# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 05, 2016, 10:09:24 PM

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 05, 2016, 10:09:24 PM
hello

I decided to start this topic because I want to summarize all we know about Faraday disk paradox in one topic on this forum, this may be helpful for further homopolar generator study.The most important question is "Does magnetic field rotate with magnet or not?"
let's consider a situation like this :

A coil is wrapped around a magnetized core (cylinder magnet). Both the coil and magnet are rotating together around the axis of the cylinder. Will current be induced in the coil?
This permanent magnet is ceramic, not iron; this should stop any induction taking place inside the metal body of the magnet.(if magnetic field does not rotate) This will simplify things and eliminate unwanted effects.

anyone tried this configuration?

Post by: Magluvin on August 06, 2016, 04:02:40 AM
I see where you are coming from here. Most likely the windings will have to have more angle from top of the mag to the bottom in order for the fields to cut the windings properly. At 90deg is best, but if the windings are tight, each turn is more closer to 0deg. Higher angles would mean less turns and less voltage out.

I like the config though. If the widings have more than 0deg angle, there should be something. Being it is one magnet and it is not dragging the mag field around like bunches of mags, the field should remain still like a big disk. But only if the magnets field is uniform. I have some neo mags that the poles are not center, as in stronger off to one side than the other. So that may be an issue.

Ive seen guys use a bunch of little magnets in order to try and recreate a large disk mag. But the reason it does not work is we need the magnet to be one piece. When the magnet is a big rin disk with a hole, like a speaker magnet, as the magnet spins on axis, the field doesnt spin or move in rotation with the magnet, so if the copper disk spins with the magnet, the field cuts the disk and you get output. Using a bunch of small mags to make the disk screws all that up.

Ill see if I have my old drawings of what I thought may work. It was alternating mag disks where there would be say a N/S pole ring magnet goes on the shaft first, then a copper disk, then another N/S magnet(in attraction to the first mag) then an iron disk and then a S/N magnet in repulsion to the second mag ring. The iron disk should capture the 2 S fields and direct them to the shaft where the fields have a path to the other poles without breaching the outside diameter. This way we can add another copper disk that carries current inward, where the first copper disk carries current outward. Then we can have a stack of mags n disks that we can make electrical connections from an out disk to an in disk at the outer edges which will give us a bunch of plates in series, in, out, in, out, etc to increase the voltage like more windings would do.

Mags

Post by: Gothic on August 06, 2016, 07:33:11 AM
The most important question is "Does magnetic field rotate with magnet or not?"

anyone tried this configuration?

Hello PolaczekCebulaczek

I think this resembles what you have there, just applied in a differrent fashion.
and a youtube video, prolly nothing new to the forum but interesting nonetheless.
Post by: minnie on August 06, 2016, 12:55:36 PM

Methinks it's all about frames of reference.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 06, 2016, 04:42:51 PM
Quote
If the windings have more than 0deg angle, there should be something
i hope so...

the brushes its a thing, they are stationary ,they should be welded to the disk when everything rotates together, would be a current then?
if magnet spins and disk is at rest there is no current in disk so magnet field must not rotate with magnet right?

can you give my a schematic for simple amplifier that will light up a led when small DC current is detected? I will try to build this.

ceramic magnet is important because of this: (I also wish to see no brushes version, wires welded to magnet!)

Post by: minnie on August 06, 2016, 06:33:10 PM

Disc rotation relative to return path.
Post by: Gothic on August 08, 2016, 06:41:16 AM

Quote
"And bit by bit what is perceived (https://www.google.com/search?q=perceived&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC-6DegbHOAhUG5SYKHZnABpcQvwUIGygA)? the illusion persists"
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 09, 2016, 06:08:18 PM
Quote

and we still dont know if the field rotate or not.
Post by: lumen on August 10, 2016, 06:28:38 AM
and we still dont know if the field rotate or not.

It's not important if the field rotates with the magnet or not. The problem results from a uniform field where because it's uniform will simply slide and do no work.
It must be forced to cross a conductor to induce a current and yet because of this it still produces the counter emf.
If it did not then a simple unipolar motor would not operate. A unipolar motor rotated by a mechanical input will become a generator for the same reason.

The principal of counter EMF is what makes all motors and generators work.

The instant any current is produced in a conductor by movement through a magnetic field, that very same current generates an opposite magnetic field that fights the movement direction.

Post by: minnie on August 10, 2016, 10:07:39 AM

Look at a speedometer, what more than a rotating magnet?
John.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 10, 2016, 07:40:51 PM
ok but when magnetic field is moving trough space it produces inducted electric field right? according to Faraday, charged test charge should experience a force near spinning magnet like so:

so field is moving with magnet but no induction in stationary disk??

lenz is lenz ,lorentz is lorentz but there should be non zero current detected in disk.
Post by: minnie on August 10, 2016, 08:41:21 PM

In the case of something like the speedometer there are "Small rotating eddies"
set up within the disc.
John.
Post by: lumen on August 10, 2016, 11:12:55 PM
Once you consider all the cases of a Faraday generator you will see the problem.

How about: Magnet stationary but disk and contact spinning = no charge?

Then you see it's only the difference between the disk and contact that matters.

The magnet makes no difference if it rotates or not. Why is that?

It's because the uniform field of a magnet on it's axis will remain stationary OR rotate whichever produces no work.
It's only when the field is trapped between a rotating disk and stationary conductor OR stationary disk and rotating conductor that the field must cut through one or the other objects and work is performed.
It is in fact forced to cut through the conductor or disk the same as a normal generator uses the force of the magnet itself to push it's field through a conductor.

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 12, 2016, 01:57:16 AM
Quote
he magnet makes no difference if it rotates or not

but what about electric field detection when magnet is spinning by test charge near it? its there or not?
Post by: lumen on August 12, 2016, 03:35:21 AM
but what about electric field detection when magnet is spinning by test charge near it? its there or not?

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.
If a current flows then there is resistance to the movement, unless the field is constant in which case the field is pushed along to prevent current flow.
If the uniform field is trapped between two conductors and is forced to cross one or the other, then again the current causes increased resistance.

In any case you need to be careful not to cross the field twice as the field is circular and the return of the field through the conductor will cause a charge in the opposite direction and cancel any effect.

Maybe do some experiments and see what you discover.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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:
Post by: lumen 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.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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.
Post by: allcanadian 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
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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.
Post by: Magluvin 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
Post by: Magluvin 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
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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.
Post by: allcanadian 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
Post by: lumen 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?

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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.
Post by: lumen 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.

Post by: Floor 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

Post by: lumen 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.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek 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 (http://amasci.com/emotor/chargdet.html)

so in the end this is the setup:
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2016, 05:16:56 AM
Just measured a speaker ring magnet and it is non conductive.  Ive soaked speaker magnet assemblies in acetone and the like to separate the magnet from the metal pole parts.

Mags
Post by: lumen on August 15, 2016, 07:55:19 PM
I like the electronic electroscope idea but you may want to fix the design a bit so it won't destroy the gate isolation on the first static discharge it may encounter.

With the unprotected gate a static discharge will likely exceed the maximum gate voltage and cause a permanent increase in gate leakage making the device less effective.

Post by: lancaIV on August 15, 2016, 08:25:36 PM

The invention relates to a magnetic ring according to the preamble of claim 1.  The predetermined magnetic ring is on the one hand produce a pulsating magnetic field, having a direction of rotation, but on the other hand do not, as an ordinary magnet ring, exhibit too LOW pulse rate. It is known that for this purpose superconducting magnets are used. These have no reactance because their electrical resistance is almost 0 ohms. So far, however, a pulse rate which is equal to or approximately c has not yet been brought about. This object is achieved by the features listed in the patent claim. 1 The advantages attainable with the invention consist in the fact that with this arrangement, a rotating magnetic field can be generated, which polarity the speed of light, or approximately the speed of light changes, the angular velocity can be brought also to this P. An embodiment of the invention is illustrated in the drawing and will be described in more detail below. Show it Fig. 1-6 is a schematic representation of the changing polarity.  The following is the explanation of the invention with reference to the drawings and possibly also by effects.  In order to illustrate an arrangement which allows a light-fast rotation of a magnetic field, the magnetic ring is formed of an even number of superconducting magnets, which are directed to a center of a circle, wherein the polarity alternates continuously. To see the effect it should be noted that one cuts, to obtain a three-dimensional structure, a two-dimensional object on the cut surface. Could we rotate this section the speed of light, we obtain a three-dimensional structure again. You can transfer this process. If we cut that is a four-dimensional structure, one would have to obtain a three-dimensional object. now Rotated this three-dimensional cut fabric speed of light, would obtain a four-dimensional object. As a body can not be accelerated to the speed of light, but this is necessary to achieve a simultaneous coverage of all points in space, we use the three-dimensional rotating magnetic field.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 15, 2016, 09:09:34 PM
Quote
want to fix the design a bit

how?
Post by: Magluvin on August 15, 2016, 11:26:15 PM
I like the electronic electroscope idea but you may want to fix the design a bit so it won't destroy the gate isolation on the first static discharge it may encounter.

With the unprotected gate a static discharge will likely exceed the maximum gate voltage and cause a permanent increase in gate leakage making the device less effective.

Yep. sorta like a very basic touch switch.  So lets say if the probe was on top above the spinning magnet and a neg charge triggers the probe, would there be a pos charge under the spinning mag? Like if we see the probe trigger above the magnet, then move the probe under the magnet, will there be an opposite charge to trigger the device off?  There must be a pos charge somewhere to coincide with the neg charge, if there is any charge field at all.

