Faraday's Paradox experiment

[gravityblock]

I'm going to make this simple.  Study this, then it will be clear as day.  First thing is to forget about if the field rotates with the magnet when current is flowing or not.  Some of the reading will be tedious, but please take the time to visualize what you are reading.  Skimming over this will do you no good.

When a conductor moves through a magnetic field when there is no change in flux, the magnetic field will separate the charges in the conductor.  The separated charges creates an electric field.  The charges are separated, but they're not moving.  We need another electric field to move those charges for there to be a voltage for current to flow.

How do we create an additional electric field?  It is the relative motion between the disc and external circuit (EC).  The EC will be another disc.  The relative motion can be the disc moving CW through the field and the EC moving CCW through the field, thus they are counter rotating to each other.  Can this be done on the same axis?  Yes.  This will give us the greatest output to input ratio.  If the axle is rotating at 5,000 rpm, then it is the same as rotating at 10,000 rpm since they are counter rotating relative to each other. 

When the disc is moving CW through the field at 5,000 rpm and the EC is stationary or 0 rpm, then it is equivalent to the same 5,000 rpm.  This gives us half of the output to input ratio that is possible in the system. 

When the disc is moving CW through the field at 5,000 rpm and the EC is moving in the same direction CW through the field at 2,500 rpm, then it is equivalent to rotating at 2,500 rpm.  This is not a smart thing to do, but it does show how the system works. 

When the disc and external circuit are both rotating in the same direction at 5,000 rpm, then it is equivalent to rotating at 0 rpm.  This gives us no voltage for current to flow and is the same as the disc and EC rotating together.

There are two ways to eliminate the back torque in the system completely and that is not using relative motion that is mechanical in nature.  This means not to have relative motion mechanically between the magnet and disc/EC.  Also not to have relative motion mechanically between the disc and EC.  This means all three must rotate together.

Now, if you look at the above example, when they all three rotate together, then it is equivalent to 0 rpm and there will be no voltage for current to flow.  This is true, but we can use this to our advantage.  I'll explain how.

When we put a disc on both sides of two Halbach Arrays with the same poles facing each disc, then we can create relative motion between the discs electrically without there being any relative motion mechanically.  I'll go into more details about this.

The disc on the left side of the Halbach will be moving CW through the field of the North Pole at 5,000 rpm and the disc on the right side of the Halbach will be moving CCW through the field of the North Pole at 5,000 rpm when the axle is rotating in one particular direction.  This is equivalent to counter rotating to each other.  When they counter rotate, this gives us the highest possible output to input ratio available.  This is the same as doubling the rpm that the axle is rotating at which would be 10,000 rpm.

Next, we put a slip ring on each disc.  Then we connect the rims of the discs together.  The best way to do this is to completely cover the two Halbach Arrays in copper similar to a nickel coated magnet.  Now we extract the current from the two slip rings.  This is using relative motion that is electrical in nature.  We have already achieved OU, but we can improve on it.

All we need to do is stack the slip rings, discs, and Halbach Arrays on the same axle and connect the slip rings in series to increase the voltage to the desired level.  Prior to this, we already increased the voltage because we doubled the rpm that the axle is rotating at.  We have also eliminated all the back torque in the system.

This is a perfect system and is OU, but nobody is listening or paying attention.


GB

[sm0ky2]

ok let me try this again.....

in the example where the conductive surface is touching the entire edge around the disk, several magnetic radii are formed.
these lines are more of "arcs", that spiral outwards from the center, rather than straight radii lines. i'm attaching one of Tesla's sketches at the bottom of htis post so you can see these lines.

this is where the distortion of the magnetic field develops, and is the only part of the field that "rotates".

also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.

the reason there is less back-emf when the magnet is spinning, is because the magnetic distortion is a function of both the magnetic field AND the induced electric field. there is less "magnetic friction" when the physical magnet is also spinning, because it has nothing to "push off of" when the distortion occurs.
thus the experienced "back EMF" is almost solely the result of perpendicular circuit paths through which the current is flowing.
this can be further reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents to the spinning radii.

suspend a magnetic actuator over the exposed surface of the disk, while it is spinning.  you will see "pulses" as each radii passes the actuator. the # of radii that form is a function of the size of the disk and the rate at which it spins. larger or faster spinning disks will form more radii.

heres the image that Tesla drew - he actually suggests the disk be constructed of spiraled segments to mimic these field-lines.

