Do permanent magnets " DO " work?

[szaxx]

Placing a strong cylindrical neo magnet on a vice and using test probes from a millivolt meter, one central and skimming the other around the edge a voltage is generated. Polarity dependant upon the direction.
The only motion provided by brushing the edge does generate power.
Simple test to perform.

[Grumpy]

author=Grumpy link=topic=3333.msg57159#msg57159 date=1472654371]

Grumpy
I am afraid that is not correct,and the reason that the homopolars workings are not yet fully understood by many.
This is why you must see the external circuit as the stator of the system,and there need only be motion between the conductor and stator
of the system in order for the production of power,whether it is the conductor rotating,or the stator that is rotating around a fixed  conductor.

As stated above,there need be no motion between the conductor(disc) and force(magnetic field),but only motion between the disc and
external circuit.

This is false.  Motion between two conductors will not induce a current to flow in one or the other.  If this was the case, every spinning machine would be a generator.
A homopolor generator does not work without a source of force (or two forces) and relative motion between at least one force and the conductor being induced.

Are you ignoring the fact that a magnet has to be there?  When the disc is rotating with the magnet, the force does not move with it.

[TinMan]

Placing a strong cylindrical neo magnet on a vice and using test probes from a millivolt meter, one central and skimming the other around the edge a voltage is generated. Polarity dependant upon the direction.
The only motion provided by brushing the edge does generate power.
Simple test to perform.

That is correct szaxx--there need be no motion between the copper disc and magnetic field in order to generate power from the homo/unipolar generator.
There need only be motion between the external circuit(including brushes),and the copper disc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE


Brad

[TinMan]

Below is a quick sketch of a twin disc homopolar generator.
The two half shafts are electrically isolated from one another,and the two halves are bolted together by way of insulating nylon disc's,to form one complete rotating assembly.

The magnets are orientated so as a series connection may be made between the two copper disc when rotating in one direction. So one disc will show a positive polarity on the outer edge of one disc,and the other will show a negative polarity on the outer edge of the other disc.

If brushes A and B-along with the bridging wire remain stationary while the disc/magnet assembly rotate,a voltage will be produced across R1
If brushes A and B-along with the bridging wire rotate with the disc/magnet assembly,no voltage will be produced across R1

If i am incorrect,then we have a means of producing great amounts of power,without any back torque being applied to the prime mover. We could also move shaft brushes 1 and 2 to the end/center of each half shaft,so as very little drag at high RPM would be placed on the rotating shaft assembly.


Brad

[TinMan]

This is false.  Motion between two conductors will not induce a current to flow in one or the other.  If this was the case, every spinning machine would be a generator.
A homopolor generator does not work without a source of force (or two forces) and relative motion between at least one force and the conductor being induced.

Are you ignoring the fact that a magnet has to be there?  When the disc is rotating with the magnet, the force does not move with it.

No,i am not ignoring the fact that the magnet has to be there.
What i am saying,is that there dose not have to be motion between the magnet(force) and the copper disc.
There need only be motion between the copper disc,and external circuit,as the external circuit(including brushes)is acting as the stater of the device.

Fact is,the copper disc it self dose not have to be there if the magnet has a conductive coating on it.
The brushes will then ride on the conductive coating of the magnet,and power will still be produced.
This also verifies that there need be no motion between the magnetic field and conductor,but only between the conductor and external circuit.


Brad

[Grumpy]

If motion between the external circuit and the disk is all that is required to induce a current, then you could rotate a loop of wire with a bulb attached around the disk/magnet and light the bulb.  Is that what you are saying?

Do you realize that the rotating external circuit in this case, and in szaxx's test, is rotating in the magnetic field of the magnet? 
All this proves is that moving a conductor in a magnetic field induce a current.
You just interchanged the disk with the external circuit.

[TinMan]

If motion between the external circuit and the disk is all that is required to induce a current, then you could rotate a loop of wire with a bulb attached around the disk/magnet and light the bulb.  Is that what you are saying?

Yes,if the voltage produced was high enough,and that loop included the conductive disc.

Do you realize that the rotating external circuit in this case, and in szaxx's test, is rotating in the magnetic field of the magnet? 
All this proves is that moving a conductor in a magnetic field induce a current.
You just interchanged the disk with the external circuit.

Is that not what i have been saying in my past few post's ?,and that the external circuit must be seen as the stator of the generator as a whole.

Now that you agree with that,then it is time to think about how the magnetic field !flows! through the disc,and external circuit-the direction of the force applied to both the disc and external circuit.

Did you take note of the sketch i provided in my last post,and my theory on what would happen in both cases--what are your thoughts on that?


Brad

[Grumpy]

Regarding the sketch, the rotation is in the same direction for each half, so I would expect the back-torque to be doubled, not eliminated.

