On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:42:56 GMT Don Kelly wrote:

| Sorry. There is nothing in this document that is worth sending to a peer
| review. No measurements and no meaningful analysis. So you take a disk and
| attach magnets to it and rotate the whole thing- and expect some voltage?

I couldn't follow that document he posted at all.

I have done some web search for what people have had to say about, or have
done any experiments with, the idea that movement within a magnetic field,
regardless of whether the field soruce (magnets) moves with the conductor
or not. A lot of that search came up with documents from "free energy"
proponents. What I have found is those people can produce an amazingly
huge amount of prose that has absolutely nothing useful in it whatsoever.


| Now, if you are on the disk with your meter, then, in your world view, the
| magnets and disk are stationary as if they were simply lying on a table. The
| rest of the world may be turning but the magnet-disk relationship isn't.

The implication from Faraday, and from some other writings since (including
web pages of recent vintage), is that a conductor of angle A, moving at an
angle of B, in a field of angle C, where these three angles are ideally at
90 degrees, will have an induced voltage, regardless of whether the source
of the magnetic field moves with the conductor or does not.

Under the assumption that this idea worked, I mentally reconstructed it and
came up with generator ideas that defied my otherwise sensible idea of how
physics and the universe worked. And this wasn't even a contradiction with
conservation of energy. It did seem to me to contradict relativity (but
that is a field I haven't explored much).


| There may be some variation in the field in wire loops connecting it to the
| rest of the world which could produce a voltage- but it is an inefficient
| way to do it.

Indeed, this sure seems to explain Faraday's observations ... and restores
relativity.


| Now your zig and zag scheme with alternate poles (if the conductors were in
| motion with respect to the magnets could work but again it is simply a
| flattened out DC machine armature.

I didn't catch if someone else suggested this, but I did. It was one of a
few ideas I came up with to hopefully get around the "extraneous field" issue
to see if a voltage really can be produced by motion _in_ a magnetic field
as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field.

In particular, my idea was to eliminate the "off the disk" wiring that would
be affected by the "extraneous" field (my term for the equvialent field of a
magnet that goes around the outside to meet up with the oppose pole on the
other side, and complete the "field circuit".

Think of 2 magnets of a thin square or round shape. The poles are on the
large area sides. The magnets are placed such that the N pole of one is
close to the S pole of the other, but mechanically held apart. There would
be a strong field between these 2 magnets. There would also be a field that
loops around from the outward facing poles to each other, and the total flux
of this field has to be the same. This outer field is what I refer to with
my term "extraneous field".

With a simple classic bar magnet, this extraneous field is what we
usually see the iron filings placed in to see the "lines". There is
a field _inside_ the magnetic but we can't get to that without breaking
the magnet.


| The ring "tests" are meaningless- short clips of something given an initial
| push and wobbling around on a wire. No setups that would allow meaningful
| data such as torques currents and velocities to be gathered. It looks a lot
| as if the original mechanical push or positioning is the source of the
| motion and it will go on for a long time if friction is low and there is no
| mechanical load. Draw power and it will slow down and stop much quicker.

I don't know what these are.


| There is one other thing- don't expect "free energy" I know the search goes
| on but most are variations of schemes that didn't work before and won't
| work again. Playing with electromagnets in any form won't give anything near
| perpetual motion or free energy

I think the term "free energy" is not properly applied here. A windmill is,
after paying for the materials and construction and maintenance, is "free
energy". So are solar cells. If someone really wants "free energy", build
those and get some. It's "free" as in "free beer". It's NOT "free" in the
sense of violating conservation of energy. There never can be that kind of
"free".

The ideas I mentally constructed to explore the idea of inducing voltage from
motion _in_ as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field would not have
violationed the notion of conservation of energy. There would have had to be
work applied (energy) to force the disk into rotation. If it really would
work to induce a voltage that could drive a current to dissipate power to a
load, such as a light that is rotating on the disk along with the conductors
and magnets, then it should also produce a counter force against the effort
to rotate, in proportion to the load causing more current. Building such a
device would not be "free energy" any more than a conventional alternator is
used in a windmill. If it worked, it might substitute the alternator as a
means to produce smooth DC in lieu of AC. It's not "free energy" in the
sense of getting electricity from no work applied.