[gravityblock]

ok let me try this again.....

in the example where the conductive surface is touching the entire edge around the disk, several magnetic radii are formed.
these lines are more of "arcs", that spiral outwards from the center, rather than straight radii lines. i'm attaching one of Tesla's sketches at the bottom of htis post so you can see these lines.

this is where the distortion of the magnetic field develops, and is the only part of the field that "rotates".

This won't happen in the system I have described.  The current isn't being extracted between the axis and rim.  The current is being extracted between the axis and axis.  The current will follow the return path from slip ring to slip ring.

also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.

The discs are spinning in the same direction as the axle, but they are not spinning in the same direction relative to the face of the magnetic poles.  The polarity does change the effects.  It's already been tested on this forum by lumen and Yucca.  This means if the disc is moving CW through the South Pole then the current will run from the axis to the rim.  Disc moving CCW through the South Pole then the current will run from the rim to the axis.  Disc moving CW through the North Pole then the current will run from the rim to the axis.  Disc moving CCW through the North Pole then the current will run from the axis to the rim.  Again, this has already been tested on this forum and the polarities do change and has an affect on the system in a positive way if utilized properly.

the reason there is less back-emf when the magnet is spinning, is because the magnetic distortion is a function of both the magnetic field AND the induced electric field. there is less "magnetic friction" when the physical magnet is also spinning, because it has nothing to "push off of" when the distortion occurs.
thus the experienced "back EMF" is almost solely the result of perpendicular circuit paths through which the current is flowing.
this can be further reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents to the spinning radii.

The back torque can not be reduced by bringing all connections off at non-perpendicular tangents.  It doesn't matter what angle your connections are at, and this has been tested on this forum also.  Shielding has no affect either.

heres the image that Tesla drew - he actually suggests the disk be constructed of spiraled segments to mimic these field-lines.

Again, this doesn't apply to the setup I described since the current isn't extracted from the axis and rim, thus there is no spiraled field-lines, arced radii, etc.

The setup I described is not a conventional HPG.  It is designed to defeat the back torque, to eliminate the brushes or conductive belt on the rim, to increase the voltage, and the issues with polarity of the electric fields, etc.

This setup takes every possible advantage and exploits it to the fullest potential possible.

[gravityblock]

also, turn your set-up 90-degrees so the disks are oriented in the horizontal plane. then you will see that both disks are spinning in the same direction. polarity does not change the effects, the voltage potential of the north and south disks will be the same with respect to center / outward edges. you can connect them in series to increase the potential, or in parallel to increase the amplitude. both are valid solutions.

Do you realize how difficult it would be to try and connect them in series using brushes when the voltage potential of the north and south discs are the same with respect to the center / outward edges.  It would be an engineering nightmare.  This is the reason for the north and south discs to have a voltage potential that is opposite in polarity with respect to the center / outward edges so they are naturally in series with each other avoiding the huge losses associated with brushes and the complexity of running those brushes in seres in addition to the costs of building a system such as that. 

Why complicate things when there are better ways.  The thing you don't understand is the voltage potential of the north and south discs are different in respect to the center / outward edges so they are naturally in series.  You can't do it when both discs are facing opposite poles when they are on the same axis without spending a lifetime to achieve it.  This is the reason for the two Halbach Arrays or to have two magnets which are separated with enough distance so there magnetic fields don't interfere with each other.  Since the discs are on opposite sides of the magnet (the two magnets must be looked at as being a single magnet, then you will see that the two discs are on the opposite sides and will be moving through the field in opposite directions relative to each other), then both discs must rotate through the same pole in order to have a voltage potential that is opposite to each other in respect to the center and outer edges. 

Yucca tested that when a disc is on both sides of the magnet, and each disc is facing a different pole, then the voltage potential will be the same on both discs in regards to center and outward edges.  If the magnet was a monopole magnet where both sides had the same poles, then the voltage potential would be opposite in regards to the axis and rim.  This is the reason why the north and south magnets must be looked at as being a single magnet.  The only difference is the distance separating them.  Two Halbach Arrays with the same poles facing outwards is a better choice, but is not necessary to prove this.

