A Treatise on the Magnetic Vector Potential and the Marinov Generator

[Smudge]

Hi Broli,
Yes your simulation of the A field for Marinov's two half magnets is spot on.  I use FEMM for 2D magnetic simulations, and you can use the similarities relating conduction current (into the page in FEMM) and magnetic field around it to magnetic flux (into the page in your simulation) and the A field surrounding it where the equations are of similar form.  Then pretend that FEMM current is actually flux and the FEMM H field lines become A field lines.

I would be most interested in any results you get for the Marinov generator, especially if (unlike my experiments) your magnetic circuit is closed.  Then there can be no doubt that any induction does not come from classical flux cutting.  Output voltage will always be low because of the low drift velocity, but other methods could be used to get greater electron velocity.  It is possible to get faster velocity using surface electrons, and they can be produced simply by high voltage DC on an outer electrode ring so that the slip-ring is one plate of a charged capacitor.  It is also possible to bunch those electrons and move the bunches around the (stationary) ring using the electrical analogue of the linear magnetic motor.  This uses a sequence of small ferrite ring cores around the conductor each driven with AC but with a 90 degree phase advance between successive rings.  The higher the frequency the greater the speed of the electron bunches.  I think this could lead to a solid state version of the generator.
Smudge

[broli]

Hey Smudge,


Indeed I have also used FEMM to "manipulate" it in showing something similar to an A field but be aware that the A field depends on 1/r whilst the B field FEMM produces has a 1/r² relation. I figured it would be easier to just code my own simulator as I also want to calculate the predicted voltage.


To get back to the corrected force drawing, do you agree with that analysis? Because the implication of this is that this would (should?) produce a voltage, see attached. Now if you go even one step further and analyze the hypothetical induced current it shows that it would have an ANTI lenz effect on the primary current. Hmmmm.

[F6FLT]

I have attempted to explain this device many times. Perhaps my explanations and descriptions of its behaviour have been too complicated, I don't know.
For an easily accessible description of some experiments, see Jeffrey Kooistra's articles in Mallove's old Infinite Energy Magazine. He called it the "Warlock's Wheel".

It is important to realize that this is a _current_ driven device, so have available a high current, low voltage source of DC power for your experiments. If you can supply 10-20 amps it should be sufficient to see all the effects in a well constructed apparatus.

Anyone experimenting with this device should strive to accomplish the following in the finished apparatus:
1. Make your apparatus so that all three elements are co-axial and free to rotate independently. The three elements being the magnet armature, the 'stator' ring, and the brush structure/power supply.  Early explorations can use fixed "brush" contacts to the non-mobile ring to see how the magnets behave alone when current is injected into the ring.

2. The stator ring should be planar, not cylindrical as shown in the first drawing above. That is, something like a flat copper vacuum gasket (which are ideal for this use and readily available on Ebay.)
3. The brushes should be arranged so that they can make contact with the stator ring in two ways: Either on the outer edge of the flat ring, or on the INNER edge of the flat ring. Mercury, GalInStan, or similar liquid metal brushes will be best. It is this comparison that is the most revealing, and also the most unbelievable, and also the most neglected by researchers.

4. Preferably, the entire power supply including the brush structures should be also mounted coaxially and be free to rotate independently. You want to be able to see if there is a back reaction to the _brushes_.

5. Use some kind of remote control to turn the power supply on so that the apparatus isn't perturbed.

I used mercury brushes, two nine-volt batteries in parallel, and a simple laser-pointer actuated optical switch, along with a little logic circuitry, as my final build's power supply.

Marinov said to use a split cylinder magnet, with one half flipped and reattached. I simply used two cylinder magnets side by side NS and SN (on either side of the axis of course) with iron keepers connecting the ends.  Kooistra glued his copper ring to a styrofoam cup and suspended it with a thread over his magnets, and used pools of mercury to make the brushes, and stuck feed wires in by hand. I think my own build of this is the most sophisticated I know about and  is the only one capable of demonstrating all of the phenomena associated with this device. Unfortunately... it went missing when ISSO left the laboratory in SFO, and I haven't build another one.

