The Marinov Generator

[Smudge]

Smith is an earnest researcher but his experiments and analyses of the Siberian Coilu are not correct. Sorry. They are not correct because they do not correctly describe the phenomenology of the device _when it is built according to Marinov's design_. They could even be called "straw man" papers.

Nearly fifteen years ago now I did a comprehensive study of the Marinov SC, building half-a-dozen testbeds both static and fully mobile. One finding that I can state right now is that the _real_ SC design by Marinov, when instantiated in a REAL physical system arranged as he arranged it, is actually a weak AC  voltage generator when the magnet armature is driven externally. 

Of course if one builds an analog thinking it's some kind of homopolar motor (it isn't) then you will likely get results that look like they come from a homopolar motor: low voltage high current DC. But that's an artifact of Smith's construction, I think.

As far as I am aware I am actually the only person, Smith and Kelly and Kooistra notwithstanding, who has actually built a SC with coaxially mounted magnet armature, rotating ring "stator", and liquid metal brush assembly that can be positioned to contact either the inner or outer periphery of the ring stator. All mounted coaxially or rather tri-axially on ball bearings and free to move in either direction. The hairs on the back of your neck are guaranteed to rise when you energize the unit by turning the power supply on with a beam from a laser pointer, and you observe the ring and the armature moving in the _same direction_ in apparent violation of all kinds of symmetry laws. Only then you might notice that the power supply and brush structure are moving in the opposite direction.

I even made several continuous motion versions: the armature prefers to "lock" at the position where the magnets are at 90 degrees to the  brushes, and when this happens the ring isn't driven any more, it just coasts. So the "trick" is to pulse the power supply at the proper timing, so that the armature coasts past the "lock point" and can be given another pulse of opposite polarity so that it makes another half-revolution, also driving the ring -- in the same direction.

Even further than that, I figured out how to wind a coil set to "simulate" many amp-turns in a stator "ring" rather than only the one turn of the original. Of course in this version the stator is fixed to the frame of the motor (which I call the Marinov Slab) ... but is there a back-reaction on the stator winding/frame when the rotor is being accelerated? I'll leave that one as an exercise for the reader....

Bottom line, Smith has missed and still continues to miss the real "good stuff" of the MSC, and he appears to be simply wrong in many cases.

Hi Tinsel,

I admire your diligence in doing experiments and have no doubt about the null motor effect in Marinov's Siberian Coilu.  AFAIK Marinov did not perform generator experiments, he looked upon his SC as a form of motor.  The longitudinal (along both the velocity direction and along the conductor) induction effect on moving electrons predicted by the theory is unlike that which occurs in conventional E=vXB (flux-crossing) motors or generators.  There the transverse force on the moving conduction electrons manifests in two different ways, in the generator case as an electromotive force (voltage) along the wire and in the motor case as a mechanical force on the wire.  What is often overlooked is that in the motor case the electrodynamic force on the electrons causes them to move sideways within the copper wire, there is then a physical separation between the centre of mass of those conduction electrons and the centre of mass of the lattice ions.  The force on the electrons then appears on the lattice via Coulomb attraction, hence we see the well known motor force or torque.  For longitudinal induction this charge separation and Coulomb attraction does not occur, so there must be some other coupling mechanism for the electrodynamic force to appear on the lattice, and maybe that coupling is weak or even absent.  Your experiments perhaps confirm this.

Did your experiments include examination of the generator effect, did you drive your rotor at significant rotation speeds and look for a voltage induction?  I suspect not.  If you did so and got a null result then I will admit to the superiority of your experimental set-up and measurement.  If you did not then please can you explain why you consider the null result of your motor experiments to apply equally to the generator version.

I did not attempt to measure the motor effect.  I did perform the generator experiment and I did measure a DC homopolar voltage induction.  I admit to the possibility that this induction could be due to conventional flux cutting but provided evidence that this was unlikely.  I also carried out an additional test later at BGB Engineering Ltd where they kindly reduced the radial thickness of the slip ring by a factor of 2.  If E=vXB flux cutting were responsible for the measured voltage, before and after tests would have shown a 50% reduction in that voltage.  They didn't.  So although not absolutely conclusive, the test does suggest that the longitudinal induction is real.  If it is real, and if it is used to drive current through a load, then your evidence of a non-motor effect can only mean that there is a liklihood of OU since the load current cannot produce a load torque on the mechanical drive.

[TinselKoala]

I'm not sure why you say my motor results are "null". As I tried to indicate, by proper timing of the power to the brushes one can make a "continuous rotation" system where the stator ring and the magnet armature are turning _in the same direction_. Or, of course in opposite directions, but this isn't nearly as exciting to watch.

