed to negate any of the counter productive voltage there.
But don't take my word for it, spend your own $100,000.00 and find out for yourself.
-BWS
No such thing as magnetic monopole? You should read more about gravity then.
Quote from: BWS on May 26, 2009, 01:41:11 PM
@gravityblock,
Thanks for the links. They are interesting.
I would note that the Halbach array has a north pole on one end and a south pole on the other. Perhaps I'm visualizing its' rotation wrong, but if rotated along the central axis of the blocks, it does not have the same pole at opposite ends and since the field in the center is convoluted, it will produce a pulsing field to the fixed observer when rotated which will greatly diminish radial induction as a unipolar generator. My speculation is that even if a Halbach array is made with the same pole at each end, it would fail as a homopolar/unipolar generator due to the pulsing/convolution of field in the middle; my experience is that the unipolar generator requires uniformity of field throughout. However, it would be an interesting experiment to construct such a machine and test it for induction. You would still need to saturate the ends with current in order to diminish LL losses.
If I understand your videos correctly, you have 2 magnets attached to a piece of mu metal, then you reverse one of the magnets producing a change in the attraction of the screwdriver tip. I speculate that when you have the same poles attracted to the mu metal you will get attraction to the screwdriver and when you have opposite poles attracted to the mu metal you do not have attraction to the screwdriver. If I'm correct, then the attraction to the screwdriver is just the result of excessive field of a single polarity having to bleed off to the screwdriver, and when the poles are opposite, there is a balance of field traveling through but not escaping the mu metal. Magnetic fields must have a return path or they diminish to zero.
-BWS
This is why I said to build two Halbach Arrays. The Arrays would be glued together back to back. Then you could have a very strong uniform field with like poles on each side without the radial field. There are many ways to build your Array depending on where you want the field and where you don't want the field.
The screwdriver will still be attracted to the mu metal with just a single magnet attached to it. In fact with a single magnet with the mu metal thickness doubled it still attracts to it. It has nothing to do with an excessive field. Opposite poles on the same side allow the field to return to the magnet along one side of the mu metal allowing the field not to exist on the other side of the metal, which is essentially guiding the field along a desired return path. You can do this wrong or you can do this right. This is the reason why your mu metal failed to confine the field in your patent.
I am at least thankful you take the time to actually read and study what I have written or suggested.
Quote from: minde4000 on May 26, 2009, 01:52:22 PM
No such thing as magnetic monopole? You should read more about gravity then.
Gravity could still have the same effect without having to be a monopole.
All atoms emit electromagnetic waves that propagates through space in a corkscrew (normal electromagnetic waves which we can detect) and helical motion (gravity waves which we can not detect). These gravity waves cause other atoms to have the same spin, which causes a sucking motion or attraction towards each other.
If you compare the properties of electromagnetic waves to gravity, you will see a link between the two.
No need in discussing gravity here, since it's off topic. I am telling myself this more than anyone else.
@gravityblock,
Yeah, the funny thing was that I had rather thick walled cylinders made of the mu metal and I had a B field probe that would just fit in the center of the cylinder. When I put a neo mag on the outside of the cylinder it registered nearly no field in the center (remember this was about 15 years ago so I'd have to really dig to get more specifics) but when I put the conductive pins through the cylinders (with insulation) in the presence of a weaker field on the rotating unipolar generator, the shield failed completely to reduce induction there at all. I was able to put voltage test leads very close to the ends of the shields as the generator rotated, so I could easily show the production of positive voltage and negative voltage on that machine with opposing fields. I have 3 short videos of that big machine apart and spinning at about 1000 rpm from way back in '93 and '94 but they are in quicktime format (not allowed here). If you want to see them and know how I can convert them or post them, let me know. They don't have discussion of the mu metal.
P.S. I tend to agree with you on gravity, but I believe it to be more of an electric field field phenomena and less of a magnetic one.
-BWS
All the testing I have done with the homopolar generator tells me it can never be an OU device.
This is the main problem:
If you rotate a magnet on it's axis and no lines of force are cut, the field will rotate with the magnet because it is the easiest path to do no work.
If you try to use the rotating field to do work with a stationary coil, the field will stop rotating and become stationary, because this is the easiest path to do no work.
It is no problem to stop the field rotation because all the lines of force are of the same density and will just shift along the face of the magnet doing no work.
The rotating disk and stationary conductor can produce power only because this condition causes no choice for any easy path and either the disk or external conductor MUST cut lines of force.
If you shield the external in some way to become effective at not cutting lines of force then this would only cause the field to rotate and produce less or no output because this is the easiest path.
Every electron moved will cause a back emf regardless of whether it was moved in the disk or the external circuit. This is because if it didn't cause a back emf, then it didn't move.
This meets all the possible conditions in the homopolar generator and leaves no possible OU output.
IMO.
@lumen,
I apologize to others for repeating this info, but I think it worthy. First, induction neither adds nor subtracts energy from any induced particle; i.e. there is no work performed on the particle, only a change in direction of motion. The best example of this is the cyclotron where particles are induced to circulate in a magnetic field. Induction is happening and there is no change in field strength. Field lines are cut when a magnet rotates on it's axis of magnetization causing a voltage in the one piece generator; this is because the field does not rotate with the magnet. This is the paradox of the unipolar generator; then the big question is "Is there back emf?" if you answer yes, then you violate Newton's action=reaction rule because there is no stator and if you answer no, then you violate the conservation of energy rule. In either case this is a big monkey wrench in textbook physics. The unipolar generator has been well documented by the American Journal of Physics since 1978.
-BWS
Quote from: lumen on May 26, 2009, 07:34:35 PM
Every electron moved will cause a back emf regardless of whether it was moved in the disk or the external circuit. This is because if it didn't cause a back emf, then it didn't move.
This meets all the possible conditions in the homopolar generator and leaves no possible OU output.
IMO.
This is the mistake that everyone is making.
Do not confuse the electro motive force (EMF) with voltage. The EMF is the work done in order to separate the charges. The voltage is what moves those separated charges. The voltage is equal to the EMF but is opposite in sign or direction, thus in opposition.
The more current you draw means more voltage potential that is being utilized, thus causing the EMF to have a lower ability to separate those charges which drops your potential voltage that is available to you.
Once you couple the voltage to the EMF to have the same polarity or direction, then you no longer have a voltage potential that is in opposition to the EMF in a closed loop. This is how to achieve electrical OU.
QuoteField lines are cut when a magnet rotates on it's axis of magnetization causing a voltage in the one piece generator; this is because the field does not rotate with the magnet.
Your basis is on the fact that the field lines do not rotate. This is not always the case. You are talking constant density field lines around an axis, if you try to use these they will simply push the adjacent line and cause it to shift until it completes the full circle and no work would be done.
If what you are thinking is true, then the homopolar motor would not cause any push aginst the magnet because the lines of force are stationary in space. But we know this is not the case.
If you push the force lines only, they simply rotate around the axis even if the magnet is not turning!
The homopolar's power output goes up by the 4th power of increases in the rotor radius while its input power requirement goes up by the square thereof. This is mathematical proof of Mechanical OU.
We only need to convert this Mechanical OU to Electrical OU by coupling the EMF to the voltage to have the same direction. Another way to say this is to couple the BEMF to the EMF. Same thing, just using different terminology or looking at it from a different perspective.
QuoteThe homopolar's power output goes up by the 4th power of increases in the rotor radius while its input power requirement goes up by the square thereof. This is mathematical proof of Mechanical OU.
If this was true, then why worry about the minor details like back EMF? Just build it big enough and be done!
Quote from: lumen on May 26, 2009, 10:12:34 PM
If this was true, then why worry about the minor details like back EMF? Just build it big enough and be done!
The short answer is the BEMF or the voltage potential that is being utilized due to the more current you draw, lowers the EMF's ability to separate the charges. This will kill the Mechanical OU properties of the device and you will never achieve Electrical OU, unless you deal with this problem.
I previously posted this while you were posting also, so you may not have read my previous post. I will repeat it again.
Do not confuse the electro motive force (EMF) with voltage. The EMF is the work done in order to separate the charges. The voltage is what moves those separated charges. The voltage is equal to the EMF but is opposite in sign or direction, thus in opposition.
The more current you draw means more voltage potential that is being utilized, thus causing the EMF to have a lower ability to separate those charges which drops your potential voltage that is available to you.
Once you couple the voltage to the EMF to have the same polarity or direction, then you no longer have a voltage potential that is in opposition to the EMF in a closed loop. This is how to achieve electrical OU.
Quote from: lumen on May 26, 2009, 09:02:42 PM
then the homopolar motor would not cause any push aginst the magnet because the lines of force are stationary in space. But we know this is not the case.
@lumen,
Can you show me an example of such a homopolar motor?
I have solid references that could be easily constructed and tested for a reactionless one piece or 2 piece unipolar/homopolar motor. Put a magnet on a free spinning axis (unipolar style) but freely rotating. Then make a ring of conductor the same diameter as the magnet and attach it to the magnet's rim keeping it electrically insulated from the magnet. Then add 3 radial wires soldered to the ring conductor and going directly to a central conducting knob at the center while keeping the wires and center knob insulated from but attached to the magnet. Space the wires at 120 degree intervals. Now take leads from a strong battery (maybe 4 "D" cells in various arrangements) and touch one lead to the center and the other lead to the circumference. You may be shocked but you will see the entire assembly motor without any stator. This has historically been called the "ball bearing motor"; it is a reactionless unipolar motor. It will work because the field is fixed in space and can not rotate, the current in the radial wires is motoring reactionlessly through the field. This will not work well with a solid conducting disc.
-BWS
QuoteYou may be shocked but you will see the entire assembly motor without any stator.
The rotor turns not because the field lines are fixed in space, it turns because the stator is the wire you are touching on the rim. This produces the field to keep the field from the magnet from simply sliding on the magnets face.
That is why it turns and the magnet does not.
I believe I may have found a way to prove the field is not held stationary in space and is able to freely rotate around the axis, with or without the magnet rotating.
Quote from: BWS on May 25, 2009, 12:27:49 PM
@yucca,
I do believe the homopolar generator (preferably in a unipolar configuration) can be overunity and produce excess electricity, in fact I have patented what I believe to be the only practical way to do so.
Yes, No. 5,451,825 I think. A most interesting design but I
cannot figure it out. Maybe you would give us a few words
about it.
