Faraday Disc 2.0

[bistander]

Conductive path

Bistander,

I really have no idea why you keep bringing Voltage versus Current in our conversation here, if you look at my post (the one you quoted) I have not mention current there at all.

...

Ufo,

It is not current I'm calling you on, it is your statement that it is all about the conductive path (between brushes on the homopolar armature disc). It is not. Video part 2 demonstrates this. You are taking the easy way out believing that and missing the really interesting behavior. But believe what you want.

bi

[lotec]

Sorry to but in.

Is the non conducting part of the disk polarized?

Concerning trying to take measurements on what might be considered the non conducting part of the disk, of an operational machine, at any given point of time might have been problematic. If the measuring device were to draw any current at all no matter how small, they may have considered that they were creating a conductive pathway, therefore creating another conductor, therefore causing induction to occur at that part of the disk, when before it was not occurring. What a dilemma.

Is there some doubt now when before there might have been none? Can this paradox be directly transposed over to all electrical generators?

Was this the reason for the capacitor experiment? What a head scratcher.

It reminds me of Einstein and Borg, Einstein said you could measure or analyze certain quantum phenomena without changing it, and Borg said you couldn't.

P.S. When I said that that I considered the non conducting parts of the disk not particularly relevant, I didn't mean they were not necessary. That I don't know.

Edit///////////
Got it wrong again
If the conductive path between the brushes makes up the conductor then scenario where magnet and brushes stay still and the plate rotates, there would be no induction, but there is.

Edit2/////////
More apologies again
Thats two penalties in one game, time for me to hit the showers, but I will be following with interest.

[Ufopolitics]

Ufo,

It is not current I'm calling you on, it is your statement that it is all about the conductive path (between brushes on the homopolar armature disc). It is not. Video part 2 demonstrates this. You are taking the easy way out believing that and missing the really interesting behavior. But believe what you want.

bi

Hello Bistander,

So, according to your above conclusions...it is NOT about the DIRECT conductive path between the two brushes...right so far?

Then you are more likely to incline towards second video with capacitor, or Two Metal Ring Cylinders, one on the Inner part as the other ring cylinder on the outer end with an insulator (dielectric) in between...which shows a voltage gain at both plates when the whole thing is rotated...

What I am trying to do...is to interpret your way to see the actual circuit when we have the FULL Copper DISC back as the original machine is configured.

Therefore, I believe you are seeing on the FULL DISC TWO RINGS, one inner and other on the outer circumference as a trace that BOTH BRUSHES leave on the copper disc riding areas when rotating. This way to imagine the circuit on the full copper Disc is the closest one to the Capacitor arrangement on the 2nd video.

And please do not take me wrong...I am just trying to visualize what you are inclined towards based on your acquired knowledge...as I could be wrong as well...

Concluding that no matter who's wrong or who's right...it will ALL BE DONE in order to bring LIGHT to this whole enigma...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Circuit

...

What I am trying to do...is to interpret your way to see the actual circuit when we have the FULL Copper DISC back as the original machine is configured.

Therefore, I believe you are seeing on the FULL DISC TWO RINGS, one inner and other on the outer circumference as a trace that BOTH BRUSHES leave on the copper disc riding areas when rotating. This way to imagine the circuit on the full copper Disc is the closest one to the Capacitor arrangement on the 2nd video.

Hi Ufo,

Well, kind of. But what I believe is demonstrated is that a "circuit" is not necessary for induction to take place. Would not there be an induced voltage between the inner and outer diameters of the disc even if you removed the brushes completely?

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Only MORE Experimenting will get Us to the TRUTH...

Hello,

There is ONLY ONE WAY to approach to the TRUTH...and that is through EXPERIMENTING and TESTING.

I am personally too busy to start another build at this time...but I will propose some configurations to be tested:

1- Build an Iron Ring Electromagnet, with fine wire in order that it could generate a field without getting too hot, nor spending too much energy. This coil does NOT need to rotate, since we all know by now...that field does not move nor induces nada when rotating magnet.

2-Build a Full Copper Disc of the same diameter as Ring electromagnet, make it with easy R&I center bolted on bushing to shaft and bearings, and motor to spin it.

