Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube ONLY 13% OF SEATS AVAILABLE!!!*** 2017 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***


* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 06-13-2017, 01:33 PM
madMAx4 madMAx4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
Faraday Disc 2.0

Hi Guys,

When reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator one is told that:

“If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc.”

Ok, hold on now... This is like saying a bicycle dynamo works regardless of whether it is connected to the frame or the wheel itself. Crazy right? The wikipedia article does not go into further detail of course.

What we know is that a current I flowing though a wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the wire and an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

Also we know that a moving wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the electrons in the wire and thus an electromotive force with an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

So what does that mean for the Homopolar Generator? By the rotating motion of the disc an electromotive force will be induced upon the electrons in the disc and once a current flows by closing the loop a Lorentz force will act upon the disc and the magnet. In case where the magnet is stationary it will slow down the disc. In case where the magnet is rotating with the disc a torque will be created between the disc and the magnet which will cancel itself out.

Can it be that simple? I believe so. We just have been distracted by so much BS that we have simply overlooked this simple way of getting free energy.

Now there is a small catch to this. The original generator produces very low voltage and very high current, making it quite difficult to get the energy off the disc into a stationary frame. It's like trying to make a transformer work with just one loop of wire on the primary.

This is where I had an idea. Why not use a coil instead of a disc? Like this:

[See Picture]

By using opposing fields on the left and right side the electromotive forces will add up instead of cancel out.

This should give twice the voltage per coil loop compared to a traditional generator with a single disc.

What do you think?

Max
Attached Images
File Type: png FaradayDisc2.0.png (51.6 KB, 336 views)
Attached Files
File Type: pdf EnergyFromMagnet.pdf (47.9 KB, 57 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #2  
Old 06-13-2017, 03:43 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Homopolar generator

Quote:
Originally Posted by madMAx4 View Post
Hi Guys,

When reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homopolar_generator one is told that:

“If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc.”

Ok, hold on now... This is like saying a bicycle dynamo works regardless of whether it is connected to the frame or the wheel itself. Crazy right? The wikipedia article does not go into further detail of course.

What we know is that a current I flowing though a wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the wire and an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

Also we know that a moving wire in the presence of a magnet with magnetic field B will cause a Lorentz force on the electrons in the wire and thus an electromotive force with an equal and opposite force on the magnet itself.

So what does that mean for the Homopolar Generator? By the rotating motion of the disc an electromotive force will be induced upon the electrons in the disc and once a current flows by closing the loop a Lorentz force will act upon the disc and the magnet. In case where the magnet is stationary it will slow down the disc. In case where the magnet is rotating with the disc a torque will be created between the disc and the magnet which will cancel itself out.

Can it be that simple? I believe so. We just have been distracted by so much BS that we have simply overlooked this simple way of getting free energy.

Now there is a small catch to this. The original generator produces very low voltage and very high current, making it quite difficult to get the energy off the disc into a stationary frame. It's like trying to make a transformer work with just one loop of wire on the primary.

This is where I had an idea. Why not use a coil instead of a disc? Like this:

[See Picture]

By using opposing fields on the left and right side the electromotive forces will add up instead of cancel out.

This should give twice the voltage per coil loop compared to a traditional generator with a single disc.

What do you think?

Max


Hi Max,

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

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:12 PM
madMAx4 madMAx4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
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
__________________
 

Last edited by madMAx4; 06-13-2017 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:26 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Point missed

Quote:
Originally Posted by madMAx4 View Post
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 :

"If the magnetic field is provided by a permanent magnet, the generator works regardless of whether the magnet is fixed to the stator or rotates with the disc."

Max
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.
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 06-13-2017 at 08:45 PM. Reason: Added diagram
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:37 PM
madMAx4 madMAx4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
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.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:46 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
See my edit done after your post.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-13-2017, 08:53 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Return path

Quote:
Originally Posted by madMAx4 View Post
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.
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:09 PM
madMAx4 madMAx4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
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
Attached Images
File Type: png FaradayDisc2.0_flux.png (95.8 KB, 283 views)
__________________
 

Last edited by madMAx4; 06-13-2017 at 09:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-13-2017, 09:30 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Bingo! Glad you can see it.

