The bistander thread

[bistander]

Thanks John

Faraday's law and relativity
Edit
Faraday's law describes two different phenomena: the motional EMF generated by a magnetic force on a moving wire (see Lorentz force), and the transformer EMF this is generated by an electric force due to a changing magnetic field (due to the differential form of the Maxwell–Faraday equation). James Clerk Maxwell drew attention to the separate physical phenomena in 1861.[21][22] This is believed to be a unique example in physics of where such a fundamental law is invoked to explain two such different phenomena.[23]

Einstein noticed that the two situations both corresponded to a relative movement between a conductor and a magnet, and the outcome was unaffected by which one was moving. This was one of the principal paths that led him to develop special relativity.[24]

Applications
Edit

Not many realize this "oddity" about EMF. I'm glad you posted it.

Here is something I find interesting.

https://www.studocu.com/en/document/university-of-calgary/electricity-and-magnetism/lecture-notes/lecture-notes-chapter-21/444339/view

At 1034 slides it is a quiet thorough treatment or outline.

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

@youarenuts

@youarenuts

Don't bother discussing Faraday without discussing the Faraday Disc generator that violates everything you believe - read this published paper from Princeton since you believe the academic world is an authority - it's shameful to be selective of what part of Faraday you want to mention while discarding what doesn't serve your narrative. https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph...aday_motor.pdf

What's that on page 6?
"Furthermore, the generated tension (Volt) is not affected by the amount of current(Ampere) which is drained from the generator, contrary to any other power source, and the power generation process is not reflected back to the prime mover as an additional work load."



That is a violation of your coveted and misunderstood Newton's 3rd Law of Motion, which doesn't apply to electricity anyway and there is NO LENZ'S LAW. While drawing a load from the Faraday Disc generator - there is ZERO back torque going back to the prime mover.

Some have claimed they measure back torque between 10-20% of what is "supposed to be there" but even if it is as high as 20%, it would still be a reduction of 80% of the drag - again, in complete violation of everything you are claiming.

This is the case with Bruce DePalma's N-Machine variation, Adam Trombly's closed magnetic path version and this is the case with Tewari's Space Power Generator version. That is also the case with my world's record highest voltage output N Machine.

All of these are generators that have no drag - the prime mover doesn't even know when a load is being drawn from the generator.

I mentioned the homopolar generator in response to your posts in Dave's thread and you ignored it. Why? Because it doesn't jive with your claims or belief system. I did mention the Evasion of the Essential - it's very strong with you for some reason.

That is but one of many low to no drag generator concepts. Without even mentioning a single other low to no drag generator such as Dave's or any other, the very existence of the Faraday Disc Generator defeats everything you have argued since your argument denies the possibility of its very existence. The only one who has dug themselves a hole is you.



Drag free generator and the scientific world is not up in turmoil over it while it violates your equal and opposite nonsense and it does not have the same associated Lenz effect.


Also, you bring up Faraday and you admit you don't even know what dielectric lines of force are!! The hole gets deeper for you.

bistander mentions dielectric material that is an "insulator".

Actually, conductors and insulators could switch names and it would more accurately describe their function. Conductors REFLECT - that is why 1/11 trillionths or so of the electromotive force moving over the wire actually penetrates the copper to get the electrons to move in the opposite direction. Virtually all of it for all practical purposes is REFLECTED - not conducted. And insulators such as dielectric materials don't insulate, they STORE and soak up dielectricity.

[Iamnuts]

Engineers aren’t that daft?

Engineers surely look for efficiency when designing motors etc.
I know that somewhere there is a group working on homopolar motors
using superconducting magnets and all the rest. I think they’re getting
in the high eighty % efficiency bracket.

[bistander]

Faraday's Paradox

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

Wikipedia isn't necessarily the ultimate authority, but it does give a good discussion on the topic and provides a number of references which can lead the interested reader to great resources.

And, if you don't believe things you can't touch, small homopolar dynamos are not terribly difficult to construct.

bi

{edit}

An Investigation of the Homopolar Generator:
Determining the Impact of System Characteristics on Efficiency
by Jared Kirschner, Shane Moon

I did, and you should be able to find a PDF and download this paper. It goes through the characteristic equations including torque.

[Iamnuts]

Who knows?

I'm not on one side or the other.
If Tewari's generator was any good we'd all have one by now.
If the laws of induction don't hold true the present definition of
mass is down the pan.
Anything that is an open system doesn't really cut it in the context
of true overunity. Let's call that one an energy management system.
John

[Iamnuts]

Afterthought.

Would love to know how to plot diectric lines of force.
Wikipedia seems lacking on that one.
John.
Let's have some dialectic on the dielectric!!

[Aaron]

efficiency vs coefficient of performance

Engineers surely look for efficiency when designing motors etc.
I know that somewhere there is a group working on homopolar motors
using superconducting magnets and all the rest. I think they’re getting
in the high eighty % efficiency bracket.

You have no idea of the difference between efficiency and coefficient of performance. All free energy machines are 100% efficient or less. You don't even have the fundamentals correct nor do you know the distinctions. A homopolar generator can be 80% efficient while producing 250% more on the output than you provide on the input. You seem completely unaware of why this is true or how it can be.



My refrigerator is 90% something efficient but moves heat in the amount of about 200% more than the electrical equivalent of what the electric compressor uses. Over TWICE as much work is done than what I pay for to run the refrigerator.



There you are again, incapable of acknowledging your ignorance in these matters when pointed out. Your comments blatantly ignores the FACT that it is acknowledged in the conventional academic world, Princeton, etc. that UNLIKE normal generators, there is no back-torque produced when electricity is drawn from the generator completely flushing your nonsensical propaganda down the drain.

[bistander]

Princeton, homopolar and torque

From a quick search I do not find a lot of literature from Princeton on the subject but several I was able to view did in fact mention back torque of the homopolar generator. Here's one.

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1.4895389?journalCode=ajp

Published Online: 22 December 2014
Accepted: August 2014
Energy conservation and Poynting's theorem in the homopolar generator
American Journal of Physics 83, 72 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1119/1.4895389
Christopher F. Chybaa)
Department of Astrophysical Sciences and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Kevin P. Handb)
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109
Paul J. Thomasc)
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54702
more...
Hide Affiliations
a)Electronic mail: [email protected]

b)Electronic mail: [email protected]

c)Electronic mail: [email protected]

Topics
ABSTRACT
Most familiar applications of Poynting's theorem concern stationary circuits or circuit elements. Here, we apply Poynting's theorem to the homopolar generator, a conductor moving in a background magnetic field. We show that the electrical power produced by the homopolar generator equals the power lost from the deceleration of the rotating Faraday disk due to magnetic braking and review the way that magnetic braking arises within Poynting's theorem.

Highlighted passage (which I did) in the abstract confirms generator torque.

bi

[Aaron]

Homopolar generator = low to no drag generator

Any backtorque is a fraction of what Lenz's law would predict. I'm a builder and have built a handful of small scale versions. You can measure the rpm with the spinning magnet unloaded then and then load the generator and you can see there is virtually no difference in rpm exactly as the Princeton paper states.



When I say unloaded, it WILL have the brush contact to the magnet, which should be there and in an unloaded condition compared to loaded, nothing changes. The changes that are reported by many people who have experience claim up to a max of about 20% - still meaning there is a 80% reduction.



I really could care less what Princeton says, but being that such heavy value is placed on credentialed academics by you and nutso, that is why I referenced it and there are a lot of references in conventional academics that agree 100% with what I'm saying as well as references that disagree. What that actually means is that there is no inherent value in what any of them say because everyone may be saying something different. You and nutso will simply accept that which agrees with what you already agree while discarding what does not even if it does come from published papers in the academic world.



The homopolar generator concept is a low drag to no drag generator that violates Lenz's Law to a significant and indisputable degree and it doesn't matter what references you point to that disagree because I have hands on experience, which you do not have with regards to these generators, that tells me different.



This fact is so established that even the Pentagon put a gag order on Adam Tromly's homopolar generator patent because they were actually working on the same generator demonstrating the same "overunity" but what they did not know was that the patent applications in Europe were already in circulation thereby defeating their gag order. The bottom line is that there are homopolar type generators that produce hundreds of percent more work than it takes the prime mover to turn them and when drawing electricity from the generator portion, it is not reflected back to the prime mover defeating everything you and nutjob believe about drag free generators.



"It takes one white crow to prove that all crows are not black."

[bistander]

Black and White

Perhaps your white bird is a ghost.

[Iamnuts]

Defeat.

Well bistander I have to admit defeat,Aaron clearly shows what an idiot I am.
Sincerely John.

[bistander]

Dielectric

Would love to know how to plot diectric lines of force.
Wikipedia seems lacking on that one.
John.
Let's have some dialectic on the dielectric!!

Perhaps Eric can explain that for you here.

https://borderlandsciences.org/journal/vol/46/n02/Dollard_on_Dielectricity_Capacitance.html

[bistander]

Took a look

...https://www.princeton.edu/ssp/joseph...aday_motor.pdf

What's that on page 6?[/FONT]
"Furthermore, the generated tension (Volt) is not affected by the amount of current(Ampere) which is drained from the generator, contrary to any other power source, and the power generation process is not reflected back to the prime mover as an additional work load."
...

I took a closer look into the reference. Here is the sentence prior to the one you quote. "Since the electrical energy produced by the homopolar generator is a pure direct current (DC) such as with a battery, the power is constant and always optimum."

So looking at a wider context and considering the two words which I highlighted in green, one sees it is a special situation of constant power and therefore no additional work load is reflected back to the prime mover. But the prime mover is supplying the base work load.

It is a strange statement in my opinion. But the rest of that paper and others I find all refer to generator torque. Just at the top of page 8 in the same paper: "Whereas the homopolar motor converts electrical energy (supplied by the cell) into mechanical energy, the homopolar generator does the reverse: providing mechanical energy to turn the disk and obtain an electromagnetic force (emf) and (if a current path exists) an electric current."

Regards,

bi

[Aaron]

homopolar generator - space power

I took a closer look into the reference. Here is the sentence prior to the one you quote. "Since the electrical energy produced by the homopolar generator is a pure direct current (DC) such as with a battery, the power is constant and always optimum."

So looking at a wider context and considering the two words which I highlighted in green, one sees it is a special situation of constant power and therefore no additional work load is reflected back to the prime mover. But the prime mover is supplying the base work load.

It is a strange statement in my opinion. But the rest of that paper and others I find all refer to generator torque. Just at the top of page 8 in the same paper: "Whereas the homopolar motor converts electrical energy (supplied by the cell) into mechanical energy, the homopolar generator does the reverse: providing mechanical energy to turn the disk and obtain an electromagnetic force (emf) and (if a current path exists) an electric current."

Regards,

bi

The load is not preloaded on the prime mover and is a faulty interpretation.



The Tewari RLG for example produces 2.5 watts from the generator output for each 1 watt to turn the prime mover. If the prime mover was pre-loaded, it would not achieve 250% gains or 2.5 COP with an efficiency of probably 80-90%. IF the prime mover was preloaded, the output could only be equal to or less than the prime mover draw.



Tewari as the head of the Nuclear Power Corporation in India and is on par with being like the head of the DOE in the states. The Tewari RLG has been validated to have these free energy gains at many levels of their govt, universities as well as many 3rd party verification outside of India.



The potential to do that much work comes from an electromagnet or permanent magnet rotating in space - its not from work done from the input motor. Space/Aether is polarized and enters the system due to the potential difference created between the center axis and outer circumference of the magnet while it is moving. None of that comes from the phony idea of energy transformation from the input motor to the output of the rotating magnet. Input and output are related but are not proportionate to each other as is virtually every legitimate free energy machine. And HOW it is 2.5 COP can be debated but whether or not it can achieve these gains is not.

[Aaron]

Open System Thermodynamics

Anything that is an open system doesn't really cut it in the context of true overunity. Let's call that one an energy management system.
John

That is profound ignorance to the nth degree.


Open systems (non-equilibrium thermodynamics or open dissipative systems) are the very foundation for every single over 1.0 COP system, which is overunity.



I posted the MIT paper showing over 200% more light from an LED compared to the input requirement. 30mw in and 70mw of measurable light out. Why? Because that system is OPEN to free environmental heat input, which can enter the circuit and add to the total input.



At 100% efficient just for the sake of an example, that means 40mw of heat enters the system + 30mw from the power supply for a total of 70mw input and with 70mw of light output that is 100% efficient, which is the ratio between total in compared to total out. If the power supply supplies 30mw and heat supplies and equivalent of 70mw that is 100mw input and 70mw output = 70% efficient.



In the first example, we only supply 30mw (which is what MIT actually did) and 70mw of light. Coefficient of Performance is 70/30 = 233% more work done than they had to pay for and is a COP of 2.33 and still the efficiency does not exceed 100%.


In the second example, 70mw of light is produced for 100mw input. Efficiency is 70% while the COP is 0.7 COP.



This is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and is considered as such because the free environmental input for that system happens to be heat, which while it enters the system, it delays (not prevents) it from moving towards entropy or delays it from moving towards equilibrium. Therefore, it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system and IS the very definition of an open system. Closed system thermodynamics does NOT apply to the MIT led study that shows gains above unity and the same applies to heat pumps, the same applies to chemical systems, the same applies to overunity magnetic or mechanical systems, etc.



You have just proved yourself to be profoundly ignorant in such topics and from here on out, it is no longer ignorance. It would be classified as stupidity because now you know better.


You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that that the academic world EMBRACES non-equilibrium thermodynamics and their application to open systems. It applies to economic models and even social models. When a community comes together with people, it is an example of reverse entropy and is a self-ordering effect - the exact same as all of the free energy systems - there is a self-ordering mechanism by which disordered potential enters the system as it is polarized and become ordered. It is negentropic while free input delays entropy - during that time, more work can be done than we have to pay for on the input.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1977/summary/

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1977/press-release/

These overunity systems ARE dissipative structures that operate in conjunction with their environment. Thermodynamics was advanced in 1977 but apparently, the whole world of physics forgot to personally inform you. It's possible your ludicrous, insane claims are correct and Nobel Prize winning science is incorrect, but I know where I'll put my money. The very existence and acknowledgement by physics and the academic world as a whole regarding open dissipative systems / non-equilibrium thermodynamic systems flushes your nonsensical, delusional claims down the drain.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1977/ceremony-speech/

"Prigogine and his assistants chose instead to study systems which follow non-linear kinetic laws and which, moreover, are in contact with their surroundings so that energy exchange can take place – open systems, in other words. If these systems are driven far from equilibrium, a completely different situation results. New systems can then be formed which display order in both time and space and which are stable to perturbations. Prigogine has called these systems dissipative systems, because they are formed and maintained by the dissipative processes which take place because of the exchange of energy between the system and its environment and because they disappear if that exchange ceases. They may be said to live in symbiosis with their environment."


If your complete misunderstanding of Newton and conventional thermodynamics applies to electrical systems, then it must apply to chemical, social and other systems. What you find is that your claims are delusional and have no basis in reality and this Nobel Prize winning material that is highly respected among all the top thermodynamicists in the world shows that your claims regarding equal and opposite reactions, etc. are pure nonsense and do not apply to all systems because if it did, these dissipative structures would not exist and they do.



Open System Thermodynamics by Peter Lindemann - a must watch presentation by Peter Lindemann on this topic, which even you could understand!