Yes, as I indicated, I did drive the armature shaft externally, in conditions where the stator ring was fixed to the lab frame and also where it was free to rotate. I detected, as I said, a small AC voltage, at a frequency which corresponded to the armature rotation rate, with no indications of a DC offset. However I acknowledge that a homopolar DC generator effect could only produce tiny voltages in a small apparatus such as I made, and these could have been below my detection threshold.  I can't recall at the moment if I drove the ring, with the armature stationary, but this would also be a good experiment to try. Relative motion isn't so relative with this apparatus.

I have yet to see a coherent theoretical explanation for the full phenomenology of the SC. Specifically: When the brushes contact the stator ring on the _Outer Edge_ and current is applied, the magnet armature rotates one way and the stator ring rotates the other way. No problems here (at first glance anyway.) The difficulty arises when you move the brush contacts to the _Inner Edge_ of the stator ring. In this case when you apply current the armature and the stator ring move in _the same direction_. And in this case it appears (at first glance) to be a violation of Newton's laws of motion, an action without a corresponding equal and opposite reaction. Decreasing the radial thickness of the ring decreases the magnitude of this effect! And as far as I can tell some researchers simply don't even believe this effect could be happening so they don't even discuss it and they don't construct their experimental apparatus, or test, in such a way that it could manifest.

I used large copper vacuum flange gaskets for my stator rings, NdBFe cylinder magnets for my magnet armatures, small cups of mercury on adjustable elevated pedestals for my brush contacts, a tri-axial ball bearing suspension for the moving parts, 2 fresh 9V batteries for the on-board power supply (capable of delivering a few pulses of 10 amps before needing replacement), an optical switch arrangement controlling a mosfet so that the power could be switched on without physically perturbing the apparatus. For the generator experiments obviously the PS was removed, an oscilloscope was connected to the stator ring in various ways and the magnet armature was rotated by an external motor drive. I demonstrated this apparatus and its "anomalous" motions to a group of interested folks including Hal Puthoff and Ken Shoulders, among others. It finally died when some mercury splashed out of the brush cups and got all over the logic in the PS and killed the chips, and of course I never rebuilt it -- we pulled up stakes and moved the lab across the Bay just after this work, and moved on to other projects in the new location.

I did determine that when the "anomalous" thrusts are moving the magnet armature and the stator ring in the same direction, the PS/brush structures appear to be pushed in the opposite direction, perhaps vindicating Newton. This result is in contradiction to Kooistra's result published in Infinite Energy Magazine, where he claimed that his flexible aluminum conductors to the liquid metal brush pools did not experience a thrust in the opposite direction to the armature and ring motions. However I think my apparatus was built with a bit more rigor and care than the apparatus he used for his experiments, and it's possible that his setup did not allow him to detect a back-reaction against his brushes and feeds.

[Smudge]

Thanks Tinsel for that info on your experiment.  By non-motor or null effect I meant that the effect was very weak, requiring an elaborate low friction set-up in order to detect the motion, i.e. not a useful source of mechanical power.  I suppose the same could be said for my measured homopolar voltage, a few millivolts is not much use, but at least it wasn't microvolts.  Not sure at what rotation rate you drove your device, did it get near to or exceed 1000rpm?  I am glad you recognize that there may have been a small DC voltage present, that sort of vindicates my opinion that this is still worthy of further research.  I too have schemes where the rotor can be made like a number of "turns" in series so as to raise the voltage, but that requires capabilities beyond my means.  I have other ideas that, should the homopolar generator effect be real and OU (extracting energy from electron spins in the magnet), it can be coupled to a classical homopolar motor that will work at such low voltage and low impedance, using the same magnet for both.  And by using rolling contacts in place of the sliding brushes, where the rollers are in fact the disc magnets, it may be possible to create a self-running device.  That sort of construction reminds me of the Searle device, and could be the reason it did what it did.

Regards

Smudge

[Rigel4]

This is a great thread. I wish that everyone in the field would see this as an example of how thoughts are shared.
I am tired of the arguments about OU, that never have any meat other than a "belief" e.g. QEG , then when challenged it becomes name calling. As I follow along I find that you both contribute so much. Thanks!

[Smudge]

Hi Rigel4,

I do have a belief.  I believe that the sub-atomic motions of electrons as orbits, as precessions and as spin should be a source of power if only we could tap into them.  And I am also convinced that those motions are controlled or driven by the active vacuum, i.e. by the massless particles or "virtual photons" that whiz through space at light speed, so space itself is the ultimate energy source.  Having been an electromagnetic engineer/physicist all my working life, with an emphasis on magnetic, I naturally look at that field for the means to do that energy extraction.  Now having reached a ripe old age I accept that I might not see this endeavour come to fruition, so I am publishing all my old papers on the subject in the hope that these might inspire others to explore.  You will find on other threads (like the Coler work) that I offer more than one possibility for how his device might have worked, perhaps ideas that no one else has considered, and any one of these might trigger experimenters into testing the idea.

Smudge