I'm interested in Egerly stuff, also in the Faraday Paradox (I call it, Faradox).
This from my personal journal this morning:
Woke up with Faradox on my mind, then quickly visualized the test: Two disk magnets with hole in center, South OUT for each (thus two N-poles together, perhaps a steel plate between to cut down repulsive force). Then copper wire wound around both Radially, such that the wire goes out over the edge, down the other side, looping through the center holes. Repeat for many loops.
By the Lorentz force and right hand rule, spin the disk-set CCW. So fingers above axis, RHR, pointing left in the direction of the upper-disk motion, rotate INTO the disk (following magnetic B lines for S-pole) and thumb shows direction of current which is down, towards disk-center. Same procedure on the opposite side finds that the thumb points UP, so the current loops (up on the far side, down on the near side). Electrons move in the opposite direction.
Spin fast, high omega....
Near the axle for driving the rotation, we place a JT circuit which lights red LED at 0.2V.. force on the JT is mr(omega)^2, so keep forces small by low mass and minimal r = distance to axis of rotation.
I already commissioned an excellent builder, Mark Vaughan, to give me a JT circuit which will light at very low voltage. His small circuit lights the red LED I supplied at 0.2 volts!
Question: will there arise a VOLTAGE when everything co-rotates? what would YOU PREDICT?
(I predict YES, there will be a voltage.)
NO brushes, V measurement is co-rotating with the magnets and coils.
i think the magnets should be in attraction with the conductive plate in between. otherwise there should be no current in the disk. similar to just 1 magnet and a disk, makes only 1 magnetic pole polarity through the disk, or even a horseshoe magnet, as we should have all seen before, where each leg of the horseshoe is an opposite polarity.
if the magnet/magnets are as i propose, then i believe yes, there should be current flow if both the disk and the magnets spin together. the big question is, if both the disk and the magnets spin together, will there be any drag/lenz on the rotation as we pull current from the disk !! if so, what is the rotor as a whole, spinning, dragging against? and, if there is no drag and we get current output, boom. lenz free generator. O0 ;) that is the paradox in question.
mags
Thanks to PhysicsProf for sharing the great idea!
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.12.29, 17:43:27
Question: will there arise a VOLTAGE when everything co-rotates? what would YOU PREDICT?
Does the magnitude of the magnetic flux, which threads this winding, change as the disk-set rotates ?
If "yes" then yes.
If "no" then no.
now, if we get currents radialy through the disk when that disk and the magnet rotate together, then what if we set up a coil mounted to the edge of the rotor and mount a magnet to the rotor also. mount the coil to the rotors edge and the magnet mounted to the rotor where its pole is in a position that its flux is producing the most say positive voltage swing as when a coil is a stationary as a stator. so if the disk and magnet produce current, this should also. ill draw up a 3d example.
one of the big problems with the disk is having to use the outer edge of the disk as a commutator. lots of drag and high speed, high current brushing. needs to be good low resistance contact, thus more physical resistance on the outer edge. probably why they used a bowl of mercury at the bottom of the disk back in the day. maybe still in use somewhere today. but if we can mount coils and magnets on the rotor to get the same effect, as long as we understand the effect, then we solve the low voltage, high currents issues by using multi turn coils instead, and can make a smaller radius comutator and brushes just like anything else.
tried it once but as i look back, i wasnt doing it right. have a rotor to try this. heck, just put an led on the coil in the right polarity and give it a wirl.... :D ^-^
mags
but,,,,, as i said in my previous post, will there be drag on the rotor? if not then great. lenzless gen. but if there is drag, what are we dragging against if the magnet and coil are rotating together on the rotor? might say, well if it works and there is drag, then we are just back at square one, just in a different way. i say not. the question of "what is it dragging against" should become clear as it would be an effect that could be developed into a magnetic drive system. if they rotate together, disk or coil with magnets in place, and there is drag, and say its pushing against the fields that are all around us, can we use that to move a cart on the table? id see it as an ore on a row boat. only short or load the coil when it is pushing in the opposite direction you want to go. think on that a bit. either way, there would be an advanced advantage, one way or the other.
if it does produce electrical output, id say there is going to be drag. the whole paradox is about knowing that the magnet is not the origin of the field, it is just a lens that alters the existing field all around us. spin the disk alone and we got current. spin the ring magnet alone, no current. spin both, we again have current, because the disk is cutting the field that does not spin with the magnet.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.30, 06:59:43
,,, as i said in my previous post, will there be drag on the rotor?
Are you asking about the drag over 1° or 360° ?
I have done a quick sim using FEMM in axissymmetric mode. The first image below is the result (you can use pnyuming's images to visualize the arrows). The red rounded corner rectangle represents a single turn winding. The next image is the normal component of B (B.n) crossing that turn, starting at the bottom left of the rectangle and going round CW. The next image is the radius from the central axis (the vertical blue line). The final image is B.n multiplied by the radius. That represents the electric field induced at each point due to the rotation velocity, and the feature of note is the average value of zero. Yes the wire across the top and the bottom have the same field value in the same direction but that is completely negated by the field along the vertical wire down the outside.
Smudge
Figure 8 in my previous post is a modified version of PhysicsProf's scheme. Imagine a single, solid ring-shaped magnet with a coil wrapped around it.
The wires on the vertical part of the outer ring may cut through the magnetic lines and generate electricity.
The wires on the vertical part of the inner ring will also produce electricity of reverse polarity, counteracting the output from the outer ring.
However, I think the linear speed of the inner ring is lower, so it might generate less electricity, counteracting less, and there might still be some net output.
Looking further, the magnetic lines are denser on the inner ring than the outer ring, so more of the output may be canceled.
If we further modify the structure, as shown in Figure 9,
so that the inner ring's coil does not pass through the magnetic lines, then most of the net output might remain.
I think Lenz's law still applies in the same way. In the end, this results in a DC generator.
I appreciate the thoughts and effort put into this experiment...
In the end, Experiments will provide the answer - to me at least.
I have wondered Why it is that when I search "Faraday's Paradox Experiments" I find spinning disk-magnets and conducting DISKS (co-spinning, or not), but so far, NO EXAMPLES of winding wire RADIALLY as I have shown. Why is that?
Also, I don't find paired disk magnets and a steel plate between, such that both exterior faces are both SOUTH poles - Why hasn't someone tried this? (Perhaps they did, somehow ?)
Bottom line is - I don't find that this experiment has been done yet. And that encourages me to "TRY the experiment."
I may start with ends of the wire connected to slip-rings on the axle - and to use conducting brushes of some sort to collect current - easier I think than using a JT circuit fixed to the rotating system.
PS - as I'm the caregiver now for my wife who has had a stroke, progress may be slow at first, getting this set up... Magnets, drive system, etc. will take time... weeks not days probably... sorry about that.
ah. sorry. now i get what you were thinking.
i have thought of this years ago, trying to up the voltage as such. my thoughts on it were just as you describe but with just multiple disks and magnets in a rotating pile with the disks connected in series through the pile at the inner radius and outer for every other connection. so say the first disk has current flowing outward and the next disk will have current flowing inward, repeat...
the issue that kept comming about was between the magnets, like poles facing, that concentrated field at the outer and inner radius edge will counter induce the windings(or the connections putting the multiple disks in series) opposing what is being induced on the windings that are radially induced. cant say there would be more or less on either the outer edge induction or the radial portion being induced. we cannot negate the like facing fields of the magnets. they need to exist somewhere. they will be very prominent at the outer and inner radius.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.31, 20:39:43
ah. sorry. now i get what you were thinking.
i have thought of this years ago, trying to up the voltage as such. my thoughts on it were just as you describe but with just multiple disks and magnets in a rotating pile with the disks connected in series through the pile at the inner radius and outer for every other connection. so say the first disk has current flowing outward and the next disk will have current flowing inward, repeat...
the issue that kept comming about was between the magnets, like poles facing, that concentrated field at the outer and inner radius edge will counter induce the windings(or the connections putting the multiple disks in series) opposing what is being induced on the windings that are radially induced. cant say there would be more or less on either the outer edge induction or the radial portion being induced. we cannot negate the like facing fields of the magnets. they need to exist somewhere. they will be very prominent at the outer and inner radius.
mags
Interesting points, mags. Did you approach this theoretically - or did you do actual experiments?