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

Last edited by bistander; 06-13-2017 at 09:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-14-2017, 02:59 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 10,561
DePalma N Machine

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

His papers on the subject are worth reading.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-14-2017, 08:25 AM
madMAx4 madMAx4 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 17
Quote:
The way around that problem is to use multiple poles.
-> Can you elaborate on that?

Thanks.

Max
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-14-2017, 12:50 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Poles

Quote:
Originally Posted by madMAx4 View Post
-> Can you elaborate on that?

Thanks.

Max
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
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 06-14-2017 at 01:28 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-14-2017, 02:17 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,565
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:



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
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 06-14-2017 at 02:49 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-14-2017, 02:50 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Reply to Ufo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post

...

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...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...
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
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-14-2017, 03:31 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
Hi Ufo,

... I have no idea what "single flow" relates...

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:

Quote:
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn’t want to see. There is no worse deaf man than the one who doesn’t want to hear. And there is no worse madman than the one who doesn’t want to understand.” -Ancient Proverb



Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 06-14-2017 at 03:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-14-2017, 03:53 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Vector arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ufopolitics View Post
Hi Bistander,

Take a look...











Can't You "still" not see a Single Flow?

Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?

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





...There is no worst blindness than those who refuse to see, by their own will...





Regards


Ufopolitics
Hi Ufo,

There is no flow in the magnetic field. It is static. It is 3-dimensional represented 2-dimensionally in your post. Also represented by lines. Arrow heads are drawn on those lines to represent the direction of the B vector at each point along the line. Arrows do not indicate flow. A vector quantity is often represented by an arrow where the length of the shaft is the magnitude and the orientation in space of the shaft is the orientation of the vector quantity with the arrow head indicating the polarity (positive or negative). Vector representation of the magnetic B field has nothing to do with motion of the B field.

We've been through this before. You don't see it that way. Fine. Look at it however you want. But I object your false statements concerning classical. Opinions are fine. Misleading statements as you are prone to make need to be challenged. I think we stray off topic. Let the OP carry on.

bi

{edit}
Quote:
Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?
Yes. Because that is how North and South poles are defined.
__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 06-14-2017 at 04:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-25-2017, 06:57 AM
forelle forelle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 42
Hi all,here is a link which should be read.http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/sq.pdf
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-10-2017, 12:51 AM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 170
the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.
__________________
 

Last edited by spacecase0; 07-10-2017 at 12:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-10-2017, 03:39 AM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by forelle View Post
Hi all,here is a link which should be read.http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/sq.pdf
Thanks, interesting link...only a few hundred pages..

I'm looking at this because of the center column in the ARV and it's crazy center disc.
An Inquiry in to the Alien Reproduction Vehicle

A magnetic flux can only be seen as a wormhole from a higher pressure dimension/hyperspace/counter-space. That there is pressure, hence movement, is manifest since the field/flux come from the precise center of a magnet and collapse back in upon themselves. Evidence goes beyond the work of Ufopolitics in this regard and is empirical. That we cannot at present yet quantify what the magnetic flux material is, and hence not detect movement, does not invalidate a presumption that there is movement, for the evident logic behind the idea of a moving cycling field is nearly irrefutable: It only appears to not be moving but which is illogical. Logic says it is moving. Which is it and does it matter?

How can a magnetic flux field be a static object like a tree in the front yard because that defies logic. Once grown a tree doesn't simply disappear because we cut the roots. That's not logical deduction. Hence a force of unknown matter is what constitutes a flux field. The idea that this may be the case is reflected in the design whereby the ARV's crew compartment is itself a sphere. The sphere is the strongest geometric form against an outside uniform pressure like a liquid. Further, is it not so that it is the movement of electrons over time which creates an electromagnetic field ? If that is true than a magnetic flux would seem to be, and by definition; a moving field.

