Faraday Disc 2.0

[bistander]

Vector arrow

Hi Bistander,

Take a look...











Can't You "still" not see a Single Flow?

Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?

Isn't an Arrow and a Line represent a Directional Vector Flow...if not, then why put an "arrow" there?





...There is no worst blindness than those who refuse to see, by their own will...





Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

There is no flow in the magnetic field. It is static. It is 3-dimensional represented 2-dimensionally in your post. Also represented by lines. Arrow heads are drawn on those lines to represent the direction of the B vector at each point along the line. Arrows do not indicate flow. A vector quantity is often represented by an arrow where the length of the shaft is the magnitude and the orientation in space of the shaft is the orientation of the vector quantity with the arrow head indicating the polarity (positive or negative). Vector representation of the magnetic B field has nothing to do with motion of the B field.

We've been through this before. You don't see it that way. Fine. Look at it however you want. But I object your false statements concerning classical. Opinions are fine. Misleading statements as you are prone to make need to be challenged. I think we stray off topic. Let the OP carry on.

bi

{edit}

Clearly and ALWAYS represented from North to South?

Yes. Because that is how North and South poles are defined.

[forelle]

Hi all,here is a link which should be read.http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/sq.pdf

[spacecase0]

the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.

[Gambeir]

Hi all,here is a link which should be read.http://www.intalek.com/Index/Projects/Research/sq.pdf

Thanks, interesting link...only a few hundred pages..

I'm looking at this because of the center column in the ARV and it's crazy center disc.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...vehicle-3.html

A magnetic flux can only be seen as a wormhole from a higher pressure dimension/hyperspace/counter-space. That there is pressure, hence movement, is manifest since the field/flux come from the precise center of a magnet and collapse back in upon themselves. Evidence goes beyond the work of Ufopolitics in this regard and is empirical. That we cannot at present yet quantify what the magnetic flux material is, and hence not detect movement, does not invalidate a presumption that there is movement, for the evident logic behind the idea of a moving cycling field is nearly irrefutable: It only appears to not be moving but which is illogical. Logic says it is moving. Which is it and does it matter?

How can a magnetic flux field be a static object like a tree in the front yard because that defies logic. Once grown a tree doesn't simply disappear because we cut the roots. That's not logical deduction. Hence a force of unknown matter is what constitutes a flux field. The idea that this may be the case is reflected in the design whereby the ARV's crew compartment is itself a sphere. The sphere is the strongest geometric form against an outside uniform pressure like a liquid. Further, is it not so that it is the movement of electrons over time which creates an electromagnetic field ? If that is true than a magnetic flux would seem to be, and by definition; a moving field.

Alternatively: If flux were considered to be a fluid then there comes about the potential to see this two ways, for a fluid may be both static or moving, and which is always affected by the medium it is in contact with.
Gravity, which of course magnetism is associated with, makes the most sense when seen as a liquid. Can something be both static and yet again free to change and move: Yes, a fluid can do this.

http://www.liquidgravity.nz/

[bistander]

Interested

the thing that gets me about theory when you are playing on the edge of what you can predict is that theory may not tell you much.
so I built what the original poster suggested. (magnets stationary and coil spinning)
I got 0.000V and 0.000A out of it.
test setup still set up (and will be for a few days) if anyone has any requests to try on it.

Hi spacecase0,

You built this? I'd like to see it. How did you support magnets inside the coil?

bi

[seaad]

Crafty question bi . .

[bistander]

Another question

Crafty question bi . .

For you seaad,

Say he was able to support the ring magnets inside the coil with non-magnetic bearings, would those interior magnets rotate with the coil or stay stationary with respect to the outer magnets?

Regards,

bi

[seaad]

Hi bi!
Why do you want to know if the inner magnets spins or not? (hypothetically Q.) . . And an answer just from ME . . now, when i have my (UO-tinkering) summer intermission. My brain is set to just over idle now. But eyes are open! . But I come to think of this: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post302596 or similar . . and This:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gduYoT9sMaE

Have a nice summer
Arne

[spacecase0]

I may have omitted the center magnets, the magnetic field is the same with or without them (right?), so I did not give it a second thought until your question...
think I should rebuild it with the magnets in the center ?
and if I did rebuild it, they would be spinning on the shaft with the rest of the center, either that or it would take to much time to build and I would likely never get around to it.

[Gambeir]

For you seaad,

Say he was able to support the ring magnets inside the coil with non-magnetic bearings, would those interior magnets rotate with the coil or stay stationary with respect to the outer magnets?

Regards,

bi

OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*


Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.

[bistander]

Different

OK, first of all the info is lacking in the original schematic so flying by the seat of my pants I tossed this together for general laughter and insults.
*


Now Then>>>>
What would be wrong with simply doing what you suggest? I don't see securing the magnets as extensively problematic, but never say never right?

In this sketch it's envisioned that the magnets are ring magnets and which would then be mounted on a wooden dowel and secured with wooden pins or cardboard rings epoxied/glued to the dowel itself, with the inner magnets placed before the winding.

But that is different from the OP's diagram. His coil turns do not span the shaft as you show.

The OP design can be built although difficult (likely expensive). You'd always have some bearing friction acting to rotate the inner magnet rings. Like I posted previously, the OP configuration will not generate. That is regardless of inner magnet rotation or not. It was simply an academic question put to seaad (mostly) to needle him (have some fun).

Regards,

bi

[Dingus]

DePalma's N Machine used electromagnets instead of permanent magnets.

His papers on the subject are worth reading.

The other night this diagram popped into my head. I remembered that part around t & t being a Faraday disc like the one Tesla patented, but thinking it'd makes no sense if the power going through it were AC. I thought that if it used an electromagnet instead of permanent magnets & were wired in series with the disc, the disc should stay rotating in the same direction since both the current in the disc & the electromagnets would reverse at the same time. Using it as the inductor in your plasma ignition system, it might make for an interesting pulse-frequency modulated motor. The brush could even be a spark-gap. There's probably some big flaw to this that I'm overlooking, like eddy currents, but it I had fun thinking about it before bed.

[spacecase0]

I rebuilt my setup with electromagnets and no permanent magnets,
got the same results of nothing

[lotec]

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

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.

[Ufopolitics]

The REAL TRUTH...

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

According to this video every time induction takes place, the common factor is, the power pickup brushes are moving relative to the disk. Usually induction is described by magnetic fields changing relative to the conductor.

I want to use an analogy, that likens how a standard generator works, to a person rowing a boat. To set up a stroke cycle the person has to lean forward so the oars go back, and are then poised to enter the water. Then the stroke cycle begins, the paddles go into the water, the person pulls back, and when the paddles have moved forward as far as they can go they are removed from the water. While the paddles are moving in the water energy is being transferred into propulsion. At the end of the cycle a discrete amount of energy has been transferred, no more no less. The person cant just hold the paddles there and hope more energy is going to be transferred, the reset condition needs to take place.

With a standard generator a similar thing sort of happens, the magnets cant just be held over the pole of the pickup coil and then be expected to continue transferring energy into the system. The reset condition needs to take place. In this case the next magnet has to move into proximity of the pickup coil, so that it can begin to affect a change of magnetic field relative to the pickup coil.

The behavior of the homo polar generator sort of implies that there is another type of reset condition, one that isn't commonly known or understood. One that can take place in the presence of a constant magnetic field. This fact alone has certain implications. Perhaps the answer to this situation can be found by looking more closely at what's happening within the conductor.

Nice video Lotec, nice experiment!!

The only "possibility" and missing test would have been to rotate just the brushes while disc and magnet static to then note how voltage would be generated according to the rotation sense... The guy just moves brushes back-forth and stills gets a saw-tooth signal.

For close to 200 years, ever since Faraday ASSUMED that Induction was created by Conductor CUTTING the "IMAGINARY" FIELD LINES, plus then later on Lorentz considering Magnetic Fields does NOT contains ANY SPINS...got Us all to believe on this FALLACY...and -what I find even more amazing- is that no one that I know off -along this long time- have conducted simple experiments which would have RULED OUT COMPLETELY this WRONG ASSUMPTION about imaginary lines of force cutting conductors "FAIRY-TALES".

This is the ONLY REASON WHY...Science can not explain this Homopolar Generator behavior with absolutely no convincing Theories based on those "cutting lines" principles.

Fact is...Magnetic Fields DO HAVE PARTIAL SPINS, and applying it here would understand that brushes on above video, delimit a CONDUCTING PATH on the Copper Disc and NOT NECESSARILY A SOLELY CONDUCTOR, but just a PATH where induced electrons would flow outwards showing Voltage Output at scope.

1-MAGNET MOVES/DISC STATIC= V=0 ZERO VOLTAGE: Simple explanation...moving the magnet does NOT moves the Magnetic Field on this PARTICULAR GEOMETRY, where N-S AXIS is PARALLEL to SPINNING AXIS. Other words, that NOW STATIC CONDUCTIVE PATH on Disc, DEFINED between the two brushes sees NO CHANGE at all when magnet rotates on its N-S Axis.


2-DISC ROTATES/MAGNET STATIC= V><0 VOLTAGE PRESENCE depending on rotation sense: Here that CONDUCTIVE PATH, DEFINED BY BRUSHES, DOES SPIN AROUND FIELD, generating a Voltage whereas pos or neg, dependent on rotation sense...CLEARLY demonstrates that CONDUCTIVE PATH is seeing different LEVELS OF Magnetic Field SPIN or a "CHANGE" as mentioned on Faraday's Laws.

3-MAGNET+DISC ROTATES= V><0 or simply Voltage Presence: Like I have cited on #1 & #2 Cases, whether Magnet Moves or Not it is completely IRRELEVANT to Generating any Voltage, BUT ONLY RELEVANT TO THE CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY BRUSHES ROTATING.

4- MAGNET+DISC STATIC, ONLY TWO BRUSHES ROTATING= V><0 or V Presence This missing experiment on above video, except for the BACK-FORTH HAND MOVEMENT which shows an UP-DOWN Voltage Zig-Zag, WOULD HAVE BEEN THE MORE IMPORTANT OF ALL THE ABOVE!!!

Why?...Just because it CLEARLY PROVES that it is all about that CONDUCTIVE PATH DEFINED BY THE TWO BRUSHES, ROTATING, what really generates an Induction output, taking this WHOLE EXPERIMENT DOWN to a specific element DEFINED AS TOPNOTCH HERE, which eventually will throw or RULE OUT whether DISC OR MAGNET MOVES OR NOT.

On the other hand, by moving-rotating just the two brushes, this Conductive Path is the same RELATED to the TWO BRUSH POSITIONING, HOWEVER, DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF DISC METAL ARE COVERED through just the Brushes spinning on top of STATIC copper disc. And so, this FACT ALSO TAKES PLACE whenever Disc Spins while brushes are static...

Regards


Ufopolitics