Overunity.com Archives

ok so if we take a two cylindrical magnets, and attach them to an axle as shown in the front view of my drawing (they are fixed in position and not shaded in the drawing)

we now only have a balanced set of two equal magnets, on a fixed axle

attach another axle through the middle of the magnets

on both sides of the magnet, we place a circular stator (shaded in area of drawing) of equal size on the axle, the stator is not fixed and can still rotate about the axle

this stator is weighted (as shown by the smaller circles at the bottom of the stator wheel) the weight keeps the stator upright no matter the position due to it being unbalanced

the idea is that when we spin this, it will remain balanced, and while the magnets rotate because they stay fixed, the stator will remain in an upright position, inducing electricity

the lorentz force is directed at making the stators spin, which will be combated with the counterweight

effectively the magnets will rotate in front of the stators which will remain "still" in comparison to the magnets

for quickness i only drew two sets of these but i believe it would be more effective to use three or an odd number of magnet combinations

the benefits of this system is that it will not take increasing amounts of energy to keep it going

the drawback is that it would need to rotate slow enough to keep the stators in the upright position

this could be fought with using more mass, where a slower rotation would be most beneficial

also the closer to the axle the magnets are, the more efficient it would be, as it would rotate the magnets the most per rotation, as well as taking less energy

let me know what you think

(A) frame that connects magnets to axle
(B) magnets
(C) stators
(D) counterweight

That's quite an interesting take. Are you using the concept of the homopolar generator to generate electricity?

You could also use a 3 gear system to keep the stators from rotating.
One gear on the center hub, one intermediate gear and one outer gear on the stator.

As it rotates, the outer stator remains still at any speed.
Of course, you need two additional gears on the other side also. (intermediate and stator)

HPG's are fascinating ..there's always the debate about whether or not the field is rotating with the magnet or is stationary, i think that as a result of atomic interaction, the field is rotating so fast that it's locked to the atomic frame, and as a result  the field effect it manifest and therefore correlates with the rotation of atoms and not the general body with which they are attached, when rotating their atoms, the field rotates with them as a secondary effect.

Strange though, I suppose that in order to prove my idea, the TPU-ECD would have to function as it states..something with no moving parts would in fact be able to generate electricity as a result of the atomic spin.

I don't always understand what's going on though.  Something has to cut the field, relatively, in order to take a measure of flow.

Quote from: broli on November 07, 2009, 02:28:06 PM
That's quite an interesting take. Are you using the concept of the homopolar generator to generate electricity?

i thought about that and considered two options
the first being a homopolar style like you asked, the other is simply replacing the cyllinder magnet with a non magnetic materal, drill an odd number of holes all the way through and secure strong magnets with alternating poles, allowing both sides of the magnet to induce electricity with the same stator set up

i feel as if if the right momentum were found in combintion with magnet/stator set ups, it could at least run iself, consdering it needs only to overcome the friction of the axle, as well as the balanced lever type system

i like this design because it will stay semetrical no matter how many generator type mechanisms we employ, and each one significantly increase output

anyone/anyting else?

i dont have materials for so its up for grabs if somone wans to be the first to build it

Quote from: lumen on November 07, 2009, 02:50:59 PM
You could also use a 3 gear system to keep the stators from rotating.
One gear on the center hub, one intermediate gear and one outer gear on the stator.

As it rotates, the outer stator remains still at any speed.
Of course, you need two additional gears on the other side also. (intermediate and stator)

that could work, but i want to minimize moving parts,  every gear is more friction, and i want that to be a low as possible

with my original one, the axle is basically the only concern we have as far as friction. the stators will be on an axle, but we do not directly influence that with our motor. gravity is fighting this friction to keep it upright. this means every time and all the time we only need to give enough energy to rotate the mass of the system, which will always be balanced

i will add a drawing in a bit, showing how to possibly make it most efficient

im adding a poll because i have no idea what this would be classified as, and i feel its more than half baked

if you don't want to vote just leave a post as to where you believe it should be relocated, if at all

I think the problem is that in the end, the entire system is the same as one that rotates the magnet only or if you think of the frame as a conductor, then it is a stationary disk with a rotating brush.

In any case the first one doesn't work and the second one could be built much easier but is still COP<1.

it is absolutely different than spinning a magnet, or brush system

the entire problem with directly spinning the magnet obviously is lenz law, because the motor or spinning mechanism is attached to the magnet, meaning it takes 100% of the backwards force due to induction (lenz)

so it would be easy to make an OU device if this phenomenon didn't occur, basically its all lenz fault

the whole point of this is to not do this, not directly influence the magnet, creating lenz less rotation

my whole theory behind this is to make that force be absorbed by a different medium, other than our motor

everyone makes the mistake of attaching magnets to the axle of their motor in the wrong way, because the lorentz force is going against the turn of the motor, which means more and more energy

in my system, lenz law will not effect the motor, making it completely different than any other generator

even if the lorentz force isn't completely expelled into the stator, it will have absolutely no effect on the motor turning the system

the only reason this has any validation is due to the fact that this generator has a constant input of energy and while magnets exponentially increase output energy with speed, my system will actually require exponentially less with speed due to the flywheel effect

normally this would be compensated by lenz law...but not here

@mr_bogangles:

The magnet rotating with the axle is not the cause of the counter torque in the HPG.  The cause of the counter torque is drawing current between the rotating frame of the disc and the stationary frame of the external circuit, or vice versa.

It doesn't matter if the magnet is rotated or not, as long as their is relative motion between the disc and external circuit, then a voltage and current will be induced.  Either way the counter torque is proportional to the amount of current that is being drawn from the system.

Only way to eliminate the counter torque in the HPG is to avoid having relative motion between the disc and external circuit.  This can be accomplished with a rotating magnetic field with a stationary disc on each side of the magnetic field and connected in series.  Rotating the magnet does not rotate the magnetic field.  I have a few ideas on how to do this, but nobody is interested in those ideas. 

The TPU has a rotating magnetic field, thus you need no relative or mechanical motion in the system and no counter torque.  I believe I know why the TPU has yet to be replicated showing OU, but nobody is willing to listen......because a "motionless variant" of the HPG is better than spinning a mass. 

There is mathematical proof that spinning the magnet mass where the magnetic field is rotating with the magnet is much more efficient than keeping the coils energized in the TPU which creates a rotating magnetic field.  It may not be possible to have the magnetic field rotate with the magnet, but even if there was........nobody would care.

I'm so pissed off with this subject it's not even funny. 

