Relativity and Faraday's Disc Generator; Transformers and Time Delay

[PhysicsProf]

   Been pondering these two topics lately, and perhaps they are related.  Anyway, would welcome comments on these thoughts:

1.  Relativity and Faraday's Disc Generator  
 
   Consider the attached from Wikipedia.  When the disc is rotated, a voltage and current are seen in the meter.  BUT, when the magnet is rotated -- NO voltage appears.  Is relativity violated?
    Fun variation:  apply a voltage to the disc, and it begins to turn -- but Fix the disc and allow the magnets to rotate -- they won't.  (OK -- I haven't actually tried the latter experiment; I have done the former.)

2.  Transformers and Time Delay

  Consider a simple transformer, left.  (Diagram on the right for further discussion perhaps)

When coil I is energized with a current forming a magnetic field B, regions in the core with magnetic permeability mu become oriented in such a way that a magnetic flux forms in the core...  But please note that this takes DELAY TIME (Dt)   to reach coil II.  The changing B in the core generates an E field with in turn drives a current in coil II, and THAT current produces a field which opposes the original B field from I...  but again their is the delay time Dt.  How big is Dt?  depends on the material and the distance; but I don't have numbers for this Delay-time Dt yet.

Now the current applied to coil I is Alternating, AC, such that when the magnetic orientation of the core is "reversing" due to the reaction from coil II, the AC voltage is ALSO reversing, so that the DELAYED return flux from coil II ENHANCES rather than opposes the current.  

Whew!  timing is so important if you want to disappoint Lenz.  Will it work?  don't know.  Should, if one "matches" the frequency of the AC applied to coil I with Dtime appropriately; or put another way, match the half-Period T' of the AC applied to coil 1 with the over-and-back time 2Dt required for the magnetization wave (from coil I to II and back to I).

Is anyone following this?  my thinking is still in flux on these questions. 
Thanks,  Steve

[Magluvin]

Hey Steve

I see you have the multicor transformer pdf also.   Its compliment is the classical flux pdf that I posted for you.

Im still playing with the multicore transformers. They are not straight forward unless all windings are the same wire and the same no. of turns, and like cores. As you change things there are many unexpected results..

In the pic you show above where the sec. gets an additional core, as you load the sec, the primary current will decrease below idle current.   I dont think the article shows an ou device, but it gives seeds to grow on.  ;]

Mags

[PhysicsProf]

Hey Steve

I see you have the multicor transformer pdf also.   Its compliment is the classical flux pdf that I posted for you.

Im still playing with the multicore transformers. They are not straight forward unless all windings are the same wire and the same no. of turns, and like cores. As you change things there are many unexpected results..

In the pic you show above where the sec. gets an additional core, as you load the sec, the primary current will decrease below idle current.   I dont think the article shows an ou device, but it gives seeds to grow on.  ;]

Mags

Yes -- the PDF file from which those Xformers were extracted is in the first post, here:  http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=6446.0.   No name attached, but Grumpy made the posting -- thanks to Grumpy and all for this.

Interesting read, and your comments very interesting Mags.  If you have detailed results to post, pls do. 
What kind of AC power supply are you using?  variac + step-down, or what?  And just how you go about doing measurements would be welcomed also.

Are you doing TWO or MORE toroids?  have you seen any OU effects?

[BEP]

When the disc is rotated, a voltage and current are seen in the meter.  BUT, when the magnet is rotated -- NO voltage appears.  Is relativity violated?

Fun variation:  apply a voltage to the disc, and it begins to turn -- but Fix the disc and allow the magnets to rotate -- they won't.  (OK -- I haven't actually tried the latter experiment; I have done the former.)

IMO...

Relativity violated? No. The reason is that the magnetic flux -of- the magnet is not 'of' the magnet. All magnetic flux is a property of space not a property of a magnetic dipole. Such a dipole only creates/defines a field made up of that flux.

In short, the magnetic field B has no physical connection to the magnet.

Fix the disc and allow the magnet to rotate? Indeed the magnet will not turn - for the same reason I stated above.

The fun part is figuring what is fighting the back torque of that fixed disk. Each force is met with an equal and opposite force? Ok, where is it here?

On the transformers....

I think you will find that instantaneous action at a distance will seem to show up. When it comes to induction the 'field lines' are already connected before you start (being a property of space and all). The only thing I have found out of kilter is the phase relationship between primary and secondary isn't always what the books state.