3- Build same diameter Copper Disc BUT just having two actual rings of copper, one outer, one inner with a gaped insulation between both rings where BRUSHES will ride on them both. This two rings could be easily build on a fiberglass base which bolts on to same bushing-shaft set as FULL Disc does.

Now simply maintain same speed (RPM's) for both discs tests, as supplying EXACTLY the same Voltage and Current to electromagnet, while scoping Max V Output from brushes.

Results, Judgement and following development:

1-If Full Disc generates HIGHER Voltage than Two Rings Disc with insulation between, then we know it is ALL ABOUT the direct conductive path between brushes what causes HIGHER Induction. Then we could ADD more brushes and set them in series ALL around FULL DISC, having the two end as the terminals to scope, this should increase output, since we will have several more conductive paths in series.

2-If the opposite takes place, meaning, Two Ring Disc produces Higher V than Full Disc...then it is ALL ABOUT CONCENTRIC RINGS that of course will be MUCH BIGGER Induced V if we have METAL CYLINDERS that run through whole electromagnet height INSTEAD OF FLAT RINGS.

3- Now, if BOTH RESULTS ARE EQUAL, IDENTICAL (Possibility which I strongly DOUBT), then we are back to the the start...and definitively need to keep going deeper into more possibilities and different set up.


This is just a step forward to start disguising Machine "Modum Operandi"...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hi Ufo,

Well, kind of.

Great Bistander!!!...So, means my analysis related to your interpretation was pretty good right?

But what I believe is demonstrated is that a "circuit" is not necessary for induction to take place.

Of course a circuit would be necessary IF, we are planning to take this whole principle into a REAL MACHINE DEVELOPMENT, where its Output would be completely about USABLE ENERGY!!

Prior you set my Home Generator example, not loaded and still reading a voltage straight off output coils...right?...Now tell me ...What good is this voltage if it is NOT PUT INTO A LOAD TEST then reading amperage?

So here we should ask ourselves...is it a STRONG INDUCTION generated here?...or is it just another little power TOY to play silly games with?

Beyond...We all know it is NOT just another toy.

Would not there be an induced voltage between the inner and outer diameters of the disc even if you removed the brushes completely?

bi

Of course there would be induced V without brushes!!, brushes are only the PICKUP TRANSPORT which moves it out of the Machine, allowing Us to read it.

Now, think about this...We all know that a small voltage or even a higher one, once that it is SHORTED OUT, between BOTH pick up points (Brushes on this case), will read a BIG ZERO in any scope or meter...THEREFORE, for either of our interpretations about a FULL COPPER DISC, in BOTH CASES, we are shorting brushes or pick up points, and STILL We are getting an output of V.

The above FACT, only bring Us to two conclusions:

1-We are BOTH completely wrong to BOTH interpretations, and obviously there is a "Third Possibility" which we are both not seen at all.

2-Or, simply the Output is SO MUCH HIGHER than we all think, in order that it can "afford" to generate a Voltage reading EVEN AT A FULL SHORT.
(And here let me add some experience acquired on my latest development...and that I have mentioned to you on the Figuera test:
Whenever there is VERY HIGH AMPERAGE generated, no matter if shorted out terminals, STILL, there would be a Positive Voltage shown and NOT dropping to ZERO)


If the second one (#2) holds true (which I honestly believe it is so, just based on DePalma N-Machine)...then it is just a matter to find the way it works to have the Fountain of Higher Energy found and built.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Faraday disc

Hi Ufo,

TOY? Inertial guidance system? Pretty much the same thing, right?

As you mentioned in a previous post, the homopolar dynamos beyond the "toy", are noted for very high current output at low voltage. But here we find the same basic structure used for an important application where there is essentially zero current and only the induction is relevant. This looks like it is only possible due to the paradox, or I guess the phenomena surrounding the paradox. If understood well, it would likely shed insight as to the true nature of EM fields.

bi

[bistander]

Interesting

Hello,

There is ONLY ONE WAY to approach to the TRUTH...and that is through EXPERIMENTING and TESTING.