@gravityblock

i understand your frustration, i find it hard as well to find serious people willing to talk about specific topics


it may be that no one can answer your questions, personally i only respond to topics i believe i have the capacity to answer

you are absolutely correct with where the counter torque originates, what i meant was because the stator is usually fixed and the magnet is not, it gets induced into the magnet almost completely, which in turn fights the mechanism that spins it. so i sought to reverse this and induce it into the stator. by fixing the magnet and allowing the stator to freely rotate, the counter torque trying to "spin" the stator due to the magnet being fixed. the counterweight on the stator is the only thing keeping it upright and the counter torque will be induced, trying to make the stator spin, which it wont, due to it being overbalanced

i dont even have to keep this an HPG, and instead use alternating poles of multiple fixed magnets, and if they were set in line with the stator would create the typical multi pole generator (which might not do a whole lot)

when i thought of this i wondered what could happen, because it seems to be a system that does not account for lenz law

the TPU is above my knowledge of understanding, my apologies for a lack of corroboration on my part in that topic, but it may be your duty to be an authoritative figure on the more advanced components of OU devices for those who are not at your level

you seem to have a fairly deep understanding of these types of interactions and i would personally trust your judgment over mine

this idea is fairly simple and mainly i ask is there any significance in only the fact that spinning this mechanism will not have to account for lenz law, therefore essentially creating lenz-less rotation?

i would love to hear any variations someone else might employ to make this more efficient, or anything anyone would do differently

Quote from: mr_bojangles on November 16, 2009, 02:52:25 PM
this idea is fairly simple and mainly i ask is there any significance in only the fact that spinning this mechanism will not have to account for lenz law, therefore essentially creating lenz-less rotation?

Yes, your system will induce a voltage and current without the counter torque if my understanding of your drawing is correct.  I took a really hard look at your illustration this time, which I did not do before (my bad).  You won't need brushes with your system either, which is a plus.  You may need 1 slip ring at the center axle for all four discs, but this wouldn't affect the power output very much.  The four discs can be connected in series with each other to increase the voltage without an engineering nightmare.

The only issues I see is the weight on the discs and the rate per rotation of the magnets relative to the discs, which you are already aware of.  I agree that moving the magnets closer to the axle will increase the rate per rotation of the magnets.  If we could keep the discs upright while the system is rotating without the weights, then we could achieve a high RPM in the system.  Increasing the weight on the discs will allow a faster rotation, but the input requirements will increase as well.

Could we anchor the discs to another separate frame that is above and at the center of rotation which will remain stationary.  Would this allow the discs to remain upright or fixed while the system rotated?   If not, then I'm sure it could be done somehow without the weights.  I'll give this more thought.

I'm impressed, Excellent Job.

@gravityblock

I greatly appreciate your new found interest

I haven't thought of a seperate mechanism yet like your talking about, I'll give it more thought.

while thinking about the weight more, an idea hit me, instead of a counterweight, what if we just make the bottom portion of the stators thicker gauged wire? this would keep it off balance and with the right combination could make it more efficient

still it has the same limitations with potential rpms

however the bigger it is the slower we would want it to rotate, and the less it would matter

that was just an idea I decided to jott down, let me know if you think of anything else, as well as this idea

@mr bogangles
Hi,I have been looking at your setup,ingenious,but IF I understand it right,there will be lenz drag,but it is apposed by the weights,which would tend to be pushed out one side and pulled in the other,so unbalacing the wheel and making it harder for the prime mover.
If I have it wrong,let me know and I will look again.
peter

Quote from: petersone on November 17, 2009, 11:55:10 AM
@mr bogangles
Hi,I have been looking at your setup,ingenious,but IF I understand it right,there will be lenz drag,but it is apposed by the weights,which would tend to be pushed out one side and pulled in the other,so unbalacing the wheel and making it harder for the prime mover.
If I have it wrong,let me know and I will look again.
peter

The counter torque will be on the disc.  The disc will remain upright due to the weight (in a perfect system), but the magnet will still be able to rotate relative to the disc at the same rate or rpm without the lenz drag. 

Think of it as a disc on an axle with a bearing. As you hold the disc stationary, the axle will be rotating but the disc is not.  The only drag on the axle from you holding the disc is the friction from the bearings itself, which is extremely less than the counter torque from you holding the disc.  No matter how you torque the disc, the rotation of the axle won't be opposed by the torque on the disc.  It really is an ingenious setup.

GB

Hi All
It looks like I have it wrong,I thought it worked like a "normal" genny,but it seems to be a HPG,of which I know nothing.I will keep looking.
peter

Hi Gravityblock
Looking again,you said counter torque will be on the disk,will that not try to rotate the disk,all be it slightly,and put the whole thing out of balance?
peter

Quote from: petersone on November 17, 2009, 04:19:25 PM
Hi Gravityblock
Looking again,you said counter torque will be on the disk,will that not try to rotate the disk,all be it slightly,and put the whole thing out of balance?
peter

With the weights on the disc, Yes.  The concept should work in a perfect system, but we need to find a way to keep the discs to stay upright without the weights, such as anchoring them down to something.

well, i thought of something

this is the first thing i could think of, and i made a model really quick because i thought it might be easier than drawing it

basically instead of a counterweight, there is an unfixed axle at the bottom of the disc

looking at my pictures, the black shaded circle represents the magnet, the wood ruler (backwards, explaining the blank side), and the small white gear is the disc

the smaller white gear is used so we can see the magnet behind it easier

then i took a coat hanger and cut it to length, bent it at the end, and put it through a corresponding sized hole so it would be loose enough to spin on the disc

im sure you can see how it works, the rod (coat hanger wire) is limited by its movement, keeping the disc nearly upright while it rotates, but not dramatically

i only used one disc for demonstration purposes and quickness

the big orange thing is just a spacer, the white circle at the bottom is used to keep the coat hanger wire in place, and allows it to slide through

now this could be done with a fixed pole on an axle (to replace the white slip circle at the bottom)

it would better if the slip were on the disc, and a counterweight could be used underneath the axle on the pole so we wouldn't have to account for the weight


ok so it obviously doesn't keep it completely vertical, but it should allow for higher rmp's

il add drawings later as to what i was referring to, in how to make it more efficient, i just spent an hour making that contraption and i need a change of scenery

@gravityblock, let me know what you think of this and if you've thought of anything else either

I believe that 5 equal gears would provide a better solution. You just keep the center gear stationary and the outer ones rotate around it.
This will keep the outer gears stationary and is able to drive at any speed!

I was thinking of something that may first prove if any homo-polar generator works in the manner that everyone believes and that it is in fact possible to achieve any OU effects.

This is a concept that should prove the theory or show otherwise.

The Homo-polar HHO generator!

 

this could be good knowledge base for those interested in HPG

HPG (homo polar generator) , unlike all other dynamos, this machine cannot be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes (in either magnitude or direction). However, the circuit in the Faraday disc is parallel to the magnetic field vector and therefore encloses no magnetic flux. Therefore, Faraday's law does not apply to this machine.

the whole point of this is the fact that this is lenz-less rotation

if you took any generator and could cancel out counter torque, almost every time it would become a PMM

the faster this mechanism is spun, the less energy it will take to maintain speed due to the flywheel effect

every revolution still translates to 360 degrees of rotation of the magnet compared to the stator

and it adds 360 degrees for every extra disc/magnet we add, which can be balanced out

the bottom line being, this is lenz-less rotation

no matter how strong, fast, heavy, how many, or how much electricity the magnets induce, it takes the exact same amount of energy every time to spin this machine, and because it is balanced, all we have to account for is the friction of the main axle itself, momentum will render the weight nearly invisible, and all we are left with is, well, free energy without any back torque what-so-ever

@lumen

i like the idea, i would be worried about counter torque because they are free to move and we would be directly spinning them from the axle, and might fight the rotation of the gears (meaning we have to account for lenz law)

ironically my device would not use any gears, when i built the concept model i used gears because they were perfect circles and already had holes in the middle, and i already had axles that fit them.

