I'm glad to present the latest design being a result of all my homopolar research thus far. This design uses some very basic concepts and principle to make a motor or generator. The crucial part is the understanding of a homopolar motors/generators.
A lot of people have tried numerous methods trying to either have a motor without back emf or a generator without back torque but most attempts have been in vain. My research has lead me to believe that this is possible if the flux is contained rather than radiating freely. Thus far I have seen only one design where this concept is exploited with success. Here I present my own design, first as a proof of concept for table top experimentation and second as a complete unit for continuous power generation.
The motor part generates no back emf when operating since the magnetic part is rotating instead of the conductor part, this is because of newtons third law (the conductor torques the magnetic part and the magnetic part counter torques the conductor). The speed limit thus depends on the components and friction. The generator part on the other hand produces no back torque since both conductor and magnetic part are attached to each other. Since the conductor part that is farther from the axle is moving with a higher linear speed (because v= angular speed * radius), this will overpower the emf caused by the inner part exposed to the field and create a net emf.
In the first attached image the proof of concept of the motor is explained. This needs two C-cores and either a magnet or electromagnet (EM's are more preffered since you don't need to cut the core) to produce the field. Then a conductor passes this field twice, twice generating what is mostly known as the lorentz force. On both pieces the force is equal but in opposite direction. Using simple leverage law you see that this creates a net torque on the system. and the conductor rotates. The conductor will be drawn into the field and pushed out every turn. Since the field is only present at the air gap the rest of the conductor is not affected.
In the other 3d renditions a possible complete motor design is shown. For the sake of clarity half of the ferromaterial has been cut away. Both rotor and stator are indicated. As you see the rotor is the magnetic part while the conductor is stationary, hence no back emf. This is just one design out of many possible others. There is no limit here, a different design can for instance use a ring magnet. The main principle would remain the same that is....
Flux cutting small radius produces small torque, flux cutting at bigger radius produces bigger torque.
Flux has to be cut two time in order for you to return to the same point. This is like drawing a circle and putting your pen in the middle of it, If you leave it you cross the circle, if you want to go back you need to cross it once more. Our key here is that we can cross it at two different points so a torque can be developed.
I hope people will at least try the proof of concept out to confirm the principle.
In the proof of concept example, the outer field would have leverage, but for a shorter rotational distance. After the wire is out of the outer field, it is still in the inner field and would want to rotate back.
The second motor design is much better. However, now things have changed! The same magnetic field is traveling through both gaps. The outer field gap's surface area is much larger than the inner gap's area. This means the inner field will be much stronger than the outer field and will be possibly exactly the potential to rotate either way or not at all!
Maybe you see it differently?
Let's say the material can be saturated and remains saturated even without a EM or PM. Wouldn't it now be reversed. Since you have more magnetic domains at the bigger radius and thus a bigger net field. The ferromaterial is the crucial part not the magnet.
Only experimentation can reveal the truth. It takes a 5$ circuit to measure accurate field proportionalities.
Animate?
I'm not sure what's attached to what given the cross sections.
I have a constant flux where magnetic field stays attached to the rotor, and the magnet spins, unfortunately, the design relies on gravity and it's 'wounded' axis to throw it over the tendency for it to want to align with the outside wire ( yes, the 'reference' frame ).
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 14, 2009, 08:22:28 AM
Animate?
I'm not sure what's attached to what given the cross sections.
Did you not see the labels? They make clear which parts rotate and which parts stay stationary. An animation is overkill just to show the rotor part spinning.
@lumen: You may be right about the flux being more dense towards the center. Below is a different design that uses the same flux density between two gaps.
The idea is that the left gap will cause a force on the conductor and a reaction force on the magnetic parts, while the right side will do the same. One can then deduce that the left side of the magnetic part will be affected by the left part of the conductor and the right side by the right side of the conductor. Using this knowledge one can make these parts to rotate freely on an axle to produce unrestricted rotation.
I don't believe that any of the designs will have BEMF or back torque. But, I believe that for much different reasons. Since the conductor crosses the field twice, there is no net current produced. It is cancelled out.
Lee
Quote from: leeanderthal on December 14, 2009, 02:33:38 PM
I don't believe that any of the designs will have BEMF or back torque. But, I believe that for much different reasons. Since the conductor crosses the field twice, there is no net current produced. It is cancelled out.
