Sometimes the boxing gloves are too hard to put aside.
This design is yet one more in the stream of homopolar concepts. I have thought about this design a long while ago but my knowledge of electro magnetism was fairly limited back then compared to now. So I just put it on the back burner until recently.
Theory:
For me the holy grail of a homopolar motor was to cheat and somehow break physics "laws" and come up with a single wire piece carrying a current. Specifically this would break Kirchoff current law as there will be current nodes that have current leaving without equal amounts entering and vice versa. But this is called the maxwell correction in "physics".
What i then realized is that a simple dipole antenna is really such a simple wire piece. The only problem is that current has to oscillate, if it didn't you would be stuck with a polarized antenna having an excess positive charge on one end and negative on the other. However there's a problem with this oscillation. More specific for the homopolar crowd, the forward current would torque the magnet one way, but the inevitable return current would torque it the other way...and you end up with a zero net energy from torque.
Concept:
The way I tried to solve this is by electromagnetically shielding one half of the magnet. Make no mistake the shield is not ferromagnetic. It is a simple but preferably good conductor that reflects the electro magnetic wave from the wire. Because the shield is a simple conductor, when rotated with the magnet the field remains is unchanged, as if the magnet was stationary and there was no shield. Because the conductive shield does not shield an unchanging field.
Problems:
The first notable problem is rotation speed. As seen from the animation the magnet rotation has the same frequency as the oscillating current. For good shielding to occur, a good conductor and high frequency are needed. However it is not always practical, perhaps impossible to rotate the magnet at 10 000 Hz (600 000 rpm) which is still relatively low for an oscillating current.
The next problem is a conceptual one. We know electromagnet waves can be reflected off metal surfaces. However in our case we have to ask whether they also have a physical reaction. The worst that could happen is that they somehow cause a counter torque. This means that the wave transfers its momentum in the worst way possible for this concept.
Solution:
The first problem can be easily solved by splitting the shield into more regions around the magnet. The second problem can only be uncovered through experimentation.
In conclusion I always hope I get to experiment with these concepts. But discussion on them can be equally important, I hope I shared something that can lead someone to somewhere.
Some more input. What truly opened my eyes to em waves was falstad's applet, his famous one is the electronic circuit desinger. However he has many other incredible applets. One of them is this:
http://www.falstad.com/emwave1/ (http://www.falstad.com/emwave1/)
It allows you to truly see how em waves behave in realtime on a crappy pc. I truly respect that man for such advanced tools.
Now back to the concept. I took a plane source and moved it to the center. Then I decreased the frequency of it. Next I drew a closed box, assuming one half of the magnet is inside this box. In the image below from the sim you can see the setup. This should be seen as a top view. The red color indicates a magnet field going into the screen and green going out. What's also noticeable is the current in the wire and the induced one in the shield.
This setup has the wire radially approaching the magnet unlike the above one. Both can be used, but this one adds symmetry and better insight.
Now what can be seen is actually interesting. The reason why I thought about this is to eliminate the spinning circuit which makes a homopolar work. However the reaction of this is that that spinning circuit creates a back emf lowering applied current and thus reducing torque.
If the induced current on the shield is analyzed with a hypothetical magnet and spin direction it can be shown that this current will react with the magnet(like a conventional HPM because the magnets' field is not changing), but in the same direction of current. Thus it will help current flow so the shield does an even better job.
Quote from: broli on November 08, 2010, 06:32:10 PM
...
Because the shield is a simple conductor, when rotated with the magnet the field remains is unchanged, as if the magnet was stationary and there was no shield. Because the conductive shield does not shield an unchanging field.
...
If there is no ferromagnetic shield, how are you expecting for a flux variation through the external circuit?
A simple conductor cannot modulate a constant magnetic field, expect if it is in a closed circuit.
I'm not. What you mention is what exactly what should be prevented. The constant field of the magnet can go outside the shield. However the field of the wire cannot go inside the shield and torque the magnet.
You want a constant external field of the magnet. Or else that variation effects the wire and causes it to induce a current and you don't want that.
The shielding material will act similar to the braided or woven wire around the dielectric of a coax cable (B in the image below)? We can use flat pieces of copper wire on top of thin pieces of tin foil which will be split up into regions around the magnet according to the osscilating current, since we won't need the flexibility of a braided wire, and this should offer better shielding performance.
I really like this concept.
GB
Quote from: gravityblock on November 10, 2010, 12:41:55 PM
The shielding material will act similar to the braided or woven wire around the dielectric of a coax cable (B in the image below)? We can use flat pieces of copper wire on top of thin pieces of tin foil which will be split up into regions around the magnet according to the osscilating current, since we won't need the flexibility of a braided wire, and this should offer better shielding performance.
I really like this concept.
GB
Yes, a ring magnet would be easier to shield in segments either by wrapping wire around slices of it or using some kind of coil. The magnet should preferably not have a metallic skin like a the nickel coating on neo mags. Also I didn't mention this but the piece of wire can really be a coil as well. So you are not limited by driving voltage. The way this is done is by simply using a shielded wire like you showed and removing the insulation/shielding layer around the part that's going to do the actual emmiting. This way you can have arbitrary large currents at modest frequencies.
What are your thoughts on using the concepts of a mult-wave oscillator (the magnet being sandwiched between two plates with concentric ring(s) to produce static longitudnal waves)? It is known that waves of varying length do not interfere with one another as is shown by radio, even though they occupy the same area of space. The multi-wave may complicate things in regards to the shielding, but we don't have to use mult-waves with this concept. We could always use a single ring in each of the antennas, which would oscillate at only one frequency.