Where the whole notion of inducing voltage from motion _in_ a magnetic field
as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field seemed wrong to me was the idea
of just what constitutes motion. This is where relativity kicked in. And it
was like a swift kick in the rear. If mere motion would do this, then the
latent motion we are already a part of in: 1: rotation of the Earth, and 2:
the Earth orbiting around the Sun, and 3: the solar system moving through the
galaxy, and 4: the galaxy moving towards Andromeda at high speed, should do
something, right? Even if #3 and #4 happened to be currently canceled out
for us, #1 and #2 would be changing and we should still have a way to see some
effect of motion.

The scary thought is, if this does work, then it is a means to derive our
true _absolute_ motion in the universe, and from that, where the center of
the universe is (if that motion is from expansion from that point, per the
big bang theory).

But this would not have to be a violation of conservation of energy. If it
worked, it could still comply in this by applying a back force against the
motion source used. For example, a "generator" constructed to have conductors
in fixed position in strong magnetic fields would "fly away" due to the back
force applied by the current in the conductor. It could be built rigidly
attached to the Earth, where the rigidity needed is proportional to the power
intended to be used. The conservation of energy would be that this would be
applying a force to slow the rotation of the Earth (which is a form of latent
stored energy in proportion to its speed and the mass of the Earth).

But so far I see nothing that indicates that voltage would really be induced
in a conductor moving _in_ a magnetic field (where magnets move with the
conductor) as opposed to moving _across_ a magnetic field.

However, I'm not convinced that the only means to induce a voltage in a
conductor is a _change_ in field strength/density being applied to that
conductor.

I just need to find a construction that obeys conservation of energy AND
obeys relativity AND can still produce a nice smooth DC AND do it at a
voltage level that is practical (e.g. can build it up in series).

So I guess now I'm being as wordy as some of the "free energy" people. But
do keep in mind that my idea of "free energy" is to take it from nature,
just as windmills, waterwheels, and solar cells do now, NOT to somehow make
it from nothingness (I leave that aspect of creation up to God).

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:01:29 -0500 Terry L Hewett Sr wrote:

[snipped]

When I looked at this:

http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...magfieldx3.jpg

I knew something was all wrong about what you are doing. When you align
magents end to end with opposing poles in contact, e.g. North to South as
shown, all you are doing is making a larger/longer magnet. It will be
virtually the same as a single solid magnet. You can't just label poles
in the middle of such a magnet and expect field lines to emerge laterally
like that.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

In article
,
Benj wrote:

This is correct. The "paradox" comes from the question of whether the
magnetic field rotates with the magnets or not. BOTH assumptions give
the SAME answer! If the magnets are fixed and the disk rotates,
Lorentz forces induce an emf in the moving disk. However, if the
magnets are attached to the disk and spun, now there is no relative
motion between the magnetic field and disk so no induction can occur
there. BUT, if the magnetic field is assumed to rotate with the
magnets, then that would produce an emf in the REST OF THE WIRES GOING
TO THE METER, that can be shown identical to the EMF in the first case
of the rotating disk with fixed magnets. No solution to this paradox
seems possible using wire loops.

The proposed research is to measure the induced Lorentz field of a
spinning magnet using electrostatic methods. That gets around the
"loop" induction problems. As far as I know nobody has done this that
we've heard about.

One of the classic paradoxes I have seen published is even simpler than
one using the Faraday disk. A cylindrical bar magnet is spun about its
own axis. A loop of wire in series with a galvanometer is connected to
the magnet by two brushes. One brush contacts one end of the magnet on
its axis. The other brush tubs along the circumference midway between
the poles.

