I've been looking at this description of the Faraday paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday...araday.27s_law

The description doesn't make sense to me in terms of telling me what is going
on here. The wording does not seem to be complete. What is unclear here is
exactly what is moving. It only talks about the strip being conducting at a
fixed location. So where is the movement? Or is there any?

I see two ways to interpret the wording (which would, of course, impact the
science being described).

1. A strip of semi-conducting material is physically moving, but the portion
that is capable of conducting is held stationary by a stationary light
beam that controls that conductivity.

2. A strip of semi-conducting material is stationary, but the portion that is
capable of conducting is moving as directed by the moving light beam that
controls that conductivity.

Maybe it might be clearer, at least for what I want to learn initially from
this, to describe it in different terms.

My understanding of the homopolar generator is that the entire disk would be
under the influence of a uniform magnetic field that, from the point of any
particle of the rotating disk, is not changing in intensity (so as to not be
influenced by Faraday's law of induction which would apply when the field is
changing). The paradox is that when the disk is rotating, it does not matter
if the magnet(s) creating the field are rotating with the disk or not (or in
any other way including in the opposite direction).

Maybe this experiment would be more telling?

Suppose we have 2 electrically conductive rails with a substantial portion of
them placed in a uniform magnetic field. The field direction cross at right
angle to the shortest distance between the rails. For convenience I would
lay the 2 rails along a table that has a very slight tilt. Long magnets would
be placed above and below the position of the rails. At the high end of the
rails I attach a voltmeter to the 2 rails. Then I place a round copper bar
on the rails (with grooves to keep it from turning and sliding off). I let
the copper bar roll down the rails to the portion of the rails in the magnetic
field. Maybe the bar should slide instead of roll to simplify how the Lorentz
force would work here. When the bar is moving within the magnetic field, it
gets an electric charge which is carried back on the rails to the voltmeter.
The voltmeter should show the generated voltage if this setup is correct.

Motion (of the bar) is in the direction the rails "run". Electric potential
and thus current in the bar is between the 2 rails. The magnetic field is
right angle to the motion and electric current.

Unlike the disk experiment which can run continuously, the bar will eventually
run out of the area of magnetic field, and of the rails.

Next question: If the magnets are smaller and move along with the bar, this
should still produce the same electric potential, right? This should be the
equivalent, in the disk experiment, of the magnet rotating with the disk?

What I am interested in determining is if this method of generating electricity
really does not specificaly require rotation, and that rotation is merely a
convenient construction so that the motion can continue for a long time.

--
|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 Jul 9, 1:34 pm, wrote:

My understanding of the homopolar generator is that the entire disk would be
under the influence of a uniform magnetic field that, from the point of any
particle of the rotating disk, is not changing in intensity (so as to not be
influenced by Faraday's law of induction which would apply when the field is
changing). The paradox is that when the disk is rotating, it does not matter
if the magnet(s) creating the field are rotating with the disk or not (or in
any other way including in the opposite direction).

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.

Unfortunately, Phil, you've already blocked me so we have nothing to
say to each other on this topic.

Benj

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Benj wrote:
| On Jul 9, 1:34 pm, wrote:
|
| My understanding of the homopolar generator is that the entire disk would be
| under the influence of a uniform magnetic field that, from the point of any
| particle of the rotating disk, is not changing in intensity (so as to not be
| influenced by Faraday's law of induction which would apply when the field is
| changing). The paradox is that when the disk is rotating, it does not matter
| if the magnet(s) creating the field are rotating with the disk or not (or in
| any other way including in the opposite direction).
|
| 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.

Is it really a paradox to be solved now? Isn't the understanding of the
Lorentz force the solution? I think the point is that a magnetic field
isn't changed in any way by the magnets being turned (as long as the
shape of the field remains the same ... turning a magnet that is not
circular would turn the shape of the field, complicating things) and so
there is no change in the field where the wires are if the magnets are
rotated. And thus, attaching the magnets directly to the disk which lets
them rotate with the disk, still imparts the same field on the disk.


| 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.

