Hello Everyone,
The following idea is something I have been researching and considering for sometime, when the pieces fell together last night in my study time...
I have notorized and documented this idea, so if anyone attempts to steal it for personal gain, it will not work. But experimentation is of course always welcome.
Please feel free to try to punch holes in the idea, improve the idea, test the idea, before I spend some serious money on it, as I intend to do, the moment I have completed testing my SSG3, even if said testing is successful. ;)
I believe that Tesla found that by using his bifilar wound Pancake coil, he was able to make his Unipolor Dynamo to Self Run.
I see it as completely possible based on my research of both units, and the proper combining of the two of them as I believe I have discovered that they fit! :o
Simple Setup:
Two axially magnatized disc magnets, in attraction, with a Tesla Pancake bifilar wound coil sandwiched between them. An outer ring of copper would circle the outer circumference of said pancake coil, for a set of 6 brushes to remove current flow. Inside center of coil would be run out to a second ring to remove current flow of opposing sign.
This unit would be partially levitated initially but full levitation for the future to limit ALL friction. Input current would also be PULSED as seen in the Youtube video provided, to limit substantially the needed input power to bring rotation.
The second rendition would be a second bifilar pancake coil atop of the magnet that is on top of the first bifilar pancake coil. As there are magnets above already, this would give a second complete output. These could then continued to be stacked in future experiments.
On the first experiment, with steel plates on top of top magnet and bottom of bottom magnet, may or may not be needed.
Please let me know all of your thoughts, ideas and experiments.
Please no one say that the two rotating magnets, rotating with the coil will not produce power... :D They will, aka Faraday's Paradox, also we believe the magnetic fields do not see the magnets rotating....aka the earth, so Lorentz law of induction is indeed fulfilled as the field lines cut through the coil. (usually a copper plate was used = Lenz, and had great inefficiencies. Also a motor was used to turn it. ;) )
I also don't understand why no one using pulse motors with the tops of their rotor's doing nothing, don't use this principle.
Brushes are needed.
Should the magnets be coated in rubber, if they are conductive, otherwise, perhaps Lenz will show his head, or perhaps just the steel backings will work...
I desire to make a 3" Version, using N42, by 1/8" thick to start. Sometimes less is more and I want to start off with a proof of design.
Pancake coil will be about 4" to 5". I do not know what size wire to use and would like some ideas. Typically these would be HV, but....Unipolar generator is typically low voltage, high amperage.
1. Pulse for input is a must.
2. Getting brushes right to avoid Lenz is a must.
3. Discovering if magnets should be rubber coated is a must.
4. Determining type of wire for pancake coil. I am looking at Stranded, NOT Litz, based on Steven Mark's words about wires in a magnetic field and harvesting (collecting) current stream.
5. Discovering how many coils can be pancaked, ie..magnet, coil, magnet, coil, magnet, coil, etc.
Please see all information below:Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmDOpSXq7G4&feature=related
Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator
Tesla Patent: (differant incarnation, earlier vision)
406968
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=MvdbAAAAEBAJ&dq=406968
Tesla Notes on Unipolar Dynamo:http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/teslahom.pdf
Thank you ahead of time for your assistance with this future project,
Bruce
EDIT: Page 9 below is not of patent but of Tesla's notes on his Unipolar Dynamo. Sorry about the misname.
I was under the impression that the electric is only produced when the force of the magnet crosses perpendicular to the wire... So it would have to swing back and forth over the coil to generate electric from my understanding I could be wrong though I am not really sure weather I am 100% correct that is what I was told I never tried to see personally...
Easy test though get a round magnet with a hole in the center put it over a pancake wound coil then slap a screw or bolt through hole tighten it in the chuck of a your cordless drill slap it on fast speed and measure the output ... If need be use two drills with two magnets spin the one on top and you can get it as close as you need with the other one mounted on the surface....
I believe you should first attempt this and get some measurements before going all out and dropping a crap load of cash on an expensive rig of some sort!
Enjoy
Quote from: infringer on March 21, 2010, 09:18:53 PM
I was under the impression that the electric is only produced when the force of the magnet crosses perpendicular to the wire... So it would have to swing back and forth over the coil to generate electric from my understanding I could be wrong though I am not really sure weather I am 100% correct that is what I was told I never tried to see personally...
Easy test though get a round magnet with a hole in the center put it over a pancake wound coil then slap a screw or bolt through hole tighten it in the chuck of a your cordless drill slap it on fast speed and measure the output ... If need be use two drills with two magnets spin the one on top and you can get it as close as you need with the other one mounted on the surface....
I believe you should first attempt this and get some measurements before going all out and dropping a crap load of cash on an expensive rig of some sort!
Enjoy
I highlighted the part of your quote that is so.o.o important... Your statement is true... and this is the beauty of this but can be difficult to wrap ones mind around...
If you have a stationary North magnet, and a stationary South magnet, with a gap between them, and you move a coil, pancake or otherwise between them, they produce an electron flow on the coil.
If you have a stationary coil, but have a N and S facing magnet for the sake of this thought experiment, that rotate around a stationary coil between the two, it will produce an electron flow on the coil.
Now, here is where the cool part comes in... If you take a north facing up magnet, put copper on top of it, and put a South facing down magnet on top of that copper, then to you an me all we see is a spinning magnet and copper sandwich, but to the "observer" (Einstein's theory of relativity) if you were nanoscopic (my word) and could visually see the magnetic flux between the magnets, that flux would not be moving, at all, but what you would see is a very nicely built pancake coil spinning at great speed!
I know for a fact that this works with a copper disc, so why would it not work with a coil? The North and South field lines are still cutting through the wire as the coil spins, or is this special to a copper disc only? I would truly be amazed if it were.
Having said all of that, the drill is a very good idea, but to wind a pancake coil that small, and to make tiny brushes might be a pain...
Cheers,
Bruce
Aaahaaa now I understand why you suggested a pancake coil on my rotor. I did research on YT as suggested. As you know from my photos, I need more coil winding experience! Bloody interesting stuff tho.
If you are not familiar with unipolar generator you should read also this:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
What you will find interesting there is the fact, that it works by just having a rotating magnet only. No copper disc needed. But still Lenz law applies. So I'm no really sure your idea with pancake coil will work. But give it a try if you like.
Quote from: Airstriker on March 22, 2010, 09:10:51 AM
If you are not familiar with unipolar generator you should read also this:
http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/outreach/QOTW/arch11/q218unipolar.pdf
What you will find interesting there is the fact, that it works by just having a rotating magnet only. No copper disc needed. But still Lenz law applies. So I'm no really sure your idea with pancake coil will work. But give it a try if you like.
Hi Airstriker,
A very interesting PDF you posted! It also confirms a conversation that I had with a friend, last night. It was mentioned that if a bulb is attached to a copper plate (coil in my case) to rotate with said plate, it will not light! It is in the wrong "time reference frame". It will only produce a flow of electrons that are usable, if another "reference frame" (brushes, etc, not moving..) are drawing off the current stream.
I have been doing some thought experiments and think that perhaps "canceling" Lenz is not what Tesla was after with his unipolar generator, but rather, making Lenz law work in his favor... The more I think on this, the more likely it seems.
But how could he do this, one might ask. Well, I really think I will find my experiments will bear out the following...That a Tesla pancake coil, laid in the proper direction, and spun (CCW) that the potential should travel from the inside to the outside following the spirals. This Lenz production of magnetic fields could then actually "add" to the spin of the unipolar generator, perhaps, as crazy as it sounds to the point of self excitation. (wouldn't that be a hoot! LOL)
I found on page 10 of Tesla's Unipolar Generator Notes, an interesting passage that denotes the exact description as I gave above. Tesla's words are now reinforcing this thought experiment. (words pictured below)
On another note, I think that I have come up with three differant ideas for taking power off of the coil(s) One way, I really like is a bit ingenious if I say so myself. And one way is a bit old fashioned, but will work. And the last way is not my own original idea, but is unique and would make an interesting experiment. All Three pictured below.
Idea 3 is interesting because the bearings can be rotates as a homopolar generator also...and may add to the field? Experimentation will tell, but just thought ideas for now to rough in my designs, and ideas.
Cheers,
Bruce
The idea 2 doesn't really make much sense as you will have the same potential on all of the brushes (all on top ring and all on lower ring) and you will end up only with additional friction because of the additional brushes.
The pancake coil or the division of the disc into spirals is only needed if the magnetic field of the magnets do not completely cover the entire disc. In Tesla's own words on page A-23 of http://www.andrijar.com/teslahom/teslahom.pdf he says, "If the poles do not cover the disc completely on both sides, then, of course, unless the disc be properly subdivided, the machine will be very inefficient".
Look at figure 1, 2, and 3 while taking note how the poles of the magnets being illustrated do not cover the entire disc. He's talking about Eddy currents here, because the poles aren't covering the entire disc between the rim and the axis. If a copper disc is sandwiched between two axially magnetized magnets, and the copper disc is the same diameter of the magnets so the poles cover the entire disc, then the Eddy currents Tesla is referring to is no longer an issue and we don't need to worry about properly subdividing the disc or using a pancake coil.
He then, goes on and talks about how the Eddy currents could demagnetize the field. We don't have this problem today, because our magnets are so much superior to the magnets of his day. Also, to think that the Eddy currents could magnetize and re-enforce the field to self-excite the dynamo, especially after eliminating these Eddy currents, by subdividing the disc, using a pancake coil, or having the disc and magnets to be of the same diameter is total nonsense.
I do believe the HPG has OU properties, but we must eliminate the counter torque. Increasing the radii of the disc and magnets will increase the output power to the 4th power while the input power only increases to the square thereof. The problem is the counter torque also increases proportionally. The Eddy currents is not the counter torque we need to overcome. The counter torque we need to overcome is the HPG also acts as a HPM that works against the rotation of the system, which kills the OU properties. Defeating Lenz is a must in any system. There is an easy way to test this. If it can run as a generator, but can't run as a motor.....then we have success.
GB
Quote from: Airstriker on March 23, 2010, 11:40:54 AM
The idea 2 doesn't really make much sense as you will have the same potential on all of the brushes (all on top ring and all on lower ring) and you will end up only with additional friction because of the additional brushes.
I think the idea of multiple brushes is to share out the current
which can be exceptionally high, the voltage being very low.
Quote from: Paul-R on March 23, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
I think the idea of multiple brushes is to share out the current
which can be exceptionally high, the voltage being very low.
Having multiple brushes will increase the current. We don't won't this, since the system is already a low voltage, high current system due to it having a low resistance. When you add brushes, then you are adding more paths for the current to flow, which will lower the resistance even further in the system.
In a pancake coil, you only need one brush around the entire rim and an additional brush for the axis. The brush around the entire rim and axis will always provide a contact point for the pancake coil, but it must be looked at as only being one large brush instead of having multiple brushes (the ends of the pancake coil will only be making contact with the brush at only one specific point at any given time).
There is only one path for the current to flow in a pancake coil. In a solid disc, then adding additional brushes will add additional paths for the current to flow and will increase the current.
GB
Quote from: Airstriker on March 23, 2010, 11:40:54 AM
The idea 2 doesn't really make much sense as you will have the same potential on all of the brushes (all on top ring and all on lower ring) and you will end up only with additional friction because of the additional brushes.
Hi Airstriker,
Once again, I could not agree with you more. But, for some reason, Tesla thought otherwise, as I have highlighted again in his notes. I truly hope that the first idea will work just fine, as this is the easiest, with the least friction.
Idea 3 with the bearing is interesting, because it allows the bearing balls to act as the brushes along the entire perimeter, like idea 2. Again, not my favorite idea, but it must be experimented with (the idea of pulling from multiple locations, I have read even, 6 to 8 brushes) because of the words of Tesla. (Please see below:)
From Tesla's Notes on the Unipolar Gyro:"Considered as a dynamo machine, the disc is an equally interesting object of
study. In addition to its peculiarity of giving currents of one direction without the employment of commutating devices, such a machine differs from ordinary dynamos in that there is no reaction between armature and field. The armature current tends to set up a magnetization at right angles to that of the field current, but since the current is taken off uniformly from all points of the periphery, and since, to he exalt, the external circuit may also be arranged perfectly symmetrical to the field magnet, no reaction can occur. This, however, is true only as long as the magnets are weakly energized, for when the magnets are more or less saturated, both magnetizations at right angles seemingly interfere with each other.
For the above reason alone it would appear that the output of such a
machine; should, for the same weight, be much greater than that of any other
machine in which the armature current tends to demagnetize the field. The
extraordinary output of the Forbes unipolar dynamo and the experience of the writer confirm this view.
Again, the facility with which such a machine may be made to excite itself is
striking, but this may be due â€" besides to the absence of armature reaction â€" to the defect smoothness of the current and non-existence of self-induction."
AND
"A Forbes dynamo may, for instance, be excited in such a manner. In the experience
of the writer it has been found that instead of taking the current from two such discs
by sliding contacts, as usual, a flexible conducting belt may be employed to
advantage. The discs are in such case provided with large flanges, affording a very
great contact surface. The belt should be made to beat on the flanges with spring
pressure to take up the expansion. Several machines with belt contact were
constructed by the writer two years ago, and worked satisfactorily; but for want of
time the work in that direction has been temporarily suspended. A number of
features, pointed out above have also been used by the writer in connection with
some types of alternating current motors."
Nikola Tesla, 1896
Available on: http://www.andrijar.com/physics.htm
@ ALLWhat I have begun to do, is to study the design and engineering of professional tops. Some can spin up to 15 minutes. (Quirk Top) The part of my idea that I am sure of so far, is that I want as much "spin down" time as possible. And will be testing differant configurations to achieve this. My thinking is as follows...if I can achieve a very long spin time, due to inertia and momentum, design, center of gravity, center of mass, etc.. Then the time between pulses, needed to keep my "Relativistic Unipolar Generator" will be extended, minimizing input power. My unit will hereby be known as the BRUG, standing for Bruce's Relativistic Unipolar Generator. ;D A mouthful, so it will be called the BRUG Device for short.
I have already started in on this process.
Cheers,
Bruce
@Bruce:
I believe pulsing the HPG is the way to go as you mentioned. Spin it up to it's maximum RPM. Extract the current for 10ms without any input power, then stop drawing current. When not drawing current, then provide input power until you reach maximum RPM again. If the mathematics is correct, then you should have more power output during the 10ms than the input power required to reach maximum RPM again. This would be a good test. Magnetic bearings would be a plus. A spin down time with very good conventional bearings at 300 RPM's would be 2 or 3 minutes at the most, while with magnetic bearings would be 20 -30 minutes as shown by Clanzer. Conventional bearings create a much higher drag on the rotor than most realize and is probably essential in order to have any chance of OU in a rotary system.
I hope you don't put too much effort into Tesla's pancake idea. If you understand his reasoning behind using the pancake coil or subdividing the disc into spirals due to the Eddy currents, then you will understand it's not necessary in our modernized age, and the same can be accomplished by ensuring the disc and magnets are of the same diameter. In his day, the pancake coil or subdividing the disc into spirals were probably necessary in order to reduce the Eddy currents.....but reducing these Eddy currents isn't going to self-excite the system.
In regards to the "Forbs Dynamo", it says, "Several machines with belt contact were constructed by the writer two years ago, and worked satisfactorily; but for want of time the work in that direction has been temporarily suspended."
Working satisfactorily doesn't mean it was a self-exciting Dynamo. Do you really believe if it was a self-exciting Dynamo, that the work in that direction would have been temporarily suspended due to want of time? The work had already been suspended for two years at the time of Tesla's writing. That doesn't sound temporary to me and the work in that direction was probably abandoned due to it not being efficient or able to self-excite itself.
GB
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 23, 2010, 08:18:21 PM
Hi Airstriker,
Once again, I could not agree with you more. But, for some reason, Tesla thought otherwise, as I have highlighted again in his notes. I truly hope that the first idea will work just fine, as this is the easiest, with the least friction.
From Tesla's Notes on the Unipolar Gyro:
"Considered as a dynamo machine, the disc is an equally interesting object of
study. In addition to its peculiarity of giving currents of one direction without the employment of commutating devices, such a machine differs from ordinary dynamos in that there is no reaction between armature and field. The armature current tends to set up a magnetization at right angles to that of the field current, but since the current is taken off uniformly from all points of the periphery, and since, to he exalt, the external circuit may also be arranged perfectly symmetrical to the field magnet, no reaction can occur. This, however, is true only as long as the magnets are weakly energized, for when the magnets are more or less saturated, both magnetizations at right angles seemingly interfere with each other.
Bruce
Tesla is wrong about there not being any reaction between the armature and the field. It is this reaction that provides a torque to make a HPM work, and in a HPG this reaction provides a counter torque against the rotation of the system. If the magnets are weakly magnetized, then the power output and counter torque will drop proportionally.
GB
Hi GB,
Pulsing my BRUG is the way that I will for sure be going. I had a wind down tonight of a "mini brug", using a penny between the magnets to simulate the coil.
I am not looking for the eddy currents to excite my brug, (lol...that sounds bad :D) but I am looking for the current to flow from the inside to the outside perimeter of my pancake coil and hoping that it's magnetic field will reinforce the field.
Talk is cheap and I like to experiment. I never believe something will not work, until I have tried it...thoroughly.
Is Tesla wrong... Build something and find out. I do not argue physics. I build and experiment based on my understanding. Can that understanding change? Of course.
For instance tonight, I took two small magnets on a nail. spun it up nice. Placed a penny between them and could only get it to spin once. Bigger batteries, nothing. But you are correct about needing greater magnetism. I then added one additional magnet to the top and one to the bottom. It spun up real nice. I then spun it up with a 9 volt... when it started to speed up, it made the most beautiful spark show on the negative on the bottom one could imagine. Spun up so fast, that it took 3 minutes to spin down. And somehow, my penny is now slightly warped upwards.
I have only just begun. Magnetic bearings are an idea, so also is levitation. My personal favorite. So also is the "top" method with friction limited to one point. I'm going to build and test and see what works best. Not as easy to spin up copper in this manner as one thinks...but it can be done! ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 22, 2010, 11:33:22 PM
It was mentioned that if a bulb is attached to a copper plate (coil in my case) to rotate with said plate, it will not light! It is in the wrong "time reference frame". It will only produce a flow of electrons that are usable, if another "reference frame" (brushes, etc, not moving..) are drawing off the current stream.
