Homopolar generator



Hi Max,

If I read your diagram correctly, the net flux cutting the coil is zero. Therefore zero voltage.

Regards,

bi

Yes, according to Faraday's own law of induction there should be zero voltage.

However it is well known that there is still voltage induced, hence the "Faraday paradox" -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox :

"If the lines of flux are imagined to originate in the magnet, then they would be stationary in the frame of the magnet, and rotating the disc relative to the magnet, whether by rotating the magnet or the disc, should produce an EMF, but rotating both of them together should not."

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

"Before the discovery of the electron and the Lorentz force law, the phenomenon was inexplicable and was known as the Faraday paradox."

So Faraday's law of induction cannot explain the Homopolar generator. Instead try to integrate the Lorentz force around a loop of coil, what results do you get?

Max

Point missed

Hi Max,

You missed my point. Even if you could somehow keep the magnet rings stationary, you would still have a net zero flux cutting the rotating disc (can you still call the rotor a disc?). In other words, an equal amount of flux cuts the conductor in both directions therefore cancelling induction. There needs to be a flux return path around or outside the armature (conductor or disc). This has nothing to do with Faraday's paradox.

bi

{edit}
Notice the back iron in this diagram from your wikipedia reference.



The magnetic path or circuit is completed outside of the rotor space. I think (but not sure) that would be the case with the Faraday paradox also.

See my edit after your post: "So Faraday's law of induction cannot explain the Homopolar generator. Instead try to integrate the Lorentz force around a loop of coil, what results do you get?"

The flux return path would be the air around the rotor.

See my edit done after your post.

Return path

Hi Max,



I was talking about your diagram above. You've drawn the flux paths and they cut the coil twice. That is the problem I am attempting to convey.

bi

I don't see the problem, see attached picture.



Try to think in terms of Lorentz force, not flux lines cutting.

EDIT: Ah dang, I see it now, in the horizontal paths it is opposing. So I'll have to find a way to return the flux without cutting twice.

Max

Bingo! Glad you can see it.

{edit}
The way around that problem is to use multiple poles.

DePalma N Machine

DePalma's N Machine used electromagnets instead of permanent magnets.

His papers on the subject are worth reading.

-> Can you elaborate on that?

Thanks.

Max

Poles

Sure. Maybe it was stupid or off-topic. Faraday disc is a homopolar dynamo meaing only one pole. Of course there is no such thing as a one pole magnet but what is meant is that flux crosses the air gap in only one direction. So the magnetic circuit is completed without a second "cutting" of the armature. This unique topology produces a true DC (direct current or non-alternating current). The downside is the necessarily low generated voltage.

Machine designers soon figured out how to utilize the return flux path by cutting thru the armature twice resulting in a pair of poles with areas on the armature of flux in opposite directions. Hence a multipolar dynamo. No longer a homopolar Faraday disc. A consequence on multiple poles is AC. So the the commutator was developed. Soon multiple turn armature coils delivered higher generated voltage.

You just bumped into the classical reason the Faraday disc isn't used these days except in a few applications requiring very high DC like thousands of amperes at just a few volts. I've always been fascinated with the things. Never built one, but might try to put together something to play with. Got some copper sheet.

I took a look at DePalma. Like so many of these things, there fails to be an easily found explanation of the OU or FE claim. It appears he had several substantial prototypes. Why then no presentation of performance testing? Just vague claims like caloric output exceeded electric input power or something along those lines. I mean if the guy has something, do some useful work with it and show the world.

Sorry Max. Get carried away. Regards,

bi

Good Topic Max,

Unfortunately the "Classic" Theories on Magnetism, (prevailing up to now) basically the "Single Flow" B Field Directional Vector Theory, from North to South, (No South to North) will fail to give a clear, factual answer to this interesting Machine...:

[IMG][/IMG]

As their only recourse would be to use the "same ol'"...about "cutting "the imaginary" lines of force"...

Regardless of the several technique's and developments to see the ACTUAL MAGNETIC FIELD, besides the primitive Iron Filings...where ALL of these advanced methods clearly show a "CENTER" differentiating from their extremes or "Poles", which outlines clearly in ALL of them...they "insist" on having the Single Flow prevailing...Not recognizing there IS an ABSOLUTE DEFINED CENTER to every Magnetic Field where forces emanate and discharge.

The N-Machine was a very out loud demonstration of this device:

[IMG][/IMG]

This principle to obtain Electric Flow or EMF, would deliver a very simple Explanation if we recognize the Modern Theory about Magnetic Fields:

[IMG][/IMG]

Any Magnetic Field (whether from PM or EM) have SEVERAL "PARTIAL CIRCULAR SPINS" which pertain to each "N-S" Polarization.
Each "Spin" configures a Circular Shape Geometry (seen as elliptical on above diagram), they emanate from the center of Field, (Equatorial) bursting out through each pole configuring its Spatial Spin (where BOTH Poles Spin in the SAME Direction)...

To then "Discharge" back to the center of Field, on the same area for both operations, Centrifugal and Centripetal.

Each Pole produces a Higher Magnetic Pressure (Centrifugal) at their Spatial "Corona's" (top)...While the Center "Accretion Disc" where all Circular Spins discharge towards...configure the LOWER PRESSURE ZONE or DISC PLANE.

Watching my Video about this would help visualize the Geo:

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZhETcDHDRY&index=5&list=PLDK7GC_dPVji-WQ0UoQGcRuS6tjRw_JPg[/VIDEO]

Now, bolt down to simplicity of the explanation...No matter how fast you turn this whole assembly of magnets and disc, in a later design, where all components rotate...

The Magnetic Field will be completely STATIC, meaning standing still related to the spinning components, However, still performing its Centripetal-Centrifugal "LOCAL" Spins.

What happens here is simple...the Magnet or Electromagnet Material, PLUS the Copper Disc, will serve as "The Moving CONDUCTOR"...where Classic Theory will say "cutting their "Single Flow" or B Field vector...

But also they have tested this Machine by setting brushes on both sides of the conducting shaft...and it happens that at both ends both connected to center as positive...Both Meters show exactly same Electric Flow...:

[IMG][/IMG]

Now, How would the Classic Magnetism Theory of a Single Flow would explain such result?

Note they always "show" the brush connection on the "North Side"...

[IMG][/IMG]

If there would be a Single Magnetic Flow...there should NOT be the same Meter Measurements on both extremes of shaft...Why?...Because I can understand North Emissions (or B Field Out) would define the Negative Brush...But then South, -according to Single Flow- should reflect the Positive End, where flow is Returning and Not emanating...

Same way "they" almost always show Magnetic Repulsion ALSO on the North Side...:



And so...according to Single Flow, Two South Poles should "Attract" and not repulse, when looking at vector's directions:



Back on Faraday Disc...High Amps is a result of Conductor VERY Low Resistance, which is a Disc, Shaft and Magnets Embodiment...no Amp Turns here collecting Magnetic Spins...So, since there is no "Defined Length" from and to...Voltage is very Low.

But I am SO sure Bistander will come up here and give me one of his explanations...defending Classic Theory...like there is no actual "Magnetic flow"...but flux presence...right Bi?...

I will be waiting for your response soon...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Reply to Ufo

Hi Ufo,

There is nothing inconsistent there with conventional theory. I have no idea what "single flow" relates. On the Faraday disc, the brush could be above or below or both. It's arbitrary. And positive/negative is determined similar to the right hand rule; no problem there. You can believe in your swirling center emanating magnetism if you like but I don't buy into it. I don't see a place where classical theory fails here, even in the paradox. I see where you don't understand or misinterprete classical theory like S poles repelling each other.

Different opinions. O.K.

bi

Hi Bistander,

Take a look...











Can't You "still" NOT see a Single Flow on all above images, from N to S?

Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?

Isn't an Arrow and a Line or curve represent a Directional Vector Indication of a Flow?...if not, then why put an "arrow" there?

...Even the Extraterrestrials have been trying to let us know how wrong we are by that single flow concept on Crop Circles......:







...There is no worst blindness than those who refuse to see, by their own will...Paraphrasing from an old proverb:




Regards


Ufopolitics