This bench proposes a new way of looking at magnet motors that will hopefully lead to the evolution of working designs that will finally gain acceptance by the scientific establishment. For starters here is my first paper on the subject. Enjoy!
This is a new denial that magnetic flux is conservative, which makes it impossible to extract energy from a static configuration, no matter what tricks one might find like magnetic shields.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.11.15, 08:53:53
This is a new denial that magnetic flux is conservative, which makes it impossible to extract energy from a static configuration, no matter what tricks one might find like magnetic shields.
Please, Francois, clarify the following:
The noun "flux" describes something that constantly changes.
The adjective "conservative" describes something resistant to change.
Smudge: delete my post if you consider it as inappropriate
regards
Alvaro
Smudge, Alvaro
https://www.hoy.es/prov-badajoz/inventor-generador-factura-luz-20211103001712-ntvo.html?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.elconfidencial.com%2Fespana%2F2021-11-10%2Felectricidad-gratis-invento-generador_3321469%2F%3Futm_source%3Dfacebook
Regards
Mike 8)
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.11.15, 08:53:53
This is a new denial that magnetic flux is conservative, which makes it impossible to extract energy from a static configuration, no matter what tricks one might find like magnetic shields.
Having witnessed the Yildiz magnet motor working (I went to Delft University to see the demonstration) I am convinced that current scientific dogma is incorrect. If you watch the video (just google Yildiz plus Delft to find copies) you will see it being partially dismantled. It is very complex with a large number of magnets, and since some of the magnets weren't there (just the holes for them) it is clear to me that he got it working by much trial and error. IMO the reason that it has not been taken up and put into production is because you need a Mr Yildiz on the end of the production line playing with the thing to get it to work. But the fact that one system (and many others on youtube, not all of them fakes) has been made to work tells us that we are missing something. The simulations shown in my paper tell me that it is possible to get a continuous torque on a magnet that is translating around a slot within which there is a radial magnetic field. If you stay tuned I will reveal more, and hopefully someone here will undertake to build something.
Smudge
Steady state flow - the same in and out, average zero. But we can drage energy from magnetic flux by changing it or by crossing it or by moving it. The last method is the only one able to generate more energy
Smudge
QuoteHaving witnessed the Yildiz magnet motor working (I went to Delft University to see the demonstration) I am convinced that current scientific dogma is incorrect. If you watch the video (just google Yildiz plus Delft to find copies) you will see it being partially dismantled.
I looked at the Yildiz motor and read all the Howard Johnson literature but nothing really clicked for me. Usually there is some underlying premise we missed or clues in the literature but for some reason I get nothing on this field of technology. It's kind of strange but on the other hand I'm sure there is something to it.
My feeling is that it may have something to do with induced currents within the magnets themselves or the surrounding metal. Could induced eddy currents in a magnet produce something like a shaded pole effect causing a directional force?. I'm not even sure if it's possible but there must be some trick were missing.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.11.18, 06:26:55
My feeling is that it may have something to do with induced currents within the magnets themselves or the surrounding metal. Could induced eddy currents in a magnet produce something like a shaded pole effect causing a directional force?. I'm not even sure if it's possible but there must be some trick were missing.
Hi AC,
When considering magnets that are electrically conductive, for me the thing that stands out is that the conduction electrons will be spin polarized, they supply some of the permanent magnetism. Thus any eddy currents induced will not only create their own additional magnetic field due to charge movement, but also an additional
moving magnetic field from the moving spin polarized electrons. And those eddy current will not just be confined to the magnet but can flow within whatever houses the magnet, i.e. the magnet can have current flowing across it That then bring in the question of magnets housed in an aluminum block (as in Yildiz), are they glued in thus creating a dielectric bridge or do they electrically connect to the housing? Do all these unaccounted for fields explain how the motor works? Certainly if you follow my argument that spinning electrons are quantum dynamos that can be "loaded" so as to deliver power to an external load then there exists the possibility that an appropriate movement through some dynamically changing magnetic field could do just that.
This may also apply to the arguments going on in the Dally, Shark and Rusian bench. Normally Cu has a relative permeability of 1, but that is because in an externally applied magnetic field the fixed ions have on average zero magnetic polarization, and the collisions between conduction electrons and ions ensure that those conduction electrons also have zero polarization. But what seems to be missed is that if some conduction electrons are brought to the surface by an externally applied electric field that surface layer has a significantly different ratio of conduction electrons to ions. Can an externally applied magnetic field now give that surface layer some spin polarization, i.e.partially align the surface electrons? If so we have the the surface becoming ferromagnetic. That then answers the horny question being asked on that bench, what makes the Cu magnetically permeable? Further to that, if the applied E field is RF then the permeability only applies to a half cycle since a positively charged surface is simply fixed ions that can't align. That rectification effect now opens up a new avenue where an appropriate high value RF electric field from a Tesla coil can bring surface quantum dynamos into and out of existence within a synchronized RF magnetic field so as to achieve the objective of extracting power from them. If you imagine a magician conjuring up a magnet from nowhere, letting the magnet do work (like lift a weight), then making the magnet disappear, then continually repeating the process, you have perpetual extraction of energy. Maybe that is possible with RF surface charge on Cu.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.18, 15:17:26
When considering magnets that are electrically conductive, for me the thing that stands out is that the conduction electrons will be spin polarized, they supply some of the permanent magnetism. Thus any eddy currents induced will not only create their own additional magnetic field due to charge movement, but also an additional moving magnetic field from the moving spin polarized electrons.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.18, 15:17:26Can an externally applied magnetic field now give that surface layer some spin polarization, i.e.partially align the surface electrons?