Here's a video of Eric Dollard explaining a multi-wave oscillator:
Part (2 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiN0kZZ-vrA
Part (3 of 5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUrzZLVH6ng
GB
It's all good as long as you have the asymmetry, namely shielding parts of the magnet. It's indeed pointless to radiate all the energy, with the proper enclosure you can create standing waves which could increase efficiency and power a lot.
Quote from: broli on November 10, 2010, 06:02:06 AM
I'm not. What you mention is what exactly what should be prevented. The constant field of the magnet can go outside the shield. However the field of the wire cannot go inside the shield and torque the magnet.
You want a constant external field of the magnet. Or else that variation effects the wire and causes it to induce a current and you don't want that.
I find the setup rather obscure. You explain effects but not the principle.
You named your device "homopolar motor + antenna" but it is not homopolar because I is AC. And in a homopolar motor or generator, the current must be perpendicular to the magnetic field in order the Lorentz force to apply.
Then here why should the magnet rotate? What are the forces which exert a torque? Are they acting onto the shield or onto the magnet? Where are they coming from and how?
Quote from: exnihiloest on November 16, 2010, 03:09:57 AM
I find the setup rather obscure. You explain effects but not the principle.
You named your device "homopolar motor + antenna" but it is not homopolar because I is AC. And in a homopolar motor or generator, the current must be perpendicular to the magnetic field in order the Lorentz force to apply.
Then here why should the magnet rotate? What are the forces which exert a torque? Are they acting onto the shield or onto the magnet? Where are they coming from and how?
I suggest you re investigate how a homopolar motor really works I've addressed this many times. Unlike what the most popular google searches tell you, it's not the spinning disc that causes the torque but the outside brushing circuit. When the disk is attached to the magnet the forces on both cancel out due to newtons third law. However you still have the force interaction between the magnet and outside brushing wire.
This concept attempts to exploit the fact that you can only use that "outside" circuit without a real return path for current. Current goes forward in the single wire circuit and torques the magnet forward, and when it's about to go back the magnet is shielded from the supposed field of the wire which wants to rotate it back.
Even though Lorentz's force is an incomplete concept you can still show that it holds. Use the famous right hand rule and you'll see that the magnetic field either pushes the wire piece up or down depending on current direction. And what do you think the reaction of this force affects? The answer is the magnet, it will be seen as a torque.
Quote from: broli on November 16, 2010, 03:40:38 AM
I suggest you re investigate how a homopolar motor really works I've addressed this many times. Unlike what the most popular google searches tell you, it's not the spinning disc that causes the torque but the outside brushing circuit. When the disk is attached to the magnet the forces on both cancel out due to newtons third law. However you still have the force interaction between the magnet and outside brushing wire.
This concept attempts to exploit the fact that you can only use that "outside" circuit without a real return path for current. Current goes forward in the single wire circuit and torques the magnet forward, and when it's about to go back the magnet is shielded from the supposed field of the wire which wants to rotate it back.
Even though Lorentz's force is an incomplete concept you can still show that it holds. Use the famous right hand rule and you'll see that the magnetic field either pushes the wire piece up or down depending on current direction. And what do you think the reaction of this force affects? The answer is the magnet, it will be seen as a torque.
A homopolar generator or motor needs a circuit in two parts, one is moving and the other is fixed, acting one on each other. Then we can treat the problem either with classic electromagnetism using Maxwell equations and Lorentz forces or with SR using change of the magnetic field into electric field by Lorentz transforms (or even length contraction of mobile charges in conductors). Both methods give the same result. Forces from the charges in the fixed part of the circuit act onto the charges of the moving part through electric and magnetic fields, and vice versa.
Your explanations in layman's terms with generalities not directly related from an operational viewpoint to your particular case are very confused. For example "Current [...] torques the magnet forward" doesn't mean anything. What are the forces, how are they related to the current, what are the fields: these questions are the right ones and you don't answer them. We see that the magnetic field from the wire circles around the wire, i.e is perpendicular to the magnet field thus it can't produce a torque.
Finally you have just a gif cartoon but neither a working device nor a valid theory and not even the background for explaining classical homopolar devices which are very conventional and not OU. SR, electromagnetism, mechanics (which imply energy conservation) are internally consistent and fully compatible, and you are expecting to prove they are false by using one against another! :) I guess you should apply to yourself your advice "investigate how a homopolar motor really works" and then to prove the theory is false by building your miraculous machine, it is so simple.
Hear hear!
Homopolar motors are not an enigma, at least for the last +100 years.
As usual, it's up to the claimant to prove if there's anything extraordinary going on.
Heh, what's this about - "..without a real return path for the current" ... "Lorenz force is an incomplete concept"...
So, if some of us disagree, we should investigate further?
Nice.
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 04:19:41 AM
As usual, it's up to the claimant to prove if there's anything extraordinary going on.
from nizkor.org,
logical fallacy: burden of proofQuote
In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate.
now spinner, how is it that you come to the conclusion that your claim (side) is the one assumed to be true?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 17, 2010, 04:27:00 AM
from nizkor.org
now spinner, how is it that you come to the conclusion that your claim (side) is the one assumed to be true?
Use some logic, and you'll find out for yourself.
It's quite different if the "opponent" sides (e.g. politicians) are balancing their opinions against current situation, than if a few geniuses provoke billions of man-hours of qualified research and gathered knowledge. Understood, tested,.. history.., COMPLETELY backed up with theory and math.
Now, what's your point, providing that link? You have your own opinion? That's good.
Sure, either "side" could be correct, after all. No problems with that.
Except, some kind of a verifiable proof is needed, after all.
At the moment it seems that the current position (knowledge, science) still holds..?