Mags
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 16, 2016, 12:12:16 AM
yes and magnet needs to be ceramic, because iron or neo can induce current in itself (if field is stationary) , speeding or slowing current inside magnet = e field.

just two more questions:

1. homopolar generator produce steady DC current ??(no emf near disk) what about rpm changing?

2. this one is kinda related to this topic... if charges flow inside wire, in loop in clockwise direction and i will rotate this loop in counterclock direction, what would happen ? protons would move against electrons that are moving too? and if i rotate this loop in clockwise (the same direction that current flows ) what then?

Post by: lumen on August 16, 2016, 02:30:51 AM
So lets say if the probe was on top above the spinning magnet and a neg charge triggers the probe, would there be a pos charge under the spinning mag?

I was thinking that you could place the probe wire near the midpoint on the outer diameter of the magnet but not touching the magnet.
If the field is spinning with the magnet then the electrons should move along the conductor and trigger the detector.
The charge would change depending on the rotation direction of the magnet. CW might move electrons toward the detector and CCW would move them away.

Post by: minnie on August 16, 2016, 09:56:48 PM

If you lot want to see a real homoplar generator just look into the work of
Mark Oliphant and his "Big Machine".
Just goes to show that there was a huge understanding of the principle
many years ago.
As early as 1934 a homoplar generator was put into service for welding tube
at a stell mill.
John.
Post by: minnie on August 17, 2016, 11:11:44 AM

Mark Oliphant
Post by: guest1289 on August 21, 2016, 01:28:26 AM
If this thread   Stopped  because they thought that they were starting to contradict the current-laws -of-science, or self-suppression,  then that is silly ,  because the following threads were started by the site-admin :

http://overunity.com/15864/friedrich-luling-magnet-motor/

http://overunity.com/16782/mit-graham-gunderson-video-release-of-the-conference-demonstration/

The second thread,  is about a functioning device demonstrated at MIT university.

(  The two examples I have given,  could possibly be poor in comparison to other functioning-devices,  currently discussed on this website,  and publicly demonstrated  )

Suppression was effective before the internet and mobile-phones etc,  not anymore.

However, I doubt that  Overunity-Home-Powering-Generators  will ever be available from shops or  large-online-retailers,  and not  pre-assembled.

______________________

My Only Question Is :
-  If you have a  'Free-Spinning-Disc-Magnet' on a shaft,  and then you bring a  'Straight-Wire-Carrying-Non-Pulsed-DC-Current'  near( but not touching ) to one-half of the 'Disc-Magnet'( OR, to the surface of the outer-edge of the 'Disc-Magnet' ),  WILL IT CAUSE THE 'DISC-MAGNET' TO SPIN  ?

The diagram-below shows my question,  the large-circle is the Disc-Magnet,  and the wire is labelled X.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 21, 2016, 01:54:57 AM
This thread will be continued, I'm building the contraption right now and run some tests to find the answer. I will post results and video material, I still could not find a simple and satisfactory answer for that question on internet.

Quote
My Only Question Is :
-  If you have a  'Free-Spinning-Disc-Magnet' on a shaft,  and then you bring a  'Straight-Wire-Carrying-Non-Pulsed-DC-Current'  near( but not touching ) to one-half of the 'Disc-Magnet'( OR, to the surface of the outer-edge of the 'Disc-Magnet' ),  WILL IT CAUSE THE 'DISC-MAGNET' TO SPIN  ?

magnet wont spin , it will experience a force but no rotation.

no one answered my question, that was:  homopolar generator produce steady DC current ??(no emf near disk) what about rpm changing? its hard to have constant rpm.. voltage fluctuates? or not?

Post by: citfta on August 21, 2016, 03:32:04 AM
No it will not spin.  It will turn to align with the magnetic field around the wire and then stop.  Try it with a compass and a piece of wire.  Use a resistor to limit the current through the wire and hold it over a compass.  When you energize the wire the compass will turn to align with the magnetic field of the wire,  but then it will stop.
Post by: guest1289 on August 21, 2016, 04:19:45 AM
PolaczekCebulaczek

Quote
magnet wont spin , it will experience a force but no rotation.

Thats what I assume,  and sounds correct.

(  I assume the result would be exactly the same if the wire was put near the outer-rim of the Disk-Magnet,  as in the diagram below ,   I'm sure the result would be the same.   )

Quote
no one answered my question, that was:  homopolar generator produce steady DC current ??(no emf near disk) what about rpm changing? its hard to have constant rpm.. voltage fluctuates? or not?

The only thing I can think of( vaguely-related ) is the ' Electron-Microscope-Research a while ago,  using a special method to view the behavior of magnetic-fields on the surfaces of magnets,   which showed that the  magnetic-field  forms tiny vortices ( magnetic-tubes, tornados ) near the surface of the magnet and they react and interact in all sorts of interesting ways.
I mention it,  because I assume that that PROVES,  that when you SPIN the Disk-Magnet,  that the Magnetic-Field moves with the Disk-Magnet(  that the magnetic-field is not just a cloud around the magnet ).
(  The above also made me wonder,   if there is a way to spin the Disk-Magnet in my question,  and while also suspending/floating  the disk-magnet in a  permanent-magnet-only-bearing ,  since some people on this site claimed to have accomplished  magnetic-levitation using only permanent-magnets )

citfta

Quote
No it will not spin.  It will turn to align with the magnetic field around the wire and then stop.  Try it with a compass and a piece of wire.  Use a resistor to limit the current through the wire and hold it over a compass.  When you energize the wire the compass will turn to align with the magnetic field of the wire,  but then it will stop.

I don't think the Disk-Magnet would turn at all,  because unlike a compass-needle,  the Disk-Magnet would have no reason to turn clockwise or anti-clockwise.
Post by: Enjoykin2017 on August 21, 2016, 06:14:24 AM
PolaczekCebulaczek and all HI !!

Let's start from the very begining.

Prime question is: "Does the test electrostatic charge and a magnet interact among themselves ??".

Experimental setup:

Take a glass tube. Clean it from greased sweaty hands with alcohol. Now rub one end of a glass tube with synthetic fabric, and suspend it for the middle by means of a rubber flagella to a rack and bring at in vicinity permanent magnet near the polished end of glass tube.

1. Is there exist any ineraction of electrostatic charge with proximity of southern or northern magnet poles ??

Now do the same, but with not the polished end.

2. Any interaction ??

To undesrtand any electro-magnetic paradox it was quite necessary to understand on prime experiment does the electrostatic test charge and a magnet interact among themselves ??

ps: the Saga will continue !!  :D

.........................
pps: "Physics stands on a stable foundation of the facts, but not on drift sand of imaginary hypotheses", E. Rutherford.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 21, 2016, 04:37:57 PM
Quote
Is there exist any ineraction of electrostatic charge with proximity of southern or northern magnet poles ??

magnetically there is none, but charges would stick to magnet's metal, no matter what pole is facing glass.(I tried something similar with paper).
Post by: guest1289 on August 21, 2016, 08:19:52 PM
Actually,  I have to admit that I still think that  'Technically'  the  'Disk-Permanent-Magnet' in my question is supposed to be rotated by the electromagnetic-field from the wire.

I especially think so,  if you place the wire near the outer-rim of the  'Disk-Permanent-Magnet' , like in the  diagram  below .

Because,  thats exactly how the  homopolar-motor works  :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_motor
_____________
PolaczekCebulaczek

The  'Faraday-Disk-Generator'( homoplolar-generator ) should also function as a  motor,  if you run DC-current through the metal-disk( a non-magnet ) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator

- So,  what happens when you increase or decrease the DC-current when using the 'Faraday-Disk-Generator' as a  motor,  does the speed change  ?
_____________

The electric-field ( electrostatic charge ),  and magnetism,  are almost the same thing, intertwined,   this was unified in einstein's theory of relativity( or one of his main theories ).
The rotating/moving electron's electric-field is basically what the magnetic field is made of,  in a magnet of course the atoms?/electrons? are all aligned in one direction.
I'm sure there must be all sorts of opposing theories,  because there's no proof for any theory regarding what the magnetic-field is made of.
Post by: lumen on August 22, 2016, 04:07:27 AM
I see it like this:
An electron that changes a shell level in a gas emits a short magnetic pulse that is in the light spectrum. So an electron that is moving at a constant rate will generate a constant magnetic field.

The moving electron creates the magnetic field but a moving magnetic field does not create an electron but only causes it to move and create a counter magnetic field.

It all seems to come when energy moves in space. So then if mass moves in space, what does it cause?

Post by: allcanadian on August 22, 2016, 09:19:00 AM
Nobody seems to be making any headway so I will give you the solution.

We have three scenario's.

1)only the conductive disk rotates relative to a stationary magnet... a voltage is induced.

2)the conductive disk and magnet rotate together...a voltage is induced.

3)only the magnet rotates... no voltage is induced.

Scenario 2 is unique in that we do not need a conductive disk if the magnet itself is made of conductive material. A magnet rotating on axis will induce an Emf or voltage from center to perimeter or vice versa thus a separate conductive disk is not actually needed.

Let's look at the experiments, in scenario 2 when the conductive disk and magnet rotate together we cannot induce an emf unless the field is stationary. There must be relative motion to induce an emf according to Faraday's Law and if the field rotates with the magnet then there is no relative motion between the disk and the magnet and it's field. Therefore the field must be stationary as the magnet and disk rotate together to induce an emf.