If the magnet is turned and the loop is stationary, does the
galvanometer deflect? This assumes that the magnet is conductive. If the
magnet is stationary and the loop is turned, does the the galvanometer
deflect.

The galvanometer does not deflect when only the magnet turns. The
galvanometer deflects if only the loop turns.

The explanation arises out of the special theory of relativity. The emf
arises out of the Lorentz transformation that describes how an observer
moving through a magnetic field sees an electric field. It does not
depend on the specifics of matter such as the existence of mobile
electrons.

This leads me to two questions.

Is there a simple way to use Maxwell's equations to calculate the
Lorentz emf?

If a magnet works because it has microscopic current loops generating
the magnetic field, is it feasible to show change in the magnet's
strength by spining it at high speed?

Bill

I really don't understand why you guys don't understand that a voltage is
induced in this manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXtG4Dkrp4c

----------------------------
"Terry L Hewett Sr" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:w5yjk.144568$gc5.44962@pd7urf2no...


"Terry L Hewett Sr" wrote in message
...

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:A%cjk.36732$nD.18335@pd7urf1no...
snip

First this is not a disk. the images depict a multipole arrangement of
magnets in a loop forming a ring or toroid.
Yeah I expect voltage! You don't? Maybe you need to revisit faradays
works in electromagnetic induction? It is a proven fact that by driving
a magnetic flux field through an induction coil a voltage is produced.
the problem has till this point been how to do that in a cyclic manner.
--------------
Yes- there are two ways this produces a voltage- both come down to flux
in the coil changing with time
a)Speed voltage- due to fixed flux and coil-flux geometry changing with
time.
b) transformer voltage- due to changing flux.

Obtaining this change in a cyclic manner has been done since Faraday's
time and was practical since the mid 1880's. I see nothing in your device
that leads to this (and yes, I know Faraday's Law and a bit more).

My comments still hold and I don't expect voltage.
------------


the changing flux field must be 90deg to the coil. the reason is due to
the coils flux componant. for a brief moment the flux of the coil and the
flux of the changing field interract.
------------
Almost but no cigar. Only the component of the flux that is in quadrature to
the coil is of concern. If the coil is at 45 degrees to the flux then any
voltage would be 71% of that when the coil is at 90 degrees to the changing
flux. Certainly 90 degrees is the optimum but it isn't a "must".
---------
what we see to date is a workaround for this problem. as the ideal
conditions would be driving the changing flux field at 90deg through the
center of the coil. Current technology uses a iron core as a workaround
effectively creating a flux field in the iron core. It is that which you
base your opinion. In my mechanism this workaround is not needed. the coil
to field interactions are under ideal conditions.

------
Again, no cigar.
The iron core is to minimize the amp turns required for a given flux and
also to direct the flux where it is wanted (both because "iron" is a hell of
a lot better as a magnetic "conductor" than wood, air or whatever). It is
not a workaround. In your mechanism, you have a flux in the core (which
happens to be "ferromagnetic" just as iron is) and a number of coils (in
addition to the magnets) which cumulatively drive this flux.
------------



Now, if you are on the disk with your meter, then, in your world view,
the magnets and disk are stationary as if they were simply lying on a
table. The rest of the world may be turning but the magnet-disk
relationship isn't. There may be some variation in the field in wire
loops connecting it to the rest of the world which could produce a
voltage- but it is an inefficient way to do it.

Don i respect your opinion and agree that in a disk like configuration
such as a compulsator your simply not going to see these effects. My
mechanism is vastly different from current technology. with the only
exception bieng www.ganid.com


Now your zig and zag scheme with alternate poles (if the conductors
were in motion with respect to the magnets could work but again it is
simply a flattened out DC machine armature.

The magnetic fields of the toroid armature are the conductors and are in
motion. the drive coils manipulate the strong and weak forces produced
by the polar arrangement of the toroid armature. that is where it
becomes a superconductor.
http://www.terrylhewettsr.rackhost.n...magfieldx3.jpg
http://www.terrylhewettsr.rackhost.n...rrangement.jpg
-------------
These statements make no sense at all. They actually betray ignorance of
the fundamentals involved.