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 05:09:00 AM
Use some logic, and you'll find out for yourself.
It's quite different if the "opponent" sides (e.g. politicians) are balancing their opinions against current situation, than if a few geniuses provoke billions of man-hours of qualified research and gathered knowledge. Understood, tested,.. history.., COMPLETELY backed up with theory and math.
theories are just that.
THEORIES and math is just
MATH... ::) neither is evidence that your claim is the one assumed to be true.
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 05:09:00 AM
Now, what's your point, providing that link? You have your own opinion? That's good.
Sure, either "side" could be correct, after all. No problems with that.
Except, some kind of a verifiable proof is needed, after all.
At the moment it seems that the current position (knowledge, science) still holds..?
what's my point? use some logic and you'll find out for yourself. ::)
my point is
you have nothing that supports your claim that burden of proof is on broli...yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed.
at the moment, the current position is based upon theories... at least according to what you have claimed here in this thread.
Doh...
Theories are - just theories? And math is just - math? Ok.
You should distinguish between a NEW theories (BigBang, singularity, string, Black stuff, branes..) and a (currently) WORKING "laws", based on what used to be theories...
Newtonian laws are - a theory?
Ohm law is a theory? Kirchhoff, Lenz, Faraday,...
Tell me, what kind of method you use for backing up your claims? Since Math is just math, etc.
Wilby, you're a thinking person, that's what I understood through our conversations in the past..
"yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed."
Read whatever you can get your hands on. And, please, start at the beginning, with the basics.
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 05:52:23 AM
Doh...
Theories are - just theories? And math is just - math? Ok.
You should distinguish between a NEW theories (BigBang, singularity, string, Black stuff, branes..) and a (currently) WORKING "laws", based on what used to be theories...
Newtonian laws are - a theory?
Ohm law is a theory? Kirchhoff, Lenz, Faraday,...
Tell me, what kind of method you use for backing up your claims? Since Math is just math, etc.
Wilby, you're a thinking person, that's what I understood through our conversations in the past..
"yes, a verifiable proof that your claim is correct is needed."
Read whatever you can get your hands on. And, please, start at the beginning, with the basics.
and what of pythagoras? why then is his still a theory? ::)
regarding ohm, kirchoff, lenz and faraday... upon what are these 'laws' based? i know the answer, i want to hear you say it...
indeed spinner, start at the beginning where the assumptions were made.
spinner, why do all your 'laws' have paradoxes associated with them?
ohm's law (charge decay) paradox.
kirchhoff's rule and the two capacitor paradox.
lenz (dungey's paradox, sweet's paradox)
faraday's paradox.
etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 17, 2010, 06:00:32 AM
and what of pythagoras? why then is his still a theory? ::)
regarding ohm, Kirchhoff, lenz and faraday... upon what are these 'laws' based? i know the answer, i want to hear you say it...
indeed spinner, start at the beginning where the assumptions were made.
Pythagoras's? You have some problems with him?
Lol, it's "just" a theory? From which planet are you, really? a2+b2=c2? Tough... Let us all hear your explanation, how would you calculate the Pythagorean stuff...
You claim you know where The "laws" are based? GOOD for you! I tried to told you (and the gang) several times in the past (repeating the obvious), but you were all too much self-confident about your own level of "understanding".. And the result is known. If I remember correctly, you defended everyone (no matter how his/her thinking was off, if that person exhibited at least a noticeable rate of hate towards current "science"). Plus you haven't produced anything of a (real) value during this time. Or maybe you have?
Just tell us.
Idiot!
Sorry. Apologise. You're not dumb, as it seems on a first sight, you're just completely lost...
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 06:34:44 AM
Pythagoras's? You have some problems with him?
Lol, it's "just" a theory? From which planet are you, really? a2+b2=c2? Tough... Let us all hear your explanation, how would you calculate the Pythagorean stuff...
no i have no problem with him.
i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious... ::)
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 06:34:44 AM
You claim you know where The "laws" are based? GOOD for you! I tried to told you (and the gang) several times in the past (repeating the obvious), but you were all too much self-confident about your own level of "understanding".. And the result is known. If I remember correctly, you defended everyone (no matter how his/her thinking was off, if that person exhibited at least a noticeable rate of hate towards current "science"). Plus you haven't produced anything of a (real) value during this time. Or maybe you have?
Just tell us.
yes, the 'laws' are based on assumptions... theories... and shoddy math. and no, you don't remember correctly. furthermore, what i have or have not produced is irrelevant. this is just another one of your logical fallacies as a response.
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 06:34:44 AM
Idiot!
Sorry. Apologise. You're not dumb, as it seems on a first sight, you're just completely lost...
more logical fallacy from you as usual. why are you avoiding the simple questions i posed to you?
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 17, 2010, 06:31:28 AM
spinner, why do all your 'laws' have paradoxes associated with them?
ohm's law (charge decay) paradox.
kirchhoff's rule and the two capacitor paradox.
faraday's paradox.
etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam...
Ohm's law "paradox"? ;D
"Two capacitors" paradox? ;D
Jeeeez.
I know.. Both are paradoxes - at least for you.
Faraday's "paradox"? Now here's an area for discussion. Maybe? Or, not, really.
"etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam..."
I'm sure you'll contribute at least one original, NEW paradox...
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 06:47:18 AM
Ohm's law "paradox"? ;D
"Two capacitors" paradox? ;D
Jeeeez.
I know.. Both are paradoxes - at least for you.
Faraday's "paradox"? Now here's an area for discussion. Maybe? Or, not, really.
"etc. etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseam..."