As well in scenario 3 when only the magnet rotates relative to a stationary disk we see no induced emf in the disk. If the magnetic field did rotate with the magnet we should see an emf in the disk however we do not proving the magnetic field is not rotating but stationary. This is Faraday's Law...it does not matter how the change occurs (a magnetic field change) only that it does. Obviously the external field did not change in the disk otherwise we would see an emf. Think about that for a moment... the magnet rotates but there there is no induced emf in the stationary disk as we thought there should be but there is an induced emf present. Do you know where?, unfortunately I'm guessing no. I already told everyone that scenario 2 is unique in that the magnet in itself will induce and emf if it is made of conductive material so yes there is an induced emf just not in the stationary disk but in the magnet.

At which point we may address the confusion some have with these scenario's. Some have argued that in scenario 2 when both the disk and magnet rotate together the induced emf in the disk should generate eddy currents and drag. They imagine a scenario where the stationary field of the rotating magnet induces the rotating disk which then generates eddy currents in the disk acting on the stationary field. The scenario where an apparatus "acts on itself" which is not the case here. The stationary field is uniform and when the disk rotates it produces a uniform radially acting emf from let's say center to perimeter. Thus the uniform radial emf cannot loop back on itself to produce an eddy current because the direction of the emf is always from center to perimeter at all points of the disk. This is generally the reason why this seems so confusing to most because they are looking for something which does not actually exist... there are no eddy currents and no drag because the emf is uniform and acts radially outward or inward at all points of the disk. The Lorentz Force dictates that if the field change is uniform and it is then in this case the induced radial emf must be uniform and it is.

Note when only a magnet with no disk rotates there is still an emf induced in the magnet. However there is also no drag associated with the rotation of the magnet relative to the stationary field because no eddy currents or current loops are generated within the magnet. The emf is uniform and can only act radially from center to perimeter or vice versa with no reversal to generate eddy currents or current loops hence all confusion.

Next we have scenario 3 where only the magnet rotates and we see no induced emf in the stationary disk. In my opinion this is where logic and reason should have entered the equation however for reasons I cannot explain it did not. If in fact the magnetic field was rotating with the magnet then by Faraday's Law we must see an induced emf in the stationary disk and yet we do not. Pretty simple concept... Faraday's Law states if the magnetic field has any relative motion there is an induced emf.

In my opinion the worst case scenario is that somehow for reasons completely unknown to me some believe the magnetic field has induced a massive emf in the external wires closing the circuit. However they forgot a few simple laws found in every high school textbook. One is the inverse square law and in a homopolar generator with two magnets and a conductive disk in between there is basically no external field thus no appreciable field to cut or more so induce any external conductors. Again we have a major flaw in logic and reason of epic proportions. If there is no external field to induce the external conductors then how exactly could any emf be induced?... obviously this theory it is completely absurd.

This is basic grade school science, Faraday's Law, and then someone introduced a variable which caused everyone to lose their mind... I'm not sure what the problem is here.

AC
Post by: lumen on August 22, 2016, 07:53:48 PM
@AC
How many different conditions are there?

Did you include rotating only the external conductor with magnet and disk stationary?
Did you include rotating the disk and external conductor with only the magnet stationary?

What are the results?

Post by: guest1289 on August 23, 2016, 12:03:01 AM
I don't even know if  'my own'  question belongs in this thread.
I will be re-reading that last post a few times,  to try and understand it all .
________

In accordance with what PolaczekCebulaczek and citfta said,  the DC-Motor in the animated-diagram below,  should not rotate( with or without commutation ),   if the 2-magnets were replaced with 1-ring-magnet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ejs_Open_Source_Direct_Current_Electrical_Motor_Model_Java_Applet_(_DC_Motor_)_80_degree_split_ring.gif

(  NOTE : In this animated-diagram,  I can only see that the  electromagnetic-fields  from the relevant sections of the rotating-wire,  are actually  'Parallel'   to the  Magnetic-Field occurring between the 2-permanent-magnets,   instead of being   'Perpendicular'   ? ,     that has given me more possibilities for my own question    )

SO,   'if'   that DC-Motor would rotate inside of a  ring-magnet,  then,  the ring-magnet could be the rotating-component in that DC-Motor,  which means that the  Disk-Magnet  in  'my-own' question should rotate.
________

The thing I can't understand is when current is passed through 'Permanent-magnets',  which seems to be done in some homopolar-motors,  unless I'm wrong.
_______

The 2-scenarios in the  diagram below  -  Is it true that no rotation will occur in both scenarios,  if no current is allowed to flow through the permanent-magnets in that Faraday-apparatus(  if the permanent magnets were sealed in glass/plastic ) .

I'm sure that rotation would still occur,  but I assume I'm wrong
Post by: allcanadian on August 23, 2016, 01:56:48 AM
@lumen
Quote
How many different conditions are there?

There are as many results as there are experiments.
Quote
Did you include rotating only the external conductor with magnet and disk stationary?

If the rotating external conductors are in close proximity to the magnetic field then the conductors are similar to the rotating disk/stationary magnet scenario. It should give a similar result even though many may believe it is different. However now we have introduced different emf's being induced along different sections of conductor dependent on the field magnitude and direction. Why would anyone complicate the experiment with a ridiculous number of variables they do not understand and then presume they do?.

Quote
Did you include rotating the disk and external conductor with only the magnet stationary?

I'm not sure why I would because we have now introduced multiple variables which obscure the result rather than clarify it and clarity is what we want isn't it?.

Quote
What are the results?

There in lies the question and questionable experiments always yield questionable results. If a we take all the complications and distractions out of the equation and rotate only a magnet with no separate disk we get better results. So how is it a magnet can rotate and induce and emf if the field is rotating with the magnet?. It is not the external conductor I can tell you that because the inverse square law disqualifies that premise. You mean to imply the most powerful Faraday generator I have heard of producing 500 MJ wasn't actually inducing the disk but the external conductors... really?.

AC
Post by: lumen on August 23, 2016, 04:33:41 AM
@AC

Magnetic fields are not stationary in space, how could they be?

If they were stationary then radio waves could not propagate or bounce off things and change direction and the fact that the earth is moving in space (not just orbiting) would cause the magnetic waves to stretch in some direction as they are left behind.

Rotating your magnet above an aluminum plate is NO different than rotating the aluminum plate above the magnet. It's simply a matter of how it's viewed.

I know the results of my tests and can say that without the external conductor your rotating disk will generate no current.  How can you even check it without the external conductor?

This thread is actually talking about two different experiments, a rotating charged disk and (totally different) a rotating magnet or disk in a magnetic field.
One generates a magnetic field and the other generates a current flow.

With the help of an electroscope, it may be possible to detect charge movement due to the rotating magnetic field and never touch the magnet or disk.
That is the real question!

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 23, 2016, 07:32:05 AM
Hi guyz

I just performed an cruel experiment:

I wrapped a coil around plastic pipe (thin wire a lot of turns) and put stack of neodymium cylinder magnets inside the pipe (pipe was not much bigger from magnets - everything is tight)
I connected multimeter to coil and set scale to milivolts, I have placed everything on rotating office chair and spun the chair( coil with magnets is in vertical position in the middle of chair)
while rotating chair no voltage is detected on mulitimeter
does i need a lot of RPM to see something? I don't think so.
I also tried this setup with cylinder ceramic magnet from speaker instead of neo, still no voltage.
it seems that field DOES rotate with magnet?

does earth magnetic field is rotating with planet? iF so then where is the induced E field ?

now time for electronic electroscope experiment...

Post by: allcanadian on August 23, 2016, 05:57:42 PM
@lumen
Quote
Magnetic fields are not stationary in space, how could they be?[/size]

As I said an oscillating cork in water can produce a radial wave field however the wave field does not rotate with the cork. The wave field moves with the source however it does not rotate on axis with it. The medium in which the external field exists is distinct from the source which created it. In essence all we need to understand is that the cork is not the same as water, water is not the same as a cork...they are different. This is in fact a phenomena found everywhere in nature and it exists for obvious reasons.

You cannot seem to grasp this simple concept so let me explain it for you. Take a simple magnet in your hands then move it around... observe the results. Now do not move the magnet but only rotate it on axis...observe the results. What are your results?... well when you moved the magnet the exterior of the magnet moved relative to the surrounding space and when you rotated the magnet on axis it did not move relative to the surrounding space. Thus we can conclude moving and rotating on axis are different forms of motion. They are not the same-same, they do not produce the same-same results because they are different.

The only fact of relevance here is that when a magnet rotates on axis it "WILL NOT" induce an emf in nearby conductors including a conductive disk. However when the conductor moves in any way... I repeat any way, then an emf will be induced. This is the heart of Faraday's Paradox which you seem unwilling to address.

Quote
If they were stationary then radio waves could not propagate or bounce off things and change direction and the fact that the earth is moving in space (not just orbiting) would cause the magnetic waves to stretch in some direction as they are left behind.

Now your speaking of two completely separate phenomena, 1) a static field moving/rotating and 2) a rapidly changing magnetic field producing Electro-Magnetic waves.
Quote
Rotating your magnet above an aluminum plate is NO different than rotating the aluminum plate above the magnet. It's simply a matter of how it's viewed.