About this which mags wrote: "the issue that kept comming about was between the magnets, like poles facing, that concentrated field at the outer and inner radius edge will counter induce the windings(or the connections putting the multiple disks in series) opposing what is being induced on the windings that are radially induced. cant say there would be more or less on either the outer edge induction or the radial portion being induced. we cannot negate the like facing fields of the magnets. they need to exist somewhere. they will be very prominent at the outer and inner radius."
Consider 20 wires wrapped radially around the magnet-disk-pair. The force on the electrons in the wires can be found using the Lorentz force equation:
F = q(v x B) where F, q and B are vectors and "x" represents the cross product of the v and B vectors.
I agree that the B fields are concentrated at the outer and inner radii. To get around this, one can place a cylinder or envelope of mu-metal shielding around the coil-bundle as it goes across the inner and especially the outer edge of the disk-pair (where v is largest). That should drastically reduce the B fields there, so F-on electrons will be much less than F-on electrons in the wire on the 2 faces of the magnet-disk-pair, F = q(v x B).
For me, this means - experiments... but it is great to explore in thought-experiment mode to identify and work out solutions for various problems that can be foreseen - as you are doing.
An alternative approach would be to connect face A to one side of a // plate capacitor (on the edge of the pair, shaped perhaps like a double-arc over a portion of the circumference) and face B to the other side. Like that, there would be no electron flow OVER the edges, just a weird-shaped cap charging.
(With a diode in the circuit, the cap would not be able to discharge as the rotation stops.)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.02, 00:52:13
Interesting points, mags. Did you approach this theoretically - or did you do actual experiments?
theoretically. just because there is a iron disk between 2 like pole disk magnets doesnt mean it simply absorbs the field. in fact, why use the iron disk at all. all of the fields need a return path. it may appear to be theoretical thinking, but more of a hypothetical educated guess.
most of what i posted should leave one to focus on the fact that the fields of the ring magnet do not rotate with the magnet itself. i find that fascinating. it should clearly describe the magnet as a field influencer rather than a producer. to further test that, i have a large rotor to try my idea of a coil and magnet or magnets fixed to the outer edge of the rotor to see if it does what i think it might do.
lets say it doesnt. then we would need to find out why. if in the original paradox experiments, the copper disk spinning creates currents in the disk, then we would know that it is not a changing mag field that induces the current and it must be flux cutting. if the individual magnet with the coil on the edge of the rotor does not produce current as i describe, then why is that? in faradays tests, the magnet can be rotating or not and the rotating copper disk will still be induced. my train of thought is that if a single magnet is moving with a coil positioned properly, then that moving magnets field is shifting its way through the fields all around us. thus the fields that the magnet is concentrating in that particular portion of the coil, it would seem likely that the coil should be induced as the magnet and coil rotating on the rotor should be encountering field shifting causing flux cutting in the coil therefore producing current. if not, then it would need to be examined more as to why not in this case, because it seems to be happening in faradays case.
mags
This is an interesting subject. I like mags way of looking at it. I want to add a thought. I've only had about a 1/4 cup of coffee so far so this may not make any sense. We all know that copper is non=magnetic. What if the only way to disturb the field that mags is describing can only be disturbed by another magnetic field. If that is true then rotating a copper coil in the field will not produce any current. But in the presence of another magnet rotating with the coil, now the field will be disturbed and produce current in the copper coil. The Coral Castle guy claimed he got more power from iron than from copper. I wonder if he was just rotating an iron wire coil without a magnet. I've never tried that. I wonder if anyone else has.
Carroll
Quote from: panyuming on 2025.12.29, 22:28:08
Thanks to PhysicsProf for sharing the great idea!
What is the name of the EM simulator that you have used ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.04, 21:24:34
What is the name of the EM simulator that you have used ?
Simple use of the old version of Vizimag318
O0 ;) :P
In the Faraday generator there are a few things to consider which anyone can easily prove for themselves.
1)We can move a magnet along any axis, towards-away or up-down or left-right, and the magnetic field will produce a force on a copper disk. However the magnet will not produce a force on the copper disk when the magnet is rotating. This proves the magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet. A magnet rotating on the N-S axis above a compass will also have no effect. The magnetic field does not rotate with the magnet.
My experimental proof is confirmed by an AI.
"When you rotate the magnet around that same axis: The field pattern in space is unchanged, Every field line at every point is exactly where it was before, So although the magnet material is rotating, the external magnetic field is not changing at all. This is very different from rotating the magnet end-over-end".
This is proven by the fact that when we rotate only the magnet in a Faraday generator no induction occurs. AI confirms this fact, "If you rotate only the magnet (about its own N–S axis) in a Faraday (homopolar) generator, and the conducting disk is stationary, then no induction occurs. Rotating the magnet about its magnetic axis does not change the magnetic field in space."
2)When the copper disk rotates but the "magnet is not rotating" induction occurs because the free electrons in the copper are moving through the stationary magnetic field.
When the copper disk rotates and "magnet is rotating" induction occurs because the free electrons in the copper are moving through the stationary magnetic field.
In effect, induction in the Faraday generator depends on charge motion, not on relative motion between magnet and conductor.
3)There is another interesting experiment we can do to prove this matter. Induction occurs in every case except when only the magnet rotates because the magnetic field is stationary. Whenever we rotate the copper disk the electrons start moving and are induced. We don't need a voltmeter with two wires or load to prove this. A charge separation occurs in the copper disk which can be measured by a electrometer or charge detector. This proves the external load or voltmeter wires are not being induced because there are no wires to induce. The EMF is generated inside the rotating conductor or copper disk not in the external wires.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.07, 17:44:52
In effect, induction in the Faraday generator depends on charge motion, not on relative motion between magnet and conductor.
...but since all motion is relative and the motion of the charges wrt to the magnet does not matter, then their motion must matter wrt to something else. Define that "something".
Also, your analysis would be more complete if you had discussed the brace/counterpoise for the back-torque that is experienced by a loaded Faraday generator.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.07, 23:58:00
...but since all motion is relative and the motion of the charges wrt to the magnet does not matter, then their motion must matter wrt to something else. Define that "something".
The "something" is the stationary magnetic field of the magnet.
The only "paradox" is that many falsely came to believe the magnetic field has field lines and said lines must rotate.
We could clear this up right now and ask ChatGPT if the field lines are real.
-"No—magnetic field lines are not real, physical lines. They are a visual and mathematical representation we use to describe a magnetic field."
-"The lines are a drawing tool to show the field's direction and strength. Each line shows the direction a tiny compass would point."
We now have a factual answer and nobody should be claiming the magnetic field rotates when we know as a fact it doesn't. AI is a game changer and it explained exactly how the Faraday generator works much better than any person could.
In the Faraday generator the copper disk moves free electrons through the stationary magnetic field the same as any other conductor in a generator. The moving charges then experience a Lorentz force or sideways force moving the electrons towards the disk center or perimeter. It's really that simple and there is nothing to it.
What does confuse many people, which relates more to our perspective, is that in theory we could spin up a Faraday disk floating in space not connected to anything and it would still produce a charge separation from center to perimeter. This is true because the magnetic field is stationary and does not rotate with the copper disk. The work which caused the charge separation was done when we initially spun the disk.
In any case, it's faster and easier to just ask an AI to explain how all this works.
field lines is a good way to visualize field direction and field strength. otherwise how could we look at it? sims use it to show it this way. never the less, it gives us a basic way of understanding how to work with it.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.08, 17:53:19
field lines is a good way to visualize field direction and field strength.
