Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: tinman on October 08, 2015, 02:02:21 PM
-
I know-not another homopolar generator thread ::)
But this one is different. :o This time we have two very talented people here on OU.com with different views and outcome's,and when this happens,you need to revisit the old to maybe discover the new.
So here is how it went down. I posted the diagram below,and asked these two questions.
So now the questions are
1-will the LED light in V2 where the LED is rotating with the magnets and disc, and the brushes are emitted.
2- If the LED dose light in V2, is there the lorentz force present,and if so,how and where dose it act upon the rotating mass?.
Poynt replied-->1. Yes. The fact that the led rotates with the magnet and disc should change nothing in terms of the induce emf.
2. If in fact Lorentz (as opposed to the E field) is responsible for the induced emf, it does so by driving an electron flow from the center of the disc to the outside of the disc.
And Vortex replied-->If V2 were possible it would usher in a new era of dragless generators and motors that would produce torque in free air with nothing to push against. Clearly this has never been demonstrated in these machines, although tried by many.
Vortex. If you could provide tetails or links to those that have done away with any sort of brush setup,and rotated the load with the disc and magnets,that would be great.
So who is right here?
If Poynt is right,then how would any drag(or back torque) be placed on the prime mover?.
If Vortex is right,then we gain nothing.
But the gamble is to big not to find out,as if Poynt is right,then as Vortex said-->->If V2 were possible it would usher in a new era of dragless generators and motors that would produce torque in free air with nothing to push against.
-
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
-
gee weeze that would not take much effort to prove..i am for v2
is good to go.. ;)
-
Quote from: tinman on Today at 06:37:48 AM (http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg462635/#msg462635)
<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
-
Yes Tinman,
you Aussies know your stuff as far as these things go
Just search "liquid mercury current collectors for high power
homopolar motors and generators" by Matsekh.
-
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.
-
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/PhysicsLabs/5K10.80+Homopolar+generator
Rotating disc with galvanometer leads connected directly to the disc
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. 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. 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 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)
-
Quote from: tinman on Today at 06:37:48 AM (http://overunity.com/15395/partnered-output-coils-free-energy/msg462635/#msg462635)
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. :-*
-
http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=955
Gray describes the operation of his EMA motor as “similar to recreating lightning”. He says the engineering and scientific world has known this recreation is possible but hasn’t known how to do it. “When lightning hits the ground, causing a 10-million volt buildup, where does the energy come from to make it from a static charge to a lethal charge? Nobody really knows.”[/size]
[/size]
THEY KNOW, it's so simple you would not believe [/size]
-
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
-
I am probably wrong, and I'm glad Vortex chimed in with his direct experience.
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.
-
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.
-
I'm not trying to say how it is but, in my opinion you certainly see it wrongly, when you see it as something consisting of two moving parts, the disc and the magnet. It consists of three moving parts, the magnet, the disc, and the electrons in the disc. Rotating a disc when the electrons move with it, is not quite the same as rotating a disc when some force is applied to electrons. This can make them to move in a different way, or with different speeds.
-
I have not yet located my old setup,as i spent most of my weekend building my new toroid transformer,and today was also Bathurst race day-the biggest car race in Australia,so the television got most of my attention today.
@ Poynt and Vortex
Have you guys given this any more thought?
-
Hey guys, just had a couple of postulations about this.
Everyone brings up good questions and points, and this is definitely a paradoxical machine. I think one of the big questions it brings up is, does the magnetic field rotate with the magnet, or is it stationary even when the magnet is rotating?
We all know that a magnetic field is made up of lines of magnetic force, so they should rotate with the magnet because they emanate from the magnetic domains.
To prove this, we can:
1. rotate the magnet but leave the disc stationary. Of course, the brushes would also have to move with the magnet.
2. spin the disc and the magnet in opposite directions. If the voltage increases, this proves that the magnetic field spins with the magnet.
The question here, though, is why are the brushes required, or can attached wires produce current. I also say, no attached wires cannot produce current, yes stationary brushes are required. But I'll also suggest a test with brushes that should not produce current.
We know that when the disc is moving relative to stationary brushes, current is developed. This is due to the fact that the disc is behaving as a single conductor, or wire, between the brushes. An analogy would be wires emanating from the axis, like a bicycle wheel with spokes. Because a wire moving in a magnetic field creates current, so does the disc (between the brushes).
