I have decided to reactivate this bench. Over the last two years I have looked at many texts dealing with the derivation of our electromagnetic laws and in particular those that use as a starting point the socalled hidden momentum or electrokinetic momentum of a point charge within a magnetic vector potential. In a nutshell this states that an electron of charge e within a vector potential A (bold character represents a vector) has a hidden (i.e. nonmechanical, not related to velocity) momentum eA. To many schooled in classical mechanics the idea of a body possessing momentum that is not related to its velocity is hard to grasp. However it should be realized that electrodynamic or electrokinetic forces are transmitted to a body via photons or subphotons, and these invisible particles travelling at light velocity do carry momentum. Thus the socalled hidden momentum could arise from some form of supplied momentum, supplied by interaction with those invisible space particles.
The upshot of this momentum approach is the derivation of our three wellknown classical forces, (a) the Coulomb force expressed by the electric field E=grad(phi) where phi is the potential from nearby charges, (b) transformer induction expressed as volts per turn V=d(Phi)/dt where Phi is the magnetic flux enclosed by the turn and (c) motional or fluxcutting induction expressed as E=vXB , this latter being taught by the use of Fleming’s LH and RH rules. But the approach also brings up a third form of induction (d), an electric field that is the gradient of a scalar potential formed from the product of the tangential component of A along the velocity direction, expressed as E_{A}=grad_{A}(v.A) but with some components removed. This restriction is usually expressed by stating where the gradient operates on A only and not on v (hence the subscript _{A} in that formula). What those authors then missed is a rather important aspect of this new induction. All text books will tell you that the closed line integral of something that is the gradient of a scalar is zero, and it is then assumed that this applies to the new term, and that says it is impossible to induce a voltage into a closed circuit and the Marinov generator will not work. The books then go on to say that the closed line integral of any E field can have only two possible voltage values, either (a) equal to the rate of change of magnetic flux passing through that closed line or (b) zero if there is no enclosed magnetic flux or if the flux is constant.
I have looked carefully at the derivations by examining every component of the vector identities to see which components of E_{A}=grad_{A}(v.A) have to be discarded. This reveals that voltage can be induced into a closed circuit. It is possible to have electrons travelling at a trivial velocity (e.g. drift velocity within a conductor) over part of the loop and at high velocity (e.g. carried in a slipring) over the remaining part of the loop, and then it is possible for voltage to be induced into that closed circuit. Of course it requires a nonuniform A field to be present, such as that presented by the magnets in the Marinov generator. Using this new induction term the Marinov generator will work.
As this is something that defies our classically taught electrodynamics I think it important to prove or disprove the existence of this new term. It should be possible to create an experiment that produces up to 100mV DC, not the 3mV of my earlier work with BGB. The downside of the Marinov generator is its low voltage, if it really works it is a low voltage high current machine. The upside is that it should be overunity, its power is not taken from the drive shafts but comes from the quantum dynamos (the electron circulations) within the magnets. It seems possible to combine an OU Marinov generator mechanically driven by, and electrically connected to, a nonOU homopolar motor, perhaps using rolling contacts to avoid brush friction, resulting in a free running machine. (Edit minor changes)
Smudge