Indeed they are good for that.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.08, 16:27:46
What does confuse many people, which relates more to our perspective, is that in theory we could spin up a Faraday disk floating in space not connected to anything and it would still produce a charge separation from center to perimeter. This is true because the magnetic field is stationary and does not rotate with the copper disk. The work which caused the charge separation was done when we initially spun the disk.
OK, charge separation is what I'm after, in the lab - and store that in some kind of capacitor WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE SPINNING SYSTEM. THIS STORES ENERGY, E = 1/2 CV^2.
My question is - how can we do this? perhaps using a diode in series with the Cap so that the Cap does not discharge when the spinning system is slowed to a stop, so we can measure the voltage 'in' the capacitor...
I think this can be done... I'm seeing a flat disk-magnet spinning on axis. A Cap in series with a Schottky diode is attached appropriately - one wire to the outer edge (how?) and the other near the hole in the disk. Spin it fast, charging the Cap, then stop and measure V in the Cap.
I don't think this experiment has ever been done... that's what makes it particularly interesting to me.
Then we can add additional diode+Caps, also measure Eout vs Ein (net).
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.08, 21:24:11
I don't think this experiment has ever been done... that's what makes it particularly interesting to me.
Do you realize that the spinning measuring circuit will be in the same reference frame as the electrons in the spinning disk ...and penetrated by the same magnetic field ?
@Allcanadian
Attached is a conversation from another forum that you might find interesting.
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.08, 21:27:10
Do you realize that the spinning measuring circuit will be in the same reference frame as the electrons in the spinning disk ...and penetrated by the same magnetic field ?
YES - and that reference frame is NOT an inertial frame!
Spin implies an accelerating frame of reference... that's what makes it so interesting, right?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.08, 21:19:03
OK, charge separation is what I'm after, in the lab - and store that in some kind of capacitor WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE SPINNING SYSTEM. THIS STORES ENERGY, E = 1/2 CV^2.
My question is - how can we do this? perhaps using a diode in series with the Cap so that the Cap does not discharge when the spinning system is slowed to a stop, so we can measure the voltage 'in' the capacitor...
I think this can be done... I'm seeing a flat disk-magnet spinning on axis. A Cap in series with a Schottky diode is attached appropriately - one wire to the outer edge (how?) and the other near the hole in the disk. Spin it fast, charging the Cap, then stop and measure V in the Cap.
I agree.
We know the spinning magnet-disk will produce a charge separation however it's only a few volts because the generator has only one turn with the induced conductor length being the radius on the disk. In effect, the disk radius is the first half of the circuit loop and the external circuit is the second half. The question which was on some of the greatest minds in history like Faraday, Ampere and Tesla was how to close the external loop within the motional system.
My solution was funny because if all we want to do is measure the induced emf across the disk we don't need a closed loop. I just spun up a magnet-disk and used my electrometer to measure the potential or charge density at the disk outer edge. The difference in disk edge potential between a static disk and one spinning is the induced potential.
For example, a 12v battery has a potential difference of 12v however the (-) terminal potential is -6 and the (+) terminal potential +6, the difference in potential is 12v. Since the difference in potential is equal and opposite I only need to measure the potential on one terminal to know what the other terminal is and the difference in potential.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.09, 07:34:01
In effect, the disk radius is the first half of the circuit loop and the external circuit is the second half.
Don't you think that when the second half of the circuit is moving exactly like the first half then the EMF induced in them is the same ?
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.09, 07:34:01
I just spun up a magnet-disk and used my electrometer to measure the potential or charge density at the disk outer edge.
Has the electrometer shown anything different than the control ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2026.01.09, 16:01:52
Don't you think that when the second half of the circuit is moving exactly like the first half then the EMF induced in them is the same ?
i think in general yes. but, the field strength on the spinning disk that we would be inducing vs the field strength inducing the outer circuitry wires, is or can be way different if care is taken in routing those outer connections in order to reduce that issue. and then the situation will be minimal vs "exactly" as you say.
probably one of possibly many ways of reducing or negating any affect would be to have 2 ring magnets, one on each side of the disk, in attraction through the disk, and then magnetic iron plates on the outside of the sandwich that make a magnetic connection to each other at the rotating shaft. so now we apply our connection, brushes, however, to the outer edge of the induced disk and the inner radius of the induced disk connected to the shaft, then any outer portions of the circuit will not be influenced because we have contained the magnets fields to the induced disk alone. even if any portions of the outer circuit are rotating with the sandwich.
mags
Real experimental data: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE&t=2s
I'm intrigued that moving the stator = two brushes in a red holder as shown in the screen-shot,
while the DISK AND THE MAGNET are STATIONARY
this motion back-and-forth of the STATOR ALONE generates a voltage, as seen on the oscilloscope.
Does Lenz's law apply?
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.12, 17:56:49
this motion back-and-forth of the STATOR ALONE generates a voltage, as seen on the oscilloscope.
Because the
load circuit is not moving in the same way as the disk.
Motion is relative, so it does not matter whether the disk moves or the
load circuit moves ...or both, as long as there is a relative motion between them.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.12, 17:56:49
Does Lenz's law apply?
Only if the total magnetic flux threading the
load circuit changes.
Here (https://youtu.be/c5wgmTGi5pU) are some further developments by the same author.
very nice prof! the moving of the brush assy is surprising. one way to eliminate any possible induction of the brush wiring would be to twisted pair the wires to the brushes and end the twist between the 2 brushes, leaving equal length of leads to each brush from between them. and try to keep the twisted wires coming to the disk vertical, as high as possible, all to eliminate any induction to them and the brushes to a minimal. if it still shows output, then the paradox just went a step deeper. :D
love the way you set it up to engage one or the other or both with the drive motor. O0.
i would not have thought to just move the brushes alone. great idea! excelent video. ;)
mags
ok. i see it is someone elses vid
11yrs ago
mags
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025.12.29, 17:43:27
...
Question: will there arise a VOLTAGE when everything co-rotates? what would YOU PREDICT?
(I predict YES, there will be a voltage.)
NO brushes, V measurement is co-rotating with the magnets and coils.
Since all movements are covariant, no current is to be expected.
A co-rotating observer at the centre does not see any conductors moving. No Lorentz force, since the speed of the conductors as seen by the central observer is zero. In F=q.vxB, v is the speed of the charge as seen by the same observer who sees B.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.15, 12:22:44
Since all movements are covariant, no current is to be expected.
A co-rotating observer at the centre does not see any conductors moving. No Lorentz force, since the speed of the conductors as seen by the central observer is zero. In F=q.vxB, v is the speed of the charge as seen by the same observer who sees B.
NOT correct, according to this experimental evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQ6jVDaMKI
With volt-meter and probes co-rotating with disc, observed by co-rotating phone/video, meter registers about - 4.9 mV. Around 300 rpm, which is not very fast.
Agreed, this is a somewhat crude set-up, but the results appear solid.
The magnets are arranged in a flat array so that they expose multiple poles.
Also, a commutator is used.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.26, 17:53:21
NOT correct, according to this experimental evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpQ6jVDaMKI
With volt-meter and probes co-rotating with disc, observed by co-rotating phone/video, meter registers about - 4.9 mV. Around 300 rpm, which is not very fast.
Agreed, this is a somewhat crude set-up, but the results appear solid.
Could you summarise the experiment in a diagram?
I see this as an inconclusive experiment, as there are sliding contacts on the disc or sphere, meaning that conductors are not covariant.
I have already conducted a much simpler and more conclusive experiment showing that no EMF is to be expected from covariant conductors in a magnetic field.
A high-capacity capacitor (1000µF) in series with a high-value resistor (100 K to 1 M) is connected radially between the centre and the edge of a conductive disc.
The disc is concentric with a cylindrical magnet.
The capacitor rotates with the disc at high speed and is supposed to charge, slowly due to the resistance.