Please make a hand drawing which marks the directions of the items marked in blue color.
Don't forget about any internal and external RF H-fields and E-field vectors as well.
Depict the directions of the spin axes of the nuclei, too, ...unless you deem them irrelevant in the mechanism you are describing.The drawing does not have to be high quality ...just legible.
Smudge
You mentioned seeing the Yildiz device at Delft university, I found the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5K_wB-xsuM
As an Engineer the first thing that came to mind was... fan shroud. The fan looks like a typical 16" aluminum ventilation fan spinning at high RPM and it has no shroud!. I'm surprised nobody lost a finger or two.
The second thing was that he is using asymmetric stator magnet arrays. That is the sectors have different configurations of different sized magnets. A quick look at the patent shows a spiral magnet configuration on the rotor which I suspected after seeing the stator sectors.
Since the rotor is spiral and the stator parallel to the shaft each rotor magnet array should produce a pulsing effect moving from one side of the stator to the other.
Hmm, I think I may have it, lol.
I think many of these magnetic devices use what I call "machine logic". So we can consider any given magnet as an element of a numbered array having a magnitude and direction. They can add (in series attraction) or subtract (in series repulsion) and if the picture below is correct he is using a radial 3 element array. So we have each 3 element radial array extending outward from the rotor combined with other arrays parallel to them.
I understand it's actually a magnetic field gradient however that's far too complex.
Here we can think of the machine logic as a truth table which I included below, we have several radial arrays parallel to one another forming a map of magnetic logic gates. The field change can move in the radial and parallel directions depending on it's magnitude. Now we could complicate this to no end however the gate function is what were after.
Note in column 1, the rotor magnet R1 is approaching and repelling A1 while A1-B1 are also in repulsion. I imagine this would then produce a horizontal field motion along the row where A1-B1 then effects A2-B2 and so on down the row. Following this line of reason the gate logic functions seem straight forward however that does not explain the field function as a logic gate.
Consider A1-B1, here we see two magnets in repulsion and can imagine the stronger field between them acting outward in a horizontal direction along the row. Does this action increase the field with respect to R1?, does it increase or decrease the field with respect to R2, R3 and so on?. In this case we would first need to understand the field interaction/ field logic function of each vertical column ie. R1 approaches A1-B1. Only then could we proceed to the horizontal logic functions ultimately effecting the rotor which has it's own issues and should be mapped as a truth table as well.
On the surface it doesn't seem all that difficult and it's basically a numbers game. So we map the field functions (R1,A1,B1) then map the field logic functions (columns and rows) as a whole on the rotor and stator. Easy peasy, lol.
No offense but even after understanding how this could be doable I wouldn't touch it. There's too much stuff going on and it hurts my brain just thinking about it. I think I will stick to electrodynamics...
Regards
AC
I would also add that my application of machine logic is simply another form of notation.
Faraday invented the "lines of force" form of notation because it becomes obvious we cannot calculate a true gradient. A true gradient would contain an infinite number of elements. There are no real lines of force and in many respects Faraday's concept was misinterpreted.
For example, when I was using Solidworks CFD to model the flow of my experimental wind turbines I doubled the resolution and the difference in the time to render the result was 126 years. To double the resolution again gave me a render time of tens of thousands of years. Not unlike the notion there are more ways to arrange a deck of 52 cards than there are atoms on Earth.
In this respect the history of science is quite fascinating and they made a few key errors.
1)They invented many forms of notation to simplify calculations then over time believed the notations to be real entities.
2)They took a measure of something like space/distance and time and once again considered them to real entities rather than measures.
Can you see the pattern of behavior?, they have created an imaginary world based on there desire to streamline there calculations and equations. I equate this to the fact that most scientists/physicists must prove there theories using calculations/equations to be considered credible. That is, to prove themselves to their peers by memorizing the symbology and signs which represent certain aspects of there beliefs.
It's really no different than ancient man using symbology and strange signs on paper to express there idea's and beliefs. Modern man has simply rejected the old symbology and created a new version of it in my opinion. Thus history would seem to be repeating itself...
Now if we could see reality for what it really is... that would be something.
Regards
AC
Quote from: Alvaro CS on 2021.11.15, 10:05:05
...