If you want to eliminate the back-torque, find a way to eliminate the torque applied to the disk 

[TinMan]

Regarding the sketch, the rotation is in the same direction for each half, so I would expect the back-torque to be doubled, not eliminated.

If you want to eliminate the back-torque, find a way to eliminate the torque applied to the disk 

Regarding my sketch
If brushes A ,B and the bridging wire rotated with the disc's/shaft assembly,would a voltage develop across R1 ?,where R1 and it's external circuit(brushes and wires) remain stationary.


Brad

[JimBoot]

This looks like mags doing work. Well something is. http://youtu.be/0ZrcleswIbM

[ion]

This looks like mags doing work. Well something is. http://youtu.be/0ZrcleswIbM

Floor outlets may be doing the work.

If you look very closely at the video, before the device is rolled in, you will see three floor outlets. The middle one has been disguised to match the floor.

He also initially plugs the device into another (lower right)  floor outlet to "start it up" which should be a giveaway that there are indeed floor outlets available.

All that fiddling behind the device is "plugging it in". Tightening the wheels is part of the ruse. If you capture a high res video, it will be even clearer. Notice at the end of the video they are very careful not to stray too far from the floor outlet and try to keep it concealed.

My guess FWIW

There is much trickery in the free energy business world. Beware and hold on to your wallet.

[ion]

Here is a better shot with perspective line. The middle floor outlet can be seen to fall right on the line.

[TinMan]

Here is a better shot with perspective line. The middle floor outlet can be seen to fall right on the line.

It also dose not look like that it is running at the 1500RPM as stated by the guru.


Brad

[TinMan]

Just a little experiment i tried while half way through this generator build.
P/in is very low-around 4VRMS across the coil,that has a resistance of 35.5 ohms
Primary and secondary coil inductance is 638mH without PM in place,and 523 with PM in place.

By placing that strong neo in the center of what might as well be a toroid core,i would have thought that
1-the core would have come to near saturation,and the P/out would have dropped to near 0,and
2-we would have seen a large biasing offset on the secondarys output.
Seems i was wrong on both accounts.

As stated in the video,no P/in measurements are noted here,as this was just to show the effect the PM had on the output.
As the inductance decreases when the PM is in play,i would guess that the P/in would go up?.

Anyway,just thought i would throw this in here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIAQvvfAE0M


Brad

[Smudge]

By placing that strong neo in the center of what might as well be a toroid core,i would have thought that
1-the core would have come to near saturation,and the P/out would have dropped to near 0,and
2-we would have seen a large biasing offset on the secondarys output.
Seems i was wrong on both accounts.

A PM bias on the core cannot produce a DC offset on the voltage waveform.  The output voltage comes from the changing field, not the actual value of the field.

It strikes me that you have a very poor transformer because some of the generated flux gets shunted away by the circular pole pieces.  These magnetic shunts have a small cross section and will easily get saturated by the presence of the PM.  So IMO the reason the output voltage goes up is because the magnet saturates the shunts so that they are less effective.

Smudge

[ion]

Brad

I can't tell from the video if your cores are welded together or epoxied, or whether there are shunts in place
but it seems what you have initially is a very poorly coupled inductor pair, below the dignity of the name transformer. It has an initial k of around 0.01 Almost anything you do will improve the coupling and up the k factor.

Even with the PM, the k only improves to about 0.1, still way below what a good transformer would do.

You can take any poorly coupled transformer, add more iron and up the coupling efficiency, but you could not call that a "Magnetic Power Amplifier" rather it would be just a coupling  efficiency improvement not an amplification of power.

Your signal generator supplies the initial power, and most of it is lost in the poor coupling, there is no net amplification of power, and the power out does not even come close to the power in.

When starting with such a crippled "transformer" and then calling it a "Magnetic Power Amplifier" in your title is questionable although it may serve other purposes for you.

Of course we could get lost arguing semantics, but the language of engineering and science is fairly clear as to what constitutes a "power amplification".

When you get the k factor over 1.0 then you might call it an amplifier.

Might be interesting to try a bar of iron held tightly in exactly the same position as the magnet and see what you get.

As an example say you had a  fluid flow transmission torque converter, but the turbine input blades are tilted  such that all the power input is lost in sloshing oil around, the force of which  never makes it to the output turbine blade. Now change the pitch of the driving turbine so that it is directed squarely at the output turbine blade. Now the coupling efficiency has improved many fold, but it is still the engine that supplies the power.

The analogue of an electrical transformer is a transmission or gear ratio in mechanics, and not much more.

I think it would be interesting to take electronic components and compare them to mechanical components going deeper into the equivalents of for example in a transformer the leakage inductance, core loss, winding loss etc.

Regards ION