In the classic case of a solid disk, with a disk shaped magnet on each side
of the disk, one with N-pole facing the disk, and the other with S-pole
facing the disk, there would be a "return field" outward and around the
whole disk/magnet assembly. Since the wires attached to the brushes that
connect to the rotating disk are not moving, they should not have any
electrical charge applied.

But I have another idea.

Consider a construction of a disk to be rotated that is done this way.

A wire runs outward from near the axis to the edge, with magnets fastened
on each side so it has a specific magnetic field direction. Now run that
wire a short radius along the edge of the disk, then back inward toward
the axis. The 2nd part of the wire would have the magnets flipped so the
magnetic field is reversed, so the 2nd part of the wire gets a charge in
the opposite direction. It does not go all the way to the axis. Then it
wraps back for a 3rd stretch towards the edge again, this time with the
same field orientation as the 1st run. Repeat this a few times around the
disk (which is otherwise non-conductive), until the wire comes back to the
starting point. Where it meets back up to its other end, attach some kind
of DC power sensing device, such as an LED light.

So we have a non-conductive disk base, a wire "zig-zagging" between near
the axis ("near" does not have to be real close, just some distance from
the edge) and the edge, going around the disk with N zigs and zags, with
the field fixed over the wire so it has one orientation on the "zigs" and
the other orientation on the "zags".

I need to find a tool that lets me draw this so I can be sure people have
the correct visualization.


| Unfortunately, Phil, you've already blocked me so we have nothing to
| say to each other on this topic.

The blocking mechanism appears to consider whether a post is a followup to a
non-blocked post, or maybe especially to my own. Just don't let the spammers
know about this, or they may start doing spam as followups to existing posts.

BTW, the volume of spam, as of about 3 days ago, from Google Groups, was still
very very high. I'm waiting for someone at Google to get a clue to use that
anti-spam facility of their used on incoming mail in Gmail, to the outgoing
posts and email. About 40% of email spam now comes in from a Google server.
These guys are losing it, big time.

--
|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) |

----------------------------
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 22:17:55 -0700 (PDT) Benj wrote:
| On Jul 9, 1:34 pm, wrote:
|
| My understanding of the homopolar generator is that the entire disk
would be
| under the influence of a uniform magnetic field that, from the point of
any
| particle of the rotating disk, is not changing in intensity (so as to
not be
| influenced by Faraday's law of induction which would apply when the
field is
| changing). The paradox is that when the disk is rotating, it does not
matter
| if the magnet(s) creating the field are rotating with the disk or not
(or in
| any other way including in the opposite direction).
|
| 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.

Is it really a paradox to be solved now? Isn't the understanding of the
Lorentz force the solution? I think the point is that a magnetic field
isn't changed in any way by the magnets being turned (as long as the
shape of the field remains the same ... turning a magnet that is not
circular would turn the shape of the field, complicating things) and so
there is no change in the field where the wires are if the magnets are
rotated. And thus, attaching the magnets directly to the disk which lets
them rotate with the disk, still imparts the same field on the disk.


| 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.

In the classic case of a solid disk, with a disk shaped magnet on each
side
of the disk, one with N-pole facing the disk, and the other with S-pole
facing the disk, there would be a "return field" outward and around the
whole disk/magnet assembly. Since the wires attached to the brushes that
connect to the rotating disk are not moving, they should not have any
electrical charge applied.

But I have another idea.

Consider a construction of a disk to be rotated that is done this way.

A wire runs outward from near the axis to the edge, with magnets fastened
on each side so it has a specific magnetic field direction. Now run that
wire a short radius along the edge of the disk, then back inward toward
the axis. The 2nd part of the wire would have the magnets flipped so the
magnetic field is reversed, so the 2nd part of the wire gets a charge in
the opposite direction. It does not go all the way to the axis. Then it
wraps back for a 3rd stretch towards the edge again, this time with the
same field orientation as the 1st run. Repeat this a few times around the
disk (which is otherwise non-conductive), until the wire comes back to the
starting point. Where it meets back up to its other end, attach some kind
of DC power sensing device, such as an LED light.