I'm sure you'll contribute at least one original, NEW paradox...
your response is denied: logical fallacy. try a cogent argument next time... if you know what one is.
let's get back to my main point, which you so neatly attempted to obfuscate with your logical fallacies (strawman, red herring, ad hominem)...
you have nothing that supports your claim that burden of proof is on broli...
"i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious... ::)"
Well, in some parts of this lo(n/v)ely planet called Earth, it is actually called "a Law"...
;)
Quote from: spinn_MP on November 17, 2010, 06:54:54 AM
"i am asking you WHY after thousands of years and hundreds of proofs is pythagoras' theorem not called a 'law'? i thought my point was obvious... ::)"
Well, in some parts of this lo(n/v)ely planet called Earth, it is actually called "a Law"...
;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
::)
so you are saying that 'law' and 'theorem' are synonymous. ;) your semantic argument is as lame as the rest of your arguments... you might as well return to your logical fallacies. if you chose again to refuse to respond with a cogent argument, i will not reply.
Lol, Wilby, as you were...
I give a shit what your next respond "will be" (Wilby), so don't exaggerate.
I'm sure you'll find something to occupy your talent in the future.
+++
Btw, I asked you to join that molecrap forum. It would be a good experience, or at least some fun to "both parties".
Hey, you could kick some asses down there, if that's not a problem for you....
Ah, understand, you're a kind of a King here.... Why would you risk an "ungrateful" and very "annoying" audience....
Oh boy.
............................................________
....................................,.-‘â€...................``~.,
.............................,.-â€...................................“-.,
.........................,/...............................................â€:,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:â€........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....â€~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......â€=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~â€;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......â€=-._......“;,,./`..../â€............../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-â€
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`\
my apologies broli. sometimes the boxing gloves are too hard to put aside...
Quote from: WilbyInebriated on November 17, 2010, 06:56:35 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
::)
so you are saying that 'law' and 'theorem' are synonymous. ;) your semantic argument is as lame as the rest of your arguments... you might as well return to your logical fallacies. if you chose again to refuse to respond with a cogent argument, i will not reply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem ;)
Quote from: Qwert on November 17, 2010, 03:49:38 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem ;)
thank the flying spaghetti monster! someone who understands words and their definitions...
so was the wink because "Theorems in mathematics and theories in science are fundamentally different in their epistemology"
or because "For example, the Collatz conjecture has been verified for start values up to about 2.88 × 1018. The Riemann hypothesis has been verified for the first 10 trillion zeroes of the zeta function. Neither of these statements is considered to be proven. Such evidence does not constitute proof."
or was it something else entirely? ;)
The latest thread on homopolar motors made me think about some old concepts again, one of them being the "homotenna" idea.
I had this new idea and thought it was worth sharing at the very least.
The concept is simple, you have a coil wrapped around a ferrite core. This would be your rotor. Then both ends of this coil are connected to rings sliding against brushes leading to your exterior circuit. One lead of this circuit is electromagnetically shielded.
The circuit is then energized with HF AC, the high frequency being crucial and somewhere between 10kHz-1Mhz so the shield can do its job shielding the electromagnetic field.
The theory behind it is also simple. We already know that the external circuit in a homopolar motor causes the torque on the disk/magnet assembly. However if the below concept were to be energized with DC current both external wires would cause an equal but opposite torque on the rotor assembly leading to no motion. But if we were to replace the PM with an EM and fed it with HF AC current through the stationary leads AND we can shield one lead completely so its EM field becomes invisble to the rotor then a net torque could arise. Since both the current in the coil and the current going through the external circuit lead are the same and synchronized, this should lead to a torque acting only in one direction on the rotor. And since there's no coil part going from rim to center, there should be no induced back emf.
The key here is the shielding of the field of one lead and making it disappear to the rotating magnet. This is much more efficient than the antenna idea as currents can be higher and frequency lower.
I'm confused by the comment that the external circuit/wire brushes provide the torque for a homopolar motor. I have taken a piece of copper wire, wrapped it around a AA battery with a neo magnet stuck to the bottom. The wire is wrapped in a big loop, top to bottom, "shorting" the + and -. The wire loop is then hung from a piece of thread, allowing the entire object to spin. The thread is tied to a pivot so that the thread doesn't wind up and halt the spinning. Which it happily does till the battery runs out. If I use a big enough loop and thick enough wire, that can be 15-20 minutes. So, other than the string resisting gravity, the object is spinning without anything external.
Is this odd? I've been planning on making one with three tiny solar panels instead of the battery. Presumably then it will just keep spinning as long as light is shinning on it.
Please make take a picture or make a video of your setup. It's hard to visualize what people are talking about sometimes, it's the curse of knowledge ;) . As to the wire causing and having a torque acting upon it even the most basic homopolar motor setup shows this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU13Ftqfkh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FU13Ftqfkh8&feature=player_detailpage#t=34s)
It's just Newtons's third law.
And like I said a few times now, explanations like these are wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDxc3QLke1k
It's not the rotating circuit glued to the magnet causing the torque, this is a blatant violation of Newton's third law, and completely ignores the stationary outside circuit which is screaming "hey dude don't you see the force is being acted on me so I'm acting on something else".
Quote from: broli on August 04, 2012, 08:54:08 AM
The latest thread on homopolar motors made me think about some old concepts again, one of them being the "homotenna" idea.
I had this new idea and thought it was worth sharing at the very least.
The concept is simple, you have a coil wrapped around a ferrite core. This would be your rotor. Then both ends of this coil are connected to rings sliding against brushes leading to your exterior circuit. One lead of this circuit is electromagnetically shielded.
The circuit is then energized with HF AC, the high frequency being crucial and somewhere between 10kHz-1Mhz so the shield can do its job shielding the electromagnetic field.
The theory behind it is also simple. We already know that the external circuit in a homopolar motor causes the torque on the disk/magnet assembly. However if the below concept were to be energized with DC current both external wires would cause an equal but opposite torque on the rotor assembly leading to no motion. But if we were to replace the PM with an EM and fed it with HF AC current through the stationary leads AND we can shield one lead completely so its EM field becomes invisble to the rotor then a net torque could arise. Since both the current in the coil and the current going through the external circuit lead are the same and synchronized, this should lead to a torque acting only in one direction on the rotor. And since there's no coil part going from rim to center, there should be no induced back emf.
The key here is the shielding of the field of one lead and making it disappear to the rotating magnet. This is much more efficient than the antenna idea as currents can be higher and frequency lower.
I've also been thinking of the homotenna idea. It's good to see this topic being revived once again. The text below are excerpts which I believe supports the concept of this thread taken from a publication titled, "The Faraday Motor Principle As A Method For Free Energy And Craft Levitation And Propulsion (http://www.electrogravity.com/FARADAY/A_VecFaraday1.pdf)".
In figure 1 there is shown a pressure wave associated with the magnetic potential A vector and the magnetic flux B field. The A vector and the B vector are normal (90 degrees) to each other and both are also normal to the outwards moving pressure wave. It has been demonstrated that a strong enough magnetic field can suspend a live frog with the associated pressure wave of that same field without harming the frog. The pressure wave works on the individual particles on the quantum scale in a collective manner much as gravity does. The pressure wave will increase as the square of the current. For a 100 ampere current, the value will be 10,000 times larger than a 1 ampere current. The
adjacent current element may be used to cause a directional projection of the force field resulting from the pressure wave and the fixed current element. This current element can also move if free to do so.
The external current element can be used to introduce asymmetry into the uniform pressure field and therefore cause a force unbalance that can do work on the system so as to move it in the desired direction.
The outward moving pressure wave is divorced from the magnetic field proper and therefore can be used to move the entire system via Newton's law of every action engenders an opposite and equal reaction even if the magnet and the current are connected to a common support. This is by reason that the pressure wave has its own inertia and can be regarded as a separate entity, much as for a photon. The Faraday motor as demonstrated uses a permanent magnet and a d.c. current in the rotor wire. The direction of rotation should remain the same if the direction of the magnetic flux from the magnet as well as the direction of current flow in the rotor wire are both changed simultaneously. Further, the direction of the pressure wave will also continue to be moving outwards. This may be an advantage from the standpoint of resonance where a strong impulse can cause a resonant circuit to ring in the form of a damped wave and if the circuit has low losses, the resonance will allow for
the alternating current to continue without further input for an appreciable time. The frequency of resonance may be chosen to be equal to the f
MG frequency.
Thus, the magnet can now be an electromagnet and capacitor arrangement. Of a related note, here's a short video (http://www.electrogravity.com/FARADAY/RODDISK.mpg) that shows a craft that may be based directly on the mechanics of the above analysis.
The vertical rods may be coaxial current elements and the magnetic field developed in a flat base coil. Notice the craft's rotation as the current elements follow the magnetic A vector (V
LM) field rotation.
Gravock
It's interesting but the vector potential math is honestly a bit above my head. However he makes an interesting point on the original Faraday homopolar motor experiment where the wire piece being apparently parallel to the field lines, undergoes both a torquing force and an outward one. However according to that statement the same wire piece on a rail should be pushed away from the magnet which seems like a too basic experiment to have been overlooked ;) .
Quote from: broli on August 05, 2012, 05:56:33 PM
It's interesting but the vector potential math is honestly a bit above my head. However he makes an interesting point on the original Faraday homopolar motor experiment where the wire piece being apparently parallel to the field lines, undergoes both a torquing force and an outward one. However according to that statement the same wire piece on a rail should be pushed away from the magnet which seems like a too basic experiment to have been overlooked ;) .
Hey Broli
In your pic above, is the magnet suppose to spin? If so, does it work with ceramic magnets, or does the magnet need a nickle coating, like neo mags?
Thanks
MaGs
Quote from: Magluvin on August 05, 2012, 11:45:42 PM
Hey Broli
In your pic above, is the magnet suppose to spin? If so, does it work with ceramic magnets, or does the magnet need a nickle coating, like neo mags?
Thanks
MaGs
In the pic, the grey vertical conducting rod should experience a force away from the magnet (according to the original Faraday experiment) and follow the two grey horizontal conducting rails. Nothing is supposed to rotate in this example and the magnets can be ceramic or nickel coated. However, this example has a high probability of failure, and if it does fail then it would be contrary to the statement of there being an outwards force in the original Faraday homopolar motor experiment.
Gravock
Quote from: broli on August 05, 2012, 05:56:33 PM
It's interesting but the vector potential math is honestly a bit above my head. However he makes an interesting point on the original Faraday homopolar motor experiment where the wire piece being apparently parallel to the field lines, undergoes both a torquing force and an outward one. However according to that statement the same wire piece on a rail should be pushed away from the magnet which seems like a too basic experiment to have been overlooked ;) .
Broli,
I found a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73FFDovrVtI) showing the original Faraday motor experiment using salt water instead of mercury. There does appear to be both a torquing force
and also an outward force on the wire piece. Does the outward force on the wire piece disappear if the wire piece isn't translating or moving around the magnet?