Lee
This is correct, the last posted design does not operate as a generator only as a motor, where the magnetic source rotates instead of the conductor. The previous designs could have been a generator IF the fields where equal, but as lumen pointed out this can not be necessarily the case...but the proportionality can always be tested with a 2$ hall sensor and a voltmeter.
QuoteThis is correct, the last posted design does not operate as a generator only as a motor, where the magnetic source rotates instead of the conductor. The previous designs could have been a generator IF the fields where equal, but as lumen pointed out this can not be necessarily the case...but the proportionality can always be tested with a 2$ hall sensor and a voltmeter.
I don't see how the last posted design can operate as a motor as the conductor again is crossing the field twice.
All of the designs have a couple of other problems as well. Mechanically they would be impossible to build unless you could figure out how to levitate some of the components. Electrically, way to much internal resistance (dead wire).
Lee
Quote from: leeanderthal on December 14, 2009, 02:53:33 PM
I don't see how the last posted design can operate as a motor as the conductor again is crossing the field twice.
Yes and? Have you forgotten newtons third law. Action equals -Reaction. The conductor, which remains stationary, is acted upon by forces of the magnetic material. The magnetic material are acted upon by the reaction force of this. You perform some simple rules to get the forces and reason will tell you that the left part will mainly be affected by the left conductor side crossing the flux and the right part by the right conductor side. Hence the rotation of both sides albeit in opposite direction. If you don't get this logic then I can't help you.
Quote from: leeanderthal on December 14, 2009, 02:53:33 PMMechanically they would be impossible to build unless you could figure out how to levitate some of the components. Electrically, way to much internal resistance (dead wire).
There is nothing to figure out except for experimental data, I annoted everything clearly. The parts you think that should be levitating in the first design are either stationary in motor mode or glued to the rest in generator mode. My designs are meant to inspire and explain the concept in a very general way, not present an autocad and CNC ready model.
@ Broli
Sorry, It is not my intention to rain on anybody's parade. I just tend to think in terms of practicality. I fully appreciate your thoughts and solutions for the puzzle at hand.
I can see how the posted design could work as a motor. But why not a generator?
Do you believe that as a motor it would not have BEMF because of a uniform field?
Lee
As a generator you would need to rotate the conductor loop. If you start rotating the loop, in the last design, the wire pieces between the two gaps will generate an EMF. But since the direction of speed and their magnitude are the same AND the direction of field and their magnitude are the same they will both generate an EMF that cancels the other thus there would be no net EMF. This is like moving a rectangular conductor loop in a constant uniform field. You can see that the single wire pieces do get polarized but in a loop they all cancel out. So this is why it probably won't generate. You can heavily modify it and make it generate but then you will end up with a homopolar motor with back torque....as far as I know. Nothing I say is fact even if it's something very obvious, that is why I would like to encourage others to get involved and get the experiments out.
I was thinking that as a generator not rotating the conductor loop but rotating the left and right components in opposite directions. Just as it would operate as a motor.
Lee
Quote from: leeanderthal on December 14, 2009, 03:53:32 PM
I was thinking that as a generator not rotating the conductor loop but rotating the left and right components in opposite directions. Just as it would operate as a motor.
Lee
this would do nothing. Just like in a homopolar generator rotating a magnet in front of a stationary disc.
Ok, if you were to take the magnets out of the center of you design and place them around the rims of the left and right components with opposite poles facing each other. I think that it would then operate as a generator. How would this then affect the objective of your design?
Lee
Your last design brings up the problem I have faced several times.
Most will not believe this true for some reason that prevents them from seeing it.
In the symmetrical density field like you have, applying a current to the loop pushes more lines of force to the other side of the loop and should cause rotation. Instead, nothing will move because you are only moving the field around the circular path.
There is nothing to contain the field from just rotating around the gap since the force lines bunched up on one side of the current carrying loop will just push on the next field line, then the next and they will just rotate around the gap until they once again come upon the current loop.
Magnetic field lines of force are not forced stationary in space, they simply move to fill any gap of less density. If you had two loops where one worked against the other, then the field would be retained from rotating and something would build force.
If what I said was true, then placing a current on one loop should produce an equal current in a second loop on the opposite side as the field is rotated around the gap by the first loop. Like a type of DC transformer!
Lumen I think you are unnecessarily complicating things by using force fields. It's a simple fact that moving charge in a field creates force, this force has also a reaction force on the source of the field. In our care being the magnetic domains near the gap. You simply use this force to your advantage. So far I have only seen one design that takes advantage of this source:
Figure 2: http://www.andrijar.com/dcmachines/index.html (http://www.andrijar.com/dcmachines/index.html)
I'm open to any kind of feedback positive or negative. But your last explanation makes no sense to me in any way. You accept that there are forces acting on the wire but not on the magnetic part?
QuoteIt's a simple fact that moving charge in a field creates force
This is not always true! The above statement implies that the charge is moving AND cutting field lines.
It can be moving in a field but not cutting field lines and no force will be generated!
If the field is moving with the charge, no work is done.
If the conductor is moving with the field no charge is generated!
Your design is trying to operate in a homopolar field of constant density.
Think of the gap in your design as being filled with thousands of tiny strings stretching from one side to the other.
Every string is equally spaced because they all repel each other.
Now, when you put the current through the conductor, a circular field is generated around the conductor that pushes the strings that were coming down on the conductor to one side. This shifts all the others to try to maintain equal spacing again!
Quote from: lumen on December 14, 2009, 07:18:43 PM
This is not always true! The above statement implies that the charge is moving AND cutting field lines.
It can be moving in a field but not cutting field lines and no force will be generated!
If the field is moving with the charge, no work is done.
If the conductor is moving with the field no charge is generated!
Your design is trying to operate in a homopolar field of constant density.
Yes this is inspired by my homopolar research. But I still don't know why you don't agree. The charge is moving inside, thus cutting, a magnetic field. This will cause the forces and thus reaction forces. If you glue both sides there will be no NET torque but the forces are still present only canceling each other, but when you split it up both sides can rotate individually and thus both will rotate in opposite direction. Newtons third law holds and momentum conservation holds.
If the reaction forces where not present newtons third law would be violated and thus unidirectional forces arise and we can fly to the moon. But so far it has never been violated in these setups there's always a reaction force on the magnetic source.
The moving charge is shifting the field and would normally cause force if the charge caused a change in field density as is true of all electric motors.
In this case the field density cannot change so no force can be generated. This is like the homopolar motor, except the homopolar motor has an external circuit to contain or trap the field between and cause a change in field density. This is what pushes the homopolar motor.
Your design does not have the external circuit to trap the field so the charge just shifts the field and no work is done.
It is an interesting design though. I think I might build something like this just to test the DC transformer concept and show the field shift once and for all.
Quote from: broli on December 14, 2009, 03:03:50 PM
Yes and? Have you forgotten newtons third law. Action equals -Reaction. The conductor, which remains stationary, is acted upon by forces of the magnetic material. The magnetic material are acted upon by the reaction force of this. You perform some simple rules to get the forces and reason will tell you that the left part will mainly be affected by the left conductor side crossing the flux and the right part by the right conductor side. Hence the rotation of both sides albeit in opposite direction. If you don't get this logic then I can't help you.
There is nothing to figure out except for experimental data, I annoted everything clearly. The parts you think that should be levitating in the first design are either stationary in motor mode or glued to the rest in generator mode. My designs are meant to inspire and explain the concept in a very general way, not present an autocad and CNC ready model.
Quote from: leeanderthal on December 14, 2009, 03:26:01 PM
@ Broli
Sorry, It is not my intention to rain on anybody's parade. I just tend to think in terms of practicality. I fully appreciate your thoughts and solutions for the puzzle at hand.
I can see how the posted design could work as a motor. But why not a generator?
Do you believe that as a motor it would not have BEMF because of a uniform field?
Lee
Both of you make interesting points: The similarity is this; With regard to the faraday disk model, If you rotate the magnet, no current is produced in the disk, if you rotate the disk, a current is produced.
However, if the magnet is rotated, a current is produced in the magnet. Has anyone tested the strength of the magnetic field while the magnet is rotated relative to that when it is not?
In Broli's model, he suggests that it will have no generator action, but motor action, according to the posit, I posit a similarly, in that the ideal motor would not be an ideal generator.
These devices are not ideal, and for what it's worth, I might mention Betacells, a thermonuclear junctions to boot - most of which produce high voltage and low current, our counterpart here is the disk which produces high current and low voltage.
Interesting, no?
If what Broli is suggesting is correct, then there is a field model which will create motion when a current passes through it, but when it is in motion, no current is generated. There must therefore be some contradictory device which performs oppositely...
When in motion, current is generated, but when current passes through it no motion is generated. This would indeed by a violation of some law somewhere.
Quote from: lumen on December 14, 2009, 07:45:16 PM
Your design does not have the external circuit to trap the field so the charge just shifts the field and no work is done.
It is an interesting design though.
Below is a video of a wire with current running through an external magnetic field. The wire gets as far as it can from the external magnetic field. According to your above statement, the charge would just shift the field of the magnet and there would be no work done on the wire or the magnet. As you can see in the below video, your statement can not be correct and there is work being done. In boli's example, the wire is held stationary which will torque the magnet pieces and cause it to rotate. Since the wire is cutting through the field twice, the magnet piece on the other side will rotate in the opposite direction. The magnet pieces will counter rotate to each other with no opposition.
Jumping Wire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk2c3m9eVK8GB
Nice video.
The problem is, this is not the same case.
The wire does shift the force lines to the other side of the wire, but they have no where to go so they build force and lift the wire.
You cannot just shift the field lines out and away from the magnets!
In a circular case however, the field lines can easily shift all the way around the circle and fill the gap left from the shifting field.
That's why no force will be generated.
Quote from: lumen on December 15, 2009, 12:27:33 PM
The wire does shift the force lines to the other side of the wire, but they have no where to go so they build force and lift the wire.
You cannot just shift the field lines out and away from the magnets!
In a circular case however, the field lines can easily shift all the way around the circle and fill the gap left from the shifting field.
That's why no force will be generated.
The purpose of the video is not show weather the field lines shift out and away from the magnets or not. It is showing how a magnetic field can torque a current carrying wire that is able to move. Likewise, a fixed current carrying wire will have a torque on a magnet that is not fixed. If both the wire and the magnet are glued to each other, then the forces are canceled.
If the left and right side of broli's last design where attached to each other, then the forces would cancel and it's not due to the field shifting all the way around the circle, but is due to newton's third law. This is the reason for the left and right side not to be attached to each other so the forces are not canceled.
This concept is not hard to grasp in my opinion. Testing will show if this concept is correct or not. Broli's design is using newton's third law.
Lumen,
Here's another video for you to think about using the Law of LaPlace that supports Broli's concept, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvScSTbly1c
The magnetic field is mostly confined between the poles (legs) of the horseshoe magnet and the ferromagnetic material in Broli's design is confining the magnetic field in a similar way allowing the forces to be in a circular rotation instead of just a linear force. You can't have the conductor on a rail to pass through the horseshoe magnet to continue in a circular path, but in broli's design it is possible and is using the same concept as the linear device with the horseshoe magnet.
Edit: Here's another LaPlace rail that can be easily looped into a circle without having to pass through the magnet, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-kQans2rww
GB
Nice videos also, but still both of these have already confined fields.
Think of the first with the horseshoe magnet, along the direction of travel, the field has a start and end. These are the confining boundaries.
When current is moving through the conductor, more of the force lines are moved to one side of the conductor. This is what causes the force to be exerted on the conductor.
In Broli's circular path, there is no start or end, so the field is not confined.
When current pases through Broli"s conductor, it will cause a void on one side and a compression on the other side which should make it move. Instead it is much easier for all the lines to just shift around the circle to fill the void.
I wish it were not true because it would solve many problems, but that is exactly what will happen.
This is the entire mystery of the homopolar motor and generator, that seems to baffle everyone.
Quote from: lumen on December 15, 2009, 06:43:33 PM
This is the entire mystery of the homopolar motor and generator, that seems to baffle everyone.
Everyone including you it seems. Here's a good place that will re-adjust your knowledge
http://www.andrijar.com/physics.htm (http://www.andrijar.com/physics.htm)
Also where are these numerous experiments you have apperently performed. Somewhere up in a cloud maybe? Atleast post your failures and succes so we can all learn and talk about it, that's the point of this forum.
Sorry if I sound rude but your compression and decompression theory sounds like complete baloney to me. I look at the source of the magnetic field being the material and its interaction with moving charge while you are hooked to the imaginary field lines physics book draw to present a magnet and its behavior. From my standpoint a homopolar motor is as clear as a sunny sky. Just analyze the source and the moving charge and you can get all the forces you need. You will always find that the biggest force interaction will be at the places where the charge and magnet source are closest to each other. This follows from the 1/r^x rule.
Your knowledge says a moving charge in a magnetic field causes a force.
My knowledge says a moving charge generates a magnetic field that can act upon another field and may generate a force if some conditions are met.
I don't know how you can just say it must work when you do not first examine exactly how it will work. You cannot use a standard law and expect it to work in anything but the standard cases.
