Well that's a great start.... It seems you can't use bold type in the subject heading!
I have my own perspective on this subject. I have many different permanent magnet based engineering aids in my workshop, from DTI stands to magnetic chucks. They do work, they hold material down to be sculpted.
I was also going to say virtually the same thing as Brad, without a PM for a motor the armature has little to act against. Doesn't that constitute work?
For myself it's just another way of looking at a subject. Let's get started. Please keep it clean! ;) O0
Cheers Grum.
As a post script, the oldest Lister engine in my collection was built in 1911 it has a Hill's double horshoe magnet magneto. I have never touched it in any way, still produces a fat 1/2" spark on every flick. Built to last, including the magnetic field....... ;)
Does making something more efficient constitute doing work? Like you and Brad I have seen how much more efficient a DC permanent magnet motor is compared to a conventional DC motor with wound field coils. We had to apply power to the field coils in order for the motor to produce any torque. In a DC permanent magnet motor the coils are replaced with magnet and magically we now don't have to supply power for the magnetic field for the rotor to work against. So if the magnet replaces something that uses power doesn't that mean the magnet is doing work?
I am going to make a prediction about this thread. I think there will be some looking at this thread that will see enough evidence to change their minds about magnets doing work. Maybe for and maybe against. However I think most of the people that will read this thread have already made up their minds and will not be persuaded either way no matter how much evidence is presented either for or against the idea of magnets doing work.
I personally think those that don't believe magnets can do work are being overly nit-picking. I can say a gasoline (petrol for our friends across the water) powered engine doesn't do any work. It is the gasoline that is doing the work. But is it really the gasoline? It could be argued the gasoline is only reacting to being compressed and ignited to combine with the oxygen in the cylinder. Where do we draw the line and say this is where the work is being done.
What part of an electric motor can we say is where the work is being done? Is it the coils of wire on the rotor that are doing the work? After all with no current flowing through those coils of wire then there would be no mechanical torque. Is it the rotor? Without the rotor the coils couldn't transfer the torque to the shaft so the torque can be used. My own personal opinion is ALL parts of the motor are contributing to doing work. If you take away any part of the motor then the rest is useless and can't do any work.
Just my 2 cents (pence) or whatever.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Good to see this thread started Grum.
First up,i hope ION joins us here,as we once and for all answer this question correctly,by way of accurate testing.
My thought toward this experiment is a simple setup,where we measure temperature differences between different setups of the DUT.
I believe that if i were to make a sealed box for the DUT to be placed in,and then measure maximum achieved temperature within that box of the various setups of the DUT,then we could get a clear indication as to whether or not the PMs were responsible for any temperature increase.
I would need to build a base to carry a wound rotor and brush assembly--timber would probably be best.
We would also need to be able to change out steel laminated stator blocks for PMs easily.
P/in would have to be limited,by both way of the power supply,and a breaking system on the rotor to keep the RPM at a set range. This is where i can kill two birds with one stone,in that i can use my eddy current heat generator as a eddy current break to maintain the same RPM throughout the testing.-->one would think that if the RPM is the same,then the current draw would also be the same,but that is not the case,as i found out with previous testing in another experiment,as there will be very little BackEMF produced by steel laminated blocks as stator blocks. So instead of using steel laminated blocks for the stator,i will use weak ceramic magnets to start with. Once we have gained our maximum heat within the sealed box,i will then change out the ceramic magnets for strong neo's,and carry out the test once again. After all the numbers are in,we then have to place a good size resistor in the box,and deliver the same amount of power to that resistor as we delivered to the motor. If the resistor cannot produce the same amount of heat within the box,we then must go to plan B (which i dont have yet),and carry out a varifying test.
To me,the PMs do work in a DC motor,as every action has an equal and opposite reaction,and so if the action is doing work,then it must be true that the reaction is also doing work.
Some may say-but the PMs are stationary,and so no work is done. But what then with an outrunner motor,where the rotor is the PM,and the stator that is stationary are your windings--the PM now has motion,and so must be doing work.
It is my thought that when i replace the weak ceramic magnets with stronger neo's,even at the same RPM,the current draw will drop on the DUT,due to the stronger magnets creating a larger BackEMF--would this not be work being done ?,decreasing power to the motor,but increasing mechanical output power-->what did that,if nothing else changed?-->but this is just a guess ATM,and actual outcomes can only be had by way of experimentation.
Brad
Here's an experiment for you Brad. It should be easy for you to set up and measure.
Make a flywheel on good bearings. Mount a PM to the edge of the flywheel, or two opposite each other for balance, or four or however many you like, the more the merrier. Make the magnet mounts so that you can easily replace the magnets with an equal-weight lump of steel or lead. Place a coil on a frame near the edge, so that the magnets swing past the coil as the flywheel rotates. Arrange a load like an LED or small incandescent bulb or a simple resistor for the coil, the heavier the load the better.
Now spin the flywheel up to a known RPM, and time how long it takes to come to a stop. Run the test 10 or 20 times with magnets in place, the more the merrier, take the average time to stop. The bulbs or LEDs will flash or the load resistors will heat up a little. To make it easier you can spin the flywheel up past your desired test RPM with compressed air blast, then remove the compressed air blast, and then start your timer when the flywheel slows through your test RPM.
Run many trials in each condition so that random errors will average out. Make your measurements carefully, even automate the measurements if you can.
Now replace all the magnets with the lead weights and repeat the tests.
You will find, if you are careful, that the flywheel _WITH_ magnets will take less time to come to a stop. The magnets are transferring energy from the flywheel to the coil. The flywheel with just the lead weights will take longer to come to a stop. In both cases you are starting with the same initial stored energy, since you have a flywheel with equal weight-and-balance spinning at the same starting RPM.
The magnets do not create energy, nor do you extract energy from the magnets, in order to light the bulbs or heat the resistors. The energy comes from the energy you put into the flywheel when you spun it up. When the magnets are present, some of this stored flywheel energy is transferred to the bulbs or resistors. When there are no magnets, the energy stays in the flywheel and only its bearing and windage losses cause it to slow down, so it continues to turn for a longer time.
You can even make this system precise enough to calculate the energy changes, and you will see that the energy dissipated in the coil-load arrangement is equal to the energy difference represented by the difference in rundown times between the flywheel with magnets, and the one with just weights.
Or you can even "invert" the system, using fixed stator magnets, and putting the coil(s) and loads on the flywheel. You will find the same result: the rotor will turn longer when the stator magnets are replaced by chunks of lead, or just omitted entirely since there are no balance issues. The first system above is the "outrunner" where magnets are moving past coils, and the second system is the "inrunner" where coils are moving past magnets. You will find in each case that the system _with_ magnets, generating power in the coil, will stop faster than the system _without_ magnets. The magnets just transfer energy from the moving flywheel to the coil+load, they do not add energy to the system.
Interesting topic this gentlemen! O0
What is 'work' ?
Wiki has three options on its 'work' disambiguation page that can help us answer this question:
Work (physics), the work done by, or energy transferred by, a force acting through a distance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)
Work (electrical), the work done by, or energy transferred by, a force from an electric field acting on a charge through a distance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(electrical)
Work (thermodynamics), the energy transferred from one system to another by macroscopic forces measurable in the surroundings
We can decide if these definitions are correct between us, and which if any apply to the DUT project here.
Are the three options inclusive ?
Of course magnets can do work, or put another way you can extract energy from a magnet. One model for a magnet is given by its surface current equivalent. You can model a magnet by replacing it with an air space of the same shape and volume then have a surface current flowing around it. The nearest thing practically is a single layer coil of closely spaced fine wire carrying the current. In other words it is an air-cored electromagnet. The current needed is huge so you can't actually make such an equivalent device, but it is useful for doing magnetic domain analysis of systems with PM's. The theoretical device does not suffer from resistive losses, so when energized the power input sees a short circuit and has to be driven from a DC current source. Of course in the real PM that current is the aggregate effect of all the atomic current circulations (electron spins and orbits) responsible for its magnetism. Now if you have a DC electromagnet, can you extract energy from that DC source simply by using it in some magnetic assembly? Of course you can, you only have to induce a DC voltage onto that current generator. Normally this is done by having a changing magnetic field, so you can't get that DC voltage indefinitely. And to get that field back to the starting conditions you induce the opposite polarity voltage that feeds all the energy you gained back. So normally you can't continually extract energy.
IMO the secret to getting power from a magnet is to have some DC induction into a coil that does not rely on a changing magnetic field. And that is heresy to conventional physicists. Induction involves electric field eddies or circular electric fields. The only recognized way this is achieved is with a time-changing magnetic field where the basic formula tells us that the closed-line integral of the electric field is equal to the differential with respect to time of the surface integral of the B field, which in transformer parlance says the volts per turn is equal to the rate of change of flux. But I believe there are other ways to get an electric eddy field.
One possibility comes from the Marinov generator where current (electrons) flow from a brush onto a rotating slip-ring. The electrons get a sudden acceleration as they flow onto the ring, and at the other brush get a sudden deceleration. We are taught that accelerating electrons radiate, and here we have a DC current stream that is radiating from a very small region. What does that radiation look like? Clearly it is DC, we don't have electrons flowing back and forth to create AC. If you do the math you find that very close to that point you do get a closed loop DC voltage from the electric field. It should be possible to measure that to prove whether this is correct. So if our non-solid state specialists like Grum and Tinman want to make something here is a worthwhile project.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.08, 15:30:35
Of course magnets can do work, or put another way you can extract energy from a magnet.
Or more correctly, you _believe_ you can extract energy from a magnet, but you can't actually _do_ it.
QuoteOne model for a magnet is given by its surface current equivalent. You can model a magnet by replacing it with an air space of the same shape and volume then have a surface current flowing around it. The nearest thing practically is a single layer coil of closely spaced fine wire carrying the current. In other words it is an air-cored electromagnet. The current needed is huge so you can't actually make such an equivalent device, but it is useful for doing magnetic domain analysis of systems with PM's. The theoretical device does not suffer from resistive losses, so when energized the power input sees a short circuit and has to be driven from a DC current source. Of course in the real PM that current is the aggregate effect of all the atomic current circulations (electron spins and orbits) responsible for its magnetism. Now if you have a DC electromagnet, can you extract energy from that DC source simply by using it in some magnetic assembly? Of course you can, you only have to induce a DC voltage onto that current generator. Normally this is done by having a changing magnetic field, so you can't get that DC voltage indefinitely. And to get that field back to the starting conditions you induce the opposite polarity voltage that feeds all the energy you gained back. So normally you can't continually extract energy.
IMO the secret to getting power from a magnet is to have some DC induction into a coil that does not rely on a changing magnetic field. And that is heresy to conventional physicists. Induction involves electric field eddies or circular electric fields. The only recognized way this is achieved is with a time-changing magnetic field where the basic formula tells us that the closed-line integral of the electric field is equal to the differential with respect to time of the surface integral of the B field, which in transformer parlance says the volts per turn is equal to the rate of change of flux. But I believe there are other ways to get an electric eddy field.
Now you have it right: you _believe_ it can be done. But you cannot cite any instances where it actually _has_ been done, nor can you do it yourself.
Quote
One possibility comes from the Marinov generator where current (electrons) flow from a brush onto a rotating slip-ring. The electrons get a sudden acceleration as they flow onto the ring, and at the other brush get a sudden deceleration. We are taught that accelerating electrons radiate, and here we have a DC current stream that is radiating from a very small region. What does that radiation look like? Clearly it is DC, we don't have electrons flowing back and forth to create AC. If you do the math you find that very close to that point you do get a closed loop DC voltage from the electric field. It should be possible to measure that to prove whether this is correct. So if our non-solid state specialists like Grum and Tinman want to make something here is a worthwhile project.
Smudge
And just how does the experiment you describe prove that permanent magnets can do work? You will find the same results as before: it takes more power to spin a system containing magnets to a given RPM than it does to spin the identically weighted and balanced system without magnets.
Dear Smudge.
May I humbly remind you that you were going to provide us with a plan, this was some months back, another thread.
I would love to give your experiment a try as soon as I'm able.
Kind regards, Grum.
I will join the discussion, but I might add that thermal methods are to be used when other methods become ambiguous or fuzzy.
Regarding whether PM's can do useful work, I believe it may be possible, but not the way most folks are doing it i.e using the springy push pull of magnets in attraction or repulsion or their force coupling or electrical induction methods.
If it is possible, I believe methods other than what I mentioned need to be created and evaluated, as these have been fairly well attempted by many tens of thousands of experimenters and proven to not work, or barely work such that they are difficult to measure or demonstrate, AFAIK.
We use the term "useful" work and although magnets can exert a powerful force, you would expect that such magnets alone in an device, (without electrical input if possible), would also produce usable power in the range of hundreds of watts or more. We do not find this to be the case.
Methods I would investigate if I had the time, would be a way to somehow releasing the energy used to create the alignments in the first place, and thus having a sort of solid state battery.