I am personally too busy to start another build at this time...but I will propose some configurations to be tested:

1- Build an Iron Ring Electromagnet, with fine wire in order that it could generate a field without getting too hot, nor spending too much energy. This coil does NOT need to rotate, since we all know by now...that field does not move nor induces nada when rotating magnet.

2-Build a Full Copper Disc of the same diameter as Ring electromagnet, make it with easy R&I center bolted on bushing to shaft and bearings, and motor to spin it.

3- Build same diameter Copper Disc BUT just having two actual rings of copper, one outer, one inner with a gaped insulation between both rings where BRUSHES will ride on them both. This two rings could be easily build on a fiberglass base which bolts on to same bushing-shaft set as FULL Disc does.

Now simply maintain same speed (RPM's) for both discs tests, as supplying EXACTLY the same Voltage and Current to electromagnet, while scoping Max V Output from brushes.

Results, Judgement and following development:

1-If Full Disc generates HIGHER Voltage than Two Rings Disc with insulation between, then we know it is ALL ABOUT the direct conductive path between brushes what causes HIGHER Induction. Then we could ADD more brushes and set them in series ALL around FULL DISC, having the two end as the terminals to scope, this should increase output, since we will have several more conductive paths in series.

2-If the opposite takes place, meaning, Two Ring Disc produces Higher V than Full Disc...then it is ALL ABOUT CONCENTRIC RINGS that of course will be MUCH BIGGER Induced V if we have METAL CYLINDERS that run through whole electromagnet height INSTEAD OF FLAT RINGS.

3- Now, if BOTH RESULTS ARE EQUAL, IDENTICAL (Possibility which I strongly DOUBT), then we are back to the the start...and definitively need to keep going deeper into more possibilities and different set up.


This is just a step forward to start disguising Machine "Modum Operandi"...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

Yes, you can run these tests, someday. But what really is of interest to me is the last test shown in the part 2 of that video. Where he has the entire apparatus rotating together. Relating back to the copper disc version, it would be the magnet, the disc and the stator (brushes, holders, wires and even the instruments) all rotating together at the same speed. He shows a plot, quickly, but from what I can tell, has the tests points in a linear increase of voltage to RPM. The only link between the rotating assembly and the lab is the turntable which rotates it and a Bluetooth data signal. Makes the observer irrelevant to the experiment, doesn't it?

Just a curiosity for those looking for energy, I guess.

bi

[Iamnuts]

Is there anything out there like a pulsar or magnetar that could give
us a clue?
John.

[bistander]

Maybe

Is there anything out there like a pulsar or magnetar that could give
us a clue?
John.

RUnuts,

Just kidding, Iamnuts. Maybe. I don't know much about the two things you mention. But got me thinking about big things. What about our planet. Rotating. Yes. Magnetic field. Yes. Potential difference at various radii. Yes. Due to induction. Maybe.

I always wondered about the established explanation of charges and lightning. Could our planetary dynamo be inducing atmospheric voltage?

What'd you think?

bi

[lotec]

Einstein or Maxwell?

Hello,

There is ONLY ONE WAY to approach to the TRUTH...and that is through EXPERIMENTING and TESTING.

I am personally too busy to start another build at this time...but I will propose some configurations to be tested:

1- Build an Iron Ring Electromagnet, with fine wire in order that it could generate a field without getting too hot, nor spending too much energy. This coil does NOT need to rotate, since we all know by now...that field does not move nor induces nada when rotating magnet.

2-Build a Full Copper Disc of the same diameter as Ring electromagnet, make it with easy R&I center bolted on bushing to shaft and bearings, and motor to spin it.

3- Build same diameter Copper Disc BUT just having two actual rings of copper, one outer, one inner with a gaped insulation between both rings where BRUSHES will ride on them both. This two rings could be easily build on a fiberglass base which bolts on to same bushing-shaft set as FULL Disc does.

Now simply maintain same speed (RPM's) for both discs tests, as supplying EXACTLY the same Voltage and Current to electromagnet, while scoping Max V Output from brushes.