This reminds me of a publication by Muller, titled "Experimental Test of the Normal and Retrograde Railgun Accelerators", where the aluminum rod advanced in the forward direction as expected (away from the battery bridge) whereas the steel (magnetizable) rod advanced backwardly when they're allowed to roll. When the same system is setup vertically, however, and the transversal rod is suspended on a balance (without rolling), no retrograde behavior is observed for the steel rod. Both, aluminum and steel rods, moved in the forward (expected) direction.
The conclusion is that rolling of the steel rod is essential to observe its retrograde motion.Is this the conclusion on the original Faraday experiment, "the circular motion of the wire piece around the magnet is essential to observe it's outward force"?
Edited: Here's another video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ma6iKLd7g) of the original Faraday motor experiment.
Gravock
Here's a really good video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRFqYRHT3Wk) showing an outwards force on the wire piece as it moves around the magnet.
Gravock
Broli,
If we slightly modified the original motor experiment by gluing a portion of the wire piece to the rim of the magnet to prevent an outward force from acting on the wire piece, would we still have rotation?
If we don't have rotation, then does this mean the outward force acting on the wire piece is essential to observe a rotation? Can't have one without the other, or can we?
Gravock
Broli,
Do you think the rotating wire piece being pushed away from the magnet is nothing more than the centrifugal force? The centrifugal force definitely needs to be ruled out, so I'll be devising an experiment to check for this. I have two axially magnetized magnets 2" dia. and 3/8 in. thick.
Gravock
Quote from: broli on August 04, 2012, 08:54:08 AM
The latest thread on homopolar motors made me think about some old concepts again, one of them being the "homotenna" idea.
I had this new idea and thought it was worth sharing at the very least.
The concept is simple, you have a coil wrapped around a ferrite core. This would be your rotor. Then both ends of this coil are connected to rings sliding against brushes leading to your exterior circuit. One lead of this circuit is electromagnetically shielded.
The circuit is then energized with HF AC, the high frequency being crucial and somewhere between 10kHz-1Mhz so the shield can do its job shielding the electromagnetic field.
The theory behind it is also simple. We already know that the external circuit in a homopolar motor causes the torque on the disk/magnet assembly. However if the below concept were to be energized with DC current both external wires would cause an equal but opposite torque on the rotor assembly leading to no motion. But if we were to replace the PM with an EM and fed it with HF AC current through the stationary leads AND we can shield one lead completely so its EM field becomes invisble to the rotor then a net torque could arise. Since both the current in the coil and the current going through the external circuit lead are the same and synchronized, this should lead to a torque acting only in one direction on the rotor. And since there's no coil part going from rim to center, there should be no induced back emf.
The key here is the shielding of the field of one lead and making it disappear to the rotating magnet. This is much more efficient than the antenna idea as currents can be higher and frequency lower.
Broli,
I think the best way (possibly the only way) to shield the field of one lead is to have it rotate with the disk/magnet. The lead which is rotating will become invisible to the rotor and a net torque will arise from the stationary lead. Below is a quote on a homopolar experiment found under the heading of "Flux management by differential shielding on this page (http://www.gta.igs.net/%7Eqbristow/Scientific/Faraday_Paradox/main_text.html)". On the same page of the differential shielding there is another experiment under the heading of "Rotating magnet assembly on circular path about a fixed centre point". I had an idea very similar to this, but instead of using a diametrical current it would use a radial current and the nylon shaft would be replaced with a conductive shaft while using only one plate instead of two. I don't see why we can't combine the shielding of one lead by having it rotate with the disk/magnet or electromagnet on a circular path about a fixed center point as I described above along with a few other modifications to produce a generator with no induced back emf. I'm attaching a photo of the rotating magnet assembly to this post.
QuoteIt seems that although there can be no flux inside the shield, it is concentrated at each end and produces the same emf in the conductor being shielded as would be produced without it. It would require a shield of 'infinite' length to prevent this phenomenon. This is yet another example of an immutable corollary of the laws of electromagnetic induction!
Gravock
Here's a video explanation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-kQans2rww) for those who may be a little lost in my last post in regards to the two magnets connected by a shaft which rotates on a pivot bolt and a circular track. In this video, the two magnets are connected by the shaft with opposite poles facing each other. The force acting on each magnet is in the same direction, so both magnets will either move forward or backwards on the conductive tracks depending on the polarity of the current. However, if the two magnets are connected to the shaft with like poles facing each other, then one magnet will want to move forwards while the other magnet wants to move backwards when the conductive tracks are energized. By placing a pivot bolt through the middle of the shaft, then the two magnets will run on the circular track with a net rotation which is either CW or CCW depending on the polarity of the current.
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on August 28, 2012, 06:21:01 PM
Broli,
Do you think the rotating wire piece being pushed away from the magnet is nothing more than the centrifugal force? The centrifugal force definitely needs to be ruled out, so I'll be devising an experiment to check for this. I have two axially magnetized magnets 2" dia. and 3/8 in. thick.
Gravock
According to Faraday himself on page 136 in a publication titled, "Experimental researches in electricity / by Michael Faraday (http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/Rarebook_treasures/QC503F211839_PDF/QC503F211839v2.pdf)", the outward force acting on the rotating wire piece could not be from a centrifugal force. If the outward force was due to the centrifugal force, then the distance between the rotating wire piece and magnet would not increase as the speed of revolution decreases (see the snapshot of page 136 below). In conclusion, the centrifugal force is ruled out by Michael Faraday as being responsible for the outward force acting on the rotating wire piece. How in the world has this gone unnoticed for nearly 200 years?
Gravock
It's interesting indeed as centripetal force was the first thing that came to mind as well.
Revolving Aluminum Cylinder (video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oivhzdeV-P4). See snapshot below for a quick description of the video and for the frontal view of the second part of the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW49lHujBsY).