Other method s I have contemplated would be along the lines of Smudge's work i.e somehow directly coupling to the aligned electron spins.
Another method would be to tap into an avalanche effect that may occur in soft iron through an applied flux.
There are more, but all for now gotta run.
And from the other thread:
Quote from: Centraflow on 2016.08.08, 11:45:23
With a magnet on the flywheel passing a coil to generate current, the magnetic field of the magnet is always there, it is not the movement of the flywheel, the flywheel just brings that field into proximity of the coil for a time thus generating current in the coil. That is the flywheel did not create the energy, the magnetic field yes, the flywheel was expended energy only to move that field too and from the coil.
You can do the measurement yourself if you are careful enough: The flywheel did not "create the energy", you stored the energy in the flywheel when you used some method to spin it up. The flywheel expends energy to move the PM's field to and from the coil, yes, and this results in the flywheel slowing down (or requiring more power to maintain speed). The energy put into the coil exactly equals the energy subtracted from the flywheel's motion (or the extra power put in to maintain speed) minus losses. The magnets participate only in the same way the hammer participates when you break rocks with it. The hammer doesn't "lose energy" when you break rocks, it only transfers energy from your arms to the rocks. Remove the hammer and nothing happens, you don't break rocks and _you don't get as tired_ from swinging your arms in the same way. Remove the magnets and you don't transfer energy to the coil and the flywheel takes longer to come to a stop, or requires less power to keep moving at the same speed.
Quote
Another way, a magnet held above a piece of steel and the steel rises up to the magnet when close enough, what created the energy to rise the steel? the movement of the magnet closer to the steel or the movement itself? ;) Or is it the magnetic field?
You need to consider a complete cycle. There is "stored Magnetic Potential Energy" when you have the magnet separated from the steel, and this stored energy is returned when you approach closely enough. The complete cycle starts and ends in the same arrangement though. Start with the steel attached to the magnet, apply work to separate the two --- now you can see that you have stored energy in the arrangement "Magnet distant from steel". It is this work that is returned when you now allow the magnet to approach the steel and wind up with them stuck together again: a complete cycle, and the only work came from whatever means you used to separate them in the first place. Or start separated and finish separated again-- same thing. If you only look at half the cycle, you are ignoring the energy that is stored in the system in the first place. The same mistake is made wrt gravity by people who only consider half the cycle and ignore the storage of energy in the potential energy of height in the gravity field.
Quote
A perminent magnet does create energy, the problem is to extract that energy you may have to expend more than you get back.
Regards
Mike 8)
Er.... Do you think you can get more energy out of the magnet than was used to magnetize the bulk material in the first place, regardless of how much you have to spend to do it?
Where do you think that energy comes from? What changes when you extract it from the magnet? Does the material change in any way?
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.08.08, 15:43:32
Or more correctly, you _believe_ you can extract energy from a magnet, but you can't actually _do_ it.
Now you have it right: you _believe_ it can be done. But you cannot cite any instances where it actually _has_ been done, nor can you do it yourself.
And just how does the experiment you describe prove that permanent magnets can do work? You will find the same results as before: it takes more power to spin a system containing magnets to a given RPM than it does to spin the identically weighted and balanced system without magnets.
I am not talking about spinning magnets. In the Marinov generator the magnets do not move.
Aspden pointed out that if you add the field from a magnet to the field from a coil you get a field energy related to the square of the sum field, and if you look carefully at the different components of (Bm + Bc)^2 you find the 2*Bm*Bc term that represents energy drawn from the magnet. The energy is easily accounted for by considering the change in field from the initial magnet field Bm to the final field Bm+Bc. That change creates the E field eddy that "loads" the atomic dipoles. So I am convinced that energy can be extracted from (and fed back to) that quantum world. And I think it is only a matter of time before there is adequate demonstration that we can retain some of that energy.
Smudge
Quote from: ION on 2016.08.08, 15:52:43
I will join the discussion, but I might add that thermal methods are to be used when other methods become ambiguous or fuzzy.
Regarding whether PM's can do useful work, I believe it may be possible, but not the way most folks are doing it i.e using the springy push pull of magnets in attraction or repulsion or their force coupling or electrical induction methods.
If it is possible, I believe methods other than the above need to be created and evaluated, as the above methods have been fairly well attempted by many tens of thousands of experimenters and proven to not work, or barely work such that they are difficult to measure or demonstrate,AFAIK.
We use the term "useful" work and although magnets can exert a powerful force, you would expect that such a device, if possible, would also produce usable power in the range of hundreds of watts or more. We do not find this to be the case.
However, if you _move_ the magnets in the appropriate way in the appropriate system, you can produce usable power in the range of hundreds of watts or more. This usable power, though, comes from the means you used to move the magnets (or coils past magnets), like for instance the motion of an elevated mass of water through a turbine on its way to a lower position in a gravity field. These experiments have been done _many_ times and the energy input from the means of producing motion is always greater than the energy obtained at the output of the system. The difference is taken up by the inevitable losses due to friction, eddy currents, resistances and etc. and a careful accounting always shows _no_ energy provided by the magnets themselves.
Quote
Methods I would investigate if I had the time, would be a way to somehow releasing the energy used to create the alignments in the first place, and thus having a sort of solid state battery.
I'll repeat the same questions to you: Do you believe it is possible to extract _more_ energy from a PM than was used to magnetize it in the first place ("used to create the alignments" as you say)? If so, where does that energy come from? Does the magnet remain magnetized if you release the energy used to create the alignments in the first place?
Quote
Other method s I have contemplated would be along the lines of Smudge's work i.e somehow directly coupling to the aligned electron spins.
Another method would be to tap into an avalanche effect that may occur in soft iron Through an applied flux.
There are more, but all for now gotta run.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.08, 15:44:33
Dear Smudge.
May I humbly remind you that you were going to provide us with a plan, this was some months back, another thread.
I would love to give your experiment a try as soon as I'm able.
Kind regards, Grum.
Mmm, yes, sorry about that. Put it down to short term memory loss. I am away from home (still!) with only occasional internet access but will get onto it when I get home.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.08, 16:02:24
I am not talking about spinning magnets. In the Marinov generator the magnets do not move.
Aspden pointed out that if you add the field from a magnet to the field from a coil you get a field energy related to the square of the sum field, and if you look carefully at the different components of (Bm + Bc)^2 you find the 2*Bm*Bc term that represents energy drawn from the magnet. The energy is easily accounted for by considering the change in field from the initial magnet field Bm to the final field Bm+Bc. That change creates the E field eddy that "loads" the atomic dipoles. So I am convinced that energy can be extracted from (and fed back to) that quantum world. And I think it is only a matter of time before there is adequate demonstration that we can retain some of that energy.
Smudge
So do you think that you can extract more energy from the magnet than was used to magnetize the material in the first place , which produced the initial magnet field Bm? If so where does this energy come from? Does the material itself change in some way when you extract it? Does it ionize, does it transmute to some other elemental composition, does it get all crumbly and fall apart? Lose weight maybe?
You can believe and postulate all kinds of things, but until you can perform some reliable experiment which _contradicts_ the results obtained from hundreds of years of experimentation, thousands of individual experiments, you are just believing and postulating.
A lot going on in this thread, quite stimulating it is..
Magnetic hysteresis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_hysteresis
When an external magnetic field is applied to a ferromagnetic material such as iron, the atomic dipoles align themselves with it. Even when the field is removed, part of the alignment will be retained: the material has become magnetized. Once magnetized, the magnet will stay magnetized indefinitely. To demagnetize it requires heat or a magnetic field in the opposite direction. This is the effect that provides the element of memory in a hard disk drive.
The relationship between field strength H and magnetization M is not linear in such materials. If a magnet is demagnetized (H=M=0) and the relationship between H and M is plotted for increasing levels of field strength, M follows the initial magnetization curve. This curve increases rapidly at first and then approaches an asymptote called magnetic saturation. If the magnetic field is now reduced monotonically, M follows a different curve. At zero field strength, the magnetization is offset from the origin by an amount called the remanence. If the H-M relationship is plotted for all strengths of applied magnetic field the result is a hysteresis loop called the main loop. The width of the middle section is twice the coercivity of the material.[17]
A closer look at a magnetization curve generally reveals a series of small, random jumps in magnetization called Barkhausen jumps. This effect is due to crystallographic defects such as dislocations.[18]
Magnetic hysteresis loops are not exclusive to materials with ferromagnetic ordering. Other magnetic orderings, such as spin glass ordering, also exhibit this phenomena.[19]
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.08.08, 16:22:11
A lot going on in this thread, quite stimulating it is..
Ah Yoda ..... Good to have you on board. :)
So, who thinks that the Wesley Gary motor was a quaint fairy tale then?
Patents and the sale of working models for a " King's ransom " back in the day. True or false ?
This device would prove beyond any doubt IMHO that you can get work from a PM. And, for the umpteenth time one of our respected members here actually saw one working...... :o
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.08, 16:40:16
Patents and the sale of working models for a " King's ransom " back in the day. True or false ?
This device would prove beyond any doubt IMHO that you can get work from a PM. And, for the umpteenth time one of our respected members here actually saw one working...... :o
Cheers Grum.
A respected member or not, third party information is hearsay at best, in the current information environment.. it is time this community understood this C.C
Quote from: SmudgeI am not talking about spinning magnets. In the Marinov generator the magnets do not move.
It matters not whether the magnets move or not. Some power is applied to the rotating parts to keep them spinning at a given RPM, or, in the unpowered state, the rotating parts continue to move for a certain time after power is removed (spin-down time). In all cases, the power needed to keep the rotating parts spinning at a given RPM will be less when there are no magnets present, and greater when there are magnets present, and in all cases, the time it takes for the unpowered rotor to spin down from a given RPM to a stop will be longer when there are no magnets present, and shorter when there are magnets present. (Of course the rotational MoI is equalized by replacing rotor magnets (if any) with equal weights in the "no-magnet" case.)
Feel free to specify exactly what "Marinov Generator" you are referring to, and design an experiment _with appropriate controls_ that could either falsify or support your experimental hypothesis. Which is what, by the way? I've already given several experiments and controls which could be easily performed, with specified hypotheses.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.08.08, 16:22:11
A lot going on in this thread, quite stimulating it is..
Magnetic hysteresis
(etc.)
Hysteresis LOOPS, which begin and end at the same point. Think about that. You get back what you put in, minus losses which can be made very small. You _never_ get back more than you put in.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.08.08, 16:51:18
Hysteresis LOOPS, which begin and end at the same point. Think about that. You get back what you put in, minus losses which can be made very small. You _never_ get back more than you put in.
In a closed system this is true.
In watching ferro fluid march along flux lines it makes one think that the flux moves in its line(we know this) and that the fluid is being dragged along other than the fluid just attracted to a static line of force. When watching iron filings in oil move to a magnetic field the iron draws nearer the flux lines but also to the poles. Now this is where concentration is but its almost like there is something missing. All obviousness and idiocy aside we track the flux directions in cores so we have movement no matter where the flux is. Movement is work. Nothing profound here just needed to get some flux off my chest. Now I gotta get the flux outta here.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.08.08, 15:56:22
And from the other thread:
You can do the measurement yourself if you are careful enough: The flywheel did not "create the energy", you stored the energy in the flywheel when you used some method to spin it up. The flywheel expends energy to move the PM's field to and from the coil, yes, and this results in the flywheel slowing down (or requiring more power to maintain speed). The energy put into the coil exactly equals the energy subtracted from the flywheel's motion (or the extra power put in to maintain speed) minus losses. The magnets participate only in the same way the hammer participates when you break rocks with it. The hammer doesn't "lose energy" when you break rocks, it only transfers energy from your arms to the rocks. Remove the hammer and nothing happens, you don't break rocks and _you don't get as tired_ from swinging your arms in the same way. Remove the magnets and you don't transfer energy to the coil and the flywheel takes longer to come to a stop, or requires less power to keep moving at the same speed.
You need to consider a complete cycle. There is "stored Magnetic Potential Energy" when you have the magnet separated from the steel, and this stored energy is returned when you approach closely enough. The complete cycle starts and ends in the same arrangement though. Start with the steel attached to the magnet, apply work to separate the two --- now you can see that you have stored energy in the arrangement "Magnet distant from steel". It is this work that is returned when you now allow the magnet to approach the steel and wind up with them stuck together again: a complete cycle, and the only work came from whatever means you used to separate them in the first place. Or start separated and finish separated again-- same thing. If you only look at half the cycle, you are ignoring the energy that is stored in the system in the first place. The same mistake is made wrt gravity by people who only consider half the cycle and ignore the storage of energy in the potential energy of height in the gravity field.
Er.... Do you think you can get more energy out of the magnet than was used to magnetize the bulk material in the first place, regardless of how much you have to spend to do it?
Where do you think that energy comes from? What changes when you extract it from the magnet? Does the material change in any way?