Results, Judgement and following development:

1-If Full Disc generates HIGHER Voltage than Two Rings Disc with insulation between, then we know it is ALL ABOUT the direct conductive path between brushes what causes HIGHER Induction. Then we could ADD more brushes and set them in series ALL around FULL DISC, having the two end as the terminals to scope, this should increase output, since we will have several more conductive paths in series.

2-If the opposite takes place, meaning, Two Ring Disc produces Higher V than Full Disc...then it is ALL ABOUT CONCENTRIC RINGS that of course will be MUCH BIGGER Induced V if we have METAL CYLINDERS that run through whole electromagnet height INSTEAD OF FLAT RINGS.

3- Now, if BOTH RESULTS ARE EQUAL, IDENTICAL (Possibility which I strongly DOUBT), then we are back to the the start...and definitively need to keep going deeper into more possibilities and different set up.


This is just a step forward to start disguising Machine "Modum Operandi"...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi
Back from the sin bin.

Personally I tend to hold to the view of Maxwell and the like minded, and I believe that the ether has sufficient viscosity to hold the lines of force in place, give or take some minute skidding or loss of traction. I have attached a drawing of a simple apparatus that in my mind might help clear this up.

I am not really sure what you are looking for. As far as I can tell, by your observational and logical skills, you have introduced into the discussion the existence of a more virtual conductor which has the ability to move or not move independently of the disk on certain occasions, and by doing so you have also identified the reason for why the views of Einstein and Maxwell were able to simultaneously co-exist, (it seems that type of thing might not be limited to just the quantum realms) and at face value satisfied the statement," conductor and magnets need not move ". Because the conductor, as it is more commonly apprehended, doesn't necessarily have to.

Yet still you are not satisfied, I like your style. I think in the Kennard document, it mentioned that the center element of the capacitor is grounded with a 10 or 100 KOhm resister. Maybe that changes things a bit, I don't know.

Conspiracy of light has a web site with lots of stuff, from Maxwell, Lorrents, and others. I'm not sure if I should post a link because, in the process of downloading the PDF, I was fully owned (Which wouldn't be that hard because I'm not that savy that way) and they were quite happy for me to know that. There could be third parties sniffing around.

The question was mainly rhetorical and I don't expect you to reply unless you want to, or think that I am still clinging to less helpful views, I have already taken up too much of your time already, but your patients has helped me see things in a different light, and probably given builders something to think about, especially ones that like to improvise.

These are just my opinions, and they could be quite floored, but I try to remain open to other points of view.

Thanks, Regards and cheers.

[Ufopolitics]

Introducing the "Third Ring"...

Hi
Back from the sin bin.

Personally I tend to hold to the view of Maxwell and the like minded, and I believe that the ether has sufficient viscosity to hold the lines of force in place, give or take some minute skidding or loss of traction. I have attached a drawing of a simple apparatus that in my mind might help clear this up.

Hello Lotec,

Yes, I am also more into the Maxwellian approach. Maxwell goes very deep into his analysis about molecular and even atomic spins taking place within the Coil or simply, the conductor.

I am not really sure what you are looking for. As far as I can tell, by your observational and logical skills, you have introduced into the discussion the existence of a more virtual conductor which has the ability to move or not move independently of the disk on certain occasions, and by doing so you have also identified the reason for why the views of Einstein and Maxwell were able to simultaneously co-exist, (it seems that type of thing might not be limited to just the quantum realms) and at face value satisfied the statement," conductor and magnets need not move ". Because the conductor, as it is more commonly apprehended, doesn't necessarily have to.

Lotec, I am looking for the right and BASIC motive of induction on this machine, and the way I see it possible is by discarding all wrong events which we all think are making it happen.

Actually -at this point- I am beyond moving any of the physical components, where by just sending a SPECIFIC SIGNAL to the STATIC Exciter Coil, it generates a very robust Induction on a Secondary or Secondaries also STATIC.

Now, this will definitively prove -beyond any doubts- that NO PHYSICAL BODIES need to be moved nor Rotated in order to achieve EM Induction.

Yet still you are not satisfied, I like your style. I think in the Kennard document, it mentioned that the center element of the capacitor is grounded with a 10 or 100 KOhm resister. Maybe that changes things a bit, I don't know.

Conspiracy of light has a web site with lots of stuff, from Maxwell, Lorrents, and others. I'm not sure if I should post a link because, in the process of downloading the PDF, I was fully owned (Which wouldn't be that hard because I'm not that savy that way) and they were quite happy for me to know that. There could be third parties sniffing around.

The question was mainly rhetorical and I don't expect you to reply unless you want to, or think that I am still clinging to less helpful views, I have already taken up too much of your time already, but your patients has helped me see things in a different light, and probably given builders something to think about, especially ones that like to improvise.

These are just my opinions, and they could be quite floored, but I try to remain open to other points of view.

Thanks, Regards and cheers.

Thanks, I am just using the typical Scientific approach of "discarding of non relevant events" or "filter" in order to reach the essence or main cause.

As per your diagram, you are rotating both magnets (above-below) while the "U" shape conductor is static, correct?.

The way I see your above test is that it STILL brings the question as "What part of conductor is generating?"...Is it the Horizontal or the Vertical?...or Are both generating?

Bottom line, it does not discard possibilities, but have them all as "inclusive".

When we rotate Disc while two brushes are static, disc geometry have very small height, so it would be disregarded as any vertical conducting paths, then we move into only TWO POSSIBILITIES:

1- Two Continuous Inner-Outer Rings swept and DEFINED by the Two Inner-Outer Brushes.

2- A Single but DYNAMIC Conducting Path directly (LINEARLY) established between both brushes.

I wrote Dynamic, since whether Disc is static and just brushes rotate, or the opposite, Brushes are always sweeping different paths on the metal disc. Now, let's picture a Third Ring on this Interpretation, comprehending the series of conductive paths between both brushes...And so here we only have the TIME Parameter VARIATION dictated by Brushes positioning, which is CHANGING constantly with rotation of either Disc or Brushes.

Now, Bistander expresses there is NO NEED to be "A CONDUCTIVE CIRCUIT" or Path for Induction to take place...but again, what kind of induction we all could get without any given CONDUCTING CIRCUIT?

Of course we get induction without a CLOSED PATH circuit, but what kind of AMPERAGE can this induction deliver??!!

ABSOLUTELY NONE, ZERO.

And so, repeating the MAIN ATTRIBUTE (OR PROPERTY) of this Machine and ALL its derivatives...it is ALL ABOUT ITS CONSIDERABLY HUGE AMPERAGE!!

Voltage without amperage means absolutely nada (Can't believe am the one saying this now)...it is just like smoke which wind clears out in seconds.

Would like to see what kind of amperage the second video experiment as a capacitor should deliver versus the previous copper disc?

Concluding that the MAIN and MORE IMPORTANT ASPECT of this Machine, relates to the enormous amount of current density or AMPERAGE flow it carries when it rotates, and so, I believe there is no need to remind everyone that in order for Amperage to EXIST, there ALWAYS must be a CLOSED CIRCUIT, either straight (short circuit) or the one provided whenever we LOAD a Generator.

And so, NOT considering such IMPORTANT ASPECT that relates specifically to this Type of Machines, to start observing small voltages in OPEN CIRCUITS or Open Capacitor Plates is completely deviating our research from the MAIN AND MORE IMPORTANT FACT that we are all looking for.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[lotec]

Hi Ufopolitcs

Yes, I am also more into the Maxwellian approach. Maxwell goes very deep into his analysis about molecular and even atomic spins taking place within the Coil or simply, the conductor.

I'd love to get my eyes on something like that. For someone like me that sounds like a difficult read and would take alot of digesting, but it would be worth it!

As per your diagram, you are rotating both magnets (above-below) while the "U" shape conductor is static, correct?.

No and sort of respectively. It was really just intended to remove the complications caused by the disk and brushes and replace them with a horizontal wire or bar. Then to be used in three ways, One for each possible scenario. 1 Magnet rotates while conductor is stationary. 2 Conductor rotates while magnets are stationary. 3 Both rotate together.