Gravock
Broli,
On pages 136 & 137 (see snapshot below for a quick reference), Faraday talks about the 'center of motion'. He says when the magnetic pole is on the outside of the center of motion, then the wire piece will move in a direction directly contrary to that taken when the pole was on the inside of the center of motion. How does the wire piece know if the pole is in the inside or the outside of the center of motion in order to know which direction to move? It's because the wire piece doesn't run directly parallel to vertical. For example, when the pole is in the inside, then the wire piece will be like this / |, and when the pole is on the outside then the wire piece will be like this \ |. This means there are now 3 ways to change the rotation direction: 1.) Reverse the poles. 2.) Reverse the polarity of the current. 3.) Reverse the center of motion. IMO, this is extremely important and can be used to our advantage by having 2 rotating wire pieces, each having a different center of motion around a different magnet. By simultaneously reversing the center of motion for both wire pieces around a different magnet with an opposite pole (or reversing the current with magnets of like poles), then we can have the rotating wire pieces run in a 'figure 8' pattern. This is equivalent in having at least one lead to always be 'physically shielded' by an infinite length!
Thanks,
Gravock
Quote from: gravityblock on September 03, 2012, 03:33:03 AM
Broli,
By simultaneously reversing the center of motion for both wire pieces around a different magnet with an opposite pole (or reversing the current with magnets of like poles), then we can have the rotating wire pieces run in a 'figure 8' pattern. This is equivalent in having at least one lead to always be 'physically shielded' by an infinite length!
The 'figure 8' is the symbol for infinity.
Gravock
Perhaps if you can you should sketch/draw the concept so I can see what you mean more clearly.
Quote from: broli on September 03, 2012, 06:27:22 AM
Perhaps if you can you should sketch/draw the concept so I can see what you mean more clearly.
Broli,
From an engineering point of view, It may be too complicated to have the wire pieces run a 'figure 8'. However, here's a sketch based on a change in the center of motion according to the original Faraday experiment. The sketch somehow took the shape of a starship, lol. The gold conductor should rotate CW on the gray vertical shaft. The green arrows are showing the direction of current flow. Please note, this should work without a stationary external circuit and without any brushes. The effect should be equivalent to shielding one lead with an infinite length.
Gravock
Broli Will and others . Hi guys . Miss you and great experiments and Kodos on keeping Sharp . And Wiley i owe you thanks because if not for you and your first experiment on the beginning of jule thief thread with the fl tube i would have just gave up so you gave me my first real inspiration . thank you . I know there are still trolling going on. Seems more so that when i left sick a few years .
I know this is fake (Pretty sure after 1000's of experiments with coils and magnets) but i responded to the thread
solid state free energy device thread . Poor guy wasted a saturday on this . Its a coil center tapped with an antenna and a hard drive magnet
Should this be part of this Experiment and discussion ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoCBORXzOqU)
I Don't know how this guy faked it and his 16 other videos look proper . Most of us know that there should be a hidden power source but where ? First i thought is was a super cap in the motor but that don't explain the soldered alligator clips on copper wire (short) producing almost 6 volts dc with his glued harddrive magnet . I dont see a button cell and if there is a button cell how can it go thru two soldered shorted clips . He walks thruout his property taking measurements and the volt meter still shows the same volts . WTH ?Also the powerline theory or cell phone radiation don't hold either because the voltage shown on his meter is dc and the same anywhere he moves so inductance is out . With all the fake vids now it is very hard to even believe anything anymore and that is not good.I have hear of CG fakery and such but this ?I know how brittle harddrive magnets are i don't see the hollow magnet theory here .
Here lately with ALL the fake videos i have tended to become somewhat negative and i don't want to be that way . My personality has changed from gadgetmall to gadgetmaul :) It's the medicine i am taking but my soul is still the same .
I would appreciate comments on this . fake . then how ? no fake then how?
AND TROLL COMMENTS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED AND YOU WILL BE PUT ON IGNORE!
Gadget
Broli,
A diametrical current in a traditional homopolar motor doesn't generate a rotation. By taking a look at the Lorentz force in a conducting liquid using a diametrical current (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oabsU-YZR0) we can see there is a CW motion over one half of the magnet and a CCW rotation over the other half of the magnet. These two cancel each other out resulting in no rotation when using a diametrical current in a traditional homopolar motor. I know, this isn't anything we didn't know before, but I think we can use this to our advantage. In the video, there is a centripetal current flowing on the left half of the magnet and a centrifugal current flowing on the right side of the magnet. Now, let's look at this from a generator point of view in a traditional homopolar configuration. Let's say we have a radial current running between the rim and axis of the disc to provide a CW rotation. The other half of the rotating disc opposite to the radial current will be inducing an EMF which opposes the applied radial current because it is also rotating CW. If the other half of the disc had an opposite rotation to the half which has the radial current applied to it, then it would generate an EMF which reinforces the applied radial current. Half of the disc in a traditional homopolar motor/generator is the problem and the below drawing is my proposal. The grey portions in the image are the stationary conductive brushes. The brushes located between the disks could be replaced with gears. The left half of Disk 1 and the right half of Disk 2 may need to be outside the field of the magnet. We could confine the field if need be. Also, the left and right halves of each disk could be electrically isolated from each other by having a small non-conducting area going down the middle of both discs.
Gravock
If i was looking to debunk it only.I would mention the metal contraption he placed the unit on. It is a runway light with underground power line 208-230 volt most likely. If it leaks enough it could be the magnet reacting to the leaking power line.
But since it is such a low budget experimental device why not? Something to play with for entertainment sake. Who knows? I have the one of the hard drive magnets somewhere,just have to remember what it is stuck to. It would be interesting to look at the coil with a magnetic film over it to see the where the lines of force are and how they are split with out speculating. It may even be that it requires placing the battery on the coil ends to train the feild to go in one direction first to start it working. Aside from the motor the rest of the parts can be pulled from a typical junk pile.
Success!
I did a very crude experiment on the below configuration. I got rotation! One disk rotated CW and the other disk rotated CCW. The current ran across the entire diameter of the magnet as shown in the below image. I placed a lead near both shafts. I'll take a video when I do a better build.
Gravock
Quote from: Doug1 on September 21, 2012, 08:20:03 AM
If i was looking to debunk it only.I would mention the metal contraption he placed the unit on. It is a runway light with underground power line 208-230 volt most likely. If it leaks enough it could be the magnet reacting to the leaking power line.
But since it is such a low budget experimental device why not? Something to play with for entertainment sake. Who knows? I have the one of the hard drive magnets somewhere,just have to remember what it is stuck to. It would be interesting to look at the coil with a magnetic film over it to see the where the lines of force are and how they are split with out speculating. It may even be that it requires placing the battery on the coil ends to train the feild to go in one direction first to start it working. Aside from the motor the rest of the parts can be pulled from a typical junk pile.
Doug,
Don't bother building this fake.
It,s not what he shows, it's what he doesn't show!
If I were to duplicate this I would only need to do two things,
1: Put a smaller motor inside the larger motor housing along with some button cells.
2: Put a button cell inside the VOM so it reads voltage when shorted.
DONE!
Fact 1, The coil cannot generate DC voltage required by the DC motor.
Fact 2, The coil would never output such a constant voltage with such a load variation.
(cannot remain resonate with no load to heavy load)
The last schematic I posted does have a BEMF. However, it is the basis to achieve OU, how to eliminate the BEMF by using additional disc's/magnets, and to drive it into negative resistance with a forward torque. The BEMF generated over the magnet in the last schematic must be present to obtain OU and to get the negative resistance effect. The process itself does seem to be counter intuitive, but it's so beautiful once it's understood. I'll be working on a Solid State Homopolar Generator/Motor (SSHPG/M), thus I'll be turning by attention to the TPU, since it generates a rotating magnetic field without any moving components with a DC output.
Gravock
Quote from: broli on November 08, 2010, 06:32:10 PM
Sometimes the boxing gloves are too hard to put aside.
This design is yet one more in the stream of homopolar concepts. I have thought about this design a long while ago but my knowledge of electro magnetism was fairly limited back then compared to now. So I just put it on the back burner until recently.
Theory:
For me the holy grail of a homopolar motor was to cheat and somehow break physics "laws" and come up with a single wire piece carrying a current. Specifically this would break Kirchoff current law as there will be current nodes that have current leaving without equal amounts entering and vice versa. But this is called the maxwell correction in "physics".
What i then realized is that a simple dipole antenna is really such a simple wire piece. The only problem is that current has to oscillate, if it didn't you would be stuck with a polarized antenna having an excess positive charge on one end and negative on the other. However there's a problem with this oscillation. More specific for the homopolar crowd, the forward current would torque the magnet one way, but the inevitable return current would torque it the other way...and you end up with a zero net energy from torque.
Concept:
The way I tried to solve this is by electromagnetically shielding one half of the magnet. Make no mistake the shield is not ferromagnetic. It is a simple but preferably good conductor that reflects the electro magnetic wave from the wire. Because the shield is a simple conductor, when rotated with the magnet the field remains is unchanged, as if the magnet was stationary and there was no shield. Because the conductive shield does not shield an unchanging field.
Problems:
The first notable problem is rotation speed. As seen from the animation the magnet rotation has the same frequency as the oscillating current. For good shielding to occur, a good conductor and high frequency are needed. However it is not always practical, perhaps impossible to rotate the magnet at 10 000 Hz (600 000 rpm) which is still relatively low for an oscillating current.
The next problem is a conceptual one. We know electromagnet waves can be reflected off metal surfaces. However in our case we have to ask whether they also have a physical reaction. The worst that could happen is that they somehow cause a counter torque. This means that the wave transfers its momentum in the worst way possible for this concept.
Solution:
The first problem can be easily solved by splitting the shield into more regions around the magnet. The second problem can only be uncovered through experimentation.
In conclusion I always hope I get to experiment with these concepts. But discussion on them can be equally important, I hope I shared something that can lead someone to somewhere.
Why couldn't we cause electromagnetic waves traveling in a medium to undergo total internal reflection at its boundary by striking it at an angle greater than the so-called critical angle to generate evanescent 'vanishing waves'. An evanescent wave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_wave) is a near-field wave with an intensity that exhibits exponential decay without absorption as a function of the distance from the boundary at which the wave was formed. Evanescent waves are a general property of wave-equations, and can in principle occur in any context to which a wave-equation applies. They are formed at the boundary between two media with different wave motion properties, and are most intense within one third of a wavelength from the surface of formation. In particular, evanescent waves can occur in the contexts of optics and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, acoustics, quantum mechanics, and "waves on strings".
The 'forward current' would produce a torque in one direction during normal electromagnetic waves and the shielding of the 'return current' could be accomplished by generating evanescent waves while coupling it to an external media for storage or extraction. The evanescent wave coupling takes place in the non-radiative field near each medium and as such is always associated with matter; i.e., with the induced currents and charges within a partially reflecting surface. This coupling is directly analogous to the coupling between the primary and secondary coils of a transformer, or between the two plates of a capacitor. Mathematically, the process is the same as that of quantum tunneling, except with electromagnetic waves instead of quantum-mechanical wavefunctions.
Gravock