The experiment proceeds in three steps:
1) The magnet is held to prevent it from rotating, while the disc is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers a direct current. The apparatus therefore acts as a generator, variously called the Faraday generator, the Faraday disc, or the homopolar (or unipolar) generator.
2) The disc is held stationary while the magnet is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers no current.
3) The disc and magnet are spun together. The galvanometer registers a current, as it did in step 1.

Actual experiment would disagree and rotating a magnet above an aluminum plate does not induce an emf in the plate. On the other hand rotating the aluminum plate above the magnet does induce an emf in the plate which is in fact Faraday's Paradox experiment. In essence you have just contradicted experimental evidence everyone knows to be true. Obviously it is different otherwise we wouldn't have a paradox would we?.

Quote
I know the results of my tests and can say that without the external conductor your rotating disk will generate no current.

I would agree and a closed loop circuit is required for a current to flow however a closed loop is not required for an emf to be induced. In which case you have simply stated the obvious... a current cannot flow if there is no closed loop circuit. It is important to remember the Electro-Motive Force is the Force which causes charges to move and when charges move in closed loops we call this an electric current.

Quote
How can you even check it without the external conductor?

It is actually quite easy and when charges move the charge density changes between two regions. This differential charge density is measured as a voltage or an electric field. If there is a measurable electric field which we can measure from a distance with an electroscope then we know some charges have in fact moved.

Do you know what I find most fascinating about the Faraday Paradox?. It is not the experiment in itself because it seems pretty straight forward. It is that most people will go to almost any length and say almost anything to prove it wrong but very few if any have the strength and integrity to prove it is right.

No offence but from your posts I think you would do almost anything to prove this experiment wrong and you simply cannot accept it. You will not rest until you have convinced yourself it must be wrong in some way and your beliefs relating to popular opinion are right. This is exactly the wrong attitude in my opinion and I just don't care either way, I just want to know the truth...period.

AC

Post by: lancaIV on August 23, 2016, 06:04:58 PM
From the compass to Peregrinus to Faraday:
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&NR=2003222512A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20031204&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP (https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/citingDocuments?CC=US&NR=2003222512A1&KC=A1&FT=D&ND=3&date=20031204&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP)

"follower" and idea fellow

From the "Global Dossier"
Non-final-Rejection and applicant arguments - by DVD  ::) wysiwyg
https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201113879591.A&documentId=7-6-US++138795910KP1 (https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201113879591.A&documentId=7-6-US++138795910KP1)+
now- after Rejection - left
Post by: lumen on August 23, 2016, 07:40:57 PM
@AC

Faraday's experiments are 100% correct for the three parts that were tested. It's only the paradox conclusion that is wrong.
If one takes the incentive to perform additional tests one will find there is no paradox and the Faraday generator relies on the very same basis as all generators.

Post by: guest1289 on August 25, 2016, 06:01:12 AM
Since there's no proof contradicting Faraday's paradox,  it can only be correct,  the field around a permanent-magnet is stationary (  easiest to see in a rotating-disk-permanent-magnet ) .
_______

But it's still useful to try and disprove Faraday's paradox, or find any errors in it,  etc .
_______

If the metal-disk that spins next to the disk-magnet( in the Faraday paradox ) was made of  iron,  instead of aluminium,  then I would state the possibilities of the following ( assuming the probe/conductor used for detecting current, is only set up to detect current in the iron-disk ) :
( 1 ) - when the disk-magnet and iron-disk spin together - the disk-magnet has turned the iron-disk into a temporary-magnet,  so the  iron-disk is somehow causing a current to be generated in relation to itself and the  probe/conductor used for detecting current,   maybe like a pump,  pushing electrical current .
( 2 ) -  but when only the disk-magnet spins,  and the  iron-disk  stays stationary,  then the iron-disk cannot do whatever it was doing with the probe/conductor used for detecting current,  in situation  number ( 1 )
( 3 ) -  when only the iron-disk rotates, and the disk-magnet stays stationary,  then that iron-disk is still a temporary-permanent-magnet like in  situation  number ( 1 ),  so it will do the same as   in situation  number ( 1 ).
__________

I think there may be a  'definitive' test that would 'Not'  involve detecting current in disks using conductors or brushes.

This 'test' is based on something mentioned in one of the previous posts,  simply stating,    that a current will be generated in a  disk-permanent-magnet  rotating on its own axis,  because the stationary-magnetic-field  of the rotating  disk-magnet,  will induce/generate a current in the rotating magnet.
(  I can't find that in previous posts at the moment,  but I assume it's correct  )

The test would be that an  un-commutated  central rotating component of a DC-motor,  would rotate inside of a ring-permanent-magnet,  and the RPM of that,   would be compared to the RPM of just letting the  ring-permanent-magnet rotate,   keeping in mind that the ring-permanent-magnet would experience friction against it's own magnetic-field,  when it is rotating,  but not when it is not rotating.
(  The problem is that the central rotating component of a DC-motor,  and electromagnet,  would 'may' also have friction with it's own stationary-magnetic-field when it is rotating,  in a way I can't visualize .  )

- Obviously this test would have to be done in a high-vacuum,  and / or components shielded or designed to eliminate air-drag .
_______

So Faraday's paradox should not function sufficiently far away from the universe,  where there is insufficient medium for a magnet to generate a magnetic-field .
_______

However, what about putting JUST the  disk-permanent-magnet rotating on it's own axis,   in a very-very fast flowing current of water( containing a sugar content like grapes, diamagnetic ) to try and reduce it's magnetic-field,    if there's no decrease in current produced by simply  rotating  the disk-permanent-magnet  on it's own axis,  it could mean that THE CAUSE OF THE CURRENT GENERATED,   IS THE EFFECT OF THE ROTATING DISK-MAGNET ON THE  PROBE/CONDUCTOR USED TO DETECT CURRENT.
-  Some type of Ferrofluid  could also be an alternative for this test .
Post by: guest1289 on August 25, 2016, 06:48:10 AM
This is an update to the post I just posted ( I'm doing it as a another post so as not to alter the time-stamp of the post I just posted ).
________

That scenario I describe of replacing the aluminium-disk,  with an iron-disk.
-  That scenario could possibly still apply to an aluminium-disk,  via a different way,  because when  the disk-permanent-magnet causes current to be generated in the  aluminium-disk, it is also turning that aluminium-disk into an electromagnet.

NOTE : Basically,  what I'm saying about the iron-disk( or the aluminium-disk ),  is that the cause could be the rotation of the  iron-disk( or the aluminium-disk ) in relation to the stationary probe/conductor used to detect current in the iron-disk( or the aluminium-disk ),
-  I haven't thought about it 'if' the probe/conductor used to detect current in the iron-disk( or the aluminium-disk ),  also rotates together with the iron-disk( or the aluminium-disk ).
__________

WHAT ABOUT :  In regard to simply having a  disk-permanent-magnet  rotating on it's own axis,  and measuring the current generated in the rotating  disk-permanent-magnet  from it's own STATIONARY-MAGNETIC-FIELD.
-   What about if you have 3-disk-permanent-magnets evenly spaced along the same shaft( the magnets are physically fixed, glued to the shaft ),  and orientated so that they would clank together if it wasn't for the spacers SLIGHTLY separating them apart on the shaft,
-  NOW,  rotate the shaft/the magnets,  would it affect the current induced in the MIDDLE-disk-magnet,    IN COMPARISON,    to if the  MIDDLE-disk-magnet  was the only magnet on the shaft  ?
(  The shaft should be plastic, or wood  )

AND ALSO,  what about having 2 ( or 3 ) disk-magnets contra-rotating against each other on the same shaft, you figure the rest out.

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 25, 2016, 01:47:07 PM
guest1289 i like your thinking ,but what about experiment that i have performed with coil, magnet and multimeter placed on rotating office chair? no brushes, everything just rotates and no current detected,  by looking at results - it seems that field does rotate with magnet on axis.
Post by: lumen on August 25, 2016, 04:10:38 PM
guest1289 i like your thinking ,but what about experiment that i have performed with coil, magnet and multimeter placed on rotating office chair? no brushes, everything just rotates and no current detected,  by looking at results - it seems that field does rotate with magnet on axis.

I agree that it is more likely that the field does rotate with the magnet but there is much more going on in the chair experiment to confirm it for certain.
Consider that the field is a loop from one pole to the other and any conductor would in fact be passing through the field in both directions. So any movement through the field generates a canceling charge from the same field passing through the conductor in the opposite direction and provide zero current.

If an electroscope could detect a charge displacement from a spinning magnet without contact and also detect a change in rotation direction, then the results would be more conclusive that the field rotates with the magnet. One could also rotate the electroscope to detect the stationary field in the same manner.

Also: to protect the gate of the mosfet you can use two zener diodes back to back in series to limit the gate voltage to the zener voltage. +-10v should be good.

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 25, 2016, 04:18:29 PM
Quote
Consider that the field is a loop from one pole to the other and any conductor would in fact be passing through the field in both directions. So any movement through the field generates a canceling charge from the same field passing through the conductor in the opposite direction and provide zero current.

hmm i also start thinking about something like this... yeah...

its like a two transformers connected out of phase? right? electron pushes against electron so 0 current? in such transformers configuration  coils(with stuck current) are getting hot or not?
Post by: lumen on August 25, 2016, 05:13:28 PM
hmm i also start thinking about something like this... yeah...

its like a two transformers connected out of phase? right? electron pushes against electron so 0 current? in such transformers configuration  coils(with stuck current) are getting hot or not?

Yes, same problem and with no current there is no heat generated.