Why do you think everybody building a magnet motor sees a working principal, but once they close the circular loop, it no longer works?
It's because field will shift around a circle once the ends are gone to contain the field.
I understand what you are saying, it is complicated and you will not be convinced unless you test this yourself.
This is not a common situation, the problem I am describing ONLY exists on a circular homopolar device where the field is of constant density and direction along the path of the conductor.
The spinning magnet, the spinning disk, the spinning conductor, it all relates to the same thing!
I have done many experiments, the one I am doing now is forcing a conductive liquid through a strong magnetic field and testing for a voltage. I must say this is puzzling. NO detectable voltage!
But there should be, so what is wrong? The fluid is very conductive with magnesium sulfate and will electrolyze if a current is applied. Still testing.....
There was more to this post, but it was removed, the remainder was a warning, it's now been 'clarified'....
Quote from: lumen on December 15, 2009, 08:51:55 PM
I have done many experiments, the one I am doing now is forcing a conductive liquid through a strong magnetic field and testing for a voltage. I must say this is puzzling. NO detectable voltage!
@all,
It should be noted that both gallium and mercury are very poisonous. In those experiments, it was found that eddy currents were more prevalent in the liquid conductors than in the rotating disk. I remember reading one such setup where Mercury was used AS the rotating disk... and very little current or voltage was produced. It was a vortex of sorts...
Gallium could be used similarly; it seems to have higher melting point. I think it may be interesting to see the results of a disk of solidified gallium used as a Faraday disk.
----
...This thread, in general. isn't too much different from the hpg / lenz thread. I'll transpose a thought from there...
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 14, 2009, 09:14:46 PM
The problem here is that, in order to take off the current, you have to create a path between the axis of rotation and the rim of the disk. This cannot rotate with the disk, or no current is produced. It is therefore logical, that it is the radial path which is where the current is being generated.
In such a radius, the rotational speed ( in surface feet per minute ) is least near the center and greatest near the periphery. THIS is where the change is occurring; the path's inner atoms are spinning slower than the path of the outer atoms.
And yes, eddy currents play a part in this; but it is the relativity which creates the apparition of a changing magnetic flux. Even though the field strength is the same, it is as if to say that there is one end of a wire moving faster than the other in an even field; therefore there is an affective difference experienced in the wire.
What would generate more current? [ in an even magnetic field ] A wire of a given distance moving at a given speed, or the that same wire of a given distance moving at three times that speed?
It's really all about what the individual atoms are experiencing [ and thus ] contributing as a whole.
When a vortex is used, the notion of the speed of atomic translation is nearly inverted, ...with the speed on the inside moving faster than the outside relative to the axis of rotation.
::edited for content relevance...
A continuous current motor, I believe a possibility; I have been working on one myself, but the contacts are shoddy, and any results I've come up with have most likely been the result of periodic disconnecting from the contact, or some other phenomenon associated with wobble.
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 15, 2009, 11:29:51 PM
@all,
It should be noted that both gallium and mercury are very poisonous.
I sure hope this was posted in the wrong thread by accident. This is totally off-topic and a total distraction to this thread. I sent you a PM about this.
GB
@Broli,
I just want to say that I really like your designs!
You always come up with the most unusual concepts that that show some advanced mental perception.
:)
I recently built an opposed fields modeled motor, with a shoddy connection, it spins, it pulses it self around and spins, but with a continuous current, it locks itself to the reference frame.
It was three north poles, faced inwards and a simple coil ( vertical ) with fields in opposition faced inwards. The coil in inside the opposed fields. It did function with an intermittent connection. It's no better than that coiled wire motor ( simple electric motor model ). SO there's nothing new happening here with this.
:(
jadaro,
What does your experiment prove or disprove about broli's concept? Your experiment doesn't confine the magnetic field when the same poles are all facing inwards. The fact that it only functioned on an intermittent connection is evidence of it being a pulse motor based on a changing magnetic field and would produce AC if ran as a generator.
The ferro-material in Broli's device confines the magnetic field and is based on a constant uniform field, thus a "Constant flux DC motor/generator" for the topic of this thread. It will work on a continuous DC connection.