Bruce
I agree with this, but it may only be partially correct. Experiments show that there is an EMF and the charges have been separated and pointing in a particular direction, but the voltage/current isn't able to be brought out of the system in a rotating frame due to no return path. In other words, there is a static electric field (the external circuit is just part of the disc when they are both rotating together, and the electric field of both will be pointing in the same direction and will cancel each other's EMF, either at the rim or the axis, according to the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of rotation).
Take a single axle rotating CW which is represented by a broken line as shown below, while everything is rotating together, and the two discs are electrically connected at the rims and the axis's. Pay careful attention to the orientation of the magnetic field for each disc,
===N/
S/disc/
N/S======S/
N/disc/
S/N===
The electric field of the left disc will be pointing in the opposite direction as the electric field of the right disc (This has already been proven experimentally). The axis of the left disc will have an opposite polarity than the axis of the right disc. Likewise, the rim of the left disc will have an opposite polarity than the rim of the right disc. As you can see, the EMF of each disc will not be canceled, and should provide a net voltage either in the rotating frame or in a stationary frame by extracting the current from the discs with slip rings on the axis of each disc (the greatest potential will now be between the axis of each disc due to this setup).
One of the discs will behave as an external circuit. The external circuit must have an opposite EMF as the disc. Relative motion between the disc and the external circuit is the normal way to accomplish this. There may be another way to accomplish this, by having one of the discs to move through an opposite magnetic field as I previously described.
I would love to be proven wrong on this.
It won't work with one disc. There must be two discs and the two sets of magnets must have enough distance between them so they don't interfere with each other, and each disc must be moving through an opposite field.
I will list some quick and indisputable facts about the HPG that is already been proven through experimentation.
1) Changing the direction of rotation will change the polarity of the voltage (yes, the current can flow from the rim to the axis, just like it can flow from the axis to the rim).
2) Changing the direction of the magnetic field or poles will change the polarity of the voltage.
3) A disc, magnet, and external circuit all rotating together will have a static electric field, but voltage and current isn't able to be taken off the disc (no
net voltage due to the EMF of the external circuit canceling the EMF of the disc, or vice versa).
4) Increasing the radii of the discs and magnets will increase the voltage.
5) Higher strength magnets will increase the voltage.
6) Higher RPM's will increase the voltage.
GB
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 23, 2010, 11:02:53 PM
Hi GB,
Talk is cheap and I like to experiment. I never believe something will not work, until I have tried it...thoroughly.
Is Tesla wrong... Build something and find out. I do not argue physics. I build and experiment based on my understanding. Can that understanding change? Of course.
Cheers,
Bruce
Watch these four videos, then tell me there is no reaction between the armature and the field,
http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.avi and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk2c3m9eVK8 and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-kQans2rww and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvScSTbly1cTalk is not cheap when it can be backed up with experiments and research. I have done extensive research and experiments with the HPG over many years, and from what I understand, Tesla is wrong about there not being a reaction between the armature and the field (It's the very reason why a HPM works and why there is a counter torque in a HPG). I believe anyone who has done any serious research on the HPG/HPM, will agree with this. Experiments that have been done since his time, are in contradiction to his suggestions.
Before you tell someone to build something and to find out, you should be sure that person hasn't already done those experiments and done the proper research. You don't have to agree with me, but the results of your own experiments will be in-line with what I am suggesting to you. When I experiment, I start with the basics just like you. I take nothing for granted. This is the best way to experiment, so you can have your own understanding of things. In the process, you may uncover something that was over-looked or misinterpreted by others. I hope this will be the case during your experiments. I'm not here to argue or to debate physics either. There are loop holes and back-doors everywhere. We need to find these loop holes and exploit them to our benefit. This is one of the reasons why I am here. I am not here to discourage your work. I am here to encourage your work and to give you a different perspective on things. Just keep them in the back of your mind is all I ask.
I am grateful you at least read my posts. I posted a document on the main Steorn page yesterday which I believe has really good information in it, but only 6 people downloaded the file and there has been over 400 page views since I posted the document. It doesn't appear most people here are serious about research or experimentation, because they think they already have all of the correct answers. In fact, there are those experimenting who are not sharing there results or data here. It's a real shame and this holds back progress on this forum. Please keep up your excellent work, for you are one of the very few, who are moving this forum forward in the right direction.
GB
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 23, 2010, 11:02:53 PM
Hi GB,
I am not looking for the eddy currents to excite my brug, (lol...that sounds bad :D) but I am looking for the current to flow from the inside to the outside perimeter of my pancake coil and hoping that it's magnetic field will reinforce the field.
I have only just begun. Magnetic bearings are an idea, so also is levitation. My personal favorite. So also is the "top" method with friction limited to one point. I'm going to build and test and see what works best. Not as easy to spin up copper in this manner as one thinks...but it can be done! ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
The current flowing in the pancake coil will not re-enforce the field regardless of the direction of rotation. If you reverse the rotation, then the current flow will also reverse it's direction, which will once again be in opposition to the direction of rotation. Here's a video from Lumen clearly showing when the direction of rotation is reversed in a HPG, then the polarity of the voltage is reversed,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8wIf you can wrap your mind around this concept along with Newton's Third Law, then the HPG/HPM is demystified.
Here's a video of a true levitating HPM,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hHfkK4iGBQThis video has friction limited to only one point, similar to the "top method" you are referring to,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHxHNS9gCfgGB
Hi GB,
I've seen some of those and some I have not. Large ones produce high amperage and low voltage.
I already know that they work, ie..Faraday's disc. Though it is a different setup.
I will not believe anything about the pancake coil not working, until I have tried both it and also Tesla's bifilar pancake coil in my BRUG...sorry..LOL
@ ALL
I am now looking for build designs... and build ideas.
I have some more little experiments to run tonight. I have ordered a pwm kit for my SSG3 and I have some time to think on my BRUG until it arrives.
The order in which I want to design is as follows:
1a. A long spin down time accomplished with a "Top" type set up of 5 minutes or more. Figuring out best vertical height in proportion to horizontal pieces, ie...two magnets and coil/plate.
Center of gravity, weight, mass etc.
1b. Identify if using satalites is feasable, to create many spinning BRUG's.
2a. Building a test rig for coils and plates.
2b. Testing Output, and best means to physically draw off output.
3a. Putting the BRUG together. Testing using a very, very, very small duty cycle.
And studying the Generators of yesteryear and today, of the Forbes type.
That is my plan to date. ;D
Cheers,
Bruce
EDIT:
Hey GB, I did indeed like this one setup that you posted. I like it very much! It uses only magnets for full levitation, as well! It is very clever. I like it enough to test the BRUG spin down time using one of those set ups. Thanks!
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 24, 2010, 07:41:22 AM
Hi GB,
I've seen some of those and some I have not. Large ones produce high amperage and low voltage.
I already know that they work, ie..Faraday's disc. Though it is a different setup.
I will not believe anything about the pancake coil not working, until I have tried both it and also Tesla's bifilar pancake coil in my BRUG...sorry..LOL
Different setup, but based on the same concept and principals. I don't expect you to believe anything about the pancake coil not being able to re-enforce the field, and I'm not trying to talk you out of doing the experiment, so I don't know why you are apologizing and laughing at me. Pulsing it is a good idea and definitely should be followed up on, with or without the pancake coil.
Go ahead and prove Tesla wrong in your own experiments. I've already shown you that his suggestions are more than likely wrong, and gave you reasons why he even made those suggestions in the first place, but you won't be satisfied until you actually see the results in your own experiments. Do you really think I would say Tesla may be wrong, without having good reasons, when he is highly respected by myself and others here, especially when you are about to do an experiment that will confirm in your mind if he was correct or not? Of course not. You automatically reject everybody else's experiments and research while only accepting your own as being correct. That is very naive, IMO. I truly wish you Good Luck though! No hard feelings here. This should give you the motivation to prove me otherwise, and I really hope you are successful (we are on the same side, and I'm not against your efforts or against having positive results).
In fact, I can even show you a post of mine from way back, where I mentioned using a pancake coil in a HPG. This idea has been tossed around on this forum quite a bit, and it needs to be tested (You just really never know one way or the other, until it's actually been tested). Until it has been tested and proven otherwise, I will hold onto what I currently believe to be correct, based on what I feel like is the best information I have come across from a wide rage of resources, which is not limited to just my own experiments.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on March 24, 2010, 08:13:45 AM
Different setup, but based on the same concept and principals. I don't expect you to believe anything about the pancake coil not being able to re-enforce the field, and I'm not trying to talk you out of doing the experiment, so I don't know why you are apologizing and laughing at me. Pulsing it is a good idea and definitely should be followed up on, with or without the pancake coil.
Go ahead and prove Tesla wrong in your own experiments. I've already shown you that his suggestions are more than likely wrong, and gave you reasons why he even made those suggestions in the first place, but you won't be satisfied until you actually see the results in your own experiments. Do you really think I would say Tesla may be wrong, without having good reasons, when he is highly respected by myself and others here, especially when you are about to do an experiment that will confirm in your mind if he was correct or not? Of course not. You automatically reject everybody else's experiments and research while only accepting your own as being correct. That is very naive, IMO. I truly wish you Good Luck though! No hard feelings here. This should give you the motivation to prove me otherwise, and I really hope you are successful (we are on the same side, and I'm not against your efforts or against having positive results).
In fact, I can even show you a post of mine from way back, where I mentioned using a pancake coil in a HPG. This idea has been tossed around on this forum quite a bit, and it needs to be tested (You just really never know one way or the other, until it's actually been tested). Until it has been tested and proven otherwise, I will hold onto what I currently believe to be correct, based on what I feel like is the best information I have come across from a wide rage of resources, which is not limited to just my own experiments.
GB
Woa...Easy there Hoss,
Don't go getting your undies in a knot. I was not "laughing at you." I do not laugh at others. So please do not read things into responses that are not there, or that are "assumed". I do "respect other peoples experiments, but I have not seen anything to dissuade me, was my point. You said, "This idea has been tossed around on this forum quite a bit, and it needs to be tested (You just really never know one way or the other, until it's actually been tested)." and that was my point.
Please feel free to post relevent items here, ie... videos, actual test results, build ideas, etc. But this is the end of this particular discussion.
@ ALL
I have a series of small experiments to run tonight. Just some simple things to clarify a few things in my mind. I will let you know what they are and how they went, later tonight.
Cheers,
Bruce
Evening ALL,
Tonight was fairly interesting and I feel that I learned a lot.
1. I was able to drasticaly reduce the input power, while trying to rotate a copper disc (penny) by simply placing a non conductive paper between both the top and bottom side of the magnet. To complete the circuit I simply ran a very thin piece of wire from top to base. Now, this will create a little bit of an engineering challange in my larger design, but I think that I will simply run the wire on the BRUG, from the top, and then have a small air gap between the outer perimeter of the Tesla pancake coil and the loop of copper that will encircle it, to take power off, if brushes there, become my choice.
2. I learned that you can not input power from the top, have it then run and touch the side. It does not like that....at all! It wants the power to touch the "edge" of the top magnet(s). I found it strange and will retry this. I tried going from nail on the top, to copper wire, to magnets edge. No joy. I am sure with enough power I could, but not what I am looking for. I want to optimize every single step of the way.
3. I learned that I can seperate the base, electrically from the bottom magnets and rotation is not effected. In other words, my base is a nail. From nail to cork, from cork to magnet. Negative to base, wire completes circuit as describe in #1. But, try to do this from the top, and no way! LOL At least not tonight. If someone has accomplished this "seemingly" easy task, I would like to know.
Cheers,
Bruce
@Bruce:
After more thought on the pancake coil, it may be more promising than I first thought, due to overlooking the piece of the wire that runs radially from the center of the pancake coil to the rim of the coil.
The current flowing circularly in the pancake coil shouldn't couple with the field from the magnet, so there shouldn't be any counter torque here. But, the field from the current flowing circularly will cross the field from the current flowing in the radial piece of wire at a 90o angle and could provide either a forward torque or a counter torque, depending on the direction of rotation or of the pancake coil.
There will still be a counter torque from extracting the current between the pancake coil and the external circuit, but if there is a forward torque in the above, then this forward torque may be equal to the counter torque and the two forces will be canceled and Lenz will be defeated by using Newton's Third Law.
I'm not able to figure the forces involved to know if the forward torque will equal or be greater than the counter torque, but the pancake coil appears very interesting to me at the moment. I now understand what Tesla is referring to with his pancake coil idea. It's amazing how overlooking a small detail changes everything. This is the reason why it needs to be tested, and I really appreciate you taking the time to do these experiments and sharing your results with us. Thanks.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on March 25, 2010, 06:48:08 PM
@Bruce:
After more thought on the pancake coil, it may be more promising than I first thought, due to overlooking the piece of the wire that runs radially from the center of the pancake coil to the rim of the coil.
The current flowing circularly in the pancake coil shouldn't couple with the field from the magnet, so there shouldn't be any counter torque here. But, the field from the current flowing circularly will cross the field from the current flowing in the radial piece of wire at a 90o angle and could provide either a forward torque or a counter torque, depending on the direction of rotation or of the pancake coil.
There will still be a counter torque from extracting the current between the pancake coil and the external circuit, but if there is a forward torque in the above, then this forward torque may be equal to the counter torque and the two forces will be canceled and Lenz will be defeated by using Newton's Third Law.
I'm not able to figure the forces involved to know if the forward torque will equal or be greater than the counter torque, but the pancake coil appears very interesting to me at the moment. I now understand what Tesla is referring to with his pancake coil idea. It's amazing how overlooking a small detail changes everything. This is the reason why it needs to be tested, and I really appreciate you taking the time to do these experiments and sharing your results with us. Thanks.
GB
Hi GB,
A very good post. I was trying to picture what you were describing and think that I understand, about the inner wire running at 90 deg to the outside. I would say that I agree with this. In the days of yore, they always put a shaft in the center. Here we have the spirals, but no shaft, and as you noted, the wire crossing at a 90 degree.
Evening ALL,
Tonight was the start of a "build night". I am working on understanding the full magnetic levitation that I will imploy to eliminate much friction. I have been successful at elivating the first end. I am very excited with it's success!! Now to build a real foundation, of wood and begin to put things together, for the "mini BRUNG". It will give me a learning curve before I build the "level 2" BRUNG.
Washer to end of plastic base. 2 magnets in attraction to one another, to washer. 2 groups of three ceramic magnets each, in "repel" of mags on base. Finicky, but not difficult.
Cheers,
Bruce
On the 3rd page of this article in fig. A, http://www.scribd.com/doc/28943990/Hypothesis-of-Homopolar-Atomic-Model-for-Cold-Fusion-Energy , I find an almost exact setup to what I posted in reply #14 of this thread in regards to the below illustration,
==N/S/disc/N/S===S/N/disc/S/N== (The "=" represents the axle. Compare this and my description in reply #14 to the drawing below)
I have posted many designs and illustrations on this forum in the past, based on this same technique in the article.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on March 25, 2010, 09:52:22 PM
On the 3rd page of this article in fig. A, http://www.scribd.com/A/28943990/Hypothesis-of-Homopolar-Atomic-Model-for-Cold-Fusion-Energy , I find an almost exact setup to what I posted in reply #14 of this thread in regards to the below illustration,
==N/S/disc/N/S===S/N/disc/S/N== (The "=" represents the axle. Compare this and my description in reply #14 to the drawing below)
I have posted many designs and illustrations on this forum in the past, based on this same technique in the article.
GB
This is actually Tesla's patent but made in the other completelly wrong way.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0406968.pdf
Tesla's patent ("Dynamo Electric Machine") describes an arrangement of two parallel discs with separate, parallel shafts, joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. Each disc had a field that was the opposite of the other, so that the flow of current was from the one shaft to the disc edge, across the belt to the other disc edge and to that shaft. 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.
In the setup of yours you just have a greater friction - not lower ;] Anyway, both have nothing to do with OU ;]
Quote from: Airstriker on March 26, 2010, 06:54:29 AM
This is actually Tesla's patent but made in the other completelly wrong way.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0406968.pdf
Tesla's patent ("Dynamo Electric Machine") describes an arrangement of two parallel discs with separate, parallel shafts, joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. Each disc had a field that was the opposite of the other, so that the flow of current was from the one shaft to the disc edge, across the belt to the other disc edge and to that shaft. 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.
In the setup of yours you just have a greater friction - not lower ;] Anyway, both have nothing to do with OU ;]
My designs eliminate having two separate shafts and a conductive belt joined like pulleys. Both discs are on the same axle (How is this the same as Tesla's patent?). Since both discs are rotating together on the same axle with opposite EMF, then the rims can be naturally connected in series and
completely joined together without a conductive belt, allowing the current to flow between the discs. In Tesla's patent, the conductive belt doesn't completely cover both discs. This is not the wrong way, this is a better way.....but you must understand the concept and principals of this first.
My designs extract the current from each end of the axis since this is where the greatest potential is in this setup. I have much more efficient designs than this basic setup, based around the same principals. I even have a design that is
totally brush-less using multiple circular Halbach Arrarys (a halbach array can be made to have a uniform field) and are used in high performance brush-less motors you can buy today.
I said the design in the article was
almost exactly like my designs. You overlooked "almost" and didn't read my description in reply #14, and completely took what I said out of context again. I don't know how you can say my designs have a greater friction. It is the opposite, they have a lower friction. My advanced brush-less designs have a near 0 friction.
This does have to do with OU. Since the discs are connected in series, the power output is increased to the 4th power, while the input power only increases to the square thereof. Doubling the radii of the disc and magnets will increase the power output to the 4th power, but the counter torque increases to the 4th power also. This has already been experimentally verified and confirmed. Connecting two discs of opposite EMF in series while rotating on the same axle would be equivalent to doubling the radii of the discs/magnets
and equivalent to doubling the RPM. This virtual doubling of the RPM overcomes
most of the counter torque. I guess my next post will have to be in explaining this virtual RPM. Once you grasp this concept, then you will see the beauty of the system. In Tesla's patent, since the conductive belt is only covering half of each disc, the system won't be utilized to it's fullest and you will be back to square one again. My designs overcome this and exploit the HPG to it's fullest potential possible.