@winsonali

this machine doesn't have to be an HPG, and most likely won't be, but i appreciate your input on HPG's in general

Nikolas tesla how he develop HPG

Nikola Tesla was interested in the Faraday disc and conducted work with homopolar generators.[2] He eventually patented an improved version of the device and his U.S. Patent 406,968 ("Dynamo Electric Machine") describes an arrangement of two parallel discs on separate, parallel axles, and joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. This would have greatly reduced the frictional losses caused by sliding contacts by allowing both electrical pickups to interface with the shafts of the two disks rather than at the shaft and a high-speed rim.

Lorentz force equation it self has number of discrepancies velocity of charge particle where in his equation he has used  both velocity and E( volts per meter)  where as velocity of a charge particle require a reference which is not present over here
and yet man kind is still unaware of the speed of magnetic lines

any way the reason for force required to move the fly wheel in magnetic field is due to the fact that the direction of wheel conductor is perpendicular to the magnetic filed if you turn the wheel in parallel to magnetic field, it will move freely but will not produce current as well
when ever a charge move in a conductor it creates its field and due to this field, forces like magnetic and electromagnetic starts reacting with each other and as a result the entire magnetic field acts as a invisible brake

magnet is just like a energy bank if you borrow energy from it, it will cost you work and if you give energy to it it will work for you. 

   

Quote from: lumen on November 17, 2009, 09:37:48 PM
I was thinking of something that may first prove if any homo-polar generator works in the manner that everyone believes and that it is in fact possible to achieve any OU effects.

This is a concept that should prove the theory or show otherwise.

The Homo-polar HHO generator!

The Homo-polar HHO generator will create an electric field only without a current.  The external circuit in a HPG has an electric field also that is opposite in direction or polarity to the disc.  This allows current to flow.

When you're dealing with more than one disc and more than one magnet, then the electric fields of the discs can be arranged where they are opposite in direction or polarity to allow current to flow without having relative motion between the disc or external circuit (This is the key point that everyone misses with the HPG).  It also has the affects of connecting the discs in series, which will increase the voltage.

mr_bojangles:

you are  thinking in right direction and i wish you best of luck in your work
actually you have understood the key problem ( eliminating the Lorentz force)
over coming this you get good energy source.

have a look on this video he is also thinking as we are thinking


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etFCzIe-D2Y&feature=related

HPO are very successful generators producing low voltages but very high currents.

I reversed the roles of the magnet and discs.  In the original setup, there was relative motion between the disc and magnet, but no relative motion between the disc and the magnetic field, thus the disc won't cut the field.  The discs will now rotate, while the magnets remain stationary relative to the discs and the discs will cut through the magnetic field.

Here's a drawing on how to keep the magnets upright without the weights.   

A) Axle  B) Discs  C) Slip ring  D) Wall  E) Frame  F) Anchored to Wall for illustration purposes only.

gravityblock:

this is quite workable model in this way its not a HPG but its a high efficiency generator where you will use momentum and mechanical advantage with reacting forces
good thinking
   

Quote from: gravityblock on November 17, 2009, 11:16:12 PM
When you're dealing with more than one disc and more than one magnet, then the electric fields of the discs can be arranged where they are opposite in direction or polarity to allow current to flow without having relative motion between the disc or external circuit.

Yes, but actually that cannot be done because in order to NOT have an external circuit, it must also rotate with the disk.
If it rotates with the disk, then it cannot cut any lines of force that the disk cut or it will cancel the current generated in the disk.

Think of the device with the salt water , would it work if there were fins inside that held the water still while the rest rotated? Yes! because the water would now be the external conductor.

Would it work if the just the water rotated? Yes, because the disk is now the external conductor.

the "invisible brake" will be interpreted completely into the stator and is irrelevant to the mechanism

the only reason there has not been a single (documented) PMM is because of lenz law, otherwise almost every single generator would be one

there are two components to every magnet, mass and strength

how do we make mass irrelevant? we already know this, just make it a balanced system, and spin it.

the strength is important because the stronger it is, the more energy it generates, and the more counter torque is directed to oppose this spin, and the more energy is required to keep it going. this has never been solved, but i did it

normally the stator is fixed, directing all the force into the magnet. and if the magnet is fixed, it cant be spun, so how do we make the magnet spin, without spinning the magnet?

we spin the plane it rests on

we fix the magnet, spin the plane, and allow the stator to move with the magnet, but be fixed at the same time relative to angular movement in comparison to the magnet


essentially i am spinning a fixed magnet, in front of the rotating axle of a non-rotating stator.

while all of this occurs, the entire system stays balanced

by making this force interpreted by gravity, we do not have to account for it, meaning we are harnessing almost all of the energy for almost nothing

almost all the forces cancel each other out, except for the friction of all axles, and the mass of the entire balanced system, and were left with almost all gain

Quote from: gravityblock on November 17, 2009, 11:29:18 PM
In the original setup, there was relative motion between the disc and magnet, but no relative motion between the disc and the magnetic field, thus the disc won't cut the field. 

that is the reason why HPG might not be the way to go, if we just use multiple magnets, the different poles can do it for us, i would imagine the working model having a combination of 5+ magnets per disc

here is a super quick drawing of how we can easily do this, it reminds me of the set up most home built wind generators have

apologies for its lack of proper scale and placement, would this idea suffice instead of an HPG type

@lumen:

If the external circuit rotated with the disc, then the external circuit would have an electric field (electro-motive force) that is the same polarity or pointing in the same direction as the disc.  Current can not flow in that setup.  The external circuit is just part of the disc in this case.

Relative motion between the disc and external circuit creates an EMF in the disc and an opposite EMF in the external circuit for current to flow.

If you have a disc with an EMF pointing from the axis to the rim, then have another disc with an EMF pointing from the rim to the axis, then you can connect a wire to the axis of both discs to create a return path for current to flow between the discs, even if the wire rotated with the discs.  A slip ring on the axis of both discs will allow us to bring the current off the discs to run our load.

If you have a single magnet, with a disc on each side of the magnet....then both discs will have an EMF pointing in the same direction.  Current can't flow in this setup without an external circuit that has relative motion to the disc.

@Mr_bojangles:

The last drawing I posted will have the counter torque on the disc because I reversed the roles of the disc and magnets so the discs will cut through the magnetic field.

If the magnetic field rotated with the magnet, then we wouldn't have this problem with the HPG.