Yes TK I understand your points of view above, thats not really where I was coming from. A PM has stored energy and could be in an infinite form if it does not loose it's field strength, I'm talking PM, from the name perminent.
To be able to extract that stored energy, which you have stated it is stored energy, with less energy than you receive is what I think this is all about. Now if you say a super nova or the sun or any atomic power put the energy into the natural magnetic material on Earth, then you would of course be right, you would get less energy back, but it would be one hell of a storage means if it lasted for 1000yrs, even 10yrs until it died. Is not the earth one big storage magnet!! perhaps that is moving things a little way off course, and the world goes round and round ;)
Regards
Mike 8)
TK said:
QuoteI'll repeat the same questions to you: Do you believe it is possible to extract _more_ energy from a PM than was used to magnetize it in the first place ("used to create the alignments" as you say)? If so, where does that energy come from? Does the magnet remain magnetized if you release the energy used to create the alignments in the first place?
The answer is: no to first question and no to the third, that's why I called it a solid state battery (if it could be done in the first place). The second question is then not applicable.
Actually my views are quite in alignment with your views, TK, with the only exception that there may be undiscovered methods that might be able to extract energy from the spins e.g. Smudge's proposal, which is not not yet fully explored, or other methods, not yet even dreamed of.
To reiterate, I do not believe permanent magnets can do work
as typically applied, but we should remain open to possibilities for other methods not yet attempted that fall in the category "atypical" that could yield some degree of success.
A lot of confusion comes from thinking that because something increases the efficiency of a system, that it actually performs useful work. e.g
The return magnetic soft steel path in a PM motor increases the efficiency of the motor, but cannot be said in itself to perform "useful work".
Higher compression can increase an engine's HP output (when used with the right higher octane fuel). Is the energy coming from the increased compression ? no, it is just a engineered effect in a system which processes a fuel.
By extension permanent magnets are part of a system that processes electrical energy, turning it into mechanical energy.. In this application the PMagnets do not provide the energy, it is from the electrical input.
Another example, if you wound a motor with Nichrome wire instead of copper wire, you would see a decrease in efficiency, the energy wasted in heating the wire. Now go to copper and the efficiency increases. Is the copper wire responsible for doing useful work?
Regards, ION
Quote from: ION on 2016.08.08, 19:20:02
TK said:
The answer is: no to first question and no to the third, that's why I called it a solid state battery (if it could be done in the first place). The second question is then not applicable.
Actually my views are quite in alignment with your views, TK, with the only exception that there may be undiscovered methods that might be able to extract energy from the spins e.g. Smudge's proposal, which is not not yet fully explored, or other methods, not yet even dreamed of.
To reiterate, I do not believe permanent magnets can do work as typically applied, but we should remain open to possibilities for other methods not yet attempted that fall in the category "atypical" that could yield some degree of success.
A lot of confusion comes from thinking that because something increases the efficiency of a system, that it actually performs useful work. e.g
The return magnetic soft steel path in a PM motor increases the efficiency of the motor, but cannot be said in itself to perform "useful work".
Higher compression can increase an engine's HP output (when used with the right higher octane fuel). Is the energy coming from the increased compression ? no, it is just a engineered effect in a system which processes a fuel.
By extension permanent magnets are part of a system that processes electrical energy, turning it into mechanical energy.. In this application the PMagnets do not provide the energy, it is from the electrical input.
Another example, if you wound a motor with Nichrome wire instead of copper wire, you would see a decrease in efficiency, the energy wasted in heating the wire. Now go to copper and the efficiency increases. Is the copper wire responsible for doing useful work?
Regards, ION
But what about the heat from the motor?.
What i mean to say is,if the PM field strength is increased,but the RPM of the motor,and the P/in to the motor are kept the same,by way of increasing the load on the motor,and that motor maintains the same heat output for a given power input,while at the same time the mechanical energy output rises--would that not mean that it was the increase in PM field strength that caused the increase in mechanical output energy?.
Per my test bed setup noted in m y first post
Expected outcome :-\
Increase in PM field strength =
Same P/in
Same RPM
Same heat output from the motor it self
But an increase in mechanical output power-->which would result in a greater heat output from an eddy breaking system.
If the increase in PM strength only made the motor more efficient at converting heat waste into mechanical energy for a given P/in,then we should not see an increase in overall temperature from our DUT simply by increasing the strength of the stator PMs.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.08, 23:31:19
But what about the heat from the motor?.
What i mean to say is,if the PM field strength is increased,but the RPM of the motor,and the P/in to the motor are kept the same,by way of increasing the load on the motor,and that motor maintains the same heat output for a given power input,while at the same time the mechanical energy output rises--would that not mean that it was the increase in PM field strength that caused the increase in mechanical output energy?.
Per my test bed setup noted in m y first post
Expected outcome :-\
Increase in PM field strength =
Same P/in
Same RPM
Same heat output from the motor it self
But an increase in mechanical output power-->which would result in a greater heat output from an eddy breaking system.
If the increase in PM strength only made the motor more efficient at converting heat waste into mechanical energy for a given P/in,then we should not see an increase in overall temperature from our DUT simply by increasing the strength of the stator PMs.
Brad
By this line of reasoning you could start with weak magnets and keep doubling the strength expecting the motor efficiency to double each time, but we will find that we reach a limit as each doubling of magnet strength does not double the efficiency or we would wind up with 200% ...300% or more Pout than Pin.
In Actuality, the system approaches but does not exceed 100% efficiency. As we improve the quality of the components of the system (more powerful magnets etc.) we reach the limit of efficiency that material science can provide, perhaps, in the future 99.9% efficient.
So in the ideal (lossless) 100% efficient motor we find that the Pout of such a motor is not only directly related to the Pin, it is
exactly equal to power in, so what do you think is actually doing the work?
Do you know of anyone that actually created an OU motor by increasing the magnet strength to the limits?
OK, even beyond the limits of magnet technology, is such a OU motor possible in a simulation where magnet strength is taken well beyond current practical limits?
Quote from: ION on 2016.08.09, 00:02:46
By this line of reasoning you could start with weak magnets and keep doubling the strength expecting the motor efficiency to double each time, but we will find that we reach a limit as each doubling of magnet strength does not double the efficiency or we would wind up with 200% ...300% or more Pout than Pin.
In Actuality, the system approaches but does not exceed 100% efficiency. As we improve the quality of the components of the system (more powerful magnets etc.) we reach the limit of efficiency that material science can provide, perhaps, in the future 99.9% efficient.
So in the ideal (lossless) 100% efficient motor we find that the Pout of such a motor is not only directly related to the Pin, it is exactly equal to power in, so what do you think is actually doing the work?
Do you know of anyone that actually created an OU motor by increasing the magnet strength to the limits?
OK, even beyond the limits of magnet technology, is such a OU motor possible in a simulation where magnet strength is taken well beyond current practical limits?
It may have been done,but i am unaware of any test done that accounts for total energy output,where heat energy is also included.
High end motors are getting close to 95% efficient-that is-converting electrical energy in to mechanical energy out,but leave out the generated waste heat energy. Are we to assume that under full rated load,that only 5% of the input power would be converted into waste heat energy?.
Lets say that our motor is under load,and it is consuming 100 watts of power. This would mean-even though the motor is working hard,only5 watts of that input power would be converted to waste heat--this i find hard to believe.
But lets get my test rig setup,and we will be able to see if the motors waste heat go's down when we increase the PM field strength.
Brad
A lively debate, thanks all.
It still seems to me that it's how we view the situation.
TK's flywheel analogy, with Lead weights attached will take longer to slow down than with the same mass PM's attached and acting on a coil. Take the coil away, we should see no difference.
From my perspective the PM's are doing the work by energising the loaded coil, the flywheel being nothing more than the carrier.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.08.08, 16:12:15
So do you think that you can extract more energy from the magnet than was used to magnetize the material in the first place , which produced the initial magnet field Bm? If so where does this energy come from? Does the material itself change in some way when you extract it? Does it ionize, does it transmute to some other elemental composition, does it get all crumbly and fall apart? Lose weight maybe?
None of those things. I use the known laws of physics and apply them in different ways. I know that I can create a magnetic field using current in a coil, and I can calculate the energy stored in that field. And including losses in the coil that energy agrees with the electrical energy supplied from my power supply. I can have a second coil interwound with the first one. If I then supply current to that coil I get greater energy stored in the now increased field. That energy is proportional to the square of the summed fields. When I now do my energy balance I find that the new energy has three components each one proportional to the three components in the expansion of (B
1 + B
2)
2. One component is the initial energy supplied from the first coil, one component is the energy supplied by the second coil and the third component is energy supplied by the first coil at the time that the second coil is energized. This is all trivial math that anyone can do. The first coil supplies that 2*B
1*B
2 component. Now if we replace the first coil with a PM we get the same math, the PM supplies that extra energy. If you don't believe me do the math yourself.
QuoteYou can believe and postulate all kinds of things, but until you can perform some reliable experiment which _contradicts_ the results obtained from hundreds of years of experimentation, thousands of individual experiments, you are just believing and postulating.
The Marinov generator (the generator version of his motor bizarrely named Siberian Colei or something like that) produces DC that defies current accepted dogma. I have carried out experiments with the help of a slip-ring manufacturer and witnessed this DC anomaly. The Distinti Paradox 2 is another more complicated version that also produces anomalous DC. While I accept that neither of these examples has shown overunity, the anomalies are worthy of further investigation because they offer the potential to do so. There is a valid explanation using a little known induction feature of the A field that uses the total time derivative, not just the partial derivative, that is still the subject of debate, and this does not require mechanical energy to be supplied to the slip-ring. My believing and postulating has some credence.
Smudge
Quote from: TinselKoala on 2016.08.08, 16:51:18
It matters not whether the magnets move or not. Some power is applied to the rotating parts to keep them spinning at a given RPM, or, in the unpowered state, the rotating parts continue to move for a certain time after power is removed (spin-down time). In all cases, the power needed to keep the rotating parts spinning at a given RPM will be less when there are no magnets present, and greater when there are magnets present, and in all cases, the time it takes for the unpowered rotor to spin down from a given RPM to a stop will be longer when there are no magnets present, and shorter when there are magnets present. (Of course the rotational MoI is equalized by replacing rotor magnets (if any) with equal weights in the "no-magnet" case.)
I think your reasoning here is based on conventional motional induction where what you say is perfectly true. Here we are interested in the unconventional.
QuoteFeel free to specify exactly what "Marinov Generator" you are referring to, and design an experiment _with appropriate controls_ that could either falsify or support your experimental hypothesis. Which is what, by the way? I've already given several experiments and controls which could be easily performed, with specified hypotheses.
The experiment I have in mind looks for DC induction into a coil. It uses a rotating slip-ring with diametrically opposite brushes. A high direct current is made to flow across the slip ring. A coil of many turns of fine wire is placed close to one brush contact point. By my reasoning a small DC voltage should be induced into the coil. If that is found to be true it opens the door to means for extracting energy from magnets. Where does that energy come from? IMO it comes from whatever keeps electrons spinning or orbiting, and that takes you to the virtual photons that invade our space. Just what those virtual particles are remains a mystery, but the evidence suggests that they have zero rest mass, they have momentum and energy, and they have spin. So instead of looking for any classical effects of extracting energy (such as your allusion to transmutation or fragmentation) we should look for changes in the density of those virtual particles.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.09, 14:19:28
I think your reasoning here is based on conventional motional induction where what you say is perfectly true. Here we are interested in the unconventional.
The experiment I have in mind looks for DC induction into a coil. It uses a rotating slip-ring with diametrically opposite brushes. A high direct current is made to flow across the slip ring. A coil of many turns of fine wire is placed close to one brush contact point. By my reasoning a small DC voltage should be induced into the coil. If that is found to be true it opens the door to means for extracting energy from magnets. Where does that energy come from? IMO it comes from whatever keeps electrons spinning or orbiting, and that takes you to the virtual photons that invade our space. Just what those virtual particles are remains a mystery, but the evidence suggests that they have zero rest mass, they have momentum and energy, and they have spin. So instead of looking for any classical effects of extracting energy (such as your allusion to transmutation or fragmentation) we should look for changes in the density of those virtual particles.
Smudge
Dear Smudge.
I think I might have asked this question on the thread where you first mentioned the above experiment.
Can the slip ring be made from Copper strip and rolled into a ring with a Silver soldered joint? I have several square feet of various Gague Copper and Brass sheets at my disposal.
I also have many different diameters of Brass rod that could be formed into jointed rings.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.09, 11:35:28
It still seems to me that it's how we view the situation.
TK's flywheel analogy, with Lead weights attached will take longer to slow down than with the same mass PM's attached and acting on a coil. Take the coil away, we should see no difference.
Introducing a Permanent Magnet system will always be a COP<1 (less than) 'enhancement'. TK is correct and demonstrable physics experiments will prove it.
When you remove the coil, The PM Mass is 'treated' the same as lead (a weight on the circumference of the spinning disc), but will in fact have slightly different properties.
The Element Neodymium
http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele060.html
Density: 7.01 grams per cubic centimeter
The Element Lead
http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele082.html
Density: 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter
The ratio between the two is 1.618
The Volume occupied by the less dense Neodymium will therefore be larger for the same weight.
This will change the interaction with the environment (air) by introducing an increased drag factor for the Neodymium. (larger surface area creates more drag)
You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment.
O0
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.08.09, 15:52:44
Introducing a Permanent Magnet system will always be a COP<1 (less than) 'enhancement'. TK is correct and demonstrable physics experiments will prove it.
When you remove the coil, The PM Mass is 'treated' the same as lead (a weight on the circumference of the spinning disc), but will in fact have slightly different properties.
The Element Neodymium
http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele060.html
Density: 7.01 grams per cubic centimeter
The Element Lead
http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele082.html
Density: 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter
The ratio between the two is 1.618
The Volume occupied by the less dense Neodymium will therefore be larger for the same weight.
This will change the interaction with the environment (air) by introducing an increased drag factor for the Neodymium. (larger surface area creates more drag)
You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment.
O0
My dear evolvingape.
One wasn't suggesting that the system described would, or could be COP>1.
One was however, suggesting that the magnetic field from the attached permanent magnets whilst acting upon a loaded coil caused the flywheel to slow down quicker than if the load was not present, represents work done by the said permanent magnets.
" You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment. "
Not a B****Y chance mate !! ;D
Kindest regards, Grum.
I didn't say you were suggesting it was a COP>1 system, I know that you were not.
I was saying it is a COP<1 system (the PM's and coil) mounted on a separate mass based platform which itself is COP<1. In an attempt at greater system complexity you are introducing an additional loss.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.09, 16:59:04
One was however, suggesting that the magnetic field from the attached permanent magnets whilst acting upon a loaded coil caused the flywheel to slow down quicker than if the load was not present, represents work done by the said permanent magnets.
Technically you are correct it is "work done" but only in a thermodynamic sense, the work is dissipated as waste heat and electricity, an inefficiency to the system platform as a whole, whose primary foundation is kinetic (rotation of a solid mass) in 3D spacetime.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.09, 16:59:04
" You could compress the Neodymium perhaps so that it occupies the same volume as an equivalent weight of lead and remove that variable from your experiment. "
Not a B****Y chance mate !! ;D
Try these:
http://neodymium-magnet.org/hf-Rubber-Magnets/
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.09, 15:11:15
Dear Smudge.
I think I might have asked this question on the thread where you first mentioned the above experiment.
Can the slip ring be made from Copper strip and rolled into a ring with a Silver soldered joint? I have several square feet of various Gague Copper and Brass sheets at my disposal.
I also have many different diameters of Brass rod that could be formed into jointed rings.
Cheers Grum.
Dear Grum,
I composed a reply but lost my internet connection and lost the reply. Now back home so I'll try again. Yes you could make the slip-ring that way. It needs to be mounted on a non-conducting disc somehow. We need maximum surface velocity hence maximum practical diameter and RPM. I envision the coil as a circular bunch of wires taped together to form a ring. The diameter of the coil is not too important but it can't be too small. The induction into the wires can be likened to the force on an undershot water-wheel where it is only the paddles in contact with the water that see any force. It is only the electrons in that part of the wire that is close to the brush contact point that get the biggest push. I'll knock up a sketch when I have finished checking all my mail.
Smudge
Dear Smudge.
Looking forward to seeing a diagram.
How does a 1000 mm circumference sound? Brass or Copper? I have a huge selection of plastic sheets from Polycarbonate, HDPE, PVC etc.
What width?
Good start? ;)
Kind regards, Grum.
The original Siberian Coliu used a "slip ring" as described by Marinov and tested by Kooistra and others, including myself, that was not like a short cylinder but rather was a planar ring.
Most of us have used pure copper vacuum flange gaskets, which are readily available on the internet, and "brush" contacts of liquid metal like mercury or GalInStan. Using this ring, and a triaxial arrangement of armature magnets, ring and brushes, all free to move in rotation with respect to each other, one can then observe and explore the truly interesting and seemingly anomalous behaviour of the system.
That is, when the magnet armature and the ring are both free to rotate, and DC high-current power is supplied to the outer edge of the ring by brushes at opposite points, the "stator" ring will rotate in one direction and the magnet armature will rotate in the opposite direction.
BUT... when the brushes are made to contact the ring on the _inner_ edge, at the same opposite locations, the ring will rotate in one direction and the magnet armature will rotate in the _same_ direction.
The direction of ring and magnet armature rotation depends on the polarity of the DC power applied. The system is set up to "start" with a particular orientation of the magnet armature. When current is applied, the magnet armature will rotate 90 degrees and "lock" into that position wrt the brush locations. The ring moves under power until the magnet armature locks, then it coasts freely, but slowed by the brush contact friction. If the magnet armature is prevented from rotating to the "lock" position, the ring will continue to rotate under power instead of just coasting.
If the DC power is supplied in properly timed pulses, the entire system can be made into a continuously operating motor, with both the "stator" ring and the armature magnets rotating in the _same direction_.
Grum,
I would go for copper to keep the resistance as low as possible, although that shouldn't be an important parameter. How fast can you swing that 1 foot diameter disc, which I imagine to be about 1/2 inch thick?
Smudge
@TK,
I have read most of the various reports on the motor. But I have seen nothing on the generator version where the slip-ring is driven and the magnets are stationary. I have done experiments using disc magnets, not the closed magnetic circuit where there is no external B field. So my results are not conclusive, there is an argument that the results could come from the classical E=vXB motional induction. But the geometry is not quite right for that and the values obtained did agree with a calculation of the non-classical E=-(v.del)A induction. There is a private thread on this subject which has now meandered onto this one.
Smudge
With B flux leakage from a stationary magnet armature and driven slip ring, you pretty much have a classic homopolar DC generator configuration. It's harder to see this if the "slip ring" is an axial cylinder without much radial extent. It's easier to see if a disk or flat ring is used. In my own experimentation I was more interested in the motor effect than the generator, but I was able to produce some _AC_ voltage by rotating the magnet armature with a stationary ring.
The motor's apparent violation of N3 with both stator ring and magnet armature moving in the same direction was my major research focus. Some workers who have studied this system apparently don't even believe this is possible at all, since they don't even mention it in their papers. Those that have gone this far may believe that the stator and armature are reacting against the brushes, but it is possible to arrange the geometry so that this "brush reaction effect" is eliminated, to the first order.
But flux leakage is apparently necessary for all the effects produced by this system. When I took extra pains to eliminate flux leakage from the magnet armature, all the effects weakened to the extent I was able to confine the B field to the armature. In my opinion the A induction effect is still unsupported by experiment. If you can demonstrate it, along with appropriate control experiments that enable you to definitely assign causality, that would be a pretty big deal, nearly as big as a violation of N3, and you should pursue the research further if you are able.
see attached
Yes, Phipps is one of those who seem to have entirely missed the co-rotation of magnet armature and ring when current is fed to the inner edge of the ring... this, in spite of citing Kooistra several times in his paper. Phipps treats the ring as a simple circular line, rather than a volume with both axial and radial thickness. So for him there is no "inner edge" and the torques of ring and magnet armature are always opposite, no matter whether one or the other, or both, are actually free to move.
What this co-rotation with inner edge current injection phenomenon does to all that math in Phipps's paper and the conclusions he draws in spite of the Fig. 11 data .... it's an interesting question.
Here's a video by someone who has shot himself in the foot already by his apparatus geometry. He does demonstrate a continuously running motor but hasn't implemented the "ring" and brush setup properly to be able to observe the more interesting phenomena.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTuDrJVzCpo
Unfortunately I have no photos of the triaxial apparatus I constructed at ISSO in 1999, and the apparatus itself is long gone from my control. I keep thinking about building another one, but Kooistra's method is so simple and easy to reproduce that it's not worth the trouble for me any more. Kooistra just used a copper vacuum gasket cemented to the rim of a styrofoam coffee cup, which was suspended from a thread, so that the ring hung downwards and just barely made contact with two pools of mercury in little wells on the surface of a board. Current was provided by wires sticking into the mercury. A pair of cylinder magnets stuck together and simply placed on the center of the ring, resting on the table, made up his "armature". If I was going to do this today I'd use a transparent plastic cup, so it's easier to see what the magnets are doing. By making two sets of mercury wells, one set spaced for outer-edge contact on the ring and the other set spaced for inner-edge contact, the co-rotation and opposite rotation senses of ring and rotor can be observed.
Here are two papers of mine dealing with this subject. The first paper gives the math for an electron accelerating near a closed current loop where it induces a voltage impulse into that loop, hence either extracting energy from or feeding energy to the source of that loop current. It is shown how this is related to the canonical momentum qA of the electron, or more importantly the canonical energy qAv. Acceleration along the A field direction causes an electrical power flow at the coil, i.e. from a position outside the coil we can influence what goes on inside the electrical circuit. Energy is conserved because the total kinetic energy of the electron (which is the sum of its mechanical energy and its canonical energy) changes. If the electron is taken away to a distant position where the A field is zero it loses its canonical energy, and to maintain energy balance its mechanical energy (hence velocity) has to change, i.e. it endures a force. We can extract power by using that force to do work while not changing the velocity of the electron. The force is represented by an electric field inherited from the electron movement through the non-uniform A field. It is shown that this anomalous E field can be obtained by using the total time derivative of the A field as seen by the moving electron, which leads to the classical E=vXB induction plus another term that is the gradient of a potential Swarzschild used in his electro-kinetic potential. This missing term in our electromagnetic teachings explains all.
The second paper was written earlier and deals with the same subject from a slightly different perspective, before I had mastered the intricacies of the vector math and discovered the link to Swarzschild.
Smudge
Grum,
Here is a picture of the proposed experiment. What equipment do you have that can measure small DC voltage, like microvolts? I have here a piece of kit built for me by Graham Gunderson (the very fellow with his magnetic implosion transformer). It is a DC amplifier that enables a 'scope to measure DC microvolts. It has a low pass filter to get rid of noise, so it is slow to respond to any changes to the DC level, and of course to the initial connection to any DC voltage. It even senses the Seebeck voltage changing as the body heat that you put into the croc clip leaks away, so you really need a permanent connection to the DOT then switch on the voltage. In your case the sudden appearance of current will induce an enormous voltage transient via its magnetic field that might take a long time to disappear, so you may need to ramp up the current slowly. If you need this device I can send it to you.
Smudge
Your papers rang quite a few bells here, though I do not admit to fully understanding all of it.
The idea of the coexistence and spontaneous unfoldment of a static E field and B field without the attendant phase shift normal to an inductive circuit is intriguing.
DC production or the acceleration of electrons by impulse is exactly what SM was alluding to in his attempts to explain what he was doing. Like Gunderson, he did not fully understand his own creations.
The windup effect (time to accelerate), gyro properties (resultant side effect of electrons accelerating at very high speed in a ring conductor), DC without rectification seem to be clues not to be ignored. In place of a moving ring, he stumbled upon the method of using acoustic vibration of conductors IMHO.
Sorry to diverge again.
Dear Smudge.
My apologies for not replying sooner, just getting through the result of my latest " pummelling " at the clinic !!
How fast do we need to go? It seems my Copper sheet is imperial so I'm looking at a 36" ( Inch ) maximum circumference.
I have a 400 MHZ, 4 channel analogue scope and on the basic end a moving coil micro ammeter ( 0-50 ) if memory serves correctly.
For the pickup coil how does a " Hard drive " actuator arm sound ?
I've got to go, can't sit here any longer !!
Kind regards, Grum.
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.11, 15:14:12
Here are two papers...
In the first paper, Fig. 3 shows a current loop. The current loop is powered with a steady DC.
Don't both the loop and the moving electron have magnetic fields the will couple together, and vary with distance as the electron passes the loop?
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.08.12, 00:18:31
In the first paper, Fig. 3 shows a current loop. The current loop is powered with a steady DC.
Don't both the loop and the moving electron have magnetic fields the will couple together, and vary with distance as the electron passes the loop?
Certainly if we consider a single electron it will create a magnetic field associated with its movement. I don't like the words "couple with" because that suggests some special effect associated with the combined fields. Its field will add vectorally and temporally to the static field from the current loop. The current loop would see the temporal change as an induced voltage impulse of one polarity as the electron approaches and of opposite polarity as it recedes. Because of the sudden acceleration the approach velocity is less than the receding velocity so the two impulses have different magnitudes and widths. But the exchange of energy with the loop's current source is zero, it gains as much energy from one pulse as it loses from the other pulse. Of course we don't have single electrons, we have a current stream of zillions of electrons so those impulses all cancel out and we don't need to consider them. We have constant current arriving and leaving the acceleration point so the magnetic fields from those trajectories is constant. It is only the radiation from the accelerating region that is "seen" by the current loop. Of interest is just what is that radiation? You can argue that over the small accelerating region the current is constant because the changing density of electrons negates the effect of increased velocity, so there is no magnetic impulse to create an induction E field, hence there is no radiation. That is certainly a possibility. But my gut feeling is that there
is a radiation E field there and that is what we are looking for.
Smudge
Electric field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field
An electric field is a vector field that associates to each point in space the Coulomb force that would be experienced per unit of electric charge, by an infinitesimal test charge at that point.[1] Electric fields converge and diverge at electric charges and they can be induced by time-varying magnetic fields. The electric field combines with the magnetic field to form the electromagnetic field.
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.12, 10:32:41
Certainly if we consider a single electron it will create a magnetic field associated with its movement. I don't like the words "couple with" because that suggests some special effect associated with the combined fields. Its field will add vectorally and temporally to the static field from the current loop. The current loop would see the temporal change as an induced voltage impulse of one polarity as the electron approaches and of opposite polarity as it recedes. Because of the sudden acceleration the approach velocity is less than the receding velocity so the two impulses have different magnitudes and widths. But the exchange of energy with the loop's current source is zero, it gains as much energy from one pulse as it loses from the other pulse. Of course we don't have single electrons, we have a current stream of zillions of electrons so those impulses all cancel out and we don't need to consider them. We have constant current arriving and leaving the acceleration point so the magnetic fields from those trajectories is constant. It is only the radiation from the accelerating region that is "seen" by the current loop. Of interest is just what is that radiation? You can argue that over the small accelerating region the current is constant because the changing density of electrons negates the effect of increased velocity, so there is no magnetic impulse to create an induction E field, hence there is no radiation. That is certainly a possibility. But my gut feeling is that there is a radiation E field there and that is what we are looking for.
Smudge
A wire is in proximity to a PM field. It is given a sharp impulse so has sudden acceleration in one direction, and much reduced acceleration as it's direction reverses and returns to it's rest point. Would it's radiation E field effect a buildup of direct current in a nearby loop? Would some small current need to be initially flowing in the loop?
Or would it result in a null. Maybe you have already answered it above.
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.12, 10:32:41
Certainly if we consider a single electron it will create a magnetic field associated with its movement.
I don't like the words "couple with" because that suggests some special effect associated with the
combined fields. Its field will add vectorally and temporally to the static field from the current loop.
The current loop would see the temporal change as an induced voltage impulse of one polarity as
the electron approaches and of opposite polarity as it recedes. Because of the sudden acceleration
the approach velocity is less than the receding velocity so the two impulses have different magnitudes
and widths. But the exchange of energy with the loop's current source is zero, it gains as much energy
from one pulse as it loses from the other pulse. Of course we don't have single electrons, we have
a current stream of zillions of electrons so those impulses all cancel out and we don't need to consider
them. We have constant current arriving and leaving the acceleration point so the magnetic fields from
those trajectories is constant. It is only the radiation from the accelerating region that is "seen" by the
current loop. Of interest is just what is that radiation? You can argue that over the small accelerating
region the current is constant because the changing density of electrons negates the effect of increased
velocity, so there is no magnetic impulse to create an induction E field, hence there is no radiation.
That is certainly a possibility. But my gut feeling is that there is a radiation E field there and that
is what we are looking for.
Smudge
While the electron is accelerating, the E field is time-dependent.
If this E-field is also perpendicular to a steady magnetic field,
then you have the necessary elements for a mode of induction
predicted in Willie Johnson's Gyroscopic Force Theory. He is a member here, but has not been around since he last spoke with you about inner space, and something about a resistance of 30 ohms.
He went and wrote a book based on the 30 ohms, titles "The Sagitta Key".
The equation for this GFT induction is tExB=qr. He uses quaternions extensively, but his explanation of this equation is simple and we discussed it months ago on this forum.
A time-dependent electric field, perpendicular to a static magnetic field, will induce a current in a conductor. The units for qr are Coulomb-meter, same as for the dipole moment. My take on that is that there is a change in density of the dipoles in the conductor.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.11, 18:32:53
How fast do we need to go? It seems my Copper sheet is imperial so I'm looking at a 36" ( Inch ) maximum circumference.
I've just done some calculations for 100RPM on a slip ring 300mm diameter carrying 10 amps from the two brushes. Then for a 1 turn loop that is 50mm diameter placed so that its nearest point gets 10mm from the brush contact the DC voltage would be 0.8 microvolts. Make that 100 turns and it's 80 microvolts. Increase the diameter of the pick-up loop to 100mm and the single turn voltage is 1.3 microvolts. Hope that gives you some idea for the sort of voltages expected.
QuoteI have a 400 MHZ, 4 channel analogue scope and on the basic end a moving coil micro ammeter ( 0-50 ) if memory serves correctly.
Maybe the induced voltage could drive short-circuit current that would show on that meter.
QuoteFor the pickup coil how does a " Hard drive " actuator arm sound ?
No idea what that consists of having never taken a hard drive apart.
Smudge
Dear Smudge.
One hundred RPM, I was expecting much faster.... :D
I acquired a job lot of high precision Japanese motors, so could use one as both the drive and support.
With the recent dialogue relating to this experiment seeming to imply contradiction, I'm asking, rather bluntly, is it worth my time? Time is precious here ATM so a consensus would be very useful.
Kind regards, Grum.
Dear Grum,
I was surprised by the results from the calculations. I have checked them again and can't find anything to make the results smaller. I'll write a small paper showing how I got them so that others can look for errors.
In view of the importance of this form of DC induction into a loop I think the experiment is well worth your time. Not only could it bring you fame for the discovery, it opens the door to the means for continually extracting energy from the quantum dynamos that provide the magnetism in PM's. Of course the experiment might end in failure, perhaps this DC induction doesn't exist. In which case you will save people like me a lot of time, we can forget all about it.
Smudge
Bill Hammack enthusiastically describes how a hard drive works:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iaxOUYalJU
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.13, 10:20:46
Dear Smudge.
One hundred RPM, I was expecting much faster.... :D
I acquired a job lot of high precision Japanese motors, so could use one as both the drive and support.
With the recent dialogue relating to this experiment seeming to imply contradiction, I'm asking, rather bluntly, is it worth my time? Time is precious here ATM so a consensus would be very useful.
Kind regards, Grum.
Dear Grum
This is an important experiment, and if I had the machining skills I would try it. My only reservation is the very low microvolt output might be confused with thermoelectric artifacts.
Assuming the experiment did provide a positive result through careful measurement, the next question is how can one build a reasonably sized device that could yield usable power?
Would current carrying conductors physically impulsed (vibrated) at ultrasonic speeds provide the needed E field?
Agreed, time is precious.
Regards, ION
Dear Smudge and ION.
Many thanks for your encouraging posts.
I'll wait a little for your paper and hope that others might also take the time to pass judgment. Perhaps, in the meantime we could look into the " Grey/Gray " areas of how to make sure the experiment doesn't get " fooled " by doing something the wrong way.
I have already got most of the layout firmly mapped within my " noggin " ! Am I correct in thinking that the pickup coil is at 90deg to the driven loop?
Kind regards, Grum.
Quote from: ION on 2016.08.13, 12:53:43
Assuming the experiment did provide a positive result through careful measurement, the next question is how can one build a reasonably sized device that could yield usable power?
Would current carrying conductors physically impulsed (vibrated) at ultrasonic speeds provide the needed E field?
I think you need to look at electron mass acceleration followed by rapid deceleration creating a compression of the scalar field to generate a "pressure increase".
Due to the effective resistor at the boundary plane a lot of heat will probably be generated from a pulsed cycle over significant time, incorporation of cryogenic cooling fluid expressing a "pressure increase" would be beneficial for system efficiency but would not reduce system complexity.
hhop is simpler for me, electrical energy is extracted from the scalar "compressed" field over time, the system is then allowed to reset due to a natural starting condition imbalance and an irresistible desire to return to equilibrium.
If you apply hv pulses of a few ns to a long coil (I used 1300 feet, air core, and 10ns pulse at 2kv) you can experiment with some sort of very strong E-field effect. It's much stronger than just static hv.
Hold a magnet near the coil while it is being pulsed and the magnet will move violently. Everyone is quick to say that this is caused by the magnetic field of the coil, but this magnetic field is almost negligible, if detected at all.
I've thought that it may be possible to make a small generator from this effect but haven't gotten around to trying it.
Dear Smudge.
Could you do a calculation to find out the dimensions and speed to generate 1 Volt?
This value would effectively rule out any ambiguity/error from brush arcing etc.
Kind regards, Grum.
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.12, 19:36:43
I've just done some calculations for 100RPM on a slip ring 300mm diameter carrying 10 amps from the two brushes. Then for a 1 turn loop that is 50mm diameter placed so that its nearest point gets 10mm from the brush contact the DC voltage would be 0.8 microvolts. Make that 100 turns and it's 80 microvolts. Increase the diameter of the pick-up loop to 100mm and the single turn voltage is 1.3 microvolts. Hope that gives you some idea for the sort of voltages expected.
http://www.convertunits.com/from/volt/to/microvolt
Using the above hyperlinked conversion website I get 1.3 microVolts = 0.0000013 Volts
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.08.13, 20:18:11
If you apply hv pulses of a few ns to a long coil (I used 1300 feet, air core, and 10ns pulse at 2kv) you can experiment with some sort of very strong E-field effect. It's much stronger than just static hv.
Hold a magnet near the coil while it is being pulsed and the magnet will move violently. Everyone is quick to say that this is caused by the magnetic field of the coil, but this magnetic field is almost negligible, if detected at all.
I've thought that it may be possible to make a small generator from this effect but haven't gotten around to trying it.
Electric Field from Voltagehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/efromv.html
One of the values of calculating the scalar electric potential (voltage) is that the electric field can be calculated from it. The component of electric field in any direction is the negative of rate of change of the potential in that direction.
If the differential voltage change is calculated along a direction ds, then it is seen to be equal to the electric field component in that direction times the distance ds.
Magnetic Field of Currenthttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcur.html
The magnetic field lines around a long wire which carries an electric current form concentric circles around the wire. The direction of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the wire and is in the direction the fingers of your right hand would curl if you wrapped them around the wire with your thumb in the direction of the current.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.14, 10:32:40
Dear Smudge.
Could you do a calculation to find out the dimensions and speed to generate 1 Volt?
This value would effectively rule out any ambiguity/error from brush arcing etc.
Kind regards, Grum.
If you want the impossible then I'll do that. In fact you can do it yourself in the attached spreadsheet.
You'll get answers like a slip-ring that is 3m diameter going at 10,000 RPM and carrying 2000 amps across it. However the spread sheet is for a single turn loop so you can get some relief by having more turns.
Also attached is a paper describing the math.
You might ask what is the value in the small voltages you get practically, and the answer to that is the huge effective ampere-turns you get in permanent magnets. It only needs a small induced voltage to extract significant power.
Smudge
Dear Smudge.
Oh dear, you used the " M " word!! Sadly my weakest subject.
From a practical point of view the first problem will be how to attach the Copper ring that is going to get very hot, very quickly. My initial thoughts were to heat up the ring and shrink fit it to the former.....
But that's going to expand again during the experiment.
Would Aluminium tube work? I'm going to say this very quietly as my wife's wheel chair has 30" diameter propelling tubes....... Get the picture? ;)
Cheers Grum.
Dear Grum
Maybe a composite or plastic bicycle wheel would work. Deflate the tire slightly, slip on the copper ring and re-inflate.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.14, 16:55:56
Dear Smudge.
Oh dear, you used the " M " word!! Sadly my weakest subject.
From a practical point of view the first problem will be how to attach the Copper ring that is going to get very hot, very quickly. My initial thoughts were to heat up the ring and shrink fit it to the former.....
But that's going to expand again during the experiment.
Would Aluminium tube work? I'm going to say this very quietly as my wife's wheel chair has 30" diameter propelling tubes....... Get the picture? ;)
You're not seriously thinking of getting 1 volt are you? 10,000 RPM on a 30" wheel ??? !! Good luck to you O0 on that. OK maybe a 100 turn coil and then only 100 RPM. I hope your wife isn't in the wheelchair while one of her wheels is being spun ;). Al is slightly more resistive than copper.
Smudge
Quote from: ION on 2016.08.14, 17:39:05
Dear Grum
Maybe a composite or plastic bicycle wheel would work. Deflate the tire slightly, slip on the copper ring and re-inflate.
Dear ION.
Now that's a plan !! O0
I think I have just the wheel in the workshop. The tyre will move with the expanding Copper ring.
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.14, 18:28:28
Dear ION.
Now that's a plan !! O0
I think I have just the wheel in the workshop. The tyre will move with the expanding Copper ring.
Cheers Grum.
Dear Grum
I'm sure you have worked enough around rotating machinery to exercise good safety practices, so I need not remind you to wear your safety glasses, helmet, and flak jacket or run the test remotely.
I would use as many turns on your pickup coil as you can muster up so that the signal is well above the noise floor. If you have a pre-wound coil, we can work backwards to figure the number of turns on it once you get the output data.
Best of luck ;)
ION
Thanks ION. O0
Dear Smudge.
Can you crunch some numbers please?
What RPM would be required for 1 Volt with 10 Amperes applied and a 10 turn pickup coil?
I was right, I do have a nice robust plastic wheel fitted with pneumatic tube and tyre. Oh, nearly forgot the wheel outside diameter is 12" or 305 mm. I shall have to cut my Copper sheet obliquely to get the required 3.142 of my diameter.
Kind regards, Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.15, 15:16:25
Thanks ION. O0
Dear Smudge.
Can you crunch some numbers please?
What RPM would be required for 1 Volt with 10 Amperes applied and a 10 turn pickup coil?
I was right, I do have a nice robust plastic wheel fitted with pneumatic tube and tyre. Oh, nearly forgot the wheel outside diameter is 12" or 305 mm. I shall have to cut my Copper sheet obliquely to get the required 3.142 of my diameter.
Kind regards, Grum.
Dear Grum,
With your 10 turn coil also 12" diameter and placed so that the turns get to within 5mm (0.2") of the brush contact you need 900,000 RPM.
Yes that is 900 thousand RPM. The 1 volt requirement is just not practical. Come down to 1 millivolt and then you are talking possible.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.15, 17:49:19
Dear Grum,
With your 10 turn coil also 12" diameter and placed so that the turns get to within 5mm (0.2") of the brush contact you need 900,000 RPM. Yes that is 900 thousand RPM. The 1 volt requirement is just not practical. Come down to 1 millivolt and then you are talking possible.
Smudge
Is there a problem with using a 1000 or 10,000 turns coil? I know it's DC resistance will be higher, but it should give plenty of output voltage so the RPM can be kept in a reasonable range.
What shape would be best for the pickup coil? (diameter to length?)
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.15, 17:49:19
Dear Grum,
With your 10 turn coil also 12" diameter and placed so that the turns get to within 5mm (0.2") of the brush contact you need 900,000 RPM. Yes that is 900 thousand RPM. The 1 volt requirement is just not practical. Come down to 1 millivolt and then you are talking possible.
Smudge
:o :D O0
My, that's a lot of RPM's !!
Plan "B " then !! A hard drive actuator coil. From memory, if I energise a known number of turns with a known voltage I should be able to work out the turns ratio into the coil placed alongside?
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.15, 19:16:16
:o :D O0
My, that's a lot of RPM's !!
Plan "B " then !! A hard drive actuator coil. From memory, if I energise a known number of turns with a known voltage I should be able to work out the turns ratio into the coil placed alongside?
Cheers Grum.
Dear Grum
A hard drive actuator coil has a small number of turns, designed to work off the +5 or +12 supply to quickly accelerate the head to new positions. Are you able to see the turns in the coil driver?
You could quickly make a 1000 or more turn coil with a small plastic spool and a drill.
Regard, ION
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.15, 19:16:16
:o :D O0
My, that's a lot of RPM's !!
Plan "B " then !! A hard drive actuator coil. From memory, if I energise a known number of turns with a known voltage I should be able to work out the turns ratio into the coil placed alongside?
Cheers Grum.
Grum
As far as i am aware,you are also on 240v mains?
If so,then a coil from a shaded pole motor from a microwave oven fan would work well i think as the pickup coil,as they have many turns.
I would think a group brainstorm on how we can work out !what! the magnetic field actually is,would give us a much better chance of getting useful work from them.
The best guess ATM is that it (the magnetic field) is some sort of cloud of vertual photons,but i tend to believe it to be a flow of positive and negative charges of some form--but what kind of charge?.
We are dealing with the holly grail of free energy,and only one correct answer here will change the world as we know it.
Brad
Dear Brad and all.
May I draw your attention to this post over at OU?
http://overunity.com/15307/lenz-free-generator/msg490292/#msg490292
Curious?
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2016.08.23, 09:59:48
Dear Brad and all.
May I draw your attention to this post over at OU?
http://overunity.com/15307/lenz-free-generator/msg490292/#msg490292
Curious?
Cheers Grum.
Yes ,i seen that one Grum,and would be an interesting experiment--but where to get such a glass rod?.
The current understanding of the magnetic field makes no sense at all. How dose a flow of virtual photons attract or repel another flow of virtual photons C.C-->it makes no sense at all. Mow,we might accept a flow of virtual photons exiting two magnet's causing an apposing force-like two air hoses blowing out compressed air trying to be force together,but the !south! pole makes no sense using this analogy. It would be like having two vacuum cleaner hoses being brought near to each other,where this flow of virtual photons is entering the south pole of the magnets. So why do the south poles repel each other,when the !so called! flow would cause them to be attracted to each other--just like the two vacuum cleaner hoses would be if bought close together(while the vacuum's are running of course).
What makes sense to me,is a displacement of positive and negative charges-positive charges from one pole of the magnet,and negative charges from the other pole of the magnet. Now we have something that makes sense,as like charges repel,and unlike charges attract O0.
This !virtual photon! stuff just dosnt make any sense,and i think it more a decoy than anything that has any solid background to back it up. Virtual photons can only appear in the context of a direct interaction between charged particles--so what are these charged particles ?.
As i said,i believe that the two poles emit negative and positive charged particles,and the !virtual photon! foowy is nothing more than a bi product of this charged field.
Could the PM be a self sustaining generator that is simply always shorted out?.
From Enjoykin at OU
There is our small experimental setup: Take a glass tube. Clean it from greased sweaty hands with alcohol. Now rub one end of a glass tube with synthetic fabric, and suspend it for the middle by means of a rubber flagella to a rack and bring at in vicinity permanent magnet near the polished end of glass tube.
1. Is there exist any kind of ineraction or force between test electrostatic charge/s (electron/s) in close proximity of southern or northern permanent magnet poles ??
Guys now do the same, but with non polished end.
2. Any interaction or not ??
To undesrtand any electro-magnetic paradox it was quite necessary to understand on prime experiment does the electrostatic test charge and a magnet interact among themselves
So if we charge this glass rod with a static charge,and we bring either pole of a PM close to that charged glass rod,and it either attracts or repels the glass rod--what dose that tell us?.
If either happens(an attraction or repulsion),then we know that the magnetic field of a PM is indeed a flow of negative and positive charges of some type--maybe nothing more than a static charge that is constantly shorted,and where the motion of the atoms within the magnetic material is producing a constant charge for this continual short.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.23, 13:04:39
So if we charge this glass rod with a static charge,and we bring either pole of a PM close to that charged glass rod,and it either attracts or repels the glass rod--what dose that tell us?.
If either happens(an attraction or repulsion),then we know that the magnetic field of a PM is indeed a flow of negative and positive charges of some type--maybe nothing more than a static charge that is constantly shorted,and where the motion of the atoms within the magnetic material is producing a constant charge for this continual short.
Brad
You have to remember that any object, be it a PM or not, will interact with the electric field emanating from that charged rod. The object will be electrically polarized and hence will endure electrostatic forces on it. IMO that is what you will see, it will have nothing to do with the magnetic field. If the PM is moving, like you wave it about, then the charge on the rod will get a force from the induced E=v X B electric field. Nothing new there.
With regard to virtual photons, their flow is not along electric field lines or magnetic field lines. Those lines are just math constructs, nothing is actually flowing along them. The lines merely represent the direction of a force that would occur on a test charge (or a test monopole) placed there. The actual force that you get on the test charge comes from (a) the interaction of that charge with virtual photons coming from all directions of space that cause it to jitter about spatially over tiny distances on the Planck scale (Heisenberg uncertainty) and (b) the effect of nearby charges which modify the virtual photons arriving from their direction so that instead of those jitter forces averaging out to zero they average out to a force in a certain direction. If those nearby charges are static we call the resulting static force "electric". If those nearby charges are moving we get a different force where we call that difference "magnetic".
Smudge
Some thoughts.
Glass tube.
Perhaps a cleaned up length of dead fluorescent tube. You can reduce the risk of getting cut by gently heating the ends with a Propane torch.
Magnet.
An electromagnet would surely be an interesting test. I can see where Smudge is coming from as moving a mass of anything near an electrically charged object would create movement. But if a coil was placed on an Iron core and held rigidly opposite magnetic polarities could be tried.
Footnote.
I ended my full time working career as engineering manager for an importer of far eastern machine tools. One day a gentleman was looking at a lathe in the showroom and we started talking. Turns out he had retired from one of her Majesty's research establishments..... ;) You know what I mean? I had one of " he who shall remain nameless " SSG devices on display. He kind of winked and said.... Once mankind solves the riddle of Magnetism and Electrostatic effects our energy problems will be solved forever..... It gave me the very great impression that...... they already had!!
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.23, 14:17:22
You have to remember that any object, be it a PM or not, will interact with the electric field emanating from that charged rod. The object will be electrically polarized and hence will endure electrostatic forces on it. IMO that is what you will see, it will have nothing to do with the magnetic field. If the PM is moving, like you wave it about, then the charge on the rod will get a force from the induced E=v X B electric field. Nothing new there.
With regard to virtual photons, their flow is not along electric field lines or magnetic field lines. Those lines are just math constructs, nothing is actually flowing along them. The lines merely represent the direction of a force that would occur on a test charge (or a test monopole) placed there. The actual force that you get on the test charge comes from (a) the interaction of that charge with virtual photons coming from all directions of space that cause it to jitter about spatially over tiny distances on the Planck scale (Heisenberg uncertainty) and (b) the effect of nearby charges which modify the virtual photons arriving from their direction so that instead of those jitter forces averaging out to zero they average out to a force in a certain direction. If those nearby charges are static we call the resulting static force "electric". If those nearby charges are moving we get a different force where we call that difference "magnetic".
Smudge
I cant agree with this Smudge,and i think we are missing something that should be obvious.
Lets look at the homopolar generator.
Here we have a situation where the magnets can rotate with or without the conductor,and either the polarity of the magnets on either side of the conductor !or! the conductors direction of rotation,determines the voltage polarity of the conducting disc.
As a change in rotational direction alone can change the direction of electron flow through the disc,without changing the magnetic field,must mean that the magnetic field alone dose not determind the direction of force on a charge.
I still believe that the magnetic field itself-is the charge.
Perhaps some one could explain as to why the polarity of the conductor of a homopolar generator reverses when the direction of rotation of the disc is reversed?.
Brad
I've often wondered if the electron locked that creates magnetism has a reference point of sorts to what orientation the output voltage is created by the discs directional rotation. If we assume that each electron has a relatively fixed attribute then this attribute will have a positive or negative effect on the magnetic spin either in a positive or negative way respect to the velocity of the spin itself.
If the discs spin goes against the natural direction the relative difference would be greater. If there exists in all matter a fixed reference where a stationary disc keeps an equilibrium the output voltage will be zero.
Thoughts.
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.24, 05:36:49
I cant agree with this Smudge,and i think we are missing something that should be obvious.
Lets look at the homopolar generator.
Here we have a situation where the magnets can rotate with or without the conductor,and either the polarity of the magnets on either side of the conductor !or! the conductors direction of rotation,determines the voltage polarity of the conducting disc.
As a change in rotational direction alone can change the direction of electron flow through the disc,without changing the magnetic field,must mean that the magnetic field alone dose not determind the direction of force on a charge.
I still believe that the magnetic field itself-is the charge.
Perhaps some one could explain as to why the polarity of the conductor of a homopolar generator reverses when the direction of rotation of the disc is reversed?.
Brad
The polarity of the current in the conductor is determined by the velocity direction. Reversing the velocity reverses the current. Fleming's right hand rule. And of course the velocity direction relates to the rotation direction. So maybe your question should be how does movement through a magnetic field induce a current into a conductor? And that comes down to exactly what is a magnetic field? Or what is an electric field? I have this vision that space is full of particles traveling at the speed of light and in all directions. These particles have zero rest mass but they do have momentum. If they happen to collide with a matter particle (like an electron) then the matter particle gets a force impulse. Collision is perhaps the wrong word, they get absorbed by the matter particle. A stable matter particle can't continually absorb so it also emits. Now we have two force impulses, one at absorption and one at emission. Clearly the first force has a direction that coincides with the arrival direction of the space particle. The second one does not necessarily have that alignment, it depends on which direction the emission takes place. That direction is determined by, among other things, the spin carried by the arriving particle. The net effect of many space particles interacting with the electron can achieve an average force in a given direction, and that direction can be set by the nature of space particles that have been emitted from a nearby electron. Those space particles, or virtual photons to give them another name, emitted from an electron, carry information in their spin direction that not only tells you the polarity of the emitting electron (or positron or any charged particle) but also its velocity direction. So you can get the situation where a moving stream of electrons alongside a non-moving array of positive ions induce force onto a nearby electron that is entirely related to the velocity direction of the electrons. Without that array of positive ions we would see not only the so called magnetic effect (we call it a field) but also the electric field, but they both have a common origin.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.24, 15:30:27
The polarity of the current in the conductor is determined by the velocity direction. Reversing the velocity reverses the current. Fleming's right hand rule. And of course the velocity direction relates to the rotation direction. So maybe your question should be how does movement through a magnetic field induce a current into a conductor? And that comes down to exactly what is a magnetic field? Or what is an electric field? I have this vision that space is full of particles traveling at the speed of light and in all directions. These particles have zero rest mass but they do have momentum. If they happen to collide with a matter particle (like an electron) then the matter particle gets a force impulse. Collision is perhaps the wrong word, they get absorbed by the matter particle. A stable matter particle can't continually absorb so it also emits. Now we have two force impulses, one at absorption and one at emission. Clearly the first force has a direction that coincides with the arrival direction of the space particle. The second one does not necessarily have that alignment, it depends on which direction the emission takes place. That direction is determined by, among other things, the spin carried by the arriving particle. The net effect of many space particles interacting with the electron can achieve an average force in a given direction, and that direction can be set by the nature of space particles that have been emitted from a nearby electron. Those space particles, or virtual photons to give them another name, emitted from an electron, carry information in their spin direction that not only tells you the polarity of the emitting electron (or positron or any charged particle) but also its velocity direction. So you can get the situation where a moving stream of electrons alongside a non-moving array of positive ions induce force onto a nearby electron that is entirely related to the velocity direction of the electrons. Without that array of positive ions we would see not only the so called magnetic effect (we call it a field) but also the electric field, but they both have a common origin.
Smudge
What has velocity in relation to the magnetic field,when that field is uniform?
Second-there is no movement in relation between the conductor and magnetic field-in regards to the homopolar generator.
So,with regards to the homopolar generator,there is no velocity or motion between the disc and magnetic field. The !force!is centrifugal,but that direction of force remains the same regardless of rotational direction.
The only motion is between the disc and pickup brushes.
Brad
The disc is a conductor and all parts of the disc except its centre are moving with a velocity proportional to the radius. If you had a wheel with spokes then each spoke is a length of wire that is moving across the magnetic field. You could have a wheel with a single spoke going to a conductive rim and you would get the same voltage induced. The disc is simply a lot of spokes all merged together.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.26, 09:41:15
The disc is a conductor and all parts of the disc except its centre are moving with a velocity proportional to the radius. If you had a wheel with spokes then each spoke is a length of wire that is moving across the magnetic field. You could have a wheel with a single spoke going to a conductive rim and you would get the same voltage induced. The disc is simply a lot of spokes all merged together.
Smudge
Smudge
If the magnets are fixed to the conducting disc,there is no motion between the magnetic field and disc,as both have the same reference point to each other at all times,regardless if they are rotating or not,and so there is no velocity between the magnets and disc. There is only velocity between the disc and pickup brushes.
So once again,this being the case,why dose the polarity change with a change in rotation direction?.
Look at the sketch below,where we remove the brushes from the system-->will the resistor dissipate power in the form of heat,if the disc,magnets,and resistor are spun together?.
Do you have-or can you provide evidence of such a test to back up your answer ?
Brad
In fact guys,why dont you all have a shot at this question.
Will a voltage develop across the resistor,if the resistor is spun with the disc and magnets ?.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.27, 13:41:31
Smudge
If the magnets are fixed to the conducting disc,there is no motion between the magnetic field and disc,as both have the same reference point to each other at all times,regardless if they are rotating or not,and so there is no velocity between the magnets and disc. There is only velocity between the disc and pickup brushes.
Ah, you believe that the field is somehow fixed to the magnet. Let's have a thought experiment. Let's imagine the magnet is a glass tube filled with some fluid, and it is the fluid that is responsible for the magnetic field. The fluid is actually rotating whirling around at enormous constant RPM driven by some external force, And it is that fluid movement that actually creates the magnetic field. Now I think you will agree that if we rotate the glass tube at some trivial RPM it will have no effect on the field. If we have a rotating disc that gets induced voltage from that field, it matters not whether the glass tube rotates with the disc.
What you see as the magnet is really only the matrix that carries the spins responsible for the field. It is what you don't see that creates the field, and what you don't see are those billions of spins. The field from those spins is in no way altered when the matrix is rotated. It matters not whether the disc rotates separate from the magnet or attached to it. Now the answer to your original question, if the disc rotates the same way as the spins you get one polarity, and if it rotates the opposite way you get opposite polarity.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.27, 14:01:08
In fact guys,why dont you all have a shot at this question.
Will a voltage develop across the resistor,if the resistor is spun with the disc and magnets ?.
Brad
No, the voltage induced across the disc is negated by the voltage induced across the resistor and the wires.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.27, 14:47:37
No, the voltage induced across the disc is negated by the voltage induced across the resistor and the wires.
Smudge
OK Smudge-a question.
Which disc would develop a greater voltage in the same circumstances/homopolar generator.
1- A copper disc @
2-A stainless disc ?
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.27, 14:01:08
In fact guys,why dont you all have a shot at this question.
Will a voltage develop across the resistor,if the resistor is spun with the disc and magnets ?.
Brad
.
No, the resistor is fixed in the field so there's no difference in the spin velocity of the magnetic moment induced in the disc. No difference in velocity nulls the output. A stationary resistor brushing the rotating disc is another story.
Quote from: szaxx on 2016.08.27, 17:33:45
.
No, the resistor is fixed in the field so there's no difference in the spin velocity of the magnetic moment induced in the disc. No difference in velocity nulls the output. A stationary resistor brushing the rotating disc is another story.
Hi szaxx
Can you supply a link to the experiment that backs up your theory ?
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.27, 14:59:47
OK Smudge-a question.
Which disc would develop a greater voltage in the same circumstances/homopolar generator.
1- A copper disc @
2-A stainless disc ?
If there is no current being drawn then the two different discs will show the same voltage.
Smudge
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.27, 22:51:40
Hi szaxx
Can you supply a link to the experiment that backs up your theory ?
I've not found anything that shows what we discussed way back in the 70's.
However the basics are the same for induction if viewed from the perspective that field lines (for want of a better term) are threads with a magnetic spin oriented in the same direction. Stronger magnet, more lines so to speak. Each one is capable of inducing current flow into a loop of a passing conductor. This induction is determined in polarity by the direction of the spin. All straightforward and accepted given the lack of modern terms. A disc in a homopolar generator is many loops as already mentioned.
As the loop intersects these lines it hits the outer edge of the spin before passing through the centre then leaving the line. When the line is completely inside the loop there's no additional charge induced as equilibrium is reached. It's this 'entering' the spin that denotes the current polarity and the amount of power induced is increased with the strength of the field. If the loop is reversed in direction the polarity changes. We assumed that the electron flow would be dependant upon spin direction by the electrons locked creating the field.
Feel free to test this, it's the only interpretation we agreed upon.
The link provides a few pointers although it uses current rather than electron spin. It has pics which make it easier to comprehend.
https://skullsinthestars.com/2014/08/27/physics-demonstrations-faraday-disk/
Quote from: szaxx on 2016.08.30, 10:32:35
I've not found anything that shows what we discussed way back in the 70's.
However the basics are the same for induction if viewed from the perspective that field lines (for want of a better term) are threads with a magnetic spin oriented in the same direction. Stronger magnet, more lines so to speak. Each one is capable of inducing current flow into a loop of a passing conductor. This induction is determined in polarity by the direction of the spin. All straightforward and accepted given the lack of modern terms. A disc in a homopolar generator is many loops as already mentioned.
As the loop intersects these lines it hits the outer edge of the spin before passing through the centre then leaving the line. When the line is completely inside the loop there's no additional charge induced as equilibrium is reached. It's this 'entering' the spin that denotes the current polarity and the amount of power induced is increased with the strength of the field. If the loop is reversed in direction the polarity changes. We assumed that the electron flow would be dependant upon spin direction by the electrons locked creating the field.
Feel free to test this, it's the only interpretation we agreed upon.
The link provides a few pointers although it uses current rather than electron spin. It has pics which make it easier to comprehend.
https://skullsinthestars.com/2014/08/27/physics-demonstrations-faraday-disk/
szaxx and Smudge
OK,here are some truths about the homopolar generator.
First up,you need to see the brushes and external circuit as the stator part of the generator.
Neither the disc or magnets need to rotate in order to generate a DC current. There need only be motion between the disc and external circuit(including the brushes)in order to produce a current flow.
So,in simple terms,the disc and magnets can remain stationary,and the brushes and external circuit can be rotated,and a DC current will be produced the same as if the disc it self were rotating.
szaxx
This can only mean that the following is not correct
Quote:A disc in a homopolar generator is many loops as already mentioned.
As the loop intersects these lines it hits the outer edge of the spin before passing through the centre then leaving the line. When the line is completely inside the loop there's no additional charge induced as equilibrium is reached. It's this 'entering' the spin that denotes the current polarity and the amount of power induced is increased with the strength of the field. If the loop is reversed in direction the polarity changes. We assumed that the electron flow would be dependant upon spin direction by the electrons locked creating the field
It would seem to me that the production of current is more due to the leading and trailing velocity between the disc and the external circuits point of contact to the disc-that being the brushes.
Once again--both the disc and magnets can remain stationary(no velocity of the disc through the magnetic field),and the brushes and external circuit can be rotated around the disc,and the same DC current will be produced.
Something to think about.
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.30, 14:35:47
Something to think about.
Do you understand what Smudge said ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2016.08.27, 14:40:55
Ah, you believe that the field is somehow fixed to the magnet. Let's have a thought experiment. Let's imagine the magnet is a glass tube filled with some fluid, and it is the fluid that is responsible for the magnetic field. The fluid is actually rotating whirling around at enormous constant RPM driven by some external force, And it is that fluid movement that actually creates the magnetic field. Now I think you will agree that if we rotate the glass tube at some trivial RPM it will have no effect on the field. If we have a rotating disc that gets induced voltage from that field, it matters not whether the glass tube rotates with the disc.
What you see as the magnet is really only the matrix that carries the spins responsible for the field. It is what you don't see that creates the field, and what you don't see are those billions of spins. The field from those spins is in no way altered when the matrix is rotated. It matters not whether the disc rotates separate from the magnet or attached to it. Now the answer to your original question, if the disc rotates the same way as the spins you get one polarity, and if it rotates the opposite way you get opposite polarity.
Smudge
Agreed, there needs to be motion of the brushes on the disc. The direction of the polarity was being questioned and we were left to investigate. The leading edge was our assumption, the trailing edge wasn't which should have in respect to the equilibrium.
It was long ago way before everyone had a colour TV lol.
Looking back at it and trying to recall, which isn't that easy now, there was something in it. The link shows it more clearly using current flow to indicate the polarity. The overall field being composed of many lines.
It'd been easy with the Internet, PSS was the only data available and we were not privy to that.
The good ol' days.
Yes, in respect to the field itself being 'fast' and not connected to the magnet. A solenoid wouldn't function if each strand in the loop had a fixed field. Each one creates the overall effect.
The spin direction creates the polarity and it was this that we assumed to be created by the electrons.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.08.30, 16:27:05
Do you understand what Smudge said ?
Yes i do,and to quote further
The disc is a conductor and all parts of the disc except its centre are moving with a velocity proportional to the radius. If you had a wheel with spokes then each spoke is a length of wire that is moving across the magnetic field.
This is what i am referring to as not being correct,as the disc dose not have move across the magnetic field in order for a current to flow.
There need only be motion between the disc and external circuit,but there dose not have to be motion between the disc and magnetic field for a current to flow.
Brad
http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_motors.htm
"The generation of electrical power requires relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor. In a generator, mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy while the opposite occurs in the electric motor."
The relative motion is between two different frames of reference, a static and a dynamic.
A mass with a natural magnetic field (magnet) is occupying a space, its field strength and force field projection (beyond the mass boundary) is proportional and dependent on this mass. This is the solid (in this example) matrix with billions of spins creating the field.
When you spin this field by mechanically spinning the magnet mass it creates "flux lines" as it moves through the stationary coil stator space.
You can of course do this the other way around..
The mass occupies a three dimensional space, when this mass "moves" it has a vector and is mapped in fourth dimensional space, 3D space (a volume) + time (rate of change) = 4D spacetime
From my point of view it is the rotational moment of a mass within 4D that allows for the extraction of electrical energy into a separate frame of reference external to the system.
Quote from: evolvingape on 2016.08.31, 07:16:45
http://webs.mn.catholic.edu.au/physics/emery/hsc_motors.htm
In a generator, mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy while the opposite occurs in the electric motor."[/i]
The relative motion is between two different frames of reference, a static and a dynamic.
A mass with a natural magnetic field (magnet) is occupying a space, its field strength and force field projection (beyond the mass boundary) is proportional and dependent on this mass. This is the solid (in this example) matrix with billions of spins creating the field.
When you spin this field by mechanically spinning the magnet mass it creates "flux lines" as it moves through the stationary coil stator space.
You can of course do this the other way around..
The mass occupies a three dimensional space, when this mass "moves" it has a vector and is mapped in fourth dimensional space, 3D space (a volume) + time (rate of change) = 4D spacetime
From my point of view it is the rotational moment of a mass within 4D that allows for the extraction of electrical energy into a separate frame of reference external to the system.
EA
This quote is very limited
"The generation of electrical power requires relative motion between a magnetic field and a conductor.It dose not even touch on chemical reactions generating electrical power-although that has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.
My point is this,there dose not have to me relative motion between the magnetic field and conductor(the copper disc in this case) for the generation of electrical power. There need only be relative motion between the conductor and external circuit(this includes the contact brushes). As both the magnetic field and conductor(the disc) remain stationary,then there dose not have to be relative motion between the magnetic field and conductor in order to generate electrical power.
To be more accurate-
We can glue the magnet to the conducting disc,and both the magnet and disc may remain stationary-no motion.
We can then rotate the external circuit around that fixed magnet and conducting disc,where the brushes are in contact with that stationary disc,and electrical power will be produced within the external circuit.
If the current theory was correct,then it would be possible to design the homopolar generator so as it did not create a back torque on the prime mover driving it. The reason it is not possible,is because there has to be a velocity differential between the contact brushes in the external circuit. If there was no velocity differential between the contact brushes in the external circuit,then no power would be produced.
If there need not be a velocity differential between the two contact brushes,then a homopolar generator could be built that placed no back torque on the prime mover,and if this was possible,then it would be game,set, and match.
As i stated before,you need to see the external circuit of the homopolar generator as the stator of the generator.
Brad
rotating the external circuit relative to the disk and magnet will not induce a current (except for the very tiny one due to the earth's magnetic field)
To induce a current in a conductor, you have to have relative motion between the force inducing the current and the conductor being induced.
In the case of the homopolar generator with the magnet attached to the disk, the magnetic field is homogeneous (uniform and unchanging), however, the disk is rotating, so there is relative motion between the force (magnetic field) and the conductor (disk).
The back-torque is inherent because it is caused by the forces that also induce the current. Getting rid if the back-torque is probably not practical.
You will do better to find a way to rotate the forces that induce the current and leave the conductor still.
Attached is an explanation of the homopolor generator (and motor) based on the Gyroscopic Force Theory.
author=Grumpy link=topic=3333.msg57159#msg57159 date=1472654371]
Quoterotating the external circuit relative to the disk and magnet will not induce a current (except for the very tiny one due to the earth's magnetic field)
To induce a current in a conductor, you have to have relative motion between the force inducing the current and the conductor being induced.
Grumpy
I am afraid that is not correct,and the reason that the homopolars workings are not yet fully understood by many.
This is why you must see the external circuit as the stator of the system,and there need only be motion between the conductor and stator of the system in order for the production of power,whether it is the conductor rotating,or the stator that is rotating around a fixed conductor.
QuoteIn the case of the homopolar generator with the magnet attached to the disk, the magnetic field is homogeneous (uniform and unchanging), however, the disk is rotating, so there is relative motion between the force (magnetic field) and the conductor (disk).
As stated above,there need be no motion between the conductor(disc) and force(magnetic field),but only motion between the disc and external circuit.
QuoteThe back-torque is inherent because it is caused by the forces that also induce the current. Getting rid if the back-torque is probably not practical.
The back torque(or back electro-mechanical force) is between the disc and contact brushes/external circuit.
If the generator was designed to eliminate this back torque,then no power would be produced.
Brad
Placing a strong cylindrical neo magnet on a vice and using test probes from a millivolt meter, one central and skimming the other around the edge a voltage is generated. Polarity dependant upon the direction.
The only motion provided by brushing the edge does generate power.
Simple test to perform.
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.08.31, 22:41:38
author=Grumpy link=topic=3333.msg57159#msg57159 date=1472654371]
Grumpy
I am afraid that is not correct,and the reason that the homopolars workings are not yet fully understood by many.
This is why you must see the external circuit as the stator of the system,and there need only be motion between the conductor and stator
of the system in order for the production of power,whether it is the conductor rotating,or the stator that is rotating around a fixed conductor.
As stated above,there need be no motion between the conductor(disc) and force(magnetic field),but only motion between the disc and
external circuit.
This is false. Motion between two conductors will not induce a current to flow in one or the other. If this was the case, every spinning machine would be a generator.
A homopolor generator does not work without a source of force (or two forces) and relative motion between at least one force and the conductor being induced.
Are you ignoring the fact that a magnet has to be there? When the disc is rotating with the magnet, the force does not move with it.
Quote from: szaxx on 2016.09.01, 13:28:06
Placing a strong cylindrical neo magnet on a vice and using test probes from a millivolt meter, one central and skimming the other around the edge a voltage is generated. Polarity dependant upon the direction.
The only motion provided by brushing the edge does generate power.
Simple test to perform.
That is correct szaxx--there need be no motion between the copper disc and magnetic field in order to generate power from the homo/unipolar generator.
There need only be motion between the external circuit(including brushes),and the copper disc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE
Brad
Below is a quick sketch of a twin disc homopolar generator.
The two half shafts are electrically isolated from one another,and the two halves are bolted together by way of insulating nylon disc's,to form one complete rotating assembly.
The magnets are orientated so as a series connection may be made between the two copper disc when rotating in one direction. So one disc will show a positive polarity on the outer edge of one disc,and the other will show a negative polarity on the outer edge of the other disc.
If brushes A and B-along with the bridging wire remain stationary while the disc/magnet assembly rotate,a voltage will be produced across R1
If brushes A and B-along with the bridging wire rotate with the disc/magnet assembly,no voltage will be produced across R1
If i am incorrect,then we have a means of producing great amounts of power,without any back torque being applied to the prime mover. We could also move shaft brushes 1 and 2 to the end/center of each half shaft,so as very little drag at high RPM would be placed on the rotating shaft assembly.
Brad
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.09.01, 14:28:29
This is false. Motion between two conductors will not induce a current to flow in one or the other. If this was the case, every spinning machine would be a generator.
A homopolor generator does not work without a source of force (or two forces) and relative motion between at least one force and the conductor being induced.
Are you ignoring the fact that a magnet has to be there? When the disc is rotating with the magnet, the force does not move with it.
No,i am not ignoring the fact that the magnet has to be there.
What i am saying,is that there dose not have to be motion between the magnet(force) and the copper disc.
There need only be motion between the copper disc,and external circuit,as the external circuit(including brushes)is acting as the stater of the device.
Fact is,the copper disc it self dose not have to be there if the magnet has a conductive coating on it.
The brushes will then ride on the conductive coating of the magnet,and power will still be produced.
This also verifies that there need be no motion between the magnetic field and conductor,but only between the conductor and external circuit.
Brad
If motion between the external circuit and the disk is all that is required to induce a current, then you could rotate a loop of wire with a bulb attached around the disk/magnet and light the bulb. Is that what you are saying?
Do you realize that the rotating external circuit in this case, and in szaxx's test, is rotating in the magnetic field of the magnet?
All this proves is that moving a conductor in a magnetic field induce a current.
You just interchanged the disk with the external circuit.
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.09.01, 15:57:58
If motion between the external circuit and the disk is all that is required to induce a current, then you could rotate a loop of wire with a bulb attached around the disk/magnet and light the bulb. Is that what you are saying?
Yes,if the voltage produced was high enough,and that loop included the conductive disc.
QuoteDo you realize that the rotating external circuit in this case, and in szaxx's test, is rotating in the magnetic field of the magnet?
All this proves is that moving a conductor in a magnetic field induce a current.
You just interchanged the disk with the external circuit.
Is that not what i have been saying in my past few post's ?,and that the external circuit must be seen as the stator of the generator as a whole.
Now that you agree with that,then it is time to think about how the magnetic field !flows! through the disc,and external circuit-the direction of the force applied to both the disc and external circuit.
Did you take note of the sketch i provided in my last post,and my theory on what would happen in both cases--what are your thoughts on that?
Brad
Regarding the sketch, the rotation is in the same direction for each half, so I would expect the back-torque to be doubled, not eliminated.
If you want to eliminate the back-torque, find a way to eliminate the torque applied to the disk ;)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2016.09.01, 23:52:41
Regarding the sketch, the rotation is in the same direction for each half, so I would expect the back-torque to be doubled, not eliminated.
If you want to eliminate the back-torque, find a way to eliminate the torque applied to the disk ;)
Regarding my sketch
If brushes A ,B and the bridging wire rotated with the disc's/shaft assembly,would a voltage develop across R1 ?,where R1 and it's external circuit(brushes and wires) remain stationary.
Brad
This looks like mags doing work. Well something is. http://youtu.be/0ZrcleswIbM
Quote from: JimBoot on 2016.09.04, 11:26:10
This looks like mags doing work. Well something is. http://youtu.be/0ZrcleswIbM
Floor outlets may be doing the work.
If you look very closely at the video, before the device is rolled in, you will see three floor outlets. The middle one has been disguised to match the floor.
He also initially plugs the device into another (lower right) floor outlet to "start it up" which should be a giveaway that there are indeed floor outlets available.
All that fiddling behind the device is "plugging it in". Tightening the wheels is part of the ruse. If you capture a high res video, it will be even clearer. Notice at the end of the video they are very careful not to stray too far from the floor outlet and try to keep it concealed.
My guess FWIW
There is much trickery in the free energy business world. Beware and hold on to your wallet.
Here is a better shot with perspective line. The middle floor outlet can be seen to fall right on the line.
Quote from: ION on 2016.09.04, 15:24:01
Here is a better shot with perspective line. The middle floor outlet can be seen to fall right on the line.
It also dose not look like that it is running at the 1500RPM as stated by the guru.
Brad
Just a little experiment i tried while half way through this generator build.
P/in is very low-around 4VRMS across the coil,that has a resistance of 35.5 ohms
Primary and secondary coil inductance is 638mH without PM in place,and 523 with PM in place.
By placing that strong neo in the center of what might as well be a toroid core,i would have thought that
1-the core would have come to near saturation,and the P/out would have dropped to near 0,and
2-we would have seen a large biasing offset on the secondarys output.
Seems i was wrong on both accounts.
As stated in the video,no P/in measurements are noted here,as this was just to show the effect the PM had on the output.
As the inductance decreases when the PM is in play,i would guess that the P/in would go up?.
Anyway,just thought i would throw this in here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIAQvvfAE0M
Brad
Quote from: TinMan on 2016.09.05, 12:56:11
By placing that strong neo in the center of what might as well be a toroid core,i would have thought that
1-the core would have come to near saturation,and the P/out would have dropped to near 0,and
2-we would have seen a large biasing offset on the secondarys output.
Seems i was wrong on both accounts.
A PM bias on the core cannot produce a DC offset on the voltage waveform. The output voltage comes from the changing field, not the actual value of the field.
It strikes me that you have a very poor transformer because some of the generated flux gets shunted away by the circular pole pieces. These magnetic shunts have a small cross section and will easily get saturated by the presence of the PM. So IMO the reason the output voltage goes up is because the magnet saturates the shunts so that they are less effective.
Smudge
Brad
I can't tell from the video if your cores are welded together or epoxied, or whether there are shunts in place
but it seems what you have initially is a very poorly coupled inductor pair, below the dignity of the name transformer. It has an initial k of around 0.01 Almost anything you do will improve the coupling and up the k factor.
Even with the PM, the k only improves to about 0.1, still way below what a good transformer would do.
You can take any poorly coupled transformer, add more iron and up the coupling efficiency, but you could not call that a "Magnetic Power Amplifier" rather it would be just a coupling efficiency improvement not an amplification of power.
Your signal generator supplies the initial power, and most of it is lost in the poor coupling, there is no net amplification of power, and the power out does not even come close to the power in.
When starting with such a crippled "transformer" and then calling it a "Magnetic Power Amplifier" in your title is questionable although it may serve other purposes for you.
Of course we could get lost arguing semantics, but the language of engineering and science is fairly clear as to what constitutes a "power amplification".
When you get the k factor over 1.0 then you might call it an amplifier.
Might be interesting to try a bar of iron held tightly in exactly the same position as the magnet and see what you get.
As an example say you had a fluid flow transmission torque converter, but the turbine input blades are tilted such that all the power input is lost in sloshing oil around, the force of which never makes it to the output turbine blade. Now change the pitch of the driving turbine so that it is directed squarely at the output turbine blade. Now the coupling efficiency has improved many fold, but it is still the engine that supplies the power.
The analogue of an electrical transformer is a transmission or gear ratio in mechanics, and not much more.
I think it would be interesting to take electronic components and compare them to mechanical components going deeper into the equivalents of for example in a transformer the leakage inductance, core loss, winding loss etc.
Regards ION