GB
Hi GB,
I am looking forward to your description of "virtual rpm". Thanks!
Good Evening ALL,
Tonight has been very fruitful. I have shored up my build, changed my axle, to lessen the weight, and really found out that if I really wanted (I don't...LOL) I could build the entire unit out of 2 magnets a wire and some balsa wood.... (picture will explain)
I found out that from the magnets, I can run a piece of wire, quite a distance, to a "loop" of some sort, be it nail, bushing, etc,and still get spin. Of course as long as it is connected electrically. I needed to prove this to know that my BRUG device will rotate.
I am going with full magnetic levitation, slight friction on 1 point of contact. Gravity is not a factor with this point of friction, so, a drop of oil and it should be not any issue at all.
I have ordered my magnets, last night, for my "Level 1" build. As I learn from each build, and it works, I will get larger and larger. Each size up is a cost factor. So Level 1 is proof of concept, and learning curve.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 26, 2010, 10:09:14 PM
Hi GB,
I am looking forward to your description of "virtual rpm". Thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
Examples 1 - 4 below, shows the Relative motion or relative RPM between the disc and external circuit is proportional to the EMF.
Examples 5 & 6 below, shows the Virtual RPM is proportional to the
net virtual relative motion between both discs and the external circuit while taking into consideration the direction of the EMF of each disc, since we're dealing with more than one disc. The EMF is then proportional to the Virtual RPM, instead of the Relative RPM of just a single disc and external circuit.
In a normal setup, we have relative motion between the disc and external circuit.
1.) Let's say the disc is rotating at 1000 RPM, and the external circuit is stationary. The relative RPM between the disc and external circuit will be 1000 RPM in this case. The EMF will be proportional to 1000 relative RPM.
2.) Now, let's have the disc rotate at 1000 RPM and the external circuit will rotate in the same direction at 500 RPM. The relative RPM between them is 500 RPM. The EMF will be proportional to 500 relative RPM.
3.) If they're both rotating in the same direction and both at 1000 RPM, the relative RPM is 0. The EMF will be proportional to 0 relative RPM, which is a 0 EMF.
4.) Now, let's have the disc rotate at 1000 RPM and the external circuit is rotating in the opposite direction (counter rotating) at 1000 RPM. The relative RPM between them is now 2000 RPM. The EMF will be proportional to 2000 relative RPM.
5.) When you have 2 discs rotating together on the same axle at 1000 RPM with a stationary external circuit, and each disc has an EMF pointing in the same direction, then the relative RPM between the first disc and external circuit is 1000 RPM and between the second disc and external circuit is 1000 RPM, and since the EMF is in the same direction for each disc, then the
net virtual relative motion between both discs and the external circuit is 0, which represents a virtual RPM of 0, and results in an EMF of 0, (this is equivalent to the #3 example above in regards to them rotating in the same direction and with the same RPM).
6) When both discs rotate on the same axle at 1000 RPM with a stationary external circuit, and each disc has an EMF pointing in the opposite direction, then the relative RPM between the first disc and external circuit is 1000 RPM, and the relative motion between the second disc and external circuit is 1000 RPM........ and since each disc has an opposite EMF, then the net virtual relative motion between both discs and the external circuit is 2000 RPM, which is a virtual RPM of 2000 RPM (this is equivalent to the #4 example above in regards to them counter rotating)
To sum it up, the Virtual RPM represents the
net virtual relative motion between
both discs and the external circuit by taking the direction of the EMF of each disc into consideration since we're dealing with more than one disc. If you can accept #1 - #4 above, then I don't see why #5 & #6 above can't be accepted either.
RPM's is not relevant in the HPG. What is relevant, is the relative motion or relative RPM between the disc(s) and external circuit along with the direction of the EMF.
The effects of this Virtual RPM is similar to a force in the non-inertial reference frame and is a fictitious force in a stationary or inertial reference frame. This
analogy is similar (I must put this in bold, or somebody will take it out of context and twist my words) to the Centrifugal force,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force I don't think this Virtual RPM is a reactive force, but I could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactive_centrifugal_force If it is a reactive force, then we won't have OU and the counter torque will increase in proportion to the Virtual RPM and the EMF. If it isn't a reactive force, then we just may have OU, because the counter torque won't increase in proportion to the EMF. We would in effect have an EMF that is proportional to twice the RPM of the axle, with a counter torque that is only proportional to the RPM of the axle (this is how the Virtual RPM could cancel
most of the counter torque and how these designs based around this concept is relevant to OU).
It's also not much different than being able to simulate a virtual air gap in a ferromagnetic material,
http://www.ele.utoronto.ca/~lehn/conference_papers/CP16.pdfI hope I didn't confuse you too much. You probably need to get inside of my head to understand it properly. I'm sure that is a scary thought. The concept is simple, if you can grasp it, lol. I don't expect you or anyone else to understand this post. If anyone does, then I'll be surprised.
GB
Hi GB,
A very thought provoking post. I guess my only issue, is that I do not see the magnetic fields rotating, at all, even though the magnets of course, are. Now, the copper discs/coils rotate, and if the emf in copper disc one is spinning ccw at 1000 rpm and the second copper disc emf is spinning cw at 1000 rpm, I can see, that from the point of the observer riding the emf on any one of the copper discs the other emf would appear to be going the net sum of 2000 rpm. I guess that I do not see how this helps us, since each emf is to their perspective copper disc. Now, if one copper disc with an emf of ccw, were exactly ontop of another copper disc with an emf of cw than I could possible see a net gain.
Anywho, just how I am picturing it right now, if that is even correct. Have you built that description of yours and taken some measurements? I would love to see some pictures or video if you have any, as well as a log of your measurements. Thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
Happy Saturday afternoon, everyone,
I have begun to build the pieces to my Level 1-BRUG, while I await parts and caps for the SSG3 and magnets for this project. The pieces numbered below correspond to the numbers on the drawing, a couple of posts up.
I will continue to take some pictures as I make a little progress.
Back to the bench...
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 27, 2010, 08:26:54 AM
Hi GB,
I guess my only issue, is that I do not see the magnetic fields rotating, at all, even though the magnets of course, are.
If a moving charge induces a magnetic field, then the magnetic field will move with the charge. Instead of saying, a magnetic field does or doesn't rotate with the magnet, we should say, a magnetic field moves with its source (charge). In the case of a magnet, each charged particle is its own source of magnetic field energy. When the effect of each charge is considered separately, the proper operation of the Homopolar Generator is revealed without violating Einstein’s Relativity.
For simplicity, we do not have to consider each individual charge, we can instead group together charges with similar velocities as a component of charge motion. Then resolve each component of charge motion separately and then sum the results to arrive at the final answer.
One component of magnetic field is produced by the mobile carriers and the other component from the stationary charges. These two magnetic field components produce equal and opposite effects thus canceling any added effect due to the rotation of the magnet. In the "new magnetism" book on Pages 68-73, it talks about the Faraday Paradox and should clear up this issue of "does the field rotate with the magnet or not",
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads;sa=downfile&id=383Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 27, 2010, 08:26:54 AM
Anywho, just how I am picturing it right now, if that is even correct. Have you built that description of yours and taken some measurements? I would love to see some pictures or video if you have any, as well as a log of your measurements. Thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
I have taken measurements, but not of the designs I have been talking about because they have not been built. Below is a design of a brush-less system based on two Halbach Arrays, or a radial magnet. Please note, if axial magnetized magnets were used, then there would be no EMF generated because the only thing rotating in these designs are the magnets (this does not work with axial magnetized magnets rotating on their magnetic axis when their is no relative motion between the disc and external circuit, as you are fully aware of). This is the reason for the Halbach Arrays and the radial magnets. These designs are not based on relative motion between the disc and external circuit. They are designed around "charge motion" and the directions of the EMF. The book, "New electromagnetism" is in agreement with these designs, but these designs were not initially designed around that model.
In a 3d view, the magnets will be inside a copper shell, and this copper shell is completely containing the magnets. The magnets will be rotating inside this stationary copper shell. I have less complicated designs without the Halbach Arrays by using multiple axial magnetized magnets/discs rotating together with a stationary external circuit, but they will need slip rings on the axle. I'm sure these designs will work, or at least a variation of them with slight modifications......but the question is, will they still have a counter torque. The voltages will be higher in these designs.
GB
Happy Saturday night to all,
I have wound my first two mini Tesla pancakes. nothing like a little spray adhesive and bees wax. ;) I have about 3 or 4 more varieties that I will wind tomorrow. After they are all completed, I will laquer each of them. I also have some wood parts glued up and drying as seen in the picture. This is too hold up the backing, for the one friction point in the whole setup. Tomorrow I will glue the Glazed ceramic tile to it.
Once the set up is complete, I not only want to do some spin down tests, but also want to do some weight vs. power input comparisons. Just curious on that, in a magnetic levitation situation.
Hi GB,
I follow you somewhat in your last post, and will be taking a look at the posted book. Your idea seems simple enough to build, perhaps you should build a mini one and post your pics and results here.
I like the picture that you posted, as well, and it has given me also some fresh ideas, with this set up that I can also try. Of course in my setup, it would not be brushless, but that's okay. The idea of enshrouding the magnet in copper is intriguing.
With my Level 2 BRUNG, I will be able to test a brushless version enshrouding the copper and a few other ideas. It will be a larger version, by a multiple of 3.
Cheers,
Bruce
EDIT:
Receive a message that the pdf file is in need of repair, and it would not download. If you could put a link to it here, or reload it, it would be appreciated, GB.
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 27, 2010, 11:58:43 PM
EDIT:
Receive a message that the pdf file is in need of repair, and it would not download. If you could put a link to it here, or reload it, it would be appreciated, GB.
I originally downloaded that pdf article from,
http://www.distinti.com/docs/nm.pdfI'm using Linux and my pdf viewer doesn't have any problems with the file I uploaded, but I did receive an error message about this same file when I tried to upload it earlier to Scribd.com. If you have any problems with the pdf in the above link, then please let me know.
This page has all of the publications based on the model of "new electromagnetism",
http://www.distinti.com/docs/These articles are a very good read and I think you will find them interesting.
GB
You'll love this publication on Faraday's Final Riddle, and I uploaded it to Scribd so you can view it on-line (you can always download it if you like), http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle
Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet? by A. G. Kelly.
This paper gives a description of a series of novel experiments on the relative motion of conductors and magnets. In the Conclusions of this publication on page 16, it says, "Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule." This is the reason why my designs require a separate analysis, because they are based on "charge motion" and the directions of the EMF. This publication, also supports the concept of my designs.
[Edit:] @Bruce: I'm not trying to steer you away from your own experiments in order to test my designs. Hopefully, some of the information I'm posting will be beneficial or be useful for your own experiments, either now or in the future. I'm still interested in the pancake coil and look forward to your results.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on March 28, 2010, 03:15:25 AM
You'll love this publication on Faraday's Final Riddle, and I uploaded it to Scribd so you can view it on-line (you can always download it if you like), http://www.scribd.com/doc/29043991/Faraday-s-Final-Riddle
Does the Field Rotate with a Magnet? by A. G. Kelly.
This paper gives a description of a series of novel experiments on the relative motion of conductors and magnets. In the Conclusions of this publication on page 16, it says, "Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction is true only in particular circumstances. As is known, a separate analysis is required for Motional Electromotive Force. This paper provides the basis for such a general rule." This is the reason why my designs require a separate analysis, because they are based on "charge motion" and the directions of the EMF. This publication, also supports the concept of my designs.
[Edit:] @Bruce: I'm not trying to steer you away from your own experiments in order to test my designs. Hopefully, some of the information I'm posting will be beneficial or be useful for your own experiments, either now or in the future. I'm still interested in the pancake coil and look forward to your results.
GB
Hi GB,
Your are correct, I did indeed LOVE that pdf.
You know, it had me thinking... If simply the disc is cutting a the field lines one time, and this is generating the voltage on the disc, could not a series of discs (ie..my tesla pancake coils) be stacked, electrically seperated by perhaps paper? This could drasticly increase power out, if very thin discs were used (ie..the disc method)?? Your thoughts on this? Of course as long as the magnetic field strength was strong enough to produce a voltage at the far end, or one could sandwich it between the two magnets in attraction.
I also learned something, for I was under the impression that the disc(coil) had to be sandwiched between a north facing and south facing magnet to produce any power. This is not the case. As long as simply one end or the other of the magnet is facing a disc...this means that there should/can be many more spots added to my BRUNG device in which I can take off power, for future experiments. I LIKE that!
Hi Everyone,
My glue is set and my backing is now complete. It is totally movabe, until I find the exact place distance it will need to be at for the levitation of my device. I used ceramic glazed tile, because it is like glass. Smooth with very little friction for the pen tip.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on March 28, 2010, 01:33:06 PM
Hi GB,
You know, it had me thinking... If simply the disc is cutting a the field lines one time, and this is generating the voltage on the disc, could not a series of discs (ie..my tesla pancake coils) be stacked, electrically seperated by perhaps paper? This could drasticly increase power out, if very thin discs were used (ie..the disc method)?? Your thoughts on this? Of course as long as the magnetic field strength was strong enough to produce a voltage at the far end, or one could sandwich it between the two magnets in attraction.
I also learned something, for I was under the impression that the disc(coil) had to be sandwiched between a north facing and south facing magnet to produce any power. This is not the case. As long as simply one end or the other of the magnet is facing a disc...this means that there should/can be many more spots added to my BRUNG device in which I can take off power, for future experiments. I LIKE that!
Cheers,
Bruce
I agree, a series of discs/coils should increase the power output, and you are correct about the discs/coils not needing to be sandwiched between opposite poles. Just take note of the direction the field is pointing in, relative to the disc, and the direction of rotation.
You should take measurements of the disc facing opposite poles, and changing the rotation direction. I think you will be surprised that both discs will have the same polarity in a, "disc/N/S/disc" setup (you probably won't agree with this until you take measurements). Also, both discs will have the same polarity in this setup, disc/S/N/disc, but will be opposite in polarity to the discs in the previous configuration. The polarity of the disc will be opposite in a N/S/disc/N/S configuration, than a S/N/disc/S/N setup. Changing the direction the field is pointing in relative to the disc, will reverse the polarity, and changing the direction of rotation will also change the polarity.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on March 29, 2010, 10:12:10 AM
I agree, a series of discs/coils should increase the power output, and you are correct about the discs/coils not needing to be sandwiched between opposite poles. Just take note of the direction the field is pointing in, relative to the disc, and the direction of rotation.
You should take measurements of the disc facing opposite poles, and changing the rotation direction. I think you will be surprised that both discs will have the same polarity in a, "disc/N/S/disc" setup (you probably won't agree with this until you take measurements). Also, both discs will have the same polarity in this setup, disc/S/N/disc, but will be opposite in polarity to the discs in the previous configuration. The polarity of the disc will be opposite in a N/S/disc/N/S configuration, than a S/N/disc/S/N setup. Changing the direction the field is pointing in relative to the disc, will reverse the polarity, and changing the direction of rotation will also change the polarity.
GB
Got it! Good stuff, GB, thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello Everyone,
My magnets arrived today in the mail. I went to put my BRUNG together, but ran into an interesting conundrum...
It seems, that glueing washers to my plastic pieces, in the thinking of just, "sticking them" to the magnet was not as simple as one would think...LOL It would seem, that it does not, will not stay on the magnet straight. I find this interesting, and of course the answer must be the air gap in the center. Hmm...Butch is certainly using an air gap in his magnetic switch. I just find it interesting, that I never noticed this before or heard mention of it.
So, I will be out looking for "solid" pieces of round steel to epoxy. I will not glue my magnets to anything, so the round metal will be found...LOL
Cheers,
Bruce (Dar'ned if I don't learn somethin' new everyday! ::) )
Makes me wonder if an airgap couldn't be used on both sides of a "V gate" at the so called "sticky spot"...hmm...that should get some of you magnetphobiacs thinking...
Hi GB,
I am quickly deciding not to go this "super mini route". I want to do some real testing and really focus my energy on this project, when I conclude my SSG3 experiments. Trying to wind 20 mini pancake coils is ridiculous and I'd rather just build a large one, and really wind some nice pancake coils, as well as bifilar, to test. I am going to stack them, one on top of the other.
My question for you, is the following: If I wanted to use 8" magnets, could I not use an 8" piece of thin steel for the front, place several strong N52 Magnets, all north facing to the steel plate, epoxy them in place and add a thin steel backing. Or... must it be a true 8" magnet that is rotating on it's axis? (ridiculously priced, as you can imagine).
If you think my first way will work, please let me know why, and if you have any knowlege of anyone trying this? Thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 03, 2010, 09:59:39 PM
Hi GB,
I am quickly deciding not to go this "super mini route". I want to do some real testing and really focus my energy on this project, when I conclude my SSG3 experiments. Trying to wind 20 mini pancake coils is ridiculous and I'd rather just build a large one, and really wind some nice pancake coils, as well as bifilar, to test. I am going to stack them, one on top of the other.
My question for you, is the following: If I wanted to use 8" magnets, could I not use an 8" piece of thin steel for the front, place several strong N52 Magnets, all north facing to the steel plate, epoxy them in place and add a thin steel backing. Or... must it be a true 8" magnet that is rotating on it's axis? (ridiculously priced, as you can imagine).
If you think my first way will work, please let me know why, and if you have any knowlege of anyone trying this? Thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
I have done some measurements on this, or at least similar to what you're referring to. I will draw up a few illustrations to make sure we are talking about the same thing. You are correct about the larger magnets being ridiculously priced. My measurements suggests there is a workaround to this problem.
GB
Bruce, I just realized, with my method you would still need to use 20 small pancake coils, and you want to use just a single pancake coil. It would work with a solid disc that could wrap around half the length of a long cylinder magnet being formed by stacking many magnets together, but you can't wrap the pancake coil around the length of a long cylinder magnet. The nickel coating on the neo magnets can replace the solid disc, so it's not a problem to stack many neo magnets together to form a large cylinder magnet/disc, then extract the current with an external circuit between the axis and at half the length of the cylinder at the periphery. This increases your voltage and is the same as having a larger diameter magnet/disc.