[EMdevices]

Professor,   what your describing there is no different than resonance on a transmission line.  A signal goes out on the line, reflects, and comes back in phase to add up with the next wave.   This is not an OU phenomena but it can be a high Q receiver that can "bring in and lead out" more energy.   LOL            (I'm poking fun at Tesung and his "bring in and lead out" vocabulary)


By the way, I built one of those simple Homopolar motors and they work very nicely.  The second posting mentions a magnet, but this works with an electromagnet as well. I like Tesla's improvement on this concept, by tying two rotors with a metallic belt, so that the brushes can be on the shafts and perform better than one on the periphery and one on the shaft.

[EMdevices]

The fun part is figuring what is fighting the back torque of that fixed disk. Each force is met with an equal and opposite force? Ok, where is it here?

WW,  the back torque is on the rest of the circuit.  Just follow the magnetic "lines of force"      and the current past the brushes, and do the cross product and you will realize that's where the back torque is realized.  

Newtons 3rd law is not broken in this case.  

EM


PS.  Here's something wild,  assume the electrical circuit is completed through capacitance from the disk edge to a center conductor. Where is the back torque than?    

Or have two disks like in the picture below.  They are magnetized and opposing, so the flux flows out radially.  When a battery is connected to the center of the disks, charges will redistribute and a current will flow briefly through the capacitance between them.   Well, in this case it appears Newton's 3rd law might not be holding and we have to look to the fields, it's ExB baby !   hint hint

[Magluvin]

Im using a Soundstream class a 100 II (early 90's) car audio amp for input, driven via pc signal generator.

Here is 1 vid I did a bit ago.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EViIfsK5xjs   
The light bulb in the vid had no markings on it, but compared well to a 14v bulb.
Still have a lot more to do in that area. Wish I had all my time to devote to these things.  ;]

Something happened to the amp, some back feed from the experiments or just part failure. Troubleshooting it this weekend.

These past weeks Ive been out of it with a combo ear ache and tooth.  Talk about the worst kinds of pain to have at once. =o

I think these multi core ideas include the Gabriel device, and the same guidelines should apply as to how the fields propagate through the cores to cut the secondary. And how the secondaries current flow affects the primary current flow.

Some definitions of how closed core(or gapped)transformers work make me laugh.  The secondary doesnt have feelers out there to detect if field change is in the core. The Classical flux pdf makes a lot of sense. Now apply that theory to multi core or Gabriels shell, and how things work seem much clearer,

In Gabriels device, I believe the best results will come using the best inner core that can be had. A core that can accept a lot of flux before saturating, primary and secondary at the same time. Enough so the sec fields never get to breach the shell to cut the primary causing the primary inductance to drop and draw more from the input, as does a conventional transformer.  ;]

Ok  I gota run to the store to get food for kitty and spend some time on the bench. 

Mags

[BEP]

WW,  the back torque is on the rest of the circuit.  Just follow the magnetic "lines of force"      and the current past the brushes, and do the cross product and you will realize that's where the back torque is realized.  

Newtons 3rd law is not broken in this case.  

So you think the power supply and it's wires and brushes will rotate around the fixed disk?

Not unless the entire circuit beyond the brushes to the power supply are inside the same magnetic fields as the disk.

Not the entire circuit...... let us say 'one side of that external circuit'.

If both sides were inside the same field the net torque would be zero.

I don't have my magnetic shield force field running today so I must try it later.

[EMdevices]

WW,  yes the outside circuit will turn in the opposite direction if not fixed.  The same magnetic flux that goes through the disk intercepts the outside electrical circuit and the currents which now flow in opposite direction and this produces a force opposite to the one produced in the disk.   It's important to realize that the flux is a closed loop and so is the electrical circuit, so they intersect in two areas, 1) in the disk producing forces one way, and 2) in the outside circuit producing forces the other way, and so the forces are opposite and equal and balance out.  

That's why I brought up the interesting scenario where the electric circuit involves capacitance and there is no outside circuit conductor to exhibit a force, so where is the back torque then?   For a brief moment when the electric fields build up there appears to be a violation of newtons 3rd law, but this illustrates that fields carry momentum.   Dr Feynman's  lectures are excellent on these topics, as are many other electrodynamic books.  It is possible to push against the "aether" or space-time or vacuum or whatever you want to call it.    