After a certain amount of time, the rotation is stopped and the voltage across the capacitor is measured. Due to the resistance, the capacitor has not had time to discharge. But the voltage is zero. Zero, even if the capacitor circuit is spaced away from the disc and cuts a weaker magnetic field than that experienced by the disc. Still zero.
The cause of induced EMF is not the magnetic field but the relative velocity of the charges cutting across the field flux in one part of the circuit relative to the other, which means that the Lorentz force has a non-zero resultant on a closed circuit.
The idea I had seen among those who hoped to draw current from a conductor rotating with the earth in its magnetic field was to mask part of the circuit with ferrite or something else so that this part could no longer be considered to be cutting the flux or field lines, which would cause a permanent imbalance in the circuit and therefore a current.
This was a gross error, for an obvious reason: a current cannot be masked by a static configuration of charges, because, seen from the same frame of reference, the electric field of charges at rest does not have the same shape as that of moving charges.
After more than a century, it is time to understand the basics of the theory of relativity, which is the result of simple common sense based on observations and measurements. If you have a unique alternative theory that can explain the variation in the lifespan of radioactive elements with their speed, Mercury's perihelion, Ampère's law of force, the drift of moving clocks, etc., etc., etc., go ahead.
Interesting that you evidently overlook that part of the video where the meter co-rotates with the disk (no commutator needed):
27m40s to 28m11s.
He shows a (negative) voltage on the meter, observed by a co-rotating phone taking video of the meter.
Another completely independent experiment shows a similar result, that is, a voltage is seen when the meter co-rotates with a cylinder (replacing the disk). Here the data are transmitted to the lab frame via bluetooth, the experimenter notes.
I hope you all will watch the entire video this time. The experimenter has the audacity to challenge Einstein, based on his experimental results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.27, 17:52:54
Interesting that you evidently overlook that part of the video where the meter co-rotates with the disk (no commutator needed):
27m40s to 28m11s.
He shows a (negative) voltage on the meter, observed by a co-rotating phone taking video of the meter.
I do not dispute this possibility, I dispute the explanations given or the hypotheses made, all of which I have read on this subject were clearly false.
If there really is a current, either it is an artefact, or a
new phenomenon is at play that must remain compatible with relativity, otherwise we would have to explain why the thousands of experiments that verify relativity should not work.
Quote
Another completely independent experiment shows a similar result, that is, a voltage is seen when the meter co-rotates with a cylinder (replacing the disk). Here the data are transmitted to the lab frame via bluetooth, the experimenter notes.
I hope you all will watch the entire video this time. The experimenter has the audacity to challenge Einstein, based on his experimental results.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5wgmTGi5pU
This experiment seems more interesting. I will try to analyse it.
The experimenter has "the audacity to challenge Einstein" while his conclusion no. 2 shows that he has a poor understanding of his experiment from the point of view of classical electromagnetism (not even relativity).
Do you agree with him? Have you eliminated all possible alternatives and artefacts?
What is your detailed analysis of this experiment?
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.27, 10:42:16
I have already conducted a much simpler and more conclusive experiment showing that no EMF is to be expected from covariant conductors in a magnetic field.
A high-capacity capacitor (1000µF) in series with a high-value resistor (100 K to 1 M) is connected radially between the centre and the edge of a conductive disc.
The disc is concentric with a cylindrical magnet.
The capacitor rotates with the disc at high speed and is supposed to charge, slowly due to the resistance.
After a certain amount of time, the rotation is stopped and the voltage across the capacitor is measured. Due to the resistance, the capacitor has not had time to discharge. But the voltage is zero. Zero, even if the capacitor circuit is spaced away from the disc and cuts a weaker magnetic field than that experienced by the disc. Still zero.
I suppose you didnt make a video of that experiment. You say after a certain amount of time the rotation is stopped.. How much time? Considering the presented video, 4.9mv was shown to be produced. You say a 1000uf cap that you used with 100k to 1Mohm resistor. How long did your rotor spin? What speed? How long did it take to come to a stop? On the other hand, how long do you think it would take normally to charge that 1000uf cap through a 1Mohm resistor, to 4.9mv? How long might it take to discharge that cap to 0v from 4.9mv through a 100kohm resistor? How long would it take to discharge that cap from 4.9mv with the meter afterwards?
you seem to say you have done all these experiments, but you lack a lot of details. No pics? No vids? Im thinking you just made it up. Just my opinion. for some reason, C.C, you seem to want to downgrade the possibilities, any way you can. Like Jones said, you didnt even look at the vid well enough to know that a commutator wasn't used when the reading was taken, yet blamed commutation for some effect. ^-^
If you did do the experiment as you say, you would have been better to use a switch, might have to be made and tuned, but a switch that only connects at or above a particular rotor speed, notably above the speed intended to test, that is activated by centrifugal force. So now no need for the obscenely high value resistors. If the cap gets charged, the switch will disconnect when the rotor slows down and no possible drain. But thats just me.
Mags
@Magluvin
I also tried the switch experiment. With centrifugal force, at a certain speed, a flexible brass contact unlocked and could not return to its initial position. There was also no voltage at the capacitor terminals.
Why would I have made a video? Do you think I'm here like a lot of FE clowns, to entertain the crowd with a commonplace experiment whose negative outcome has been known for ages? There weren't even smartphones when I did this experiment, nor was there enough bandwidth on the networks to produce a quality video, and wasting my time and that of others is not my cup of tea. I even found one of my old posts under my former username exnihiloest where I had already mentioned this experiment: it was in 2011! https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1063.msg16354#msg16354
If you doubt it, try the experiment yourself. I'm not here to prove that the laws of electromagnetism are sound (even though I'm challenging one) or to educate believers in fake news or conspiracy theorists. So many others have done that since the early 19th century; just look at the lectures and lab experiments.
The burden of proof lies with those who dispute them. I cannot even understand how anyone could dispute the laws of induction concerning the Lorentz force in a circuit where all the conductors are covariant, without having carried out such a simple experiment themselves, which any experimenter, even a teenager and even one who is not particularly gifted, can do.
Are you not capable of doing such a simple experiment yourself? If so, at least do not insinuate that I have not done it, and refrain from advising me to do it in this or that way! I have no time to waste. And if that is not the case, do it, and describe your own experiments to us, accompanied by a schematic diagram, your measurement protocol, the measurement results, and how they differ from the results expected by physicists.
So what is it you are saying doesnt work? are you saying the paradox is bs? Are you saying that spinning the disk and magnet together produces no output?
Mags
I have read everyone's posts, thank you all for sharing.
Many articles in the past have introduced the FARADAY Homopolar. Some articles claim it can achieve COP=5, while Grok says COP <1.
Patrick J. Kelly's book
"A Practical Guide to 'Free-Energy' Devices," page 1275, mentions: Paramahamsa Tewari received an Indian patent (397/Bom/94) in 1994 for a COP=2.5 version.
I think the design in the first post by the moderator PhysicsProf is intended to increase the output voltage of the FARADAY Homopolar, making it easier to measure its COP and Lenz's law.
https://ia800504.us.archive.org/32/items/PJKbook/PJKbook.pdf
https://www.comsol.com/blogs/redesigning-faradays-wheel-creating-efficient-homopolar-generators?setlang=1
we should all be able to agree that if we spin the inducing disk alone, that we can get output. Now, if we spin the disk and the magnet and see output, some claim that it is the magnet spinning that induces the wires measuring the currents in the disk. Well that shouldnt fly because spinning the magnet alone does not produce notable current. Also lets compare what we get in output when we only spin the disk and when we spin the magnet with the disk. in all examples it appears to be the same. so that should prove that the external wires measuring the currents are not being induced. O0
mags
so f6 is on to something... if the connections are spinning with the disk, the wires should be induced also and no output. So how did the guy get his meter to read output while it and its leads are spinning with the disk?
