Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 489628
  • *Total Topics: 14407
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 0
  • *Guests: 116
  • *Total: 116

Facebook

Author Topic: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.  (Read 18167 times)

Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #15 on: August 12, 2016, 10:59:51 AM »
Quote
The charge will exist the same as if the detector were rotating around a stationary magnet.
A charge separation exists when something moves through a magnetic field even if the field is of constant intensity.

even if this "something" is not a conductor? like a plastic charged ball? It would still be experiencing a force? I just want to be sure...

also marinov charged plastic disk:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #16 on: August 12, 2016, 04:24:21 PM »
I like the experiment.

It appears that a moving charge in empty space will create a "B" field but a moving "B" field in empty space does not create a charge it only causes the charge to move to cancel the "B" field.

I might be over stepping my understanding.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2016, 12:37:13 AM by lumen »


Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2016, 07:52:58 PM »
Quote
I might be over stepping my understanding.

This is getting complicated,its why I started this topic, hall sensor has magnetic field (doe to current flow) and when is rotating around charged disk, hall will produce electric field (just like a spinning magnet would) and experience an electric force from stationary disk however no magnetic field from disk and no hall effect detected. Magnetic field its not electric field viewed from different frame of reference as we are lead to believe. I still cant understand why spinning magnet can produce inducted electric field (test charge will see it) or emf and yet no current induction in stationary disk,I need to perform experiments with iron and ceramic(non conductive) magnets to find more.

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2016, 08:45:51 PM »
What is the truth when the truth is unacceptable?.


The truth is very simple even if it is unacceptable to most, the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) are tied to the source which created them but are a property of the space surrounding them. If a cork in a lake oscillates creating waves in the water are the waves a property of the cork?, well no that is absurd. The waves are a property of the water created by the oscillating cork. The cork can be rotated and yet the waves do not rotate with the cork... Do you understand?.
The cork is the source and the waves created by the cork in the water the field and the lake water external EM waves modified by the waves from the cork.


The Primary Fields are tied to the source but stationary in the space relative to the axis of rotation. The field is stationary around the source and moves with the source but does not rotate with the source... because the field is stationary. I have no idea how in the hell everyone can make something so fundamentally simple so complicated. Assume the field is stationary relative to the source and everything works... so what's the problem?


Here is your proof, tie some thread onto a the most powerful magnet you have so the magnet is free to rotate on the axis of the poles. Now let the magnet hang from the thread 1 mm away from a thick copper or aluminum plate. You will find there is zero drag due to eddy currents on the axis of rotation and it rotates freely but there is huge drag due to the motion of every other axis... what does this tell you?.


The field is stationary with respect to source which created it and I have spun free floating magnets up on axis to 5000 RPM 1mm away from a 1" think aluminum plate with no measured drag and no eddy current generation, why? because the field is stationary with respect to the source and does not rotate with it that's why.


AC


Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2016, 09:23:44 PM »
Quote
so what's the problem?

the problem is: why there is E field around spinning magnet (detected by test charge) if field does not rotate.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2016, 09:23:44 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2016, 12:44:36 AM »
What is the truth when the truth is unacceptable?.


The truth is very simple even if it is unacceptable to most, the Primary Fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) are tied to the source which created them but are a property of the space surrounding them. If a cork in a lake oscillates creating waves in the water are the waves a property of the cork?, well no that is absurd. The waves are a property of the water created by the oscillating cork. The cork can be rotated and yet the waves do not rotate with the cork... Do you understand?.
The cork is the source and the waves created by the cork in the water the field and the lake water external EM waves modified by the waves from the cork.


The Primary Fields are tied to the source but stationary in the space relative to the axis of rotation. The field is stationary around the source and moves with the source but does not rotate with the source... because the field is stationary. I have no idea how in the hell everyone can make something so fundamentally simple so complicated. Assume the field is stationary relative to the source and everything works... so what's the problem?


Here is your proof, tie some thread onto a the most powerful magnet you have so the magnet is free to rotate on the axis of the poles. Now let the magnet hang from the thread 1 mm away from a thick copper or aluminum plate. You will find there is zero drag due to eddy currents on the axis of rotation and it rotates freely but there is huge drag due to the motion of every other axis... what does this tell you?.