Your experiment doesn't prove or disprove nothing about this concept. I already posted 3 videos supporting this idea and broli has posted links to other similar experiments supporting it, but somehow your experiment triumphs over all of the other supporting videos and links when your setup has nothing in common with what this concept is based on.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on December 17, 2009, 06:53:10 AM
jadaro,
What does your experiment prove or disprove about broli's concept? Your experiment doesn't confine the magnetic field when the same poles are all facing inwards. The fact that it only functioned on an intermittent connection is evidence of it being a pulse motor based on a changing magnetic field and producing AC.
The ferro-material in Broli's device confines the magnetic field and is based on a constant uniform field, thus a "Constant flux DC motor/generator" for the topic of this thread. It will work on a continuous DC connection.
Your experiment doesn't prove or disprove nothing about this concept. I already posted 3 videos supporting this idea and there has been links provided that supports the concept with other experiments also, but somehow your experiment triumphs over all of the other supporting videos and links when it has nothing in common with the Broli's device.
GB
..well then allow me to post my failures for you benefit. The attempt was genuine.
Your attacks are unwarranted! My attempt was for the thread topic, the result was not. It was noted.
It would be nice to have mention of failed ideas; it's a time saving mechanism.
Furthermore, I don't see how your video posts suggest anything about broli's design either. ..in that case you are just as off-topic as I am. The videos linked..
Quote from: gravityblock on December 17, 2009, 06:53:10 AMdoesn't prove or disprove nothing about this concept.
This thread was titled thus, and it seems reasonable to post information about constant flux continuous flux motor attempts here; if the thread is intended to be about this specific motor, under it's specific conditions then it should be titled something like "Broli's constant flux continuous current motor"..etc
You are disregarding the idea that other motors utilizing the same principles may exist, may be of different design, and may be worthy of mention.
I think what he's trying to do is escape the reference frame. The best thing to do is WARP the reference frame in favor of the rotation.
I can see how is design may work, my designs thus far have been contingent upon these same concepts; however I lack to tools needed to confirm his specific design.
This is figure 2, as broli mentioned.
The reference frame wants to align. Since one is stationary, the other is free to rotate, it does so until it aligns, this is principally why commutators are needed.
if both were free to rotate, the would both move a distance together like closing a book.
we need a warped field motor...which is find impossible anyway, seeing as how the fields will find some resting state somewhere.
edit, it may be prudent to actually post the picture heh?
Quote from: jadaro2600 on December 17, 2009, 07:23:28 AM
Furthermore, I don't see how your video posts suggest anything about broli's design either. ..in that case you are just as off-topic as I am. The videos linked..
This concept is based and designed around the working principals of those videos and links along with the HPG/HPM. It is based on an uniform magnetic field and field confinement. There is no reason in filling up this thread with all the failed attempts or experiments that is based on a changing magnetic field that has nothing in common with this topic.
Please don't take any offense. I just don't see a connection here. I respect your genuine attempt. You're a diamond in the ruff on this forum because you're doing actual experiments and sharing. I apologize for being too judgmental about your findings.
GB
This thread was mainly made for the designs I posted and their derivatives suggested by me or others. So far no experiments have been performed on these so no conclusions can be formed.
@jadaro: I think GB was just saying that your experiment wouldn't classify as a derivative as you allow the flux to change during operation. While this design is based on the concept that flux doesn't change during operation, thus a constant force is always acting on the parts.
I'm willing to make a bigger presentation explaining the whole theory from scratch if it's needed. Then it might be obvious where this concept came from and what the reasoning behind it is. Including rail guns, circular rails, and ferro materials. But it will take a while.
@GB, I understand, I know the mentality ( there is so much which can be conveyed with a textual description ).
@Broli,
In you pictures, the rotor will presumably rotate when a current is run through the coils ( yellow )?
I've thought about a similar model; Am I to understand then that the yellow wire is abbreviated? as if to say there is to be a toroid-like wire winding in the stator?
If this is so, then I see nowhere for their to be force exerted and you may have a similar dilema that I do, either it won't rotate, even with a confined field ( one looping as you have it, the magnetic field is 'guided' )? Is this a possibility?
I ask because of the first and second question; a general notion ( for my understanding can be drawn from there ).
Quote from: broli on December 17, 2009, 08:32:38 AM
@jadaro: I think GB was just saying that your experiment wouldn't classify as a derivative as you allow the flux to change during operation. While this design is based on the concept that flux doesn't change during operation, thus a constant force is always acting on the parts.
Yes, all is well, it was not my intention to present a pulse motor ( but it's failure as a constant flux is now evident ). This is why I posted no pictures or gave any meaningful data behind it.