We can use a counter rotating coaxial motor from a RC helicopter to drive our HPG. Since the discs will be counter rotating, the counter force will be in opposite directions and canceling out this unwanted force. This RC helicopter would be good choice because of it's long axle which would accommodate the length of the cylinder magnet and discs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB3zzxgfMQI
Also, the voltage of both discs are naturally connected in series to increase the voltage. The long cylinder magnet can be made up of many smaller magnets. I have already tested this with many magnets forming a long cylinder magnet and the highest voltage potential was when the stationary external circuit at the rim was in the middle of the magnets. The length of the cylinder magnet can be viewed as being a large single radii magnet. Increasing the radii of the disc and magnet also increases the voltage.
GB
how do you get them to counter rotate?
i like the concept, but wouldn't the drag be induced into the rotation of the individual disc, and not the mechanism that keeps both moving?
i might have looked at it wrong, but i like the direction this is going in
Quote from: mr_bojangles on December 05, 2009, 12:11:32 PM
how do you get them to counter rotate?
i like the concept, but wouldn't the drag be induced into the rotation of the individual disc, and not the mechanism that keeps both moving?
i might have looked at it wrong, but i like the direction this is going in
Those are good questions. The props on the helicopter are counter rotating. How do they do this? My best guess is to have a separate motor for each prop. If this is the case, then the drag will be against each motor and we're out of luck as you suggested. :(
We need to find a way where the linkage connecting the disc and drive mechanism together will take the drag and not the disc or drive mechanism itself. I am almost certain the drag in the HPG can be defeated mechanically and your original design in keeping the discs upright suggests this also.
The important thing about using a cylinder magnet is it's more practical to have a 6 ft long cylinder magnet including the radii of its face, than to have a single 6 ft radii magnet (12 ft diameter). The large mass of the cylinder magnet doesn't even need to be rotated. Where are you going to find a 12 ft. diameter neo magnet and at what cost if you do find one? The cylinder magnet can always be made up of smaller magnets in order to achieve the desired radii. The voltage in a HPG is proportional to the strength of the magnetic field, the rpm, and the radii of the magnet/disc.
I'll keep thinking,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on December 04, 2009, 06:48:15 AM
...
Since the discs will be counter rotating, the counter force will be in opposite directions and canceling out this unwanted force.
...
Why do you think so? A counter force will apply to each disk separately. There is no reason they cancel.
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 06, 2009, 05:39:57 AM
Why do you think so? A counter force will apply to each disk separately. There is no reason they cancel.
Did you read my last post? If you did, then you would realize I already came to this conclusion since there are two different drive mechanisms, thus a counter force to each disk and axle separately.
If the axle is rotating the disc, then the counter force on the disc is transferred to the axle which is against it's rotation. Keep the counter force on the disc from transferring to the drive axle, then there is no counter force against the rotation of the system.
GB
gravityblock I know you are waiting for my opinion so here it is. I believe this is a very solid idea. Unless I made a basic mistake in my analysis this idea has every reason to work both as a backemf less motor and a backtorque less generator. I will use my time to analyze it more deeply and maybe make a 3d illustrations of the forces at play explaining the reason of operation. Congrats.
EDIT: I have to note a small correction. This idea seems to only create a no back torque generator. There is no motor action so far, however back torqueless is still a good thing. I will keep analyzing it further.
@broli:
Take your time in your analysis.
@exnihiloest:
Watch the helicopter video. Around the 4 minute mark in the video you can see how the helicopter rotates on it's axis. This is due to one prop spinning faster than the other prop. When both props are counter rotating at the same speed, the helicopter doesn't rotate on it's axis because the torque of the outer prop cancels the torque of the inner prop and vice versa, thus the torque doesn't get transferred through the axle to the helicopter.
When one prop is rotating faster than the other prop, then the slower prop doesn't cancel all of the force from the faster prop and the helicopter will rotate on it's axis due to there being an unequal force that is transferred through the axle to the helicopter. The same principal should apply to the counter force, as long as the counter rotating discs are rotating at the same speed then the counter forces should be canceled and not transferred through the axle.
GB
http://www.visionhobbies.com/1637131.html
GB,
I don't like to be the barer of bad news. But after careful scrutiny I discovered and unaccounted force. The left disc will have a back torque due to the right part of the magnet and the right disc will have a back torque due to the left side of the magnet. So far I have not been able to find a combination to cancel these out. If you like we can chat live on your place of choice.
Of course the ultimate confirmation is the experiment. All you do is check if it works like a motor, if it does then it means when it works as a generator it has a back torque.
broli,
I really appreciate you taking the time in considering this and trying different combinations. Breaking a law of physics is going to require thinking outside the box in a major way. I truly believe at this moment the counter force can be overcome by a mechanical design, but then other issues would probably crop up. Solving one problem leads to another problem, lol. What if we put a tail rotor on it by using another disc/magnet, is this possible?
Nature is the ultimate chess player, but one day somebody is going to make a move where nature can't win. At this very moment, I am the most hopeful in this happening. We have a little more knowledge now than we had prior to the pursuit of solving this puzzle, and this can be rewarding in and of itself.
Thanks again for looking into this,
GB
the only other way ive been able to alter counter torque is gravity, for if a magnet is being lifted straight up in the presence of inductors, the "weight" increases, because the pull from gravity is compounded with the opposing lenz drag
likewise a magnet being pushed in a downward direction in the presence of inductors appears to be "lighter" as gravity is now fighting the drag
i used to think this is what caused part of the back torque, because the faster they spun, the more of a difference in weight they became, thus making it more off balanced and harder to spin
so sometimes ive looked at it as something that gets heavier when lifted, and lighter as it falls, and im trying to figure out a way to make that do some work for me, or cancel themselves out
so much to think about, so many good ideas floating around here recently
Broli,
Overlooking a few possible design & engineering issues, please take a look at this illustration. This will push your mind to the limit. The brushes could always be replaced with slip rings. After posting your opinion on this, I will take you up on your offer to live chat if your still interested.
Here's a different perspective to help in the visualization. Right disc is negative and left disc is positive. Left Side of outside circuit is negative and right side of outside circuit is positive. I may have the polarity reversed, but what ever the polarities are on the disc, the external circuit will have an opposite polarity.
GB I suggest you continue analyzing it, the second perspective made it confusing. If it's easier I would recommend drawing it in 3d on pencil and paper, and then filling the colors with photoshop using the magic wand tool for easy filling within borders. You will need a scanner though. This is the first thing I try to do with these designs draw them in 3d on paper and start the scrutinty. If I think it has some value I use 3d software and post the presentation of the idea.
But I'm glad that you are posting these because they allow me to reignite the subject with more interest and different point of views.
I have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper. What is in my head and what I put on paper doesn't always match. :(
You know me, always making things more complicated than they are, lol. I guess it still works as a motor, so the counter torque will still be there.
GB
Right disc is a slightly smaller hollow cylinder disc and fits inside the larger diameter cylinder disc with brushes connecting them together on the inside of the larger diameter disc and outside of the smaller disc. I hope this helps. The other perspective in post #11, doesn't need the brushes connecting them together and could be viewed as having a different setup. Perspective was a bad choice of words on my part. The below illustration and the one in post #12 isn't much different than the original design of this thread. I didn't realize it until after posting it, and it caused all the confusion.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on December 07, 2009, 05:55:19 PM
The counter rotating discs in the last illustration are basically a hollow cylinder with one cylinder disc having a slightly smaller diameter with brushes connecting them, which I wouldn't be able to show the brushes because the brushes are on the inside. I have a hard time putting my thoughts on paper. What is in my head and what I put on paper doesn't always match. :(
You know me, always making things more complicated than they are, lol. I guess it still works as a motor, so the counter torque will still be there.
GB
The motor is indeed the ultimate test or vice versa. If it works as one thing it shouldn't work as the other. I have spend about an hour illustrating a motor idea untill I discovered the flaw AGAIN. For the sake of progress I will post it. The flaw is that the back emf doesn't cancel, the back emf in the wire going upwards is stronger than the one on the disc, thus it counters the applied current. The reason is because the wire going upwards has double the amount of current than the current from the center of the disc to the border.
For me the homopolar concept is an undefeatable opponent. I keep trying and trying and it ends up beating me every time. I think we have posted more ideas than there are patents on homopolar designs ;D .
From here, I have plans on how to use angular momentum in a way in which nobody has ever considered or attempted to use as far as I'm aware of in a generator/motor. My main focus around angular momentum will be designing a HPG that won't work as a motor. This video clearly shows angular momentum defying gravity and helped me to understand it better, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=545GwnupKAE
This is also a good video on angular momentum, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k276y9kuQQ
If I can get this all worked out in my head and can put it on paper in a way that can be understood by others, then I will create another thread.
GB
Last night I could barely sleep because of yet a new idea, again I will post this with a nice presentation. The idea is very similar to the idea you started this thread with only is the magnet orientated and rotating differently. My homopolaric knowledge says that it should work since it's so easy.
