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

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

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

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

anyone/anyting else?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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