The first image demonstrates a current carrying wire in a uniform magnetic field. Two important principles to understand here is that,
1. the section of the disc between brushes produces a magnetic field similar to a single conductor, and
2. Lenz law is in effect when the disc is generating.
First, about Lenz law, whenever a current is induced, the magnetic field created by the current will always be in opposition to the inducing magnetic field. Therefore, when the disc is generating, back-torque is produced in the disc, whether the magnet is moving or not. Simply, the current is trying to motor in the opposite direction that you are spinning it, and it has no effect on the brushes because it happens in the disc.
Now the complex part of the HPG. Because it is a single conductor, a disc, current cannot flow without brushes. This is because there is no individual point for the current to traverse. As the entire disc produces current radially, the produced magnetic fields (in the disc), cancel each other out and prevent current movement.
The final image is the test I propose.
A dome shaped conductor with it's edge in a trough of mercury. It's exactly the same as a disc with brushes except for one difference, the entire edge of the disc is touching the brush simultaneously. I speculate that this design cannot generate current or motor for the same reason as above. The generated current cannot produce a non-uniform magnetic field, and therefore cannot have current flow.
-
...We all know that a magnetic field is made up of lines of magnetic force, so they should rotate with the magnet because they emanate from the magnetic domains...
Not sure I agree. I think the magnet is just the tip of an ether hose. If you rotate the black tip of a water hose, shown in the image, the water running out of the hose will not start to spin. Even if you put a wire mesh on that spinning tip, the water will not start to spin.
If you want to say the tip of our hose has little water jets, then you might have a point at relatively slow spin and if our water jet tip and the disk were very close together. If you spun such a water tip fast enough the water should never reach our disk since it would just fly out 90 degrees from centrifugal force. I think having a magnet on both sides of the disk straightens out the magnetic lines and they travel fast enough and through any object easily enough, it's as if the magnetic isn't even there as far as the field it pumps in concerned.
-
Just to clarify. I do think permanent magnet fields have spin. Tinman has shown this in the water experiments. But I think it is very weak. Between two magnets, the spin or curved field lines get straightened out very quickly. They are also easily cut and reattached. So if the magnetic domain it emanates from is spinning, the flux line may just detach and quickly reattach to the next nearest one, essentially keeping the flux line in place. So if the straightened field lines rotate, they are essentially uncoupled from the magnet and may spin relatively slowly depending on where the next domain is that the straightened flux line reattaches to.
When you have two magnets, the flux acts like the either hose I posted previously.
-
So, has someone tried to rotate the brush at the edge of the disc, instead of rotating the disc? Rotating the brush should take much less energy than rotating the disc, because it has much less mass, and less friction due to that.
In my mind, rotating the brush should rotate the electrons. Which then get some radial force because of the radial sum of the vectors of the force of every magnetic dipole near it. An no lenz law should work against that radial force component.
So just thinking that maintaining these electrons on orbit around the atoms with a constant speed contributes a part of the force, and this comes free for us (except zero point energy perhaps), then this supposed to give some additional energy. Just as i think about it now, i cannot be sure that my understanding of what happens is exactly accurate.
-
So, has someone tried to rotate the brush at the edge of the disc, instead of rotating the disc?...
At 2:04 he rotates only both brushes and gets a voltage.
He doesn't rotate the outer one and leave the inner one stationary if that's what you meant. He also doesn't rotate the brushes and the disk together.
Interesting that the same direction of rotation gives different voltage polarity from the stator or rotor. If the stator was free to spin, would you get free extra rotation in the opposite direction from the stator while the disk/rotor is spinning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
-
Hey guys, just had a couple of postulations about this.
Everyone brings up good questions and points, and this is definitely a paradoxical machine. I think one of the big questions it brings up is, does the magnetic field rotate with the magnet, or is it stationary even when the magnet is rotating?
To prove this, we can:
The question here, though, is why are the brushes required, or can attached wires produce current. I also say, no attached wires cannot produce current, yes stationary brushes are required. But I'll also suggest a test with brushes that should not produce current.
The first image demonstrates a current carrying wire in a uniform magnetic field. Two important principles to understand here is that,
Now the complex part of the HPG. Because it is a single conductor, a disc, current cannot flow without brushes. This is because there is no individual point for the current to traverse. As the entire disc produces current radially, the produced magnetic fields (in the disc), cancel each other out and prevent current movement.
The final image is the test I propose.