Hmm, from your point of understanding i can see that. however don't assume
it betrays ignorance on my part.

The jpgs are how YOU imagine that the field of a series of bar magnets
would be. However, that is simply not what will occur. All that you would
get would be a longer bar magnet which would have a field distribution of
the same general shape as that of each of the shorter magnets. It
appears that you did not try to test this. I don't have some bar magnets
on hand but I do have some of the more practical disc magnets (short
bars" . I just put some together to make a longer "bar" and the field is,
from a simple test - from one end of the combination to the other. A
paper clip is attracted to one end or the other but not to the
intersections between magnets as would be the case if your diagram was
correct. This is as I expected. The test took about 30 seconds to do. Now
if the bars were formed into a toroid, there would be a strong field
inside the toroid but a negligable leakage field outside. It appears
that the barmagnet fieldx3 is a figure of imagination rather than
something that you tested. It also doesn't make sense from a magnetic
circuit configuration.
Based on this - the other diagram doesn't make sense.


http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...ithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...lfieldring.jpg

study those images count the flux fields compare that to the physical
fields. the fieldx3 image was as a comparison not as a actual
configuration of the mechanism. I should have clarified that point. the
fields are spaced apart to generate a flux field where the opposite fields
attract. where they are not permitted to connect via the spacer. I compare
this to lensing or focusing the fields to optimize the generated flux
field.
--------
Nonsense! and what do you do that will prevent this connection? Neither
magnetic nor non-magnetic material will do this although the latter would
certainly weaken the field if it were long enough -say of the order of
length of the individual magnets or longer. Of course this raises havoc
with your toriodal field.
-----------


Your intentions are good but you really have no idea of magnetic circuits
and devices or any of the fundamental relations involved.

Your assumtion is incorrect.
------
You have proven the correctness of my assumption. Repeatedly.
---------------------
That would be why i want you to fully understand this mechanism.
----

But you have given nothing except hand waving, confused and meaningless
statements based on incorrect concepts.

I am sorry but that's the way it is. I don't doubt your intelligence and
inventiveness but your basic background in both the physics and practice
involved is weak. You have a little knowledge but not enough to realize how
little. That can lead you astray and has done so.


--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

----------------------------
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:42:56 GMT Don Kelly wrote:

| Sorry. There is nothing in this document that is worth sending to a
peer
| review. No measurements and no meaningful analysis. So you take a disk
and
| attach magnets to it and rotate the whole thing- and expect some
voltage?

I couldn't follow that document he posted at all.

I have done some web search for what people have had to say about, or have
done any experiments with, the idea that movement within a magnetic field,
regardless of whether the field soruce (magnets) moves with the conductor
or not. A lot of that search came up with documents from "free energy"
proponents. What I have found is those people can produce an amazingly
huge amount of prose that has absolutely nothing useful in it whatsoever.


| Now, if you are on the disk with your meter, then, in your world view,
the
| magnets and disk are stationary as if they were simply lying on a table.
The
| rest of the world may be turning but the magnet-disk relationship isn't.

The implication from Faraday, and from some other writings since
(including
web pages of recent vintage), is that a conductor of angle A, moving at an
angle of B, in a field of angle C, where these three angles are ideally at
90 degrees, will have an induced voltage, regardless of whether the source
of the magnetic field moves with the conductor or does not.
-------------
Good. Put a disk on the table, put some magnets on it and measure the
voltage between two points on the disk. Now put the whole works on a
turntable, including the meter and all the wiring and try it. Let me know
the result. Note that this is different than the case where the measurement
is in the "rest of the world" and is moving with respect to the disk and
magnets. You can substitute a light for the meter as you indicate.
-------------------

Under the assumption that this idea worked, I mentally reconstructed it
and
came up with generator ideas that defied my otherwise sensible idea of how
physics and the universe worked. And this wasn't even a contradiction
with
conservation of energy. It did seem to me to contradict relativity (but
that is a field I haven't explored much).
------
Good for you- all I got was a great deal of basic confusion and leaps into
magnetic fields becoming superconductors.
--------


| There may be some variation in the field in wire loops connecting it to
the
| rest of the world which could produce a voltage- but it is an
inefficient
| way to do it.

Indeed, this sure seems to explain Faraday's observations ... and restores
relativity.


| Now your zig and zag scheme with alternate poles (if the conductors were
in
| motion with respect to the magnets could work but again it is simply a
| flattened out DC machine armature.

I didn't catch if someone else suggested this, but I did. It was one of a
few ideas I came up with to hopefully get around the "extraneous field"
issue
to see if a voltage really can be produced by motion _in_ a magnetic field
as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field.
----------
Yes you did but he did add something- that the zigs and zags were under
opposite poles. Even that requires some switching (i.e. a commutator). The
problem with the zigs and zags in a homopolar arrangement would mean that
the voltage induced in a zig would be cancelled by that in a zag unless (and
we are getting back to some sort of commutator) the wiring could be brought
out externally in such a way as to connect each "spoke" additively.
Essentially it would be similar to a set of bicycle spokes with each end
connected to a commutator segment and wiring between brushes to ensure that
the spokes are in series additively becomes a bloody mess. So, for any
reasonable physical setup we are back to a single spoke- so make it a disc
and call it homopolar.
----------------------

In particular, my idea was to eliminate the "off the disk" wiring that
would
be affected by the "extraneous" field (my term for the equvialent field of
a
magnet that goes around the outside to meet up with the oppose pole on the
other side, and complete the "field circuit".

Think of 2 magnets of a thin square or round shape. The poles are on the
large area sides. The magnets are placed such that the N pole of one is
close to the S pole of the other, but mechanically held apart. There
would
be a strong field between these 2 magnets. There would also be a field
that
loops around from the outward facing poles to each other, and the total
flux
of this field has to be the same. This outer field is what I refer to
with
my term "extraneous field".
-----------
Maxwell lives!
-----


With a simple classic bar magnet, this extraneous field is what we
usually see the iron filings placed in to see the "lines". There is
a field _inside_ the magnetic but we can't get to that without breaking
the magnet.


| The ring "tests" are meaningless- short clips of something given an
initial
| push and wobbling around on a wire. No setups that would allow
meaningful
| data such as torques currents and velocities to be gathered. It looks a
lot
| as if the original mechanical push or positioning is the source of the
| motion and it will go on for a long time if friction is low and there is
no
| mechanical load. Draw power and it will slow down and stop much quicker.

I don't know what these are.
------
These are the poor videos of some toroid wobbling around at the end of its
supply conductors that Hewlett referred to.


| There is one other thing- don't expect "free energy" I know the search
goes
| on but most are variations of schemes that didn't work before and won't
| work again. Playing with electromagnets in any form won't give anything
near
| perpetual motion or free energy

I think the term "free energy" is not properly applied here. A windmill
is,
after paying for the materials and construction and maintenance, is "free
energy". So are solar cells. If someone really wants "free energy",
build
those and get some. It's "free" as in "free beer". It's NOT "free" in
the
sense of violating conservation of energy. There never can be that kind
of
"free".
-------------
I wholeheartedly agree.
------

The ideas I mentally constructed to explore the idea of inducing voltage
from
motion _in_ as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field would not have
violationed the notion of conservation of energy. There would have had to
be
work applied (energy) to force the disk into rotation. If it really would
work to induce a voltage that could drive a current to dissipate power to
a
load, such as a light that is rotating on the disk along with the
conductors
and magnets, then it should also produce a counter force against the
effort
to rotate, in proportion to the load causing more current. Building such
a
device would not be "free energy" any more than a conventional alternator
is
used in a windmill. If it worked, it might substitute the alternator as a
means to produce smooth DC in lieu of AC. It's not "free energy" in the
sense of getting electricity from no work applied.

Where the whole notion of inducing voltage from motion _in_ a magnetic
field
as opposed to motion _across_ a magnetic field seemed wrong to me was the
idea
of just what constitutes motion. This is where relativity kicked in. And
it
was like a swift kick in the rear. If mere motion would do this, then the
latent motion we are already a part of in: 1: rotation of the Earth, and
2:
the Earth orbiting around the Sun, and 3: the solar system moving through
the
galaxy, and 4: the galaxy moving towards Andromeda at high speed, should
do
something, right? Even if #3 and #4 happened to be currently canceled out
for us, #1 and #2 would be changing and we should still have a way to see
some
effect of motion.

The scary thought is, if this does work, then it is a means to derive our
true _absolute_ motion in the universe, and from that, where the center of
the universe is (if that motion is from expansion from that point, per the
big bang theory).

But this would not have to be a violation of conservation of energy. If
it
worked, it could still comply in this by applying a back force against the
motion source used. For example, a "generator" constructed to have
conductors
in fixed position in strong magnetic fields would "fly away" due to the
back
force applied by the current in the conductor. It could be built rigidly
attached to the Earth, where the rigidity needed is proportional to the
power
intended to be used. The conservation of energy would be that this would
be
applying a force to slow the rotation of the Earth (which is a form of
latent
stored energy in proportion to its speed and the mass of the Earth).

But so far I see nothing that indicates that voltage would really be
induced
in a conductor moving _in_ a magnetic field (where magnets move with the
conductor) as opposed to moving _across_ a magnetic field.

However, I'm not convinced that the only means to induce a voltage in a
conductor is a _change_ in field strength/density being applied to that
conductor.
---------
It isn't and that is what Salmon Egg and I have been talking about. Changing
the field density/strength will produce a transformer voltage. changing the
area of the loop enclosing the flux is a positional change (or contour
change) and produces a "speed" voltage. Both exist in electric machines and
the speed voltage is usually the dominant one. In a practical sense for
machines think flux linkages, not flux cutting.
-------

I just need to find a construction that obeys conservation of energy AND
obeys relativity AND can still produce a nice smooth DC AND do it at a
voltage level that is practical (e.g. can build it up in series).

So I guess now I'm being as wordy as some of the "free energy" people.
But
do keep in mind that my idea of "free energy" is to take it from nature,
just as windmills, waterwheels, and solar cells do now, NOT to somehow
make
it from nothingness (I leave that aspect of creation up to God).
-----
Agreed.
-----
--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

On Jul 29, 8:55*pm, Salmon Egg wrote:

The galvanometer does not deflect when only the magnet turns. The
galvanometer deflects if only the loop turns.

This is not correct. What you are describing is the "one-piece"
Faraday dynamo often referred to as an "N" machine. The "paradox" is
that if you build a Faraday generator with a fixed magnet and rotating
disk, it works. But if you now glue the magnets to the conductive disk
and rotate the magnets and disk together, you find that the generator
STILL WORKS. The rotating conductive magnet is just a variation on the
one-piece generator. If you rotate the wires and brushes and keep the
magnet fixed, the unit also produces the same output as if you rotated
the disk and magnet keeping the wire and brushes fixed. . Your
rotating conductive magnet is simply a variation on the one-piece
Faraday Generator.

The explanation arises out of the special theory of relativity. The emf
arises out of the Lorentz transformation that describes how an observer
moving through a magnetic field sees an electric field. It does not
depend on the specifics of matter such as the existence of mobile
electrons.

While I try not to get involved in the "who is smarter than Einstein"
debate, the conversion of a Lorentz transformation to an "electric
field" is not especially viable in that the force DOES depend upon the
existence of electrons or other charges and furthermore the "electric
field" is clearly not the same as a static electric field. There is
much in these things that needs to be sorted out.

On Jul 29, 9:38*pm, "Terry L Hewett Sr"
wrote:
I really don't understand why you guys don't understand that a voltage is
induced in this manner.

That would be because it doesn't apply!

When it comes to "magnetic induction", the interesting thing is that
it can occur in two ways. The first as shown in the video is where a
changing current in one coil induces a voltage (emf) in another coil.
Note that NOTHING is moving. All geometries are fixed. Only the
current in the first wire changes.

It is important to note that in this case the mechanism is for the
current to generate a Vector Magnetic Potential "A" which in turn
creates an emf in the second wire. Note that the current ALSO creates
a magnetic field as well as "A", but that the magnetic field DOES NOT,
repeat DOES NOT, cause the induced emf. Hence the term "magnetic
induction" or "EM induction" are quite wrong as is the assumption that
somehow the changing magnetic field is causing emf in the second coil.
It is not.

The second form of induction is the classic magnet plunged into a coil
routine, or a wire moving through a fixed magnetic field. Here one
assumes that the velocity of the charges inside the wire (think of it
as a frictionless tube) through the magnetic field create sideways
forces due to the Lorentz qVxB relationship that result in an emf.
These have been called "flux-cutting" calculations. The qVxB relation
is well established due to observed deflection of electron beams in
crts etc.

But here is a kick in the butt. In many cases not only can you
calculate the flux cutting result but you can also calculate an
induced emf based upon the change in magnetic flux through the
aperture of a closed loop. Both give the "right" answers in most
cases, BUT the interesting thing is that when using the magnetic field
to calculate the flux changes, we have already noted that magnetic
induction has nothing to do with the magnetic field! So, we find a
number of interlocking relationships here that often are easy ways to
get the 'right" answer, but it is a mistake to try to draw too many
fundamental conclusions from them because they merely give correct
answers but do not represent fundamental mechanisms.

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:fzQjk.145747$gc5.111508@pd7urf2no...

My comments still hold and I don't expect voltage.
------------


the changing flux field must be 90deg to the coil. the reason is due to
the coils flux componant. for a brief moment the flux of the coil and the
flux of the changing field interract.
------------
Almost but no cigar. Only the component of the flux that is in quadrature
to the coil is of concern. If the coil is at 45 degrees to the flux then
any voltage would be 71% of that when the coil is at 90 degrees to the
changing flux. Certainly 90 degrees is the optimum but it isn't a "must".
---------
what we see to date is a workaround for this problem. as the ideal
conditions would be driving the changing flux field at 90deg through the
center of the coil. Current technology uses a iron core as a workaround
effectively creating a flux field in the iron core. It is that which you
base your opinion. In my mechanism this workaround is not needed. the
coil to field interactions are under ideal conditions.

------
Again, no cigar.
The iron core is to minimize the amp turns required for a given flux and
also to direct the flux where it is wanted (both because "iron" is a hell
of a lot better as a magnetic "conductor" than wood, air or whatever). It
is not a workaround. In your mechanism, you have a flux in the core (which
happens to be "ferromagnetic" just as iron is) and a number of coils (in
addition to the magnets) which cumulatively drive this flux.
------------

I really think a cigar is in order. Iron conducts not only in a
ferromagnetic
sense but it is conductive in the sense it carries a electric charge. there
are
few differences between a electromagnetic and magnetic field. the many
plates the iron core is constructed of is to allow the electromagnetic
charge
to flow along more surface area as efficient as possible. This is ideal for
it's
many applications. However the ferromagnetic material without conductive
properties such as ceramic allow you to locally impose a field on it without
the whole core assuming the properties of the charge. This condition is
prefered in my mechanism. Multiple flux fields are present in the
core/armature/conductors of my mechanism there is nothing singular about my
mechanism.


http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...ithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...lfieldring.jpg

study those images count the flux fields compare that to the physical
fields. the fieldx3 image was as a comparison not as a actual
configuration of the mechanism. I should have clarified that point. the
fields are spaced apart to generate a flux field where the opposite
fields attract. where they are not permitted to connect via the spacer. I
compare this to lensing or focusing the fields to optimize the generated
flux field.
--------
Nonsense! and what do you do that will prevent this connection? Neither
magnetic nor non-magnetic material will do this although the latter would
certainly weaken the field if it were long enough -say of the order of
length of the individual magnets or longer. Of course this raises havoc
with your toriodal field.
-----------

We generally use a yoke of sorts to impose a field. However the process
involves a coil and iron core or yoke. again the workaround to the 90deg
problem shows it face. ok the optimum isn't a must in common technology.
However my technology is highly dependent on the optimum 90deg.
The fields are to be imposed without using a yoke configuration. the field
is imposed directly into the ferromagnetic (non conductive) toroid
armature/core via a coil wound during manufacturing process and later
removed once fields are imposed locally on the armature.



Your intentions are good but you really have no idea of magnetic
circuits and devices or any of the fundamental relations involved.

Your assumtion is incorrect.
------
You have proven the correctness of my assumption. Repeatedly.
---------------------
That would be why i want you to fully understand this mechanism.
----

But you have given nothing except hand waving, confused and meaningless
statements based on incorrect concepts.

I am sorry but that's the way it is. I don't doubt your intelligence and
inventiveness but your basic background in both the physics and practice
involved is weak. You have a little knowledge but not enough to realize
how little. That can lead you astray and has done so.


--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

I'll agree I am not of academia and my background in physics is weak at
best.
However My background is in mechanics and that covers most mechanical
interractions. The realm of electromagnetics is deeply embedded in
mechanics.

As far as this mechanism I am the expert. Yes the physics involved seems to
differ from what is known as absolute in physics. The truth is that only the
limitations of our understanding is absolute.

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jul 29, 9:38 pm, "Terry L Hewett Sr"
wrote:
I really don't understand why you guys don't understand that a voltage is
induced in this manner.

That would be because it doesn't apply!

When it comes to "magnetic induction", the interesting thing is that
it can occur in two ways. The first as shown in the video is where a
changing current in one coil induces a voltage (emf) in another coil.
Note that NOTHING is moving. All geometries are fixed. Only the
current in the first wire changes.

It is important to note that in this case the mechanism is for the
current to generate a Vector Magnetic Potential "A" which in turn
creates an emf in the second wire. Note that the current ALSO creates
a magnetic field as well as "A", but that the magnetic field DOES NOT,
repeat DOES NOT, cause the induced emf. Hence the term "magnetic
induction" or "EM induction" are quite wrong as is the assumption that
somehow the changing magnetic field is causing emf in the second coil.
It is not.

--------------------
Ok That's not the assumption i'm making.
--------------------

The second form of induction is the classic magnet plunged into a coil
routine, or a wire moving through a fixed magnetic field. Here one
assumes that the velocity of the charges inside the wire (think of it
as a frictionless tube) through the magnetic field create sideways
forces due to the Lorentz qVxB relationship that result in an emf.
These have been called "flux-cutting" calculations. The qVxB relation
is well established due to observed deflection of electron beams in
crts etc.

But here is a kick in the butt. In many cases not only can you
calculate the flux cutting result but you can also calculate an
induced emf based upon the change in magnetic flux through the
aperture of a closed loop. Both give the "right" answers in most
cases, BUT the interesting thing is that when using the magnetic field
to calculate the flux changes, we have already noted that magnetic
induction has nothing to do with the magnetic field! So, we find a
number of interlocking relationships here that often are easy ways to
get the 'right" answer, but it is a mistake to try to draw too many
fundamental conclusions from them because they merely give correct
answers but do not represent fundamental mechanisms.

This is the form of induction i am utilizing in my mechanism.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...ithspacers.jpg
As a multipole toroid armature or a multipole belt to be driven through
induction coils cyclic for potentially a very long time.