Permeabilty is a measure of the magnetic force force required to polarize a medium magnetically:
u = 4pi x 10^-7 Newtons / Ampere^2
Permittivity is a measure of the electrical force require to polarize a medium electrically:
E = 8.85 x 10^-12 Farads / Meter
Permeabilty is like "pressure" (force per area)
Permittivity is like "density" (a scalar value)
What might we be able to accomplish by varying the "pressure" and "density" of a medium with very little expenditure of energy?
The only method I know of is with the leading edge of a pulse and resonance.
There are two resonances usable with leading edges. One is the time for rise.Next, is the number of pulse edges within the driven device. These usaually fall near the aucoustic.
Just for shits and giggles...
If charge has to be conserved, permittivity is Farads/meter and a Farad is Columb/volt, then permittivity is Columb/volt/meter.
If "meter" goes down then voltage must go up to conserve charge. By changing "meter" you just magnified your voltage without changing the amount of charge.
Similar scenario with permeability which is Newtons/ampere^2
(for analogy, Pressure = force/area)
Make the area smaller and the pressure increases, or increase the force and the permeability or current must change.
Francis Nipher concluded from his experiments that an electrostatic field applied to a magnet increased the pereability of the air around the magnet. Increasing the permeability results in increased force over the same area.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.05.13, 19:14:39
The only method I know of is with the leading edge of a pulse and resonance.
There are two resonances usable with leading edges. One is the time for rise.Next, is the number of pulse edges within the driven device. These usaually fall near the aucoustic.
Are you saying that the leading edge of a pulse changes the properties of the medium it propagates through?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.05.13, 19:34:37
Are you saying that the leading edge of a pulse changes the properties of the medium it propagates through?
Not exactly.
I'm saying a sudden shock (or the leading edge of pulse with very short rise time) is analogous to a sudden impact. Such an impact can cause distortion of the medium where it travels. Hammer hits a bell. Bell flexes rapidly and is the source for ringing.
Electric pulse - wires move, flex metal distorts and perhaps more....
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2010.05.13, 23:12:17
Electric pulse - wires move, flex metal distorts and perhaps more....
As an electrician, it is hard to make some helpers believe that wires in panel boards and switchboards need to be tied down bundled or strapped because once the electricity starts flowing the wires vibrate and move.
Usually I try to find the noisiest transformer in the place and ask them why its making noise. Then they are convinced.
8)
"Its easy to turn electricity into light, sound , and motion. I will be impressed when someone can turn electricity into more electricity."
The bell is a mechanical LC resonator! It's a mechanical "electric tank" circuit!
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 02:13:13
The bell is a mechanical LC resonator! It's a mechanical "electric tank" circuit!
Ding! Ding! Ding! You Got IT!
Alright, bad analogy from somebody as anal retentive as WW.
Hammer hits a
bell head.
Bell Head flexes rapidly and is the source for ringing
in the ears.
Ok. I give up. I was trying to show the similarities between compression waves and pulse leading edges (ultra short rise time wave fronts).
WaveWatcher:
The mass of the bell is like the capacitance. It's pretty much identical.
The stiffness of the metal of the bell is like the inductance. Ditto about being identical.
When you hit a bell it is like injecting a pulse of current into the capacitor. Then the capacitor discharges into the inductor, and then the inductor discharges into the capacitor, and so on and so on.
In the bell, the moving mass of the bell itself compresses the spring of the bell. Then the spring of the bell discharges and makes the mass of the bell move. The moving mass of the bell itself compresses the spring of the bell, and so on and so on.
In both cases the stored energy is bouncing back and forth between the mass/capacitance and the spring/inductance.
MileHigh
MH,
You are preaching to the choir but it is a very good explanation.
I have a pretty good understanding of these things but find it really difficult when trying to describe a LEM pulse. If folks can't see it in that little scope screen in their mind's eye - it can't exist, but they do.
A LEM pulse may not appear on a scope but it can ring a bell. Normally, they only cause white spots in your vision or headaches :D
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 02:13:13
The bell is a mechanical LC resonator! It's a mechanical "electric tank" circuit!
a bell creates longitudinal waves in the medium (air)
Does an impact excited circuit also create longtitudinal waves in the medium?
what effect does the pulse have on the mass of the impact excited coil?
What effect does this changing mass have on the space around the coil?
WaveWatcher:
What's an "LEM" pulse?
Grumpy:
QuoteDoes an impact excited circuit also create longtitudinal waves in the medium?
If you mean the rest of the circuit by "medium" then typically the answer is no. I am talking about a typical circuit or motor that experiments build around here. The circuit is very small compared to the wavelengths in the signal so there are no waves. Every part of an electrical node in the circuit is at the same potential, so you can ignore any wave effects. A computer motherboard is a different story, and you do have to deal with waves going down the signal traces.
Quotewhat effect does the pulse have on the mass of the impact excited coil?
No effects.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 21:46:01
WaveWatcher:
What's an "LEM" pulse?
This is the best explanation, I've seen posted, of the most common example: http://www.montalk.net/notes/longitudinal-waves.
>>Edit: I don't agree with all of his ideas. One detail about LEM I find untrue is "Notice also that there is no vorticity in this field, and therefore no magnetic field".
Rather, there is vorticity and that rotation appears in the travel of charge motion and a magnetic spin-wave. This vorticity only exists with such a wave that is not from a point-source, such as a sphere. Any LEM that is directional or multi-directional (not from a point-source) will have rotation in the electric and magnetic potential. Any LEM from a point-source is not LEM but simple radiation of charge potential. (I believe any magnetic from a point-source is self-cancelling.)
I think most will agree a spin-wave or circular polarization (as simple and common as circular polarization is) is denied to exist or beyond many experimenter's capabilities to detect.
>>End Edit
For more in-depth info you could purchase the complete text of the pictured document.
I find it more fun to build ways to produce them.
If your scope is faster than most scopes owned by a home experimenter you may see an LEM pulse as a single vertical line. Displaying any more characteristics is difficult and requires the understanding that not all scope traces are obtained by making an electric-only connection to points where things of interest aren't happening. i.e. the active instead of passive device.
"What might we be able to accomplish by varying the "pressure" and "density" of a medium with very little expenditure of energy?
We accomplish wave propagation."
Doesn't Grumpy's question define a compression wave as well as a transverse wave?
EM,
I would think if your oscillator experienced a change in space then the operator of that oscillator experienced the same and would not see a difference in operation. Only an observer outside the disturbance would see a change in oscillator operation.
I can also imagine if the oscillator was LC based then it would shift frequency when placed in a magnetic field density change.
An increase in density would create a downward shift in frequency and a decrease in density an upward shift in frequency.
It might be an idea to have a "level" with you at these places. It's quite possibly an illusion. The place I've been, and the one that appears in the photo are on sloped terrain, and one can get "disoriented" and hence fooled by what "seems" level, when it may not be.
Same goes for the apparent "ball rolling up-hill" effect often demo'd at these places.
.99
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 21:46:01
No effects.
MileHigh
Don't be so sure of that. Mass and volume might vary like other so-called constants.
So, Francis Nipher discovered that a electrostatic field increases the permeability of the space around a magnet. If you impose a moving region of electrostatic potential, within a magnetic field, then you would have something akin to a moving magnet, a very very fast moving magnet, and all you do is move HV potential around in a circle.
Rate of change in potential per unit time probably also factors in. Basically you wind up with a swirling region of space with a crap-load of energy as long as you keep the ES field changing and the magnetic field turned on.
Grumpy,
Place a planar(single layer only) coil between the plates of a capacitor. Use a Z meter to measure the impedance or inductance of the coil. Apply a medium voltage across the capacitor plates and measure the coil again.
The applied voltage to the plates should be stable and well filtered.
Do the opposite. Apply a static magnetic field to the coil.
What you should see is the coil in the electrostatic field shows a lower inductance than the coil with no potential across the plates. Placing the coil in a magnetostatic field increases the inductance. The metal of the plates or magnet will effect the results.
How Niper saw the change is beyond me. Unless the plates and the coil have a very large area the change is small. Same for the magnetic test.
To summarize: I can believe Niper's claim but did he know applying such a charge, across the equatorial magnetic plane, invokes Lorentz. The charges, during separtion and equalization, would be rotating. Rotation of charge does strange things, not magic but interesting.
Also, his work adds support to my understanding that electrostatic and magnetostatic are like two sides of a coin.
An analogy is sponge and water. You squeeze a wet spong and water is displaced. You drench a dry sponge with water the sponge expands. I consider magnetic the sponge and electostatic like water.
Sorry for the wordyness. Back in the ER waiting room again.
Here are two pages of Nipher's article:
If this effect can be increased then it may lead to interesting results.
First try a static electric field on WW's plates (see above) and then replace the plates with coils and pulse them to create a pulsing HV field across the collector coil - BAM! - instant TPU!
Remember when SM placed his clip-on meter inside the TPU and stated that a very strong magnetic field was there?
First off, it wouldn't be BAM. It would be KABOOM! 8)
Maybe even 3.147 KABOOMS.
Second, the clamp was closed. A charge field would not read unless it was rotating at a very high rate and high potential. I will not place my hand in such a field. The only other field I know of, which may cause a reading, would be a radial magnetic rotating field (sudo rotation). Of course, current flowing through the clamp will also cause a reading.
So, create a rotating electrostatic or radial magnetostatic field or make current flow through air with no wire. Your choice 8). None of those options seem easy.
I Hope none of what I stated is taken as solutions to a TPU or other free energy devices. Some of it is cause for interesting experiments but none have been "THE' solution.
What is invoked during a change that is not invoked when in a static state?
Look at every generator and every induction device - all involve a state of change be it a changing field or position. Even a battery and capacitor involve particles changing.
Any conversion or change requires motion, particle level or higher.
Anyone know of any totally static system which can convert energy?
That would also decribe a couple of my brother-in-laws. Do absolutely nothing but expect a paycheck :(
Hi All,
What about using a pair of nested tetrahedrons. To generate the rotation in 2 opposing directions for the magnetic and two plates external with phase shifting HV to generate the electrostatic rotating field?
Anyone got details of the Nieper ring
Component?
Keeley net circa 1994.
Im not being too successful with details on the latter and there must be some interaction with permeability and permitivity. As electrogravitics plays a part in this one if the info supplied is correct. It may be an interesting device to replicate.
Quote from: szaxx on 2010.05.19, 22:55:44
What about using a pair of nested tetrahedrons.
Sounds like it should do something interesting.
A few years back I wound one coil within another. Each looked like a wire-frame of a soccer ball. The smallest unexpected effect was strange warbling tones from the wire movement. The most fun part was during very high drive. It tore itself apart in about 3 seconds. The watch in the center froze in time (the mechanical parts were busted by the vibration :-[ ).
Willie Johnson's Gyroscopic Force Theory posits that electric induction cannot occur without electron precession.
(see attached PDF of Chapter 26 of his book)
If this is the case, how does electron precession occur in the TPU?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.05.17, 21:28:09
Here are two pages of Nipher's article:
If this effect can be increased then it may lead to interesting results.
First try a static electric field on WW's plates (see above) and then replace the plates with coils and pulse them to create a pulsing HV field across the collector coil - BAM! - instant TPU!
Remember when SM placed his clip-on meter inside the TPU and stated that a very strong magnetic field was there?
Grumpy,
I realize this topic has been dead for a while but you keep mentioning the work of Nipher and others on active threads.
First I'll say that Nipher's work (changing space permability & permissivity by applying an electric charge) does seem to be true in certain circumstances.
I find the results expected since they are the inverse of other experiments (changing space permability & permissivity <reluctance> by applying a static magnetic field).
Have you performed Nipher's experiment on measuring the effect of electrostatic charge on magnetic field strength?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.05.20, 12:26:42
...
(see attached PDF of Chapter 26 of his book)
...
refering to: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=265.0;attach=1536
To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.
The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.15, 00:42:17
Have you performed Nipher's experiment on measuring the effect of electrostatic charge on magnetic field strength?
I have place a magnet in a pulsed electric field and it does indeed "change" the magnetic field strength, but the rate of change is several orders of magnitude smaller than the pulse rate of the electric field.
I have not made any measurements to verify Nipher's conclusion about the permeability of air, but I do agree with him on the fact that "something does change" and the magnetic field appears stronger.
http://jnaudin.free.fr/dragone/dragone.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/dragone/dragone.htm)
www.intalek.com/Papers/Dragone.pdf
@exnihiloest
I agree with what you say about the Faraday disk and what these people assume, but I'm not sure I would say this the way you said it here:
QuoteNo reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
The reference frame in electrodynamics is vitally important. In one reference frame a field can be perceived as 100% Electric and in another as 100% Magnetic. While I believe fundamentally there is no "speed" to the field, the right combination of H and E fields, indicate speed, as in a wave propagating at the speed of light. But I know we are talking here about STATIC fields, and at issue is ROTATION. And as such there is NO "ROTATION" of an AXISYMETRIC FIELD.
QuoteOnce again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0
A vitally important point is to realize that the B-field used in the Lorentz equation needs to be in the SAME coordinate system as the velocity. We can't compute the B-field in some other coordinate system, it might just be an E-field in that coordinate system and we will get a result of zero than.
The second sentence is incorrect. If a charge is placed on the disk, and rotates with it, it will certainly sense a voltage if there is a B-field present axially, as in the Faraday disk experiment. Think about it, it's the Lorentz force law you just mentioned. The force on a charge is = to an ELECTRIC FIELD ! And if you have an electric field you have VOLTAGE POTENTIAL.
This is something most people are not aware of, but an electric field is just force per unit charge.EM
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.15, 23:50:02
The second sentence is incorrect. If a charge is placed on the disk, and rotates with it, it will certainly sense a voltage if there is a B-field present axially, as in the Faraday disk experiment. Think about it, it's the Lorentz force law you just mentioned. The force on a charge is = to an ELECTRIC FIELD ! And if you have an electric field you have VOLTAGE POTENTIAL. This is something most people are not aware of, but an electric field is just force per unit charge.
EM
EM,
What would you say to this experiment and results?
Homopolar generator with an external meter in a fixed position. When the disk rotates a current is seen on the meter.
Now add another meter attached to the periphery of the disk so it rotates with the disk (connected without brushes to the same points as the other meter, no need for brushes).
Rotate the disk and the first (fixed) meter indicates current while the meter rotating with the disk shows no current.
Lorentz is the easiest explanation but that does not make it correct. Publicly, I use Lorentz to explain this but have doubts, like many in the scientific community, that Lorentz is the final answer.
The article Grumpy posted says there is NO BACKTORQUE on the Faraday disk and magnet ensemble.
This is incorrect.
There is a backtorque, even when the magnet is attached to the disk! Is that amazing or what!
If there were no backtorque it implies FREE ENERGY, and all we would need is to speed up the rotor to it's operating speed and since there will be no torque retarding the motion, no input power would be required, while the generator is producing output power. (small torque will always be there due to friction, but that's not what is at stake here)
No, there has to be a backtorque, and the retarding force is equal to the radial current I_r that develops, crossed with the axial B-field that created it, or rather enabled it. We can put it in integral form as:
Torque = integral from r=0 to R, of [K I(r) X B(r) x r ] dr where K is a constant
If you know how cross products work, using the right hand rule you can see that the torque is in OPPOSITION to the spin. What always intrigued me about this experiment is the fact that this torque doesn't react against any particular object that we can easily identify, and that's why people have a hard time with this experiment. I don't claim to fully understand it, but I've seen the math for it in my course work.
By the way, does this thing work as a motor? I don't think it does from what I remember. It's realy a unique setup to force us to think deeper about electromagnetism and electrodynamics in particular.
@ WW
Yes, that's correct. The meter that is fixed to the disk, and rotates with it shows zero volts, even though its connected to the same points (center and perifery), because there are two legs to the circuit that need to be considered. One leg is through the disk conductor, and the other is through the wires for connection. Both of these two paths develop a voltage in the same direction becasue they rotate in the same direction, and so applying Kirchhoff's voltage law around the meter loop equals ZERO. Hence, no detectable voltage, but there is a voltage there in each leg. The way we can detect such potentials while in motion is with a TEST CHARGE ! :o
EM
Quotes from that article:
Quote
In addition to the production of this seemingly non-inductive current, if one
draws this current away from the disc then a back torque is produced. The
existence of the back torque seems to violate Newton's third law in that there is no
apparent equal and opposite reaction. The creation of back torque is normal in a
typical DC generator.
QuoteRefer to Figure 26e. This illustration demonstrates two
crucial points. One is that current and electric force are comingled, coaligned, and
coincident. The second is that centripetal force and electrical force are
indistinguishable. When current is ostensibly drawn from the homopolar
generator one also withdraws from it an electrical/centripetal force. Very simply by
drawing away current you draw away the ability of the disc to turn thus the
manifestation of back torque.
That article is a chapter from a book written by Willie Johnson to explain his Gyroscopic Force Theory.
QuoteWillie Johnson Jr. is currently supervisor of the Inorganic Analytical Laboratory at EOHSI (Rutgers University). He received his B.A in Biology from Amherst College in 1977. He has worked as research scientist for several years at Exxon Research and Engineering where he specialized in metal analysis and developing wet chemical methodology.. He has also worked as staff chemist at PPM Technologies. His current projects at EOHSI includes developing methods in trace metal quantification and chromatographic speciation of metal coupled to an ICP-MS.
He left this position a few years ago, with no explanation, and has not been heard from by anyone at Rutgers since he left. His book is no longer online. He wrote several papers that were published but none are available. He also developed "tovacian chemistry", but that paper is unavailable.
Hi explanation of a capacitor at the end of this article is also interesting.
Grumps, I must of misread that article because they do say there is a back torque, so that's good, we're saying the same thing.
Get this guys, there's a way to create a motor in a rotational system solely based on charge. I'll have to draw a picture tomorrow, but basically imagine a parallel plate capacitor moving in a uniform magnetic field. One plate has a Lorentz force on it opposite the other plate, so a torque moment exists due to the separating distance between them. This will rotate the capacitor, so with proper commutation rotation is possible. This rotation when analyzed produces a retarding force opposed to the motion of the capacitor in the first place, so any power consumed from rotation is accounted from translation. But here is the kicker, we are moving through a magnetic field due to the motion of the earth. We can literally extract energy from the earth's rotational kinetic energy, but this is frightening so don't let the MIBs catch you doing that. Lol
EM
PS
Actually, I'm not kidding. I once worked at a place that was obsessed with sensitive magnetic instruments among other things.
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.16, 07:30:12
Actually, I'm not kidding. I once worked at a place that was obsessed with sensitive magnetic instruments among other things.
Yea, so did I......among other things 8)
I'm relieved you see why the 2 meter experiment works. While using frames of reference to explain it is correct that is overkill.
The fact is to generate a useable current you may only rotate one of the legs of the circuit or both in opposite directions or at different rates. This also defies the conventional explanation of induction.
The explanation of cutting lines of force is not correct. I'll leave that alone as it is the only way for some to have some understanding of induction ???
Quote from: EMdevices on 2011.08.15, 23:50:02
...
The reference frame in electrodynamics is vitally important. In one reference frame a field can be perceived as 100% Electric and in another as 100% Magnetic.
...
Of course the reference frame in electrodynamics is vitally important. It is what I say when I emphasize that
the speed of the charges in the Lorentz force is relative to the observer (neither to the source nor to the source field): we must know what frame a speed is relative to.
I only said that a reference frame can't be attached to a field; it follows that the "speed of field" is a nonsense and that the fact the magnet is moving or at rest is not relevant when it rotates around its axis of magnetic symmetry because the field remains constant.
Quote
The second sentence is incorrect. If a charge is placed on the disk, and rotates with it, it will certainly sense a voltage if there is a B-field present axially, as in the Faraday disk experiment.
...
The second sentence is correct if you consider the full details that I didn't give and that miss you to understand the whole problem.
In the reference frame of the charge, the magnetic field is viewed as an electric field that is felt by the charges. Then you are right: a force is exerted onto the charges and they move towards the rim. But in the conductor of the disk, the charge displacement is balanced by the Coulomb repelling force (reaction), and the charges stop moving almost instantly, giving an equilibrium.
In other words: the distribution of positive and negative charges in the disk due to the displacement of the free electrons towards the rim, create a Coulomb field that cancels the external electric field (which is the magnetic field viewed by the moving charges).
This is a general principle that applies to any conductor moving with the disk. It can be experimentally checked: when you connect a capacitor between the center and the rim, and the capacitor is rotating with the disk, according to your explanation, it should be charged. If you disconnect it before stopping the disk, you should measure a voltage. What is observed is: no voltage. The rotating capacitor can't charge because there is no electric field thus no potential difference between its terminals.
The Faraday disk principle reduces to a system with a circuit in 2 parts, one moving relative to the other one, in a magnetic field. A moving part only, as the disk alone, can't lead to a flowing current. The reference frame in which you study the system can be either the moving part or the part at rest, both give the same result (in the first case we apply the Lorentz transform of the magnetic field to get the electric field, in the second case we compute the Lorentz force).
What about the statements in the article on the third page regarding precession?
QuoteA conducting loop is connected to a hand crank. A magnetic field is applied to the loop conductor via two bar magnets . As the hand crank is turned in the zy plane a current is created in the current loop in the xy plane. This is an example of Faraday's magnetic induction. One critical aspect of such current generation, frequently ignored by scientists, is that not only are the electrons executing circular motion in the xy plane but in addition to this they are also being forced to orbit in the zy plane as well. Therefore, by definition, the electrons that form the current are precessing. Indeed, the GFT posits that electric induction can occur if and only if electron precession is executed.
EM,
In one of your earlier posts you provided three methods of how you understand induction.
None of those included the angle of B relative to the wire loop. Is it commonplace now to either disregard that angle or always assume it is 90 deg. to the loop?
Just wondering if this is another example details being massaged for user-friendliness :-\
Grumpy,
"Therefore, by definition, the electrons that form the current are precessing. Indeed, the GFT posits that electric induction can occur if and only if electron precession is executed."
Good luck convincing anyone of that. That is what we used to call a 'nose'. The viewer won't see there own nose unless they stop looking beyond it ^-^
WW, Yes, angles are very important and they are calculated at the appropriate stages. The Lorentz force F = q( E + v x B) does not omit the angle relative to the B field, it's accounted for in the cross product. The V= N dphi/dt is already past the angle problem, that was calculated when the flux was calculated by dotting B with Area of loop to pick out the normal contribution. The k dA/dt equation, well this is a vector quantity and the problem of angles comes later based on geometry of wires (and not necessarily complete loops either) I used a proprietary code once that was based on this formulation, very powerfull. The magnetic vector potential is my favorite tool, when all else fails I take this out of the bag.
Here's a nice link on homopolar motors and dynamos:
Make sure you do the experiments at the bottom of the page. O0
http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/homopolar.htm
EM
Anyone know why the magnetic field around a conductor is azimuthal polarized (vectors lines circularly around the conductor)?
No idea Grumpy, it's the way things are. But if you bring a small sense magnet close to a wire with current on it, we can look at the relationship between the currents, and we observe that current traveling in the same direction ATTRACT and in opposite diretions REPELL. This can explain why the small magnet aligns transverse to the wire, it's the point where the repulsion force is minimized and the attraction force is maximized. Pictures are worth a thousand words, but maybe later I'll draw something up.
@ all,
this is another very simple homopolar motor you can build in one minute or less.
http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/HomopolarMotor
Same old problem.... we can see what it does but don't have a clue what it is.
We can associate it with something similar but still don't know what it is. -- moving charge creates a magnetic field / speeding boat creates a wake / etc.
Some say one is cause and the other effect when both are really neither because they are one in the same.
Take a look at the dual Homopolar motor setup below. This is very similar to what was conceived initialy by Nicola Tesla as an improvement, except he used a conductive belt. With this setup we don't need to have a brush on the faster moving outer diameter but can have two at the center of the shafts. The rotors are magnetized and conductive.
EM
The best method I know of is stacking.
Stack one disk above the other.
Place multiple vertical disks between the main disks to provide an electrical connection and mechanical drive between the main horizontal disks.
Each horizontal disk has a separate conductive shaft for load connections.
You can continue stacking to increase voltage but you need a non-conductive planetary gear between pairs.
I worked near one meeting the above description which had 24VDC @1000A output. The motive energy was supplied by a small deisel engine. Each horizontal disk had a doughnut shaped magnet attached.
This was a portable welder back when I worked for Burlington Northern as a Gandy ( the term was still used back then - now I really feel old :-[)
I like the stacked configurations, but I had an even better design years ago, and to my surprise, it gave me AC instead of DC. Some day I'll talk about that design, but I need to revisit it when I get a chance.
In the mean time, my gears have been turning! :D
How is this for a curiosity, just drop it in the appropriate liquid and watch it spin like hell, on liquid bearings. O0
[edit: It has a buoyancy material attached to the top so it can float, and the bottom can contact the electrolyte.]
EM
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.17, 22:02:23
The best method I know of is stacking.
...
It is the best method to increase voltage but there is a big problem: there are as many pairs of sliding contacts (in series) as the number of elements in the stack, and a sliding contact is the weak point of homopolar generators and motors. Their high resistance prevents a good efficiency when it is question of low voltages and high currents.
In any case homopolar machines are conventional technology which has never shown OU. There are already used (without stacking) and still in development for very high power applications in the MW range, especially in marine: http://atg.ga.com/EM/defense/electric_drive/index.php, http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1064641 or http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=508621&tag=1.
Willie Johnson recently wrote lengthy in response to this post by
exnihiloest, posted below:
Quote from: exnihiloest on 2011.08.15, 09:37:04
refering to: http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=265.0;attach=1536
To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit.
The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession.
Willie Johnson Jr.
06/07/2014 18:38
Michael
I ran across the following while browsing the web:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=265.msg16160#msg16160
"To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is begining with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false. The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on. The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed.
Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit. The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functionning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession."
Dear Michael.
I just happened to run across this blog Over Unity Research and from there Just Thinking Aloud TPU. The above quote was in response to a poster named Grumpy. I wasn't certain how or if I could register to rebut but it's a moot point. I'd like you to understand my approach and then I will dismantle the above quote.
Make no mistake that my work will be marginalized and dismissed. This is important to those who rely on the group rather than independent thinking. Everyone reading my work should of course be skeptical. I state that forthrightly in the book. But to base any dismissal of the work on the so called experts saying I can't know what I'm talking about because of my academic degree is not true science. It's gossip. It's fealty to dogma.
I always ask those who are critiquing my work to first observe two things.
a. Is it algebraically correct? Is the math correct? Point out to me where the math is wrong. In a book this broad there will be some mistakes. I accept that and will correct the errors but I'm confident the final outcome will be the same. If not I will admit my error and hopefully learn from it.
b. Show me where I have violated the laws of classical physics. Note I said classical and not quantum mechanical. Again, this is a classical theory and I must obey all the classical laws of physics.
If they cannot demonstrate the violation of these two parameters then I am on firm ground physically. The debate then can only concern my interpretation of the physics that result from that math. This puts both me and the skeptic at a common point of departure from which to discuss the work and avoids the "mind virus" as Dollard so affectionately calls it. Again, this is not to say there are no mistakes in this theory but to say it is wrong based on group think is just pointless to try and debate.
Now for the above quote:
"To justify the need of a theory using the electron precession, the paper is beginning with a lie: "The results of this experiment [Faraday disk] have never been satisfactorily explained".
This is false. What I have written is neither a lie nor false. Saying that it's a lie to justify a theory of electron dynamics being based upon electron precession is like saying that any theory of water based upon it being wet is a lie. This is a completely absurd proposition. Electron precession is an inherent trait of any and every electron. It's obvious the poster is ignorant of this fact.
The Faraday disk is perfectly explained by the Lorentz force and relativity. There is a paradox only for those who don't understand what is going on.
Certain aspects of the Faraday disc are certainly explicable via the tenets of the Lorentz force and Relativity. Spinning the conductor disc between two magnets is perfectly explicable via the Lorentz force and Relativity, and Faraday's law of induction. However it is obvious that the poster is completely oblivious as to why the homopolar generator /Faraday disc has caused such a controversy. These explanations seemingly fail when the disc is both the conductor and the magnet. Spin the conductor between the two magnets and Faraday's law of induction and Relativity explain it quite well. Spin the magnets and keep the disk stationary and Faraday's law of induction seemingly fails. This would seem to be an ostensible violation. The most puzzling aspect of the disc is manifest when instead of having two magnets and a single conductor we spin a single conducting magnetic. This yields a current confounding both Faraday's law of induction and Relativity.
"The idea of a relative speed between the magnetic field and the disk is a non-sense. "
Seemingly nonsense, and only in the third case where the magnet is magnet, rotor, and conductor. But there is indeed relative speed between the two magnets and conductor in the 1st two cases.
"No reference frame can be attached to a field, a field is just a local condition specified by scalars or vectors, therefore it has no speed."
This is complete and utter nonsense. Of course we may ascribe to the field any velocity we choose including zero velocity as long as we ascribe to those elements moving within it their analogous velocities. Again the poster demonstrates an almost complete lack of knowledge regarding the principles being applied and expressed.
"Once again, the speed vector V in the Lorentz force F=q*VxB is only relative to the observer. "
Nonsense. The novelty and wonder of Faraday's law of induction is predicated upon the magnet moving relative to coil or coil moving relative to magnet. Even if one were completely ignorant of the physics of the situation one can plainly see, just by the algebra, that the very fact that it is represented as a cross product and thus is dependent upon orientation or direction completely nullifies the poster's argument. The cross product imposes and demands that we MUST view the velocity of q relative to B .
"If you are rotating with the disk, you see no voltage between the center and the rim of the disk because V=0. If you are an external observer, which is the case of a voltmeter at rest connected through sliding contacts, V is not nul, then the Lorentz force applies and forces the electrons to flow in the external circuit."
Again. This is false though not as outlandish as some of the above statements. One has to describe just what one is using to measure the voltage. Is it a voltmeter powered by batteries or is it a voltmeter powered by another type of homopolar generator? If it's the former then the statement is absolutely false. If it is the latter then this requires a much more in depth analysis. In any case it is moot. The Sagnac effect proves whether the measuring device moves or is stationary it will detect the movement of electromagnetic waves.
"The conventional theory of electromagnetism perfectly explains the functioning of the Faraday disk, both qualitatively and quantitatively."
This statement is almost correct although you back into while all the time, making false claims to justify it. The behavior is based upon first generating a change in the electric field which generates a magnetic field which induces magnetic precession which is equivalent to the induction of an electric current. Conventional theory misses that initial change in the electrostatic field. . Remember the charge has to first be moving before one can apply F=qv*B. Conventional theory concentrates more upon the effects of changing the magnetic field or cutting the lines of magnetic flux. This approach isn't wrong but it is incomplete.
One must realize that according to my Law of Dimensions the Lorentz force may be expressed as
a. F=q*vxB
b. F=qv*B
c. F=qr*B/t
d. F=q*(Br)/t
e. F=ir*B
f. F=i*rB
g. F=qvB
All seven of these equations are algebraically equivalent and all seven, via the tenets of the law of Dimensions must find physical expression. (I'm pretty sure there are actually even more algebraic expressions of this law.) Suppose we start with equation g. Note the absence of the asterisk thus denoting the absence of a cross product thus a scalar or electrostatic product. This denotes we impart a velocity to charge even though the B field and the velocity vector are parallel. However in such a rotating disk every v vector represents a radius and therefore every v vector will have an orthogonal counterpart. Thus for every g equation there is and MUST BE a corresponding b equation. Note equation b is induced in the sense it exists primarily because the quantity qv, the change, (v), of the electrostatic field, (q), of equation g was generated first. One may be quick to assert that if F=qvB is electrostatic then it has to be the Coulomb force and equation g clearly does not present algebraically as the Coulomb force. But I prove quite conclusively that the Lorentz force and the Coulomb force are indeed equivalent. I can derive one from the other quite easily. It's listed in the book. Indeed there is and must be an equivalent expression of the Lorentz force or Coulomb's law along all three axes, x,y and z. Indeed that 3rd force is Newton's gravitational force law and once again I demonstrate in the book how Newton's gravitational force constant, G, can be expressed in terms of Coulomb's law.
Now one may indeed take issue with my interpretation of the algebra. But what one cannot do is say that the algebra is incorrect or that I have violated any laws of classical physics.
"Okkham's razor rules out any exotic and uselessly complicated theories such electron precession".
Herein lie the true tragedy of the poster's argument. Electron precession IS Occam's razor! No electron can and does exist without it. Indeed, the GFT posits the electron is a fundamental unit of precession. Doesn't get any simpler than that.
Michael. If you are so inclined please pass this on to the posters on the mentioned site. I'd really appreciate it. For some reason the my site was having problems allowing me to post thus all the multiple postings. Just disregard those belong I will delete the multiple posts later. Again thanks for the support and follow the science and not the scientists.
Can I throw my penny-worth into the debate about the Faraday disc homopolar generator. When you consider the field from the magnet actually comes from a large number of aligned electron spins, and if we model those electrons as electric charge that is really spinning, should we not consider the spin rate of those electrons when we think of the magnet rotating? A small spherical volume charge or surface charge models an electron, and the translatory speed within the electron volume or on the electron surface is what we should consider when dealing with relative velocity between source and observer. IOW what we observe as a magnetic field (by noting its effect on conduction electrons in our experiments) is really an effect due to the relative motion between our test electron and those electron surface or volume charge movements. IMO at practical spin rates for the magnet it is nonsense to think that the field is rotating because that relative motion doesn't change. Only if we could spin the magnet at something approaching the spin of the electron would we observe anything!!
We could, if we put our mind to it, create a pseudo magnet by having an array of charged spheres each one spinning, each driven by a tiny electric motor. Or just perform a gedanken experiment in our minds. Of course this array would need to include the same number of non-spinning spheres of opposite charge so as to make it electrically neutral and eliminate any external E field. Now use this magnet in the homopolar experiments. It would become quite clear that rotating the bulk object at spin rates that are small compared to that of the charged spheres doesn't affect the field. A Faraday disc rotated within the field, whether or not the "magnet" rotates with it, would obtain homopolar induction. The thing that creates the induction is the relative motion of those charged sphere surfaces as seen by the conduction electrons in the disc. Our concept of magnetic field is just a means of conveying that induction effect. Boil our pseudo magnet down to a single spinning charged sphere and it becomes even more obvious that rotation of the "magnet" is a nonsense idea, it is already spinning like mad inside.
Smudge
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2011.08.15, 00:42:17
Grumpy,
I realize this topic has been dead for a while but you keep mentioning the work of Nipher and others on active threads.
First I'll say that Nipher's work (changing space permability & permissivity by applying an electric charge) does seem to be true in certain circumstances.
I find the results expected since they are the inverse of other experiments (changing space permability & permissivity <reluctance> by applying a static magnetic field).
Have you performed Nipher's experiment on measuring the effect of electrostatic charge on magnetic field strength?
I don't have a means to measure any change in the magnetic field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.07.15, 15:49:47
Can I throw my penny-worth into the debate about the Faraday disc homopolar generator. When you consider the field from the magnet actually comes from a large number of aligned electron spins, and if we model those electrons as electric charge that is really spinning, should we not consider the spin rate of those electrons when we think of the magnet rotating? A small spherical volume charge or surface charge models an electron, and the translatory speed within the electron volume or on the electron surface is what we should consider when dealing with relative velocity between source and observer. IOW what we observe as a magnetic field (by noting its effect on conduction electrons in our experiments) is really an effect due to the relative motion between our test electron and those electron surface or volume charge movements. IMO at practical spin rates for the magnet it is nonsense to think that the field is rotating because that relative motion doesn't change. Only if we could spin the magnet at something approaching the spin of the electron would we observe anything!!
We could, if we put our mind to it, create a pseudo magnet by having an array of charged spheres each one spinning, each driven by a tiny electric motor. Or just perform a gedanken experiment in our minds. Of course this array would need to include the same number of non-spinning spheres of opposite charge so as to make it electrically neutral and eliminate any external E field. Now use this magnet in the homopolar experiments. It would become quite clear that rotating the bulk object at spin rates that are small compared to that of the charged spheres doesn't affect the field. A Faraday disc rotated within the field, whether or not the "magnet" rotates with it, would obtain homopolar induction. The thing that creates the induction is the relative motion of those charged sphere surfaces as seen by the conduction electrons in the disc. Our concept of magnetic field is just a means of conveying that induction effect. Boil our pseudo magnet down to a single spinning charged sphere and it becomes even more obvious that rotation of the "magnet" is a nonsense idea, it is already spinning like mad inside.
Smudge
Faraday's Law doesn't consider the magnet to be a rotating charged sphere, or spheres. You could look at it another way: the magnetic field of a circular magnet rotating about its center is homogenous. Therefore, the magnetic field is not varying in magnitude or direction relative to the conductor, so no current is induced. This doesn't tell us much about induction though.
I think the GFT Theory adds a lot more to the picture since it considers the charges in the conductor, and why a current is induced at all. In the document above, tech29d.pdf, the author also applies the theory to capacitors and motors.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2014.07.15, 17:08:44
Faraday's Law doesn't consider the magnet to be a rotating charged sphere, or spheres. You could look at it another way: the magnetic field of a circular magnet rotating about its center is homogenous. Therefore, the magnetic field is not varying in magnitude or direction relative to the conductor, so no current is induced. This doesn't tell us much about induction though.
I think the GFT Theory adds a lot more to the picture since it considers the charges in the conductor, and why a current is induced at all. In the document above, tech29d.pdf, the author also applies the theory to capacitors and motors.
Yes an interesting theory. There is another form of homopolar generator that is a conducting cylinder placed over one end of a cylindrical magnet so that the flux lines that spread out pass through the cylinder wall. When the cylinder is rotated there is an induced emf along the cylinder. Don't know whether the GFT theory applies there. It has the same novel feature that it doesn't matter whether the magnet rotates with the cylinder or not.
I like to think that every magnetic field is due to some charge somewhere that is moving, and the real theory for magnetic effects involves relative motion between those charges and the test charge. Faraday's law of induction is really a simplification of the more complex situation. But each to their own as they say.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.07.15, 20:07:20
Yes an interesting theory. There is another form of homopolar generator that is a conducting cylinder placed over one end of a cylindrical magnet so that the flux lines that spread out pass through the cylinder wall. When the cylinder is rotated there is an induced emf along the cylinder. Don't know whether the GFT theory applies there. It has the same novel feature that it doesn't matter whether the magnet rotates with the cylinder or not.
I like to think that every magnetic field is due to some charge somewhere that is moving, and the real theory for magnetic effects involves relative motion between those charges and the test charge. Faraday's law of induction is really a simplification of the more complex situation. But each to their own as they say.
Smudge
GFT applies to the cylindrical version of the homopolar generator/motor as well, as it is just the disc version rotated. I expect GFT to also explain the Roentgen Current, Wilson-Wilson Effect, and the Rowland Effect more clearly than current explanations. More importantly, I believe GFT will also disclose other methods of inducing a current utilizing the inherent spin of particles.