A dome shaped conductor with it's edge in a trough of mercury. It's exactly the same as a disc with brushes except for one difference, the entire edge of the disc is touching the brush simultaneously. I speculate that this design cannot generate current or motor for the same reason as above. The generated current cannot produce a non-uniform magnetic field, and therefore cannot have current flow.
We all know that a magnetic field is made up of lines of magnetic force, so they should rotate with the magnet because they emanate from the magnetic domains.
No-there are no magnetic lines of force-->the field is uniform like the vacuum of space.
1. rotate the magnet but leave the disc stationary. Of course, the brushes would also have to move with the magnet.
If the brushes move regardless of what the magnet is doing,and EMF will be produced across the center and outer brush.
2. spin the disc and the magnet in opposite directions. If the voltage increases, this proves that the magnetic field spins with the magnet.
Spinning the magnet will make no change to the EMF across the disc.
We know that when the disc is moving relative to stationary brushes, current is developed. This is due to the fact that the disc is behaving as a single conductor, or wire, between the brushes. An analogy would be wires emanating from the axis, like a bicycle wheel with spokes. Because a wire moving in a magnetic field creates current, so does the disc (between the brushes).
An EMF is produced across a conductor when the magnetic field varies with time. The magnetic field in a HPG dose not vary with time.
1. the section of the disc between brushes produces a magnetic field similar to a single conductor.
I have heard this many times before,but ask yourself this. How was a current flow produced in the first place that creates this magnetic field between the brushes.
2. Lenz law is in effect when the disc is generating.
First, about Lenz law, whenever a current is induced, the magnetic field created by the current will always be in opposition to the inducing magnetic field. Therefore, when the disc is generating, back-torque is produced in the disc, whether the magnet is moving or not. Simply, the current is trying to motor in the opposite direction that you are spinning it, and it has no effect on the brushes because it happens in the disc.
This is not true,as the brushes are the only reference frame that is different from the rest of the HPG,and so the backtorque must come from the brushes being fixed-right ???. Well this is what most will have you believe,but i do not think this is the case. Has anyone actually measured any force on the brushes when a HPG is loaded-a current drawn from the rotating disc?
-
Poynt & Vortex
Below is a quick!paint! drawing of a HPG design. In this design i have series connected two HPG's via way of a stainless steel drum,to carry the current from one to the other HPG. I have maintained the fixed brushes to give us our stationary point of reference-in case the magnetic field cannot be seen as that stationary point of reference. Tesla had a similar design where he used a conducting belt to series connect the two HPG's,but i believe the flaw in that design is the fact that the belt it self has a different point of reference to that of the disc's,and would cause the back torque. In my design bellow,the conducting drum has the same point of reference as the two copper disc's and magnets-all rotate together. The two brushes are placed so as they make contact with the center of each half shaft. The brushes maintain the different point of reference to that of the rotating mass,and thus the system should still produce a current flow-->but where would back torque be produced ?.
This design should also double the available voltage.
-
No-there are no magnetic lines of force-->the field is uniform like the vacuum of space.
If the brushes move regardless of what the magnet is doing,and EMF will be produced across the center and outer brush.
Spinning the magnet will make no change to the EMF across the disc.
An EMF is produced across a conductor when the magnetic field varies with time. The magnetic field in a HPG dose not vary with time.
I have heard this many times before,but ask yourself this. How was a current flow produced in the first place that creates this magnetic field between the brushes.
This is not true,as the brushes are the only reference frame that is different from the rest of the HPG,and so the backtorque must come from the brushes being fixed-right ??? . Well this is what most will have you believe,but i do not think this is the case. Has anyone actually measured any force on the brushes when a HPG is loaded-a current drawn from the rotating disc?
My theory is that the brushes create a circuit or a "virtual wire" across the magnetic generating surface. Therefore as long as there is velocity/movement between the generating surface and the virtual wire across the surface, the wire in effect, passes through the magnetic field, and a voltage/current is realized across the virtual wire circuit created by the brushes. The back torque is between the "virtual wire" and the surface conductor. (with it's counter magnetic field formed when current flows to the load) (formed by the two contact brushes). The current flow across the magnetic surface will always take the path of least resistance between the brushes.