Paul-R,
Yep, that's my 1995 patent. The idea (way back then) was to circulate the current through a series of discs in 2 opposing magnetic fields. I constructed a limited portion of the machine which had 2 opposing fields, and only 2 conductive discs buried in them. In the construct, there was a conductive disc sandwiched between magnetic sheets on each side of a steel disc. The 2 opposing fields are then attracted to a steel disc in the middle and one disc has an outward radial current then the current goes through pins around the circumference to the other disc where it has an inward radial current. The desired advantage was to eliminate the circumferential brush, but there were 2 big problems that arose. First, my field strength was much lower than anticipated due to the flatness of the source magnet sheets. Second and more importantly, I found that the 2 axial fields become one radial field coming out the circumference of the central steel disc. This field produces a counterproductive voltage across the connective pins that eliminated 80% of the voltage of the entire machine. So then I reassembled the machine with mu metal field shielding that were rated at 2 times the radial field. The shields worked excellent outside the machine but when inserted in the machine they completely failed. So then I inserted shields rated at 20 times the radial field and they completely failed too. Thats about when I gave up on that design. The major things I learned from that design were
1. How to construct effective and strong conglomerate fields.
2. That the unipolar generator exists in both a disk design (axial B field) and a drum design (radial B field).
3. That it is impossible to shield against the field in any way in that rotating frame which leads to parallels/explanations of the origins of the gravitational field.
4. That a circumferential brush system is mandatory for success.
5. That magnetic fields must have a good return path or they diminish to zero.
6. That it is best to have a single field for unipolar success, and that current flow is directed to the central ring of that toriodal magnetic field during rotation.
7. That you only get somewhere in life when you have good money to spend, and when that money dries up, you'll be on your own.
I posted a photo of that tested prototype earlier in this blog, and I have 3 videos of it from '93 but they are in quicktime format and cannot be uploaded here.
-BWS
This is what I propose at this time using no brushes.
1) Two Halbach Arrays glued together with the same field facing outwards on both sides.
2) A flat or pancake coil on each side rotating with the Halbach Arrays that would be electrically connected. One end of the pancake will be connected to the axis and the other end to the rim on both sides of the Array. The two wires on the rim would be connected together, while the two wires on the axis would lead to separate swivel bearings ( the wire on the right axis would go to one swivel bearing while the wire on the left axis would connect to another separate swivel bearing with a load connected to both swivels to form a closed circuit).
A current will flow from the right side axis through the pancake coil to the rim (This current may oppose the magnetic field on the right side). From the rim it will flow to the axis on the left side (This same current may strengthen the magnetic field on the left side, thus canceling the opposition to the magnetic field on the right side). From the axis, the current will flow through the swivel bearing which is connected to a load. From the load, the current returns to the other swivel bearing which is connected to the axis on the right side to form a closed circuit.
The flat or pancake coils should provide a uniform saturated current just like the segmented wires. We don\'t need to worry about connecting the segmented wires in series either.
It probably won\'t work because it is \"too good to be true\". I have eliminated everything that could be a hindrance and may have eliminated it\'s abilities to even rotate. This is engineering at it\'s best (or not....LOL).
Please don\'t laugh if this concept is totally wrong. I am trying my best here. ;D
I will upload a short video on what I am referring to as a \"swivel bearing\" if your not sure what I mean.
Gravityblock,
I think your idea is sincere and interesting.
My belief is that it will succeed or fail based on what happens around the circumference. The flat coils (you mean spiral right?) will produce radial magnetic fields when current flows. I think you should give some thought to this radial secondary field; consider that the direction of wrap and rotation of each spiral will determine which direction this radial field will go, and it would probably be best if the construction is arranged so that those fields tend to cancel each other under load. Since the voltage is a product of the radius, a spiral there will not raise the voltage over a solid disk, but it will change the shape of the secondary field.
Also, remember the primary field has to have a return path. With the Halbach array it will cause a highly non-uniform field around the circumference. I see that you could bias this field to the point where half the circumference will have a rather strong field and half the circumference will have almost no field protruding, but you can't avoid having field there somewhere. When rotated, the assembly will act like a magnetic pulsar around the circumference. I can not predict the results of that, but it may not generate a voltage on the ends; I just don't know. You might want to try the Halback array with solid discs before adding the spirals.
-BWS
@GravityBlock,
Nice idea, if that design works then brush problems are no more.
Has anyone succeeded in getting a disk to show +ve on the circumference and -ve on the axle? As far as I've seen the electrons always migrate outward in all field and rotor configs and so the circumference is always -ve.
Yucca,
My test rigs have always shown a change in voltage polarity with either a change in rotation direction or a change in field orientation. Change them both and the voltage polarity remains the same.
The electron has basically no mass, so it easily goes either way. Since it has (nearly) no mass it is then (nearly) impossible for it to do work or to do work on it (by textbook definition).
BWS,
Is it possible to stack several plates and then connect the plates in series to get a higher voltage out of the system?
(Plates insulated from each other.)
[EDIT] Added drawing.
Regards,
Groundloop.
@BWS:
I am not sure we need to have the same poles both facing outwards. Either a N/S or a N/N will work, but I am not sure which one.
If the disk has a CW spin when you face one side, then the other side will have a CCW spin when you face that side with the same direction of rotation. We can easily see that the direction of rotation has changed relative to each side of the disk.
Since the direction has changed, then we should also change the pole on the other side to be opposite in order to have the same polarity, which would be a N/S configuration. This may be the reason why your 1995 design had the cross voltage associated with it and no amount of shielding would have an effect, because each side of the disk had a different polarity. I think a N/S configuration is the right way to have the same polarity across both sides of the disk.
It does not matter either way, but a N/S configuration would be preferable since we would not need to build two Halbach Arrays with N/N facing outwards.
If the pancake coil screws things up, then I guess we could use another method or wire segments on both sides of the disk that you mentioned and connect them in series and we should still be able to use the brushless idea with the swivel bearings and conductive grease (we will come at this thing from all directions, leaving no stone unturned....LOL).
Now combine this with stacking several disks in series as Groundloop has suggested to get a higher voltage (assuming we are not using wire segments), and we will have a brushless homopolar motor with high current and higher voltage to reckon with, that would hopefully be OU.
@Yucca:
If you take a look at lumens video earlier in this thread, you can see how a change in the direction of rotation will change the polarity.
Simplifying things a bit more, assuming the N/S configuration is correct.
Have 1 single magnet with a conductive coating on the outside. Then have the swivel bearings with conductive grease connected to the axis with a load between both swivel bearings. We may need an insulator or nonconducting material in the middle of the axis to keep the north and south pole sides of the axis from interfering with each other electrically in order for there to be a potential along the axis and the rim (I am not sure if this would be needed or not). If this does work, then we can stack the magnets along the axis in a configuration to allow us to connect them in series to boost the voltage.
Another thing to consider in regards to the voltage, is the electrons will travel the radius of both the left and right side of the magnet. I believe the voltage is calculated by the angular velocity, field strength, and the radius of the disk. Since the electrons are traveling through the magnetic field at twice the radius of the disk, this should double to quadruple the voltage (I am not sure of the exact formula to calculate this and is probably unimportant at this stage, but we should keep it in mind until the time is right).
It may just be this simple.
Reason for it not working: Since we are utilizing both sides or both poles of the magnet, then the fields on one or both sides may decide not remain stationary and decide to rotate with the magnet, thus negating the forces, then we would need to take a different approach.
It appears that when one side of the magnet is being utilized, the field on that side remains stationary. We do not know what is happening with the field on the other pole. Is the other side stationary also or is it moving with the magnet.
It should be easy to test for these unknowns.
Magnet not rotating = both fields are stationary
Magnet rotating with 1 field being used = the utilized field is stationary and the non utilized field is ?
Magnet rotating with both fields being used = the utilized field is ? and the other utilized field is ?
Since the electrons on the north pole side has a certain spin and the electrons on the south pole side has the opposite spins, what would this do to the spins of the electrons if both fields are forced to remain stationary when both are utilized. Could this send off anti-gravity waves? OK, I'm getting off-topic again. LOL
Groundloop: Interesting design. But I would not wish to put too much
current through conductive grease. These machines can pump out
massive amps at low voltage. There might be a wiper and mercury
solution.
Paul-R.
Paul-R,
You missed the point. I did not want to use massive currents but high voltage. My question was if it was possible to series several (read many) plates to get a high voltage out of the generator, thus eliminating the brush losses.
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 29, 2009, 09:58:11 AM
Paul-R,
You missed the point. I did not want to use massive currents but high voltage. My question was if it was possible to series several (read many) plates to get a high voltage out of the generator, thus eliminating the brush losses.
Groundloop.
Thanks for that. But my shilling still goes on your getting quite a lot
of sizzling going on. Worse than a BBQ with cheap pork sausages.
Paul-R
Paul-R,
Your BBQ analogy is describing the problem well. :-)
But, is there anybody out here that can answer my simple question; Is it possible to put many plates in series (on the same rotation axis) and by this method getting a high voltage out of the generator?
Regards,
Groundloop.
Hi Low-Q
I think Broli had in mind,just for a simple test,to wire an led. into the coil and spin the lot to see what happens.Hope he do'snt mind me answering.
peter
@groundloop,
sorry for my delayed reply, I was sidetracked this morning.
Yes, you can put several disks in series, but there are conditions... First, the fields most be arranged to keep them strong (aligning N/S/N/S is preferred). Second, each conductive disk must have it's own brush set (a central brush and a circumferential brush) a possible exception to this is the design Bruce DePalma used where he had 2 discs mounted on one shaft; each disk had magnets on either side, these assemblies had opposite magnetic polarities (N/S, S/N with a good bit of space between them) the discs were connected electrically through the shaft so then to get the current off the circumferences he poured mercury into a circumferential gap that allowed power out from the 2 mercury brushes. Bruce never achieved OU, which leads back to the problem of current saturation. He could not get OU because he could not adequately load the machine with current to realize this. This was the big advantage Adam Trombly had over Bruce Depalma; Adam knew the rotor had to be uniformly filled with current to see OU. He drew 15,000A from a 6" rotor and then saw OU. Bruce's device would have had to push 40K or 50K amps for this, and he could not get there.
-BWS
BWS,
Thanks for taking time to answer me. Making brushes for each disk is too complicated. Having separate discs with a lot of distance is not practical. Back to the thinking box...
Thanks,
Groundloop.
@gravityblock,
The function for voltage in homopolar/unipolar generators is:
V=rpm x B x ([outer brush radius squared] - [inner brush radius squared]) x c
where c is some constant that accounts for the units used.
Note that the voltage is linear with respect to field strength and to rpm, but that it is a function of the square of the radius. This is because as the radius increases, so does the linear velocity through the field; i.e. there is more conductor traveling past a fixed point in space (the field is fixed in space) farther out the radius in any given unit of time. So a larger diameter will best improve voltage in any solid rotor.
-BWS
@All
I now realise either polarity is possible with HPG, and have tested to satisfy myself. I was thinking before (stupidly) that if field polarity affected current polarity then the N side of a mag disc would cancel out the S side. Of course now I realise each side is rotating oppositely, one CW, one CCW when viewing the shaft ends. This has already been written in this thread but I misread/misunderstood when I first read it.
Quote from: BWS on May 29, 2009, 11:53:07 AM
@groundloop,
sorry for my delayed reply, I was sidetracked this morning.
Yes, you can put several disks in series, but there are conditions... First, the fields most be arranged to keep them strong (aligning N/S/N/S is preferred). Second, each conductive disk must have it's own brush set (a central brush and a circumferential brush) a possible exception to this is the design Bruce DePalma used where he had 2 discs mounted on one shaft; each disk had magnets on either side, these assemblies had opposite magnetic polarities (N/S, S/N with a good bit of space between them) the discs were connected electrically through the shaft so then to get the current off the circumferences he poured mercury into a circumferential gap that allowed power out from the 2 mercury brushes. Bruce never achieved OU, which leads back to the problem of current saturation. He could not get OU because he could not adequately load the machine with current to realize this. This was the big advantage Adam Trombly had over Bruce Depalma; Adam knew the rotor had to be uniformly filled with current to see OU. He drew 15,000A from a 6" rotor and then saw OU. Bruce's device would have had to push 40K or 50K amps for this, and he could not get there.
-BWS
So to get easier current saturation in a homebuilt experimetnal device it might be better to use very thin copper foil discs rather than copper sheet discs?
What about replacing the magnet with a coil that has an alternating turn direction? You eliminate some brushes and have a series disk effect. For testing only of course.
Quote from: Yucca on May 29, 2009, 12:27:10 PM
So to get easier current saturation in a homebuilt experimetnal device it might be better to use very thin copper foil discs rather than copper sheet discs?
You might be on to something there, if a good solution to multiple brush sets could be found.
BWS,
Will a single spiraling enameled copper wire disk, sandwiched between two circular plate magnets, with to wire ends work?
(Assuming the wire ends is connected to the axles as shown in my drawing.)
Groundloop.
The brushless system that I described would be taking current off the disk or magnet 360 degrees. This would be equal to having an infinite number of brushes and wire segments around the circumference and axis of the disk or magnet. With a conductive coating of the magnet or a solid disk, you would be drawing an uniform saturated current from every point on the disk or magnet.
You could never achieve these results with a brush system or with wire segments. The brushless system changes everything.
You don't need coils. The north side pole of the magnet is already infinitely coupled electrically to the south pole side of the magnet with the same polarity with a conductive coated magnet. The brushless system forms a closed circuit through both the north and south poles of the magnet utilizing 100% of the surface and field, instead of just a closed loop through one side in the traditional setup utilizing only 50% of the surface and field.
In order to stack the disks, you would only need two swivel bearings on each ends of the axis with a specific number of magnets between the two swivel bearings. In a N/S/N/S/N/S configuration the polarity remains the same throughout the entire circuit and would be equal to one large diameter disk, thus boosting the voltage.
I disagree with you BWS on the voltage calculation, since using both sides of the magnet is essentially equal to doubling the size of the disk.
Quote from: BWS on May 29, 2009, 12:46:25 PM
You might be on to something there, if a good solution to multiple brush sets could be found.
Perhaps if a foil discs circumference was finished with a wide cylindrical flange for large brush area? Or would only a thin path (equal to foil thickness) on the flange be playing a part?
You mention the need for sliding brushes to get the effect, so I presume a belt takeoff would not work? It would be good if it did because then one could belt or chain (conductive) two disks together each disk with opposite mag polarity and then just place an electric load accross the axles.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 29, 2009, 02:10:05 PM
I disagree with you BWS on the voltage calculation, since using both sides of the magnet is essentially equal to doubling the size of the disk.
Doesn't using both sides of the disk just double the available current, like paralleling two batteries together?
@groundloop,
The problem I see with your nice drawing is that both the spiral coil and the straight lead back to the shaft will generate the same voltage, but in opposite directions. I made such a test device, and it will have no net voltage. Your conductive grease bearings can be bought off the shelf as electrical slip rings.
@gravityblock,
Be free to test my conviction that one spinning magnet (or 2 discs on either side of 1 magnet) can not be made to have double voltage without 2 separate circumferential brushes. One spinning magnet makes the same voltage polarity on both sides, thus the current can be additive but not the voltage without discrete discs and brushes in series.
@yucca,
I find both the thin foil disc and the chain/conductive belt ideas to be interesting possibilities. Like you said, if there is a wider flange around the foil, then a "chain", if the current capacity (resistance) of the cross section of the flange and chain are greater than the current capacity of the entire disk, then the disc could be saturated rather easily. A thick flange would then negate the need of brushes all the way around the disc... Very interesting. There may be some negative voltage produced as the chain moves away from the flange (there will be a counterproductive returning magnetic field there), but maybe that could be reduced by idler pulleys that force the chain into a more radial position instead of a tangential one (I need to think about that more).
A dual disc setup could then be made as you said with 2 parallel shafts and reversed magnetic fields for double voltage. Several more such assemblies could be put on the same 2 shafts. This could verify the entire phenomenon, it's only limitation being that it would always have to put out a fixed amount of current (maximum), but it's voltage could be varied with rpm.
Cheers!
-BWS
@BWS:
You can no longer defend your patents. They are no longer valid. There is a better way to do this than the patents you have.
Since the method I described totally bypasses your patent, now your trying to steer things back towards your patents again.
You can fool some of the people most of the time, fool most of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
I have no idea why you guys are discussing belts and brushes still. I'll stop open sourcing my ideas from this point.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 29, 2009, 07:59:39 PM
@BWS:
You can no longer defend your patents. They are no longer valid. There is a better way to do this than the patents you have.
Since the method I described totally bypasses your patent, now your trying to steer things back towards your patents again.
You can fool some of the people most of the time, fool most of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
I have no idea why you guys are discussing belts and brushes still. I'll stop open sourcing my ideas from this point.
gravityblock,
Please don´t stop open sourcing your ideas. Your brushless idea, if it works, would be much better than brushed. Have you done any quick experiments to test it yet?
We had a discussion earlier in this thread to why the homopolar generates low voltage and high current. The answer was because of the low resistance in the system.
With the brushless system that I described, the current is being forced to leave and to return to the magnet or disk through the axel. This will create much more resistance than drawing the current between the axis and rim.
Want a higher voltage, then have your axis to be smaller in diameter. Want a lower voltage, then have your axis to be larger.
If you rotate the picture that I drew describing the brushless system 90 degrees, you will see how it resembles a UFO. My information is coming from a higher source.
BWS has already said in this thread that he wasn't going to release information on his highly complex brush system until he had agreements with an investor or manufacture. He's trying to recover the millions of dollars that he has invested in his research due to all of his failures. We don't need to exchange the big oil industry for another big industry that will only lead to our continued suppresion.
The brushless system changes everything. All of the formulas for figuring voltage and current no longer apply. Non of the textbooks can accurately predict this system. We have new rules in this system that doesn't follow the older system.
All of the information that we need is here. We'll conquor anti-gravity next.
Stop chasing the wind.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 30, 2009, 07:25:01 AM
We had a discussion earlier in this thread to why the homopolar generates low voltage and high current. The answer was because of the low resistance in the system.
With the brushless system that I described, the current is being forced to leave and to return to the magnet or disk through the axel. This will create much more resistance than drawing the current between the axis and rim.
Want a higher voltage, then have your axis to be smaller in diameter. Want a lower voltage, then have your axis to be larger.
If you rotate the picture that I drew describing the brushless system 90 degrees, you will see how it resembles a UFO. My information is coming from a higher source.
BWS has already said in this thread that he wasn't going to release information on his highly complex brush system until he had agreements with an investor or manufacture. He's trying to recover the millions of dollars that he has invested in his research due to all of his failures. We don't need to exchange the big oil industry for another big industry that will only lead to our continued suppresion.
The brushless system changes everything. All of the formulas for figuring voltage and current no longer apply. Non of the textbooks can accurately predict this system. We have new rules in this system that doesn't follow the older system.
All of the information that we need is here. We'll conquor anti-gravity next.
Stop chasing the wind.
I think your ideas are very creative and they have made me think much on the subject. Indeed the brushless system would change everything, but are your convinctions on the matter strong enough to drive you to experimenting? If not then your sales pitch is weakened. My experience tells me that experimental proof of basic principles are needed before proceeding with designing and refining. Anyone who says "this is how it works" without empirical proof is taking a leap of faith, usually because it´s easier than proving it, shaky foundations on which to build.
In summation, I agree with you fully, if we can all pull together then there´s no reason we can´t conquer antigrav and more.
Quote from: Groundloop on May 29, 2009, 10:17:32 AM
Paul-R,
Your BBQ analogy is describing the problem well. :-)
But, is there anybody out here that can answer my simple question; Is it possible to put many plates in series (on the same rotation axis) and by this method getting a high voltage out of the generator?
Regards,
Groundloop.
for your information:
I think Tesla had a desgin based on two homopolar generators whose discs
meshed like gears, and he took the current off the two shafts.
i am sure that there is a simple way to mount multiple systems to get the
volatage up and the current down.
Paul-R
Quote from: Yucca on May 30, 2009, 09:24:42 AM
I think your ideas are very creative and they have made me think much on the subject. Indeed the brushless system would change everything, but are your convinctions on the matter strong enough to drive you to experimenting? If not then your sales pitch is weakened. My experience tells me that experimental proof of basic principles are needed before proceeding with designing and refining. Anyone who says "this is how it works" without empirical proof is taking a leap of faith, usually because it´s easier than proving it, shaky foundations on which to build.
In summation, I agree with you fully, if we can all pull together then there´s no reason we can´t conquer antigrav and more.
I'm not trying to sale anything. I have no sales pitch. I have $0 to experiment with. I am unemployed. My girlfriend has been supporting me, but she left me last night because I was spending too much time on this site. I had plans to build a setup at the beginning of June, but I don't see how I can do this now since she left me with nothing. No money, no gas, no food, no cigerretes (nothing).
I have no convictions. I gave reasons why it wouldn't work. I have solutions to work around those problems if they do indeed crop up.
Now, go chase the wind, which is BWS and all of his failed attempts.
I am seriously thinking about never logging on here again. I can't handle this nonsense.
@gravityblock,
Perhaps you should quit this site, its clear to me it has driven you to bitterness. I have not spent millions, but perhaps $200,000.00 . It takes many failures to achieve success where everyone else has failed. Go study Edison, Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, etcetera. Besides, its clear to me you do not understand the phenomena or science. I'm not about about to give up on my patent, it's design is an eventuality, there is no other way around it.
I'm willing to discuss all other aspects of the science except my brush configuration because I could not otherwise protect myself. The belt takeoff system is interesting for proof of concept, but the voltage yielded through it would still be small. Listen to me or attack me, it won't change the science, and if you want to violate Lens' Law, you should respect my words.
-BWS
Oh, I think its a twisted alternator in an homopolar configuration! where is the neutral zone on the first post picture of the design?
the neutral zone located at the center of the rotor is important for "OU" ; i think :-\
the neutral zones are in multiple places according to the magnetic color diagram provided.
this machine draws power directly from neutral zones pinched?
Quote from: gravityblock on May 30, 2009, 09:52:32 AM
I'm not trying to sale anything. I have no sales pitch. I have $0 to experiment with. I am unemployed. My girlfriend has been supporting me, but she left me last night because I was spending too much time on this site. I had plans to build a setup at the beginning of June, but I don't see how I can do this now since she left me with nothing. No money, no gas, no food, no cigerretes (nothing).
I have no convictions. I gave reasons why it wouldn't work. I have solutions to work around those problems if they do indeed crop up.
Now, go chase the wind, which is BWS and all of his failed attempts.
I am seriously thinking about never logging on here again. I can't handle this nonsense.
When I said "sales pitch" I didn´t mean it literally. You must have heard the term "to sell an idea" it means to convince somebody that the idea has merit.
I´m sorry to hear about your problems, hope things turn out good for you.
Quote from: BWS on May 30, 2009, 12:47:59 PM
@gravityblock,
Perhaps you should quit this site, its clear to me it has driven you to bitterness. I have not spent millions, but perhaps $200,000.00 . It takes many failures to achieve success where everyone else has failed. Go study Edison, Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, etcetera. Besides, its clear to me you do not understand the phenomena or science. I'm not about about to give up on my patent, it's design is an eventuality, there is no other way around it.
I'm willing to discuss all other aspects of the science except my brush configuration because I could not otherwise protect myself. The belt takeoff system is interesting for proof of concept, but the voltage yielded through it would still be small. Listen to me or attack me, it won't change the science, and if you want to violate Lens' Law, you should respect my words.
-BWS
And you understand the science? You had no idea why you had cross voltage in your 1995 prototype. You had cross voltage cause you had different polarities on each side of the disk. If you really understood this science, then you should have realized this. Had no idea on how to properly use shielding.
You are in disagreement with everything I say, not cause the science is wrong, but because it doesn't fit with your patent so you can benefit. You want to saturate the disk with current so you can hook the circumference of the disk in series to boost the voltage. This is total nonsense. You don't need to saturate anything to hook something up in series. You can hook batteries and capacitors up in series to boost the voltage without saturation, but can't do it in this case. What would happen if you hooked things up in parralel? Would you need to saturate the disk for this also? LOL
You actually believe your way is the only way (you have said this a few times, which tells me you do not have an open mind). This is B.S. and very naive for you to even think like this. No wonder you've been working on this for the last 20-30 years.
I wonder why the guys in Fort Wayne, IN dropped the ball on you. They probably walked away laughing at the concept because it's not based on science and is totally ridiculus.
I rather be bitter, than to be greedy or to have financial success. Money is the root of all evil, and this is your motivation. My motivation is for our planet and not to be suppressed by the powers that are and to be. You can easliy prove me wrong by releasing the information on your brush system.
Quote from: BWS on May 30, 2009, 12:47:59 PM
@gravityblock,
Perhaps you should quit this site, its clear to me it has driven you to bitterness. I have not spent millions, but perhaps $200,000.00 . It takes many failures to achieve success where everyone else has failed. Go study Edison, Tesla, Alexander Graham Bell, etcetera. Besides, its clear to me you do not understand the phenomena or science. I'm not about about to give up on my patent, it's design is an eventuality, there is no other way around it.
I'm willing to discuss all other aspects of the science except my brush configuration because I could not otherwise protect myself. The belt takeoff system is interesting for proof of concept, but the voltage yielded through it would still be small. Listen to me or attack me, it won't change the science, and if you want to violate Lens' Law, you should respect my words.
-BWS
And you understand the science? You had no idea why you had cross voltage in your 1995 prototype. You had cross voltage cause you had different polarities on each side of the disk. If you really understood this science, then you should have realized this. Had no idea on how to properly use shielding.
You are in disagreement with everything I say, not cause the science is wrong, but because it doesn't fit with your patent so you can benefit. You want to saturate the disk with current so you can hook the circumference of the disk in series to boost the voltage. This is total nonsense. You don't need to saturate anything to hook something up in series. You can hook batteries and capacitors up in series to boost the voltage without saturation, but can't do it in this case. What would happen if you hooked things up in parralel? Would you need to saturate the disk for this also? LOL
You actually believe your way is the only way (you have said this a few times, which tells me you do not have an open mind). This is B.S. and very naive for you to even think like this. No wonder you've been working on this for the last 20-30 years.
I wonder why the guys in Fort Wayne, IN dropped the ball on you. They probably walked away laughing at the concept because it's not based on science and is totally ridiculus.
I rather be bitter, than to be greedy or to have financial success. Money is the root of all evil, and this is your motivation. My motivation is for our planet and not to be suppressed by the powers that are and to be. You can easliy prove me wrong by releasing the information on your brush system.
For those who may be interested, I have a few ideas on how to boost the voltage in the brushless setup. I'll be posting this in the next couple of days.
I have a dremil drill that can run between 5,000 - 35,000 rpm. A rotozip tool that runs at 30,000 rpm and a router at 25,000 rpm.
I was using the dremil drill as a motor, but there is AC coming off the shaft. I tried to put non conducting material between the shaft and magnets, but it's still picking voltage up that is coming from the dremil. In fact my meter is picking up AC when the probes are near the dremil without any contact with it whatsoever. So, I don't think I can use the dremil for a testing device.
Does anyone know if it is possible or have any ideas on how to use one of those devices without having the the voltage from the motor influence the test results?
Thanks,
GB
Edit: I think the information in this post is fairly accurate, but I don't think it will work. You can read it for information, but my next post is maybe the correct solution.
OK, here's my theory on the voltage. First I will try to sell this idea and please correct me where I am wrong. ;)
In a simple induction motor, you have the ends of the coil facing two magnets in a N/S configuration. The polarity is determined by the direction of rotation according to the left and right hand rules ( I have heard the left hand rule for generators and the right hand rule for motors, but I never hear anyone really talk about the left hand rule.....so I will need clarification on this for those who do know).
What if we do a N/Coil/S configuration in the brushless system where the coil is rotating with the magnets. Every turn of wire in the coil should increase the voltage since more of the wire will be cutting the flux. The north side of the magnet should induce a south pole on the end of the coil that is facing it, and the south side of the magnet should induce a north pole on the end of the coil facing it. The direction of rotation should determine the polarity in the system, and the magnets and coils should be in series with each other, thus having the same polarity in the entire system.
Here's how to determine the length of the coil. Take the magnets you'll be using, and have the north and south sides facing towards each other at a distance where they do not feel an attraction force.
Slowing move one magnet towards the other until you feel an attraction force. The distance between the two magnets will be the length of the coil and allow us to have the maximum number of turns cutting the flux.
The width or diameter of the coil will be determined by the diameter of the magnets. This will also allow us to have more turns of wire cutting through the flux. I realize this over wound coil may not be a good thing in a motor and cause overheating.....but this will be a good starting point. If there is overheating, then we can lower the diameter of the coil.
Now we have a N-magnet/ S-Coil-N/S-magnet that are in series and should boost the voltage without a counter force since the magnetic fields are not changing it time in either the magnets or the coil.
This is the thing to remember. Although the magnetic field is uniform and not changing in time and appears to remain stationary, the coil is moving through a uniform field that is changing in time. I'll elaborate on this a little more. The field between the outer and inner radius is different between each and every point between them, and the electrons will be cutting through this uniform field as it runs through the inner radius and outer radius of the coil, which will cut the lines of flux that is changing in time between the inner and outer radius of the magnet.
Another thing to think about. The electrons in the disk either travel from the axis to the rim or rim to the axis in a straight path because this is the path of least resistance (the path is more than likely slightly parabolic due to the rotation, but this doesn't change things). In the coil, the electrons are not allowed to follow the path of least resistance due to the turns in the wire, which will allow the electrons to encounter more resistance and travel in a circular path from the radius to the rim or vice versa.
The pancake coil and this method can not both produce a radial field. In the pancake coil, the electrons are following a circular path from the center to rim parallel to the disk or magnet. With the coil sandwiched between the two magnets, the electrons will travel from one end of the coil to the other end of the coil that is perpendicular to the magnet's face. The magnets will not have a force to move the electrons through the coil, but the electrons have already been induced with a force that should move them through the coil to allow them to cut through the flux.
One of these methods should be right and they both will cause more resistance due to the number of turns, thus causing the electrons to cut more of the flux.
If I am overlooking and missing something with this, then I have other ideas, which will allow us to slowly rule things out. One of them must be right, I hope.
Thanks,
GB
Actually the North and South Poles don\'t determine the polarity, they determine the direction of force.
We have divided the magnet on it\'s axis in order to have the terminology of north and south.
Let\'s now divide the magnet on it\'s poles and we will call one half positive and the other half negative. This forms a vortex between the two halves.
As a rotor magnet\'s north pole approaches a stator coil, the first half of the magnet (positive) will determine if it pushes (repels) or pulls (attracts) the electrons. We\'ll say the positive side will attract. After the magnet is in yaw or alignment with the coil, it will then enter the negative pole of the magnet, which will repel or push the current, which is in opposition to the first half. Now we have an alternating current that has nothing to do with the north and south poles of a magnet.
When you have a magnet on each end of the coil with opposites poles facing the coil, then the positive side of one magnet attracts, while the negative side of the other magnet will repel the electrons, thus the electrons will have the same direction.
In the homopolar disk, the electrons will be attracted from the center of the disk to the rim of the disk. Once the electron is at the rim of the disk, then it will be repelled from the rim of the disk to the center on the other side of the disk. Actually one side is attracting while the other side is pushing the electrons at the same time.
One could say that the electrons will move from the center to rim on one side, then from the rim to the center on the other side.
This is how we need to make our coil of wire. We need to have C-shaped coils that completing surrounds the conductive coated magnet, then hook the coils in series.
This sounds like a sound theory, or maybe move us in the right direction.
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks,
GB
P.S. This would suggest that the field does indeed rotate with the magnet. If it didn\'t, then we would have an AC current between the axis and rim of the disk or magnet. This is Ezekiel\'s wheel inside a wheel. And the wheel didn\'t move (The coils didn\'t move, but the magnet inside the coil connected to the axis did.)
WooooooHOOOOO. LOL
I\'ll try not to let my excited get the best of me.
Quote from: gravityblock on May 31, 2009, 11:04:12 PM
I have a dremil drill that can run between 5,000 - 35,000 rpm. A rotozip tool that runs at 30,000 rpm and a router at 25,000 rpm.
I was using the dremil drill as a motor, but there is AC coming off the shaft. I tried to put non conducting material between the shaft and magnets, but it's still picking voltage up that is coming from the dremil. In fact my meter is picking up AC when the probes are near the dremil without any contact with it whatsoever. So, I don't think I can use the dremil for a testing device.
Does anyone know if it is possible or have any ideas on how to use one of those devices without having the the voltage from the motor influence the test results?
Thanks,
GB
Hi GB,
If you're running with an insulated coupler then any AC seen on the disk output will be very high impedance as it will be EM radiated and then received by your conductive disc. If you measure your disk with just a high impedance DMM or scope then the AC will be seen strongly as it manifests as voltage across the high impedance load. But if you load the disk output up (lower the output impedance), say with a 1w 100ohm metal film resistor (i.e make with 4 * 1/4 watt 400ohm in parallel), then the high impedance mains signal will all but disappear leaving you with DC accross the disk, also then you can easily calculate real power out out in Watts by (V*V)/R.
P.S. at those speeds, dont place yourself edge on to the disk, any defect in the neo could prove painful!
edit:
I will read and think about your brushless ideas above and reply in a few hours.
@GB,
Just realised, your variable hispeed motors will not be induction based they will be brushed PM motors. So they´ll be kicking out real harsh BEMF spikes, which will intefere with instrument measurements, especially reading open circuit voltage which is a nice thing to know. You will be able to quieten them by putting a filter cap across the motor terminals, a good sized ceramic cap of any value would be a good start. Ideally you want a polypropylene cap matched to the coil inductance for resonance at average speed freq.
Hi GB,
OK, read your latest ideas. My thought at the moment is that increasing disk resistance will not increase developed potential. I am going to do an experiment to verify this soon with spinning resistors making spokes and then another run with solid copper spokes.
Do you have a recent picture of your brushless idea to aid discussion. I looked in your post list but the list doesn't show pics, It must be in this thread somewhere because I'm sure I saw a pic you made once?
At the moment I'm thinking that there must be part of the circuit outside of the rotating frame for a current to manifest, making brushless impossible. But I am willing to try a barebones simple experiment to check for any possibility. Can you think of a simple way to test the basics of the idea?
@Yucca:
I wish I could find the words or be able to draw, so you could understand the concept more.
Test and see what the polarities are on each side of the disk. The polarities should be different on your meter, but they are actually the same because each side is counter rotating to each other in regards to the magnetic field (would be the same as connecting them in series).
If the axis on the right side is negative and the rim on the right side is positive, then the rim on the left side will be negative and the axis on the left side will be positive. This would be similar to connecting the rim in series such as BWS is trying to do. I think the circumference of the rim is already connected in series with a conductive magnet. This should only take a few minutes to test if you have a conductive magnet.
If I am wrong, then there should be a cancellation between the rims instead of on one side of the magnet at the center. This is why BWS is trying to hookup the rim in series. What he fails to realize, is that each side of the disks are counter rotating to each other and not canceling at the rim, but is canceling at the center on one side of the magnet (the magnets direction of rotation will determine which side).
If I am right, then the brushless system will connect the current in series at the axis instead of the rim in order to avoid the cancellation and boost the voltage as long as there is a return path to the other side of the magnet in order to form a closed circuit.
BWS and I are trying to do the same thing. BWS was wrong with the N/N or S/S configuration in his 1995 patent prototype due to him failing to realize that each side of the disks are counter rotating to each other in regards to the magnetic field, which caused him to carry this same mistake over to his current design in connecting the rim in series.
On the inner side of the swivel bearings will be the rotating frame, and the outer side of the swivel bearing will be the stationary frame which the load is connected between the two bearings.
This is the question that needs to be answered. Is the cancellation occuring at the rim or at the center of one side of the magnet?
This will determine if we connect the rim in series or the axis. The axis can easly be connected in series with a brushless system using swivel bearings and would be equal to an infinite number of brushes connected in series along the circumference of the disk.
A 2 minute experiment will tell who is right and which method can be used.
I appreciate you or anyone else who takes the time to perform this simple experiment.
I just realized when I was writing this post that BWS and my concept is the same thing. He thinks the rim needs to be connected in series due to the cancelation happening there, and I think the axis or the center of one side of the magnet needs to be connected in series due to the cancelation happening there.
My method just happens to be much easier to implement and much more effienct than his method. His method doesn't allow for a brushless system while my method does.
He may be right......but my thought experiments say he is wrong.
After performing this simple test, if BWS happens to be correct, then I will support and back him 100%.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on June 02, 2009, 04:43:43 PM
@Yucca:
I wish I could find the words or be able to draw, so you could understand the concept more.
Test and see what the polarities are on each side of the disk. The polarities should be different on your meter, but they are actually the same because each side is counter rotating to each other in regards to the magnetic field (would be the same as connecting them in series).
If the axis on the right side is negative and the rim on the right side is positive, then the rim on the left side will be negative and the axis on the left side will be positive. This would be similar to connecting the rim in series such as BWS is trying to do. I think the circumference of the rim is already connected in series with a conductive magnet. This should only take a few minutes to test if you have a conductive magnet.
If I am wrong, then there should be a cancellation between the rims instead of on one side of the magnet at the center. This is why BWS is trying to hookup the rim in series. What he fails to realize, is that each side of the disks are counter rotating to each other and not canceling at the rim, but is canceling at the center on one side of the magnet (the magnets direction of rotation will determine which side).
If I am right, then the brushless system will connect the current in series at the axis instead of the rim in order to avoid the cancellation and boost the voltage as long as there is a return path to the other side of the magnet in order to form a closed circuit.
BWS and I are trying to do the same thing. BWS was wrong with the N/N or S/S configuration in his 1995 patent prototype due to him failing to realize that each side of the disks are counter rotating to each other in regards to the magnetic field, which caused him to carry this same mistake over to his current design in connecting the rim in series.
On the inner side of the swivel bearings will be the rotating frame, and the outer side of the swivel bearing will be the stationary frame which the load is connected between the two bearings.
This is the question that needs to be answered. Is the cancellation occuring at the rim or at the center of one side of the magnet?
This will determine if we connect the rim in series or the axis. The axis can easly be connected in series with a brushless system using swivel bearings and would be equal to an infinite number of brushes connected in series along the circumference of the disk.
A 2 minute experiment will tell who is right and which method can be used.
I appreciate you or anyone else who takes the time to perform this simple experiment.
I just realized when I was writing this post that BWS and my concept is the same thing. He thinks the rim needs to be connected in series due to the cancelation happening there, and I think the axis or the center of one side of the magnet needs to be connected in series due to the cancelation happening there.
My method just happens to be much easier to implement and much more effienct than his method. His method doesn't allow for a brushless system while my method does.
He may be right......but my thought experiments say he is wrong.
After performing this simple test, if BWS happens to be correct, then I will support and back him 100%.
Thanks,
GB
OK GB,
I think I understand the above but it takes some interpretation and I might not perform the experiment correctly. Below is the experimental method I plan to use. Please correct if it´s wrong:
construction:
take 1 neo disc, axially polarised.
coat both sides of the disc (N & S) in insulator (selotape).
apply self adhesive alu foil disks ontop of these insulators.
test1:
make sure the foil disks are electrically disconected from eachother. spin the disk and check voltage and polarity developed over each foil disc.
test2:
electrically connect the discs together at the axle and measure the voltage and polarity developed across 2 brushes, one on each seperate foil disc rim.
test3:
join the discs together at the rims and measure the voltage and polarity developed across 2 brushes, one on each seperate foil disc axle. (I will place the brushes not actually on the axle but close to the axle on the foil, the axle will be electrically disconected from both foil discs.)
P.S.
the concept is not strictly brushless, even if only axle takeoff is required then slip rings or some conductive bearing will be needed, that´s a form of brush. But of course axle takeoff would be a hell of a lot simpler to implement than brushes around the rim! plus if axle takeoff works then many units can be rotated together with just two power takeoff points for higher voltage.
Yucca.
@gb,
after rereading i just realised, the above test should probably be performed with two back to back disc mags, like poles facing, with enough steel washers (same diam as mags) inbetween such that both mags just about stick to the steel. correct?
@Yucca:
I want to know what the polarity is between the axis and rim on the north pole side of the magnet and the south pole side of the magnet.
If the axis on the north pole side is negative, then the rim on the north pole side should be positive or vice versa. Now check the south pole side between the axis and rim and take note of the polarity.
If the axis on both sides have the same polarity, then the rim on both sides should have the same polarity. If this is the case then BWS is correct with running the circumference of the disk or magnet in series. This means we would need to use a N/N, S/S, or two Halbach arrays back to back in order to use a swivel bearing or slip ring on the axis and to have the circumference of the magnet in series without all the hassle.
If the axis on the north pole side has a different polarity than the axis on the south pole side, then my method will work with a N/S configuration using the swivel bearings or slip rings. If not, then both sides of the magnet must have the same pole for my method to work.
I do not think the radial field will interfere or cause problems with the N/N configuration since the polarity will be in series across the rim.
The best and easiest way to test this is to rotate a single conductive coated magnet and test the polarities between the axis and rim on both sides of the magnet.
I will upload an illustration of the differences between BWS and my version.
The top half of the illustration is BWS with a N/S configuration. The arrows show how the electrons or current are flowing in the disk or magnet. For his setup to work, the polarity must be the same on both sides of the disk, meaning if the axis is negative, then the rim must be positive on both sides.
This will help us to determine if we need to use a N/S or N/N configuration for my method. With my method, the rim will already be connected in series due to how the polarities are on each side of the disk. Then the swivel bearings or slip rings will allow to run the axis in series, which is much simpler and efficient.
The bottom half is my method and shows how we need the electrons or current to flow without the hassle of connecting the circumference of the rims in series. I will know after you perform the tests if we need to use a N/S or N/N configuration. If the radial field is a problem with the same poles facing outwards, then we'll need to use two Halbach arrays back to back.
The swivel bearings and slip rings are basically the same.
I uploaded a video to youtube to make sure we're on the same page.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIuqPsp0Fbg
Thanks Yucca for your help and patience!
Quote from: Yucca on June 02, 2009, 09:59:44 PM
@gb,
after rereading i just realised, the above test should probably be performed with two back to back disc mags, like poles facing, with enough steel washers (same diam as mags) inbetween such that both mags just about stick to the steel. correct?
I would be interested in this test also if indeed we must use a N/N or S/S configuration.
I hope the shaft running through the disc mags don't throw the test results off because the current could flow through the disc mag to the other side and give us the wrong conclusion.
I wish I had a setup so I could test. I have so many questions that could easily be answered.
Thanks again!
Quote from: Yucca on June 02, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
the concept is not strictly brushless, even if only axle takeoff is required then slip rings or some conductive bearing will be needed, that´s a form of brush. But of course axle takeoff would be a hell of a lot simpler to implement than brushes around the rim! plus if axle takeoff works then many units can be rotated together with just two power takeoff points for higher voltage.
Yucca.
That is the basic idea. This is much more efficient and simplified than messing with the rim. Either a N/S or N/N configuration should allow the current to flow from the axis to the rim, then from the rim to the other side of the axis, where we\'ll have slip rings on both sides of the axis to take the current off with increased voltage without having to mess with connecting the rim in series with a complicated brush system that needs to be saturated.
Your right in saying it\'s not strictly brushless. I\'ve read that Halbach arrays allow for a brushless DC motor, but I doubt we could implement this in our setup since the motor would be operating on different principals.
Please let me know if I\'m misunderstanding the concept so I can correct my thinking.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on June 03, 2009, 01:19:50 PM
@Yucca:
I want to know what the polarity is between the axis and rim on the north pole side of the magnet and the south pole side of the magnet.
If the axis on the north pole side is negative, then the rim on the north pole side should be positive or vice versa. Now check the south pole side between the axis and rim and take note of the polarity.
Quote from: Yucca on June 02, 2009, 09:03:09 PM
construction:
take 1 neo disc, axially polarised.
coat both sides of the disc (N & S) in insulator (masking tape).
apply self adhesive alu foil disks ontop of these insulators.
test1:
make sure the foil disks are electrically disconected from eachother and the magnet and axle. spin the disk and check voltage and polarity developed over each foil disc.
GB, I made a little room on my bench and performed the above experiment.
I checked the alu disks were floating by checking with resistance meter before and after the experiment. At no time was either alu disk in contact with the magnet, the metal axle or eachother.
I used copper foil brushes, I had less than a quarter inch radial distance between brushes as I couldn't go near the axle. I was developing 40mV open circuit, ~4000RPM
As I expected, the polarity was exactly the same on each seperate alu disc, in this case the rims were positive.
edit:
next test I'll have to make a N/N or S/S disk somehow without making the construction to tall because Im spinning on a stub axle. I have two disc mags, I may try and purchase some large washers to sandwich between them, this won't happen for a few days.
Quote from: Yucca on June 07, 2009, 08:44:20 PM
As I expected, the polarity was exactly the same on each seperate alu disc, in this case the rims were positive.
edit:
next test I'll have to make a N/N or S/S disk somehow without making the construction to tall because Im spinning on a stub axle. I have two disc mags, I may try and purchase some large washers to sandwich between them, this won't happen for a few days.
So, with a N/N or S/S configuration the rim
should be positive on one side and negative on the other side (still speculation at this time). Now, if each side of the disk was electrically connected, such as a conductive coated magnet or the disks connected together, the rims should be hooked in series with each other without needing a complex brush system that needs to be saturated. Then we could draw the current from both sides of the axis using slip rings. There are always surprises waiting to happen, it will be interesting to see the results of this test.
At least we have the N/S configuration rotating on the same axle ruled out as an option. I'll be patient here for the other experiments and will try the resistor across the terminals to push the BEMF into the background for my amateur setup (poor-mans homopolar generator....lol).
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on June 07, 2009, 09:39:42 PM
So, with a N/N or S/S configuration the rim should be positive on one side and negative on the other side (still speculation at this time). Now, if each side of the disk was electrically connected, such as a conductive coated magnet or the disks connected together, the rims should be hooked in series with each other without needing a complex brush system that needs to be saturated. Then we could draw the current from both sides of the axis using slip rings. There are always surprises waiting to happen, it will be interesting to see the results of this test.
At least we have the N/S configuration rotating on the same axle ruled out as an option. I'll be patient here for the other experiments and will try the resistor across the terminals to push the BEMF into the background for my amateur setup (poor-mans homopolar generator....lol).
Thanks,
GB
At the moment I´m thinking of building a NN mag disc, plenty of steel in the middle, then wrap the whole lot in masking tape. Then apply thin alu tape washer like disks on each N surface, their rims connected together electrically, their inner holes not touching the axle, so all alu insulated from the mag and axle. Then spin it up and push copper foil brushes onto each alu disc as close to the axle as I can get. I´ve Just got to get the steel washers.
I´m sure the polarity of the discs will be opposite. Whether the full disc voltages will stack like this only experiment will tell.
My rig isn´t ideal, I´m using a small cheap electric aeroplane brushless motor and speed controller. I feed the speed controller with 50Hz PWM from a homebuilt signal generator. My magnets are only 1.5inch diameter, so pretty small. But I can still measure the effects clearly.
Any cheapo DMM if set to DC voltage should be good to go with a 1k resistor across it. You could also put a big ceramic cap in parallel to the resistor to remove high freq noise.
@Yucca,
@gravityblock,
If I can get a confirmation that it is possible to use two discs and connect them in series at the rim, thus, doubling the voltage, then I will buy some big Neo discs magnets and try it out. It will not happen until next year.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on June 08, 2009, 09:28:49 AM
@Yucca,
@gravityblock,
If I can get a confirmation that it is possible to use two discs and connect them in series at the rim, thus, doubling the voltage, then I will buy some big Neo discs magnets and try it out. It will not happen until next year.
Regards,
Groundloop.
I think it is possible, but not with the N/S/N/S/N/S configuration as shown in your illustration without a complicated brush system.
With a N/S configuration the polarity are the same on each side of the magnet, thus needing to connect the rims in series with a complicated brush system in order to boost the voltage (because both sides of the rims would both be positive or negative depending on the direction of rotation).
I am speculating that with a N/N or S/S configuration the polarity will be different on each side of the magnet, thus the rims can be electrically connected that would boost the voltage without the complicated brush system around the rims (one side of the rim would be positive and the other side of the rim would be negative, then connect them together with copper, and they will naturally be connected in series to boost the voltage).
I am not sure if you stack the disks on the same axle with a N/N/N/N/N/N if it would continue to increase the voltage or not. I see no reason why it shouldn't with this type of configuration, but we need more tests in order to know for sure.
@yucca,
Do you know if your brushless DC motor for your RC airplane is a Halbach Array rotor.
http://goldeneye.ethz.ch/motoren/electric/inrunner/index_EN/ Just curious.
@Groundloop:
After studying your latest illustration more, I see the copper discs are L shaped which leads to the bearings on the axle. I need to study this idea more. I don't think this would connect them in series, but I may be missing something.
Nice work!
Actually a N/N/S/S/N/N/S/S configuration may connect the disks in series when they are stacked on the same axle.
I need to take all of this relativity B.S into consideration as far as the different poles of the magnets and different direction of rotations relative to each other, and my head hurts at the moment. LOL
Something that is interesting is to take Groundloop's latest design and incorporate broli's configuration of the magnets in the first post of this thread, which may allow everything to be connected in series at the brushes on the axle without the need for shielding.
I'm just throwing out ideas and thoughts at the moment without thinking things through completely. I'm not thinking very clear today, so I'll reconsider these ideas when I am.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on June 08, 2009, 11:32:36 AM
@yucca,
Do you know if your brushless DC motor for your RC airplane is a Halbach Array rotor. http://goldeneye.ethz.ch/motoren/electric/inrunner/index_EN/
Just curious.
It's an outrunner, so rotating mags on the outside of the stationary coils, I don't know whether the mags are in Hallbach config? Maybe they are?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/RC-Model-790-KV-Outrunner-Brushless-Motor-80A-ESC_W0QQitemZ390057142303QQihZ026QQcategoryZ34055QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I'm running it on a 2A supply at the moment, plenty of torque for disc spinning. It can take 45A all day so I've got plenty left if needed. Brushless motors are cool, only bearing maintenance is needed. If you replace bearings with expensive ones using graphite lube then they can be left alone to just run and run...
Quote from: Groundloop on June 08, 2009, 09:28:49 AM
@Yucca,
@gravityblock,
If I can get a confirmation that it is possible to use two discs and connect them in series at the rim, thus, doubling the voltage, then I will buy some big Neo discs magnets and try it out. It will not happen until next year.
Regards,
Groundloop.
Great, if it works I'm going to get some big disk neos too. Keep your fingers crossed! ;)
Quote from: Yucca on June 08, 2009, 12:54:42 PM
It's an outrunner, so rotating mags on the outside of the stationary coils, I don't know whether the mags are in Hallbach config? Maybe they are?:
I believe they use Halbach arrays in order to have a brushless motor. There may be other ways to have a brushless DC motor other than with a Halbach.
Low-Q has a RC airplane brushless motor that is in a Halbach configuration. Maybe he could answer this question.
Thanks for the link, I will buy one when I have the opportunity.
Hi GB,
it probably is hallbach config then. here's a pic of my favourite outrunner, tiny, fast and really high power to weight ratio. You can see my bigger motor with neo disk on the bench.
@gravityblock, @Yucca,
The drawing is an idea at this time. We can change it when we know what works or not. The drawing shows the generator from the side as a "cut through". My plan was to use two copper discs and make the discs threaded on the inside of the hole at the axle. Then two copper tubes, threaded, on the outside will fit into the copper discs. The copper tubes (insulated from the axle) will extend to each side of the axle, thus allowing us to use brushes on each side. Both discs are connect together at the rim with an outer copper tubing secured to the discs with bolts. This is the basic idea. The Neo magnets can be stacked any way we like to get the desired effect of putting the discs in series at the rim. If needed, the discs and magnets can be put at larger distances apart from each other. Everything will be glued together with epoxy glue. The outer casing is soft Iron to prevent magnetic back coupling. This will reduce some breaking effect, I hope.
The outer casing will also make the rotor very strong and allow a high rpm. I think I will take a slow approach to this design and we must first test the method on a smaller scale to see if it is doable or not, before I start using serious chunks of money and time on this. The best solution will be, if it is possible, to put several discs in series on the same axle to get higher voltage out of the generator, maybe as high as a lead acid battery charge voltage. If not, then I can easily design a power inverter that take a small voltage (at high current) and then transform it to a higher voltage at low current.
My main question at this time is, can we stack many discs to get a higher voltage output? And, can we use just two brushes at each end of the axle to do that? If we can answer those two questions with tests on a smaller scale, then I see no reason why we can't scale this generator up to provide huge amounts of power.
Groundloop.
Quote from: Groundloop on June 08, 2009, 03:32:25 PM
The best solution will be, if it is possible, to put several discs in series on the same axle to get higher voltage out of the generator, maybe as high as a lead acid battery charge voltage.
You can buy single cell 2V lead acids of exceptional quality for quite good prices, maybe ideal for a prototype if the idea works out, 2V sounds doable with reasonably sized discs.
http://shopping.microbattery.com/s.nl/sc.2/category.704/.f
Quote from: Yucca on June 08, 2009, 12:54:42 PM
It's an outrunner, so rotating mags on the outside of the stationary coils, I don't know whether the mags are in Hallbach config? Maybe they are?:
They may alternate n-s-n-s. Have a look at the stators of the generators on
larger motorcycles. Put "stator" into Ebay under "Cars and parts".
I've been thinking about the radial field around the circumference of the N/N or S/S configuration a little more.
I think the radial field will negate the different sides being connected in series, unless we go around it or use two Halbach Arrays back to back.
Would it be possible to wrap the circumference of the magnet in a thick rubber or other non conducting material to the thickness that is slightly outside the force of the radial magnetic field, then have the conductive coating wrap around this insulated material from one side to the other side to avoid any negatives.
I believe this would be easier to test than to build two Halbach arrays, and should give the same results.
Would love to hear opinions from all on this.
Thanks,
GB
Please study this idea and the movies.
Yucca's experiment with the capacitor rotating on top and with the magnet showed no current was produced when the magnet, conductor, and external circuit rotates together. I may have found a way around this dilemma!
I would like to extend Yucca's test with a thought experiment that has not been considered yet.
Let's invert the magnetic field by removing a small piece of the magnet where there is a blank area and place a capacitor with one lead connected to the axis and the second lead connected to the rim where the blank area is located. The area where the small piece of the magnet was removed will need to be electrically connected to the rest of the conductive magnet. I am attaching a photo and link of a video to show what I mean by inverting the magnetic field in this small area. The white piece of paper in the photo is where the portion of the magnet is removed in order to invert the magnetic field.
This should charge the capacitor due to the magnetic field being inverted where the leads of the capacitor are connected in order to avoid any cancellations. The magnetic field in the external circuit (the capacitor) may push against the magnetic field of the magnet and cause the field to counter rotate against the external circuit to produce a voltage and current. The basic idea is to have the magnetic field of the magnet to rotate relative to the external circuit and disc; even if the external circuit, disc, or magnet are stationary. This will be a brushless system with no slip rings if this theory is correct.
Also, if the object in the video footage of Nasa's tether incident is a UFO, then it clearly shows a black portion in the circle of light that is moving in the video, which may be where the inverted magnetic field is located on the UFO. Please let me know what you think.
Link to video: http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.wmv
More info on the video: http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/index.html
Nasa's tether incident: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox6BtwDmm3c
Thanks,
GB
Edit: @Scotty1: I find it very interesting you said in another thread related to the homopolar discs that light is the product of putting something in the magnets way and pushing many through it. The tether incident where the object in question has a black area with no light, may be due to your theory, since the magnetic material has been removed in this region. Here's the link to your post in the other thread, Post #11. http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=626.msg9786#msg9786
Why nothing since Sept 1,is this thread locked,or moved??
Inquiring minds want to know.
Regards to all of you
Joe in Texas
"We will drink no wine before its time"
Before I posted above ,I had a long post,almost ready to send,
I went to get a fresh cup of coffee and something ate my message.
Sure hope it don't end up here.
If it does,then someone with the power please delete it immediately.
Respectfully,to all who post here
Joe in Texas
Quote from: Judges on September 13, 2009, 04:53:30 PM
Why nothing since Sept 1,is this thread locked,or moved??
Inquiring minds want to know.
Regards to all of you
Joe in Texas
"We will drink no wine before its time"
There appears to be a lack of interest in this thread. >:(
I'm really surprised nobody has made a comment on the movie about the needle not dragging the disc in the same direction of it's rotation where the blank area of the magnet is located, while the disc actually drags the needle in the opposite direction of rotation which had no rotation prior to the needle coming to rest.
I watched this movie many times before catching the unexpected result in rotation of the disc and needle where the inverted magnetic field is. Please study the movie in my previous post, then it will become clear that there is something very unusual happening where the inverted magnetic field is located.
If we would modify Yucca's previous experiment and have the capacitor connected to the axis and rim where the inverted magnetic field is located, then it would determine if the magnetic field is counter rotating to the magnet in order to charge the capacitor. If the capacitor is not charged, then the magnetic field is still stationary, even though the magnet is rotating.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on September 01, 2009, 04:31:36 AM
Please study this idea and the movies.
Yucca's experiment with the capacitor rotating on top and with the magnet showed no current was produced when the magnet, conductor, and external circuit rotates together. I may have found a way around this dilemma!
...
There is no dilemna!
In the Lorentz force formula F=q*V^B, V in not the speed of charges relative to the magnetic field (no sens, a magnetic field cannot be a referential frame), it is not the speed relative to the magnetic field source (there is current in the Fraraday disc with a rotating magnet in spite no relative motion), it is the speed ///relative to the observer///.
Here the capacitor plays the role of the observer. From the referential frame of the capacitor, the "rotating" conductor is at rest, then the charges are viewed at rest, the Lorentz force is null and no current can be expected.
It is a very conventional setup.
In order to get a current, you must always have a circuit in 2 parts, one seeing the other moving in the magnetic field.
Quote from: exnihiloest on September 15, 2009, 03:48:45 AM
There is no dilemna!
In the Lorentz force formula F=q*V^B, V in not the speed of charges relative to the magnetic field (no sens, a magnetic field cannot be a referential frame), it is not the speed relative to the magnetic field source (there is current in the Fraraday disc with a rotating magnet in spite no relative motion), it is the speed ///relative to the observer///.
Here the capacitor plays the role of the observer. From the referential frame of the capacitor, the "rotating" conductor is at rest, then the charges are viewed at rest, the Lorentz force is null and no current can be expected.
It is a very conventional setup.
In order to get a current, you must always have a circuit in 2 parts, one seeing the other moving in the magnetic field.
You're missing the point. The inverted magnetic field where the blank area of the magnet is, may allow there to be relative motion when the disc, magnet, and external circuit rotate together. There may be relative motion between them, because the magnetic field may be rotating counter to the others. I am not talking about a conventional setup. I used Yucca's conventional experiment with the capacitor as a foundation for an unconventional setup.
Experiments suggests that the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet. I believe the movie I posted earlier,
http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.wmv , shows the magnetic field is rotating counter to the disc and magnet due to the inverted magnetic field. This is easily seen when the needle does not drag the disc over the notched area, but instead causes the disc to rotate in the opposite direction from what is expected.
There are 2 ways to control the polarity of the current (from the axis to rim or from rim to axis). 1) A change in the poles. 2) A change in the direction of rotation. By removing a small portion of the magnet, the poles get inverted over the blank area of the magnet, which causes the current to reverse direction over this blank area, assuming the blank area where the magnetic material was removed is replaced by a non-magnetic conducting material such as copper. This acts similar to a return path of an external circuit.
Let's assume the current flows from the axis to the rim of the disc, except for where the inverted magnetic field is located. The current will then flow from the rim to the axis of the disc to form a complete circuit, since the poles are reversed over this small blank area of magnetic material. The conductive disc or conductive magnet will be a return path for the current also where the inverted magnetic field is located.
I believe a N/N or S/S configuration with slip rings on both sides of the axis to extract the current, also provides a return path by using the other side of the disc or magnet. The final solution is to use a S/S configuration with an inverted magnetic field in a small area of the magnet with slip rings. This would allow the rim to be connected in series to boost the voltage.
Think about this. In a S/S configuration, the current will flow from the axis to rim on one side, then will flow from the rim to the axis on the other side to form a complete circuit with a return path. If the current is flowing around the rim, then one side of the rim will be negative and the other side will be positive. Now, what happens when you connect a negative to a positive? This is connecting them in series, and this should increase the voltage at the rims.
I'm using this thread as a place holder for my thoughts on this subject until I have the resources to do these experiments on my own.
Thanks,
GB
I apologize for being off topic here,as i hope one of you can help me.
I want to buy 10 pounds of bismuth as pure as possibl,as I've acquired a VERY old forge,really very well built,,and would also ask where one would buy tools,,second thought i have torch (acl+oxy) and stick welder.
It's really the several un-answered post's requesting to purchase the ore.That I currently need help with.
Thanx for ANY help.
Good Health to all!
joe in texas
Quote from: gravityblock on September 15, 2009, 10:26:03 PM
You're missing the point. The inverted magnetic field where the blank area of the magnet is, may allow there to be relative motion when the disc, magnet, and external circuit rotate together. There may be relative motion between them, because the magnetic field may be rotating counter to the others...
The "relative motion" of what relative to what ?
I do not know what you mean.
What I explained is why in "Yucca's experiment with the capacitor rotating on top and with the magnet showed no current was produced when the magnet, conductor, and external circuit rotates together" and why there is no dilemna.
It doesn't depend on the topology of the magnetic field. If an observer (or the capacitor) is seeing a conductor moving in a not time varying B field, then he is seeing a force acting onto the charges (the Lorentz force). Thus if the circuit is looped in the reference frame of the observer, a current will flow.
When the observer is attached to the referential frame of the charges (i.e at rest relative to a conductor), the speed of the charges is null from the view point of the observer, then F=q*VxB = 0 because V=0: there is no Lorentz force, there is no current.
When you say that "the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet", you are right but you forgot the conditions. The magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet only when the magnet rotates about its axle of magnetic symmetry, because in this case the B field in any point of space does not depend on the angular position of the magnet. All is going on as if the magnet was not rotating. It is the case when you are using an ordinary cylindrical speaker magnet due to the coincidence of its axle of magnetic symmetry with the axle of geometrical symmetry.
It is very different with a cylindrical magnet having a missing part. The field in space will depend on its angular position. If it is rotating the field is also rotating. Nevertheless for any observer and conductor linked together, no matter the topology of the B field if it remains independant of time from the viewpoint of the observer: the charges are viewed at rest so no current can be expected because the Lorentz force is null.
Of course a capacitor (= observer) linked to a conductor and both moving in the not constant field of a speaker magnet with a missing part, will see a time varying B field. It is another problem.
@ exnihiloest: I know why there was no current produced in Yucca's experiment with the capacitor. You haven't said anything that I don't already know.
We use the external circuit to extract current off the disc. The external circuit has a more important role in the conventional setups, and that is to provide a return path to allow current to flow. If the current is flowing from the axis to the rim on the disc and is also flowing in the same direction from the axis to the rim in the external circuit, then there is no net current produced. The external circuit isn't providing a return path for the electrons in this setup, which would have the same affect as having no external circuit at all. This is the real reason for the capacitor not having a charge in Yucca's experiment, because they canceled each other out similar to winding the wire in a coil in opposite directions.
If the current is flowing from the axis to the rim on the disc and is flowing from the rim to the axis in the external circuit, then there will be a net current produced.
The inverted magnetic field will provide a return path if the notched out area is electrically connected with a conductive material from the axis to the rim. This will provide a return path similar to the external circuit in a conventional setup. Also, since the magnetic field is inverted over the notched out area, it will cause the current to flow in the opposite direction of the rest of the disc, thus providing a return path to complete the circuit with current flowing through it, unlike Yucca's experiment.
In the setup with the inverted magnetic field, the external circuit is not providing the return path for current to flow, but is only required to extract current from the disc. As long as the current is flowing in the disc in one direction, and is flowing in the opposite direction where the inverted magnetic field is located, there will be a current produced that can be extracted with an external circuit.
The current must flow over the inverted magnetic field opposite to the rest of the disc due to the electrons seeing a different pole over that region of the disc, thus it will take a different path of travel.
The N/N or S/S configuration also provides a return path, which is on the other side of the disc and may allow the rim to be connected in series to boost the voltage. Once we understand that the external circuit is providing a return path for the electrons to flow, then we will realize the return path is the important factor in it's mode of operation instead of the external circuit. Provide a return path for the electrons where the return path is not dependent on the external circuit, then the external circuit has no role or factor in it's mode of operation except to extract current from the disc.
Like I said before, this is a place holder for my thoughts on this subject until I can do my own real world experiments. I am not posting these ideas to convince you or any other person that it is correct. If you or anyone else has the equipment to perform these experiments, then please feel free to test these ideas and let me know the results.
I don't expect this to happen, because you or anyone else must first believe it has a possibility in working before it is even considered to be tested. Testing is the only thing that can convince me at this moment that I am wrong. There is nothing you or anyone can say to convince me otherwise.
Thanks,
GB
Below is a picture showing how the current should flow in a disc with an inverted magnetic field. The dotted lines show where the magnetic material of the magnet is replaced with copper to electrically connect it to the disc and to invert the magnetic field.
The arrows show how the current should flow in the disc and over the area of the disc where the inverted magnetic field is located. The current will change directions over the inverted field to provide a return path that our external circuit normally provides. A capacitor with the leads connected to the disc of the inverted portion of the field should show a current is produced and is able to be taken off the disc using an external circuit.
GB
I'm flattered this thread is brought back to life.
GB you're bring up some good stuff. I believe you are on to something with the pole reversal. If my whole research is correct current can flow without any brushes. If that's the case one can instantly conclude that current cant flow with brushes as well not only without any backtorque, but actually with a positive torque causing acceleration.
http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/29990/Dr__Steven_Greer_The_Promise_of_New_Energy/
Quote from: gravityblock on September 16, 2009, 05:55:47 PM
...
The external circuit has a more important role in the conventional setups, and that is to provide a return path to allow current to flow. If the current is flowing from the axis to the rim on the disc and is also flowing in the same direction from the axis to the rim in the external circuit, then there is no net current produced.
...
In the setup with the inverted magnetic field, the external circuit is not providing the return path for current to flow, but is only required to extract current from the disc. As long as the current is flowing in the disc in one direction, and is flowing in the opposite direction where the inverted magnetic field is located, there will be a current produced that can be extracted with an external circuit.
You are right when you say that "there is no net current produced" but the reason you gave must be completed.
The return path can be done through a conductor that is either shielded from the magnetic field or farther from the magnet in order to unbalance the currents generated in each path and get a resultant current.
Nevertheless some have tried (including experimental physicists) and failed.
Instead of shielding the return path you can even reverse the field of this path as you suggested. It will not work better.
The reason in both cases is that the magnetic flux is conservative. Thus no matter the circuit. The key point is the flux it will embrace. As you are using magnetic dipoles and not magnetic monopoles, the flux entering and exiting a closed loop is always balanced.
Either you accept that Maxwell equations are relevant to describe the setup, and no current can be expected, or you assert that new physics is involved to describe the setup and then a current could flow according to new laws of nature. But in this second case you cannot use conventional layman terms of electromagnetism to prove it.
@ broli: It's good to know that your own research has led you to the same conclusions that brushes may not be needed in order for current to flow, at least in theory.
GB
I'm attaching a PDF file that I created showing results of the different relative motions on a homopolar generator. I know this information is on wiki and is nothing new, but I added notes on each individual setup and simplified the layout.
The current will flow in the external circuit opposite to the disc with a net voltage and current, when there is relative motion of the electrons between the disc and external circuit. A pole reversal of the field over a small region of the disc will also provide relative motion of the electrons between the disc and where the small area of the inverted magnetic field is located.
No new physics is required for current to flow in this setup. Only need to understand the underlying principals of its operation, which is the electrons must have relative motion to each other, either on the disc or between the disc and external circuit in order to have a net voltage and current.
The magnetic flux is conservative and this is the reason for the inverted magnetic field over the area where the magnetic material has been removed.
Yes, the inverted field does create a non-uniform field, but the non-uniform field is only changing in time where the inverted field is located to create an orderly path for the electrons to flow relative to the rest of the disc with a net voltage and current.
The magnet will remain stationary while the disc is rotating in order for the non-uniform field not to embrace the entire circuit. There will be no back torque, since there is no relative motion between the disk and external circuit. There is only relative motion between the electrons moving in the disc and the electrons moving in the disc where the inverted field is located.
@broli: The configuration I am currently talking about is not much different than the configuration you suggested in the first post of this thread and Yucca's experiment is incomplete and doesn't prove the concept is wrong.
Here's a drawing on how to extract the current using one slip ring for both the axis and the rim of the disc. The slip ring will be located on the axis. This can only work if the wires on the axis and the rim rotate with the disc (external circuit rotating with the disc, located over the inverted magnetic field).
The slip ring in the drawing is raised above the disc for illustration purposes only. The wire on the rim probably should enter the side of the slip ring instead of the bottom of the slip ring that is shown in the drawing.
Let's close the loop so we can achieve Over-Unity.
After we extract the current that was generated from the disc using the one slip ring in the previous post, we'll send the unused current to the other side of the magnet.
On the other side of the magnet we'll have another disc. This disc will be used as a motor while the other disc is used as a generator. The external circuit connected to the motor's disc will also rotate with the disc.
So, the setup will be a slip ring on the axis for the motor disc, next a magnet with an inverted field on bearings that is held stationary as the discs are rotated, next a generator disc, then another slip ring on the axis for the generator disc, a load that is connected to the leads of the generator's slip ring, then leads running to the other side of the motor's slip ring to dump the unused current that was generated to complete the circuit and close the loop for OU.
The homopolar's power output goes up by the 4th power of increases in the rotor radius while its input power requirement goes up by the square thereof. As long as we don't use more energy than the power requirement of the discs, then it won't slow down. There is no back torque in this system. The RPM in this system will continue to increase if there is more energy being put back into the system for the given input requirements of the discs.
In order to maintain a certain RPM, we will need to use the excess energy that is generated either in our load or to break the circuit at given intervals until we are able to maintain the RPM. It may not even be necessary to use the other side of the magnet in order to be a self-runner.
Here's how it may be possible to close the loop for OU without using the other side of the magnet or an inverted magnetic field. I will first give a brief theory behind this.
Do not confuse the electro motive force (EMF) with voltage. The EMF is the work done in order to separate the charges. The voltage is what moves those separated charges. The voltage is similar to the EMF but is opposite in polarity or direction.
When the disc and external circuit are rotating together the disc is cutting the magnetic field of flux, thus there is an EMF which separate the charges. This creates a static electric field. There is no voltage on the disc which is opposite in polarity or direction to the EMF that is able to move those separated charges, so no voltage or current is able to be brought out of the system. This means the system is an open circuit and has not been closed for current to flow.
Now, physics says the voltage is opposite in sign or direction to the EMF. This is true in a closed circuit, thus we have positive and negative on each end of the terminals. In the open circuit of the disc that I described earlier, we have the axis having one sign and the rim having the opposite sign. When we connect an external circuit that rotates with the disc from the axis to the rim, then the external circuit will have the same polarity as the disc, so there is no voltage potential to move the charges.
Relative motion between the disc and the external circuit provides the voltage potential to move the separated charges (even though one may be stationary, it is the same as moving in an opposite direction relative to the other, thus creating a voltage). Increasing the rpm will increase the voltage due to a higher relative motion between the external circuit and disc. Adding more brushes does not increase the relative motion between the two, thus the voltage doesn't increase. This is the reason why all attempts to connect the rim in series to boost the voltage has failed because the voltage isn't generated on the disc, but is generated due to the relative motion of the disc and external circuit.
This gives us an unique opportunity to provide a voltage potential, such as a battery or charged capacitor that is outside the system to move those charges that the EMF separated on the disc which is not in opposition to the disc and external circuit, since there is no relative motion between them.
Now, if we connect the axis to a terminal on the battery and connect the rim to the other terminal on the battery using the correct polarity, we will have a voltage potential and current will flow. The generator disc will separate the charges, and the battery will move those charges without any relative motion between the disc and external circuit.
Since the power output is higher than the input requirements for the homopolar discs, it will provide more power out than what is required to create the EMF or rotation of the disc. This can only be done when both the disc and external circuit are rotating together.
Quote from: Yucca on May 15, 2009, 08:33:11 AM
Hello all,
Sorry to keep banging on about homopolars in general, I know this thread is about Brolis idea, but I thought you'd all like to hear about my experiment.
I tried the experiment of spinning The magnet disk along with the takeoff and load. Took me a few tries and a few flying capacitors to get it balanced well enough. I just stuck the cap to the axle using super glue.
Magnet: N52 Nickel Coated Neo (diam=38mm thick=6.5mm)
Electrolytic cap: 6.3V 1000uF
Resistor: 100k metal film
Outer rim is connected to the -v cap terminal.
The magnet axle is connected via the resistor to the +v cap terminal.
In this configuration the cap will discharge at about 2mV per second.
I discharged the cap by shorting and then did a spin up to 3000RPM for 2 minutes.
I noticed no difference in the capacitors charge after measuring as soon as it stopped. spinning, GUTTED!
I wondered if the centrifugal force made my rim connection go open circuit as it's only bound on with tight sellotape so I also tried precharging the cap to 300mV and then left it to discharge for 30 seconds. Tried this spinning and static, same discharge rate.
Did you try to spin the pre-charged cap both CW and CCW, then test if the discharge rate is the same?
The reason I ask this, is if the cap has the same polarity or direction as the EMF, then it will have the same discharge rate. If the cap has an opposite polarity as the EMF, then the discharge rate should be different.
Please test for me. If I am wrong about this, then my last post is wrong also.
Thanks,
GB