GB

Quote from: gravityblock on November 18, 2009, 01:12:56 AM
If the magnetic field rotated with the magnet, then we wouldn't have this problem with the HPG.

what if we just use three horse-shoe magnets, arranged pointing outward from the center, alternating in poles

or two bar magnets, anything with both poles exposed in the manner we want it to

why not even change the disk to be perpendicular to the axle, it shouldn't make a huge difference

i actually have a couple magnets that are disc shaped with the north and south are on the ends as if you had folded it in half, as opposed to the ones that will not work. i thought it was very peculiar and i actually didn't think about them until now

Instead of using alternating poles, what about a circular halbach array.  This would fit nicely with your original design, if the magnetic field would rotate with the array.

Does the magnetic field rotate with a circular halbach array when it's spinning on it's magnetic axis?  If it does, then our counter torque issue is solved and we can have a constant DC output without using a commutator.  I've asked this question before, but received no answer.  Somebody on here must know the answer to this.

I assume the magnetic field does rotate with a circular halbach array, because they use the halbach array to build brush-less motors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-9IAj_YnI

GB

Quote from: mr_bojangles on November 18, 2009, 01:35:07 AM
what if we just use three horse-shoe magnets, arranged pointing outward from the center, alternating in poles

i actually have a couple magnets that are disc shaped with the north and south are on the ends as if you had folded it in half, as opposed to the ones that will not work. i thought it was very peculiar and i actually didn't think about them until now

A simple halbach array would have an effect similar to many horseshoe magnets placed adjacent to each other, with similar poles touching (according to wikipedia).  I think we're on the right track.

Those magnets are radially magnetized magnets.  They are common in speakers I believe.  The magnets where the south pole is on one side, and the north pole is on the opposite side are axial magnetized magnets.   

"The effect of this arrangement is roughly similar to many horseshoe magnets placed adjacent to each other"

wikipedia^

I know they're talking about in a line, but couldn't we loop it?

Quote from: mr_bojangles on November 18, 2009, 03:21:30 AM
"The effect of this arrangement is roughly similar to many horseshoe magnets placed adjacent to each other"

wikipedia^

I know they're talking about in a line, but couldn't we loop it?

Yes, we can make it circular, just like the circular halbach array in the youtube video. 

A relative of mine was once assigned to NATO during his military service, and I asked him about the Halbach Arrays.  He said "UFO", and changed the subject and refused to say anymore about it.

I am about 99% certain that the magnetic field will rotate with a Halbach Array when it's spinning on its magnetic axis.

All we need to do is spin 2 Arrays that are back to back on the same axle with the same magnetic pole facing the stationary discs on each side of the array.  Connect a wire to the axis of each disc and connect the rims of the discs together and extract the current without the counter torque or brushes.  The Halbach Arrays would essentially be rotating inside the stationary discs due to the rims being connected together. 

A wheel inside a wheel, and the wheel didn't turn about.  When the living creatures rose from the ground, the wheels also rose.  Wherever the spirit would go, they would go, and the wheels would rise along with them, because the spirit of the living creatures was in the wheels.  This is Ezekiel's wheel, a UFO.  I apologize for throwing this in here, but it is an ancient manuscript that describes the inner workings of a UFO.  How this can be ignored is beyond me.

Spinning the array mass would be much more efficient than trying to create a rotating magnetic field from coils in a TPU.

Here's the mathematics for the HPG.  Doubling the radii of the disc and magnet increases the output power to the 4th power while the input power requirements only increases to the square thereof.  The catch is the counter torque also increases to the 4th power and then there are huge losses associated with brushes, thus the reason for not achieving OU in the conventional setups.  Without the counter torque or brushes, we should have OU.


GB

Interesting ideas here. If you played with magnets then you've probably already made this.

If you take a large ring magnet then place small ring magnets around the edge facing the opposite pole they stick to the edge. Now if you move one of the small outer magnets it will stick and roll along the edge of the larger magnet.

If you have multiple small magnets around the larger magnet when you push one it will push the others along to balance the gap you've made from the push.

I'm wondering if you keep the inner large magnet steady but push the outer small magnets around through a conductive shaft that you will be able to extract the energy from the ends. Each small magnet would act as a mini HPG conducting through the larger stationary ring magnet (nickel or gold plated). I've made a picture, it's much easier to explain with it.

I guess we should prove the concept with alternating poles first.  If it works without the counter torque, and it should, then we can improve on it with other more complex setups such as the Halbach Array.

Excellent Work Mr_bojangles,

GB

That's another interesting idea, DreamThinkBuild.  It may have potential also.  That's a good drawing. I wish I could draw like that.

indeed i have not DreamThinkBuild, nor was i aware of this phenomena, but it does seem very intriguing

@gravityblock

you are the first to tell me about the halbach array, and i am impressed with it. it appears mainly to manipulate the lines of flux, and does seem promising, but as i said before i am not framiliar with it enough to discuss possible inductance reactions with my set up

as far as alternating poles, we could also use an alternator set up, which i just realized is what i was thinking about when i referred to wind generators

heres a couple pics of set up we might want to look in to, stolen from wind gen's

(heres the website they came from)
http://www.otherpower.com/toymill.html

this should create the rotation we are looking for and while we do not neccessarily need to wire it like an alternator, i believe we have the option

@Gravityblock,

QuoteThat's a good drawing. I wish I could draw like that.

Thanks.

@MrBojangles,

I've included two shots of a quick setup I just put together. It shows a ceramic ring magnet which has little neos around the edge. North is pointing out on the ring magnet and south on all the small neos are pointing out toward camera. What always fascinates me with this setup is when you push one small magnet all the others will roll to balance out the hole you made.

It's very easy to make if you have any cylinder or ring magnets laying around. It reminds me of a primitive Searl device.

@ gravityblock
Nice to see someone thinks alike.  I remember reading a thread a while back about a bloch wall generator here and it made me think about a hallbach array, so I came up with a design for a hallbach generator but put it on hold to work on a hallbach motor.  I'm at work now and don't have the original on my laptop (had drive/support mechanisms and different coil layout) so I whipped this up on break, it resembles this and I believe this is along the lines of what you are getting at???   There are two additional magnets in the array and the magnets are surrouned by a highly permeable material with flat spiral coils in between.  The idea was to rotate the 4 smaller magnets who's bloch walls are cenetered @ the axis which should cause the concentrated field to rotate and place the pickup coils on the longer stationary ones.

@phoneboy
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6759.0
that one^?

if i am interpreting this correctly, could we flip your model on its side and anchor the spiral coils in the same manner as my design?

also, i personally do not have any required equipment to build my own device or any variations, so its construction is at the mercy of anyone willing to attempt such a task

@DreamThinkBuild:

I modified your drawing and posted it in another thread.  I hope you don't mind.  Here is the thread if you want to follow it, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8320.msg209537#msg209537

@Gravityblock,

QuoteI hope you don't mind.

Thanks for asking, I don't mind if you modify it. If it inspires another idea or method then go for it. I'm interested in how other people might approach the challenge or they may see something entirely different.

Looks like you guys are pussy footing around working yourselves up to a Searl solution?