I mentioned E X B, and for those in the know, this is Poynting's vector (it's actually defined as E X H) and shows the direction of energy flow.  In the two disk illustration,  E X B produces a vector in the opposite direction to the force in the rotor.  So are there angular waves that emanate from this disk setup that carry the missing angular momentum?  What kind of waves? can these be similar to gravity waves? ... all rhetorical    

[exnihiloest]

  Been pondering these two topics lately, and perhaps they are related.  Anyway, would welcome comments on these thoughts:

1.  Relativity and Faraday's Disc Generator  
 
   Consider the attached from Wikipedia.  When the disc is rotated, a voltage and current are seen in the meter.  BUT, when the magnet is rotated -- NO voltage appears.  Is relativity violated?
...

Why relativity would be violated?
The relative speed to be considered is that one of the moving charges in the disk relative to the part of the circuit at rest. It is the same and one in both cases.

The magnet being rotating or not, it rotates around its axis of magnetic symmetry, so the magnetic field is the same. The question of a speed relative to the magnetic field or to the source of the field, which induces the false idea of violation, is irrelevant.

[exnihiloest]

...
I mentioned E X B, and for those in the know, this is Poynting's vector (it's actually defined as E X H) and shows the direction of energy flow.  In the two disk illustration,  E X B produces a vector in the opposite direction to the force in the rotor.  So are there angular waves that emanate from this disk setup that carry the missing angular momentum?  What kind of waves? can these be similar to gravity waves? ... all rhetorical    
...

The Poynting's vector doesn't say any thing on the energy flow outside the case of electromagnetic waves.

"This practically limits Poynting's theorem in this form to fields in vacuum. A generalization to dispersive materials is possible under certain circumstances at the cost of additional terms and the loss of their clear physical interpretation" (from wikipedia).

[BEP]

WW,  yes the outside circuit will turn in the opposite direction if not fixed.

A plus and minus lead exits the motor/generator to the power supply/load. Both pass through the same magnetic field.

Interesting.... In the case of the generator the net torque applied outside of the disc would be zero.
In the case of the motor...... wait a minute.

My confusion is due to the generated magnetic field in both cases of current flow.

I need to repeat the experiment where there was no induced motion to the supply when the disk was fixed. I'm not sure I still have the device. It has been quite a while.

[EMdevices]

The Poynting's vector doesn't say any thing on the energy flow outside the case of electromagnetic waves.

I agree, and in this case we have waves generated only while the capacitor charges up and we have time varying electric fields and their associated magnetic fields in the static B field of the magnets.  After that short time period, things settle down to a static case.

[PhysicsProf]

  Thanks for the comments.  More puzzlings:

1.  OK, take rotational motion out of it (for which special relativity has a difficult time any, since this is accelerated motion).  That is, we'll take rotation out of the "Faraday homopolar disc generator".

1b.  Consider a flat conductor strip moving at speed v through a magnetic field B.  A voltage will be detected across the strip at right angles to the motion, from qV X B, and this is SIMILAR to the Hall effect, except that one does not apply a current I, rather one moves the conductor strip with velocity v.  Sort of a combination of Faradays Disc and the Hall effect. In the attached, the black arrow represents the velocity vector v of the moving strip.  Let's attach the DMM to the moving strip to measure V-H; that it is co-moving should not matter in this case.  (IF it does matter, why is that?)

2.  Now, let the conductor strip be stationary and move the magnets in the opposite direction.  Will there still appear a voltage V-H?
If not, it appears that special relativity is violated, for one could tell which is MOVING via this experiment.  I think that a voltage V-H will appear in both cases, even with the DMM co-moving with the strip.

3.  Other topic -- is the Gabriel device a type of Bi-Toroid Transformer (BTT)??  seems to me it is.
3b.  Does anyone have a Gabriel or BTT that is producing OU -- if so, what are the NUMBERS and how measured?

[Grumpy]

It's just a guess, but I think that the Faraday Homopolar Generator demonstrates a method of very strong spin coupling between a moving conductor and a static magnetic field, resulting in a large current with little voltage.

[Magluvin]

It's just a guess, but I think that the Faraday Homopolar Generator demonstrates a method of very strong spin coupling between a moving conductor and a static magnetic field, resulting in a large current with little voltage.