The "virtual wire" when in motion, creates a difference in charge across the wire, because the magnetic field is changing across the virtual wire at a different rate from the inside to the outside of the generating surface. The inside will always pass through less magnetic field as compared to the outside of the virtual wire. So a constant difference in charge occurs across the virtual wire while in motion. Current only flows and back torque occurs when a load is applied to the brushes to complete a circuit. The magnetic field from the virtual wire is a circular field, and repels the conductor surface magnetic field like an eddy current type of magnetic drag. Similar to dropping a cylindrical magnet down a copper pipe.
Just wanted to pass on a different theory/perspective. I'll jump out and wish you all a good day/evening.
Liberty.
-
@MagnaProp
Good points, however, wouldn't it be plausible to assume that the magnetic lines themselves are spinning, causing the entire magnetic field spin? I mean, the spin of many small things induces the spin of the whole. Just like if we put 5 tornadoes in a circle, all spinning the same way, the entire air mass would also spin in that direction. This view allows the effects you describe and also shows that magnetic lines do emit from magnetic domains.
No-there are no magnetic lines of force-->the field is uniform like the vacuum of space.
Tinman, I'll have to reference Eric Dollard here, who says that there are magnetic lines. I believe that the lines follow the aether like strings. Magnetic lines extend, can be compressed or expanded, connected or snapped apart. He describes moving a magnet over a coil connected to headphones. He says it makes a crackling sound, due to the field lines snapping together or breaking as they pass the inductor. I haven't tried this, but I expect it to be true... it is Eric Dollard after all.
Spinning the magnet will make no change to the EMF across the disc.
Let me rephrase that. If the disc is spinning, and producing a voltage. Say 1 volt. While the disc is spinning, spin the magnet in the opposite direction. If the voltage increases that proves that the field spins with the magnet.
I have heard this many times before,but ask yourself this. How was a current flow produced in the first place that creates this magnetic field between the brushes.
In normal operation ( disc spinning) known laws of induction can be applied. Conductor moving in magnetic field. But this doesn't apply when only the brushes move and current is generated. For that I can only say that the magnet induces an electrical stress on the disc.
This is not true,as the brushes are the only reference frame that is different from the rest of the HPG,and so the backtorque must come from the brushes being fixed-right
This is a video link from Jorge Guala-Valverde... http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/motor.avi
He shows that a current carrying wire produces a torque in space. The torque also drags the magnet. Because the force is so small it's hard to say that it's not acting against the brushes, but that doesn't seem to be the case in the last experiment. It appears to react against the surrounding space, or the magnetic field in that space.
In generator mode, I'm inclined to believe that backtorque would develop on the shaft, but if that isn't the case, Lenz law would still manifest and show itself, possibly by low efficiency at high power outputs.
-
Sorry about my previous image. I had the S spinning in the wrong direction but it's corrected in this image.
... if we put 5 tornadoes in a circle, all spinning the same way,...
I think they don't all spin the same way. S spins the opposite way that N spins. In your scenario I would say we have only 4 tornadoes with two spinning clockwise and two spinning counterclockwise ending up in no net rotation.
Lets say we have two fans. N is a fan that blows our tornado up and S is a fan, spinning the opposite direction, that sucks our tornado in. A house sucked into such a system would basically travel in a straight line if each fan is equal in strength and if the house is traveling very fast. So between opposite poles you get opposite spin which I think straightens out flux lines. With the straightened flux lines, you get ether flow along these flux lines similar to that of water out a garden hose. Spinning the tip of a garden hose doesn't cause the water coming out of it to spin as well.
Tinman says "there are no magnetic lines of force" so I'll defer to him.
-
Tinman,
I like the design because it defines the third state of the homopolar generator.
That is the state of simply rotating only the magnet, which we know will not generate any power, but it's the reason it does not generate power that is important.
The uniform field can slip around the face of the magnet and never cut the conductor by simply sliding around with the conductor.
To generate power in a uniform field the field must be forced across the conductor as can be done by another conductor cutting the field in the opposite direction at the same time.
You will need to add another set of drum and disks that is stationary or rotates in the opposite direction to force the field to cross one or the other and not simply slide around the magnets.
-
Ok, now that you made me think about this again, that design makes me think a homopolar generator can be built without any brushes!
Suppose like your drawing there is a copper tube with the inner set of magnets inside of it with copper caps on the ends like the disks shown, but there is also a copper rod down the center of the tube shorting any current produced.
Now there is another copper outer tube with end caps just outside the inner tube. This outer tube will be stationary with the output coming off near the center shaft and only the center cylinder rotates.