Broli:
If the axles on each side ran through the magnet where the magnet could freely rotate on bearings in either direction and we could design a system where the discs will rotate in the generator, but the magnet will rotate with the motor.....then there would be no counter torque because the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet. The two separate axles can not connect to each other, but they can still be ran through the magnet allowing the discs to counter rotate while allowing the magnet to rotate in either direction due to the motor.
Need an illustration?
GB
Here's a drawing for Illustration Purposes only so we can design a system with this concept in mind. I look forward to your new idea.
Broli,
Your design in post #16 is a neat concept. It is really thinking outside the box. I like it, even though it doesn't defeat our enemy. This has really taken us into a new direction with the HPG/HPM.
Here's the idea I thought about.
Basically in your first design you reversed the emf by having two discs rotating in opposite direction, but this implied having a counter torque since magnet and circuit weren't attached.
In this idea we rely on the fact that rotation reverses velocity for us with the given magnet. As you can see this concept is very easy to build. To me this should work unless physics says otherwise, if it doesn't work I would happily say I don't understand why. Since there's no apparent relative movement it might not seem promising, but if you follow homopolar analysis it should produce an net emf. Since rotation produces a velocity (yellow) of the mobile charge and these then want to attract to the center of the magnet on one side and repel when they cross the center. And vice versa on the other side AND even on the edges (bridge).
You're right, it doesn't have a counter torque in this setup. I'll give you the bad news first, then some really good news which you must read.
I don't think it would produce a net EMF due to no net relative motion. Here's my reasoning on this. Let's say you have another radial magnet on a separate axis and they're both facing each other and you rotated only one magnet. The stationary magnet would couple to the rotating magnet, similar to how the "magnetic stirrer" works. This is due to the magnetic field rotating with the magnet and the conductive plates wouldn't be cutting the flux. The radial magnet isn't spinning on it's magnetic axis so the field rotates with it. Don't give up on this idea though, because it may be able to be exploited.
Here's how. All of our attempts have failed possibly due to the HPG creating a constant DC. Let's focus on having it create AC. On one side of the radial magnet, we'll have an alternating EMF that is always opposite in direction to the alternating EMF on the other side. Each side will be alternating 180 degrees out of phase with each other. This will allow an alternating EMF to be generated with no counter torque without having the circuit and magnet attached to each other.
So, we'll replace the axial magnetized magnet in my original design with the counter rotating discs with a radial magnet. The radial magnet will be able to freely rotate on bearings, but the counter torque on each side of the magnet will keep it from having a net rotation while generating an alternating EMF. The magnet will be oscillating back and forth with no net rotation. The faster the discs rotate, the faster the magnet will oscillate back and forth. The magnet should absorb the counter torque without transferring it to the discs which are connected to the drive axles. This is a combination between regular induction and the HPG. Unite the two together and everyone is happy.
What do you think?
Quote from: gravityblock on December 08, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
The radial magnet isn't spinning on it's magnetic axis so the field rotates with it.
Yes this is the mystery to me. If this doesn't work then for some reason the homopolar forces I have been using to analyze these don't hold anymore. You could explain it with flux and field lines but I stopped using those concepts and only looked at movement and mechanical forces. For instance how come when a magnet is rotated around its magnetic axis it produces an emf but when you use the same force law and apply it to the concept above it doesn't anymore. When rotation happens the electrons on the plate get a velocity component, this velocity component should be parallel to "current" loops of the magnet and thus attract or repel t/from the center. Yet this probably won't happen in reality as you state.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 08, 2009, 12:37:12 PMHere's how. All of our attempts have failed possibly due to the HPG creating a constant DC. Let's focus on having it create AC. On one side of the radial magnet, we'll have an alternating EMF that is always opposite in direction to the alternating EMF on the other side. Each side will be alternating 180 degrees out of phase with each other. This will allow an alternating EMF to be generated with no counter torque without having the circuit and magnet attached to each other.
So, we'll replace the axial magnetized magnet in my original design with the counter rotating discs with a radial magnet. The radial magnet will be able to freely rotate on bearings, but the counter torque on each side of the magnet will keep it from having a net rotation while generating an alternating EMF. The magnet will be oscillating back and forth with no net rotation. The faster the discs rotate, the faster the magnet will oscillate back and forth. The magnet should absorb the counter torque without transferring it to the discs which are connected to the drive axles. This is a combination between regular induction and the HPG. Unite the two together and everyone is happy.
What do you think?
Maybe you should draw that.
I'll draw a very basic idea based on this and ask you what you think will happen.
I described how to generate AC with the HPG. The frequency of the AC will be proportional to the rate the magnet is oscillating at. This will put a tremendous strain on the bearings at a high rate of speed. There is a possible solution to this.
Replace the radial magnets with two circular halbach arrays. The arrays can be made where the magnetic field is uniform. This uniform field will rotate. It has to, because they use the halbach arrays in magnetic coupling. You could place two halbach arrays on the same axle with their like poles facing outwards in a "S/S or N/N" configuration. This will get rid of the counter rotating discs. It also allows slip rings to be on the axis with no brushes needed on the rims.
Each disc will have an opposite polarity to the other disc. If the axle went completely through both discs and the magnet, while the magnet is on bearings and can freely rotate in either direction, the counter torque will cancel the magnet from rotating or oscillating. The magnet won't be attached to the discs or any part of the external circuit and the counter forces on the magnet will cancel each other.
This will produce a constant DC without the magnet oscillating back and forth and will eliminate the stress on the bearings.
It can be done with radial magnets to produce an AC or with two halbach arrays to produce a constant DC.
I'll work on an illustration. I may not be able to finish the drawing right away due to other things needing to be done at the moment. I should have it posted within the next 24 hours.
I guess we need to perform your experiment in order to know the results. If there is no net EMF, then we need to look at this in a different light. If there is an EMF with the counter force still present, then we need to look at this in a different light. The different light may be a combination between regular induction and the HPG in order to rid ourselves of this unwanted force.
Broli,
I already know you will say there is no voltage or EMF in the drawings below. The thing to remember is either your drawing will have an EMF or my drawing will have an EMF. You're drawing doesn't meet the requirements of either of the two laws below in order to generate an EMF. The real test is to perform the experiment in your drawing and my drawings below and compare the results.
There are two laws for induction. These two laws are flipped mirror images of each other. One law is a conductor moving relative to a changing magnetic field ( a magnetic field increasing or decreasing in strength relative to the conductor). The other law is a conductor moving through a uniform magnetic field not changing in strength.
There is no requirement in a HPG for there to be relative motion between the disc and external circuit as most is led to believe. What is required with either law, is relative motion between the conductor and the magnetic field.
Our enemy, Lenz arises from the differences between these two laws. Using one law causes the other law to oppose the one that is being used. We can defeat Lenz in a HPG/HPM configuration by uniting the two laws together.
Below are a few illustrations showing how this can be done. Notice there is no relative motion between the disc and external circuit. There are no brushes or slip rings. There is no counter torque, yet it doesn't break any laws of physics and it meets the requirements of one of the laws above without the other law being used against it because there united together (no longer a flipped mirror image of each other).
I want to draw your attention to illustration B the most. We will more than likely need to bolt the stationary discs to the floor or wall so the discs won't rotate.
Quote from: gravityblock on December 06, 2009, 07:05:58 AM
Did you read my last post? ...
Yes I did. It is irrelevant.
To sustain the helicopter a vertical force is needed. This force is the resulting component of the forces from each prop. These linear forces are created from the torque applied by the motor to each propeller, thanks to the intermediate of the blades. It follows that contra-torques are exerted against each prop. Thus they do not cancel, they add against the motor torque! And so it is in the case of the cylinders.
You guys are so close.
You know every microwave oven has two toroid shaped magnets that might be useful.
It might be wise to have some kind of paper or insulation between the plates and the magnet.
Broli,
The customized slip ring electrically connects the counter rotating discs together to increase the EMF on the discs, while the EMF of the external circuit is much less. The discs & magnets are attached to each other. It's very similar to the original design of this thread and you should be able to understand it even if it's still in 2D. I'm working on a 3D view of it and this will take me some time, possibly a couple of days....but I wanted to get it out here so maybe you can modify the concept to work in case I don't have it quite right.
Edit: I'm not sure if the brush at the rim should be connected to the left side, center, or right side of the slip ring. I'll let you decide.
GB
SPAM,,,POST ABOVE,,,,SPAM AND ALSO DANGEROUS
J.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8409.0;attach=39786;image
Sorry to interrupt,ignore if you wish.
What if another axel,dead center of graphic.
Take a compass and draw a circle around complete HPG
Fit every corner,axel,edge with a two ball bearing with single double cup assembly between bearings(any direction rotation)
Enclose in sphere.
Figure out how to energize it,then stand back,Anyone working on a model?
Joe in Texas