Sorry f6. thinking about my last post had me think on it more
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.29, 06:06:01
so f6 is on to something... if the connections are spinning with the disk, the wires should be induced also and no output. So how did the guy get his meter to read output while it and its leads are spinning with the disk?
...
There are so many possible hypotheses that you would need to start with the first one, for example, the effect of radial acceleration on the dielectric associated with polarisation by the axial Lorentz force.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.29, 00:34:18
we should all be able to agree that if we spin the inducing disk alone, that we can get output. Now, if we spin the disk and the magnet and see output, some claim that it is the magnet spinning that induces the wires measuring the currents in the disk. Well that shouldnt fly because spinning the magnet alone does not produce notable current. Also lets compare what we get in output when we only spin the disk and when we spin the magnet with the disk. in all examples it appears to be the same. so that should prove that the external wires measuring the currents are not being induced. O0
mags
@Magluvin, If the field of the magnet is relatively homogeneous and the magnet is spun on its magnetization axis then the field is effectively motionless regardless of how fast you spin the magnet. The field is essentially a stationary blob encasing the magnet. In that case, if the disc is spun with the magnet then there is relative motion between the disc and the field and eddy currents are generated in the disc. Leads placed on the disc measure a current. Ultimately, there is no paradox. If you try varying the strength of the field (e.g. grooves in the magnet) you will get an alternating current, unless someone has figured out how to generate negative time during the variation. The only way I see you possibly getting a current out without brushes would be to use a flat coil instead of a disc with a really thin gauge wire so that you had a high amount of turns/resistance connected to rims on the inner/outer circumference of the magnet and electrostatically induce to stationary contacts.
Quote from: phoneboy on 2026.01.29, 23:52:40
@Magluvin, If the field of the magnet is relatively homogeneous and the magnet is spun on its magnetization axis then the field is effectively motionless regardless of how fast you spin the magnet. The field is essentially a stationary blob encasing the magnet. In that case, if the disc is spun with the magnet then there is relative motion between the disc and the field and eddy currents are generated in the disc. Leads placed on the disc measure a current. Ultimately, there is no paradox. If you try varying the strength of the field (e.g. grooves in the magnet) you will get an alternating current, unless someone has figured out how to generate negative time during the variation. The only way I see you possibly getting a current out without brushes would be to use a flat coil instead of a disc with a really thin gauge wire so that you had a high amount of turns/resistance connected to rims on the inner/outer circumference of the magnet and electrostatically induce to stationary contacts.
well as with f6s argument, we can realize that any leads, measuring devices, that are spinning with the magnet and induced disk, they are now part of a loop where both sides of that loop are being induced in the same direction thus canceling current flow in that loop. So when someone claims that creating that loop in a known standardized way via brushes and stationary leads that are part of the output or measuring loop, is being induced and that is where the current is coming from when we have the magnet and the induced disk rotating together, then they would be wrong due to the fact that if we only spin the magnet, there is no current produced in the disk. so why would there be any currents produced in the stationary leads when the magnet spins??
The paradox arose by the thought of the fields of the magnet were being produced by the magnet and therefore rotating that magnet should have induced the disk by dragging its magnetic field through the disk to induce currents. magnets are more of a lens of sorts, that alter magnetic fields that are all around us. so when the donut magnet spins, it is only altering the fields that surround it, concentrating them in a polarized form, not dragging them around. in the vid that jones first presented, where the guy switches his mech to only spin the magnet, we do see noise in the scope , similar to your idea of groves. that noise is due to the inconsistencies of the strength of the alteration of the field as the magnet spins. it was very low noise but noticeable.
so the best way to look at the paradox is, do we still have mech drag when we spin the disk and magnet together and load the disk across the inner and outer contacts of the disk?
if there is no drag loaded, then we have a lenzless gen. which would be great. if there is drag, what is it dragging against?? is it a seed to anti-gravity? or magnetic propulsion? think on that. both disk and magnet rotating together and if loading the disk creates mech drag, what is it dragging against???
drag or no drag, we seem to have something that is new and unusual in our field of study here. Each proposition should yield some excitement and intrigue. like the Nmachine. he probably experienced one or the other. was probably shut down for it. but from what i remember of it, he was after a high eff gen.. did he find no drag?
Mags
I think the paradox is easily resolved when you imagine the magnetic field from the magnet coming from electric charge that is spinning around a loop. That spin speed is so enormous that the trivial rates we can create mechanically that could add or subtract to that rotation speed are negligible. Then it is clear that our concept of the magnetic field rotating (of field lines moving in synch with the magnet) is a ficticious concept for this particular rotation axis.
Smudge
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.30, 02:31:16
well as with f6s argument, we can realize that any leads, measuring devices, that are spinning with the magnet and induced disk, they are now part of a loop where both sides of that loop are being induced in the same direction thus canceling current flow in that loop. So when someone claims that creating that loop in a known standardized way via brushes and stationary leads that are part of the output or measuring loop, is being induced and that is where the current is coming from when we have the magnet and the induced disk rotating together, then they would be wrong due to the fact that if we only spin the magnet, there is no current produced in the disk. so why would there be any currents produced in the stationary leads when the magnet spins??
The paradox arose by the thought of the fields of the magnet were being produced by the magnet and therefore rotating that magnet should have induced the disk by dragging its magnetic field through the disk to induce currents. magnets are more of a lens of sorts, that alter magnetic fields that are all around us. so when the donut magnet spins, it is only altering the fields that surround it, concentrating them in a polarized form, not dragging them around. in the vid that jones first presented, where the guy switches his mech to only spin the magnet, we do see noise in the scope , similar to your idea of groves. that noise is due to the inconsistencies of the strength of the alteration of the field as the magnet spins. it was very low noise but noticeable.
so the best way to look at the paradox is, do we still have mech drag when we spin the disk and magnet together and load the disk across the inner and outer contacts of the disk?
if there is no drag loaded, then we have a lenzless gen. which would be great. if there is drag, what is it dragging against?? is it a seed to anti-gravity? or magnetic propulsion? think on that. both disk and magnet rotating together and if loading the disk creates mech drag, what is it dragging against???
drag or no drag, we seem to have something that is new and unusual in our field of study here. Each proposition should yield some excitement and intrigue. like the Nmachine. he probably experienced one or the other. was probably shut down for it. but from what i remember of it, he was after a high eff gen.. did he find no drag?
Mags
Interesting arguments! Also Smudge.
I've decided to basically replicate the experiment pictured below, First oscillating the rotor back and forth which is very easy to do, and observe the voltage on an oscilloscope.
The trick is to have a "high-gain amplifier" such as shown in the picture, which amplifies the very small voltages generated.
Can anyone help here - I need to find commercially or have a schematic to build such a "high-gain amplifier." Thanks!
A second question to ask is why the effect of Lorentz forces is not compatible with Lorentz forces here! The need for a sensitive electrometer to measure a result that should be much greater proves this.
But we also have answers. When, in the video, the author claims that his experiment defies Einstein, even though he has not even attempted to eliminate the many possible artefacts, we know that he is either incompetent or has something to sell.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.30, 09:04:06
...
I've decided to basically replicate the experiment pictured below, First oscillating the rotor back and forth which is very easy to do, and observe the voltage on an oscilloscope.
The trick is to have a "high-gain amplifier" such as shown in the picture, which amplifies the very small voltages generated.
...
Sensitive detectors (µV) require extreme experimental precautions, otherwise anything can be detected: a Seebeck effect, which was discussed in another thread; an electrostatic effect linked to friction; the release of internal polarisation in the dielectric under the effect of centrifugal acceleration; an induced current linked to vibrations or ambient field that the slightest non-linearity in the device's input circuit will translate into direct current...
A laboratory multimeter or voltmeter is required. And to eliminate many artefacts, the device must be able to rotate without the magnet, and also with the magnet in either direction to check for voltage reversal.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.01.30, 09:04:06
Can anyone help here - I need to find commercially or have a schematic to build such a "high-gain amplifier." Thanks!