Placing several magnets on the back of an 8 in. steel piece so you can use 1 large pancake coil is an excellent idea, but i'm not sure of the results. The field will need to be uniform in all directions between the center and outer edge of the circular steel piece.
I will give this more thought, this is a good question.
GB
Hi GB,
I have drawn it out crudely, to make sure you understand what I am meaning...
Thanks!
Bruce
EDIT:
Based on the thickness of wire, etc, I figure I can put about four (4) pancake coils between the magnets. If it will work, or must it be a "single" magnet, rotating on it's axis??
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 03, 2010, 11:52:06 PM
Hi GB,
I have drawn it out crudely, to make sure you understand what I am meaning...
Thanks!
Bruce
EDIT:
Based on the thickness of wire, etc, I figure I can put about four (4) pancake coils between the magnets. If it will work, or must it be a "single" magnet, rotating on it's axis??
I can't say if it would work or not. It's an interesting concept. I will run some quick tests on Monday to test this idea. I don't think it needs to be a single magnet, as long as the field is uniform. The domains of the steel should be aligned with the field of the magnets to create an uniform field between the steel plates.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on April 04, 2010, 05:28:06 AM
I can't say if it would work or not. It's an interesting concept. I will run some quick tests on Monday to test this idea. I don't think it needs to be a single magnet, as long as the field is uniform. The domains of the steel should be aligned with the field of the magnets to create an uniform field between the steel plates.
GB
That is what I am thinking also. But... please let me know how your test goes tomorrow. If it works, I will build it.
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce.
i think the steel plate will never become North polarity this way. Also not wuth an single magnet (this way)
Gustav Pese
Hi Pese,
Not with one magnet, but MANY magnets, all north facing in one direction and south facing in the other direction. I know when you slap steel on top of the North Facing Magnets, that the North Field will be through the steel and even strengthened. (picture is a few posts above) But...What I don't know and GB will test and let me know, if the Unipolar Faraday's Paradox is applicable, or if I will have to use large magnets that will rotate on their axis. these are too costly. In the days of old, they used Electromagnets for this size, but this is a waste, when seeking OU in such a device.
I hope that GB's test shows that it will work. I want to build a full sized machine. ;-)
Cheers my friend,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 04, 2010, 04:30:48 PM
Hi Pese,
Not with one magnet, but MANY magnets, all north facing in one direction and south facing in the other direction. I know when you slap steel on top of the North Facing Magnets, that the North Field will be through the steel and even strengthened. (picture is a few posts above) But...What I don't know and GB will test and let me know, if the Unipolar Faraday's Paradox is applicable, or if I will have to use large magnets that will rotate on their axis. these are too costly. In the days of old, they used Electromagnets for this size, but this is a waste, when seeking OU in such a device.
I hope that GB's test shows that it will work. I want to build a full sized machine. ;-)
Cheers my friend,
Bruce
I hop, that you find it out.
I know, and i test this out this moment.
wif you take some strong magnets
- al with same polarity , on an disk
(not even on the ouside limits.)
than you will have on the outsided plat surface no magnetic flux. Even if you tak an 0m8mm plate ( from pc-case , i tested this als, only you find an very weak
magnet field, that is not to use in your application
the magent flus om an magnet wil ONLY rum the shortest was from (possibly his own) moth to South direction.
So the Flux only run, on the magnet-side of the plate
N to S.
If you will run ypur device - as you think to work with this.
you will find another way to bring the flux to transversing the flatcoil.
Take a look to hardisk magnets. and to horse-shoes-magnets.
that it can work.
this system is als usefully for wind-wheel-generators.
othewise , to much (un-neded) losts in soft working magnetfields. Im am wondering since years over this...
Gustav Pese
Preliminary tests appear promising at this moment. I took the lid off a one gallon paint can to use as my steel plate, around 6" in diameter, and attached many 0.5 inch diameter neo magnets to one side of the lid (My neo magnets are very thin and not very strong, they're like button magnets). Then I took a can opener and cut the bottom of a vegetable can (3.75 inches in diameter), and attached it to the other side of the magnets. The magnets are sandwiched between the lid of the paint can and the face of the vegetable lid.
I then took another magnet in repulsive mode and moved it over the face of the lid, and the field appears to be uniform like a single magnet around the entire diameter and area of the lid ( I didn't feel any spots on the lid where the magnet was attracted to it, except around the outer edges of the paint can lid. Moving the magnet over the lid was nice and smooth with no jerky motions). The field from the lid, both attracts and repels the other magnet. The other magnet starts to respond to the face of the lid when it is 4 inches away, and will try to turn when in repulsive mode, in order to align with the field from the lid.
The next test is to rotate the lids, and take measurements. I can't use the lid from the paint can as my conductive disc, because it isn't conductive. Maybe if I sanded the lid it would be conductive. The bottom of the vegetable can is conductive and I will use this as my conductive disc for this test. If I get a relatively good voltage (it will be low in this case, but should be much higher than a small diameter magnet), then the steel plates can be used as one large diameter magnet.
I really like this concept. If it works, then I can further my research into this area. I have been limited to small diameter magnets, which doesn't work very well in these experiments.
[Edit:] I will take a video and post it on youtube if the experiment is successful or not.
GB
Hi Bruce and GB,
You might want to have a look here. It's about a homopolar generator that uses multiple magnets arranged in a disc structure like the two of you are testing. It seems this should work flawlessly.
There might be some more to learn there as well.
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html#intro
Hope it is of some use.
Good luck!
regards,
Dutchy
Quote from: dutchy1966 on April 05, 2010, 07:03:26 AM
Hi Bruce and GB,
You might want to have a look here. It's about a homopolar generator that uses multiple magnets arranged in a disc structure like the two of you are testing. It seems this should work flawlessly.
There might be some more to learn there as well.
http://www.stardrivedevice.com/over-unity.html#intro
Hope it is of some use.
Good luck!
regards,
Dutchy
I'm familiar with the StarDrive HPG concept. Thanks for posting this, for I had forgotten about it and lost the link to the page. I have it bookmarked now.
Here's a short video of my setup right now,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRhy4Zy70FYI'm unable to take any measurements at this time due to poor conductivity on the metal plates. Some places are conductive, and other places are not (probably due to a thin coating of non-conductive material on the metal discs). When it's rotating, my voltmeter shows no continuity between the axis and outer edge.
In the video, you will notice when it first starts to run, it has a slight wobble up and down. If I gradually pulse it until the rotor reaches it's maximum RPM, then it doesn't wobble during the spin-up. If I don't pulse it, then it will fly off (the metal discs are only attached to the rotor via magnets, with no glue so I can get it balanced). When the blue light is on, then it is being powered. The black tape is around the smaller disc to keep the magnets from flying off due to the centrifugal force. I will be taking measurements between the axis and to the edge of the black tape, which would be equivalent to around a 3.5 inch diameter magnet.
I'll work on a good conductive disc so I can take measurements. Hopefully I can finish this test today. I do have some errands to run, so it may be later in the evening before I can make the necessary changes.
GB
Hi GB,
Nice setup! What are you rotating it with? Based on the info that Dutchy posted, it should certainly work!! Now I am really stoked...! I look forward to your results... I won't be home till Thurs, so can only watch.
@Dutchy,
Great find! Thanks for posting that info! I had seen a part of it before, but not the photo's, or actual build of any unit. It would seem that someone else had a "part" of my idea... ;)
Now, I want to build a 12" unit, except, using N52 magnets, and replace his copper disc with "several" bifilar wound Tesla pancake coils, using stranded wire... That should put out some juice... hehehe
I like the idea of using some spacers, between the magnets in the array, I have to think about this...I think that I can come up with something...actually drilling a bunch of holes is not that bad of an idea...hmm.. need to think on that one.
I did notice that he did not use a plate on top of his magnets. Would this be advantagious? I think perhaps a thin plate would be.
Lastly, I think that the output can be multiplied, by stacking...ie.. magnet, coil, coil, coil, coil, magnet, coil, coil, coil, coil, magnet. Three magnet arrays and 8 coils.
Cheers,
Bruce
I think the test was successful, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgIlORURSbI
When I reverse the probes, the sign on the voltmeter changes. Reversing the probes is to show that the voltmeter isn't measuring any stray EM from the motor itself, but is actually measuring the EMF between the axis and outer edge of the conductor. The voltmeter is showing mV with one decimal digit. The readings are fluctuating probably due to a poor conductor and movement of the probes (I used roof flashing for the conducting material. They had a roll of copper, but it was like $80) The readings are much higher than I expected, so I need to do more testing with the metal discs on an axle, and as far away from the motor itself in order to fully rule out any interactions between the coils, motor magnets, and the HPG. I will also put a resistor across the terminals of my voltmeter.
I will continue to do more testing on this throughout the week to rule out any external influences. Thick metal plates are not needed IMO, if the magnets are properly spaced. I do think having the magnets attached to a thin metal plate, with the proper spacing of the magnets will make the field more uniform with better results.
[Edit:] @Bruce, this publication may also make you fell better. The experiment in the publication is different from what we're trying to do, but there are some similarities. http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/paradox2.pdf
GB
Very nice GB! I am pretty sure that your reading is from the mags. slap some paper and add another lid and stack em up.
What are you using for a motor, a computer fan?
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 05, 2010, 07:16:43 PM
Very nice GB! I am pretty sure that your reading is from the mags. slap some paper and add another lid and stack em up.
What are you using for a motor, a computer fan?
Cheers,
Bruce
I'm using a computer fan for the motor. I can't stack anymore discs, because I don't have enough magnets to make another layer, lol. I have a lot of magnets sandwiched between those plates.
I now have plans to build a much bigger HPG with an axle and magnets attached to metal plates to act as a large diameter magnet, using either my dremil drill or my router for the drive motor (very high RPM's). My dremil drill is adjustable in increments of 1,000 anywhere between 5,000 - 35,000 RPM's, so this would allow me to take measurements over a large range. I think a DC motor would be better, but I will use what I have around the house for the time being in order to achieve really high RPM's. With a little time and effort, I can now test some of my designs. I'll be working on a good and flexible test rig to take measurements of various designs, including the pancake coil.
I really appreciate you sharing this idea on how to simulate a large diameter magnet using numerous magnets attached to a metal plate. Thanks.
GB
Hi GB,
I just finished reading through that .pdf that you posted. Good stuff! Interesting, in that it too proves, that the magnet rotating, NOT on it's axis can indeed produce power. This tells me that the idea that the flux does not rotate, but only the magnet, is indeed a false assumption...for if that were true, a magnet on the outer edge of a rotor would consitantly "move" away from where it's flux had been and no power would be generated.
This indeed means that simulating a large magnet will indeed work! The reason that their experiment with two NORTH facing magnets did not work is because of the way their machine was wired, it would be the same as sandwiching a disc/coil between north up and north down magnets.
I have written to steorn, about their zeroF bearings. I will use two of them for this large project. It will still be costly, making 12" diameter "simulated" N52 magnets, but so be it... The main items that will influence the power output that are obviouse is the strength of the flux field, and the speed of the rotation. The items not so obviouse are, bifilar tesla pancake coils, or regular coils, or discs. Stacked, not stacked, resistance of coil, etc.
Things I still wonder, if I want to drive it like a homopolor generator? Can a "simulated" magnet work like a homopolor generator and generate spin??
You may try that with your magnet sandwich, GB! Add a nail to the bottom and see if you can spin it like a single magnet/nail homopolor generator...inquiring minds want to know...
We need to source a very strong epoxy, and I am thinking of using a 12 Round of stiff styrofoam for spacers.... I want to build strong but very light!
I have already designed a simple double brush system to take off power. I will try simple, unless simple doesn't work!...LOL
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce,
Here's a really short video of the Paradox2 experiment with an oscilloscope, http://www.distinti.com/docs/pdx/pdx2.MPG
He rotates it in one direction briefly, then rotates it in another direction after a short pause. It's a really quick test.
I'll let you know the results of the nail experiment.
GB
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 05, 2010, 08:33:36 PM
Hi GB,
This indeed means that simulating a large magnet will indeed work! The reason that their experiment with two NORTH facing magnets did not work is because of the way their machine was wired, it would be the same as sandwiching a disc/coil between north up and north down magnets.
Cheers,
Bruce
I agree with you to why the two North facing magnets didn't work in the Paradox2 experiment. It didn't work due to the way the machine was wired and they canceled each other. Good observation. Thanks for taking the time to read and to study that experiment. I think that experiment really helps to correctly understand the HPG/HPM.
GB
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 05, 2010, 08:33:36 PM
I have written to steorn, about their zeroF bearings. I will use two of them for this large project.
Hi Bruce,
Do they sell it to everyone? Or just SKDB related guys ? If you can get them from Steorn, what is the price ? Thanks in advance for that info.
Quote from: gravityblock on April 05, 2010, 10:00:19 PM
I agree with you to why the two North facing magnets didn't work in the Paradox2 experiment. It didn't work due to the way the machine was wired and they canceled each other. Good observation. Thanks for taking the time to read and to study that experiment. I think that experiment really helps to correctly understand the HPG/HPM.
GB
If you are using all north faced and you live in the Northern Hemisphere, you should not use North, but use South. The North is already there all around the coil. Do the reverse if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Quote from: wattsup on April 06, 2010, 09:50:24 AM
If you are using all north faced and you live in the Northern Hemisphere, you should not use North, but use South. The North is already there all around the coil. Do the reverse if you live in the Southern Hemisphere.
Hi Wattsup,
this is an error.
the magnetic south pool of the earth is at the geographic northpol and vice versa.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Magnetosphere/earth_magnetic_poles.html
Quote from: Airstriker on April 06, 2010, 05:12:29 AM
Hi Bruce,
Do they sell it to everyone? Or just SKDB related guys ? If you can get them from Steorn, what is the price ? Thanks in advance for that info.
Hi Airstriker,
I have heard back from Steorn and am saddened... How can a company be advertising something they are not yet selling? Anywho, below was their reply...
Dear Bruce,
Many thanks for your interest in Steorn and ZeroF.
ZeroF is presently at a development stage and will be intergrated into commercial applications at a later stage this year. Hence I cannot provide you with the specifics you need at present, however I will keep your details on file and will contact you in due course - alternatively please visit the Steorn website for future updates.
Yes, that's sad. I've been searching for passive magnetic bearings for a while - the result is also sad. Every single one, I've found, is at a development stage, or nothing physical exists other than a patent. Actually, there are quite a lot of patents. Maybe anybody here was more successful ?
Anyway, what magnetic bearings is CLaNZeR using in his ORBO replications ?
Quote from: Airstriker on April 09, 2010, 02:10:17 AM
Anyway, what magnetic bearings is CLaNZeR using in his ORBO replications ?
I think ClanZer's magnetic bearings are home-made. Home made magnetic bearings made while in the Steorn Private developers group by Eltimple (check out Eltimple's youtube channel also),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__KxFo9ATD4Halbach Arrays can be used for passive magnetic bearings. One pole is external and is strengthened, while the other pole is internal and is nearly canceled.
This video demonstrates a simple Halbach Array,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq72vb6o3TgHere's a circular Halbach Array with a simple configuration,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv-9IAj_YnIWiki has a good article of the different types of configurations for a Halbach Array,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_Array#Halbach_cylinderPassive Magnetic Bearing Development by NASA,
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/spacemech/workshop02/mag-brg.htmlClanZer demonstrating a Halbach Array,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzV6vMG31McThis looks promising also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utrHUq4WRsYGB
Welcome back Bruce.
Short video of my HPG Test Rig, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2WC6Mmk2pc
It's not finished yet. I need one bearing to hold the end of the axle, and I need to find a good axle that will attach to my Dremel Drill (the axle in the video is for demonstration purposes only). I have plans to add a center piece that is adjustable in order to shorten or extend the axle according to the different configurations I will be testing, such as multiple magnets/discs, etc. I still need to work on making my large diameter magnets/Discs. I could always make it a HPG/mini-lathe (I always wanted a lathe).
I will be testing the Pancake Coil configuration also.
GB
Hi GB,
Nice start you have there, with your build! I look forward to your progress...
Thanks for the links on the magnetic bearing info. I will probably just start off with ceramic bearings for my initial testing. I need 1/2".
I have purchased a 1/2" hollow steel rod for my shaft. I also now have 2 pulley's with 1/2" bore holes, that will be welded to my new plates. These will hold the shaft. I found some lovely 10" tin circles that I will be using. Not the 12" I wanted, but it is what was readily available.
I will now start to order a few magnets at a time. This is where it get's expensive... I am going to go for broke and go with N52's, 1". This should give me excellent penetration by the flux field of my bifilar pancake coils I will be building and stacking.
I have purchased 2 rolls of 20' of 12awg stranded. Low resistance, and is stranded...should give me the high amps I am wanting.
My initial thought is to go with 4 sandwiched between NORTH and SOUTH plates, but we will see. If field is strong enough to penetrate, I may throw a couple of more in the mix.
Not sure how to drive it...will probably use a dremel or drill for testing...
Designing a motor (or way) to spin the thing is a whole other challange.
Cheers,
Bruce
I've been thinking about building a large diameter magnet out of many wedge magnets similar to the second image of this post, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8852.msg235126#msg235126
In our case, we would put a thin piece of metal between each wedge magnet in order to eliminate any gaps between the wedges, because the wedge magnets will want to repel each other. We would also want a small inner diameter to fit our shaft. This should give us the best uniform field. The only downside is we would need to either have long wedges, or start another ring of wedge magnets inside the larger ring of wedge magnets, and have a ring of metal between the outer and inner rings to eliminate any gaps. The inner wedges would need to be shaped at a different angle than the outer wedges. This setup should strengthen the pole faces.
What do you think?