The point that a connection is needed to, is exactly where the field starts to change direction and pass back through the conductor which is at the edge of the magnet face.
So now you can see that all you need to do is make a connection to that point on the conductor without passing through either of the two fields again. Impossible.

If one of the conductors does not move in the field then a current can be generated as in the case of the Faraday generator.
This is why we wonder where the current is generated, in the disk or the conductor, and may depend on whether or not the magnet rotates which one is providing the current flow.

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 26, 2016, 09:58:40 AM

this is a soild proof for non rotating field?
Post by: Enjoykin2017 on August 26, 2016, 10:49:49 AM
"Physics stands on a stable foundation of the facts, but not on drift sand of imaginary hypotheses", E. Rutherford.

http://rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
Post by: lancaIV on August 26, 2016, 11:47:48 AM
https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/mosaics?CC=US&NR=1859764A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19320524&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP
Post by: lumen on August 26, 2016, 04:28:28 PM

this is a soild proof for non rotating field?

No, It's solid proof that there is no change in field direction with axis rotation.
The TV screen is only responding to field direction and density. Neither changes in axis rotation.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 26, 2016, 06:37:18 PM
No, It's solid proof that there is no change in field direction with axis rotation.
The TV screen is only responding to field direction and density. Neither changes in axis rotation.

yees, electron gun will shoot the same direction no matter if the field rotate on axis or not, beam will not twist.
i have problems with making a magnet perfectly rotating on axis for electroscope experiment, magnet rotation should have no wobbling or orbiting...
Wesley Garry neutral zone stuff and pole reversal do not belong to this topic however its very interesting indeed.
Post by: Enjoykin2017 on August 27, 2016, 12:50:20 AM
PolaczekCebulaczek

In electronics acceleration of beam electrons is created by tension on a special electrode of electronic gun. It is acceleration by electric field.

In electrical engineering current in wires is created a little differently.

On a certain site of wire, create excess quantity of electrons, leading to deformation of their static fields. This deformation of power braids (static field) surrounding electrons is elastic.  Extent of this deformation of power braids is a tension ( voltage ) of electric current. And as soon as this very elastic and well deformed electron bunch get opportunity to move on a conductor which is for electrons by essence an hollow tube , it directs with a speed defined by well known experimentaly made formula in electronics

Ve= 5,95 x 105 √U (m/s).

Ve = Initial Velocity of Electrons (m/s).
U = Initial Accelerating voltage (V).

For example. At voltage (tension) of 220 V the speed of conducting electrons in the conductor is 90 000 km/s. At a voltage of 500 kV the speed of electrons will be 420 000 km/s. If that tension is 12 MV (million volts) like Tesla usually used in his experiments, speed of conducting electrons is 2 million kilometres per second. As you understand its a superluminal velocity ~7 times faster than light (photonic speed in free space).

So really going this process.  :)

My question: What will be with electrons when accelerated till superluminal speed you suddendly stop them. Can you calculate inertial forces which will smash electrons and throw out all their inner matter - magnetic particles (magnetic matter) and electric particles (photons) ? Keep in mind that density of these particles in an electron shell is 15 000 ton/cm3 and their number is ~ 3 х 1010 particles in equal shares.

Nothing in our dimension cant stand against Inertia forces !  :o

As with an electron we will have a lot of job, lets remember its main characteristics.

The electron has the mass of m = 9,1x10-31 kg, r radius = 2,82x10-15 m, its charge is q = 1,6x10-19 C. If we present an electron in the ball form, then it is easy to find density of its weight. It is d ≈ 1,5x107 kg/cm3.

These are 15 000 ton/cm3! Why the Mother nature for some reason needed such huge concentration of matter. And this workshop in vain does nothing.  ::)

ps: Power braids are in essence "LINES OF FORCES", and they present matter - electrical matter

---------------------------------------------------
"Physics stands on a stable foundation of the facts, but not on drift sand of imaginary hypotheses", E. Rutherford.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 27, 2016, 09:47:19 AM
Quote
My question: What will be with electrons when accelerated till superluminal speed you suddendly stop them. Can you calculate inertial forces which will smash electrons and throw out all their inner matter - magnetic particles (magnetic matter) and electric particles (photons) ? Keep in mind that density of these particles in an electron shell is 15 000 ton/cm3 and their number is ~ 3 х 1010 particles in equal shares.

well, electron will crush upon itself when suddenly stopped. something like this will happen, i guess....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B8ller_scattering

Enjoykin2017 if you want to smash some electrons, i recommend this :
Post by: Enjoykin2017 on August 28, 2016, 12:53:48 AM
Yes you are right Tesla Disruptive Technology - source of RADIANT FREE ENERGY (COLD FIRE) !!  :)
....

"Physics stands on the strong base of the facts, but not on drift sand of imaginary hypotheses" — E. Rutherford.

Dear Ernest Rutherford's saying arose from difficult research experiences of radioactivity which had gave in the physicist's hands the most exact tool for an atom preparation – α-particles (twice ionized cores of helium He+2) which were bombarded thin plates of metals and studied paths of α-particles after interaction with a thin plate. Some of  α-particles flew away without changing  original direction, others deviated on different angles and quite seldom α-particles recoiled from a thin plate as though it was a monolith. It means there was a direct hit in a target core substance . Nearly four years were required to E. Rutherford to discover the atomic nucleus size (3х10-12 cm) and the size of atom which was four orders of magnitude more than the core.

Not by tip of a pen or computer simulation, but with long experience,  wearisome experiments and observations,  E. Rutherford received the major truth. Tesla also !!

Here, the main interaction happens between electrons of an accelerated bundle and metal electrons. Other interactions are four orders magnitude rare and aren't defining. Specified interaction is a sharp braking of electrons of a bundle and a sharp acceleration of electrons of metal. There are practically no other acts.

Two electrons face different speeds. Collision turns out to be elastic, as having the same charges, in case of their approximation at distance equal to diameter of an electron, there is working Coulomb force of repulsion
Fc= e·e / (2·r)2

where е = 1,6 x 10-19 C — an electron charge;
2·r — distance between centers attractions of two electron spheres 2· 2,82 x 10-15 m = 5,64 x 10-15m.

Having these data, we will get Coulomb repulsion force
Fc= (1,6 x 10-19)2 / (2·r)2 = 2,56 x 10-38 / 3,18 x 10-29 = 8,04 x 10-10 N

Such is repulsion force between electrons. !!  :)

Now we need define inertial force when braking of an accelerated electron:
m = 9,1 x 10-31 kg is mass of an electron
Ve =  electron speed = 0,5 C  where C is light velocity 3 x 108 m/s (photon velocity in free space);
dt is braking time.

For determination of dt we need to take a distance of braking electron, equal S = 10·r which passes this distance at average speedf of Vavr = 0,5 · C / 2 = 0,25 · C. C is light velocity.

We get
dt = S / Vavr =   5,64 x 10-14m / 0,25 C  = 7,52 x 10-22 s.

Now find acceleration
a = dV/ dt =  (0,5·3 x 108 m/s)  /  7,52 x 10-22s  =   0,2 x 1030 m/s2

And the inertial force acting on an electron will be:
F = m·a  = 9,1 x 10-31kg · 0,2 x 1030 m/s2 =  1,8 x 10-1 N. (0,18N)

It is a very-very big force. The principal error here is acceleration determination. Let braking of electron going on a section not 10·r but 100·r, then we get
dt  = dt = S / Vavr =   5,64 x 10-13m / 0,25 C  = 7,52 x 10-21 s.

Acceleration and all remaining will decrease by factor
F = m·a  =   1,8 x 10-2 N. (0,018N)

And only if braking electron happens at distance 107·r, then braking force  is comparable to Coulomb repulsion force,  in case of interaction at distance 2·r.
F = m·a = 1,8 x 10-7 N. (0,000000018N)

And how strong will Coulomb repulsion forces at distance 107·r ??
Fc= e·e / (107·r)2
Fc= (1,6 x 10-19)2 / (107·r)2 = 2,56 x 10-38 / (107· 2,82 x 10-15)2 = 3,2 x 10-23 N

Having these data, we get
3,2 x 10-23 N / 1,8 x 10-7 N = 1,8 x 10-16

It is 16 orders of magnitude less. It means that an accelerated electron, having inertial force many orders bigger, will overcome Coulomb repulsion force and with giant force will hit an electron in thin metal plates.

Let now calculate the pressure of this force of F = 1,8x10-7 N on an electron.
If A= (4/3)·π·( 2,82 x 10-15 m)2 is area of a big circle of electron (cross-section) = 0,33 x 10-30 m2 ,

then the pressure will be
P = F/A =  1,8 x10-7 N / 0,33 x 10-30 m2 = 5,4 x 1021 N/m2 = 5,51 x 1017 t/m2. (tonne per square metre).  1t = 9806.65 N

Or 5,51 x 1013 t/cm2  55,1 billion tonnes per square centimetre.
Such a huge pressure in our macrocosm can't be realized, it is so giant huge.

Now it is easy understanding that the main defining force in the course of generation of X-ray radiation is inertial force of the accelerated electrons for which Coulomb repulsion forces have sixteen order of magnitude smallness.

Electrons of an accelerated bundle of a X-ray tube literally rush into electronic tank of an anti anode, break off its electrons on basic elements and give them a speeds from super luminous till speed of light. On that way X-ray electromagnetic field is created.

As an electron contains two sorts of matter - electrical matter (photons) and magnetic matter (dipole matter), in X-rays these particles are present at corresponding proportions.

So these particles which are beaten out from metal plate electrons in case of their collision at super luminous speeds are main structural particles of electromagnetic fields. These particles having weight, bear forces of fields. They are matter because only the matter can bear a force and their derivations  - force fields are simple clusters of these particles in corresponding proportions.

So really going this process and Tesla is a master №1 of smashing electroons ! :)
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 28, 2016, 06:00:49 AM
right... but lets stay on topic.

Im still struggling with electroscope experiment, electronic FET based electroscope is very sensitive, led is flashing when antenna is near motor so i need long shaft for magnet so fet wont pick up any E field coming from motor coil.

meanwhile...

I will never fully understand why when i move already moving electron it suddenly emits E field, its because i slowed electron speed?
In permanent magnet, electrons are moving, not like in wire but since they are moving so there is b field.
What about vacuum tube? is the e field there? i guess there is because electron beam will curve when charged plate is near it.Sooo when coil is wrapped around vacuum tube, a current is induced in that coil?

Post by: lumen on August 28, 2016, 05:42:59 PM
@PolaczekCebulaczek

Maybe you could just spin the magnet while hanging it from a string?

The electroscope would need to show charge while the magnet is spinning one direction and nothing while spinning the other direction to be a valid confirmation since your electroscope will show charge in only one direction.
Post by: allcanadian on August 28, 2016, 06:30:19 PM
@lumen

Quote
Maybe you could just spin the magnet while hanging it from a string?

The electroscope would need to show charge while the magnet is spinning one direction and nothing while spinning the other direction to be a valid confirmation since your electroscope will show charge in only one direction.
Or we could levitate it and spin it up to an absurd RPM with no friction like I did with my device in the picture below. The bottom plate is 3/8" thick aluminum to stabilize the magnet and as we know there is no drag on the axis of rotation.

AC
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 28, 2016, 06:57:04 PM
Quote
Maybe you could just spin the magnet while hanging it from a string?

The electroscope would need to show charge while the magnet is spinning one direction and nothing while spinning the other direction to be a valid confirmation since your electroscope will show charge in only one direction.

easy to say... magnet will wobble all over the place, it has to be perfectly stable rotation no orbiting or wobbling
the levitation sounds like awesome idea.

Quote
Or we could levitate it and spin it up to an absurd RPM with no friction like I did in the picture below. The bottom plate is 3/8" thick aluminum to stabilize the magnet and as we know there is no drag on the axis of rotation.

how did you levitate it? levitron stuff?
Post by: lumen on August 28, 2016, 08:50:55 PM
That's a good idea, but could you just as easily spin it on a string over the aluminum plate to stabilize it?

Find a wooden dowel to fit in a ring magnet and center a string in the dowel then wind up the string and as it unwinds over the aluminum plate it should be stable.

The aluminum plate may however mask another condition that may exist where the plate causes the field to become stationary and instead slip in the gap between the magnet and the plate.

That is why I originally thought suspended only from a string.
Post by: allcanadian on August 28, 2016, 09:35:37 PM
@Polac
Quote
how did you levitate it? levitron stuff?

I built my own hall effect levitation circuits to experiment with levitation which eventually led to my inventing several 99% passive magnetic bearings. Everyone seems to have a really hard time wrapping their mind around these concepts and I could flick the magnet shown in the levitator I posted and the magnet would spin for hours, not minutes but five to six hours easy. I levitated a 40 pound rotor on my magnetic bearings and could give it a spin with my hand and hours later it was still rotating. People think they understand but they don't because you have to see it to believe it.

I have also built many of my own electronic electrometers and EM detector arrays many years ago which is how I know you do not have a hope in hell of measuring anything spinning a magnet on a string or a chair. Anyone who has built the Faraday Generator and any variations of it and actually tested it would know it requires a substantial RPM to generate even a very small voltage. Anyone who has actually built an electrometer would know there is zero chance of measuring a voltage that small from a distance.

No offence but I'm starting to think nobody here has built or tested anything otherwise they would know these things. I'm starting to wonder if anyone here has proof to justify any of their claims and that this is all unsubstantiated speculation at best.

AC
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on August 28, 2016, 09:45:46 PM
yeah but faraday measured magnets e field with primitive electroscope?

my plan is to rotate magnet on electric drill
Post by: lumen on August 28, 2016, 10:25:21 PM
Well there you go PolaczekCebulaczek , you don't need to spin it at all.
You can just ask AC what the results will be and he can just set you straight!
Post by: allcanadian on August 29, 2016, 03:05:39 PM
@Polac
Quote
yeah but faraday measured magnets e field with primitive electroscope?[/size]my plan is to rotate magnet on electric drill

I believe Faraday used a galvanometer or as we call it an ammeter to measure the small currents from the generator brushes.  A drill should work as they run from 2500-3000 rpm however a string is pretty much useless. Larger diameter magnets work better because the perimeter velocity increases with diameter at ant given RPM.

The electronic electrometer works good for high voltage and it can detect a person combing their hair 30 feet away. However it is almost impossible to detect smaller voltages, say under 12v, at any distance unless physical contact is made. I have built foil type electrometers and the electronic version is thousands of times more sensitive than a foil type electrometer. You can use op-amps to amplify the signal from an electronic detector however then interference from let's say your drill becomes a big issue. It will also detect contact electrification between materials so we need to ask, is it an induced emf or is it intermittent brush contact or something else.

Reality is not the same as speculation as I imagine you already know and even seemingly simple experiments have a way of becoming very difficult in a big hurry.

AC
Post by: Low-Q on August 29, 2016, 06:54:28 PM
hello

I decided to start this topic because I want to summarize all we know about Faraday disk paradox in one topic on this forum, this may be helpful for further homopolar generator study.The most important question is "Does magnetic field rotate with magnet or not?"
let's consider a situation like this :

A coil is wrapped around a magnetized core (cylinder magnet). Both the coil and magnet are rotating together around the axis of the cylinder. Will current be induced in the coil?
This permanent magnet is ceramic, not iron; this should stop any induction taking place inside the metal body of the magnet.(if magnetic field does not rotate) This will simplify things and eliminate unwanted effects.

anyone tried this configuration?
If both the winding and the magnet is spinning at the same RPM, nothing will happen. If only the magnet is spinning there will still not be any induction in the coil.
The reason is this: The magnetic field is not changing in strength as it cross the coil even if the magnet is spinning or not, but is the same all the time. If you put that magnet inside a narrow copper tube, and drop it, the magnet will induce currents in the copper that will force the magnet to slow down. However, if you make an initial spin to the magnet, it will spin freely inside the copper tube, with only air as the resistance.

Magnetic fields must cross the wire in only one direction, like it is done in generators. And the magnetic field density has to change in order to induce anything through a wire. So if you push the magnet up and down through the coil, the coil experience a change in magnetic field density, and therfor it is the only way to induce anything through the coil.

Vidar
Post by: lumen on August 29, 2016, 07:18:46 PM
All the information here is old and there is no reason to try it again thinking there could be different results.

I thought the new test was to build a super sensitive electroscope using a mosfet so we could detect any rotation of the magnetic field without any contact to the rotating magnet rather than simply repeating the old brush and disk controversy that adds nothing to the understanding of what's really going on.

In theory the rotating field would cause and uneven distribution in the probe and should be able to trigger the detector if the probe was already preset to only a few millivolts from triggering.

Post by: guest1289 on September 01, 2016, 11:42:29 PM
Now that I understand the  Faraday-Paradox  not only do I see how correct it is,  I also now understand various other widely-accepted concepts in mainstream physics,  that is :
- a magnet cannot function without the medium,  it's magnetic field will not be present without the medium
-  this also links with the  curie-point of magnets,  imagine a magnet floating so far away from the universe that there is insufficient medium for it to have a magnetic-field,  which it could not produce anyway,  because it would be too frozen.
________

Now I wonder what about radiation( light etc ),  what happens to light when it travels sufficiently far away from the universe,  does the lack of the medium somehow slow it down( or physically change it ),  causing it to somehow fall back to the universe,  and when it's back in the medium it's 'rehydrated' or something.
______

My idea of using the RPM comparison to test the  Faraday-Paradox,  that is very very feasable
-  You could encase coils, windings, or permanent-magnets in Solid-Plastic,  so they themselves would never experience any air resistance
-  And theres so many different types designs of electric-motors which do cause rotation,  even though the device looks nothing like an electric-motor,  for example they have no coils/windings
______

I don't know if the photo of the Magnetic-Levitation posted on this thread is   Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet-Full-Levitation( visually contravening Earnshaw's-Theorem ),  or electromagnetic-levitation.

What is the barrier to people posting photos/videos of   Non-Electric-Permanent-Magnet-Full-Levitation( visually contravening Earnshaw's-Theorem ) on the internet,   it is actually still within Earnshaw's-Theorem( and theory of magnetic-levitation ),  it is actually mentioned ( unclearly, and badly ) right on the wikipedia pages of both  Earnshaw's-Theorem and   Magnetic-Levitation ,   so obviously your not contravening any laws of physics,  there should be no reason for suppression
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on September 02, 2016, 08:56:56 PM
I just ordered some magnets for final experiment.

meanwhile..

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?
What will happen if compass is inside the ring?
Post by: Magluvin on September 02, 2016, 11:16:10 PM
I just ordered some magnets for final experiment.

meanwhile..

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?
What will happen if compass is inside the ring?

Would have to be individual mags to make the ring, if it did work. Like the paradox, the field of the mag you show would have the same non effect as putting current through the copper disk trying to spin the ring magnet. It wont spin, but the copper disk will. ;)

Mags
Post by: lumen on September 03, 2016, 02:48:23 AM

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?
What will happen if compass is inside the ring?

I like this experiment because a single conductor generates a special circular field that should cause the magnet to spin.
In the Faraday paradox there are only three things that are actually going on:

1: When the magnet spins with the disk, the disk serves only as a conductor and current is generated from the flux cutting the brush/external conductor.
2: When the magnet is stationary, the disk is cutting the field as it rotates and the brush is only a conductor.
3: The uniform field is another special case and can have the effect of sliding because the field is of the same magnitude will do no work by sliding.

It is number "3" that your experiment is testing and is likely that it will NOT rotate if number "3" is true in which case the Faraday generator is trapping the uniform field between two conductors and forcing it to cut either the disk or the brush/conductor in which case it would actually be cutting both as 1/2 rate.

Post by: guest1289 on September 03, 2016, 07:52:02 PM
Quote
1: When the magnet spins with the disk, the disk serves only as a conductor and current is generated from the flux cutting the brush/external conductor.

- When the aluminium-disk has current flowing through it,  surely it must produce an electromagnetic-field (  I assume that  that  electromagnetic-field    is so small that it is disregarded in this experiment ) .
_______

The  Earth's-Magnetic-Field
-  Does this experiment need to be done up in space somewhere, to totally exclude any interference  'in any way' from the earth's-magnetic-field(  and Earth's-Electric-Field  etc ) .
I say this because this experiment is :
-  done at a very high rpm
- the earths field is strong enough to enable a compass to function

Spinning the Aluminium-Disk Without the Magnetic-Disk anywhere near it.
-  So, if you just spin the  aluminium-disk  without the Magnetic-Disk anywhere near it,  horizontally( or is that vertically ) in relation to earths surface,   THEN,  shouldn't it generate some current from it's interaction with the earth's-magnetic-field(  or Earth's-Electric-Field  etc ),  but I assume the current generated would be very small .
______

Those  Magnokraft designs ( ufo propulsion, I assume using a  magnetic-field-repelling  against the earths-magnetic-field ),  for those designs it wouldn't matter if the magnetic-field spins with the magnet or not,  since they would just worry about the magnetic-field intensity / size .
The last thing I read about those,  was that  they wanted to try  using  superconductors( or,  superconducting  neodymium ), I can't remember .

So now I assume that the  fast-rotating-magnets  in the hoverboards,  are not  single  One-Piece  Disk-Permanent-magnets,  instead they would be fast rotating wheels with a couple of magnets set into the wheel,  to state  the  obvious.

Post by: Low-Q on September 03, 2016, 09:12:20 PM
I just ordered some magnets for final experiment.

meanwhile..

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?
What will happen if compass is inside the ring?
The magnet will not rotate.
The compass will not point in any fixed direction.

Vidar
Post by: kmarinas86 on September 04, 2016, 04:53:22 PM
I just ordered some magnets for final experiment.

meanwhile..

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?

It would not rotate. What you have to consider is that magnets carry embedded magnetization currents, and these give rise to an equivalent surface current. If you have a compass needle, that equivalent surface current will run across the magnetic field on the sides of the compass needle facing toward or away from the magnetic field. So if you have a compass needle in that magnetic field, there will be a torque on compass aligning it with the circular magnetic field of the current based on q(v x B). the However, the magnet you have here is a ring magnet that is magnetized radially. The equivalent surface current in this case runs along the circumference along concentric rings centered on the axis of the ring magnet. The result is that the equivalent surface current on the ring magnets that will run parallel to the magnetic field lines of the wire current, so there will be no Lorentz force q(v x B) and the magnet will fail to turn.

What will happen if compass is inside the ring?

It will align with the combined magnetic field of the permanent magnet and the current through the wire. If you put it in the exact center, then it will have no preferred direction of alignment.
Post by: kmarinas86 on September 04, 2016, 05:14:13 PM
Would have to be individual mags to make the ring, if it did work.

There would be a torque on the individual magnets, but torque on the individual magnets does not automatically mean torque on an arrangement of magnets on a disk. Note that the torque on the individual magnets would cause opposite forces on opposite ends of each magnet, which is why a compass needle turns in the presence of the magnetic field of a wire current. However, if you are taking about rotating the rigid ring magnet assembly with the magnets oriented perpendicular to the wire path, those same forces which apply a net torque on the individual magnets do not apply a net torque to the whole assembly because those forces are directed toward/away from the wire. The reason? You have to consider that the force on the magnet is actually the force on the equivalent surface currents that are the sum of all magnetization currents within that magnet. The forces that turn the magnet are at right angles to both the wire current's magnetic field and the equivalent surface current of that magnet, which wraps around the surface between the magnet's poles. If your poles are oriented at right angles to the wire, then the equivalent surface currents running along the side perimeter of each magnet will cross the magnetic fields of the wire current and will result in Lorentz forces that are perpendicular to the wire, which means the rigid magnet assembly will not revolve around the wire, although their will be a stress on each magnet attempting (in vain) to rotate the magnets at their the current position.
Post by: guest1289 on September 05, 2016, 01:33:10 AM
The only  replicated-test  that makes me wonder about the  correctness  of the  Faraday-Paradox,   is,  The first ever  electric-motor,  which was invented by  Faraday.
( the paradox  implies that the field of a  disk-permanent-magnet  stays stationary when the disk-magnet  rotates )

This motor came in two configurations :
( 1 ) -   the  current-carrying-wire,   rotating  around  the  permanent-cylinder-magnet
( 2 ) -   or,  the  permanent-cylinder-magnet  rotating  around  the  current-carrying-wire

The two configurations can be seen in the diagram in the link below :

Every description I have read about this motor states that the rotation is  simply  as a result of the interaction between the field of the   current-carrying-wire,   and   the field of the  permanent-cylinder-magnet.

And yet the  Faraday-Paradox, and the statements from most members on this site,  imply  that  that   permanent-cylinder-magnet    'Should Not Rotate',  and yet it  does.

(  Admittedly,  I can't determine if or not  electric-current  flows through the  permanent-cylinder-magnet  in this  motor,  if it does,  then why didn't he just replace the  permanent-cylinder-magnet  with  another   current-carrying-wire or conductor .
So,  A DEFINITIVE TEST would be if someone would make a version of this motor that would  ensure  that no  electric-current  flows through the  permanent-cylinder-magnet,   so instead of using the liquid( mercury, or brine ) in this motor,  it could use  brush-contacts instead     )

NOTE : The versions of the homopolar-motor like the version in the link below,  would not be suitable for  A DEFINITIVE TEST
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homopolar_Motor_Large_neutral.jpg

Post by: not_a_mib on September 05, 2016, 05:06:00 AM
A "field mill" instrument might be usable for measuring the electric fields around these devices.  It is essentially the MOSFET electrometer mentioned earlier, with the pickup electrodes either rotating through the field to be measured or periodically shielded so the amplifier sees an AC signal.  This is much easier to detect, and works around charge leakage and drift in the amplifier.

Post by: lumen on September 05, 2016, 07:33:36 PM
A "field mill" instrument might be usable for measuring the electric fields around these devices.  It is essentially the MOSFET electrometer mentioned earlier, with the pickup electrodes either rotating through the field to be measured or periodically shielded so the amplifier sees an AC signal.  This is much easier to detect, and works around charge leakage and drift in the amplifier.

Seems like a bit of overkill for a sensor you could build for \$3.00.
All these MOSFET sensors still require a reference to detect from no matter how advanced so operator error is a major fail point.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on September 09, 2016, 10:01:07 PM
ok its time for small update:
I just performed an experiment; rotating neo magnet and mosfet electroscope...
the problem is with rotating magnet, I have to rotate it on bike wheel because current from electric drill is affecting mosfet :/ this thing is really sensitive! so, RPM's were not the best.
Since LED visually is not telling much I hooked up voltmeter across LED to see things better and i did not register anything important, no electric field detected so far, need to build much better contraption for this, high RPM's are needed.
Post by: lumen on September 09, 2016, 11:17:21 PM
ok its time for small update:
I just performed an experiment; rotating neo magnet and mosfet electroscope...
the problem is with rotating magnet, I have to rotate it on bike wheel because current from electric drill is affecting mosfet :/ this thing is really sensitive! so, RPM's where not the best.
Since LED visually is not telling much I hooked up voltmeter across LED to see things better and i did not register anything important, no electric field detected so far, need to build much better contraption for this, high RPM's are needed.

I think you might want to modify the electroscope like the diagram I posted so you can adjust the trigger point to within a few millivolts.
Also you could make a temporary connection from the magnet to the minus terminal of the battery to set a common reference point.

Then even a slow rotation should provide enough to trigger the electroscope if in fact the field is rotating with the magnet.

Direction of rotation is also important as one direction would move electrons away from the gate and not trigger the LED.
Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on September 10, 2016, 02:05:21 AM

Quote
I think you might want to modify the electroscope like the diagram I posted so you can adjust the trigger point to within a few millivolts.
Also you could make a temporary connection from the magnet to the minus terminal of the battery to set a common reference point.

Then even a slow rotation should provide enough to trigger the electroscope if in fact the field is rotating with the magnet.

Direction of rotation is also important as one direction would move electrons away from the gate and not trigger the LED.

yeah, thanks for tips I will try that soon.

Post by: guest1289 on September 10, 2016, 04:56:18 AM
The  Rotating-Permanent-Magnet  in the  Faraday-Magnetic-Rotation  experiment below( on wikipedia ),  not only  rotates  around the  electrical-conductor,    it  also  rotates  on it's  'own-axis'.

However,  everyone says that you can't make a  disk-magnet spin using electric-current ?

I assume this contravenes the  Farday-Paradox( not sure ) .

Post by: Magluvin on September 12, 2016, 06:02:41 AM
First one is about issues with earths field affecting magnets as we simply play with them on a table. Tried it at home, work and my shop.  Earths field is pretty strong and should be considered in certain magnet motor setups. Maybe it can be used. The poles are sooo far away. Not like Things we spin on the bench where there is very close proximity with high lenz drag and cogging(cores). Here we have the same strength of field from the earth, within say a bench top device.

The mags spinning on a spindle on the outer edge of the rotor doesnt apply drag to the system, other than keeping itself in an earth field alighment, depending on the rotor alignment.

What is very interesting here is, you can compare a magnets field, at a certain distance from another mag, one on each facing side of the test mag, enough to neutralize the earths effect on the test mag. So say I have the test mag set up so it is just naturally pointing N as shown in the vid. Now from the N side and S side of the test mag, slowly bring closer similar mags with their face in repulsion of the test mag to a point where you can easily turn the test mag away from the earths pole.  That would be a test to see how the mag react to each other vs their earth compass function. Once they are at a distance from one another, then they can be used as switching devices without any drag affects on the rotor. The only physical effect of the edge mag on a spindle is to keep in pole alignment, of which you can do work for the price of getting the rotor with total rotor weight up to speed. The mags will follow earths fields pretty strongly if u use the right mags.

The second vid is of things you are discussing.

Soo. Can we apply dc at one edge of the disk magnet(on and axle) an the other dc lead to the other edge of the magnet. Will it spin? Will it be the magnets own functions and reactions to itself that makes it spin, or is it the field of the input wires that get it going?

Mags

Post by: allcanadian on September 12, 2016, 06:25:03 PM
@guest1289
Quote
The  Rotating-Permanent-Magnet  in the  Faraday-Magnetic-Rotation  experiment below( on wikipedia ),  not only  rotates  around the  electrical-conductor,    it  also  rotates  on it's  'own-axis'.

However,  everyone says that you can't make a  disk-magnet spin using electric-current ?

Nowhere in any of the articles I have seen does it mention the magnet rotating on it's own axis. In fact this experiment proves nothing more than conventional motor theory and gives no indication as to whether the permanent magnet field rotates or not. You do understand the conductor has a circular spin field which falls in line with basic motor theory don't you?.

AC
Post by: lumen on September 12, 2016, 09:24:24 PM
Place a metal magnet in water add a charge and it will spin ! You don't understand  anything outside the book of deadheads and rotten broomsticks ..................... Don't insult or you will be made to look like an idiot ... !

Regards
S9 ...

That is quite a vague statement.
Are you thinking like a static charge or ..... some current flow from point A to B or some type of yet unknown principal?
You might want to be more specific so you don't insult yourself.
Post by: guest1289 on September 14, 2016, 01:32:05 AM
This post is about the  permanent-magnet   orbiting around  an  electrical-conductor  in the  Faraday-Motor  below  :

Quote
Nowhere in any of the articles I have seen does it mention the magnet rotating on it's own axis.

I should have typed  'magnet rotating on it's own axis from the perspective of the  current-carrying-wire,  around which the magnet is orbiting.

Pretending my mouse is the  permanent-magnet  orbiting in this motor,  if I swing my mouse by the cord around an object,  in 1 orbit,  the magnet has also done 1-full rotation on it's own axis,   from the perspective of the  current-carrying-wire .

-  What if the magnet was prevented from orbiting around the wire,   and you added a  shaft  to that  magnet  to permit  the magnet  to rotate on it's own axis,   I just assume that the magnet  should  then  'rotate on it's own axis' ,   from the perspective of the earth.
-  But everyone says it will not rotate.

-   What if the only change you made to the motor,  was to simply add a shaft  to the  magnet  to permit  the magnet  to rotate on it's own axis,   and you still allow the magnet to  rotate/orbit  around the wire,   I wonder what would happen .

-  If no liquid is utilized  in this motor,  by using brushes for example,  I assume that that  magnet  will still  orbit  around the  wire,   but I don't know,  surely it has nothing to do with the  liquid-mercury( or brine substitute ) .
I have never seen any other  motor  where a  symmetrical-magnet  like this one ,  orbits,  or rotates on it's own axis from the perspective of the  current-carrying-wire .

Quote
In fact this experiment proves nothing more than conventional motor theory and gives no indication as to whether the permanent magnet field rotates or not. You do understand the conductor has a circular spin field which falls in line with basic motor theory don't you?.

Yes,  all of the  electric-motor-deigns  I have posted on this site,  are designed to  function  'directly'  from the interaction with that   'circular spin field'.

Quote
Sequental.9
You can get a disc magnet to spin either in water or on a crystal lenz or in a DJ turntable drive or by inductive resonance or in zero gravity

Quote
you can get it to spin X potentially if you coat it in silver then varnish and hit it with a lot of volts or static or monopole pulse

This could give me a clue as to what else could be going on in that motor,  if in fact this motor is different to other normal motors,   although these days they substitute the mercury with brine,  but you have also mentioned  water .
Post by: Magluvin on September 18, 2016, 04:18:48 PM
Found this vid interesting. ;)

Mags
Post by: synchro1 on September 19, 2016, 01:03:54 AM
I just ordered some magnets for final experiment.

meanwhile..

this probably has been discussed 100 of times but once again for sake of this topic:
Would a magnet like this rotate if current flows in wire ?
What will happen if compass is inside the ring?

Using "Flemings left hand rule" you can see that the magnetic field would be pushing against the radial wall. No motion possible in that direction.
Title: Oersted experiment.
Post by: synchro1 on September 23, 2016, 07:51:13 PM
Using "Flemings left hand rule" you can see that the magnetic field would be pushing against the radial wall. No motion possible in that direction.

Here's a video demonstrating the effect of an electric current in a wire on neo magnets.

Post by: PolaczekCebulaczek on January 28, 2017, 11:23:10 PM
I'm still trying to find electric field around spinning magnet meanwhile, I have another question :

Transformer, two coils, one coil inside the other, air core, HV pulses are flowing in primary, secondary coil IS ROTATING on axis, would a current be induced in secondary? would a bulb light up when connected to rotating secondary coil?

extremely interesting conclusions!
Post by: synchro1 on January 29, 2017, 06:44:35 PM
I'm still trying to find electric field around spinning magnet meanwhile, I have another question :

Transformer, two coils, one coil inside the other, air core, HV pulses are flowing in primary, secondary coil IS ROTATING on axis, would a current be induced in secondary? would a bulb light up when connected to rotating secondary coil?

extremely interesting conclusions!

The secondary should rotate end over end inside the air core of the primary to generate power.
Post by: guest1289 on January 30, 2017, 08:37:30 PM
Quote
I'm still trying to find electric field around spinning magnet

APOLOGIES - I ACCIDENTALLY TYPED  'MAGNETIC-FIELD',   INSTEAD OF  'ELECTRIC-FIELD',   WHEN I FIRST POSTED  'THIS POST'.

You probably already know that apparently if you freeze a permanent-magnet,  it's  'Electric-Field' becomes permanently visible in the ice,  but I can't find this mentioned on wikipedia or on any credible-scientific-website.

However,  I have never heard of this being tried with a  spinning-magnet,  that could be done in a hollow part in the ice,  or outside the ice.

You can see a photo of the frozen  'Electric-Field'  on the  webpage  in the quoted-text  below,  from a post I made on another thread
Quote
-  The proof that a  permanent-magnet( an unpowered-magnet )  has an electric-field can be viewed when a magnet is frozen solid in water,  the  Electric-Field then becomes clearly visible
In the webpage below, find the text -  "Notice the angle of the electric field thats perpendicular to the magnet" - ,  to see the photo of the frozen magnetic-field of a permanent-magnet
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/9680-tube-driven-tpus-construction-zone-5.html
However,  I wonder if when you freeze a permanent-magnet,  it may become closer to being a super-conductor,  which is actually different to a room-temperature permanent-magnet,  but obviously a frozen permanent-magnet is not as cold as a  super-conductor( a much lower temperature,  frozen permanent-magnet )
___________

The Following Relates To  Energy-Amplification  Via  Geometrical-Means,   For Example,  A Motor With A Large-Wheel On It's Axle,  And That Large-Wheel Turns A Small-Wheel Which Is On The Axle Of A Generator.
It Relates To This Thread,   Because Of A Detail In The Last Paragraph.

Faraday's First Motors,  And Generators, Seem To Have No Points Of Electromagnetic-Friction,  So,  I'm Thinking If They Would be Ideal To Test Out The Theories Of  'Energy-Amplification'  Via Geometrical-Means/'Purely-Mechanical/Electrical'( Geometrical-Means, see above)  Designs,  Which Are Usually Discredited Due To Torque.

However,  I assume that faraday's initial generators( and all subsequent others) did in fact have problems with the electromagnetic-eddies( lenz's law ) that they created.

-  The question was asked on this thread,  that if  when the speed of  faraday's-homopolar-generator  is increased,  whether or not it generates more voltage,   I think the only answer provided,   was that  faraday's-homopolar-generator  needs a very high rpm to generate any power.