The noun "flux" describes something that constantly changes.
The adjective "conservative" describes something resistant to change.
...
The magnetic flux is looped, and constant in the loop.
When the flux changes, it is because the flux lines expand or contract around the current in a conductor, so that their density per unit area crossed changes.
It is not at all because it would vary along the loop as if it were propagating along it. This idea is completely false. When you understand this, you understand why all permanent magnet motors have failed.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.15, 16:31:59
Having witnessed the Yildiz magnet motor working (I went to Delft University to see the demonstration) I am convinced that current scientific dogma is incorrect.
...
Today, no one has reproduced it, and there are good reasons for that.
It was a great scam, which will remain like the hundreds of other so-called OU engines (Johnson, Bledini, Steorn, Minato, Perendev...) in the fairy tales that free energy seekers tell themselves rather than move on.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2021.11.22, 11:05:22
It was a great scam, ...
I agree that the Yildiz motor did not run long enough to make its
energy density [Joule/kg] high enough to eliminate the possibility of hidden batteries (e.g. inside the rotor, which was never disassembled) ...on the other hand, nobody caught him red-handed with the presence of such hidden batteries, either.
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.22, 12:04:48
I agree that the Yildiz motor did not run long enough to make its energy density [Joule/kg] high enough to eliminate the possibility of hidden batteries (e.g. inside the rotor, which was never disassembled) ...on the other hand, nobody caught him red-handed with the presence of such hidden batteries, either.
The presentation was arranged by Dr Duarte with the intention of measuring the work being done by the motor and letting it run long enough to ensure that it's total delivered energy could not be produced by hidden batteries. He provided the large tube through which the fan blew the air and he also had an airflow meter, and the work done would be calculated from that data. In the event that did not happen because of unforseen events, like the paper on which the motor stood (put there to protect the highly polished table) being drawn up onto the fan blades so the running set up had to be hastily re-arranged. The posh table did get badly scratched. Yildiz had been quite willing to do the full demonstration which tells me there were no hidden batteries.
I am preparing a reply to the request in Verpies' earlier post but it requires the production of a paper outlining how surface charge in the form of surface electrons can be made to produce anomalous excess energy.. That will come soon.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.22, 17:25:00
The presentation was arranged by Dr Duarte with the intention of measuring the work being done by the motor and letting it run long enough to ensure that it's total delivered energy could not be produced by hidden batteries.
I must not have seen the full running time video then.
Do you know what the calculated energy density [J/kg] of that motor was ?
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.22, 20:40:44
I must not have seen the full running time video then.
Do you know what the calculated energy density [J/kg] of that motor was ?
I am not sure that the original video captured Dr Duarte's introductory remarks, maybe it didn't. Of course that video has been reproduced by others where those remarks could have been edited out. I was there before the formal presentation started and listened to all the chat going on so picked up things that may not have been reported, but I clearly remember his formal introduction outlining the intended procedure.
I do not recall what energy density Dr Duarte would use in his calculations. I was there as a representative of Chava who were interested in it. I wrote a report for Chava that I have not published elsewhere for fear of being sued for release of proprietary information, but I am too old to worry about that now so here it is.
Smudge
That's a nice report. There isn't anything suspicious in it but the motor was not examined completely because the author did not allow it.
The "braking coils" could be wireless charging coils for batteries inside the rotor. There is no evidence of this function, but it is a possibility that has not been eliminated by an energy density measurement to the contrary.
The lack of proof for the existence of batteries in the rotor, does not constitute a proof of their non-existence.
I do not see any mention of the energy density nor the motor's mass, in this report.
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.18, 17:15:48
Please make a hand drawing which marks the directions of the items marked in blue color.
Don't forget about any internal and external RF H-fields and E-field vectors as well.
Depict the directions of the spin axes of the nuclei, too, ...unless you deem them irrelevant in the mechanism you are describing.
The drawing does not have to be high quality ...just legible.
OK, the work going on in other benches has led me to produce the attached paper dealing with surface electrons on Cu. I am suggesting that electrons pulled to the surface due to a nearby electrode being at a high positive potential can align themselves (they are tiny magnets) with an applied magnetic field (they become spin polarized) so the surface has a ferromagnetic property. That could be a route to OU. Note that there are two possibilities, (a) if the Cu conductor is carrying current the surface electrons drift at very high speed and if polarized normal to the surface that movement can create induction via E = v X B that normal electron drift in the Cu would not do, and (b) surface electrons can be pulled along the surface by a magnetic gradient then disappear back inside the Cu thus supplying anomalous energy to the current flow.
Surface electrons on conductive permanent magnets could offer the same anomalous effects. In magnetic motors eddy currents of the bulk conduction electrons will produce induction into a nearby magnet as in (a) above, and that is in addition to induction from relative movement between the two magnets. This second order effect is never considered.
Smudge
Reading...