Here is lumen's video demonstrating how a change in the direction of rotation will change the voltage potential with respect to the center / outward edges.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSWwrvT_c8w .  To save time, you can start watching at the 4 minute mark of the video, then you will see how the polarity of the system changes with respect to the direction of rotation.  Changing the poles the disc is moving through will also change the polarity.

All attempts to connect the rim in series to increase the voltage has failed.  There is good reason for this, and that is the lack of understanding how the system works or how to utilize the system to it's fullest potential.

When you have two Halbach Array's with the same poles facing outwards that is sandwiched between two discs, one disc is moving through the field in the opposite direction as the other disc.  This is the same as having two counter rotating discs which is the same as doubling the rpm.  This is increasing the relative motion between the two discs, and is the same as counter rotating to each other.  Increasing the rpm is already proven to increase the voltage.

Also, each disc is rotating.  This means both discs will be cutting through the magnetic field.  This is the same as doubling the radii of the disc and magnet.  When one is rotating and the other is stationary in the conventional setups, then the one which is stationary is not moving through the magnetic field of the magnet.  Increasing the radii of the disc and magnets is already proven to increase the voltage.

The two Halbach Arrays will increase the strength of the magnetic field that is not canceled which the discs will be moving through.  The strength of the magnetic field is already proven to increase the voltage.

Stacking them on the same axle where they are connected in series with the proper configuration will increase the voltage since they are actually separate systems meaning each will have there own potential.  This would be equivalent to connecting many separate HPG's in series, which just happens to be on the same axle and operating on the same input power.  Connecting many separate HPG's in series is also proven to increase the voltage.

The homopolar's power output goes up by the 4th power of increases in the rotor radius while its input power requirement goes up by the square thereof.  This is evidence of mechanical over unity.  This is also already proven.  This means stacking them in series on the same axle will provide more power output than the input requirements if done properly.  This can not be done in the conventional setups even if stacked on the same axle, since it's not utilizing the system properly to it's fullest potential while exploiting everything I have mentioned above.  The system I have described is doing just that, and the output to input ratio will hold.

This should convert the mechanical OU properties of the HPG into electrical OU.

I am not here to spread misinformation or to mislead anyone.  The system I have described is inline with everything that is known about HPG.


Take care,

GB

[gravityblock]

There was a guy on this forum (BWS), not sure if he still follows this forum or not, but he bolted two huge magnets together with their like poles facing each other and discs on each side.  He had a patent on this along with another patent where he was trying to saturate the discs so they could be connected in series with brushes.  The two magnets with like poles facing each other created a radial magnetic field in the middle on the rims.  This is the reason to keep the magnets separated or to use two Halbach Arrays.

Then he tried to extract the current between the axis and rim.  He got what he called cross voltage.  Now, think about this.  The discs on each side of the magnet is already connected in series and is acting as a single entity with a voltage potential between the axis and axis of the discs, with the radial magnetic field on the rims interfering with this potential.

When he tried to extract the current between the axis and rim with a stationary external circuit, this created a voltage potential that was opposite to the single entity, thus the cross voltage and defeating what he was trying to do. 

He actually had 4 different voltage potentials in the system.  A voltage potential between the axis and axis which canceled each other out on one side of the disc since there was no return path to the other side while the radial field on the rims interfered with this potential, a voltage potential on one side of the disc from the axis to rim, on the other side of the disc from the rim to the axis, and another voltage potential between the axis and rim of the external circuit.

If he would have put slip rings on each side of the magnet, kept the magnets separated where their fields didn't interfere with each other and didn't create a radial magnetic field on the circumference of the discs, then extracted the current between the slip rings...... then the current would have flowed from one side of the disc to the other side without the cross voltage.  The wire connecting the two slip rings together would have created the other voltage potential that was in series between the axis and axis allowing current to flow with no cross voltage.

He understood how the polarity could be changed in regards to the center and outer edges, but he didn't understand properly how the stationary external circuit between the axis and rim would create relative motion between the disc and external circuit which would create an additional voltage potential that wasn't between the axis and axis.

Yes, in the conventional setups, the voltage potential is between the axis and rim, but when you make changes that is different than the conventional setups, then you must take this into account.  We've been taught the voltage potential is between the axis and rim, but this is not always the case.  He then convinced most that the way to connect the rims in series is to saturate the discs.  He was defending his patents at this time and distracting from ideas that would make his patents invalid.  I would say he was successful.

Here is an image of his setup.