Most likely the voltage is low because the resistance from the center of the disk to the outer egde is very low. So it would have to be used as a current source i might think, like back in school.  ;]

Ive been pondering a way to get around this.  2 ring magnets with same poles forced together, same facing out.  Now wind the rings as a toroid, making a standard axle ac brush system and give it a whirl.  ;]
One side of the rings will cause current to flow outward in the winding and one side will cause current inward in the winding. Now we have higher voltage output(predictable) and no outer, high current brush to deal with.

There may be opposing interference where the windings cross the sandwich edges, but something can be done to shield those areas and give those fields a path home and away from the windings.  ;]

Dass wot me tinks.  ;]

Mags

[Grumpy]

It seems like this configuration pretty much ignores charge, and favors current.

Maybe there is some way to use an electrostatic field to boost the charge/voltage.

[exnihiloest]

...
1b.  Consider a flat conductor strip moving at speed v through a magnetic field B.  A voltage will be detected across the strip at right angles to the motion, from qV X B
...

In which reference frame? Not in the reference frame of the moving conductor because in that frame, V=0 and so is F=q.VxB. For this reason a voltmeter connected to the conductor and moving with it, will show no voltage.
The force is seen only by an observer in a reference frame in which the conductor moves at speed V.

2.  Now, let the conductor strip be stationary and move the magnets in the opposite direction.  Will there still appear a voltage V-H?

There is no voltage as well as in the first case (when we took the viewpoint of the moving conductor) and for the same reason: V=0, so F=0 whatever B.

A voltage appears only in a reference frame in which the conductor is moving. This explains why, in order to get a current in the Faraday disk, there must be a circuit in two parts: a first part at rest and a second part moving relative to the first one, in the magnetic field. The part at rest see the voltage at the terminals of the other part which is moving relative to it, and, as the two parts are connected each another through sliding contacts, a current flows.
This is basic relativity. The relative speed to be considered is not relative to the magnets whose the role is only to create the field, and a field is just a characterisation of local conditions in space to avoid to consider the sources (and consequently their speed).



Naturally if you teaches postgraduate students, one of them will surely ask: an electron flying in a magnetic field is deviated by a force F=q.VxB. An observer seing the flying electron, observes this deviation. Then how the electron, from its own referential where V=0, can feel the force and be deviated?
I guess that the answer can interest every one here, so here it is.
Relativity will once again gives the answer. The magnetic field B is the field viewed in the reference frame of the observer. We must apply the Lorentz transform of this magnetic field to obtain the field that the electron sees in its own referential. The Lorentz transform of a magnetic field gives an electric field.
In brief, the observer see a force F=q.VxB acting onto the electron moving in a magnetic field B at speed V. The electron doesn't see this force because V=0 in its own frame, but instead it sees a transversal electric field which is the Lorentz transform of the magnetic field. Naturally the two fields give the same force, it is just two points of view of the same physical phenomenon.
This topic is stimulating and reveals the power of relativity which perfectly fits the experimental observations. Pure beauty. Thanks for having evoked it. I only regret that there is no paradox that could lead us to new things... 

[PhysicsProf]

Let's focus just on case 1 -- a conducting strip moving in a magnetic field (with co-moving DMM, and let us also consider DMM fixed in the lab frame):

In which reference frame? Not in the reference frame of the moving conductor because in that frame, V=0 and so is F=q.VxB. For this reason a voltmeter connected to the conductor and moving with it, will show no voltage.
The force is seen only by an observer in a reference frame in which the conductor moves at speed V.

There is no voltage as well as in the first case (when we took the viewpoint of the moving conductor) and for the same reason: V=0, so F=0 whatever B.
[snip for brevity]
This topic is stimulating and reveals the power of relativity which perfectly fits the experimental observations. Pure beauty. Thanks for having evoked it. I only regret that there is no paradox that could lead us to new things... 

What experimental observations?  Has this experiment been done, actually?  It is not enough to SUPPOSE what would happen based on theory -- one must actually do experiments in order to cite "experimental observations."

PS --The conductor is moving in the lab frame, and in the frame of the magnets (fixed in the lab frame in case 1).
Are you saying that the DMM will show a voltage if fixed in the lab frame, but not show a voltage if co-moving with the strip?
And do you have actual experiments to back your views up?