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on April 11, 2010, 01:38:46 PM
I've been thinking about building a large diameter magnet out of many wedge magnets similar to the second image of this post, http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8852.msg235126#msg235126
In our case, we would put a thin piece of metal between each wedge magnet in order to eliminate any gaps between the wedges, because the wedge magnets will want to repel each other. We would also want a small inner diameter to fit our shaft. This should give us the best uniform field. The only downside is we would need to either have long wedges, or start another ring of wedge magnets inside the larger ring of wedge magnets, and have a ring of metal between the outer and inner rings to eliminate any gaps. The inner wedges would need to be shaped at a different angle than the outer wedges. This setup should strengthen the pole faces.
What do you think?
GB
Hi GB,
It's not a bad idea, but if I'm not mistaken, those magnets are not all North pole up, or visa versa, so again, you are faced with the same thing, meaning that they would not be touching. Which I do not see as needed. My personal motto is always the K.I.S.S. method. LOL
I like to keep things simple until proven that I must do otherwise. I really think you would be fine, using regular (less expensive) magnets, either round or square (on inner part). With mine, I will be using the most powerful magnets, and at 1" thick, they will give me a very strong flux field, I have no doubt.
I also have a friend of mine, from Church, who is going to assist me with using a very small motor to drive it. He is VERY GOOD at the use of pulleys.
Today, after Church, I went to check out a device he and his step dad have been working on... He is attempting to use a 3/4 HP motor, rated at about 1100 watts, to turn a generator that is rated at 2200 watts output when driven at 3300 rpm. This normally is done by using a 5 hp motor to turn it.
He then has the motor, also plugged into the generator, so that when he throws two switches, the motor will self run.
He is short about 600 rpm. They calculated a pulley size incorrectly and will be trying again tomorrow with a smaller pulley on the generator. From a 3" to a 2".
He spun it up for me, and switched it to self run, one of the belts flew off...LOL nearly hit me, but it was very cool! Will it work? I should know this next week. Their idea of power measurment is that the motor is being self run by the generator...LOL Works for me!
Anywho, I am taking some pieces in this week, to be welded up, and for my shaft to be cut. Time to roll on this!
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
This pulley transmission concept of your friend's is pretty funny ;] I don't really understand people doing these things - how a hell do they want it to work ? Waste of time, machines, nerves etc. ;]
Quote from: Airstriker on April 15, 2010, 07:22:23 AM
Hi Bruce,
This pulley transmission concept of your friend's is pretty funny ;] I don't really understand people doing these things - how a hell do they want it to work ? Waste of time, machines, nerves etc. ;]
Funny or not, they are pretty determined! They believe they can get the large generator up to correct speed, using pulleys. Their small little motor sure can spin it up, the way they have it rigged. They just lack about 600 rpm from having the generator at proper speed...BUT, I explained to them, that when the motor (or any other load) is plugged into it, that is when it will cease working...but the say that they can just add some more pulleys...
In their defense, they own a log splitting shop and they really do use some pulley's there in amazing ways...LOL It's a deep woods, country thang!
@ALL
I am hoping to pick up my pieces from a shop today for my BRUNG Generator. I am having the piece that will hold the shaft, riveted to the metal discs. And today I drop off the rod to have it cut into several small pieces to use as needed for my two shaft pieces. I will show some pics, as soon as I get it.
Cheers,
Bruce
@Bruce
Maybe you can show them this regarding an offshoot of the Chas Wheel.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3260.msg48499#msg48499
All the best.
wattsup
Quote from: Airstriker on April 15, 2010, 07:22:23 AM
Hi Bruce,
This pulley transmission concept of your friend's is pretty funny ;] I don't really understand people doing these things - how a hell do they want it to work ? Waste of time, machines, nerves etc. ;]
This is a waste of time, machines, nerves, etc..... but the below quote from you isn't?
Quote from: Airstriker on March 26, 2010, 06:54:29 AM
This is actually Tesla's patent but made in the other completelly wrong way.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/0406968.pdf
Tesla's patent ("Dynamo Electric Machine") describes an arrangement of two parallel discs with separate, parallel shafts, joined like pulleys by a metallic belt. Each disc had a field that was the opposite of the other, so that the flow of current was from the one shaft to the disc edge, across the belt to the other disc edge and to that shaft. 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.
In the setup of yours you just have a greater friction - not lower ;] Anyway, both have nothing to do with OU ;]
Tesla's patent with the belt and pulleys is good, and is the right way, but the device from Bruce's friend using pulleys, is wrong and bad, LOL. Your contradictory statements, bias, closed mindedness, attacks, taking things out of context, twisting words, etc.......are pretty funny, IMO.
GB
@Bruce:
Steorn may be using a bearing at the top/bottom of the shaft, then using neodymium ring magnets to eliminate most of the thrust and radial loads on the bearings to reduce the friction. The bearings are for stability only. Since the eOrbo is a low torque system, then the shaft doesn't make much contact with these bearings.
Have another look at Steorn's ZeroF page, it's been updated, http://www.steorn.com/steornlab/zerof/
You'll notice the ZeroF is a hybrid system. "The use of permanent magnets reduces necessary shaft contact with the bearing elements, thereby resulting in a much lower friction coefficient".
Here's a good video showing the concept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vzzbxMIITE At the end of the video, it says the shaft is in a 3mm bearing on the topcap. This is in agreement with the hybrid ZeroF from Steorn.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on April 15, 2010, 10:47:45 AM
This is a waste of time, machines, nerves, etc..... but the below A from you isn't?
Tesla's patent with the belt and pulleys is good, and is the right way, but the device from Bruce's friend using pulleys, is wrong and bad, LOL. Your contradictory statements, bias, closed mindedness, attacks, taking things out of context, twisting words, etc.......are pretty funny, IMO.
GB
no not again you...please. Where is your troll spray ?
Quote from: gravityblock on April 15, 2010, 12:10:38 PM
@Bruce:
Steorn may be using a bearing at the top/bottom of the shaft, then using neodymium ring magnets to eliminate most of the thrust and radial loads on the bearings to reduce the friction. The bearings are for stability only. Since the eOrbo is a low torque system, then the shaft doesn't make much contact with these bearings.
Have another look at Steorn's ZeroF page, it's been updated, http://www.steorn.com/steornlab/zerof/
You'll notice the ZeroF is a hybrid system. "The use of permanent magnets reduces necessary shaft contact with the bearing elements, thereby resulting in a much lower friction coefficient".
Here's a good video showing the concept http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vzzbxMIITE At the end of the video, it says the shaft is in a 3mm bearing on the topcap. This is in agreement with the hybrid ZeroF from Steorn.
GB
Good stuff GB. Yes, their ZeroF's sound nice, if they would only start to sell them...LOL I will eventually try to figure out something, I am just not there yet...but hope to be soon!
@ ALL,
I have received my riveted pieces today and they did an awesome job! I did find out to my amazement that they have a machine there that can cut a perfect circle from any electrically conductive material, in about 10 seconds. They can cut up to 4 foot circles...!! I am sticking to my 10" circles though but am VERY happy that I can upgrade to a massive size, should results warrant, in the future.
I have also come to the conclusion that I will have painted, all of my pieces. I know someone who paint's cars and will take it to them for a proffessional job. This will make it non-electrically conductive and avoid eddy currents of any kind. I will have the shaft and all metal pieces painted.
Below are the pictures of where I am at...
By the way, this small pulley is just to give something for rivets to attach to the plate and to allow the shaft to be attached in a non permanent way. It has set screws to hold it. I do plan on using pulleys, but that is a ways out also, so it is not fully thought out.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 15, 2010, 09:27:08 PM
I have also come to the conclusion that I will have painted, all of my pieces. I know someone who paint's cars and will take it to them for a proffessional job. This will make it non-electrically conductive and avoid eddy currents of any kind. I will have the shaft and all metal pieces painted.
Cheers,
Bruce
Not a bad idea after following Butch LaFonte's thread on his excellent magnetic switcher. I reached this same conclusion after reading his thread. Also, those riveted pieces look really good. Very professional looking. Thanks for keeping us updated.
I think the 3mm bearing at the topcap may be a jewel bearing for a very low friction point. The concept isn't much different than the one friction point you've been working on and the videos on youtube.
GB
On the motor generator thing I remember seeing a guy doit but the generator was mounted on a disk. The countertorque on the generator stator was transferred to the drive mechanism using pulleys. The Earth transfers some of its angular momentum to the moons orbital momentum. This slows the rotation of the Earth and increases the angular velocity of the moon. This causes the moons orbit to become more eliptical. Someday it might just keep on trucking and never come back. I was dynamometer testing a small 1/6 hp fan motor one day. I didnt bother bolting it down just chucked it and grabbed onto the stator. My guy was at the load control smiling. I said give it to it. He loaded her down. (The load is created by spinning a large steel disc through electromagnets causing eddy currents by the way) It took considerable energy on my part to hold onto the stator. After about 15 seconds I had enough and my guy turned the switch off still smiling. If the stator I was grabbing had a pulley on it driving a generator load I dont think I would have broken a sweat.
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 15, 2010, 09:27:08 PM
I have also come to the conclusion that I will have painted, all of my pieces. I know someone who paint's cars and will take it to them for a proffessional job. This will make it non-electrically conductive and avoid eddy currents of any kind. I will have the shaft and all metal pieces painted.
Taken out of context this text reads strangely... It should say:
"painting pieces will eliminate any eddy currents flowing between
the pieces". Painting won't paticularly reduce eddy currents flowing
inside unitary pieces of metal. In fact the homopolar generator disk
is one giant interrupted eddy current.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on April 16, 2010, 12:01:26 PM
Taken out of context this text reads strangely... It should say:
"painting pieces will eliminate any eddy currents flowing between
the pieces". Painting won't paticularly reduce eddy currents flowing
inside unitary pieces of metal. In fact the homopolar generator disk is one giant interrupted eddy current.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I don't agree with this. If the metal disc doesn't have a return path and is electrically isolated from the copper disc or coil which you will be drawing current from, then a static electric field is setup on the metal disc itself (the separated charges on the metal disc will have no where to go, due to no external circuit to complete a closed circuit). Also, as long as the magnetic field is completely covering the conductive copper disc, then this eliminates most of the eddy currents. Eddy currents are not a problem in the HPG.
GB
Quote from: mscoffman on April 16, 2010, 12:01:26 PM
Taken out of context this text reads strangely... It should say:
"painting pieces will eliminate any eddy currents flowing between
the pieces". Painting won't paticularly reduce eddy currents flowing
inside unitary pieces of metal. In fact the homopolar generator disk
is one giant interrupted eddy current.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Good thing I am not using a "generator disk" then isn't it? LOL
Back track and read the parts that I wrote...correctly, please. ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
Happy Saturday, ALL,
I feel as if I have made good progress today! I did the painting myself and also designed and built the B.R.U.N.G. output stage, which is now prepared for the future brushes and mounted on it's shaft. This part was critical and took a great deal of work but alas it has turned out just fine...
There is a nylon tube grommet glued inside, to keep the wires from contact with the shaft and to hold the output stage to the shaft. The output stage IS removable from the shaft, if I need to change this shaft to a different length.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello ALL,
Shaft is now installed on first rotor, and the set screw has been tightened with an Allen wrench. It is looking good, if I humbly say so myself! LOL
My son asked why I was building it to look so good and I responded that I had "high hopes" that this would be an OU device when completed and did not want to ship something ugly off to Stefan...Hehehe
Next is to make a template for my BRUNG motor's stand. I am thinking on this... It needs to be made out of plastic or wood.... I think wood will work fine. I also hope to order my ceramic bearings this week.
Cheers,
Bruce
Pleasant Sunday to ALL,
The second shaft is installed securely. I am now winding my first Tesla Pancake Coil, but ran out of wire. The roll was 20' stranded 12 awg... so on my way for some connectors.
I love this wire... Winds nicely for pancake coils and has about 42 strands! ;) It should do nicely.
P.S. Thinking about Tesla's disc with spirals, I think of a video I saw today... I have seen many varieties... A magnet is dropped down an aluminum tube and Eddy currents of course slow it's descent. I think if that tube were grooved with rifling, like a rifle, (unsure of depth) it would speed the descent of the magnet (thus lessening the effect of Lenz, and using Lenz rather than trying to defeat it) Just a "half baked" thought for my "half baked" thread! LOL
Cheers,
Bruce
Say you drop the magnet down a spiral wound solenoid coil. Store the eddy currents in an indutively coupled secondary that charges a capacitor. When the magnet exits the tube discharge the capacitor through an accelerating coil that shoots the magnet through a plastic tube back to the top of the column. Repeat as necessary.
Quote from: sparks on April 18, 2010, 02:37:26 PM
Say you drop the magnet down a spiral wound solenoid coil. Store the eddy currents in an indutively coupled secondary that charges a capacitor. When the magnet exits the tube discharge the capacitor through an accelerating coil that shoots the magnet through a plastic tube back to the top of the column. Repeat as necessary.
Hi Sparks,You should try your suggestion Sparks, and let us know how it goes! Use Alum wire...
Hi GB and Gyula, and all,I think I have had stumbled onto a great improvement this afternoon, as I wound my first Tesla pancake coil....
What if, between each of the six or eight or however many pancake coils I sandwich between my large magnets, I were to place thin discs of black iron oxide?? ??? Because these are not "typical coils", would that work? or would it actually hurt the flux field strength reaching the coils?? Any ideas or thoughts? Of course I have also thought of placing a small thin one between the cores of my many stacked Tesla pancake coils, would that be a better route to go?
@ ALLI am coating first coil with laquer and have a picture below. It took every bit of 40 feet for a 10" pancake coil. So... 40' x 42 strands gives me...1680 feet worth of wire, for magnetic flux field to produce power~! ;) With 6 coils, without thin iron powder disc would be about 1.25" seperation between huge magnets (I may be able to throw in a few more, need to see where the strength of the N52's diminish... If any one has some, and a way to test flux field strength vs. distance, please post for me here, inquiring minds want to know.
Anywho, say six coils x 1680 = 10,080 feet of wire subject to a super strength flux field being rotated at high speed... I see a great power potential here...
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
Unfortunately I have had no hands on tests with pancake coils so I refer to this link and the one following it: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7679.msg237834#msg237834
I think you are going in the right direction with testing flat coils.
rgd, Gyula
Evening ALL,
I am going to continue to wind more pancake coils, but then I will also be winding an entire set of Tesla's bifilar pancake coils. This way I will be able to test with both sets when the time comes.
Current pancake coil:
Ohms .7
40 feet
12 awg
stranded-42 strands
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 18, 2010, 05:44:43 PM
@ ALL
I am coating first coil with laquer and have a picture below. It took every bit of 40 feet for a 10" pancake coil. So... 40' x 42 strands gives me...1680 feet worth of wire, for magnetic flux field to produce power~! ;) With 6 coils, without thin iron powder disc would be about 1.25" seperation between huge magnets (I may be able to throw in a few more, need to see where the strength of the N52's diminish... If any one has some, and a way to test flux field strength vs. distance, please post for me here, inquiring minds want to know.
Cheers,
Bruce
What about a paper clip test? See at what distance a paper clip will attract to the large magnet, then double this distance since the coils will be sandwiched between two magnets. This may be a good starting point, then you can subtract coils until you find the best results in your testing.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on April 18, 2010, 11:12:49 PM
What about a paper clip test? See at what distance a paper clip will attract to the large magnet, then double this distance since the coils will be sandwiched between two magnets. This may be a good starting point, then you can subtract coils until you find the best results in your testing.
GB
Hi GB and ALL,
That's a simple idea. I may end up purchasing a gaussmeter. I have been wanting one anyway.
I have decided to coat the top layer of my pancake coils with a thin layer of black iron oxide/laquer, after much thought.
I researched a letter that Tesla wrote a friend, about his fueless generator, yesterday. Interesting. I am more convinced than ever that the unipolar generator combined with his bifilar pancake coil was it. The bifilar pancake coil shows a voltage gain of 900% over what classical science calculates should be there, from a graph I saw yesterday, as well.
I am glad that I will be winding both. ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
Any chance of seeing this letter and graphs you're talking about ? Thanks in advance.
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 19, 2010, 08:36:43 AM
Hi GB and ALL,
That's a simple idea. I may end up purchasing a gaussmeter. I have been wanting one anyway.
I have decided to coat the top layer of my pancake coils with a thin layer of black iron oxide/laquer, after much thought.
I researched a letter that Tesla wrote a friend, about his fueless generator, yesterday. Interesting. I am more convinced than ever that the unipolar generator combined with his bifilar pancake coil was it. The bifilar pancake coil shows a voltage gain of 900% over what classical science calculates should be there, from a graph I saw yesterday, as well.
I am glad that I will be winding both. ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
I know that you have a great deal more knowledge about this than I do but I have to ask why the iron oxide coating since it seems counterintuitive to me. I'm sure there is something obvious I don't know but it just seems it would tend to block the fields from reaching the copper in the coil OR it would hinder flow along the copper. I'm at least hoping you may save one uncoated to see the difference between the two. All this is just based on an intuition - which has been known to be totally wrong before though :)
Quote from: Airstriker on April 19, 2010, 09:51:35 AM
Hi Bruce,
Any chance of seeing this letter and graphs you're talking about ? Thanks in advance.
Hi Airstriker,
I have it in PDF form but it is too large to upload. So I have turned each of the 5 pages to JPG's to post here.
The graph I need to find again... for some reason I did not save it. But I will and post it. I want it for my research file.
Hi e2matrix,
The same reason that ferrite increases induction, greatly! Except with flat pancakes, it is a weird thing to think about. It is a thin layer, that should "magnatize" and strengthen the flux field, resulting in greater production of power. The presence of the core can increase the magnetic field of a coil by a factor of several thousand over what it would be without the core. I am only putting it on the coil side away from the steel plate. I don't need it on the coil side facing the magnets directly, because there is a steel plate there. So I will have a thin coat, between all adjoining coils. It will not hurt, but may help, even a little.
Hope that helps to explain my thinking,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on April 19, 2010, 08:14:03 PM
Hi Airstriker,
I have it in PDF form but it is too large to upload. So I have turned each of the 5 pages to JPG's to post here.