The center cylinder cuts the field and generates a back emf that causes the field to slide around the magnets, but the outer cylinder (when under load) would generate a back emf also trying to prevent the field from slipping.
So in the end you would have a brushless homopolar generator. The bad news is that it would have increased drag as the load increases like all generators.
-
@MagnaProp,
I understand what you mean. If North and South spin in different directions then they must do as you say.
I don't know about Tinman's experiments with magnetic spin, but I have seen a video of electrolysis being performed in the vicinity of a permanent magnet. In this case it must be considered that the electric current is causing the water's rotation. This can be proven by flipping the voltage polarity. I also remember a thread here by someone that was trying to promote his E-book about magnetic spin, but from I saw his tests showed no reason to believe it was inherent, nor useful.
I still don't understand the concept of a uniform magnetic field. It certainly makes the operation of a homopolar generator easier to understand, along with a rotating field, but is that the case? If a perfectly created magnet was used, that appeared to have a balanced magnetic field, then I can understand uniformity and magnetic rotation. But magnets are made perfectly. If a magnet was created imperfectly, which can be done, and was weaker on the left side of the pole face than on the right, it could still produce current in an HPG. So how can a magnet with a lop-sided field be uniform, or how does a non-uniform magnetic field rotate?
I'm sorry that I'm questioning something that many of you believe in, but considering that electron spin, and electron procession, are the cause of magnetic fields, I don't understand how a magnetic field can be uniform. Electrons can be quantified and positioned in space. The produced magnetic fields should inherently be quantified and positioned in space.
-
I came across this. Unipolar generator demonstration of special relativity, RE Berg.
John.
-
I still don't understand the concept of a uniform magnetic field. It certainly makes the operation of a homopolar generator easier to understand, along with a rotating field, but is that the case? If a perfectly created magnet was used, that appeared to have a balanced magnetic field, then I can understand uniformity and magnetic rotation. But magnets are made perfectly. If a magnet was created imperfectly, which can be done, and was weaker on the left side of the pole face than on the right, it could still produce current in an HPG. So how can a magnet with a lop-sided field be uniform, or how does a non-uniform magnetic field rotate?
A totally uniform magnetic field would in fact be very difficult to achieve for several reasons, but for the purpose of a homopolar generator, most magnets are accurate enough for a good demonstration and proof of concept.
Think of it as a conductor passing through a magnet field of the same polarity and density. The conductor still produces current flow in a seemingly non changing field.
Current flow is only produced when a conductor moves in a magnet field and using field density or polarity change is the easiest way to achieve it, but the field could be uniform and still produce current flow.
The problem with current flow in a uniform field is that the field can simply slip without crossing the conductor. As the field becomes less uniform, current will be generated up to the point where less work would be done by slipping. As the field becomes even less uniform even more work can be performed before slipping.
-
@MagnaProp,
...I have seen a video of electrolysis being performed in the vicinity of a permanent magnet. In this case it must be considered that the electric current is causing the water's rotation...
Electrolysis may have been it. I see what you mean about it being electrical current that caused the bubbles to spin. In any case I think that the magnetic field can slip like lumen mentioned. I think it's like a worn out clutch. The central magnetic field shown in orange isn't coupled strongly to the ends of the magnetic hose nozzles. If the magnet spins, the flux lines easily detach and reattach from the domains from which they emanate and essentially stay in place. While I'm making stuff up, I'm going to say that I believe in string theory and that magnetic flux lines are our strings.
...I'm sorry that I'm questioning something that many of you believe in, but considering that electron spin, and electron procession, are the cause of magnetic fields, I don't understand how a magnetic field can be uniform. Electrons can be quantified and positioned in space. The produced magnetic fields should inherently be quantified and positioned in space.
Don't be. We must question this if we are to find the answer. You have a good point.
When you get enough flux lines bunched up together, they may resist movement as they bump into each other causing them to slip from the domains in the magnet from which them emanate. Magnetic flux also doesn't like to travel through air. Air tries to squeeze the flux lines and pinch them off the magnet.
-
This could be a good design to test the supposed uniform field slipping phenomenon.
The question is whether the field slips only at the magnets (or inside them) or does it also slip at any point there after. (like between the rotating cylinders)
Is it required that an electrical path be connected between both cylinders to generate or can it operate with circuits that are not connected as long as current flows in each cylinder.
The design certainly raises some questions.