Horowitz & Hill – The Art of Electronics will help you.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.30, 08:47:27
...That spin speed is so enormous that the trivial rates we can create mechanically that could add or subtract to that rotation speed are negligible.
...
Theoretically, yes.
But perhaps not. I conducted the following experiment, though I cannot recall if I mentioned it here. When a fixed or rotating cylindrical magnet is placed opposite the end of a motor's ferromagnetic shaft protruding a few centimetres beyond the motor, a significant PD is obtained between two sliding contacts touching the shaft transversely, one near the magnet and the other further away, near the motor.
If we analyse this in the rotating reference frame of the shaft, the electrons see the sliding contacts rotating at high speed in front of the magnet. The EMF obtained by the Lorentz force in the one near the magnet is much greater than the other, so a current will flow in the circuit.
But if we analyse it from the reference frame at rest, we have an analysis problem, unless we assume that the rotation of the axis has a significant effect on the 'current loop' of the electrons located there, which 'fall' into the magnetic potential gradient along the ferromagnetic axis of the motor, because the field is higher at the end than at the other side.
I don't have the definitive answer.
maybe there is a simpler way to look at one aspect here. below is a pic of a very simple motor that all of us have seen. what if we make it so the wire is attached to the magnet and battery and suspend it 'all' as a single rotating object. will it all spin? would be unusual if it does...
11yrs ago i did this experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw
with all this talk here, it made me think. will it all spin? cant do it right now but it is simple enough to put together later today.
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.30, 16:16:49
...what if we make it so the wire is attached to the magnet and battery and suspend it 'all' as a single rotating object. will it all spin? would be unusual if it does...
...
Nothing will rotate. The current carries the charges at speed v. The Lorentz force is proportional to speed. All charges have the same speed, but don't forget that speed is a vector. Over one turn of the circuit, there are as many electrons going in one direction as in the opposite direction, so the resultant Lorentz force is zero overall on the circuit.
However, the force is not zero on the different parts of the circuit. The circuit will not move, but the Lorentz force tends to deform it, as in the case of a solenoid whose turns spread apart when it is energised.
This is why, in order to rotate, the circuit must consist of at least two parts that are movable relative to each other so that the force on one part can result in movement. If this is done subtly, as in your experiment with the wires around the battery that cut off the magnetic flux, or with a Faraday disc, a rotational movement can be maintained.
im just trying to reverse engineer the idea that if both the magnet and disk spin, we get currents in the disk, then the wire of the simple homopolar motor should want to move the whole assy if the battery applies current through that wire. ill test it and see.
mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.30, 14:34:57
Theoretically, yes.
But perhaps not. I conducted the following experiment, though I cannot recall if I mentioned it here. When a fixed or rotating cylindrical magnet is placed opposite the end of a motor's ferromagnetic shaft protruding a few centimetres beyond the motor, a significant PD is obtained between two sliding contacts touching the shaft transversely, one near the magnet and the other further away, near the motor.
If we analyse this in the rotating reference frame of the shaft, the electrons see the sliding contacts rotating at high speed in front of the magnet. The EMF obtained by the Lorentz force in the one near the magnet is much greater than the other, so a current will flow in the circuit.
But if we analyse it from the reference frame at rest, we have an analysis problem, unless we assume that the rotation of the axis has a significant effect on the 'current loop' of the electrons located there, which 'fall' into the magnetic potential gradient along the ferromagnetic axis of the motor, because the field is higher at the end than at the other side.
I don't see the problem. The magnetic potential gradient along the axis will be small compared to the Lorentz EMFs and can probably be ignored. The two different values of Lorentz EMF are present for both analyses, the only difference being where the EMF occurs. In your first case it is the moving external circuit and in the second case it is in the two rotating "Faraday discs" (cross section of the shaft at the contact points).
Smudge
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.31, 08:42:19
I don't see the problem. The magnetic potential gradient along the axis will be small compared to the Lorentz EMFs and can probably be ignored. The two different values of Lorentz EMF are present for both analyses, the only difference being where the EMF occurs. In your first case it is the moving external circuit and in the second case it is in the two rotating "Faraday discs" (cross section of the shaft at the contact points).
Smudge
The problem is this: we must obtain the same result when performing the analysis in one reference frame or the other.
When we perform the analysis from the rotating reference frame, we see the sliding contacts rotating, thus cutting the magnetic flux, which produces Lorentz force, and therefore current. Since the sliding contact near the magnet produces more EMF than the other one rotating in a weaker field, we have a current.
When we perform the analysis from the fixed reference frame, the sliding contacts are at rest, so the emf comes only from the axis. Why is this?
I found the summary I made a few years ago, see attachment. I have not seen this homopolar generator configuration anywhere else, so I am probably its inventor. The emf produced is significant, about half of what a Faraday disc the size of the magnets produces. The capacitor is just used to smooth the voltage.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.30, 16:16:49
...
11yrs ago i did this experiment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s56ghlm0oJw
...
This experiment is interesting because, unlike Faraday's disc, the current passes through the diameter of the disc and not just through one radius.
The Lorentz force is therefore equal above and below the centre of the magnets. The Lorentz force does not exert any torque on the magnets. The magnet should therefore slide between the upper and lower contacts. This is certainly what would happen if the upper contact were identical to the lower contact: the magnet would slide between the two plates.
But here the friction at the bottom is much greater than at the top, where the wire touches lightly the magnet, so when the Lorentz force is the same above and below the centre, the magnet is held more at the bottom than at the top, which amounts to a torque that causes it to rotate.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.31, 09:26:50
When we perform the analysis from the fixed reference frame, the sliding contacts are at rest, so the emf comes only from the axis. Why is this?
I don't see it coming from the axis. I see it coming from the two red sections of the simplified inducing part of the ferrous shaft in the image below. Those red lines are effectively within two Faraday discs that have their centres connected. They deliver different values of opposing voltage to the brushes.
It's kind of funny how everyone pretends they are not thinking about the question on everyone's mind.
1)Can we find a setup whereby the spinning magnet-disk generates power from it's own spinning within a 3D space without any brushes or external circuit. This could be true because we know the magnetic field does not spin with the magnet and is stationary with respect to the space it occupies.
2)If #1 is true then the opposite could be true whereby the an object like a spinning magnet-disk could push off the stationary magnetic field producing a reactionless propulsion force.
This is not woo woo and some of the greatest minds have asked these questions. In fact Michael Faraday asked the same questions in his lectures. Faraday theorized that if gravity can act on an object then it seems logical that an object could act on gravity, equal and opposite. However one would have to actually read Faraday's lectures to know this. So this line of reason is quite natural despite what many arm chair critics might say.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.31, 10:47:08
This experiment is interesting because, unlike Faraday's disc, the current passes through the diameter of the disc and not just through one radius.
The Lorentz force is therefore equal above and below the centre of the magnets. The Lorentz force does not exert any torque on the magnets. The magnet should therefore slide between the upper and lower contacts. This is certainly what would happen if the upper contact were identical to the lower contact: the magnet would slide between the two plates.
But here the friction at the bottom is much greater than at the top, where the wire touches lightly the magnet, so when the Lorentz force is the same above and below the centre, the magnet is held more at the bottom than at the top, which amounts to a torque that causes it to rotate.
what was getting me is the wire could come in for contact from any direction and the magnet still moved in the same direction. so i concluded that it wasnt the magnet reacting to field developed by the wire. so now i want to mount the magnet, or a bunch of magnets around a rotor, and have permanent connections to the top and bottom of the magnet(s). will it turn? the rotor i have for this is 1/4in plexy with grphite treated dry bearings. very little resistance there. takes over 14 min to come to a stop from 1100rpm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSTfFIetYPY
tried the simple homopolar idea last night. the aa and aaa batteries i had were not good. will get some fresh ones and try again. also found it challenging to to get it to hang straight up and down via magnet and tip of a drywall screw. have a couple ideas on that.
mags
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.31, 17:59:09
It's kind of funny how everyone pretends they are not thinking about the question on everyone's mind.