Bruce
Thanks Bruce. I uploaded the pdf document to Scribd for my collection,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30211202/Nikola-Tesla-s-Free-Energy-DocumentsGB
@Bruce and All:
An analysis of the inventions intended by Tesla, on the reference you posted, is found in "The Second Law Thermodynamics and Tesla's Fuelless Generator", by Oliver Nichelson, http://www.scribd.com/doc/30212011/Tesla-s-Fuelless-Generator
I find it interesting how the analysis by Nichelson, talks about the displacement current. I have been studying the displacement current from the same author of the "Paradox 2 experiment". In this paper, on the "Maxwell's Displacement Current", http://www.distinti.com/docs/maxdispcur.pdf , there is an experiment to test the validity of Maxwell’s Displacement current term. The experiment showed that there is no magnetic field generated by the displacement current (I hope you study this experiment). Displacement current is simply another way to say capacitive coupling.
I hope this post isn't going off-topic, but I think the information on the displacement current along with the analysis of Tesla's document, by Nichelson, could be helpful.
GB
I have been researching thermo electric conversion. Still working on the math. But intuition is telling me if a gas is ionized the excited electrons will have the kinetic energy of the parent neutral atom added to the free electron velocity. The free accelerated electron is now responsive to magnetic lines of force or electric fields whereas the parent atom was not. The energy expent in 1st order ionization of a "heated" atom may well be less than that displayed by the excited electron velocity. The accelerated electron will orbit a magnetic field line whereas the neutral atom will not and create a vectored current. The photons emitted by an electron slowing down or cooling may be of the proper ionization frequency to cause additional ionization of nearby atoms resulting in an electron cascade event. When conducted in the presence of a magnetic field a high current pulse beyond the input energy is effected. It may be difficult to cause heated things to unheat things but it may be possible to add a little order to the randomized kninetic energy of a heated medium.
Quote from: sparks on April 20, 2010, 12:58:51 AM
I have been researching thermo electric conversion. Still working on the math. But intuition is telling me if a gas is ionized the excited electrons will have the kinetic energy of the parent neutral atom added to the free electron velocity. The free accelerated electron is now responsive to magnetic lines of force or electric fields whereas the parent atom was not. The energy expent in 1st order ionization of a "heated" atom may well be less than that displayed by the excited electron velocity. The accelerated electron will orbit a magnetic field line whereas the neutral atom will not and create a vectored current. The photons emitted by an electron slowing down or cooling may be of the proper ionization frequency to cause additional ionization of nearby atoms resulting in an electron cascade event. When conducted in the presence of a magnetic field a high current pulse beyond the input energy is effected. It may be difficult to cause heated things to unheat things but it may be possible to add a little order to the randomized kninetic energy of a heated medium.
Boyd B. Bushman
Lockheed Corporation
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wOUhAAAAEBAJ&dq=bushman+thermally&rview=1
same man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eckSEyeIuRk&feature=related
Quote from: wings on April 20, 2010, 03:23:47 AM
Boyd B. Bushman
Lockheed Corporation
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=wOUhAAAAEBAJ&dq=bushman+thermally&rview=1
same man:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eckSEyeIuRk&feature=related
An Experiment Against the Second Law of Thermodynamics
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0311/0311104.pdf
Another Way to Realize Maxwell’ s Demon
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0509/0509111.pdf
Quote from: gravityblock on April 20, 2010, 12:02:16 AM
@Bruce and All:
An analysis of the inventions intended by Tesla, on the reference you posted, is found in "The Second Law Thermodynamics and Tesla's Fuelless Generator", by Oliver Nichelson, http://www.scribd.com/doc/30212011/Tesla-s-Fuelless-Generator
I find it interesting how the analysis by Nichelson, talks about the displacement current. I have been studying the displacement current from the same author of the "Paradox 2 experiment". In this paper, on the "Maxwell's Displacement Current", http://www.distinti.com/docs/maxdispcur.pdf , there is an experiment to test the validity of Maxwell’s Displacement current term. The experiment showed that there is no magnetic field generated by the displacement current (I hope you study this experiment). Displacement current is simply another way to say capacitive coupling.
I hope this post isn't going off-topic, but I think the information on the displacement current along with the analysis of Tesla's document, by Nichelson, could be helpful.
GB
Hi Nightstriker,
Page 6 of the .pdf by Oliver Nichelson contains the graph and explanation that I had mentioned before, concerning the 900% voltage increase found in a Tesla Bifilar Pancake coil, vs. what it should be.
Hi GB,
A great find on the entire .pdf!! Displacement current within the unipolar generator seems to fit everything described. I really think that combining the bifilar pancake with this Machine will be spectacular! Funny how differant people come to similar conclusions in totally differant thought process'. But unlike the author (that I know of!) I am building one. ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
Single Wire Conduction - 06/08/01 courtesy Milan Manchich
http://www.keelynet.com/energy/milan.htm
Good evening ALL,
GB, Wings and others have posted some very good links. Thank you guys.
I have wound the first of six, bifilar Tesla pancake coils....It turned out awesome!
I learned so much from the other pancake, and this time I used hot glue to wind it, as well as my bifilar winding jig that I built. I am going to coat it tomorrow on one side with a very thin coat of fiberglass. It will make it very durable. I was not real happy with the laquer. And then a coat of iron oxide on one side.
I am thinking seriously, that to keep the others stacked one on top of the other, and keep to my 1.25" limit between my giant magnets, that I will take the two center wires, and thread them through the next core, etc, until all six are stacked, and then wire the one outer edge to the one inner edge. As long as I have them tagged, I think this will work. I will then only have the space of one wires width for all of the ends, vs. three or four times that width. Distance is very important, because distance from X, the center point between the two magnets in attraction, will have the weakest flux field, increase the distance very much and it lowers it...drastically. I had found a magnetic calculator. Thoughts on my stacking idea?
Cheers,
Bruce
Good evening to ALL,
I have put a very thin coat of fiberglass on top of my bifilar coil. It is now very solid! Tomorrow, I coat the otherside with black iron oxide, and start in on a second coil.
The thickness of this first coil is only 1/8", which would mean, that if I stack them as I suggested in the above post, I should be able to actually stack 8 Tesla bifilar pancake coils in my 1 inch space. That would give me a total of 320 feet of 12 awg stranded, at 42 strands, gives the equivellent of 13,440 feet of wire to interact with the magnetic flux field. I have drawn a picture below showing only three coils, in case it was difficult to understand what I was describing in my last post. I drew only three for time constraints.
Cheers,
Bruce
Pleasant evening to ALL,
I have coated the opposite side with a thin coat of black iron oxide.(non conductive!!) It looks funky in the picture because the rises appear higher than they are because of the lighting. It actually turned out very, very well. I was going to sand it, but no sense in that. It is already very smooth.
Now, I am starting to wind my second Tesla Bifilar coil...
Cheers,
Bruce
Good morning everyone,
Just a little test this morning, seeing how my first completed coil is perfectly dry.
The black iron oxide in resin, draws in the magnetic field lines very, very well, as intended. And these are small magnets. Everything is non conductive but the wire in the coil, of course. I am very happy with this method of making a coil! :)
Notice the one magnet is on the resin only side, but is till attracted greatly to the other side.
Cheers,
Bruce
Howdy ALL,
My second Tesla bifilar pancake coil is now wound and ready for the fiberglass tomorrow evening...
Cheers,
Bruce
Happy Sunday evening ALL,
I have finished the one side with my fiberglass and am soon to iron oxide the other side... I have 8 of these to build, six more, so hang in there...LOL
Cheers,
Bruce
Good Morning everyone,
Well, my second coil now has one side with iron oxide mixture. This is interesting, because in my setup, there will not be a collapsing magnetic field on my ferrite, but rather a static.
The second picture is of my first two coils, stacked as I had drawn up, a few posts back.
Cheers,
Bruce
Happy Saturday evening everyone,
This evening I have completed winding my third coil. Tomorrow I will start on the fourth.
I have determined that I will indeed need to sand all of the coils down, after fiberglass and black iron oxide, in order to hopefully fit 5 coils within my 1.25" self inflicted limit of seperation between the N and S facing plates. There is no way to put in 8 coils after the fiberglass and iron oxide is added. So I will set my sights on five coils, and that only after sanding everything down smooth. The little bumps are small, but when on both sides of all of the coils, it eats up my space.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello ALL,
Fourth coil is now wound, and coils 1 and 2 sanded. I will pick up some more wire tomorrow and begin to wind the final coil. After, I will epoxy two of them with black iron oxide and the last one will not have any black iron oxide. This way, we go, magnets North-coil-oxide-coil-oxide-coil-oxide-coil-oxide-coil-South magnets.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi GB,
I came across this set up and liked it, for friction free bearings. Now, my set up is much larger and heavier, but do you think with strong enough magnets, I could still make it work? It is very similar to my initial idea. Thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcacRwjsY7w
Cheers,
Bruce
bruce ...
i have exposed the truth a long time ago ..
i did not to bother to read this entire thred i made it only a few words ...
so
the copper disc is sectioned .. look at the shape ... it is the power generator witch operates like a jt ..
the hpg generates low volts high amps this is then intrupted via the split in the disc ...
hummmmmm
ist
my kick ..
regards
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 02, 2010, 10:45:04 PM
Hi GB,
I came across this set up and liked it, for friction free bearings. Now, my set up is much larger and heavier, but do you think with strong enough magnets, I could still make it work? It is very similar to my initial idea. Thoughts?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcacRwjsY7w
Cheers,
Bruce
I do think it would work with strong enough magnets (I have already done testing on this). Having a vertical axle definitely works better in my opinion though. You can replace the four individual bottom magnets with two ring magnets in order to have a radial force around the entire shaft for better stability. Steorn's ZeroF Magnetic bearings aren't much different than the concept in the video.
GB
I having been working electric motors and generators for 35years. In a very old book probably 20years ago written by a variety of authors when electric motors were steadily replacing beasts of burden and waterwheels I found this explanation of how a dc motor works. The magnetic field flows from left to right on the page. The armature conductor flows in and out of the page. And the magnetic field flows around the current carrying conductor. You will note that the magnetic field created by the field winding or permanent magnets opposes the lines of force on the top of the conductor and reinforces them on the bottom. This causes the conductor to move up the page as something flows from a high density magnetic field to a low density or cancelled magnetic field. This causes the conductor to move and the dc motor runs. (If a permanent magnet could be made that produced the same type of magnetic field as a current carrying conductor then a totaly permanent magnet motor is likely to provide a new energy scource) Since on a dc motor the conductor leaves the field and then renters it traveling now against the magnetic flow the magnetic current needs to be reversed in either the field or the armature. Brushless motors change direction of the field magnetic current while commutated motors reverse the armature currents. Hope it helps.
Good evening to ALL,
I have completed my fifth and final (for now) Tesla Bifilar Pancake coil! I will epoxy all but one of them, this week, because this weekend I want to play... lol, and see the difference pulsing the plain one, vs. the one with the iron oxide. Also between the "standard" bifilar way of connecting and the "Marinoff" way of connecting (though he never used a pancake bifilar to my knowledge, I am excited to see if any difference!). If it gives me HV from 3 or 4 volts, I have another idea for Sam's and my TPU build. ;-) We need a HV transformer after the mixed signals are split and inverted. More than one way to skin a cat! (kinda gross saying, actually! LOL)
I will then stack my pancakes, connect them and have them ready to be sandwiched between my giant future magnets. That is where this build gets really expensive! Perhaps I can make you guys some bifilar pancake coils and auction them off on Ebay to help fund the magnets? I will need about $800.00 worth. I am committed to this project, because I am not replicating anyone (not exactly) and I am using my own thinking. I actually think this stands a good chance of being amazing.
In the picture I have placed a nickel for perspective of their size, underneath the center coil. It is on the table.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi Bruce,
Are you really sure you want to spent 800 bucks for a project that nobody is really sure will work ? I also have a project that I'm personally 100% will work but I'm a bit sceptical in investing 1000$ on it ;] Be aware of the difficulties in operating such big magnets - one mistake and you will throw them away ;] Also note, that if you let these magnets join by any chance, you wil have a big trouble with separating them. They are also quite dangerous ;/ Why not use a tiny model first ? If it's reall it will work also. I scaled my project by 1:10 and so did with the costs. If it works I can build a big one. If it doesn't - my wife won't be so angry at me ;)
another alternative would be to use electromagnets driven with a battery. They pickup entire cars with big ones.
Hey guys,
I appreciate the concern, but it is "just" money. Worst case, and I end up selling a bunch of magnets on ebay. I have spent so much money on OU research that has not worked, but I know this will produce power. Will it be OU? There is no way of knowing until I try.
Electromagnets require electricity. Not the route to OU in my humble opinion for this build. These magnets are powerful with seventy five pounds of holding force, each. I have no intention of allowing them to come together. But, if they do, I will have purchased a magnet seperator, from K & J Magnetics.
So, onward we go! When I think of Marco, Giantkiller and Ironhead, who have spent considerable fortunes building, not to mention Moby, it is a drop in the bucket.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 04, 2010, 07:52:46 AM
Hey guys,
I appreciate the concern, but it is "just" money. Worst case, and I end up selling a bunch of magnets on ebay. I have spent so much money on OU research that has not worked, but I know this will produce power. Will it be OU? There is no way of knowing until I try.
Electromagnets require electricity. Not the route to OU in my humble opinion for this build. These magnets are powerful with seventy five pounds of holding force, each. I have no intention of allowing them to come together. But, if they do, I will have purchased a magnet seperator, from K & J Magnetics.
So, onward we go! When I think of Marco, Giantkiller and Ironhead, who have spent considerable fortunes building, not to mention Moby, it is a drop in the bucket.
Cheers,
Bruce
bruce im glad you have persued your own path .. this is infact what it is all about .. its a big sand box ..
you have named many people i enjoy reading there work .. from time to time ! and to each much respect is sent !
: )
i have been able to get large neos .. for 10 bucks each .. 200 lb pull 1"x 2" i have 10 .. for a high torque pulse motor i ever get that one done .... lol
i cant be sure where they came from any more .. some where in the US
ist
Have been out of the loop in the homopolar area but what you are doing is excellent work. I have never investigated pancake coils too deeply in HPG's but with my gained knowledge they COULD produce a higher voltage than a plane disc. I put that in capitals because it's a very important assumption, because if the voltage is higher you can instantly build a zero back torque generator.
I just quickly went over this thread but I can't say I fully understand the setup.
Quote from: broli on May 05, 2010, 07:20:49 PM
Have been out of the loop in the homopolar area but what you are doing is excellent work. I have never investigated pancake coils too deeply in HPG's but with my gained knowledge they COULD produce a higher voltage than a plane disc. I put that in capitals because it's a very important assumption, because if the voltage is higher you can instantly build a zero back torque generator.
I just quickly went over this thread but I can't say I fully understand the setup.
Hi broli,
The set up is simple and straightforward. Instead of using 10" single magnets at the cost of thousands, I am building a "virtual" 10" magnet, by using many 1"x1" axial N52 magnets. All poles will be facing in the same direction, and magnets held by very THIN steel. This will again be duplicated for the second 10" "virtual" magnet.
Next, I will have five pancake coils, each made of 40 feet of 12 awg stranded (42 strands) wire. Each pancake coil is the Tesla bifilar coil. Between each set of coils is a thin Iron oxide coating, to amplify the field lines. It is very uniqe and my own ideas and creation, if I say so... lol
The power will be taken off with brushes.
My bearings will be magnetic and as close to friction free as possible.
What to drive it with, that is still a question. Perhaps a very small hobby motor and pulley transmission. Something very low power. So, that is the set up!
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 05, 2010, 07:50:21 PM
Hi broli,
The set up is simple and straightforward. Instead of using 10" single magnets at the cost of thousands, I am building a "virtual" 10" magnet, by using many 1"x1" axial N52 magnets. All poles will be facing in the same direction, and magnets held by very THIN steel. This will again be duplicated for the second 10" "virtual" magnet.
Next, I will have five pancake coils, each made of 40 feet of 12 awg stranded (42 strands) wire. Each pancake coil is the Tesla bifilar coil. Between each set of coils is a thin Iron oxide coating, to amplify the field lines. It is very uniqe and my own ideas and creation, if I say so... lol
The power will be taken off with brushes.
My bearings will be magnetic and as close to friction free as possible.
What to drive it with, that is still a question. Perhaps a very small hobby motor and pulley transmission. Something very low power. So, that is the set up!
Cheers,
Bruce
Ok then I had something else in mind. I made a drawing of what I thought you were doing. No need for brushes, of course that's a dangerous slope. Basically if current flows you win, if it doesn't you lose ;) .
Hi Broli,
Your picture is close! take away the disc all together, disconnect any electrical connection to the magnets (for now!) and sandwich 5 of the bifilar tesla pancakes together, with a thin coating of black iron oxide (non conductive) between them, and you will have my initial set up, exactly!
Cheers,
Bruce
Just wanted to drop a note on the frictionless bearing set up, I've been putting together an HPG for awhile now, I'm using two 3" OD 1" ID 1/2" thick neos, and using those as well to levitate the rotor (which is on a 1" thick copper bar). It's all quite heavy but levitates just fine. I'm using 2" x .5" neo cylinders to support the shaft.
Its not done yet, I want to put some simple circuitry and reed switches attached to the shaft itself, to use the DC current produced to pulse coils affixed to the shaft to repel against a stationary neo magnet centered below it. Just want to see if the current produced is enough to drive it (and if and how much magnetic drag the device experiences just from the current generation as well as magnetic levitation.
that sounds so verry kool your device ...
how ever reeds will burn out !
the power produced is extream !
i took 2 speeker magnets forced them togather wedged an alum plate inbetween them then spun it
holding the wires of my multi meter in my fingers well they got burnt and the drill went 1 reveloution
and were there sparks or were there sparks ... lol
ist!
this goes back years when i released the device PUBLIC ! i have a drawing round this site some where
Good evening ALL,
Well, I took the plunge tonight, and ordered my first 6 magnets! Of course, I will need many, many more. I used a discount code, and also received a discount for buying 5 of them.
This will get me started, as far as cutting the foam, designing the pvc magnet holders I have in mind, etc. The goal is to NOT have to glue them. In my mind it works, I just have to see if it plays out in real life.
Pics of the ones I ordered and info. below.