The field is stationary with respect to source which created it and I have spun free floating magnets up on axis to 5000 RPM 1mm away from a 1" think aluminum plate with no measured drag and no eddy current generation, why? because the field is stationary with respect to the source and does not rotate with it that's why.


AC

I really liked that explanation. ;) Ive tried to explain that, but you did a much better job.

So what if you put a cylinder of aluminum the size of the magnet on the magnet face so they both spin. Will the aluminum heat up? And will it have any opposing force to the drive motor?

Mags

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2016, 12:54:36 AM »
the problem is: why there is E field around spinning magnet (detected by test charge) if field does not rotate.

that is an excellent question. ;)   

What more interests me about these things is, when we use a magnet and coils in a generator or even what goes on in a transformer, we are told the fields must be changing in order for the induction of the gen coil or secondary of the transformer to happen. But here there is no field changing and the only explanation would be flux cutting in order to induce current in the disk.

Mags

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2016, 12:54:36 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2016, 02:29:49 AM »
Quote
So what if you put a cylinder of aluminum the size of the magnet on the magnet face so they both spin. Will the aluminum heat up?


or coil with led as I suggested.

Quote
But here there is no field changing and the only explanation would be flux cutting in order to induce current in the disk.

field does not need to by changed , its just all about movement of one thing relative to other, collapsing or expanding mag field is a moving field.

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1320
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2016, 03:14:58 AM »
@pola
Quote
the problem is: why there is E field around spinning magnet (detected by test charge) if field does not rotate.


I see several problems with the picture/experiment you posted. First a spinning disk, magnetic or not, produces air flow like a fan due to adhesion of the air particles/dust to the disk producing an air flow/force and a build up of static charges. Even if the the test charge or disk were physically isolated, in vacuum or insulated there is still induced charge due to the air flow/moving charges across any dielectric medium. The test charge would need to experience a force well above and beyond all the experimental errors I see off hand. It is simply lacking in details relative to the large number of variables which could influence the result.


However in my experiment I can say that no charges moved because no eddy currents were generated ie. Faraday's Law. I used a very powerful neo magnet with a 400 lb pull force levitated from the top by a solenoid magnetic levitation circuit I developed. It levitated the magnet 1 mm above a 1" thick aluminum plate and I could flick it with my finger and it would rotate for hours. To be honest I found it a little disturbing that it rotated that long because it seemed unnatural. However air drag falls by the cube of velocity thus at absurdly low RPM with no friction because it is levitated the drag is essentially zero.


If the magnet was moved in any other direction it was like pushing the magnet through jello and the drag forces were very large. Obviously the magnet could not rotate for one minute let alone hours if any charges moved generating eddy currents but it did.


So my question is... which experiment do you think has more credibility?, my experiment or the one you have shown?. Which experiment is more likely to be influenced by experimental error?. Obviously my experiment is superior in every respect because it is based on a known law... Faraday's Law. If a charge had moved in my experiment then it must induce a current to oppose the change which caused it to move... but it didn't.


The best experiments are the one's which reduce experimental error and the number of variables which could influence the result towards zero in my opinion.


AC

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2016, 04:38:42 AM »

The Primary Fields are tied to the source but stationary in the space relative to the axis of rotation. The field is stationary around the source and moves with the source but does not rotate with the source... because the field is stationary. I have no idea how in the hell everyone can make something so fundamentally simple so complicated. Assume the field is stationary relative to the source and everything works... so what's the problem?


Here is your proof, tie some thread onto a the most powerful magnet you have so the magnet is free to rotate on the axis of the poles. Now let the magnet hang from the thread 1 mm away from a thick copper or aluminum plate. You will find there is zero drag due to eddy currents on the axis of rotation and it rotates freely but there is huge drag due to the motion of every other axis... what does this tell you?.


AC

That's only half the experiment.
What about spinning a solid aluminum plate on the axis of a large magnet and because no eddy currents exist in the plate then the field must rotate with the plate.

Or spinning both the plate and the magnet, OR both in opposite directions and still no eddy currents in the plate.

Is that not proof that the field rotates with the plate?



Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2016, 04:38:42 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2016, 06:58:36 AM »
Quote
obviously the magnet could not rotate for one minute let alone hours if any charges moved generating eddy currents but it did.

yes, there is no current in plate and no drag when only mag spins, lets say that test charge experiment is flawed  - no E field from spinning magnet so field does not rotate with magnet ,if so than there should be current inducted in plate/coil when magnet AND plate /coil are rotating  together on axis ,did you tried that? ALSO what about Depalma N machine? how does it work?  well, I see two options:

1.Magnet is conductive(iron,neo) so if field is stationary and magnet spins ; current is inducted inside metal body of magnet and can be taken by the brushes (flow from edge to center of magnet) in this case, magnet rotating alone in free space should experience a drag?

2.If field is rotating with magnet than field cuts stationary conductor - the brushes with wires and current flows through brushes, wire and conductive metal magnet.

only one option is true.

things may be different with CERAMIC magnets, they existed in faraday times? I don't think so.

Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2016, 06:16:46 PM »
I see two options:

1.Magnet is conductive(iron,neo) so if field is stationary and magnet spins ; current is inducted inside metal body of magnet and can be taken by the brushes (flow from edge to center of magnet) in this case, magnet rotating alone in free space should experience a drag?

2.If field is rotating with magnet than field cuts stationary conductor - the brushes with wires and current flows through brushes, wire and conductive metal magnet.

only one option is true.


Are those the only two choices?

3. In a constant magnetic field (like the rotating axis of a magnet) there is nothing to retain the position in the constant field direction as there is in a varying field, so the field will slide if forced to.

What that means is when the disk is spinning above the magnet any attempt to form currents in the plate also produce an opposing magnetic field.
The opposing field in the disk will simply slide the uniform field from the magnet doing no work but leaving the field spinning, but adding another stationary disk will simply slide the field again leaving a stationary field.

In a Faraday generator, the field is trapped between two connected conductors moving different directions and the uniform field cannot simply slide but must cross one, or more likely both, of these conductors.
That is why it becomes possible to produce current in the uniform field.



Offline Floor

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #27 on: August 14, 2016, 08:31:50 PM »

(quote from PolaczekCebulaczek)
"1.Magnet is conductive(iron,neo) so if field is stationary and magnet spins ; current is inducted inside metal body of magnet and can be taken by the brushes (flow from edge to center of magnet) in this case, magnet rotating alone in free space should experience a drag?"
(End quote)

Electrically conductive or not, does a secondary / exterior magnetic field, induce a current inside a permanent magnet ?
Wouldn't the permanent magnet's own internal magnetic field prevent, or at least greatly reduce that current ?

                       Floor


Offline lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #28 on: August 15, 2016, 03:49:59 AM »
I wonder if any results could be seen if an electroscope were used to test if charges are moved by a rotating uniform magnetic field.

One could rotate a large cylinder magnet on a horizontal axis with an electroscope just above it and the charges should move up or down the conductor depending on the rotation direction.

Electroscopes are easy to build.


Offline PolaczekCebulaczek

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 105
Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2016, 04:06:32 AM »
Quote
The opposing field in the disk will simply slide the uniform field from the magnet doing no work but leaving the field spinning, but adding another stationary disk will simply slide the field again leaving a stationary field.
i dont understand what you are trying to tell me, probably because i'm retarded :( maybe if i could see an animated version of whats is happening there...

Quote
Wouldn't the permanent magnet's own internal magnetic field prevent, or at least greatly reduce that current ?

that's the good question, I think that Lorentz force can't stop it, but who knows? if field is not rotating with magnet and inducing current in magnet's conductive body so magnet should experience a drag? OR perhaps not?? because current's magnetic field will oppose magnet stationary field (Lenz) but magnet will rotate without drag? just thinking...

Quote
One could rotate a large cylinder magnet on a horizontal axis with an electroscope just above it and the charges should move up or down the conductor depending on the rotation direction.
yes yes, this is what i'm working on right now, I just need to find big ceramic magnet ( need to test non conductive ceramic and conductive iron magnets) this is the electroscope electronic version, what do you think about that? http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html

so in the end this is the setup:

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Faraday paradox revisited,magnetic field rotation question.
« Reply #29 on: August 15, 2016, 04:06:32 AM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: