Good Morning People,
G'morning.
Ahhh Koen I see your here... Excellent... Now 2 things... 1. i do believe that water does conduct electricity... if it didn't it wouldn't matter if you submersed your motherboard in water to keep it cool... If your adamant about water not conducting try that one 
(i never said a good conductor just that it is one)
Lol ok, well, pure H2O is definately not conductive. But most water is not pure H2O, and contains other elements in solution. That's why salt water conducts quite
nicely. When you put electronic circuits in water, even if it is pure H2O, the surfaces of the metals (if not coated with something) will allow atoms to dissolve
and the water will become conductive. So yeah, putting circuitry in water will cause shorting and other nasty effects. But not because H2O in itself is conductive,
rather because of the ions in the solution. Electrolysis of H2O also works a lot better when a little electrolyte is added to the water in the form of salt, simply
because that increases conductivity and allows for a much better electrical connection between the cicuit and the H2O molecules.
Oh, and of course, that's all as far as I know and to my experience, and if you have interesting observations that seem to contradict these factoids then please
do tell.
2. My theory on this is only a theory. IMO there are millions of theorys out there, it take time to prove them right or wrong. The running idea was that you needed something nonconductive to separate the magnet. people have proven this wrong by using better dielectrics, so one theory written off time to relook at the originat obervation.
Now i did say i had further testing to do, and with a 2 little girls and a full time job my disposable time is limited. I didn't rule out that this isn't a galvanic reaction it is still observations at the moment. That is why i asked on this forum hoping that people that better understand this reaction to propose specific varibles that would rule out this reaction. So far i have 2 test to try on the weekend if i can.
Alright. Well, I'd still like to hear your theory when you feel it is 'ripe' for presentation
And if I gave you the impression I want you to come up with rock solid proof of your theory right this minute, I apologise.
I did not mean anything like that. It's just that I would like to hear about your theory if you think you've got a good one.
With two little gals running around you I can imagine you don't have very much time.
1. Change the water for another liquid perhaps one that doesn't conduct at all... i have seen a computer run in a "vat" of oil so i am considering exchanging the water for oil and seeing how this changes the voltage.
Ah,
good that you mention this yourself, I was about to point out that using a nonconductive mineral oil
would allow for immersion in liquid without any metals dissolving and forming electrolytic solutions... If anything galvanic is going on, using oil instead of water
should indeed decrease any such galvanic effects.
2. Using different connectors instead of steel clips. Zinc coated nails, copper & nickle coated washers... if i can get my hands on some. Now you seem to understand galvanic reactions.
Want to short list my proposed tests with any ideas that will confirm or disprove your ideas indefinatly?
Lol indefinately is very definitive eh, but sure
It's actually quite simple; galvanic reactions occur between two different metals in an electrolytic solution. That can be an acid, a salt solution, all kinds of stuff,
and water happens to be a substance which has a tendency to dissolve things, easily forming electrolytic solutions.
So if you have two different metals, put them in a solution of just about anything, they will produce a voltage.
To minimise the chances of your measured output being the result of galvanic reaction, we'll want to eliminate those crucial elements in the galvanic setup.
So we could 1) replace the water with some other liquid, preferably nonconductive/nonelectrolytic, and see if we still get output, 2) make sure the pieces of metal
are not dissimilar metals (standard galvanic series will show which metals generate what potential difference).
Then, the paper napkin part of the story is also a bit questionable, as the first batteries in the old days did in fact use paper or even saw dust between the
two different conductors. This is because the paper/saw dust obviously does allow the electrolyte solution to soak through so the solution contacts both
the conductors and the internal 'galvanic' electrical circuit is closed this way. One of the oldest written descriptions of a chemical "galvanic" battery
can be found in the Sanskrit Indian Vedic scripture "Agastya Samhita" from >3500 BC, and it describes how a layer of copper and a layer of zinc can be
seperated by saw dust and a sulfuric acid solution, and energy can be obtained from it. This just to illustrate how old the use of saw dust is in batteries.
Paper is dried wood pulp, a structured form of saw dust, basically. Wet paper in combination with anything that can dissolve into an electrolytic solution,
and in combination with two different metals will produce volts.
So if you want to make sure none of that happens, that the paper doesn't just act as a "spongy" conduit for the electrolyte, then it seems you may want
to use something that does not have such a "spongy" effect. (or use a liquid that does not form electrolytic solution) A real dielectric, that does not
allow passage of electrolytes, like a good nonporous plastic for example, might be a good test.
Seems to me that gives us some fairly simple options.
1) use a totally nonconductive, nonelectrolytic, nonreactive, liquid instead of water
2) check what metal coating your magnet has, then check the galvanic series for a difference between this metal
and the steel you're using as plates. If the galvanic series says you can expect a voltage, then it would appear
to be a galvanic reaction. (of course, if you're using a nonconductive liquid, this should no longer apply)
2b) if you find that your magnet is coated in nickel for example, then try to find a piece of nickel to use instead
of your pieces of steel. If the output disappears when you do this, it would appear to be a purely galvanic effect.
3) Replacing the paper with a real dielectric that does not allow for passage/transmission of electrolytes in the
liquid should keep them from exchanging energy between the two metals, and no output should be produced.
(mind you, if there is a secondary path via which electrolytes in the solution can interact with both metals,
they will and you will still have a galvanic cell, so this will only work if you have properly isolated both metals.)
Also in response to your questions about my theory of magnets "loosening" the electron shells. the current you are placing through the wires would have to be strong enough to counter the centrafugal forces of the electrons. Example : spinning disk with a lip, place small balls in it they will go to the edges right... but you can push the balls towards the middle, if the force you apply is greater that the centralfugal forces acting on the ball... so your current must be stronger or applied to be stronger to counter the forces working against your desired movement of the electrons.
I get the impression you may have misunderstood what I meant; I may have been unclear.
What I meant was: it is true that a homopolar generator will generate a potential difference and a current between the center of the disc and the rim.
Direction of current flow depends on the orientation of the magnetic field in respect to the direction of rotation. For example, m field is homogenous
and oriented "up", disc is spun "clockwise", then current is produced "from center to rim", while reversing field orentation or reversing direction of
rotation will produce current flow "from rim to center". Similarly, it works as a motor, where current input "from center to rim" will produce a "clockwise"
rotation in the disc, when there is an "up" oriented m field. This appears to indicate that in the motor function, the current does not oppose the
"centrifugal" force, but rather that the disc spins in reaction to the applied outward "simulated centrifugal" force...
I'm just trying to say that, in my current view, there does not appear to be any "countering" of those centrifugal forces when used as a motor.
But of course I may simply not have understood your model exactly as you understand it, so I may have missed something.
"One possible method to check if you're not getting mostly galvanic reactions, is simply by replacing
the nickel-coated magnet with a piece of pure nickel. Or if your magnet is coated in gold, use a piece
of pure gold instead. If it produces comparable voltage when you wrap your napkin around it, attach
the pieces of steel, and add water, then clearly you have a form of galvanic ("wet") cell.
Also, do not forget that when the steel/iron is attracted to the magnet, this produces pressure, and
different metals under pressure are known to produce voltage. So if your magnetless steel-and-nickel
version does not produce volts just yet, try putting it in a vice and putting quite a lot of pressure on the
stack. There is a chance that it will produce output in these circumstances. ("Dry" pile)"
wouldn't a better method be to replace the known reactives with a nonreactive rather than a known reactive? thus cancelling out the galvanic reaction rather than making a small battery?
Well, sure, you can do that too.
There's typically 2 ways of proving something: verification, and falsification.
You can try to build it so that is definately can not work as a galvanic cell, by removing all the typical galvanic elements, and then seeing if you still
get an output from the magnet setup. That's your "verification of the nongalvanic magnetic battery" and "falsification of the magnetic battery being galvanic".
Or you can try to remove the parts that make it into a "magnetic" battery and tunr it into the closest nonmagnetic version which does seem to
have a lot in common with simple galvanic cells, and then see if the output you get from it is comparable to what you were getting when you
did use the magnet. That's your "verification of the magnetic battery being galvanic" and "falsification of the nongalvanic magnetic battery effect".
Ideally, you should do both. But in general either of the two should give more clarity already.
Yes my napkin is the nice pearly white one... the only one on hand... If this is galvanic i want to make it less likly to happen to see if voltage levels drop. Not more likely.
Alright, so you want a version where galvanics are minimised so that it is certainly not galvanic. Ok. Then go for the version where you eliminate the
typical galvanic elements and only the nongalvanic version remains. So that's either no different metals, or no electrolyte solution, or no porous paper "seperator",
or a combination of these. (Mind you, assuming there is some magnetic battery effect, there is a chance that the two different metals for example do play a role,
but not in the same way as they do in the galvanic effect. So there is a chance that you do need two different metals but the output does not accord with the voltages
indicated in the galvanic tables, nor is there actually a chemical reaction going on. I'm talking about the chance that there is some unknown magnetic effect.
This of course means that there is a chance that the output disappears when you do not use two different metals, but that the effect is not galvanic either.
That's the tricky part with unknown effects.
That's also why in an ideal situation I would like to try all of the variations on the tests I named, so that we get
a picture of what happens with all these variations, and how that had influence on the output. That way we could look at these different aspects.
But it's a good start to see if it works if the galvanic elements are removed.
)
As i said help would be nice but rather than building something else can we keep the same basics (magnet - Nonmagnetic conductor - magnetic conductor) as i believe that this is more reliable way testing that this might work rather than a quik dismissal.
Not dismissing it yet
Ok, so you prefer to test slight variations of your magnet setup instead of building a nonmagnetic variation and seeing if that does the same.
Your perogative of course. It's your magnet setup, your call.
Since your setup sounds very simple and I have some magnets around, I want to replicate your setup.
I have neodymium "rare earth" magnets, coated in nickel or gold. I have napkins, nice white ones. I have pieces of different metals.
Can you please tell me what type of magnet you're using?
And what metal it is coated in? That seems to be very important here.
Best regards,
Koen