@ void109
I would be interested in seeing a picture of your set up. Many thanks!
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi, I read that stuff on Tesla posted in this thread the other day, got me thinking, anybody know if this has been done before?
I was thinking it might work, what if the magnet is completley surrounded by wire and mounted on an axle the current all going the same way {see picture}
I might mess with it, looks pretty easy to build....
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on May 07, 2010, 12:55:28 PM
Hi, I read that stuff on Tesla posted in this thread the other day, got me thinking, anybody know if this has been done before?
I was thinking it might work, what if the magnet is completley surrounded by wire and mounted on an axle the current all going the same way {see picture}
I might mess with it, looks pretty easy to build....
Try it. It should work. (work defined as showing an electrical output) Just the more wire, and larger size, the better, I would surmise....
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: PYRODIN123321 on May 07, 2010, 12:55:28 PM
Hi, I read that stuff on Tesla posted in this thread the other day, got me thinking, anybody know if this has been done before?
I was thinking it might work, what if the magnet is completley surrounded by wire and mounted on an axle the current all going the same way {see picture}
I might mess with it, looks pretty easy to build....
Having the magnet completely surround by wire isn't any different than using the nickel coating on a magnet as the conductor. The thing to remember is the current will be flowing in the same direction on both sides of the magnet and to connect each side in series will be an engineering nightmare.
I have designs which allow the current to flow from one side of the magnet to the other side of the magnet to increase the voltage and to allow the current to be extracted on each side of the magnet at the axle. Both sides of the magnet will be naturally connected in series to increase the voltage to the fourth power and has the same effect as doubling the radii of the disc/magnets in terms of power output.
Your idea is a good idea and I hope you continue thinking around this principal. I posted a design earlier in this thread where two halbach arrays with like poles facing outwards are completely enshrouded in copper and where the magnets will rotate inside this copper shell that completely surrounds the arrays. It can also be done in a "Disc/N/S/S/N/Disc" setup, but there must be enough distance between each magnet so they don't interfere with each other. As you can see, I'm in much agreement with your idea and thoughts, but the proper configuration is extremely important.
There are a lot of possibilities and different types of configurations for the HPG/HPM that are never tested. Most will build the basic and well know configurations and stop with their research. This is why I'm glad to see Bruce working on a design that is outside the basic and already well tested configurations.
Maybe there will be a day where I will have enough money for the build to test my personal theories. In the meantime I will slowly gather the materials I need to perform the tests. I enjoyed your drawings!
Thanks,
GB
@Broli:
It's good to see you're still around and posting on the HPG topics (I really miss reading your posts). Do you remember the test we did with the loop of wire on a rotor which rotated between two magnets when the field was confined? There was no net torque on the loop of wire, but there was a torque on the portion of the wire that went radially between the axis and the rim. The pancake coil has a portion of the wire that also runs radially.
Won't this radial wire portion on the pancake coil generate a counter torque or am I overlooking something? Yes, the voltage may be higher with a pancake coil, but the radial portion will also be cutting all of the loops of wire in the pancake coil and the counter torque will increase in proportion to the voltage increase. We both know there are designs to increase the voltage, but when we do so, we also increase the counter torque.
I don't really accept the idea that the voltage on the disc will be smaller than the voltage in the pancake coil, because the voltage remains relatively the same between any two connection points, which means the voltage between the pancake coil and the disc will be the same since they are electrically connected together and are part of the same circuit.
Also, I know you're familiar with the Distinti Documents because you are the one who made me aware of his research. Did you ever study the Paradox2 experiment and what were your thoughts on this if you did study the experiment? You can leave me a PM if you like so we don't clutter up this thread.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 08, 2010, 12:26:44 AM
@Broli:
It's good to see you're still around and posting on the HPG topics (I really miss reading your posts). Do you remember the test we did with the loop of wire on a rotor which rotated between two magnets when the field was confined? There was no net torque on the loop of wire, but there was a torque on the portion of the wire that went radially between the axis and the rim. The pancake coil has a portion of the wire that also runs radially.
Won't this radial wire portion on the pancake coil generate a counter torque or am I overlooking something? Yes, the voltage may be higher with a pancake coil, but the radial portion will also be cutting all of the loops of wire in the pancake coil and the counter torque will increase in proportion to the voltage increase. We both know there are designs to increase the voltage, but when we do so, we also increase the counter torque.
I don't really accept the idea that the voltage on the disc will be smaller than the voltage in the pancake coil, because the voltage remains relatively the same between any two connection points, which means the voltage between the pancake coil and the disc will be the same since they are electrically connected together and are part of the same circuit.
Also, I know you're familiar with the Distinti Documents because you are the one who made me aware of his research. Did you ever study the Paradox2 experiment and what were your thoughts on this if you did study the experiment? You can leave me a PM if you like so we don't clutter up this thread.
Thanks,
GB
Hi GB,
I do not mind the discussion as related to paradox2 experiment, by broli, or anyone else, as it relates to the work.
I highlighted a portion of your quote above, because you may just be right and it has spawned an idea... :-\ Since I am stacking all five bifilar pancakes together, and drawing the bifilar wire straight through each of the other coils, and then "running" them at the end, I think that I can lengthen them and pancake them in the same exact manner, though less turns because I will be bringing out five leads from the center. This would accomplish allowing all current to be flowing in the identical direction, via identical direction windings. (Actually, come to think of it, if all of the coils are wound CCW, would I want to wind the inside leads going out, as CCW or CW??)
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it would be worthwhile doing? Now it the time for me to decide.
Cheers,
Bruce
Happy Saturday everyone,
This morning I ran some tests on one of my Bifilar Tesla Pancake coils. One with black iron oxide on one side. All was encouraging considering I have used such large wire and have only 40 feet. I wanted low resistance (like the low resistance of a disc) and that is exactly what I got!
Tesla Bifilar Coil w/black iron oxide Test:
Inductance - 84.3 uH
Resistance - 0.1 Ohms (this is the entire coil, with the bifilar connected!) ;D
pulsar set to 12 vdc output:
coil output:
3.03 vac at 1.4 KHz with 335 mv dc, at 21.7% duty cycle
Frequency below, or above this decreases the voltage, increased duty cycle.
I am actually hoping for 5 or 6 volts per coil on my generator output... at 5 coils, this would give me over 25 volts DC at very high amps.
I have finished the thin fiberglass coat, on all three coils and I have finished the black iron oxide coating on two of them, as one coil will not have this. (explained in a previous post.) I will post some pictures later when they dry.
I look forward to hearing from GB or broli on my question above, in my last post.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 08, 2010, 01:33:24 AM
Hi GB,
I do not mind the discussion as related to paradox2 experiment, by broli, or anyone else, as it relates to the work.
I highlighted a portion of your quote above, because you may just be right and it has spawned an idea... :-\ Since I am stacking all five bifilar pancakes together, and drawing the bifilar wire straight through each of the other coils, and then "running" them at the end, I think that I can lengthen them and pancake them in the same exact manner, though less turns because I will be bringing out five leads from the center. This would accomplish allowing all current to be flowing in the identical direction, via identical direction windings. (Actually, come to think of it, if all of the coils are wound CCW, would I want to wind the inside leads going out, as CCW or CW??)
What are your thoughts on this? Do you think it would be worthwhile doing? Now it the time for me to decide.
Cheers,
Bruce
The inside leads going out should be wound in the same direction as the coils. I think this would be worthwhile and is an excellent idea. If there's no radial portions, then you should eliminate the back torque, but you may also eliminate the voltage/current. This is my only issue at the moment, otherwise your idea is really interesting and has me thinking.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on May 08, 2010, 04:27:08 PM
The inside leads going out should be wound in the same direction as the coils. I think this would be worthwhile and is an excellent idea. If there's no radial portions, then you should eliminate the back torque, but you may also eliminate the voltage/current. This is my only issue at the moment, otherwise your idea is really interesting and has me thinking.
GB
Hi GB, Winding them in the same direction as the coil shouldn't be too difficult. I just need some connectors and probably about 11 feet more wire to connect per lead. It should be interesting. Eliminating the voltage and current would not be good, though...lol. But, I think having the black iron oxide between every single coil should help to draw in the field lines. We just need the wire to break the field lines one time and we have it. When I picture it in my mind, I can see it doing that... (I hope I'm right!) If it indeed does, this may actually produce a COP >1. I think also, that how I end up driving it, will make a huge difference as well. I have barely begun to work on that. Thanks GB!!
Good evening ALL,Coils are dry, and sanded. And now
all five are stacked (picture below) with their leads labeled. Total thickness of the stack of five coils: 1.25 inches! ;D Ahh... I love it when a plan comes together! I place a N42 one inch magnet in front of the stack, for perspective.
Time to begin to wire them up, in series, and to bring out the inner leads, pancake style.
Cheers,
Bruce
;) thnx for your input folks, there is def some cool things going on with these type motors 8)
Great thread, I eagerly look forward to your updates!
As an aside & perhaps some comic-relief to others, I had a play with the concept - my 80mm pancake is made from ribbon cable, the 2 neo mags are 40mm x 5mm N42. Power is tapped off two bits of copper tube mounted on a plastic shaft - all basically held together by magnet attraction, super-glue & the grace Of God! :D If there was any power that is - I get nothing, zero, zip that I can measure on the 300mV scale of my meter! Oh yeah, the gizmo is spun up by that 12V DC motor hanging precariously from the vice! The plastic bin-lid is to stop the lot slamming into the metal table legs when vibration shake the thing free from the drill chuck, up around 3000rpm (pics shows it spinning at about 2800rpm)
I guess I should have started with a plain copper disc! All good fun. :)
Quote from: Sprocket on May 11, 2010, 10:24:49 AM
Great thread, I eagerly look forward to your updates!
As an aside & perhaps some comic-relief to others, I had a play with the concept - my 80mm pancake is made from ribbon cable, the 2 neo mags are 40mm x 5mm N42. Power is tapped off two bits of copper tube mounted on a plastic shaft - all basically held together by magnet attraction, super-glue & the grace Of God! :D If there was any power that is - I get nothing, zero, zip that I can measure on the 300mV scale of my meter! Oh yeah, the gizmo is spun up by that 12V DC motor hanging precariously from the vice! The plastic bin-lid is to stop the lot slamming into the metal table legs when vibration shake the thing free from the drill chuck, up around 3000rpm (pics shows it spinning at about 2800rpm)
I guess I should have started with a plain copper disc! All good fun. :)
Three things;
(a) you need a uniform magnetic field covering the whole coil disk.
(b) The brushes need to be on the periphery the coils.
(c) The green wire is crossing the magnetic field to get to the
outside of the magnet. This is a no-no. It should go up through
the center of the coil.
If you fix these things and get some iron wire used in fastening
air conduits inside of buildings and insulate it, you might also try
a coil made from that.
:S:MarkSCoffman
@Sprocket:
All of your wires need to be on the same side of the magnet and the diameter of your pancake coil is too large as MarkS Coffman suggested. Reduce the pancake coil to the same diameter as your magnet (The coil can be slightly larger than the magnet, but keep them close to the same size as possible).
You can always use the nickel coating on the neo magnets as a substitute for the copper disc. Then attach two wire leads to the probe of your voltmeter and measure the voltage between the center and outside edges of the magnet.
I would suggest to first place both wire leads that are attached to your probes at the center of the magnet, then move one of the wire leads slowly to the outside and take note how the voltage increases as you move towards the outside edge of the magnet. Once your on the outside edge of the magnet, then continue slowly to the other side of the magnet. Your highest voltage should be at the Block Wall where the poles meet. As you cross this line to the other side of the magnet, then your voltage will start to decrease (It will decrease towards 0 as you move to the center on the other side of the magnet).
You can easily increase the voltage in a HPG by stacking magnets to create a large cylinder magnet, then extract the current between the center of the magnet and at half the length of the cylinder on the outside edge.
Reverse the direction of rotation and note how the polarity changes. Once you do these quick and simple tests using just the nickel coating on the magnets, then you will have a good idea on how the pancake coil should be used. Please keep us updated on your tests and results. You have a good start.
Thanks,
GB
Quote from: mscoffman on May 11, 2010, 11:55:15 AM
Three things;
(a) you need a uniform magnetic field covering the whole coil disk.
(b) The brushes need to be on the periphery the coils.
(c) The green wire is crossing the magnetic field to get to the
outside of the magnet. This is a no-no. It should go up through
the center of the coil.
If you fix these things and get some iron wire used in fastening
air conduits inside of buildings and insulate it, you might also try
a coil made from that.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Hi. '(a)' I was aware of, the pancake was pre-made but I was planning to encircle the big neo with little 15mm ones. '(b)' I knew about, or should I say I knew others did it this way - I just thought it didn't matter that much and my way was better! Obviously not!!! :D Still don't understand why! '(c)' makes more sense though. Thanks for the info!
See, there is a reason that I still pay utility bills! :D
Hi Mark,
I hope that you are wrong on (b). That is not my set up for my initial test. ;)
For your (c), I agree, but again in my case, I will not have it "radially" but wound in pancake style to reach my brushes. We will see.. As my initial setup has no hole through the large 10" magnets, and I am winding all ten (10) leads from the center out, pancake style to the outside.
But, the design is flexible if it doesn't produce as it should. I feel confident in producing some good amount of power...
Good evening all,
My first little group of six magnets arrived... and MY OH MY, these N52 are STRONG! Taking extra precautions when working with them. They are the perfect magnets for this build, IMHO.
Cheers,
Bruce
Quote from: Bruce_TPU on May 11, 2010, 08:42:12 PM
Hi Mark,
I hope that you are wrong on (b). That is not my set up for my initial test. ;)
Bruce
@Bruce
I hope you'll take comfort in knowing that no matter what happens...
I can give an explaination! ::) ...Good Luck!
Quote from: mscoffman on May 12, 2010, 07:44:56 PM
@Bruce
I hope you'll take comfort in knowing that no matter what happens...
I can give an explaination! ::) ...Good Luck!
LOL That was funny, Mark! ;D Let's hope that the explanation will be of it "working"... LOL
Thanks for the best wishes!
Bruce,
If copper fails you might give silver a try... I've been doing some experiments using 99.999% pure silver wire and seeing results that exceed (slightly) what I see with copper. Plan on posting my results at a later date.
Steve
Happy Friday ALL,
Tomorrow I will begin to machine down my magnet holders. I found some perfect inner diameter couplings for the job, just need to trim the length and sand out the inner ridge. Once this is accomplished, I will place my first magnet on my metal plate, dead on in the center. Then I will place a second magnet, same poles facing the plate, in it's holder, onto the metal plate and see how close I can slide it, to the center one, seeing how they will be in repulsion. Next, I will measure this distance with a caliper, and record it. The next step is to cut my foam with the holes of the proper size and then drop this also, onto the metal plate.
Also, this weekend, if time allows, I will extend my "ends" of the tesla bifilar pancake coils and then glue and wrap them into their proper configuration. I have already picked up the wire for this.
Of course I will post pictures as the progress continues. ;)
Cheers,
Bruce
Stefan, if you could please erase the spam in the above post.
Thank you,
Bruce
Happy Saturday ALL,
I am making some good progress this morning! I have machined out all of the inner ledges of the couplers and then cut each to the proper length. After, each was sanded.
Next, I did my test with two magnets, both with same poles facing down. I pushed them together very close and marked the distance. Now I am working on cutting out the foam, and will post pictures of that later. The N52's are very strong, but I am getting the hang of working with them, and how to seperate them, without crushing a finger...
I could use some ideas for type of glue or epoxy to hold my pvc magnet holders to he metal disc. I am thinking either JB Weld, E6000, or Super Glue. Any better ideas, please don't hesitate to post. Thanks!
The work in progress below in pictures...
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello again ALL,
Well, I am on a roll, and have completed the insertion of my first six magnet holders into the foam. Now I need to purchase many more couplers and start again. But now I feel like I have a good system going and it is easy and fast. And having the distance between magnets is of course key!
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello ALL,
Doing a lot more work, while saving for my next round of magnets. I have cut all of the 1" holes for this rotor, and will next be machining the insides of my new couplers, and trimming them down to size as I did with the others. I still need more.
I also have room out towards the edge, for 12 more magnets, but not 1 inchers. Rather, 1/2" diameter, 1" deep. I will be finding the couplers for those next. This is not a "fast" build but it will be steady. Please remember, if my Tesla Bifilar Pancake Coils do not work well, I have MANY other options to try, to "sandwich" between my very large magnets.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hi Bruce, your a busy beaver over here it appears. Interesting setup you have got going here. Still putting together the pieces on that other project.
peace love light
Tyson
Quote from: SkyWatcher123 on May 20, 2010, 06:45:18 PM
Hi Bruce, your a busy beaver over here it appears. Interesting setup you have got going here. Still putting together the pieces on that other project.
peace love light
Tyson
Oh yes! LOL This is my "expensive" build. A little more long term. Our project is inexpensive and giving me something to work on while I save for magnet money for this project. I have "high hopes" for both projects. I am very glad to have you building with me on the other. I love to build and experiment. Too many people just reading and never experimenting.
Cheers,
Bruce
Good evening ALL,
This evening, the remaining holes were cut into the foam, for the smaller magnets that will be on the outer edge. Each magnet is spaced the same exact distance from another. I want a very uniform field.
1/2" magnets, will be along the edge. 12 of them per rotor.
Tomorrow I begin to machine out the inside of the magnet holders.
Cheers,
Bruce
A Pleasant Saturday Evening to ALL,
I have completed the machining and sanding of the inner ridges on the magnet holders. I have also cut them to their proper height. I then glued each one into it's foam compartment. The first rotor is complete, it is just awaiting more magnets. It was a lot of work, but to protect $400.00 worth of magnets and myself, I think well worth it. The magnets will not move, yet, they will have not been glued in. Each one perfectly spaced with its neighbor.
Cheers,
Bruce
Hello everyone,
I have placed the finishing touches on Rotor number one with some paint. My last SSG3 device looked like such a contraption, that I am determined that this will look good, and hopefully exceed expectations when working.