I have however constructed a "Marinov Slab Motor" which simulates the one-turn ring with many turns of wire, and uses Hall effect commutation, and also... may not have an armature back reaction.

When set up properly, the ring and the magnets will both want to move when current is injected into the ring, in certain well defined ways.  But it is these ways that are most interesting. Be sure to test with ring contacts on outer edge, and then compare with ring contacts on inner edge.  The possible ring motions that can be seen are: driven in one direction or the other, and coasting freely. The possible magnet armature motions are: rotating to a position and locking there, and coasting freely. The directions of relative motion are important... and amazing.

Hi TinselKoala,

Thanks for the very clear description of how to build a functional Marinov's motor, and the advices!
So I understand why my setup in reply #2 couldn't give any effect, it was obviously too rough, by far not enough current and the question of sliding contacts is critical (it seems, even more than in the Faraday's disk in motor).

Like many, I am mainly interested in knowing whether the principle is explainable with current theories or whether something new is needed. Of course, before I think about it, I want to be sure of the facts that's why I tempted to build a simple duplication but I'm not good in mechanics.

You didn't say explicitly that your motor version worked, but I suppose so. Do you confirm this point and could you give details about related observations or measurements (speed, torque and so on)?

[Smudge]

Hey Smudge,
Indeed I have also used FEMM to "manipulate" it in showing something similar to an A field but be aware that the A field depends on 1/r whilst the B field FEMM produces has a 1/r² relation.

I think you are muddling two aspects there.  The H field (and therefore the B field) around an infinitely long conductor does not depend on 1/r².  The closed integral of any circular H field line equals the current in the wire.  That is identical to the A field around an infinitely long core carrying flux, its closed integral equals the flux in the core.  That much misused 1/r² relationship applies to a fictional point magnetic pole.  FEMM actually deduces the A field values from the current densities then uses those A values to get the B field.

To get back to the corrected force drawing, do you agree with that analysis? Because the implication of this is that this would (should?) produce a voltage, see attached.

Yes I agree, and my slip-ring experiments gave me 3 millivolts.

Now if you go even one step further and analyze the hypothetical induced current it shows that it would have an ANTI lenz effect on the primary current. Hmmmm.

You are right to say Hmmmm.   We are dabbling in a little used area of EM theory based on so called hidden momentum.  Early researchers thought that charge q in a magnetic vector potential A inherited an electro-dynamic momentum qA and as we all know a change of momentum results in a force.  Current travelling along the brushes approaching the slip-ring see rising A at right angles to the drift velocity, no induction there.  They then get accelerated as they pass from the brush onto the slip-ring.  (That acceleration radiates an E field and it is my contention that E field induces voltage into the atomic current circulations (electron spins or orbits) that produce the magnetization.  That is where the anomalous energy is accounted for.)  On the slip-ring those electrons now move through the A field pattern where they see changing A components along their (slip-ring) velocity hence obtaining the quadrant forces you show because their electro-dynamic momentum changes.

Another area of research that might interest you comes from F = -d(qA)/dt which by the product rule yields F = -qdA/dt or F = -Adq/dt.  I am not aware of any work using that second possibility that suggests changing charge on the electrodes of a capacitor could result in a force.
Smudge

[F6FLT]

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.

Imagine 2 electrons coming from the lower sliding contact, then separate, and each follows a different branch. The ring is assumed to be at rest. Considering the direction of A vector, each electron approaching the high gradient area sees an E field that is of opposite sign to the other. So one electron is accelerated when the other is slowed down. 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.

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.

Finally, it is interesting to note that this principle leads to induce EMF on sections of a conductor and that these EMF are only felt by moving electrons, not by electrons at rest, because only their displacement can make them appear the spatial gradient of A as a time variation. I don't know if this idea could lead to design a simpler setup to produce the opposite effect where it is the mechanical rotation of the ring that would cause a voltage, or even a purely solid state setup that would only involve currents, both being experimentally easier than Marinov's motor. I think we have an interesting track.