Quote from: raburgeson on November 20, 2009, 01:01:49 PM
Looks like you guys are  footing around working yourselves up to a Searl solution?

apologies, but pardon?

Quoteapologies, but pardon?

Raburgeson, might be referencing the way the Searl looks similar to the magnet setup with the ring.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8qvSNkiB9M
This would be a great HPG if you could find away to pick the current from the center of each moving ring to the stationary ring.

i appreciate you clearing that up for me, thanks

I just gave a fast read to the whole story u r proposing. I may have not grasp fully what r u after but if i got it right u want to spin the magnet around stationary disk? It will produce electricity in the circuit. I just found an experiment video here:

http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm

last vid on the right side.

In a simple HPG in my understanding there r two currents flowing. One is obvious in the circuit- the radial one. Second r the charges on the disk that make circular motions in m-field -axial current. An easy way to see it is to see the disk as a collection of co-centric and very thin rings. Spinning the ring is in fact equal to having a superconducting loop with a current in it. All charges in the ring will be under the m-field influence and will jump to the next outer ring etc. until they reach the brush and leave to the circuit.

So in a way the path of the electron is a spiral, much like an old good Vinyl plate.

heres a quick drawing, it has four horseshoe magnets, and four inductors on the armature (second picture added because first one was too small as you can see)

this will give us the rotation we want as far as the fields go, as well as the multiple poles. the only issue we have now is the best method to keep the inductors upright

@all, is there any way we could get this to work horizontal as opposed to vertical, because if there is a method that works horizontal then it will most likely work vertical as well

@creativity

do you think it will work?

originally i wasn't even going to make this an HPG, and im not sure what the benefit would be

basically any type of generator can be modified to work in the manner


i started with an HPG, and ended with my version of faradays disc

this time, its reversed to fit the specifications of an HPG, and it would have to include brushes (unfortunately)

the copper disc is on fixed axle, with three horseshoe magnets around the edge, on the same axle, but fitted with a slip ring

the magnets are connected together, and then to the axle, their own weight keeping them "down" while the system rotates

apologies for the bad pic, its off my phone

for proof of concept, im uploading a pic of the faraday disc, mainly to help see how it should behave

i have another HPG version, it will come later, hopefully it ends up being simpler to draw

@gravityblock,
and to whom it may concern

i wasn't sure if it would actually work, but apparently this does

the blacked out disc is fixed and can't rotate (darn i forgot to mark it so you could tell it wasn't turning, but there does appear to be a small white blotch on the upper left side of it if needed for reference)

the marked disc is free to rotate, and they are both connected by a belt


because only one can move, and because they are the same size, it translates into the type of motion we are looking for without gravity!

my only concern now is where the friction will go, i know it will be induced into the inductors axle, no idea what it will do with lenz

oops, only one pic got added, heres a couple more


i think its so interesting because the belt is the only thing "moving"

im pretty sure its the same thing as just putting another gear the same size as the discs in between them, but for some reason i feel as if this would be more efficient, maybe because there are fewer axles

what i really want to do is figure out a way to attach the discs to each other

im worried that being connected to the middle axle will some how give us some counter torque, but i think if we could figure out a way to attach the discs to each other we wouldn't have to worry about lenz

what i was thinking (didn't get around to testing yet) is connecting the discs with a belt, and either having a third disc on the middle axle, or not having one at all

if it does work connected to each other then i think its game over

In the pictured faraday disk, the brush on the outter rim seems to be off-angle from the magnet.

Does anyone know what the repercussions for this is ...does it translate to less current than in another position?

Quote from: jadaro2600 on November 29, 2009, 10:17:38 PM
In the pictured faraday disk, the brush on the outter rim seems to be off-angle from the magnet.

Does anyone know what the repercussions for this is ...does it translate to less current than in another position?

From what I understand, the angle of the brushes makes no difference.

What does make a difference is where the brush is placed in a conductive magnet.  There is a higher voltage potential on the outer rim, right in the middle of where the north and south poles meet.  I call this the zero point.  As you cross this zero point to the other side or pole of the magnet, then the voltage potential decreases accordingly.  I have never heard anyone mention this before, so I thought I would throw it in here.

This could be beneficial.  You could rotate one conductive magnet, with many number of other conductive magnets in series that is stationary and placed very close to the rotating magnet, and place the brush in the middle of the stationary magnets to have a higher voltage potential without any additional increase in power input requirements.

From experience it works when all the conductive magnets are rotating, but I haven't tested it when some are stationary.  Example, if I rotate 8 conductive magnets where they are in attraction mode to each other and connected, then the highest voltage potential is where the fourth and fifth magnet meet on the magnet's outer edge.  If the magnetic field remains stationary when the magnet is rotating, then I see no difference if some of the magnets aren't rotating and particle drift should come into play since the electrons will be moving through the magnetic field of the stationary magnets.

I'll work on a drawing for better visualization.

Edit:  I did a quick test and it appears they need to either all rotate together or brushes are needed between the stationary and rotating magnets.  I'll try more experiments on this idea.

@Gravityblock,

Thanks, that is some good information about the voltage decreasing outward from the center (bloch wall) and at the junction between stationary magnet and moving magnet I came up with this interpretation.

In this design the large magnet is only there to keep the smaller magnets in orbit. Instead of riding directly on the stationary magnet have a thin copper ring which is insulated from the center magnet which the smaller magnets ride on. If the bloch wall is where the highest voltage is then maybe a smaller cross section copper ring could be used. Thinner, the better to reduce eddy current losses.

Your free to modify the picture if you see any other ways.

I'm waiting for the ring magnets to arrive, so I can start testing some ideas.

I order 1 of these as the center magnet:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RX038DCB

and some of these for the orbiting magnets:
http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=R636

It's my first post here, so hello to everyone ;)

Ok guys, now some of my thoughts. Why a hell do you want to use a homopolar generator in your original project mr_bojangles ?? First of all there is no lenz drag in homopolar generators just as they are (if there is please tell me where ?), so why to invent a wheel again. There is no sense in it. The problem with homopolar generators is their huge current and low voltage generated. How do you want to utilize a huge current ? Another problem with them are brushes friction and big RPMs needed to make it work. All in all that's why people don't use homopolar generators nowadays (at least I don't really imagine where they would be needed) ;]

That's why you need to use classic coils (I liked a schematic with horseshoe magnets or a halbach array idea).

Another problem with Next generations of your original project are the machanisms making the discs stay upright. Any mechanism which is connected in anyway with the axis of rotation of the main wheel will ruin everything. Note, that in such a connection a lenz drag from the discs will be transfered to the main axis and slow it down as in classic generator. So all in all the best configuration for now is with the coat hanger wire. But hopefully there is something better ;) By the way, I'm also wondering... maybe there is a configuration in which the lenz drag could be used to to make the main wheel go faster ;> That way we would not only cancel the lenz drag but also utilize it ;>

Personally I really like the idea of Mr. Th3Generat0r. I think this can really be able to selfsustain if the rotary speed of the big wheel is big enough (able to keep the ring magnets rotate all way round - which is needed to fully cancel any drag). His frictionless prototype is also really nice.

Also I'm thinking of another setup - pistonlike. But need to think of it a couple of days more.

If I'm wrong at any point just let me know - it's better to know that you are wrong than leave in a dream ;]

welcome and greetings

well to be honest the original design wasn't supposed to be an HPG, but its pretty irrelevant

andd to start off, there is a lot of lenz drag on every generator, including HPG's and all other types

lenz drag is induced into whatever mechanism you have that rotates the disc, in a normal set up, its usually a crank or motor, whatever

because the magnet is stationary, it can't give into the lenz force, so all of it is projected into the disc itself

the disc gains its own magnetic field, and opposes turning in the field of the actual magnet

the faster you spin it the harder it becomes to spin essentially

and currently there are no proven methods of using this drag in a beneficial way because no matter which way you push spin or rotate it, the force is always the exact opposite direction


this is the problem with all generators, but the real reason its an issue is because this opposing drag is essentially what is generating electricity in the first place

my original design used couterweights so this force would fight gravity, the problem is most definately in figuring out a way to keep them upright because centripetal force would make the counterweight ineffective at high RPM's

ive never messed with pistons, although i have been wondering about a way to apply this idea to hydraulics


appreciate the words of encouragement

ok please have a look at this document:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf

In this special case I don't really see any lenz drag - so if in this special case of homopolar generator there is no lenz drag why to build anything different that uses the same principle? This will simple not be OU and hard to utilize as said before.

lenz drag will be induced into the rotating magnet,
in the exact opposite way that the magnet spins

electricity can only be generated from movement, and whatever you spin will end up receiving the majority of lenz drag

if there was a proven method of doing this it would basically be OU by itself, that's why i find it hard to believe someone has figured it out already, especially using just an HPG, and it is what my own mechanism is designed for, a way to generate electricity without having to account for this

I think you have just confused Lorentz law with Lenz law ;] We are talking about different things.
Have a look a this:

"Like all dynamos, the Faraday disc converts kinetic energy to electrical energy. However, unlike all other dynamos, this machine cannot be analysed using Faraday's own law of electromagnetic induction. This law (in its modern form) states that an electric current is induced in a closed electrical circuit when the magnetic flux enclosed by the circuit changes (in either magnitude or direction). However, the circuit in the Faraday disc is parallel to the magnetic field vector and therefore encloses no magnetic flux. Therefore, Faraday's law does not apply to this machine.

Instead, the Lorentz force law is used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, discovered thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electron then creates an electric current between the centre of the disc and its rim."

This is a quotation from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

So to sum this up - there is absolutely no drag here caused by any of this laws! Please read the provious paper I have posted and you will understand that ;]
So please don't use homopolar generators in your idea as this doesn't make sense ;]

Quote from: Airstriker on December 04, 2009, 07:14:31 AM
I think you have just confused Lorentz law with Lenz law ;] We are talking about different things.  Have a look a this:

Instead, the Lorentz force law is used to explain the machine's behaviour. This law, discovered thirty years after Faraday's death, states that the force on an electron is proportional to the cross product of its velocity and the magnetic flux vector. In geometrical terms, this means that the force is at right-angles to both the velocity (azimuthal) and the magnetic flux (axial), which is therefore in a radial direction. The radial movement of the electron then creates an electric current between the centre of the disc and its rim."

So please don't use homopolar generators in your idea as this doesn't make sense ;]

It may not make sense to you, but it does make sense to others.  There is a counter torque in the HPG that is proportional to the voltage and current being taken off the disc.  Moving charges create a magnetic field.  This magnetic field from the moving charges is against the magnetic field that induced the moving charges.

Lorenz force law explains the EMF produced in the HPG.  Lenz law explains the force against the EMF produced by lorenz.  You're the one who is confused.  Both laws apply here.  Lorenz and Lenz are not friends.  There is more than one force involved here, thus more than one law to take into consideration.


GB

apologies on non-specific dialogue, i tend to repeat and use terms of whomever i'm responding to so there is no confusion even if the term might be mixed up, i assumed you weren't aware of the distinction and for ease was using "lenz drag" as a general term of the combined forces of lorentz as well as lenz law, because like GB said you can't really have one without the other as both terms are used to describe similar situations, just different aspects of it

well, if you believe that HPG's are not subject to these forces, then wouldn't you want me to use them? you say not to use them, and also no lenz drag applies, i don't have to believe it but following your logic, isn't it logical i would then use and HPG vs. a conventional multi-pole system that would be subject to the negative forces?

Ok maybe I was wrong (I still need to think of it a bit longer) but anyway there is no sense in using HPGs here. Here is why... HPGs require relative motion between the circuit and the disc under magnetic field inflence or just relative motion between circuit and the rotating magnet (without using additional disc). So where and how would you like to apply the brushes (to the magnet or disc ?) to make your idea work ? If it's the magnet than you don't need a disc. If it's the disc than you don't have any movement between the circuit and the disc (as you plan to always keep it upright). Any other possibilities to get some voltage between the brushes ?

Quote from: Airstriker on December 04, 2009, 02:07:14 PM
So where and how would you like to apply the brushes (to the magnet or disc ?) to make your idea work ? If it's the magnet than you don't need a disc. If it's the disc than you don't have any movement between the circuit and the disc (as you plan to always keep it upright). Any other possibilities to get some voltage between the brushes ?

keeping it upright is key, on the horseshoe version, brushes would be attached to the same mechanism that keeps the magnets upright, thus the relative rotation of the disc to the magnet would induce on the brushes

one would be on the outer rim, the other being the axle of the disc, both brushes fixed on "upright mechanism"

ive said this from the beginning, the original wasn't supposed to be an HPG but that is irrelevent, the key part is the misdirection of the countertorque into another medium that we do not have to account for energy wise

A homopolar generator is in fact a faraday disk, the modernized version that is, as he did not have the modern magnets that we do, ...

The idea here is that it was Faraday's paradox, not Lenz's.

Frankly, following Newman's ideas makes the situation appear more meaningful...what with the gyroscopic particles and everything.

There have always been arguments about where the reference frame is, and for simplicity it the wire, just for the fact that it's not moving.  I suppose current flows out because it would rather not stay in, it provide a point of exit for the electrons, acquiring it requires sending it back in though, at the center.

This changes however, if you place the magnetic field perpendicular to the axis rather than parallel to the axis, (or through it).  I took two magnets and oriented them so that they were sitting ( diagonally ) one face north up, the other south up, they were attracted at each others rim, I then suspended a copper sheet over them which I had cut into a circle and conducted electricity across the diagonal of the disk.

It spun.