1)Can we find a setup whereby the spinning magnet-disk generates power from it's own spinning within a 3D space without any brushes or external circuit. This could be true because we know the magnetic field does not spin with the magnet and is stationary with respect to the space it occupies.
2)If #1 is true then the opposite could be true whereby the an object like a spinning magnet-disk could push off the stationary magnetic field producing a reactionless propulsion force.
This is not woo woo and some of the greatest minds have asked these questions. In fact Michael Faraday asked the same questions in his lectures. Faraday theorized that if gravity can act on an object then it seems logical that an object could act on gravity, equal and opposite. However one would have to actually read Faraday's lectures to know this. So this line of reason is quite natural despite what many arm chair critics might say.
@Allcanadian
Stop being coy. You're correct that it's not woo woo and the way you phrased this I'm quite sure you know exactly what I'm referring to.
Quote from: Smudge on 2026.01.31, 15:16:33
I don't see it coming from the axis. I see it coming from the two red sections of the simplified inducing part of the ferrous shaft in the image below. Those red lines are effectively within two Faraday discs that have their centres connected. They deliver different values of opposing voltage to the brushes.
That's the obvious explanation, but it's not the case. The radius of the axle of the experiment was 1 mm, while the diameter of the magnets was around 5 cm. When I used the same magnet arrangement but with a rotating Faraday disc with the same diameter as the magnets, as already mentioned, I had about twice the voltage as in the current configuration, whereas I should have measured a voltage 25 times higher. The measured voltage in the current configuration is too high to be compatible with the radius of the axle.
The second point I did not mention is that the axle must be ferromagnetic. Aluminium does not work, or rather, what we can say is that the voltage is then too low to be measured. I think the axle must channel the field lines, which then emerge more or less transversely, fhe further away from the tip, the less dense they are.
Quote from: Allcanadian on 2026.01.31, 17:59:09
...
1)Can we find a setup whereby the spinning magnet-disk generates power from it's own spinning within a 3D space without any brushes or external circuit. This could be true because we know the magnetic field does not spin with the magnet and is stationary with respect to the space it occupies.
...
When we say that 'the magnetic field does not spin with the magnet', we need to understand what we are talking about.
The magnetic field does rotate with its source. Proof: when an axially magnetised cylindrical magnet rotates around its diameter, it does induce a current in a coil. The field is rigidly linked to the magnet, at least in the quasi-stationary approximation.
But when the magnet rotates around its axis of magnetic symmetry, the magnetic field remains the same everywhere because any angular position of the magnet produces the same field. This situation is therefore indistinguishable from that of a magnet at rest, within the experimental limits that prevent the detection of the tiny effect of the magnet's rotation adding or subtracting rotational speed to the electron spins when the magnet is viewed as a current loop.
A field can never be taken as a reference frame, as there is nothing to define either an origin position or orthonormal axes, and by definition a field must itself be defined in a reference frame as it depends on it.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2026.01.31, 18:43:42
...
will it turn?
...
I don't fully understand your configuration, but one thing is very simple: nothing will work if everything is covariant.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.01, 09:16:57
That's the obvious explanation, but it's not the case. The radius of the axle of the experiment was 1 mm, while the diameter of the magnets was around 5 cm. When I used the same magnet arrangement but with a rotating Faraday disc with the same diameter as the magnets, as already mentioned, I had about twice the voltage as in the current configuration, whereas I should have measured a voltage 25 times higher. The measured voltage in the current configuration is too high to be compatible with the radius of the axle.
The second point I did not mention is that the axle must be ferromagnetic. Aluminium does not work, or rather, what we can say is that the voltage is then too low to be measured. I think the axle must channel the field lines, which then emerge more or less transversely, fhe further away from the tip, the less dense they are.
You did say the axle was ferromagnetic, and you are right that it channels the field lines. I should also point out that the hole in the magnet seriously affects the field near the magnet, you could demonstrate the magnets repelling ferromagnetic material if you are interested in doing so. The channeling effect will create much greater internal field at your contact points than that applied to your Faraday discs, so I don't accept your 25 times higher statement.
@Smudge
Your argument is plausible. But that would imply that with a ferromagnetic axle of the same diameter as the magnets, we would obtain a voltage greater than that of a copper Faraday disc placed directly in front of the magnets, by more than an order of magnitude.
I find that hard to believe.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.01, 13:44:20
@Smudge
Your argument is plausible. But that would imply that with a ferromagnetic axle of the same diameter as the magnets, we would obtain a voltage greater than that of a copper Faraday disc placed directly in front of the magnets, by more than an order of magnitude.
I find that hard to believe.
I have just knocked up a FEMM simulation using its axisymmetric facility that is true 3D. I think I have roughly got it to your dimensional aspect ratios, but I modelled a 2 inch diameter magnet whereas you used 1 inch. What is perhaps surprising is the huge increase in the field along the axis within the 2mm shaft compared to the field without that shaft there. My positions 1 and 2 roughly correspond to your brush positions, with 1 being 4mm in front of the 2 inch magnet and position 2 is 26mm.
Smudge
@Smudge
Thank you for the simulation. This may be a reason to continue experimenting with 'channelling' field lines.
I also did two variations of this experiment (in addition to the magnet rotating with the axle, which, as expected, made no difference).
One was done by placing the sliding contact against the end of the axle instead of on top of it: no difference.
The other was done with more powerful neodymium magnets, but only 2.8 cm in diameter. The effect was significantly less pronounced.
Increasing the diameter seems to be a key factor in how it works. I suppose this allows the field lines to loop back further from the magnet, thus perhaps extending them further into the axle or making their exit from the axle more abrupt, but I don't see why this would amplify the effect.
The problem is that this is mechanics, and new tests to fully understand the problem would be tedious.
well so far the tests that i have done, it seems that the magnet moves due to the magnetic field produced by the wire contacts to the magnet, as shown in my vid i posted. so far with simple tests.. what had me going was the fact that in that vid, 11 yrs ago, i could bring in the top contact to the magnet on the alum foil surface, at any angle, and the magnet would move in the same direction. so my first test, i have a rotor with 24 1/8 by 1/4 mags alternating polarity, and simply put a 3/4 by 1/8 mag on one of those rotor mags and it stuck good. i used copper wire with power supply at 5v and just touched the new magnet , top and bottom and the rotor moved. so firstly, it is an interesting form of pulse motor that can be made with many magnets with brushes that will turn the rotor. very unique. but, when trying to have light cabling to the magnet, then applying input at the end of the cable, the rotor did not move. then when experimenting with the copper just manually touching the top and bot of the mag, the wire brush moved instead. thus verifying that the mag field of the wire was what the magnet was pushing against to make the rotor turn. so far, as it needs more solid testing.
so, that breakdown so far interferes with my original theory. but, the unusual motoring doing such is different. i would recommend pwm to apply input, as the magnets are very low ohm resistantce as a load. but it will spin. so far it is the wire input to the magnet that gives the magnet its push in a particular direction according to the input polarity.
more to come
mags
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.01.31, 09:26:50
The problem is this: we must obtain the same result when performing the analysis in one reference frame or the other.
When we perform the analysis from the rotating reference frame, we see the sliding contacts rotating, thus cutting the magnetic flux, which produces Lorentz force, and therefore current. Since the sliding contact near the magnet produces more EMF than the other one rotating in a weaker field, we have a current.
When we perform the analysis from the fixed reference frame, the sliding contacts are at rest, so the emf comes only from the axis. Why is this?
I found the summary I made a few years ago, see attachment. I have not seen this homopolar generator configuration anywhere else, so I am probably its inventor. The emf produced is significant, about half of what a Faraday disc the size of the magnets produces. The capacitor is just used to smooth the voltage.