Cheers,
Bruce
Nice work man! 8)
Here is an interesting experiment with a homopolar generator:
One interesting effect that would *prove* the difference between
homopolar current and dynamo current operation in a homopolar
generator would be the fact that the outside contact on the
rotating metal disk would always be minus DC polarity independent
of both the direction of rotation of the disk and the direction of
the magnetic pole flux in hompolar mode! While the electron's spiral
path would be in different directions, the electrons would always
spiral to the *outside* of the disk. This would be interesting
because this effect would defeat setting up a stack of opposite
polarity coils connected at the center and boosting the voltage
that way.
What one would like to do is to get rid of the high current, low
voltage brushes. I think that either a higher voltage DC or AC
or EMF signal could cross the magnetic field from edge to axle
Without being interfered with excessively by the generator's
homopolar’s DC voltage. That might be accomplished by an
energy-converter unit rotating with the rotor.
:S:MarkSCoffman
Quote from: mscoffman on May 24, 2010, 01:36:24 PM
Here is an interesting experiment with a homopolar generator:
One interesting effect that would *prove* the difference between
homopolar current and dynamo current operation in a homopolar
generator would be the fact that the outside contact on the
rotating metal disk would always be minus DC polarity independent
of both the direction of rotation of the disk and the direction of
the magnetic pole flux in hompolar mode! While the electron's spiral
path would be in different directions, the electrons would always
spiral to the *outside* of the disk. This would be interesting
because this effect would defeat setting up a stack of opposite
polarity coils connected at the center and boosting the voltage
that way.
What one would like to do is to get rid of the high current, low
voltage brushes. I think that either a higher voltage DC or AC
or EMF signal could cross the magnetic field from edge to axle
Without being interfered with excessively by the generator's
homopolar’s DC voltage. That might be accomplished by an
energy-converter unit rotating with the rotor.
:S:MarkSCoffman
I posted a design similar to what you're referring to,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=9271.0Thanks,
GB
hi my name is Jeff and i have been running some field tests in my head on your design for the unipolar generator idea and i have found a flaw in your work!!!!! i think the pancake coil that Tesla developed is the incorrect shape!!!! to cause the proper magnetic distortion field inside the generator. if you were to wrap the pancake coil in the manner of a walking meditation labyrinth i am almost certain that it would create the right magnetic field to harmonize everything and make the project work. i have in all my studies i have not seen any attempt to change the design of the pancake coil, i am new to this forum and my new computer i will attach pics of the exact sacred geometric details of the labyrinth this must be looked at. i do not have the fabrication facility to make this project happen, all i have is the ability to design and field test my ideas on a mental platform. i am willing to share all my ideas with anyone who will listen
just wondering if anyone has seen TPUbruce around?...bruce, if you see this, check out the thread i started here at OU.... it is getting really interesting.... anyway matt is still waiting.....stay in touch......david
A thought of managing the negative forces might be to use magnetic plate separation theory to cancel (override) the electrical properties when you need to. If the plates were spaced proportionately but NOT moveable up and down, it maybe that the fields that normally move the plates physically will still magnetically move the plates fields off the plates. This opens up your thinkers doesn't it? (thus the brushless plate motor,generator) Love your bright thinking Bruce, thank you!
Im sorry i dont understand all complexity
or maybee mines to complex anyways were on different
wavelengths
you dont need the drill
to spin the self radiation of continual
funnel of energy spins its own my antennas busted
sorry dont have funds
theres three ways we have done this
one the air coild lid used to his bedini
motor spins the magnets but thats backwards
but still right
but one guy stacked the magnets and spun the pancake
coil on a string till it busted
the smaller single plate he said was best sorry I got banned from the
antigravity site
if you susspend the rock in air put antenna
to it v the antenna from the ceiling
put the wire on the rock put the antenna
on a metal plate the rock spins as it fills with frequency
but then you need to discharge this
some how the key is water more water
kills radiation
and it goes again when water is perfect it should
self circulate
Take the antenna to rock
stick the rodin coil around it your neodeium
magnet is now self filling the coil remives the energy your done
except one thing the wood box to contain the frequency
that should be perfect no spin
added the 1 back to his system
funnling energy from antenna to rock
a mini nuclear power plant
Celtus please make a you tube and show us you devices, your many posts are a blur otherwise. At least it seems you want to convey knowledge of importance, yet you have no drawings, links that work. We all need to be understood, or else the communication is void. Time is at hand to bring mankind up to a new level of awareness. We can act as guides or deny our brothers and who does that help? If you can't make a youtube, please drawout your BASIC models and what happens in the theory's you are using. Thank you.
Im really pissed ill draw diagram
its just I hate marco
I hate what he took down the trade centers
and I hate his stupid wrong
math is going to be implimented in all the schools
but i know you guys know how to build his coils
look start at the basics question
what is radiation well its two thing light radiates
and frequency radiates both energy
all around us all the time the black hole is created
by funneling the energy to the ground
the rock which is what he did droped the word trade
centers bur thats to much power the power of radiation
can be funneled into a rock
but in moray used germanuim
hutchesiob used minerals
theres all the same some one posted a myth about my knowledge can only be increased if i pour the glass out basicaly
saying i have to vent the bs to clear my mind to funtion
this had to do with very bad
things i dont want to talk about
but anyways the principle is the same
the rock cannot store more energy till its released
once full morays cylinders in wood boxes
but moray didnt have rodins coil
so rodins coil will empty the radiation
from the rock while its being refilled
when it stops the rock stops filling and then you need
the dead battey to start pulling energy thru the coil from the rock
then it has to go to a ground but must be a water ground
im sorry i dont have the money to build no one does
this goverment has fucked everyone
ill draw the diagram try to find a car antenna
recreate it again ill draw it on word for you
Cletus, Vortex based math is what you use it appears. How is your math different than Rodins? Marco's intent is not money based it is mankind based. He even marked the doubling sequence for us on the board but could not directly so say. (he must be under obligations not to say it)
Hope i dont know what your missing dear
im sorry i offered you the key
i gave you my email like 6 times but it seems your intent is
pushing markos math or my buttons not shure
marko is paid by sulks dont give me this bs
its not money he specificaly states he didnt know he was working for sulk
he was drawing a check sulk asked him to clone himself
I dont know why your asking me if his math works for what you need
the differencs between mine and his is
his is wrong theres three loops
in any religion any math and his loops are not equal or three
what more do you need have you watched any of my 80 plus videos maybee start there i doubt you even understand marcos if you email me then i can do a lot more but thats not your intent so what is
ch@helpuflip.com
good thing i don't mock the unipolar rotor.
the deceit game with friction is the cause of rotor waste and breakdown, worthless dust and heat creation for electron current
a pool of mercury in the sealed electrode gap of my dully polar rotor design would be better than Bruce's homopolar rotor being neglected from manufacture.
steal a copper rotor design of mine and the government will force human extinction with its abused power.
I've been out of the loop for quite a while but lately my brain started creeping back to old habits. In particular concerning homopolar motors and generators.
First I find it strange that this thread came to such an abrupt halt especially when bruce was doing such good progress. The thread lead to only one experiment from Sprocket which in itself was quite interesting.
Now the reason why I'm reviving this thread is because lately I started thinking about the use of spiral disks (pancake coils) instead of the traditional solid disks in HPM/G's. And I have some reason to believe that when using a standard pancake coil (not bifilar) one can create a HPG that has no mechanical back torque or even a HPM that does not induce a back emf. Both of these cases can be tested very easily by checking whether the HPG setup does not operate in motor mode and that the HPM setup does not operate in generator mode when spun.
The interesting part of this reasoning is that it predicts that Sprockets setup, even though it wasn't ideal, should indeed not generate a voltage and in fact could have operated as a HPM with no induced emf. I'm not sure whether the magnet is allowed to rotate with the coil or not.
The assumption is based on the fact that the mechanical back torque that is usually present on a solid disk becomes an "harmless" electric force (ie voltage) due to the geometry of the disk. The electrons would be pulled but since there's an electric path they would move along it instead of pushing against the walls of the conductor and generating a mechanical back torque. I called it "harmless" because this new electric force does impede the main generated emf. However it only arises when current is pulled from the generator. In essence the generator becomes self regulated, the more current you pull the lower the generated emf becomes.
Of course there isn't something a 33$ ring magnet and some machining skills can't prove.
Here's the motor concept.
The spiral disk and the solid disk are only connected at the axis. Both of the disks spin together, the magnet is stationary. There should be no induced emf as both disks generate an equal amount of voltage when spun, however the solid disk produces a torque while the spiral disk does not.
Broli,
I'm trying to revive one of your old threads at the energeticforum. I hope you take a look at the publication on "hidden momentum" found in the below thread. Hidden momentum may be a factor in this thread also. It's good to see you're still around.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/3935-magnet-motor-using-repeling-magnets-radial-magnets-if-availbale.html#post141123
Thanks,
GB
Yes it's all related, it all comes down to moving charge that cause forces to act and react.
Wow.
Somebody call Mulder and Scully. This is real twilight zone stuff.
Steve posted frequently about every step of his project, up to page 11, then all of a sudden and for no reason he suddently disappears. At the same time the thread get's flooded by some weirdo offtopic spam. A brief note by gravityblock, about continuing a related topic on another forum, then exitus.
You guys can't he serious. What were the results? Even if you were completely unsuccessful, let us know! Even if you were locked up in a sanatory due to "free energy mental disorder", let us know... we may get you out of there, Rambo style.
On page 2 or 3 or so, some phantastic suggestions were made (a real HEUREKA experience, don't miss it!). See the drawing of the two HPGs on one axle, one of them with reverse polarity, connected in series: basicly brushless HPG! Even if that isn't OU, it's a remarkable achievement! None tried that? Unbelievable! So simple, logic and coherent (just as a smartass sprinkle word)...
A couple of very basic questions I got, that maybe somebody can answer due to first hand practical experience:
When we rotate Disc and Magnet and we use eg. only carbon brushes, but abolutely no metals in the near environment so no "external circuit", do we still get a voltage/current?
We know we won't get a voltage when the load rotates with the disc, but does (as gravityblock assumed) a second HPG of opposite rotation substitute the "external circuit"? Does it even double the potential?
If so, does instead of opposite rotation a simple opposite polarity work as well?
If so, then you know what that means. We could rotate them on the same axle, with the load between them in series, as described by Gravityblock.
Furthermore it was said, to use a HPG as a HPM, one would have to use an input that is of the opposite polarity, compared to the output of the HPG, when rotating in the same direction... I think that is nonsense! Please somebody confirm this!
Furthermore, I find it very interesting to imagine what happens when you simply loop the current flow: the more current is generated, the more it will feed to itself. With low losses there may be a recursive selfamplification to some degree.
Furthermore, assuming the structure of the disc, eg. a pancake coil, is so that it generates an electromagnet as soon as current flows, and that magnet ADDS to the permanent magnet (which is simply a matter of cw vs ccw), then, due to the fact that the output of the HPG is RPM * (Diameter^2)*Magnet strength, this will also recursively add to the efficiency!
BUT... it could be that the HPG needs some sort of radial electron propagation and a pancake coil and esp. a serial bifilar one, may not provide enough radial paths, so the initial, old idea of the spiral sections as a middle way may be the better choice. Of course both should be tested. The prototype should allow to turn the discs/coils by 180° (cw vs ccw) and the axle to rotate in both directions, this way it should be possible to test if this theory fits the real world.
At least, it was Tesla who said he was able to run a HPG as a fuelless generator.
Would be nice if somebody is still in here, or at least has some helpfull information.
BR
Quote from: broli on May 19, 2011, 02:21:32 AM
Here's the motor concept.
The spiral disk and the solid disk are only connected at the axis. Both of the disks spin together, the magnet is stationary. There should be no induced emf as both disks generate an equal amount of voltage when spun, however the solid disk produces a torque while the spiral disk does not.
This reminds me of Tesla's (monofilar) pancake coil. I wonder if this advances the thinking in any way.
Well, a pancake coil instead of a disc was the whole point of Bruces project. As I said, pity he never posted the results.
I am currently doing some tests, but working with tiny models is rather fruitless, because the output quadruples with the radius: speed * magnet strength * (radius^2). That said, these generators tend to have very marginal outputs, like a few millivolts with a few milliamps, eg. from 2 microwave ring magnets sandwiching a copper disc. Which is silly when you rotate them with a 300W motor.
But lets assume a 8cm disc outputs 1 Watt, then a 128 cm disc would deliver 256 watt, with the same rpm and field strength. Well, still not that much, considering the size.
Nevertheless: Tesla was convinced that a self+exciting operation must be possible, with spiral intersections.
.BTW. why did nobody ever try ionized water instead of a brush, for the rim contact?
BR
Here is my conclusion about the whole HPG topic.
The smaller, the less efficient, where only a gigantic model would reach an interesting performence, since, as it was said several times, with the diameter the output increases exponentially (^2).
I can hardly believe those who say they reached 70% efficience, or even more.
In a model that fits in a lab, the ratio between output as a generator and input as a motor is usually stupidly huge, read inefficient.
In my 2 microwave oven ring magnet sandwich HPG I reached silly 3 millivolt at 0.3 microamp, although only spun at probably 200 rpm.
I used a 1mm copper disc containing 4 spiral segmentations, with a closed ring in the center and at the rim, as suggested by tesla.
However, when I switched the magnet polarity, then the output amps became zero, which seems to indicate, that the spiral pattern indeed is capable of increasing or decreasing the output.
BR
Quote from: dieter on January 24, 2015, 08:06:13 PM
Well, a pancake coil instead of a disc was the whole point of Bruces project. As I said, pity he never posted the results.
Are they on this thread somewhere?
http://overunity.com/2300/bruces-tpu-theory-and-experiments-ver-1-2/2055/#.VMfLbXcYtwE
I guess not, the TPU is an other project. But wait I'll just read those 138 pages to make sure... ;D
Thanks anyway.
BR
hi everybody... read this thread and it seemed interesting up to the point progress stopped and the incoherent statements began... Anyway...
Did anyone think of making the monofilar, or even bifilar, winding using a printed circuit card? You could get really fine details, and try out lots of different patterns pretty cheap that way.
I like the idea of using multiple arms radiating out from center to an edge ring, then a spiral from edge back to center. Coming back from edge to center with charge vector pointing inward would create counter torque if in same direction magnetic field, but a spiral path would direct most of the force in or out not tangential to rotation (right hand rule).
That is a combination of 2 different ideas here, and you shouldn't need brushes on the outside to complete the circuit if you do that, maybe still need them on the top and bottom shafts to supply power for hpm.
I guess the charge could be thought of as still overall moving towards the center, just slower and accelerating as circumference reduces toward center.
I don't have any big magnets to try this out with... anybody know where to get some cheap?
OR... could you dispense with the magnets altogether in a motor configuration where the spiral return from the edge forms the B field for the radial legs on the layer above it on the PCB. After several alternating layers and PCBs soldered together could you create a motor based on HPM that would turn the same way regardless of current direction (if current reverses field reverses and radial current flow reverses too, leaving net torque in the same direction).
Anyway, i enjoyed reading this thread. If it is truly dead It will be disappointing. It should be possible to get some PCBs made up much cheaper than $800 in magnets.
Quote from: dieter on January 27, 2015, 12:04:58 PM
However, when I switched the magnet polarity, then the output amps became zero, which seems to indicate, that the spiral pattern indeed is capable of increasing or decreasing the output.
Yes, and the logarithmic spiral is the shortest spiral with the maximum electromagnetic torque.
Reference: Electromagnetic Induction and the Conservation of Momentum in the Spiral Paradox (http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf)
Gravock
Quote from: dieter on January 27, 2015, 12:04:58 PM
However, when I switched the magnet polarity, then the output amps became zero, which seems to indicate, that the spiral pattern indeed is capable of increasing or decreasing the output.
Yes the electrons are spiraling in the metal disk. So cut a physical spiral slot in the disk and it either directs the
electrons along the spirals or opposes them. (This may be how Tesla got the idea for his "linear pressure check valve".)
If parameters are not correct, one gets eddy current spirals as the electrons never reach physical edge of the disk
and contact point.
I suspect that the parameters that govern the spiral, are the momentum of the electrons, and a very strange average physical
velocity of actual electrons in the metal. We are used to dealing with the velocity of the signal propagation wave front at nearly the speed
of light but physical speed of electrons in metal is only about the speed of sound. I bet the form of the equation for the spiral motion
varies quite a bit from a clean cut pure electrodynamics equation, and the difference may be what causes physicists to treat the
homopolar generator as sort of a strange beast.
Bruce ... I think you are correct about the self-running part. I've known about Tesla's Unipolar Dynamo for at least ten years. I think I have a memory from the 1950's, not completely sure since I was a child. I was with my father in his business shop. If I'm correct, he was ordered to remove a welder. The mechanic complained, saying "it moves by itself". I'm guessing the welder was Tesla's Unipolar design, and they were confiscated in the whole country.
Regardless, from Tesla's Notes, I figured out, years ago, that the disk should be a pancake coil for maximum effect. Your idea, about using Tesla's bifilar coil, may be counterproductive. Have you tried it yet? From the Prof's paper, on the bifilar coil, it only works at certain frequencies, with 11 KHz being the best, if I remember correctly.
Bob
Quote from: dieter on January 27, 2015, 12:04:58 PM
Here is my conclusion about the whole HPG topic.
The smaller, the less efficient, where only a gigantic model would reach an interesting performence, since, as it was said several times, with the diameter the output increases exponentially (^2).
I can hardly believe those who say they reached 70% efficience, or even more.
In a model that fits in a lab, the ratio between output as a generator and input as a motor is usually stupidly huge, read inefficient.
In my 2 microwave oven ring magnet sandwich HPG I reached silly 3 millivolt at 0.3 microamp, although only spun at probably 200 rpm.
I used a 1mm copper disc containing 4 spiral segmentations, with a closed ring in the center and at the rim, as suggested by tesla.
However, when I switched the magnet polarity, then the output amps became zero, which seems to indicate, that the spiral pattern indeed is capable of increasing or decreasing the output.
BR
The bifilar was intended to replace cumbersome capacitors as stated in teslas patent. However were did tesla write about rotating copper plates to interrupt magnetism into the coil?
Perhaps faraday used similar methods.