Just as a faraday or homopolar disk would if it had ONE magnet below it, the disk rotates instead with two.  Here is a diagram. Crude as it may be.  It demonstrates the perpendicularity of the forces.  The disk will spin depending upon the path it takes across the magnets, N-S or S-N, etc.

very interesting jadaro

did you spin the disc and try to generate anything? there would still be an issue with brushes but it could be applied to my machine

Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 05, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
very interesting jadaro

did you spin the disc and try to generate anything? there would still be an issue with brushes but it could be applied to my machine

I'm afraid I'm lacking a rigid setup to do so, and lacking the tools on top of this, the money as well, otherwise I would do such a setup.  But I'm sure that what you ask will indeed produce a current, however small it may be, the possibility is that it will produce twice the voltage potential as has been mentioned as a standard HPG or Faraday disk.

I've often though that you could simply use roller skate bearings, something round that spins and makes contact with the periphery without much friction.  This is far different than the usual carbon brushes.

The bearings can be acquired cheaply, the disk is an issue for me, and it's size and tolerances are as well.  I'm a fully capable machinist with no tool and no machines,  :'(.

Anyway, I've read that a demonstration with a bearing motor was performed, it functions similarly to the diametric model above, but on multiple smaller scales, the roller bearing would probably not detract from the effects seen here.

EDIT: of course the magnets are stationary in these experiments.

Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 05, 2009, 11:35:52 AM
very interesting jadaro

did you spin the disc and try to generate anything? there would still be an issue with brushes but it could be applied to my machine

On another note, if you try to generate with a radial using a single side of the magnet, and then use a radial to send current back to the axis, it will cancel out the effects, it is symmetrical with regard to this.  The over all effect of the current is seen only by the radial path, and not say, if you were to spiral outward and radial back, the effect would still cancel, it is only the radial path from the axis to the point of brush contact on the outside which causes the rotation.

This is why I performed the experiment in question.

EDIT: ..this setup will work all the same, as the path of the current crosses the magnetic field, the disk will rotate perpendicular.  It is as if to say, that the atoms conducting experience a force in such a way as to compel them to push on their neighbors, as if atoms would rather not conduct electricity.  SO the path is constantly being replaced with new atoms and the point of rotation is at the point where north and south merge in the disk, which I should hope is the logically placed axis of rotation ( center of gravity of the disk ).

its ingenious that you use conductive bearings instead of brushes, i don't know why i never thought of that but i would imagine it cuts out on friction a lot

where do you plan on going with your design? im interested to hear it

Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 05, 2009, 03:15:17 PM
....the possibility is that it will produce twice the voltage potential as has been mentioned as a standard HPG or Faraday disk.

The voltage would be more than doubled, it would increase to the 4th power.  The downside is the drag is increased to the 4th power while drawing current negating our power output gain.  This is how I currently understand this at the moment.  Let's say a 2 ft. radii magnet produces 2 volts at 1000 rpm.  A 4 ft. radii magnet of the same strength would produce 16 volts at 1000 rpm.  The input requirements for the larger 4 ft. radii magnet would only increase to the square thereof in order to get it to 1000 rpm as compared to the 2 ft. radii magnet.  In order to maintain the system of the larger magnet at 1000 rpm while drawing current, then the input requirements will increase to the 4th power due to the drag or counter torque as compared to the smaller magnet.  I believe this has already been confirmed.

In the standard HPG, each additional brush that is added doubles the amps due to the brushes being connected in parallel and the input requirements double.  In this setup, each additional brush that is added will double the voltage due to them being connected in series and will double the input requirements.  Voltage is not a problem in the HPG with the right design.

I think your design has potential.  I have many designs that increase the voltage to the 4th power, but we won't achieve OU until we overcome this drag.

Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 05, 2009, 09:42:56 PM
its ingenious that you use conductive bearings instead of brushes, i don't know why i never thought of that but i would imagine it cuts out on friction a lot

where do you plan on going with your design? im interested to hear it

Well, if I were to create a disk Faraday style - where there were one pole to the side, ..the disk would be supported by three bearings - there would be no center axis, and it would simply be supported by those, I would have a brush at the center of rotation, as it would be an area of low relative surface feet per minute, the friction would be lower. I would pull current from any or all of the outside bearings, ..the rim of the disk would be grooved to the height of the bearing, that way it doesn't go flying off, etc.  By systematically, I should say, altering which bearing I took current from in such a way that it was extracted at frequency, ... no two at a time.  I think an interesting thing might occur if this were to be done.

5 bearings may be a bit much, but cycling the output may have better than expected results. Additionally, the two extra bearings gives it rigidity.

Given the nature of the oscillations, I think it possible to increase the voltage substantially - the joule thief is a simply way to boost voltage, a similar method could be employed if you were to alter the path by which energy were extracted.  Do this at a high rate of frequency may cause an electromagnetic wave to form to counter the most recently extracted current.  Doing so may also have beneficial effects.

I would draw current from the formerly discussed method ( diameter method, except I think I ) would groove the rim, and use four bearings, I'm not sure how I would orient them though.  The diametric model is simply to demonstrate matters-of-fact.

This is an interesting thing about the voltage, I don't know too much about the math behind the HPG, but i do think that a roller bearing would conserve friction forces.. I worry though about the high amps that one puts out might weld a brush or melt it.

@mr_bojangles:

I setup a small little test device for your original design and have been playing around with it.  I think the weights can be done away with. 

Glue a bearing on the outside axis of each disc.  The side of the bearing fixed to the disc I will refer to it as the fixed side and the other side of the bearing that can freely rotate I will refer to it as the rotating side.  Run a small non-magnetic rod from the rotating side of the left disc to the fixed side on the right disc. Then run another rod from the rotating side of the right disc to the fixed side on the left disc.  I haven't tested this idea yet.  Let me know what you think.

To my surprise, there is much more relative motion between the magnets and discs than I expected.  Below is an illustration in how the rods are connected to the bearings.

GB

that is a brilliant idea, i either see the rods "canceling" out the motion, as one rod will seek full rotation as compared to the other which will want to stay relative to the other disc, however the other might be that they will lock up and no relative motion will occur

I've been trying run it in my mind, but it is proving a difficult feat, and drawing i fared the same. the only issue i see is where they are fixed to the axis, because they will have a tendency to move with the machine as opposed to the slipped one, but at the same time i think it could result in the disc seeking the rotation of both which will result in the disc staying upright

maybe i will get time to build it, until then however

i thought of something, is there any way we can use centripetal force to give us the desired rotation pattern?

i messed around with a couple configurations that employed various gears attached to the axis with different placements of weight but in the end they all seemed to stick and rotate with the mechanism

so far i think it might be a lost cause but maybe itl spark an idea in your head

if you get a chance to test yours let me know, it looks promising

if we do get this i feel like it could at least be PM

Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 06, 2009, 05:26:30 PM
I've been trying run it in my mind, but it is proving a difficult feat, and drawing i fared the same.

I haven't been able to fully run it through my mind either, and although the drawing helps with the concept, it doesn't help to determine if it would work or not.  At least I have a model to play around with so I can see and understand the problem at hand more clearly.  I'll try to test this idea and will let you know the results.