So we have a non-conductive disk base, a wire "zig-zagging" between near
the axis ("near" does not have to be real close, just some distance from
the edge) and the edge, going around the disk with N zigs and zags, with
the field fixed over the wire so it has one orientation on the "zigs" and
the other orientation on the "zags".

-----
It appears that everyone is looking for a paradox where one may not actually
exist. Step forward from the Faraday disk to Maxwell's equations. Is there
a changing total field in any part of the region enclosed by the path? How
about another path?
One can analyse a homopolar machine using Faraday and can also do it using
Lorentz -the latter may be somewhat more elegant .
In the case of moving vs stationary magnets- consider the whole path and the
flux enclosed- otherwise ???.

Yes a homopolar motor will work. it will, like the homopolar generator, be
of very limited use. A better design of such a motor exists- it is a
printed circuit motor which has a conventional DC winding (zigs on one side
ans zags on the other) and brushes. The brushes can be at the axle or at the
perimeter- Light, not necessarily high current, low voltage- simply a
conventional motor squeezed (axially) flat. The zigs and zags that you
indicate are a precursor of this- the Gramme ring motor flattened.

As fr existence of a rotating magnetic field- such do exist but the axis of
rotation is perpendicular to the field. Look at any induction or synchronous
machine (any of which is superior to a homopolar machine).
--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:15:29 GMT Don Kelly wrote:

| It appears that everyone is looking for a paradox where one may not actually
| exist. Step forward from the Faraday disk to Maxwell's equations. Is there
| a changing total field in any part of the region enclosed by the path? How
| about another path?

My understanding is that "paradox" is simply the paradox Faraday thought of
this back in his day when he did this experiment. He thought it a paradox
since it didn't follow his theory of induction. Now we know it followed the
Lorentz theory, instead, which came later than Faraday. So it is no paradox
to us, anymore. But the term "Faraday's paradox" is still a reference to the
concept Faraday was exploring.


| One can analyse a homopolar machine using Faraday and can also do it using
| Lorentz -the latter may be somewhat more elegant .

As I understand this, there are two ways to induce a voltage potential and a
current in a conductor in a magnetic field. One is for the field flux itself
to change its vector intensity relative to the conductor. That would be a
mere density change in a transformer, for example. If the field lines are
rotating (this is not the same angle of rotation of the Faraday disk) such
that the lines change from crossing the conductor to going parallel to it,
there would also be an induction taking place in cycles according to that
rotation. The other way to induct a voltage potential is for the conductor
to move at a right angle to the field and to its direction of conduction.
Then you get a voltage/current with a polarity specified by Fleming's right
hand rule. This is what the disk is doing.


| In the case of moving vs stationary magnets- consider the whole path and the
| flux enclosed- otherwise ???.

Of course the "extraneous field" needs to be considered. If the magnets are
covering just a portion of the disk near the axis, even though a full 360
degrees around the disk, there is not only the field line between the magnets
going through the disk, there is also a field raidally beyond the magnets,
giving a field shape somewhat resembling a torus. Part of the disk will
rotate in the inner field and part will rotate in the outer field, and there
will be induced potential that mostly cancels out.

My idea is to design the field shape to eliminate the extraneous field by
having alternating sets of magnets with reversed poles. At even radial
angles, NORTH faces the disk from above and SOUTH from below, while at odd
radial angles, NORTH faces the disk from below and SOUTH from above. Now
this arrangment mostly removes the extraneous field. However, it will end
up with "shorted out" circulating currents in the disk.

The fact that the magnets can be rotated with the disk in sync and this will
still induce the electrical charge allows modifying the disk to take advantage
of the alternations of polarity between even and odd angles by cutting out the
disk until what remains is a conductor that zigs under the field of the even
angles and zags under the opposite field of the odd angles. This would still
be a conductor in a loop and still be "shorted out". At this point just break
the loop by cutting the conductor somewhere and insert a device to measure or
indicate the voltage/current present (a light, for example).

By even and odd angles, I'm visualizing 12 angles of the common clock. But
any even number of angles can used as desired.

With my currently limited ability to fabricate these things, I'm going to do
these thought experiments first to find what things I should not waste my time
on, and what things I might consider seriously building.


| Yes a homopolar motor will work. it will, like the homopolar generator, be
| of very limited use. A better design of such a motor exists- it is a
| printed circuit motor which has a conventional DC winding (zigs on one side
| ans zags on the other) and brushes. The brushes can be at the axle or at the
| perimeter- Light, not necessarily high current, low voltage- simply a
| conventional motor squeezed (axially) flat. The zigs and zags that you
| indicate are a precursor of this- the Gramme ring motor flattened.

I will look into this. But I get the impression it may not be what I am
thinking about. In particular, I want to work with whatever involves the
conductor AND the magnetic field moving together, as in the original paradox
that Faraday observed, but extended in some way.


| As fr existence of a rotating magnetic field- such do exist but the axis of
| rotation is perpendicular to the field. Look at any induction or synchronous
| machine (any of which is superior to a homopolar machine).

Yes, that kind of rotation can exist. If I place a strong magnet at one edge
of a disk with N-pole facing the axis, and another at the 180 degree edge with
S-pole facing the axis, there will be field lines (B) cutting through the axis
and when the disk rotates, these lines rotate. If I place a conductor (nearly)
crossing the axis, parallel to the disk, but close enough to be in this field,
then the rotation of the disk will result in the lines alternating between
being in parallel to that wire and perpendicular to it. I would expect this
to induce a potential in that wire by Faraday's law of induction, not but the
Lorentz force.

By my interest is not in that direction. My interest is in finding ways to
extend the concept of the Faraday disk with the magnets attached to the disk,
including better confinement of the extraneous fields. Consider my design
involving the zigs at even angles and zags at odd angles (through the whole
of the disk, not different on each side as your suggest similar to the Gramme
ring motor). If that idea works (and logically it seems to be the same thing
as the original "Faraday homopolar generator with magnets rotating with the
disk"), then the next extension is to replace the disk with 6 zigs and 6 zags
with a non-conductive non-ferrous disk (wood? plastic?) with one that is a
form that allows winding a lot of copper wire suitable for winding coils, but
in that same 6 zig and 6 zag pattern (where in reality a larger disk would
replace 6 with a larger number). Then there would be effective a very LONG
conductor moving within a magnetic field where nearly all portions of the wire
would be under the very same polarity of influence according to Fleming's right
hand rule and the Lorentz force law. So the question then is does this make an
even higher voltage than a plain disk, at the end points of this LONG wire?

FYI, I could make the end points both be at the axis, and conduct a conductive
axis that is insulated in the middle at the non-conductive disk form, and then
use that to attach the wires and brushes to extract the electric current.

But will it really work? If not, where does the theory break down and why?

--
|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) |

----------------------------
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:15:29 GMT Don Kelly wrote:

| It appears that everyone is looking for a paradox where one may not
actually
| exist. Step forward from the Faraday disk to Maxwell's equations. Is
there
| a changing total field in any part of the region enclosed by the path?
How
| about another path?

My understanding is that "paradox" is simply the paradox Faraday thought
of
this back in his day when he did this experiment. He thought it a paradox
since it didn't follow his theory of induction. Now we know it followed
the
Lorentz theory, instead, which came later than Faraday. So it is no
paradox
to us, anymore. But the term "Faraday's paradox" is still a reference to
the
concept Faraday was exploring.


| One can analyse a homopolar machine using Faraday and can also do it
using
| Lorentz -the latter may be somewhat more elegant .

As I understand this, there are two ways to induce a voltage potential and
a
current in a conductor in a magnetic field. One is for the field flux
itself
to change its vector intensity relative to the conductor. That would be a
mere density change in a transformer, for example. If the field lines are
rotating (this is not the same angle of rotation of the Faraday disk) such
that the lines change from crossing the conductor to going parallel to it,
there would also be an induction taking place in cycles according to that
rotation. The other way to induct a voltage potential is for the
conductor
to move at a right angle to the field and to its direction of conduction.
Then you get a voltage/current with a polarity specified by Fleming's
right
hand rule. This is what the disk is doing.


| In the case of moving vs stationary magnets- consider the whole path and
the
| flux enclosed- otherwise ???.

Of course the "extraneous field" needs to be considered. If the magnets
are
covering just a portion of the disk near the axis, even though a full 360
degrees around the disk, there is not only the field line between the
magnets
going through the disk, there is also a field raidally beyond the magnets,
giving a field shape somewhat resembling a torus. Part of the disk will
rotate in the inner field and part will rotate in the outer field, and
there
will be induced potential that mostly cancels out.

My idea is to design the field shape to eliminate the extraneous field by
having alternating sets of magnets with reversed poles. At even radial
angles, NORTH faces the disk from above and SOUTH from below, while at odd
radial angles, NORTH faces the disk from below and SOUTH from above. Now
this arrangment mostly removes the extraneous field. However, it will end
up with "shorted out" circulating currents in the disk.

The fact that the magnets can be rotated with the disk in sync and this
will
still induce the electrical charge allows modifying the disk to take
advantage
of the alternations of polarity between even and odd angles by cutting out
the
disk until what remains is a conductor that zigs under the field of the
even
angles and zags under the opposite field of the odd angles. This would
still
be a conductor in a loop and still be "shorted out". At this point just
break
the loop by cutting the conductor somewhere and insert a device to measure
or
indicate the voltage/current present (a light, for example).

By even and odd angles, I'm visualizing 12 angles of the common clock.
But
any even number of angles can used as desired.

With my currently limited ability to fabricate these things, I'm going to
do
these thought experiments first to find what things I should not waste my
time
on, and what things I might consider seriously building.


| Yes a homopolar motor will work. it will, like the homopolar generator,
be
| of very limited use. A better design of such a motor exists- it is a
| printed circuit motor which has a conventional DC winding (zigs on one
side
| ans zags on the other) and brushes. The brushes can be at the axle or at
the
| perimeter- Light, not necessarily high current, low voltage- simply a
| conventional motor squeezed (axially) flat. The zigs and zags that you
| indicate are a precursor of this- the Gramme ring motor flattened.

I will look into this. But I get the impression it may not be what I am
thinking about. In particular, I want to work with whatever involves the
conductor AND the magnetic field moving together, as in the original
paradox
that Faraday observed, but extended in some way.


| As fr existence of a rotating magnetic field- such do exist but the axis
of
| rotation is perpendicular to the field. Look at any induction or
synchronous
| machine (any of which is superior to a homopolar machine).

Yes, that kind of rotation can exist. If I place a strong magnet at one
edge
of a disk with N-pole facing the axis, and another at the 180 degree edge
with
S-pole facing the axis, there will be field lines (B) cutting through the
axis
and when the disk rotates, these lines rotate. If I place a conductor
(nearly)
crossing the axis, parallel to the disk, but close enough to be in this
field,
then the rotation of the disk will result in the lines alternating between
being in parallel to that wire and perpendicular to it. I would expect
this
to induce a potential in that wire by Faraday's law of induction, not but
the
Lorentz force.

By my interest is not in that direction. My interest is in finding ways
to
extend the concept of the Faraday disk with the magnets attached to the
disk,
including better confinement of the extraneous fields. Consider my design
involving the zigs at even angles and zags at odd angles (through the
whole
of the disk, not different on each side as your suggest similar to the
Gramme
ring motor). If that idea works (and logically it seems to be the same
thing
as the original "Faraday homopolar generator with magnets rotating with
the
disk"), then the next extension is to replace the disk with 6 zigs and 6
zags
with a non-conductive non-ferrous disk (wood? plastic?) with one that is a
form that allows winding a lot of copper wire suitable for winding coils,
but
in that same 6 zig and 6 zag pattern (where in reality a larger disk would
replace 6 with a larger number). Then there would be effective a very
LONG
conductor moving within a magnetic field where nearly all portions of the
wire
would be under the very same polarity of influence according to Fleming's
right
hand rule and the Lorentz force law. So the question then is does this
make an
even higher voltage than a plain disk, at the end points of this LONG
wire?