[Grumpy]

I think Jorge Guala-Valverde performed these experiments (he died in 2009...)

http://www.andrijar.com/homavi/index.html



EDIT: see AJP-Homopolar.pdf for comparison of several experiments

[PhysicsProf]

You're a good man, Grumpy.  I'll review these tomorrow (approaching midnight here now)

I like EXPERIMENTS!

[exnihiloest]

Let's focus just on case 1 -- a conducting strip moving in a magnetic field (with co-moving DMM, and let us also consider DMM fixed in the lab frame):

What experimental observations?  Has this experiment been done, actually?  It is not enough to SUPPOSE what would happen based on theory -- one must actually do experiments in order to cite "experimental observations."

PS --The conductor is moving in the lab frame, and in the frame of the magnets (fixed in the lab frame in case 1).
Are you saying that the DMM will show a voltage if fixed in the lab frame, but not show a voltage if co-moving with the strip?
And do you have actual experiments to back your views up?

It is what I say, it is what experiments show, and it is what relativity says, provided that the conductor moves in a uniform magnetic field.
I made myself the following experiment. I have connected a capacitor between the center and the rim of a Faraday disk and let rotate the disk with the capacitor. After a while, when still rotating, I disconnected the capacitor which is (supposedly) charged. After stopping the disk, I measured the capacitor voltage: 0v! The capacitor doesn't charge because it sees no voltage from its own reference frame.
The voltage is observed only from a frame at rest in a frame moving relative to the first one (and of course, vice versa). The frame of the magnets plays no role, a magnet is just creating the field, i.e. the local space conditions in which the conductor moves.

[EMdevices]

Most physics texts have an illustration similar to the one I included at the bottom.

The setup is pretty simple, a conductor rod moving in a uniform magnetic field and contacting conductive rails.   They use this to demonstrate how induction can be understood using the Lorentz force, and they tie it to Faraday's law by noticing the Area is changing as the bar moves, so the flux increases, since flux is B times A, and B is uniform.  Pretty basic straight forward stuff, I'm sure you've seen it before.

But let's talk about the OBSERVATION OF A FORCE ON THE CHARGES.

Exnihiloest is correct in stating that a voltmeter will not show a voltage if moving with the bar.  However,  this does not mean there is no force on the charges in the conductor !   The problem is our instrument.  A force exists weather we observe it or not.   What happens is that the instrument and it's connecting wires get effected as well, if moving, and there is no voltage difference around the circuit loop so a voltmeter will not show a voltage potential, but there most certainly is a polarization of the rails since a stationary voltmeter shows us this fact. 

EM 

[Grumpy]

Moving the volt meter with the bar will always induce conflicting currents, which cancel out.  You have a force folded back against itself.

To get around this problem and Lenz's Law, you need a force like gravity which acts in one direction, like a push or pull.

[PhysicsProf]

 I've been working also on the Bi-toroid transformer (BTT) approach, and in particular, the Gabriel Device.  Big announcement today:

RE:
It look like I have some good news...
Test was with amplifier, at 24 Volts input.
Observation:
1) It seems the output power depend directly of the input current...
2) The secondary current seems to be constant at all load...
3) The best result was when I don't saturate the inner, (inner was at more or less 1 Tesla)...
4) Two test was made: one with 100 Hz and another with 250 Hz...
5) At 100 Hz the output the bulb more brighter than input bulb.
6) At 250 Hz the input bulb was off but the output was gloomy.
7) If I up frequency the output become darker.
8 ) It seems to have an asymmetric, unproportional current between input and output...
9) Traditional transformer windings ratio doesn't work here, 12V 100 turns will not turns into 24V 200 turns for example !!!

Hypothesis:

1) I think is better to not saturate the inner.
2) To increase output with no input, I think to wind more turns at secondary OR
3) The FE effect is not related to Heins effect but rather a phase difference between primary and secondary, more the shell is thick more you have phase difference, at 90° you can put any load you want the input will remain zero..
4) OR both phenomena described above...

Now Photos !!!

Congratulations! I stand behind you.  WAY behind you in this Xformer development (but see photo of my electronics bench this morning -- at least I'm working on it, climbing the learning curve).

Mavendex says it's a "winner", and I think he's right... but needs QUANTITATIVE measurements ASAP.

QUESTION:  what do you fellows think is the BEST way to make quantitative measurements of Power-in and Power-Out, for this device?