About the diagram I posted, there are a few things I should clear up about that so that it is seen in the context that it was intended.
I didn't make the diagram myself, I pinched it off a PDF, that I had downloaded previously. It seems that the authors of the PDF, were a very well educated and well funded group of individuals, who were attempting to make a brush-less, simplified, homo-polar generator. Meaning that the magnets were intended to spin while the horizontal conductor remains stationary. The device itself had quite a different geometry, but that diagram was submitted along with others, to give a general idea of what thay were doing.

Although they are doing the right thing for science, by reporting a negative result, it seems that they were at a loss when trying to explain the negative outcome. Well, at least within the parameters of the Einsteinian paradigm. I'm not sure if it was because they didn't want to upset the cash cow, and the rest of the scientific community or whether they simply weren't aware of an alternative view regarding flux rotation.

The way I see your above test is that it STILL brings the question as "What part of conductor is generating?"...Is it the Horizontal or the Vertical?...or Are both generating?
Bottom line, it does not discard possibilities, but have them all as "inclusive".
When we rotate Disc while two brushes are static, disc geometry have very small height, so it would be disregarded as any vertical conducting paths, then we move into only TWO POSSIBILITIES:

1- Two Continuous Inner-Outer Rings swept and DEFINED by the Two Inner-Outer Brushes.

2- A Single but DYNAMIC Conducting Path directly (LINEARLY) established between both brushes.

I wrote Dynamic, since whether Disc is static and just brushes rotate, or the opposite, Brushes are always sweeping different paths on the metal disc. Now, let's picture a Third Ring on this Interpretation, comprehending the series of conductive paths between both brushes...And so here we only have the TIME Parameter VARIATION dictated by Brushes positioning, which is CHANGING constantly with rotation of either Disc or Brushes.

Yes, I agree with that, you want to be very thorough. That is understandable. To some extent this had occurred to the authors. My guess is because of the negative result, (seemingly unexplained), they had to come up with something if they were to get more funding, so they came up with an in depth analysis of everything involved, from minutely analyzing Maxwells equations. to the such and such crystalline room temperature superconductor. Along the way they discussed the effectiveness of the mu-metal magnetic shielding, and the effects that could have had on what they would have considered to be the rotating magnetic field. I didn't see any mention of the possibility of high current eddies inducted into the vertical parts of the conductor either, maybe they thought the probability of that was so low it wasn't worth mentioning, or it didn't occur to them.

The picture I had posted wasn't really intended to include those levels of complication, so by rights, I should have opened it in paintbox or something first, and rubbed out stuff like the direction of magnet spin, the polarity of intended inducted currents, and the mu-metal shielding and so on. So I'm glad you pointed that out. Thanks. It was really just intended to remove the complications caused by the disk and brushes that led to the dual interpretation of what is happening with the magnetic field, and help add weight to one perception or the other.

Agreed the diagram as I intended it, doesn't take into account the points you have raised either. It wasn't intended to be a comprehensive tool for the study EM induction but more of an attempt to force one party or the other to come up with more and more creative objections.

Now I am starting to see the need for why they had to go to open circuit analysis. The pioneers had to be very meticulous and you have adopted that attitude as well. I think that is to be commended.

I don't think this is the response you might have wanted, or that you will find it particularly satisfying, but as for the parts of your post that I haven't commented on, it is not because I don't agree with them or don't acknowledge them, I do !!! , and think they could turn out to be extremely consequential, but the last few days has taught me that it is not good for me to post the first thing that just pops into my head, just for the sake of it.

Thanks again,
Regards,
Wil

Edit.... For the archives, The machine being described here, with a picture posted by me in my previous post, I have come to believe that it wont work regardless of what is rotated or what is not, working through all the scenarios, because the horizontal bar, starting from the center and extending out beyond the magnet, will be cut by the same flux lines twice traveling in opposite directions, once when they come out of the magnet, and once again after they have curved around heading towards the opposite pole, and this will cause cancellation.

[bistander]

Thanks lotec for the elaboration.

bi

[lotec]

Your welcome. and thanks for reading it., but please don't take the rantings of an old truckee too seriously.

Regards
Wil