On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:42:56 GMT Don Kelly <dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
| Sorry. There is nothing in this do***ent 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 do***ent 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 do***ents 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 relation****p 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 pro****tion 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 pro****tional 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 pro****tion 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) |
|