Interesting approach.
What kind of Voltmeter were you using?
And - with what sensitivity?
(e.g. 0.1 millivolts, or what?)
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.02.07, 08:34:33
Interesting approach.
What kind of Voltmeter were you using?
And - with what sensitivity?
(e.g. 0.1 millivolts, or what?)
A simple RMS multimeter was sufficient, as the voltage was several tens of mV despite the poor quality of my setup (see photo).
This experiment is very easy to reproduce, even with an electric drill. All you need is a motor with a ferromagnetic axle that protrudes sufficiently, facing a magnet, and the two test probes of the voltmeter cord to touch the axle.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.07, 11:50:38
A simple RMS multimeter was sufficient, as the voltage was several tens of mV despite the poor quality of my setup (see photo).
This experiment is very easy to reproduce, even with an electric drill. All you need is a motor with a ferromagnetic axle that protrudes sufficiently, facing a magnet, and the two test probes of the voltmeter cord to touch the axle.
Tens of mV is surprising and encouraging!
Approx what rpm?
what kind of bearing did you use at the end of the ferromagnetic rod, near the magnet?
Was anything grounded? or free-floating?
Thanks!
@PhysicsProf
I don't know the speed of the motor, a 'Meccano' motor for young DIY enthusiasts dating from the 1960s. For a small motor, it is very fast, but even when it slows down, the voltage is easy to read.
The conditions were strictly identical to those of a Faraday disc: same magnets, same order of magnitude of rotation speeds, same voltage generation logic: the N/S reversal of the magnets reverses the voltage, the reversal of the direction of rotation reverses the voltage, this eliminates the possibility of artefacts from ground currents, and in any case, due to the nature of the measurement by the isolated battery-powered multimeter, the measurement was floating. And the same order of magnitude of measured voltages.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.08, 09:56:41
@PhysicsProf
I don't know the speed of the motor, a 'Meccano' motor for young DIY enthusiasts dating from the 1960s. For a small motor, it is very fast, but even when it slows down, the voltage is easy to read.
The conditions were strictly identical to those of a Faraday disc: same magnets, same order of magnitude of rotation speeds, same voltage generation logic: the N/S reversal of the magnets reverses the voltage, the reversal of the direction of rotation reverses the voltage, this eliminates the possibility of artefacts from ground currents, and in any case, due to the nature of the measurement by the isolated battery-powered multimeter, the measurement was floating. And the same order of magnitude of measured voltages.
Thank you. Your measurement of tens of mV along the axle is fascinating...
Question - was there a ball-bearing (or what) supporting the ferromagnetic axle NEAR the magnets?
The end was not free, otherwise it would have vibrated too much. I seem to remember that I spun it inside a wheel like this one (insulated and attached to the support):
(https://www.lejouetdurable.com/41351-large_default/meccano-roue-barillet-isolant-6tr-516.jpg)
I'd like to attempt a replication of your device/results of voltage along the axle - that is a unique approach I think. Nice, a bit surprising.
Looking at a detail (below), is the axle electrically connected to the spinning metal disk?
I suppose that would be important.
Is the magnet spinning with the disk, or just the disk spinning?
Also, is there just one ceramic magnet in the shape of an annular ring (like a big washer) - or two magnets?
There is no spinning disc. The black disc on my previous photo was attached to the edge of the black wooden support (the plate to which the sliding contacts are screwed). It is hidden behind the magnets and is insulating, made of a type of Bakelite, except for its central brass cylinder in which the end of the axle spun. There is electrical contact between the axle and this cylinder, but it is not as good as the sliding contacts, so I did not use it.
The magnets can rotate or not, it does not matter. It is easier not to make them rotate, which is the case in the photo.
The block of two magnets comes from a magnetron device. A single magnet is sufficient to observe the effect.
The larger the diameter of the magnets, the greater the effect. Large ferrite magnets are better than smaller but more powerful neodymium magnets.
It is very easy to reproduce the effect; absolutely nothing is critical. One important point, however: the sliding contacts must be on the same side of the magnets (otherwise the currents will oppose each other). Good luck if you try it; It's a guaranteed win.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.02.09, 21:31:00
There is no spinning disc. The black disc on my previous photo was attached to the edge of the black wooden support (the plate to which the sliding contacts are screwed). It is hidden behind the magnets and is insulating, made of a type of Bakelite, except for its central brass cylinder in which the end of the axle spun. There is electrical contact between the axle and this cylinder, but it is not as good as the sliding contacts, so I did not use it.
The magnets can rotate or not, it does not matter. It is easier not to make them rotate, which is the case in the photo.
The block of two magnets comes from a magnetron device. A single magnet is sufficient to observe the effect.
The larger the diameter of the magnets, the greater the effect. Large ferrite magnets are better than smaller but more powerful neodymium magnets.
It is very easy to reproduce the effect; absolutely nothing is critical. One important point, however: the sliding contacts must be on the same side of the magnets (otherwise the currents will oppose each other). Good luck if you try it; It's a guaranteed win.
No spinning disc! another surprise to me, but hey- the proof is in the pudding (experimental observation).
"except for its central brass cylinder in which the end of the axle spun. There is electrical contact between the axle and this cylinder, but it is not as good as the sliding contacts, so I did not use it."
Let me get this straight - is the end of the spinning long-rod just "sitting" loosely inside the brass cylinder? such that there is some friction between the spinning rod and the stationary support- cylinder? and maybe the rod is bouncing around in there a bit? just trying to get this right, as you built it.
(Approximately how much bigger was the cylinder-inside, compared to the spinning rod?)
Thanks again.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.02.10, 00:53:31
No spinning disc! another surprise to me, but hey- the proof is in the pudding (experimental observation).
"except for its central brass cylinder in which the end of the axle spun. There is electrical contact between the axle and this cylinder, but it is not as good as the sliding contacts, so I did not use it."
Let me get this straight - is the end of the spinning long-rod just "sitting" loosely inside the brass cylinder? such that there is some friction between the spinning rod and the stationary support- cylinder? and maybe the rod is bouncing around in there a bit? just trying to get this right, as you built it.
(Approximately how much bigger was the cylinder-inside, compared to the spinning rod?)
Thanks again.
... Pondering ... is the effect due to the rod spinning in the magnetic field?
OR... perhaps (more) due to some reaction between the ferromagnetic spinning rod and the brass cylinder...?
The latter would be more prosaic .. and less interesting to me at least.
Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2026.02.10, 00:53:31
...
Let me get this straight - is the end of the spinning long-rod just "sitting" loosely inside the brass cylinder? such that there is some friction between the spinning rod and the stationary support- cylinder? and maybe the rod is bouncing around in there a bit?
...
Yes, and you need to lubricate it a little. It's just a matter of mechanics. If the shaft is shorter and can rotate without vibrating with the end in the air, there's no need for this part.
I put it there because I had lengthened the shaft with a ferromagnetic rod. Without this extra rod, I didn't need this disc support, but I had less voltage because the shaft was shorter (and therefore less difference in B field level between the two sliding contacts).
The analysis is simpler in the rotating reference frame. If you are fixed to the axle, it is the sliding contacts that you see rotating in the magnet's field => Lorentz force => current, and since the sliding contact furthest from the magnets produces little current, the one near the magnet imposes the current.
The analysis in the fixed reference frame is more complicated. Smudge has proposed an explanation, but for me it would only explain the appearance of a certain voltage, not its level, which is higher than what the cause would give in this explanation. Rotation is surely the key. We have the key, now we need to find the lock: the explanation.
What matters for duplication is not the photo of my setup, but the technical diagram on the left. It is complete, sufficient, and can be reproduced in many different ways.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4898.0;attach=55429)
interesting.. had you tried rods of different metals, like copper, etc.? also, the motor is mechanically connected to the rod and basically electrically connected? if so, could a plastic insulator/coupler be put there between the motor and the rod just to eliminate any other possible inputs?
mags