There is a grammatical ambiguity on Pg.2 that impairs comprehension:
Quote...where a B field normal to the surface along with a high value E field also normal create surface electrons with their spins normal to the surface...
Also, please name the components on your illustration, which I have marked with green question marks below (e.g.: Cu Rod, Cu Tube, etc...)
On Pg.4, I had to refer to the following illustration to decipher the meaning of the word "twice". Please consider appending to that sentence, what I added in blue color below.
QuoteSince we wish to obtain anomalous voltage induction for both directions of current in L, the Tesla coil is driven and resonant at twice the frequency of ? ? ? .
Now conceptual stuff:
What does the magnetic gradient created by the gradient coils look like (in isolation as well as in combination with the field of the Magnetizing Solenoid ) ?
How does it accelerate the electrons along the Cu Rod ?
QuoteThe surface electrons as tiny magnets aligned with the magnetic field get pulled along by the magnetic gradient as well as by the potential gradient along the rod.
What do you think about further acceleration of the surface electrons by the standing (yet alternating) electric potentials appearing on the adjacent turns of a solenoidal coil as in the principle illustrated below ?:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif)
This diagram depicts separate cylindrical electrodes, which are charged alternately, but the turns of a properly phased helical coil can play the roles of such alternating electrodes, too. Can't they ?
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.24, 16:10:53
Reading...
There is a grammatical ambiguity on Pg.2 that impairs comprehension:
The E field normal to the surface pulls electrons to the surface and the B field normal to the surface magnetizes those surface electrons, i.e. aligns their spins as shown.
QuoteAlso, please name the components on your illustration, which I have marked with green question marks below (e.g.: Cu Rod, Cu Tube, etc...)
That is the Cu tube shown in cross section.
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.24, 16:50:44
Now conceptual stuff:
What does the magnetic gradient created by the gradient coils look like (in isolation as well as in combination with the field of the Magnetizing Solenoid ) ?
How does it accelerate the electrons along the Cu Rod ?
Surely I don't need to show you the way the field drop off with distance off the end of a solenoidal coil! It doesn't accelerate the electrons (it does between collisions) it's a drift velocity. It is well known that a dipole of moment u endures a force Fx = u.dB/dx.cos(theta) where theta is the angle between u and B.
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.24, 16:54:24
What do you think about further acceleration of the surface electrons by the standing (yet alternating) electric potentials appearing on the adjacent turns of a solenoidal coil as in the principle illustrated below ?:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Linear_accelerator_animation_16frames_1.6sec.gif)
This diagram depicts separate cylindrical electrodes, which are charged alternately, but the turns of a properly phased helical coil can play the roles of such alternating electrodes, too. Can't they ?
Yes that will work too but I don't see OU here. My point about the spin polarised electrons is that they effectively come into and out of existence and that allows for unusual performance. But maybe just simple electrons doing that also works.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.24, 19:14:17
The E field normal to the surface pulls electrons to the surface and the B field normal to the surface magnetizes those surface electrons, i.e. aligns their spins as shown.
...
That is the Cu tube shown in cross section.
I know, I know ...but I am not the only one that will be reading this paper.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2021.11.24, 07:18:43
Were in good company gentlemen...
Consider this, some of the best and brightest minds on the planet cannot solve even the simplest problems which consist of only a few basic components.
1)The two capacitor paradox.
It's just two capacitors connected by a switch, one charged capacitor discharges into an uncharged capacitor through a switch and 1/2 the energy disappears in the process. The debate has been raging for years and countless scientific papers written and yet nobody can agree on where the energy goes.
I don't see any paradox and it is quite clear where the energy goes, it goes as heat, possibly followed by phase changes (solid to liquid then an expanding gas). It is only a paradox if you consider the conductors in the circuit to have zero resistance or infinite conductance, and that includes the electrodes in the capacitor and the switch. If you place a resistor into your circuit diagram and do simple analysis it shows clearly where the energy goes. If you don't believe this do an experiment with capacitors charged to high voltage, use heavy gauge wire but have a small length (mm) of fine gauge wire in the circuit. When you close the switch that fine wire will explode. The current rise time is so fast that the fine wire goes through phases changes from hot-solid to liquid to gas before the molecules even have time to move far, then the plasma "wire" continues to carry rising current dissipating more energy so that it expands radially shooting out the molecules at detonation velocities. This is known as an exploding bridge wire detonator (EBW) that is used to set off primary explosives. The conductor can be of strip form when it is known as an exploding foil initiator (EFI). In military equipment these do not require the usual shutter placed between secondary and primary explosives, safety locks are instead applied to the charging of the capacitor.
If you consider superconductors where the resistance is zero you seemingly have infinite current over a zero rise time, and that tells me the super conductor will no longer be so super, it will be destroyed one way or another.
Quote
2)Dr. Walter Lewin's Paradox.
It's just a loop of wire with a 100 ohm and 900 ohm resistor induced by an external coil. Yet again the debate has raged on for years, countless scientific papers written and nobody can agree on what's happening in a circuit so simple a four year old could build it.
Where is the paradox? If you correctly take account of all the conductors' alignments with the inducing A field closed loops (including any connections to the voltmeter and within the voltmeter) and deduce the voltage induced into each section the paradox vanishes, Kirchoff's Law remains intact.
Smudge
smudge
QuoteI don't see any paradox and it is quite clear where the energy goes, it goes as heat, possibly followed by phase changes (solid to liquid then an expanding gas). It is only a paradox if you consider the conductors in the circuit to have zero resistance or infinite conductance, and that includes the electrodes in the capacitor and the switch. If you place a resistor into your circuit diagram and do simple analysis it shows clearly where the energy goes. If you don't believe this do an experiment with capacitors charged to high voltage, use heavy gauge wire but have a small length (mm) of fine gauge wire in the circuit.
I did many experiments some of which were shown on my bench, https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3994.0
I also read countless science papers as well and most came to the same conclusions you have but not all. However in my opinion the viewpoint is superficial at best for various reasons relating to energy specifically.
It was these experiments with the two capacitor setup which helped me determine the total energy present in most electrical systems. The problem is that most tend to look at the system as a series of objects. They do not look at what could be happening internally at the atomic level. Here I use infinite element analysis to look at each atom/electron... what it's doing, why it's doing it and what the effect is.
For example, once we understand the process of how a linear electron motion transforms into an oscillatory molecular motion (heat) it's not that difficult to avoid the transformation. However most never go that far and tend to generalize everything into basically meaningless terms such as "heat" or "resistance". For example, heat is not a substance or a fluid and it does not flow. Heat is a measure of molecular motion and temperature a measure of the average molecular motion. Should we be averaging and generalizing everything until it makes no sense at all?.
It's important to understand that all matter is a fog of different particles moving at high velocity in a perfect vacuum. This is the nature of matter and we should see it and treat it as such. So in fact this simple two capacitor experiment contains many paradoxes and shows there is magnitudes more energy present than most presumed... most are looking in the wrong places.
I will revisit some of it in my two capacitor thread.
Regards
AC
I don't see the paradoxes either.
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.24, 19:35:48
Surely I don't need to show you the way the field drop off with distance off the end of a solenoidal coil!
Do you mean the flux density or flux direction like inside the red ellipse below ?
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2194.0;attach=11594)
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.24, 19:35:48
It is well known that a dipole of moment u endures a force Fx = u.dB/dx.cos(theta) where theta is the angle between u and B.
But that will rotate the electron's axis, won't it ?
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.11.24, 19:35:48
It doesn't accelerate the electrons (it does between collisions) it's a drift velocity.
Does it accelerate between collisions centripetally or linearly ?
Quote from: verpies on 2021.11.25, 23:15:52
Do you mean the flux density or flux direction like inside the red ellipse below ?
Denied access to that image. But see my image below where I am clearly dealing with the variation of flux passing through a loop.
Quote
But that will rotate the electron's axis, won't it ?
No, this is a linear force not a torque.
QuoteDoes it accelerate between collisions centripetally or linearly ?
Linearly.
Smudge
Smudge
I found an example of the two capacitor paradox which is more in line with my reasoning...
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.5034.pdf The Paradox of Two Charged Capacitors – A New Perspective
As the author suggests, the production of heat/radiation/switching losses is a built in assumption and a form of circular reasoning. That is, the conclusion was drawn first and all details then built around that conclusion as a bias. The authors setup is similar to the one I proposed where there are no connection wires or switch and the two parallel capacitor plates simply change in area. Now we can exclude radiation and most ohmic heating effects and whatever is left is our answer.
As we can see the solution is based on a change in area of the capacitor plates producing a change in charge density. If the plate area doubles the charge density is reduced to one half thus the energy is reduced to one half. To be clear, the fundamental cause of the drop in energy is because the charge density was reduced and anything else is after the fact.
Which begs the question why everyone was so obsessed with the switch/connecting wires and not the capacitors themselves?.
Regards
AC
Anyone up to trying this? I don't have the facilities for doing experiments. This magnet motor looks like it might work. I have been playing with FEMM a lot recently and one thing I have found is a problem with its torque calculations. As explained in the attached pdf there are two methods, and for this device they give widely different values (not so for for normal shaped rotors, but especially so for this S shaped one). And I am inclined to believe the larger value that predicts this system will free run and produce usable power. You need a steel cylinder within which the S shaped rotor revolves. The rotor is made from three NdFeB magnets and two quadrant shaped steel pieces. In the images shown the torque is CCW, which is the positive rotation direction in FEMM. And before the naysayers ask where does the energy come from I will point out that the rotor moves within a field coming from the stator magnetization, even though that is induced from the rotor. Thus we have a rotor moving through the field from the stationary array of atomic dipoles in the stator. And that movement can "load" the atomic current loops in the rotor as outlined at the start of this thread, and that is were the energy comes from.
Smudge
Hi Smudge can you please check whether you designed your rotor rotation around the X0.0 and Y0.0 coordinate of femm? I also did the simulation and found next to no torque so wanted to check a few things.
My femm file is included. Can you please share yours?
Hi Nali,
Yes the motor has 0,0 as it's center and the torque is about that origin. Your torque value is not insignificant, it could easily create a free running thingy to use as a desk toy. However it is negative whereas it should be positive. I am pretty sure that if you rotated your rotor say 1 degree you would get a different value. And if you did this a number of times you would find the value swinging positive and negative, i.e. it is very noisy and I think that indicates the poor quality of the block integral torque method. (I assume that was the block integral method, correct me if I am wrong). Have you tried the line integral method yet? I think you will find this less noisy and will yield a positive torque averaged over a number of rotor angles. I am writing this on my tablet and do not have access to my FEMM file at the moment, I will send it tomorrow. I used a linear material for the steel to save on computation time.
Regards
Smudge
Yes this is the block method. I did not even know about the line method and it results in vastly different values. The line method gives about 4Nm.
Not really sure which method is "real". I think a build is the only real way to know whether this works or not.
I have to say I would be pretty surprised if this actually works since to me it is a "constant reluctance device". There does not really appear to be a "more favorable" position for the rotor to rotate to.
Should be easy to build though!
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.12.05, 17:15:39
Hi Nali,
Yes the motor has 0,0 as it's center and the torque is about that origin. Your torque value is not insignificant, it could easily create a free running thingy to use as a desk toy. However it is negative whereas it should be positive. I am pretty sure that if you rotated your rotor say 1 degree you would get a different value. And if you did this a number of times you would find the value swinging positive and negative, i.e. it is very noisy and I think that indicates the poor quality of the block integral torque method. (I assume that was the block integral method, correct me if I am wrong). Have you tried the line integral method yet? I think you will find this less noisy and will yield a positive torque averaged over a number of rotor angles. I am writing this on my tablet and do not have access to my FEMM file at the moment, I will send it tomorrow. I used a linear material for the steel to save on computation time.
Regards
Smudge
Quote from: nali2001 on 2021.12.05, 19:07:36
Yes this is the block method. I did not even know about the line method and it results in vastly different values. The line method gives about 4Nm.
Not really sure which method is "real".
I have several books on EM theory and I understand that the stress tensor has to be taken on the air side of the ferromagnetic/air boundary and very close to it. The block integral method does not draw the measurement contour close to the surface, but the line integral method does.
QuoteI think a build is the only real way to know whether this works or not.
I agree and that is why I started this thread.
QuoteI have to say I would be pretty surprised if this actually works since to me it is a "constant reluctance device". There does not really appear to be a "more favorable" position for the rotor to rotate to.
You could say the same for the rotor in the Faraday disc motor. But the torque there is easily calculated from Ampere's Law on the currents in the rotor. And as I say in my introductory paper you can use Ampere's Law for the surface current equivalents for magnetized material to get forces and torque. To do this you have to place the surface currents in the
external magnetic field applied to the currents (you ignore the field that the current is producing. In this S shaped rotor the same would apply, you could use an S shaped air cored solenoid placed within the field coming from the magnetized stator treating that as an
external field (even though the magnetization comes from the presence of the rotor). So I think there could be something good here.
This forum will not accept FEMM files, if you PM me with your email account I will send it to you that way
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2021.12.06, 16:57:09line integral method does.
I agree and that is why I started this thread.
It seemed so simple yet as always so elusive. Nali is right.
My build does a perfect scale up of your sketch and comes out at an 8 inch diameter. A brake drum from about a '50's Hillman is 8 inches! The magnets are 1/2 X 3/4 X 1 1/2 inch neo's stacked up in two's.
It does not turn, nudged in either direction and it makes barely a half turn after a brisk shove. It actually seems to lock in to where ever you put it. There is no spinning of the shaft with ones fingers. In Arthur's toroid with even stronger magnets I can spin the shaft with my fingers easily. This has a preferred direction... locked.
Sorry to be so negative but this is what I see.
Ron
Quote from: Smudge
This forum will not accept FEMM files...
If the file is not too large simply append it with an accepted filetype (eg, ,rtf) which can be easily removed by the recipient to read the file properly.
Good day Smudge,
I was hoping for an acknowledgement that my replication was viable? Perhaps a video will be better? Seeing is believing?
https://youtu.be/KvcoixbUZ4g (https://youtu.be/KvcoixbUZ4g)
Ron
Quote from: ronee on 2021.12.08, 16:49:53
Good day Smudge,
I was hoping for an acknowledgement that my replication was viable? Perhaps a video will be better? Seeing is believing?
https://youtu.be/KvcoixbUZ4g (https://youtu.be/KvcoixbUZ4g)
Ron
Sorry Ron,
I have only just now seen your replication. Yes that is a good one and thank you for doing it. So I now know that the line integration in FEMM gives false results. That rather scuttles my present line of enquiry so I will change tack and keep on searching.
Smudge
smudge
QuoteI have only just now seen your replication. Yes that is a good one and thank you for doing it. So I now know that the line integration in FEMM gives false results. That rather scuttles my present line of enquiry so I will change tack and keep on searching.
Moved my response to "the magnetic field model is flawed" thread. https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4213.msg96566;topicseen#msg96566
Regards
AC
This is a suggested experiment to explore surface current on Cu. If conduction electrons are brought to the surface of a Cu wire by having a sheath around it that is at a positive potential then that surface charge should have a much greater drift velocity than the electrons within the bulk material. Is that so and can we exploit that effect? This experiment follows on from the Marinov Generator work (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2470.0 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2470.0)) where the Cu electrons in a rotating slip ring are moving through a magnetic vector potential A field so as to gain energy. In this experiment we drive electrons around a semi-circular Cu wire that has a sheath at a high positive potential where the surface electrons could have a high enough drift velocity to observe the presence of the A field. Essentially it is a DC measurement of the resistance of the wire by passing current through it and measuring the voltage drop. The special A field distribution can be provided by two disc magnets or by a magnetized ring. The image below shows both versions except the winding to magnetize the ring is not shown. The coax or shielded cable need not be semi-circular, it could be hairpin shaped. The important thing is to get the ends of that section where the velocity change takes place to be as close to the magnets as possible. The desirable thing would be to see the resistance drop to near zero, or better still to go negative, but that could require the surface charge to form a plasma. However any change of resistance would be useful as that would allow this surface charge phenomena to be taken further.
Smudge
smudge
QuoteThis is a suggested experiment to explore surface current on Cu. If conduction electrons are brought to the surface of a Cu wire by having a sheath around it that is at a positive potential then that surface charge should have a much greater drift velocity than the electrons within the bulk material. Is that so and can we exploit that effect?
I believe this has some merit based on the radiant energy experiments I did in the past. We also need to be careful not to generalize things and we can have a high potential direct current which oscillates and appears as a DC offset. So it could have effects similar to a current which alternates driving surface effects but does not actually alternate in that sense of the word.
Regards
AC
Hello
Has anyone found an explanation of why this motor seems to work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI
This is overconfident's motors made by Tinsel Koala (alsetalokin)
In reply #43 above I suggested an experiment. Now my motoring days started in 1957 when I bought my first car, a 1935 Morris 8. In those days the ignition leads had copper conductors, and they needed interference suppressors fitted if you had a radio on board. Later ignition leads had carbon filaments as the conductor and I assume that still hold today. Thus the experiment that I suggested could be done with ignition leads wrapped in Al foil to create a special form of coax cable having a poor conductor. If the surface electron plasma acting as a conductor is going to show up then this is a better experiment to perform. See modified image.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.01.13, 09:13:28
Thus the experiment that I suggested could be done with ignition leads wrapped in Al foil to create a special form of coax cable having a poor conductor.
OK. Also there is a premade coxial cable which has a high resistance center conductor and silvered shield. It can be bought as a "probe coax" or cannibalized out of a broken oscilloscope probe.
One caveat is that the center conductor is very hard to solder - it can be crimped to a copper wire, though.
Quote from: Cortazar on 2021.12.22, 05:44:06
Hello
Has anyone found an explanation of why this motor seems to work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIvZJ9xGutI
This is overconfident's motors made by Tinsel Koala (alsetalokin)
Thanks Cortazar, most interesting.
Edit: this is 14 years old and "seems" to have been debunked.
Ron
@Smudge
I had also thought some time ago about the idea that a current on the surface might not have the same drift velocity as inside the material.
My idea then was not to obtain it with an electric field as you suggest, but with additional charges. By charging the conductor electrostatically, the charges would repel each other and move preferably to the surface.
I had done some research in the literature but found nothing that would support this. For example, drift velocity does not depend on the geometry of the conductor, whereas one would think that a wide and very flat conductor would conduct the current better than a cylindrical conductor with the same cross section.
Do you know of any studies that would question this?
@ F6FLT,
In my suggested experiment I am charging the conductor electrostatically, the EHT generator is connected so that current flows to do this.
In my professional career I was involved with missile radar where flying through rain was a problem. Not the radar reflections from rain but the fact that rain drop impacts cause the missile to gain charge via the triboelectric effect. Aircraft have the same problem and the craft can reach such high voltages that corona discharge occurs at any sharp protuberance. That creates wide band EM noise affecting on-board radios and radars. The solution is to have deliberate discharge points away from any antenna, known as wick dischargers, that limit the electric potential and stop any discharges near the antenna. But there is another problem with radomes that cover radar antenna. Charge can build up on the radome surface and that can reach a high enough value that discharge occurs across the surface. This is known in the trade as streaking. Again that introduces EM noise. I don't have any references to give you on this but it does imply that surface currents are entirely different from conduction currents and can flow across dielectric surfaces. The electrons remain attached to the surface (the image charge within the dielectric ensures this) so it is a genuine surface flow.
If you are familiar with cold cathode electron emitters for vacuum tubes you may know about Spindt Tip cathodes. These are conductors that have a surface that is engineered to be covered in sharp pointed tips on a micro scale. Surface charge accumulates at these sharp points to reach a level where discharge into the vacuum occurs at reasonable low voltages at room temperature. I don't know whether anyone has studied electron flow across the surface of these cathodes but it is clear to me that it would not follow the usual conduction flow rules. In air this cathode surface would be a good candidate for creating the surface plasma that is being discussed in the TPU thread.
I agree with you that wide and very flat conductor would conduct the current better than a cylindrical conductor with the same cross section, but I don't know of any studies that confirm this surface flow.
Smudge
@F6FLT,
Maybe this paper will lead to more information.
Smudge
@Smudge
Thank you for your feedback. I will look into this carefully before making any further comments.
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.01.20, 16:09:47
I don't know whether anyone has studied electron flow across the surface of these cathodes but it is clear to me that it would not follow the usual conduction flow rules. In air this cathode surface would be a good candidate for creating the surface plasma that is being discussed in the TPU thread.
Smudge
Yes, the plasma forms through electron extraction and creating ions, ionisation takes place, and at a specific timing, the plasma extinguishes and electrons are collected along with any added electrons in the process. The plasma is a dielectric surface plasma held within the solenoids magnetic field, it is continually moving due to two different delayed pulses in a particular way, resulting in a 7.83Hz beat, the TPU washboard effect.
Regards
Mike 8)
Back to magnetic motors. Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor. Anyone up to building something? This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes. These are magnetized across their thin dimension. A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2022.02.07, 16:09:22
Back to magnetic motors. Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor. Anyone up to building something? This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes. These are magnetized across their thin dimension. A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.
Smudge
I know this is a few months old but since I just came across this. In Axisymmetric problems you need to imagine you rotate everything around 360, it seems like you only selectively rotated the stator magnet and kept the rotor magnet as a standard cartesian problem in your calculations.
Quote from: broli on 2022.07.31, 22:12:09
I know this is a few months old but since I just came across this. In Axisymmetric problems you need to imagine you rotate everything around 360, it seems like you only selectively rotated the stator magnet and kept the rotor magnet as a standard cartesian problem in your calculations.
The axisymmetric plot is the same for any angle about the z axis (the vertical axis in the plot). Hence it gives you 3D data for the field everywhere. I see no problem in using that data for a current element moving as I show, moving through that 3D field. Being a current element it is like a point. I agree that anything larger than such an element has to consider the manner of the 3D field when moving in a plane that is not the one seen in the plot. But I don't think this alters the possibility of something useful happening.
Smudge
Smudge
QuoteBack to magnetic motors. Here is another paper suggesting a possible motor. Anyone up to building something? This uses stator disc magnets all facing inwards but uses finger-like rotor magnets set as spokes. These are magnetized across their thin dimension. A system using just one disc and one spoke could be measured to see whether the torque over a full revolution averages to zero, or whether there is a small net torque in one direction.
I had similar thoughts and performed quite a few tests with negative results. My reasoning was a small field in a larger focused field could produce asymmetrical forces as you implied. However I only used rotating devices with some inertia to maintain the motion long enough to sample the accelerations and determine the overall change in velocity.
Something happens, the action/reaction fields always combine in such a way that the energy in/out equal each other. One field may act over a smaller period of time within a space but the field is stronger. Like wise a field can act over a longer period of time within a space but the field is weaker. So the field density versus area is maintained thus the energy.
Some inventors such as Wesley Gary claimed there were very small neutral zones near the field center between the poles which could be manipulated. I found these regions and there's a very good reason most didn't or failed to produce the desired results. As always the devil is in the details and nobody seemed to be following the patent.
A normal bar magnet does have a fairly uniform near/far field as we have all seen in diagrams but not the compound magnets shown in the patent. Compound magnets have a uniform far field but the near field also curls back into each individual magnet. With magnetic viewing film these zones between the magnets appear as white lines where the field becomes more concentrated. Another obscure fact only mentioned once was that Gary also used non-magnetic spacers between each compound magnet.
Another aspect seldom if ever mentioned or replicated is the fact that many inventors used compound magnets of different strengths and spacing. So while one magnet may attract/repel another could remain neutral or have it's field displaced/combined with other magnets. Thus were left with the "52 card gambit" where the magnets/combined fields/field densities have so many possible permutations it becomes almost impossible to comprehend. A standard deck of 52 cards has 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (8.06e+67) possible combinations.
Regards
AC