GB

cant wait to hear how it goes

ive got a couple ideas i haven't tossed out yet, i think the answer will be connecting the discs only to themselves somehow, as well as it being able to work horizontal, because if it works horizontal obviously gravity will not be a factor and the rpm issue will be irrelevent

all wishful thinking, good luck

Aluminum may make a cheaper disk..light weight, it could have an axial flywheel.  Somewhere not being influenced by the fields as much ( or even a non-conducting flywheel ).

Here's a short video showing the angular momentum while trying to keep the discs upright by hand.  The video is not of the best quality and the model is of poor construction, but it may help in visualizing how to keep the discs upright at high rpm's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4c4orG9qQmk

GB

Quick question & possible suggestion, would a homopolar disc work if the disc and magnets were counter rotating. If so you could use a don wilkes type setup to have stationary pickups??

Quote from: phoneboy on December 07, 2009, 12:40:32 AM
Quick question & possible suggestion, would a homopolar disc work if the disc and magnets were counter rotating. If so you could use a don wilkes type setup to have stationary pickups??

There would be no advantage in having the disc and magnet counter rotating relative to each other due to the magnetic field of the magnet remaining stationary.  It would work if the disc and external circuit counter rotated or two discs counter rotating on opposite sides of the magnet with a stationary pickup across the two counter rotating discs.  Here's a thread showing the latter, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8409.0

Could you provide a link for the Don Wilkes setup?

Thanks,

GB

How about putting the Slater in the center ?. Just 1. Then 2 magnet disc on the outside?.   

i would very much like to see the don wilkes set up, for i have not heard of it

@24hosting

the lenz drag would be pushed into the magnets, and it would exhibit similar characteristics of an unmodified generator or dynamo


on a different note,

what if we attached a rod that could move up, down, left and right, but not twist, fixed to each disc

it could be attached out on the side, a rod with a fixed loop or hook, so as long as it can move all directions but spinning it should work

light blue- rod
grey-disc
gold- loop
green- fixed rod on disc
black- fixed rod, freestanding
white- fixtures keeping "green" connected

OK. Well I am very new to all of this. But would it not be the same ..The two outer rotors would spin (magnets are on the rotors) on a shaft or axle while the Slater was stationary in between (held the coils)?. I really don't know. But just thought it might. Give you more idea's .Something to think about. Going To start one myself today. See what happens. gl to you.
24hosting. 

Quote from: 24hosting on December 07, 2009, 02:43:31 PM
OK. Well I am very new to all of this. But would it not be the same ..The two outer rotors would spin (magnets are on the rotors) on a shaft or axle while the Slater was stationary in between (held the coils)?. I really don't know. But just thought it might. Give you more idea's .Something to think about. Going To start one myself today. See what happens. gl to you.
24hosting.

Using the magnet as the rotor is one option. It would have to have come sort of conducting skin, ..etc.

Some magnets have a lower power, the larger they are, which I find unusual, you may find a midrange size with a higher gauss field than one twice it's size.

Quote from: gravityblock on December 07, 2009, 02:01:23 AM
There would be no advantage in having the disc and magnet counter rotating relative to each other due to the magnetic field of the magnet remaining stationary.

I'm quoting myself here.  There may be no advantage in having the magnet and disc counter rotating from an EMF point of view, but it may have an advantage in overcoming the counter torque somehow.

At this time, I am open to all possibilities, even things that appear to have no advantage or things that may appear to be counter intuitive.  Look at the Halbach array.  It's design appears to be counter intuitive, but it has led to brushless motors, magnetic bearings, magnetic coupling, particle accelerators, etc.  Doing things that are counter intuitive can be of great benefit at times.

We have to change the way we think and have a counter intuitive mind also, in order to accomplish things we otherwise wouldn't be able to do.

I have some magnets that came out of some old hard drives.Is there a way to know what kind or how strong they are. I mean there feel very strong?.

Quote from: 24hosting on December 08, 2009, 05:32:09 AM
I have some magnets that came out of some old hard drives.Is there a way to know what kind or how strong they are. I mean there feel very strong?.

They're probably strong neo magnets.

If there was two magnets attached to a piece of metal, then they're more than likely axially magnetized magnets (north pole on the heads side and south pole on the tails side, or vice versa).  If there was a single magnet attached to the piece of metal, then it is more likely a radial magnet ( north and south pole on both the heads and tails side).

You can always use either pole of another magnet to see how your hard drive magnets are magnetized.

use a magnetic rod and place it on the magnet, magnets are not magnetic in between poles so if it doesn't stick you have your "equator"

@GB, what did you think of the rod idea

Great . But I don't have one lol. But I appreciate the learning's.Thanks

Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 08, 2009, 02:10:47 PM
@GB, what did you think of the rod idea

My mind says it works and my little model says it may work.
If it doesn't work, then a few small additional modifications may be all is needed.  My best guess is no modifications is needed, but you never really know until it is tried.

It appears to be a very promising idea.

GB, thats how i feel about it, its just so simple, well hey if it works il give you some credit and wel both be rich


maybe now is this time to make an investment and purchase some parts

i was thinking i would just buy a couple crank flashlights and steal their generators set up, so its already wired up to an LED bank for a load, seeing as how i have no parts to make it

would they be too weak?

and what would you suggest i do/purchase, and whats the best place to find them

i whipped this up really quick, and it works flawlessly

ok gents (and ladies if your out there), i am going to start a new thread in magnet motors, with the most updated version in addition to the generator specs that's i leave out of my drawings for quickness

i have no idea what will happen if this thing got spun, all i know is i have relative motion between a fixed magnet and a partially fixed stator, and apparently no lenz drag

if anyone is good at rendering pics on the computer i would be more than willing to allow them to show off with my contraption that still is yet to have a name, i am limited to microsoft paint and old fashioned pencil and paper (although i still don't have a protractor or compass)

until next time...


edit';'''
if anyone has any ideas or questions il still follow this one until i post the link for the new one

@mr_bojangles & gravitybloc, sorry for the delayed response, just got back from vacation. Misunderstanding about the reference to Don Wilkes, he invented the Rolamite which I think could work well for a brushless setup.  Your ideas got me thinking so I modified a design I was working on (you'll see why I asked that question), a picture's worth a thousand words so tell me what you think?

Phoneboy,

I haven't had much time to analyze your drawing yet.  I did notice you confined the magnetic field with a ferromagnetic material.  Confining the magnetic field may be the key in overcoming the counter force if it's done properly.  This was brought to my attention the other day and I'm headed in this direction along with someone else.  You'll probably notice more threads on magnetic field confinement soon.

GB

wow, that looks like a work of art

likewise i don't have time to work through it completely but what ive noticed so far is i love the rollers and it looks to have extremely low friction

after consideration, the last set up will not work


if you look at it with one disc, and you push the other end like a lever, there will be counter torque placed on the system


so far the only way i can see it working is with the counterweights

if anyone else has a different idea, or can see the relationship between generating potential and restrictions on the system that could keep it upright

what if we did this?

it would still be balanced but the distance of the counterweight from the axle will increase the gravitational force that will be fighting the BEMF, and offsetting them will add to this, while increasing angular rotation of the inducting magnets on the disc

oops heres the pic