A Treatise on the Magnetic Vector Potential and the Marinov Generator

[Smudge]

Hi F6,
You have it exactly right so we are looking for proof that this induction really does exist.  It needs someone to do the generator experiment using a driven slip-ring where the magnetic circuit is closed so there is no B field at the ring.  If that develops a voltage then this can be taken further.  My own experiments used small disc magnets near the brushes, and people will argue that what I measured was classical flux cutting induction.  In case you haven't seen my paper it is attached here.

If this is real it opens up the possibility of using rolling contacts between contrarotating cylindrical parts, with some parts acting as a Faraday disc motor driven by low voltage high current and other parts acting as this Marinov generator, all connected in a feedback loop so as to self run.  Shades of Searl's runaway system of magnets.
Smudge

[Smudge]

Here are a few more papers written over the past decade in case they are of interest.
Smudge

[broli]

Hi Smudge and Broli,

In line with your ideas, I try to understand the situation in terms of a potential vector. I redrew the schematics with the potential vector and specified where there is a strong gradient A that the ring passes through. It is a spatial gradient. But from the point of view of an electron moving at a constant speed in the ring because of the current, the spatial gradient results in a time variation of A.
It is known that the temporal variation of the potential vector creates an electric field E=-∂A/∂t.

Spot on. Great to see others following along.

If the electron forces are transferred to the conductor's crystal lattice, then the resultant force is not zero and the ring must actually rotate.
It should be interesting to quantify the expected torque, but it is a tedious calculation.

How so? In my previous post I showed the forces for each quadrant end up in a nill torque if you integrate all the way around. Even if this was not the case why would the conductor rotate? If we take the "established" (temporal) induction law (for example moving a magnet in front of a coil) we don't see the coil of wire start spinning around while current is being induced simultaneously do we? Wesley made a mistake in his torque deduction and this mistake went on without correction in other publications that cite it. In fact one paper (see attached) actually could not produce a torque which seems to be inline with the correct torque analysis I posted earlier.

Even if this principle is correct, I am not sure that a voltage can be measured according to Broli's proposal, because the field E=-∂A/∂t does not derive from a potential. Therefore along the measurement loop we will have the opposite effect that will cancel the one we want to see.

This I don't get. To me this is like measuring the Hall voltage for a piece of material. The problem, as Smudge mentions, is that drift velocity is incredibly small for metals. To measure anything meaningful you will either need an amplifier to measure the microvolts, an expensive microvolt meter or you use a material that has a low enough charge carrier density just like Hall sensors use semiconductors to amplify the Hall voltage. Copper has a charge carrier density of 8.5E28 while most semiconductor have a charge carrier density TEN orders of magnitude smaller than this. So a potential solid state design could employ a material that has both a high charge carrier density and a low enough resistivity.


Here's a cool list of compound semi conductors and their specs: http://www.el-cat.com/III-V-wafers-products.htm

[broli]

Despite the fact that copper is not a good material choice to measure these low voltages I did a test. Sadly my cheap multimeter could not measure any voltage. It can supposedly read up to 0.1mV however I have no clue about its accuracy.  As a control test I also tested the Hall voltage for a very thin strip of conductive copper tape, this also showed no Hall voltage implying my measurement device not being sensitive enough to pick up the microvolts involved. A quick spreadsheet calculation also shows that my meter is way below the sensitive required to measure this 5 micro volts.

[F6FLT]

Hi broli

You could use carbon fiber instead of copper:
https://pengyuping08.en.ec21.com/Carbon_Fiber_Wire--7261841.html

I bought some for past experiments. It is multi-stranded. A single strand can be removed and it has a high resistance. I had used it for a single wire transmission experiment (and it had burned out, a sign of a significant current...).
Practical if you want wire with enough resistance to be able to measure large potential differences.