FYI, I could make the end points both be at the axis, and conduct a
conductive
axis that is insulated in the middle at the non-conductive disk form, and
then
use that to attach the wires and brushes to extract the electric current.

But will it really work? If not, where does the theory break down and
why?
-------------------------------
As I said, look up the printed circuit DC motor. Sure it is an adaptation of
a conventional motor to a flat disc form but it does do a good job of
maximising the active conductor length.


--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer


--
|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) |

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

"Don Kelly" wrote in message
news:2mUek.99702$gc5.59474@pd7urf2no...
----------------------------
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 02:15:29 GMT Don Kelly wrote:

| It appears that everyone is looking for a paradox where one may not
actually
| exist. Step forward from the Faraday disk to Maxwell's equations. Is
there
| a changing total field in any part of the region enclosed by the path?
How
| about another path?

My understanding is that "paradox" is simply the paradox Faraday thought
of
this back in his day when he did this experiment. He thought it a
paradox
since it didn't follow his theory of induction. Now we know it followed
the
Lorentz theory, instead, which came later than Faraday. So it is no
paradox
to us, anymore. But the term "Faraday's paradox" is still a reference
to the
concept Faraday was exploring.


| One can analyse a homopolar machine using Faraday and can also do it
using
| Lorentz -the latter may be somewhat more elegant .

As I understand this, there are two ways to induce a voltage potential
and a
current in a conductor in a magnetic field. One is for the field flux
itself
to change its vector intensity relative to the conductor. That would be
a
mere density change in a transformer, for example. If the field lines
are
rotating (this is not the same angle of rotation of the Faraday disk)
such
that the lines change from crossing the conductor to going parallel to
it,
there would also be an induction taking place in cycles according to
that
rotation. The other way to induct a voltage potential is for the
conductor
to move at a right angle to the field and to its direction of
conduction.
Then you get a voltage/current with a polarity specified by Fleming's
right
hand rule. This is what the disk is doing.


| In the case of moving vs stationary magnets- consider the whole path
and the
| flux enclosed- otherwise ???.

Of course the "extraneous field" needs to be considered. If the magnets
are
covering just a portion of the disk near the axis, even though a full
360
degrees around the disk, there is not only the field line between the
magnets
going through the disk, there is also a field raidally beyond the
magnets,
giving a field shape somewhat resembling a torus. Part of the disk will
rotate in the inner field and part will rotate in the outer field, and
there
will be induced potential that mostly cancels out.

My idea is to design the field shape to eliminate the extraneous field
by
having alternating sets of magnets with reversed poles. At even radial
angles, NORTH faces the disk from above and SOUTH from below, while at
odd
radial angles, NORTH faces the disk from below and SOUTH from above.
Now
this arrangment mostly removes the extraneous field. However, it will
end
up with "shorted out" circulating currents in the disk.

The fact that the magnets can be rotated with the disk in sync and this
will
still induce the electrical charge allows modifying the disk to take
advantage
of the alternations of polarity between even and odd angles by cutting
out the
disk until what remains is a conductor that zigs under the field of the
even
angles and zags under the opposite field of the odd angles. This would
still
be a conductor in a loop and still be "shorted out". At this point just
break
the loop by cutting the conductor somewhere and insert a device to
measure or
indicate the voltage/current present (a light, for example).

By even and odd angles, I'm visualizing 12 angles of the common clock.
But
any even number of angles can used as desired.

With my currently limited ability to fabricate these things, I'm going
to do
these thought experiments first to find what things I should not waste
my time
on, and what things I might consider seriously building.


| Yes a homopolar motor will work. it will, like the homopolar
generator, be
| of very limited use. A better design of such a motor exists- it is a
| printed circuit motor which has a conventional DC winding (zigs on one
side
| ans zags on the other) and brushes. The brushes can be at the axle or
at the
| perimeter- Light, not necessarily high current, low voltage- simply a
| conventional motor squeezed (axially) flat. The zigs and zags that you
| indicate are a precursor of this- the Gramme ring motor flattened.

I will look into this. But I get the impression it may not be what I am
thinking about. In particular, I want to work with whatever involves
the
conductor AND the magnetic field moving together, as in the original
paradox
that Faraday observed, but extended in some way.


| As fr existence of a rotating magnetic field- such do exist but the
axis of
| rotation is perpendicular to the field. Look at any induction or
synchronous
| machine (any of which is superior to a homopolar machine).

Yes, that kind of rotation can exist. If I place a strong magnet at one
edge
of a disk with N-pole facing the axis, and another at the 180 degree
edge with
S-pole facing the axis, there will be field lines (B) cutting through
the axis
and when the disk rotates, these lines rotate. If I place a conductor
(nearly)
crossing the axis, parallel to the disk, but close enough to be in this
field,
then the rotation of the disk will result in the lines alternating
between
being in parallel to that wire and perpendicular to it. I would expect
this
to induce a potential in that wire by Faraday's law of induction, not
but the
Lorentz force.

By my interest is not in that direction. My interest is in finding ways
to
extend the concept of the Faraday disk with the magnets attached to the
disk,
including better confinement of the extraneous fields. Consider my
design
involving the zigs at even angles and zags at odd angles (through the
whole
of the disk, not different on each side as your suggest similar to the
Gramme
ring motor). If that idea works (and logically it seems to be the same
thing
as the original "Faraday homopolar generator with magnets rotating with
the
disk"), then the next extension is to replace the disk with 6 zigs and 6
zags
with a non-conductive non-ferrous disk (wood? plastic?) with one that is
a
form that allows winding a lot of copper wire suitable for winding
coils, but
in that same 6 zig and 6 zag pattern (where in reality a larger disk
would
replace 6 with a larger number). Then there would be effective a very
LONG
conductor moving within a magnetic field where nearly all portions of
the wire
would be under the very same polarity of influence according to
Fleming's right
hand rule and the Lorentz force law. So the question then is does this
make an
even higher voltage than a plain disk, at the end points of this LONG
wire?

FYI, I could make the end points both be at the axis, and conduct a
conductive
axis that is insulated in the middle at the non-conductive disk form,
and then
use that to attach the wires and brushes to extract the electric
current.

But will it really work? If not, where does the theory break down and
why?
-------------------------------
As I said, look up the printed circuit DC motor. Sure it is an adaptation
of a conventional motor to a flat disc form but it does do a good job of
maximising the active conductor length.


--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer



In general faraday was tinkering with rings as well. where do you think
the jumping ring thing came from.
Had he continued with his works we wouldn't be having this conversation.
However there are a few that are.

Invention is the marriage of mechanics and the sciences With
innovations in both fields.

Sorry for the lack of scientific explanation as i am not of academia.
this is a mechanism that is a closed system with no entropy.

I am an inventor of highly innovative technology. The technology is
basic at best.
however the byproducts are many. Everything is relative through spin.
Fluid dynamics
implicates that every atom of it is spinning. Some extremely slow such
as a solid. the
specific gravity and kinetic energy are fully conserved. It's seemingly
at rest.

Inventing is mostly problem solving. How great your invention? is
directly related to how
great the problem you set out to solve. Induction one of Faraday's
brain child's. The act
of putting a changing magnetic flux field through an induction coil.
The problem is how
to do that cyclic. The answer is a multipole toroid armature. Super
conductance via a
magnetic bearing in an ideal configuration. Caging the toroid armatures
permanent field
arrangement. Path of least resistance predicts the toroid armature will
spin. This is a
frictionless environment with the potential for high efficiency.

The whole goal here was to drive a changing magnetic flux field through
an induction coil
cyclic. It turned out driving multiple changing magnetic flux fields
through several
induction coils cyclic. In essence it is free energy. However the
byproducts of spinning
a mass particularly a ring at hyper extreme rates has the potential to
include
antigravity as a byproduct. Unity is defined as the radius of a
natural sine. Given the
previous the form toroid is unity by form alone. to spin the form
toroid is simply over
unity. The transformations of energy in the SRTT are unified
transforming electric to
kinetic and back to electric cyclic for infinity.

This mechanism is fully multifarious via design variations.

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

There are two kinds of coils 4 each. drive coils and induction coils.
No pulsing
necessary it is centipedal drive system the drive coils magnetically
cage the permanent
fields of the toroid armature. Electromotive forces as defined by
faraday motivates the
toroid armature seeking the path of least resistance in an eccentric
manner orbital about
the axis. Induction coils inducing elec energy via driving multiple
magnetic flux fields
through 4 induction coils at potentially extreme rates of change. In
comparison it would
be like shaking a faraday flashlight 8,000,000 times a minute.

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

The Armature once in motion is pure kinetic energy with all the
byproducts associated
with spinning mass.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!pt6r002.jpg Note the
physical magnets placements in comparison to the actual fields
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...lfieldring.jpg OK
the spacing of the
attracting N and S poles has created a extra flux field. It is there in
a physical sense
yet it is pseudo in the sense that it's strong and weak forces can be
easily manipulated.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...pedalDrive.jpg the
following image is how
the fields may look as the armature is caged by the drive coils.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...fluxlines4.jpg please forgive
the crude
drawings as i don't have a source for computer modeled works. The
prototype is #6 and
will never be completed as a testable model. This mechanism is designed
as a one piece
toroid armature consisting of a ceramic or comparable material that can
be host to a
permanent field that is non conductive.

These drawings are linear this one is the coils and spacing example,
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...lacementsm.jpg
this one is a
double slice showing the ring chamber and the molded gear section for
twisting the
chamber/spool for winding coils around the armature,
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/i...dblslicesm.jpg

Anyways if you could direct this transmittal document to those that may
have an interest
in it for peer review or potential research for any specific
implementation. this is
unique highly innovative technology. You and your associates are
presented with a unique
opportunity.



there is one other but it is several generations below my technology. In
it's current state of developement is not capable of inducing energy and
has issues with friction. I firmly believe the design could accomplish the
intended goal should they work out those issues.
http://www.ganid.com

Don, check out the site i think that spinning the ring form is not so
difficult afterall. it would only take two changes to their design to have
it inducing energy. Probably not much but it would prove the point that it
is a ideal configuration of utilizing faradays electromagnetic induction.
Ganids mechanism at 2000rpm in comparison to shaking a faraday's
flashlight, 48000 times a minute! With the potential to do that dance for
a fairly long time. would probably outlive the electronics it is meant to
power. That's enough energy to eliminate the need for batteries.

terry
----------
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?
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.
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 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.

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

--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer

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

----------
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?

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.


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


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.

At this point i'm not affiliated with www.ganid.com the claims are their
own. Their course of research is geared twards anti-gravity. Have they
achieved it? No. are they close? Hell yeah!


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

--

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer



Well Don I don't believe in free energy there is allways a cost. I agree
most, however this is no variation of any of the preceding efforts.
Conservation of energy implicates a perpetual state. Thermodynamics predicts
that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Our only course is to transform
it from the various forms. we just havn't found the right set of
transformations to cycle transformations of energy for indefinate periods of
time.

"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.
------------


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.

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.

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

I do have a fairly strong background in electromagnetic devices and the
principles involved - considerably more than what you have -because that has
been at the core of my professional life.

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer
----------------------------






Well Don I don't believe in free energy there is allways a cost. I agree
most, however this is no variation of any of the preceding efforts.
Conservation of energy implicates a perpetual state. Thermodynamics
predicts that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Our only course is to
transform it from the various forms. we just havn't found the right set of
transformations to cycle transformations of energy for indefinate periods
of time.

Wrong.
----------

"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.
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.



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.


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.


I do have a fairly strong background in electromagnetic devices and the
principles involved - considerably more than what you have -because that
has been at the core of my professional life.

Don Kelly
remove the X to answer
----------------------------

That would be why i want you to fully understand this mechanism.