gee weeze that would not take much effort to prove..i am for v2
is good to go.. ;)http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/wink.gif

Quote from: tinman on Today at 06:37:48 AM

<blockquote>Poynt seems to believe the the Led will still conduct (light) even if it is rotating with the disc, and you believe that there needs to be a difference in motion/time for the LED to conduct Vortex?

If poynt is right, then what could cause a ! Back torque! (as some call it) on the prime mover.
</blockquote>

Firstly let me say that I was up half the night in my hospital bed trying to decide whether to post my beliefs on the subject, as they went against my good friend poynt's views. When I decided I needed to post so I could get some sleep, I did so, but worded it in such a way that it tried to provide the consequences of V2 working rather than directly refuting Poynt's assertion that it would work.

I don't like being put in a position like a public trial of minds, I'm sure Poynt may feel the same. But we are here now, so be it.

I often defer to Poynt on matters of electrical engineering, he has more skill than I in that area. I am a simple self taught individual with not a lot of formal training, mostly just lots of years designing stuff for a company.


Yes, I am saying there need to be relative motion between the external circuit and the magnet rotation. Usually the external circuit is fixed and the magnets rotate.

As you know homopolar generators are also motors when driven with a current.

Now if you substitute a battery for the LED, version V1 will rotate, this is well known and in the oldest of textbooks regarding electricity and magnetism.

Now take the case of V2 and a battery circuit that rotates with the magnets...can you even imagine how torque and rotation can be produced in such a machine? It would be a reactionless motor drive that somehow sits in space and produces torque without counter torque, certainly a novel device worthy of a patent if not a Nobel Prize

I'd like to see this demonstrated, as it would be a new age of motor drives and generators. I say it won't work therefore it's inverse as a generator lighting the LED also won't work.
So my vote is that V2 will not work, will not light the led IMHO.

I'd like to know what is your opinion or what have your experiments found?

Years ago when I did the experiment, V2 yielded a null result. I also remember reading of others who tried this to no avail, but maybe their and my experiments were flawed.

I'm not in good enough physical condition to do research and provide links right now, it was all I could do to type this. Hope you understand.

Kind Regards
ION

If you want to discuss homopolar dynamos, it's a good idea to read Tom Valone's "Homopolar Handbook".

As far as the rotating voltmeter question goes...

https://books.google.com/books?id=8cs7Zb-5gF8C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=tom+valone+homopolar+LED&source=bl&ots=RyvE_93j2F&sig=wMH_DwcHIdv5Op4hfUanYZlYUP8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAmoVChMImMPf-7ezyAIVjOaACh1sKQAl#v=onepage&q=tom%20valone%20homopolar%20LED&f=false




Vortex, I'm glad to hear from you. Hang in there and I  hope you are "up and around" and back to feeling chipper really soon.

Quote from: tinman on Today at 06:37:48 AM
When I decided I needed to post so I could get some sleep, I did so, but worded it in such a way that it tried to provide the consequences of V2 working rather than directly refuting Poynt's assertion that it would work.


As you know homopolar generators are also motors when driven with a current.

Now if you substitute a battery for the LED, version V1 will rotate, this is well known and in the oldest of textbooks regarding electricity and magnetism.

Now take the case of V2 and a battery circuit that rotates with the magnets...can you even imagine how torque and rotation can be produced in such a machine? It would be a reactionless motor drive that somehow sits in space and produces torque without counter torque, certainly a novel device worthy of a patent if not a Nobel Prize

I'd like to see this demonstrated, as it would be a new age of motor drives and generators. I say it won't work therefore it's inverse as a generator lighting the LED also won't work.
So my vote is that V2 will not work, will not light the led IMHO.

I'd like to know what is your opinion or what have your experiments found?

Years ago when I did the experiment, V2 yielded a null result. I also remember reading of others who tried this to no avail, but maybe their and my experiments were flawed.

I'm not in good enough physical condition to do research and provide links right now, it was all I could do to type this. Hope you understand.

Kind Regards
ION

Firstly let me say that I was up half the night in my hospital bed trying to decide whether to post my beliefs on the subject, as they went against my good friend poynt's views.

Vortex.
This is a good thing,not a bad thing. What this shows is that we have a situation worthy of investigation. This shows that even the best of us can still learn from others. The thing here is -who will be learning from who?. I bet at this point in time,even you are hoping Poynt is correct .

I don't like being put in a position like a public trial of minds, I'm sure Poynt may feel the same. But we are here now, so be it.

This is not a public trial of minds in any way. What this is is a cause for serious research-->you would have to agree with that

I often defer to Poynt on matters of electrical engineering, he has more skill than I in that area. I am a simple self taught individual with not a lot of formal training, mostly just lots of years designing stuff for a company.

To me,you and Poynt are on equal par when it comes to all thing in this field. Now remember,both of you hold hope for the TPU,you both believe there is something to it-even though that also go's against others beliefs.

Yes, I am saying there need to be relative motion between the external circuit and the magnet rotation. Usually the external circuit is fixed and the magnets rotate.

But why in this case,when the magnetic field is not changing with time at any point in space-and this space also includes the external circuit. If we spin just the magnets,this has no effect on the external circuit. If we remove the magnets,and spin the copper disc,this also has no effect on the external circuit. So how dose it change things when we add the magnetic field that is uniform to both the external circuit and the rotating disc.

I will see if i can find my old setup this weekend,as it would still be in the packing boxes from our last move-if it is anywhere at all. Like i said,it was very small,and there would have been room for error with the small measurements i had to work with. But to be up front,the measurements favoured Poynts answer.

We are testing this all the time guys !!! All the time day and night hour after hour even if you sleep. There is no induction (except from irregularity he he) in our electrical cables in houses. 

https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/PhysicsLabs/5K10.80+Homopolar+generator

/b] . Or, if one wishes to consider that there is a contribution to an emf from the radius of the moving disc, one can show that there would be an opposing contribution from the section of the galvanometer branch that runs parallel to this radius. This arrangement permits rotation through only 300º, but it is sufficient to demonstrate this case. If the galvanometer branch could be moved while the disc is kept stationary, a motional emf would be developed whether or not the disc rotates. The analysis would be the same as in the first two cases.

(read all the cases in the link)

Rotating disc with galvanometer leads connected directly to the disc[/b]
 If the galvanometer branch of the circuit could be arranged to move with the conducting disk, no emf would be developed. In this case, with a uniform B, one could show that there would be no change in flux through the circuit consisting of a radius of the disc and the galvanometer branch

Dose this mean that they have done it,or if they could do it,that there answer is a theoretical one ?.

Or, if one wishes to consider that there is a contribution to an emf from the radius of the moving disc, one can show that there would be an opposing contribution from the section of the galvanometer branch that runs parallel to this radius.

So here they are saying that the galvanometers branch(wires) would produce the same voltage as the disc,as it is also in the same magnetic field as the disc. So even if there is 100's of amps there,there would be no flow of current due to no potential difference of voltage.
This is very easy to overcome,and i now remember as to why i used 4 magnet's in my setup-which i hope to find tomorrow,providing i still have it.

 To simulate this situation, two holes are provided on a radius of the disc for banana jacks and leads. If these leads are then twisted and connected to a galvanometer so that the area exposed to the field is constant as the disc rotates with the leads, no change in flux threads the circuit and the galvanometer reads zero.

This part makes no sense,as there is no change in flux threading the circuit even if the circuit is fixed,as the magnetic field is uniform.

Some say that the magnetic field around the brushes is what creates the back torque. But has anyone actually seen or measured a force on the brushes?. We can also look at the liquid brush version--why dose not the liquid fly out of the liquid rings when a load is draw?.



Brad

In my humble opinion however, there is a frame of reference, that being the magnetic field; it is not moving or changing, regardless if it spins with the disc, or is stationary.

I also agree with this,and this means that the external circuit is also included in this frame of reference,but an internal circuit(one that rotates with the disc)must also be in this frame of reference-right along with the disc it self-as it dose not matter whether the magnets rotate with the disc or they are stationary. If a magnetic field is stationary and dose not increase or decrease in time,then everything within that field is in the same point of reference,regardless of whether it has motion or not-->as long as it remains in that uniform magnetic field.

I have read the papers Vortex and TK posted,and a lot more as well. Although there is theories given as to what !should! happen if we rotate the circuit with the disc,i did not see any actual test of such being performed,and results posted.

I believe Vortex said he placed a battery within/on the rotating disc,and it did not rotate as a motor. I dont think it will in any case,just as spinning the magnets while the disc is stationary will not generate a current flow. There is differential oddities with the HPG as we already know,and Vortex's test may indeed not work,while the opposite action may be true.