Alternatively: If flux were considered to be a fluid then there comes about the potential to see this two ways, for a fluid may be both static or moving, and which is always affected by the medium it is in contact with.
Gravity, which of course magnetism is associated with, makes the most sense when seen as a liquid. Can something be both static and yet again free to change and move: Yes, a fluid can do this.

http://www.liquidgravity.nz/
__________________
 

Last edited by Gambeir; 07-10-2017 at 03:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-10-2017, 12:41 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Interested

Quote:
Originally Posted by spacecase0 View Post
the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.
Hi spacecase0,

You built this? I'd like to see it. How did you support magnets inside the coil?

bi

__________________
 

Last edited by bistander; 07-10-2017 at 03:31 PM. Reason: Typo
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-10-2017, 02:25 PM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
Crafty question bi . .
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-10-2017, 04:37 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Another question

Quote:
Originally Posted by seaad View Post
Crafty question bi . .
For you seaad,

Say he was able to support the ring magnets inside the coil with non-magnetic bearings, would those interior magnets rotate with the coil or stay stationary with respect to the outer magnets?

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-10-2017, 06:53 PM
seaad's Avatar
seaad seaad is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 179
Hi bi!
Why do you want to know if the inner magnets spins or not? (hypothetically Q.) . . And an answer just from ME . . now, when i have my (UO-tinkering) summer intermission. My brain is set to just over idle now. But eyes are open! . But I come to think of this: Magnetic Transmission Theory or similar . . and This:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

Have a nice summer
Arne
__________________
 

Last edited by seaad; 07-10-2017 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-10-2017, 08:33 PM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 170
I may have omitted the center magnets, the magnetic field is the same with or without them (right?), so I did not give it a second thought until your question...
think I should rebuild it with the magnets in the center ?
and if I did rebuild it, they would be spinning on the shaft with the rest of the center, either that or it would take to much time to build and I would likely never get around to it.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-11-2017, 04:58 PM
Gambeir's Avatar
Gambeir Gambeir is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Peoples republic of Washington
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by bistander View Post
For you seaad,

Say he was able to support the ring magnets inside the coil with non-magnetic bearings, would those interior magnets rotate with the coil or stay stationary with respect to the outer magnets?

Regards,

bi
OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*


Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.
Attached Images
File Type: png Faraday Disc. 2.0.png (3.80 MB, 156 views)
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-11-2017, 05:22 PM
bistander bistander is online now
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 912
Different

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gambeir View Post
OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*


Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.


But that is different from the OP's diagram. His coil turns do not span the shaft as you show.

The OP design can be built although difficult (likely expensive). You'd always have some bearing friction acting to rotate the inner magnet rings. Like I posted previously, the OP configuration will not generate. That is regardless of inner magnet rotation or not. It was simply an academic question put to seaad (mostly) to needle him (have some fun).

Regards,

bi
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-12-2017, 12:06 AM
Dingus Dingus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
DePalma's N Machine used electromagnets instead of permanent magnets.

His papers on the subject are worth reading.
The other night this diagram popped into my head. I remembered that part around t & t being a Faraday disc like the one Tesla patented, but thinking it'd makes no sense if the power going through it were AC. I thought that if it used an electromagnet instead of permanent magnets & were wired in series with the disc, the disc should stay rotating in the same direction since both the current in the disc & the electromagnets would reverse at the same time. Using it as the inductor in your plasma ignition system, it might make for an interesting pulse-frequency modulated motor. The brush could even be a spark-gap. There's probably some big flaw to this that I'm overlooking, like eddy currents, but it I had fun thinking about it before bed.
__________________
 

Last edited by Dingus; 07-12-2017 at 12:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-24-2017, 07:02 AM
spacecase0's Avatar
spacecase0 spacecase0 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 170
I rebuilt my setup with electromagnets and no permanent magnets,
got the same results of nothing
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-02-2017, 03:24 AM
lotec lotec is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-02-2017, 02:31 PM
Ufopolitics's Avatar
Ufopolitics Ufopolitics is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: US, Florida
Posts: 4,565
The REAL TRUTH...

Quote:
Originally Posted by lotec View Post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.

Nice video Lotec, nice experiment!!

The only "possibility" and missing test would have been to rotate just the brushes while disc and magnet static to then note how voltage would be generated according to the rotation sense... The guy just moves brushes back-forth and stills gets a saw-tooth signal.

For close to 200 years, ever since Faraday ASSUMED that Induction was created by Conductor CUTTING the "IMAGINARY" FIELD LINES, plus then later on Lorentz considering Magnetic Fields does NOT contains ANY SPINS...got Us all to believe on this FALLACY...and -what I find even more amazing- is that no one that I know off -along this long time- have conducted simple experiments which would have RULED OUT COMPLETELY this WRONG ASSUMPTION about imaginary lines of force cutting conductors "FAIRY-TALES".

This is the ONLY REASON WHY...Science can not explain this Homopolar Generator behavior with absolutely no convincing Theories based on those "cutting lines" principles.

Fact is...Magnetic Fields DO HAVE PARTIAL SPINS, and applying it here would understand that brushes on above video, delimit a CONDUCTING PATH on the Copper Disc and NOT NECESSARILY A SOLELY CONDUCTOR, but just a PATH where induced electrons would flow outwards showing Voltage Output at scope.

1-MAGNET MOVES/DISC STATIC= V=0 ZERO VOLTAGE:
Simple explanation...moving the magnet does NOT moves the Magnetic Field on this PARTICULAR GEOMETRY, where N-S AXIS is PARALLEL to SPINNING AXIS. Other words, that NOW STATIC CONDUCTIVE PATH on Disc, DEFINED between the two brushes sees NO CHANGE at all when magnet rotates on its N-S Axis.


2-DISC ROTATES/MAGNET STATIC= V><0 VOLTAGE PRESENCE
depending on rotation sense: Here that CONDUCTIVE PATH, DEFINED BY BRUSHES, DOES SPIN AROUND FIELD, generating a Voltage whereas pos or neg, dependent on rotation sense...CLEARLY demonstrates that CONDUCTIVE PATH is seeing different LEVELS OF Magnetic Field SPIN or a "CHANGE" as mentioned on Faraday's Laws.

3-MAGNET+DISC ROTATES= V><0 or simply Voltage Presence:
Like I have cited on #1 & #2 Cases, whether Magnet Moves or Not it is completely IRRELEVANT to Generating any Voltage, BUT ONLY RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY BRUSHES ROTATING.

4- MAGNET+DISC STATIC, ONLY TWO BRUSHES ROTATING= V><0 or V Presence
This missing experiment on above video, except for the BACK-FORTH HAND MOVEMENT which shows an UP-DOWN Voltage Zig-Zag, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MORE IMPORTANT OF ALL THE ABOVE!!!

Why?...Just because it CLEARLY PROVES that it is all about that CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY THE TWO BRUSHES, ROTATING, what really generates an Induction output, taking this WHOLE EXPERIMENT DOWN to a specific element DEFINED AS TOPNOTCH HERE, which eventually will throw or RULE OUT whether DISC OR MAGNET MOVES OR NOT.

On the other hand, by moving-rotating just the two brushes, this Conductive Path is the same RELATED to the TWO BRUSH POSITIONING, HOWEVER, DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF DISC METAL ARE COVERED through just the Brushes spinning on top of STATIC copper disc. And so, this FACT ALSO TAKES PLACE whenever Disc Spins while brushes are static...

Regards


Ufopolitics
__________________
Principles for the Development of a Complete Mind: Study the science of art. Study the art of science. Develop your senses- especially learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.― Leonardo da Vinci

Last edited by Ufopolitics; 10-02-2017 at 04:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
magnet, disc, force, wire, generator, current, lorentz, electromotive, loop, field, magnetic, voltage, opposite, rotating, electrons, equal, presence, coil, case, energy, cancel, works, simple, stationary, frame

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

Choose your voluntary subscription

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers