Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jul 4, 2009, at 7:36 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: I'll be back. Harry I ordered some non-magnetic stainless bearings from KMS Bearings: http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NAwhat=non- magnetic+ball+bearingsheading=3920402cid=270891CNID=cnurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fkmsbearings.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Fradial-ball-bearings-3 http://tinyurl.com/mk3o4d Their lubricant washes out with soap and water. I didn't, but probably should have ordered the model with a high temperature cage, but it only has to run (or not run) for a few seconds to test the thermal expansion hypothesis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I'll be back. Harry - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Yes the loop is closed, but I am working from the hypothesis that the bearings are accelerated by the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the shaft. Therefore the bearings do not need to make electrical contact with the shaft, although they might need some start-up rotation. Note, my hypothesis is just a guess so I can't justify it on theoretical grounds using conventional physics. All I can say is that a torque is not required. This is becoming clearer to me as we talk about it. It there is no torque there will be no rotation. There is friction that stops any rotation unless torque is maintained. If there is no current there will be no torque. Yes if Newton's third law is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Newton's laws are the *last* thing I would discard in describing a machine which to me has no apparent anomaly. In any case, if you are going to invoke bizarre physics, it is up to you to carefully specify, quantify, and justify it. It there is a current through the shaft there is a circular B field around the shaft, except in the vicinity of the brushes. A circular B field, even if it magnetizes the balls, will produce no torque upon the balls other than a torque that retards their rotation, unless there is also a radial current through the balls. Remember I am making the shaft stationary so there are no brushes. (See my description above.) Yes I got that. I repeat all the above and below. The only way I can have any understanding of your statements that otherwise make no sense at all to me is the possibility that you have the misconception that a magnet in a uniform B field will have a net force (besides any torque) on it from the uniform B field. This is just not true. The magnetic material of the balls will have a magnetic field induced in them that aligns with the circular magnetic field, and thus provides a torque on the balls upon any ball rotation that resists that ball rotation, and which provides no net circumferential force (torque) about the shaft to either them or or to the shaft. Perhaps if you described in detail, with drawings, why you think there would be any motion of the balls in the circular field, or any net force or motion reinforcing torque on the balls, without a current through the balls, it would make some sense. It is easy to see, by symmetry, that a radial current through the balls can not produce a net torque, because the circular B field is in the same direction at the bearings at both ends, but the current direction is into the shaft at one end and out at the other, thus any such torque must net to zero. The torque at one end of the shaft exactly cancels the torque at the other end, provided both ends are symmetrical to each other. Assume the bearings are in the middle of a very long shaft so the relevant B field is circular. Uhhh did you even read what I wrote? What circular B field did you think I was referring to in my post? I guess for now the quality of and effort for accurate communication has dropped to the point in this discussion that it is now simply beyond the point of usefulness. Please excuse my grouchiness. I'm short of time and sleep. Besides the symmetry argument, if you actually draw the configuration you can see that a circular B field will act on any radial current through the balls to produce an axial force on the bearings, not a torque on the bearings. If you look more carefully at what happens to the magnetic material in the ordinary Marino motor as it rotates, however, you can see that hysteresis (a delay in the de-magnetizing of the material) permits magnetized material to rotate into place where the radial current through it produces a torque that reinforces the direction of rotation, which ever direction of rotation that might be. This is all laid out in diagrammatic form in Figs 3 and 4 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Further, the symmetry argument for the ordinary Marinov motor now shows a reinforcing, not canceling, effect at both ends of the shaft. This is because, when the current i is directed radially into the shaft, the magnetization direction of the material that rotates into place in the current stream is the opposite of the material at the other end of the shaft where the current
RE: [Vo]:vortex balls!
Excuse me for jumping in late on this thread, not having followed it closely, but this may be worth a mention from the peanut gallery (unless it has already been covered)... WRT the current squared hypothesis - there should an obvious way to falsify, or to add a level confirmation to this. Unfortunately, if there is more than one thing going on, like the heat hypothesis, then the following may not tell you much. That would be to measure the RPM at DC for your baseline and at various levels of current and the same voltage. Is the rotational response linear or exponential to the current? Even with friction and other losses, it should be exponential, no? ... and alternatively, or in addition to that, compare against the same setup at 50% duty, square wave, but the same voltage and twice the current. In the case of twice the current, over half the time interval, the expected proportionality would be 4/2 or double. Correct? The implication of that is that very low duty, but very high current (cap discharge?) might even make the thing useful... (Unless I am missing something which is likely) i.e. 1% duty with 100x current pulse gives an enticing relative gain -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:hheff...@mtaonline.net] One obvious conclusion from the hypothesis that the torque of the ball bearing motor is primarily due to hysteresis in the balls and races, and thus is proportional to i^2, is that the most efficient motor will, all other things being equal, have a shaft with the least possible resistance. This implies the following conclusions regarding the shaft: 1. copper is better than iron or steel 2. silver is even better 3. shorter is better 4. solid bar is better than pipe 5. good electrical contact between the shaft and the inner race is important Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Excuse me for jumping in late on this thread, not having followed it closely, but this may be worth a mention from the peanut gallery (unless it has already been covered)... WRT the current squared hypothesis - there should an obvious way to falsify, or to add a level confirmation to this. Unfortunately, if there is more than one thing going on, like the heat hypothesis, then the following may not tell you much. That would be to measure the RPM at DC for your baseline and at various levels of current and the same voltage. Is the rotational response linear or exponential to the current? Even with friction and other losses, it should be exponential, no? ... and alternatively, or in addition to that, compare against the same setup at 50% duty, square wave, but the same voltage and twice the current. In the case of twice the current, over half the time interval, the expected proportionality would be 4/2 or double. Correct? The implication of that is that very low duty, but very high current (cap discharge?) might even make the thing useful... (Unless I am missing something which is likely) i.e. 1% duty with 100x current pulse gives an enticing relative gain The fact the effect is due entirely to hysteresis limits the effective rpm range across which the motor responds with a force (torque) proportional to i^2. There has to be a balance of current to load to optimize the motor efficiency. For a DC test, an appropriate test would simultaneously increase the load in order to sustain a constant rpm, and thus maintain the magnetization timing. There was an inherent assumption on my part, in making the torque proportional to i^2 assertion, that the motor was operating in an efficient range, and as well not saturating. A sufficient time is required to overcome the magnetization hysteresis in order to have a sufficient M to produce the i L x B torque. Similarly, the M field must last long enough in the material with out the supporting H that it rotates into position such that the current i passes through it. The combined effect is a kind of wave of magnetization to both sides of the contact points. Optimization places the current right in or near the appropriate peak of that wave. If pulsed DC is used, and the pulse of current is too fast, and the time between pulses too long, then the initial magnetization will occur, and possibly even saturate the material, but by the time the magnetized material rotates into the contact point location, there is no current with which to generate the i L x B force, thus the motor will have no torque at all. I would note that, under the thermal scenario, the heat (energy) applied is an i^2 R effect, where R is the resistance. However, to maintain a constant torque for a given current, the same degree of expansion has to be maintained at every rpm. Therefore the power requirements must increase with angular velocity. The energy to support, via thermal expansion, the extreme speeds at which some of the motors now operate should take an extreme amount of power. As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load to angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically. In any case, I maintain that a Marinov ball bearing motor made entirely of non-magnetic material will quickly resolve the thermal vs magnetic explanations. A complex FEA dynamic model would be required to optimize the design, or to verify the theory quantitatively, i.e. perfectly match theory to performance. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I wrote; As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load to angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically. That should say: As the designs improve magnetically, you can see the power required drops, the current required drops, and the zero load peak angular velocity and the initial acceleration both increase dramatically. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Yes the loop is closed, but I am working from the hypothesis that the bearings are accelerated by the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the shaft. Therefore the bearings do not need to make electrical contact with the shaft, although they might need some start-up rotation. Note, my hypothesis is just a guess so I can't justify it on theoretical grounds using conventional physics. All I can say is that a torque is not required. This is becoming clearer to me as we talk about it. It there is no torque there will be no rotation. There is friction that stops any rotation unless torque is maintained. If there is no current there will be no torque. Yes if Newton's third law is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It there is a current through the shaft there is a circular B field around the shaft, except in the vicinity of the brushes. A circular B field, even if it magnetizes the balls, will produce no torque upon the balls other than a torque that retards their rotation, unless there is also a radial current through the balls. Remember I am making the shaft stationary so there are no brushes. (See my description above.) It is easy to see, by symmetry, that a radial current through the balls can not produce a net torque, because the circular B field is in the same direction at the bearings at both ends, but the current direction is into the shaft at one end and out at the other, thus any such torque must net to zero. The torque at one end of the shaft exactly cancels the torque at the other end, provided both ends are symmetrical to each other. Assume the bearings are in the middle of a very long shaft so the relevant B field is circular. Besides the symmetry argument, if you actually draw the configuration you can see that a circular B field will act on any radial current through the balls to produce an axial force on the bearings, not a torque on the bearings. If you look more carefully at what happens to the magnetic material in the ordinary Marino motor as it rotates, however, you can see that hysteresis (a delay in the de-magnetizing of the material) permits magnetized material to rotate into place where the radial current through it produces a torque that reinforces the direction of rotation, which ever direction of rotation that might be. This is all laid out in diagrammatic form in Figs 3 and 4 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Further, the symmetry argument for the ordinary Marinov motor now shows a reinforcing, not canceling, effect at both ends of the shaft. This is because, when the current i is directed radially into the shaft, the magnetization direction of the material that rotates into place in the current stream is the opposite of the material at the other end of the shaft where the current is directed radially out of the shaft. The torque at both ends of the shaft is thus reinforcing, and in the direction of the rotation, whichever direction that might be. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jul 1, 2009, at 3:33 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Yes the loop is closed, but I am working from the hypothesis that the bearings are accelerated by the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the shaft. Therefore the bearings do not need to make electrical contact with the shaft, although they might need some start-up rotation. Note, my hypothesis is just a guess so I can't justify it on theoretical grounds using conventional physics. All I can say is that a torque is not required. This is becoming clearer to me as we talk about it. It there is no torque there will be no rotation. There is friction that stops any rotation unless torque is maintained. If there is no current there will be no torque. Yes if Newton's third law is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Newton's laws are the *last* thing I would discard in describing a machine which to me has no apparent anomaly. In any case, if you are going to invoke bizarre physics, it is up to you to carefully specify, quantify, and justify it. It there is a current through the shaft there is a circular B field around the shaft, except in the vicinity of the brushes. A circular B field, even if it magnetizes the balls, will produce no torque upon the balls other than a torque that retards their rotation, unless there is also a radial current through the balls. Remember I am making the shaft stationary so there are no brushes. (See my description above.) Yes I got that. I repeat all the above and below. The only way I can have any understanding of your statements that otherwise make no sense at all to me is the possibility that you have the misconception that a magnet in a uniform B field will have a net force (besides any torque) on it from the uniform B field. This is just not true. The magnetic material of the balls will have a magnetic field induced in them that aligns with the circular magnetic field, and thus provides a torque on the balls upon any ball rotation that resists that ball rotation, and which provides no net circumferential force (torque) about the shaft to either them or or to the shaft. Perhaps if you described in detail, with drawings, why you think there would be any motion of the balls in the circular field, or any net force or motion reinforcing torque on the balls, without a current through the balls, it would make some sense. It is easy to see, by symmetry, that a radial current through the balls can not produce a net torque, because the circular B field is in the same direction at the bearings at both ends, but the current direction is into the shaft at one end and out at the other, thus any such torque must net to zero. The torque at one end of the shaft exactly cancels the torque at the other end, provided both ends are symmetrical to each other. Assume the bearings are in the middle of a very long shaft so the relevant B field is circular. Uhhh did you even read what I wrote? What circular B field did you think I was referring to in my post? I guess for now the quality of and effort for accurate communication has dropped to the point in this discussion that it is now simply beyond the point of usefulness. Please excuse my grouchiness. I'm short of time and sleep. Besides the symmetry argument, if you actually draw the configuration you can see that a circular B field will act on any radial current through the balls to produce an axial force on the bearings, not a torque on the bearings. If you look more carefully at what happens to the magnetic material in the ordinary Marino motor as it rotates, however, you can see that hysteresis (a delay in the de-magnetizing of the material) permits magnetized material to rotate into place where the radial current through it produces a torque that reinforces the direction of rotation, which ever direction of rotation that might be. This is all laid out in diagrammatic form in Figs 3 and 4 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Further, the symmetry argument for the ordinary Marinov motor now shows a reinforcing, not canceling, effect at both ends of the shaft. This is because, when the current i is directed radially into the shaft, the magnetization direction of the material that rotates into place in the current stream is the opposite of the material at the other end of the shaft where the current is directed radially out of the shaft. The torque at both ends of the shaft is thus reinforcing, and in the direction of the rotation, whichever direction that might be. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! If you look more carefully at what happens to the magnetic material in the ordinary Marino motor as it rotates, however, you can see that hysteresis (a delay in the de-magnetizing of the material) permits magnetized material to rotate into place where the radial current through it produces a torque that reinforces the direction of rotation, which ever direction of rotation that might be. This is all laid out in diagrammatic form in Figs 3 and 4 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Are they cross sections of the upper half one bearing so the length shaft runs parallel to page? Harry
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Are they cross sections of the upper half one bearing so the length shaft runs parallel to page? Harry No. Figs. 3 and 4 are indeed cross sections of the upper half of a bearing. However, the shaft is just below the inner race, and its longitudinal direction is toward the reader. The shaft is rotating clockwise. Its circumference thus is moving in the direction of the inner race, which is the same direction as shown for the force F3 in Fig. 4. The outer race is of course stationary. To make the Figs. more complete I should draw I line under the inner race, and notate the shaft location below. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to do a decent drawing either, but ascii is the only thing that shows up in the archives, so I post in ascii. It wouldn't surprise me if you were the only person to make the effort actually look at the figures, so much thanks for that. If you have any trouble making sense of them I'll be glad to help out. I make lots of mistakes, so there could be some problems. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I should have noted below that Figs 3 and 4 only show a cross section in the vicinity of one ball in the upper part of a bearing. On Jul 1, 2009, at 6:18 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:27 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Are they cross sections of the upper half one bearing so the length shaft runs parallel to page? Harry No. Figs. 3 and 4 are indeed cross sections of the upper half of a bearing. However, the shaft is just below the inner race, and its longitudinal direction is toward the reader. The shaft is rotating clockwise. Its circumference thus is moving in the direction of the inner race, which is the same direction as shown for the force F3 in Fig. 4. The outer race is of course stationary. To make the Figs. more complete I should draw I line under the inner race, and notate the shaft location below. I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to do a decent drawing either, but ascii is the only thing that shows up in the archives, so I post in ascii. It wouldn't surprise me if you were the only person to make the effort actually look at the figures, so much thanks for that. If you have any trouble making sense of them I'll be glad to help out. I make lots of mistakes, so there could be some problems. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 28, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Using a magnetic shaft might disrupt the effect, but I am only guessing. When I use the term magnetic I mean magnetic material like iron or steel, not a magnetized material. If brushes are to be placed directly on the circumference of the shaft then I say there is no prospect of torque unless the shaft is magnetic - no hysteresis, no torque. How about if the leads were connected to the ends of a fixed shaft and let the outer racers rotate instead? That would eliminate the brush friction. Harry There would have to be brushes to the outer races - and thus the friction would be there instead. Current has to make a closed loop. The cool thing that would get lots of people the chance to first hand experiment would be to locate a cheap source for non-magnetic stainless steel bearings. Non-magnetic (relative permeability 1.01 or less) bearings exist: http://www.nsk.com/products/spacea/non-magnetic/ but look pricey. Here is a Thomas register list of suppliers of non-magnetic bearings: http://www.thomasnet.com/products/bearings-ball- nonmagnetic-3920402-1.html http://tinyurl.com/lbe8ck Here are some alternatives in the under $30 range: http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NAwhat=non- magnetic+ball+bearingsheading=3920402cid=270891CNID=cnurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fkmsbearings.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Fradial-ball-bearings-3 http://tinyurl.com/mk3o4d Other types available in the same metals: http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NAwhat=non- magnetic+ball+bearingsheading=3920402cid=270891CNID=cnurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fkmsbearings.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Fradial-ball-bearings-3 http://tinyurl.com/mk3o4d The key is to spend the time to locate really cheap non-magnetic bearings that have identically sized and cheap magnetic counterparts. The configuration I suggested in Fig. 5 of http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf was for scientific purposes - to isolate the source of the effect. Using non-magnetic bearings as a control will only establish that magnetic materials are required (or not). The drawback of the Fig. 5 configuration is that one brush point replaces 8 points from a single bearing and 16 in the overall motor. The weakened motor also has to be able to push a conventional brush. However, by sandwiching a thin grooved copper disk between two iron disks, and using a copper shaft, the max current and force should rise dramatically, so there are trade-offs. Construction is also more difficult, but the scientific results available are improved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:26 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jun 28, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: Using a magnetic shaft might disrupt the effect, but I am only guessing. When I use the term magnetic I mean magnetic material like iron or steel, not a magnetized material. If brushes are to be placed directly on the circumference of the shaft then I say there is no prospect of torque unless the shaft is magnetic - no hysteresis, no torque. Ok. How about if the leads were connected to the ends of a fixed shaft and let the outer racers rotate instead? That would eliminate the brush friction. Harry There would have to be brushes to the outer races - and thus the friction would be there instead. Current has to make a closed loop. Yes the loop is closed, but I am working from the hypothesis that the bearings are accelerated by the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the shaft. Therefore the bearings do not need to make electrical contact with the shaft, although they might need some start-up rotation. Note, my hypothesis is just a guess so I can't justify it on theoretical grounds using conventional physics. All I can say is that a torque is not required. This is becoming clearer to me as we talk about it. The cool thing that would get lots of people the chance to first hand experiment would be to locate a cheap source for non-magnetic stainless steel bearings. Non-magnetic (relative permeability 1.01 or less) bearings exist: http://www.nsk.com/products/spacea/non-magnetic/ but look pricey. Here is a Thomas register list of suppliers of non-magnetic bearings: http://www.thomasnet.com/products/bearings-ball- nonmagnetic-3920402-1.html http://tinyurl.com/lbe8ck Here are some alternatives in the under $30 range: http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NAwhat=non- magnetic+ball+bearingsheading=3920402cid=270891CNID=cnurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fkmsbearings.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Fradial-ball-bearings-3 http://tinyurl.com/mk3o4d Other types available in the same metals: http://www.thomasnet.com/catalognavigator.html?cov=NAwhat=non- magnetic+ball+bearingsheading=3920402cid=270891CNID=cnurl=http%3A% 2F%2Fkmsbearings.thomasnet.com%2FCategory%2Fradial-ball-bearings-3 http://tinyurl.com/mk3o4d The key is to spend the time to locate really cheap non-magnetic bearings that have identically sized and cheap magnetic counterparts. The configuration I suggested in Fig. 5 of http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf was for scientific purposes - to isolate the source of the effect. Using non-magnetic bearings as a control will only establish that magnetic materials are required (or not). The drawback of the Fig. 5 configuration is that one brush point replaces 8 points from a single bearing and 16 in the overall motor. The weakened motor also has to be able to push a conventional brush. However, by sandwiching a thin grooved copper disk between two iron disks, and using a copper shaft, the max current and force should rise dramatically, so there are trade-offs. Construction is also more difficult, but the scientific results available are improved. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 29, 2009, at 8:36 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: Yes the loop is closed, but I am working from the hypothesis that the bearings are accelerated by the magnetic field produced by the current flowing through the shaft. Therefore the bearings do not need to make electrical contact with the shaft, although they might need some start-up rotation. Note, my hypothesis is just a guess so I can't justify it on theoretical grounds using conventional physics. All I can say is that a torque is not required. This is becoming clearer to me as we talk about it. It there is no torque there will be no rotation. There is friction that stops any rotation unless torque is maintained. If there is no current there will be no torque. It there is a current through the shaft there is a circular B field around the shaft, except in the vicinity of the brushes. A circular B field, even if it magnetizes the balls, will produce no torque upon the balls other than a torque that retards their rotation, unless there is also a radial current through the balls. It is easy to see, by symmetry, that a radial current through the balls can not produce a net torque, because the circular B field is in the same direction at the bearings at both ends, but the current direction is into the shaft at one end and out at the other, thus any such torque must net to zero. The torque at one end of the shaft exactly cancels the torque at the other end, provided both ends are symmetrical to each other. Besides the symmetry argument, if you actually draw the configuration you can see that a circular B field will act on any radial current through the balls to produce an axial force on the bearings, not a torque on the bearings. If you look more carefully at what happens to the magnetic material in the ordinary Marino motor as it rotates, however, you can see that hysteresis (a delay in the de-magnetizing of the material) permits magnetized material to rotate into place where the radial current through it produces a torque that reinforces the direction of rotation, which ever direction of rotation that might be. This is all laid out in diagrammatic form in Figs 3 and 4 of: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf Further, the symmetry argument for the ordinary Marinov motor now shows a reinforcing, not canceling, effect at both ends of the shaft. This is because, when the current i is directed radially into the shaft, the magnetization direction of the material that rotates into place in the current stream is the opposite of the material at the other end of the shaft where the current is directed radially out of the shaft. The torque at both ends of the shaft is thus reinforcing, and in the direction of the rotation, whichever direction that might be. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to add: Regarding Fig. 5, a strategy to improve conductivity and yet retain some of the effective flux is to construct the driver disk using a thin copper disk sandwiched between two iron disks. A further improvement would consist of cutting fine radial groves in the outer portion of the central copper disk in order to keep the radial current tightly confined geometrically. It is possible to construct both the brush disk and active disk in an identical manner, and thus obtain two active disks. The control experiment then consists of replacing the iron disks with copper disks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to add: Regarding Fig. 5, a strategy to improve conductivity and yet retain some of the effective flux is to construct the driver disk using a thin copper disk sandwiched between two iron disks. A further improvement would consist of cutting fine radial groves in the outer portion of the central copper disk in order to keep the radial current tightly confined geometrically. It is possible to construct both the brush disk and active disk in an identical manner, and thus obtain two active disks. The control experiment then consists of replacing the iron disks with copper disks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I wonder if it would work if the ends of the shaft were connected to the leads with brushes, instead of connecting the leads to the bearings. Harry
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
It was nice to see this being done with less amperage in another link you provided in your pdf: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1PgR1hyXHsfeature=related BTW, the first link in your pdf appears to be dead. Harry I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to add: Regarding Fig. 5, a strategy to improve conductivity and yet retain some of the effective flux is to construct the driver disk using a thin copper disk sandwiched between two iron disks. A further improvement would consist of cutting fine radial groves in the outer portion of the central copper disk in order to keep the radial current tightly confined geometrically. It is possible to construct both the brush disk and active disk in an identical manner, and thus obtain two active disks. The control experiment then consists of replacing the iron disks with copper disks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to add: Regarding Fig. 5, a strategy to improve conductivity and yet retain some of the effective flux is to construct the driver disk using a thin copper disk sandwiched between two iron disks. A further improvement would consist of cutting fine radial groves in the outer portion of the central copper disk in order to keep the radial current tightly confined geometrically. It is possible to construct both the brush disk and active disk in an identical manner, and thus obtain two active disks. The control experiment then consists of replacing the iron disks with copper disks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I wonder if it would work if the ends of the shaft were connected to the leads with brushes, instead of connecting the leads to the bearings. Harry If you look at Fig. 5 in the above pdf you will see the brushes are connected to the shaft and not the ball bearings. This takes ball bearings out of the picture entirely. Mercury or some other liquid conductor might be used in place of brushes, provided the shaft in Fig. 5 is made vertical, and the end of the shaft dipped in the mercury or other liquid conductor to form the brush. Using just brushes on the circumference of the shaft, instead of connecting the power to the bearings, should work somewhat provided the shaft is magnetic, and the brushes closely approximate a point. The problem with brushes in any case is friction. Perhaps graphite lubricant could help, and provide more of an arc-like contact, at least briefly. One problem with using the shaft directly is that the radial path L of the current i is thereby minimized, so the i L x M force is minimized. That's why I suggest the use of the comparatively thin wheel conduction path augmented by sectioning. A solid steel shaft should work better than a hollow shaft, and a large diameter solid shaft should work better than a small diameter shaft for that direct contact with the shaft approach. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009 6:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to add: Regarding Fig. 5, a strategy to improve conductivity and yet retain some of the effective flux is to construct the driver disk using a thin copper disk sandwiched between two iron disks. A further improvement would consist of cutting fine radial groves in the outer portion of the central copper disk in order to keep the radial current tightly confined geometrically. It is possible to construct both the brush disk and active disk in an identical manner, and thus obtain two active disks. The control experiment then consists of replacing the iron disks with copper disks. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ I wonder if it would work if the ends of the shaft were connected to the leads with brushes, instead of connecting the leads to the bearings. Harry If you look at Fig. 5 in the above pdf you will see the brushes are connected to the shaft and not the ball bearings. This takes ball bearings out of the picture entirely. Ahh I see. I wasn't sure. Mercury or some other liquid conductor might be used in place of brushes, provided the shaft in Fig. 5 is made vertical, and the end of the shaft dipped in the mercury or other liquid conductor to form the brush. Using just brushes on the circumference of the shaft, instead of connecting the power to the bearings, should work somewhat provided the shaft is magnetic, and the brushes closely approximate a point. Using a magnetic shaft might disrupt the effect, but I am only guessing. The problem with brushes in any case is friction. Perhaps graphite lubricant could help, and provide more of an arc-like contact, at least briefly. One problem with using the shaft directly is that the radial path L of the current i is thereby minimized, so the i L x M force is minimized. That's why I suggest the use of the comparatively thin wheel conduction path augmented by sectioning. A solid steel shaft should work better than a hollow shaft, and a large diameter solid shaft should work better than a small diameter shaft for that direct contact with the shaft approach. How about if the leads were connected to the ends of a fixed shaft and let the outer racers rotate instead? That would eliminate the brush friction. Harry
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
Earlier I wrote: Ordinary brushes or slip ring brushes should not work at all. This is not correct. The above should say: Slip ring brushes should not work at all. Of possible interest is that contact point brushes might work on ordinary iron disks used in place of the bearings. The same circular M field wold be produced and hysteresis would allow that field to rotate into an effective position. In other words, a shaft with bearings and two iron disks, with point brushes to the disks instead of the bearings, should also work. Replacing the disks with copper disks should not work. Even a shaft with a single iron disk and point brush, and an ordinary brush to the shaft, should work. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
A shaft with a single iron disk and point brush, and an ordinary brush to the shaft, should work. The iron disk should be fairly thick. The point brush on the iron disk could be made from a thin copper disk, mounted on a copper shaft and electrically connected using an ordinary brush, as shown in Fig. 5. | | (+)| copper brush disk BB vvv BB| ==| BB BB| | | | * arc ||| ||| (-) ||| iron driver disk BB vvv BB ||| =||| BB BB ||| ||| ||| ||| Key: BB - bearing vvv - brush === - shaft | - copper disk ||| - thick iron disk (+) - positive or AC terminal (-) - negative or AC terminal * - brush contact point arc Fig. 5 - Cross section view of alternative Marinov motor This motor would not be very effective because it only has one contact point. The one compensation is it should be able to handle massive current, and the torque is a product of current squared because the current generates the B field, so the magnitude i L B of iL x B is really i L (k i) = i^2 L k. Conductivity could be increased by using an iron ring on a copper disk in place of the iron disk. It might be possible to substitute one or more thin conductive arcs for the copper disk. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
BTW all of this reminds me of an idea I had a very long time ago.Later someone had the same idea (or stole mine) and put it here: http://www.geocities.com/nayado/ http://www.geocities.com/nayado/The problem of Bill's spiraling current not causing a magnetic field but the protons causing the field Bill was seeking if the electrons don't spiral as much is a lot like the basic idea of this concept. You make a self canceling bifilar coil so that it has no inductance, as close to absolute zero as you can get composed of many thin turns. You then charge the coil to a very high negative potential, on doing so you get negative inductance. Which means instead of the coil opposing the establishment of a current it literally gives energy and then it takes it if you have a declining current, but if you put in the right kind of wave shape (ramping up and then off) you get Free Energy. Let me explain the theory. From the stationary view point the magnetic field in a wire is caused by moving electrons, however to these moving electrons there is a magnetic field but THEY aren't responsible for it, as far as they are concerned it is the protons that are moving and as the electrons try and speed up they feel a voltage from this proton induced magnetic field which is now growing in strength that tries to retard them. This is of course the first part of so-called self inductance, the establishment of the current faces resistance. If we take the wire and bend it back on it's self then we cancel out this inductance because now the moving electrons see the magnetic field from the protons but also the electrons moving in the opposite direction, the positive and negative inductive forces cancel. Now what if we charge everything to a high negative potential and still use this coil with zero net inductance? Now as the electrons accelerate they see the magnetic field not from protons growing but the magnetic field from the excess electrons growing this will be of the opposite direction. This magnetic field generated by the motion of the electrons induces the opposite EMF which causes the current to gain energy as it is being established. Normal induction takes energy away and gives it back later. This is more like a bank loan, you borrow the energy first but what if you don't pay it back? This is all thanks to Einstein, if motion is relative then so is the existence of a magnetic field created by a charge, if you see it and how you see it depends on your relative motion to that charge. In a wire it's not a big issue because an identical magnetic fields will be seen created by relative motion to the drift electrons or protons either way it will be identical. The only way this FE effect would fail would be if magnetic fields weren't generated by the relative motions of charged bodies but rather absolute motion through a (fluid/gas) aether by the charge. None of this is IMO useful because there are far better ways to make energy and indeed as the fluid aether is real then it might not work. BTW if you charge a vinyl record with a static charge and rotate it fast it does create a magnetic field, what I have never heard being established it is if moving with the record it still has a magnetic field. Or if rotating around a stationary charged record causes a magnetic field to be seen in the rotating frame. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: A shaft with a single iron disk and point brush, and an ordinary brush to the shaft, should work. The iron disk should be fairly thick. The point brush on the iron disk could be made from a thin copper disk, mounted on a copper shaft and electrically connected using an ordinary brush, as shown in Fig. 5. | | (+)| copper brush disk BB vvv BB| ==| BB BB| | | | * arc ||| ||| (-) ||| iron driver disk BB vvv BB ||| =||| BB BB ||| ||| ||| ||| Key: BB - bearing vvv - brush === - shaft | - copper disk ||| - thick iron disk (+) - positive or AC terminal (-) - negative or AC terminal * - brush contact point arc Fig. 5 - Cross section view of alternative Marinov motor This motor would not be very effective because it only has one contact point. The one compensation is it should be able to handle massive current, and the torque is a product of current squared because the current generates the B field, so the magnitude i L B of iL x B is really i L (k i) = i^2 L k. Conductivity could be increased by using an iron ring on a copper disk in place of the iron disk. It might be possible to substitute one or more thin conductive arcs for the copper disk. Best regards, Horace Heffner
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to include the contents of my recent vortex posts, in the hope that, unlike the last 6 years, maybe in the next 6 years someone will read it and think, Hey, the torque is indeed due to magnetic hysteresis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
Horace rather plaintively wrote:I've updated:http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdfto include the contents of my recent vortex posts, in the hope that, unlike the last 6 years, maybe in the next 6 years someone will read it and think, Hey, the torque is indeed due to magnetic hysteresis.Unfortunately,Full many a rose is born to blush unseen, And waste its fragrance on the desert air Thomas Gray: Elegy in a country churchyardNick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
I am looking at your pdf now. Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_pKV3B402Yfeature=related One could make a car propelled by a ball-bearing motor. Harry - Original Message - From: Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.net Date: Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! I've updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to include the contents of my recent vortex posts, in the hope that, unlike the last 6 years, maybe in the next 6 years someone will read it and think, Hey, the torque is indeed due to magnetic hysteresis. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Fw: [Vo]:vortex balls!
- Original Message - From: John Berry To: Nick Palmer Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! Unfortunately,Full many a rose is born to blush unseen, And waste its fragrance on the desert air On the subject of such, well I did just give a method that logically should create energy. I am pretty sure that it can't be easily explained away within known laws of electrodynamics. In other words I believe it could only fail if relativity is wrong. There are not many ways to create energy that add up within the accepted model of physics, but this is one has no takers? Personally I only find it to be a curiosity but only because I believe I have better. If you don't believe my aether model then this should logically be the solution to the worlds energy problems. Did I fail to explain the effect clearly enough... This either disproves (special) relativity or creates energy in violation of the first law of thernodynamics. Horace, you are reasonably well clued in on electrodynamics, no view on this? On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Nick Palmer ni...@wynterwood.co.uk wrote: Horace rather plaintively wrote:I've updated:http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdfto include the contents of my recent vortex posts, in the hope that, unlike the last 6 years, maybe in the next 6 years someone will read it and think, Hey, the torque is indeed due to magnetic hysteresis.Unfortunately,Full many a rose is born to blush unseen, And waste its fragrance on the desert air Thomas Gray: Elegy in a country churchyardNick Palmer On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:35 PM, Nick Palmer wrote: - Original Message - From: John Berry To: Nick Palmer Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2009 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:vortex balls! Unfortunately,Full many a rose is born to blush unseen, And waste its fragrance on the desert air On the subject of such, well I did just give a method that logically should create energy. I am pretty sure that it can't be easily explained away within known laws of electrodynamics. In other words I believe it could only fail if relativity is wrong. There are not many ways to create energy that add up within the accepted model of physics, but this is one has no takers? Personally I only find it to be a curiosity but only because I believe I have better. If you don't believe my aether model then this should logically be the solution to the worlds energy problems. Did I fail to explain the effect clearly enough... This either disproves (special) relativity or creates energy in violation of the first law of thernodynamics. Horace, you are reasonably well clued in on electrodynamics, no view on this? Sure, I have a view. If you feel the idea has merit I think you should more fully write up your idea, add any diagrams that might be relevant, and include any formulas or computations you think are relevant, and post it on your web site for posterity. Better yet would be to publish. I don't see how any of the material of yours you reference (assuming it is the material you last posted in this thread) is relevant to the vortex balls thread, or why I should be singled out to comment. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Horace Heffner hheff...@mtaonline.netwrote: Sure, I have a view. If you feel the idea has merit I think you should more fully write up your idea, add any diagrams that might be relevant, and include any formulas or computations you think are relevant, and post it on your web site for posterity. Better yet would be to publish. I have no site, and no interest in publishing. I do have an interest in discussion. Not to mention since the idea is already presented with diagrams and math and a claimed replication by this nayado then any claims I make a decade after his website appeared will be redundant and appear I am trying to take credit for an idea that wasn't mine. (there may be a record pre-dating his site on vort but who cares) I don't see how any of the material of yours you reference (assuming it is the material you last posted in this thread) is relevant to the vortex balls thread Only to the point that understanding either involves appreciating the fact that magnetic fields are somewhat relative. I'll start a new thread on it in a day or 2 with the improvements you suggest. , or why I should be singled out to comment. Simply because I know you know enough to do so, or so I believe, it's a compliment.
[Vo]:vortex balls!
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and shorted out, it might even become a Homopolar self-excited generator, and produce an enormous current. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
A few thoughts, btw I have not fully comprehended everything you've said yet but I'll have a crack at it... From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. The magnetic field would be generated by the rotating protons .vs non spiraling electrons. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. And any force placed on the shaft would be likewise canceled, for instance if we assume that the shaft has a dipole field which seem plausible the current cutting along the north end of the field would generate the opposite force to that created by the south end. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and shorted out, it might even become a Homopolar self-excited generator, and produce an enormous current. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Ah, maybe that's what you mean? On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:51 AM, John Berry aethe...@gmail.com wrote: A few thoughts, btw I have not fully comprehended everything you've said yet but I'll have a crack at it... From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. The magnetic field would be generated by the rotating protons .vs non spiraling electrons. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. And any force placed on the shaft would be likewise canceled, for instance if we assume that the shaft has a dipole field which seem plausible the current cutting along the north end of the field would generate the opposite force to that created by the south end. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 8:18 AM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, William Beaty wrote: One thing about self-excited electric motors of all kinds: they work independantly of voltage polarity. WOW! I got it, I got it! In a ball bearing motor, if the path of current is spiral, then it creates a magnetic dipole field on axis with the bearing. If this happens, then a ball bearing race becomes a Faraday Homopolar motor/generator, with no field-magnet needed. And regardless of current polarity, the motor would always produce torque in the same direction (the direction determined by the spiral.) But WHY would the current be spiralling? Maybe the motion of the moving metal will bias the path of the amperes? On the other hand, if a ball bearing has a micro-layer of lubricant and corrosion, then it takes time to squeeze out this material as the bearing rolls forward. Therefore the contact point on the metal is retarded a bit when compared to an unmoving bearing. At higher RPM, the retarded position of the contact point would become greater, so torque would increase with RPM. Also, the metal/metal bond might persist for a bit before rupturing, also retarding the contact point. OK so far, but there could be a problem. If the direction of the slight spiral path is wrong, when compared to the direction of rotation, then the motor-effect will be in the wrong direction. The motor won't spin, instead it will act like a brake. I just worked it out with simple right-hand-rule issues. The force is in the correct direction! It doesn't matter whether it's CW or CCW. As long as the contact point gets retarded by the corrosion layer, it should accelerate the rotor. Col! But that means... a liquid-wetted version would eliminate the squeezed layer of crap, and it might have zero torque. (Or, perhaps the tail of liquid gallium might provide a more asymmetrical path, and increase the torque?) ...or if the whole thing was caused by thermal effects and expanded metal bumps, the liquid-wetted version should stop working. In any case, it should be easy to build a motor by replacing the ball bearings with perfectly symmetrical slip rings, then welding some spiral-shaped bars between this bearing and the outer metal tube. Or even use some strips of sheet copper, insulated with paint, wrapped around the shaft to make a simple coil between the shaft and the copper pipe. EVEN BETTER: if this device is spun faster than its natural speed, it should become a generator and start recharging its battery. (Add some more RPMs to replace the wattage lost in the slip rings.) If the battery is replaced by a short, at some RPM threshold the ball bearings should produce a huge current and a magnetic field. A tiny benchtop Earths-core simulator! PS The moving balls have a vortex-like motion, where the metal is moving much faster in the center than at the outer edge. If the spiral path of amps was mostly caused by this vortex, then the entire ball bearing could be replaced by a pool of liquid mercury, and the motor would still produce the same torque. But if the spiral path is produced by corrosion layers, then a pool of liquid mercury would produce zero torque. That's why they're called AC/DC motors. Self-excited homopolar generators DON'T put out one polarity for CCW and a different polarity for CCW. Instead the polarity depends on initial microscopic currents (much like Kelvin Thunderstorm Device with microscopic voltage.) If Marinov's motor runs in the direction of its initial spin, it could still be a Homopolar Faraday motor of the self-excited type. If spun fast and
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. Then a simple spiral-shaped coil would not produce a magnetic dipole. Build the thing, see which parts of my explanation *must* be wrong. That's my whole point. Let the experiment be made. (It's what I'm intending to do.) All reasoning is useless if it directly conflicts with a simple experiment. Ok, so it generates a magnetic field dipole and a force would be on the ball bearings but it would be equal and opposite at each end and so cancel. If so, then self-acting Faraday motors wouldn't turn. Some parts of my explanation aren't very open to argument, since Faraday motors do work, and are somewhat understood. What's open to argument is whether experiment will support some parts of my explanation and disprove others. I don't yet follow the retarding metal contact point idea so I can't comment. The current through the ball bearings would normally be perfectly radial. A retarded contact point will bend the radial currents slightly, so they slightly rotate, behave slightly as a coil, and create a dipole field oriented down the motor's spin-axis. (If we add a magnet to produce such a field, such a motor is well known to start spinning.) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? A Faraday motor has a radial current in a disk, and a magnet to produce a b-field perpendicular to the disk. This produces a torque between the disk and the sliding contact at the edge (but zero net torque on the permanent magnet.) If instead we remove the magnet and place a coil on the copper disk, and route some current through the coil, the motor still spins. If instead of a coil, we carve spiral slots into the copper disk, which forces the current to have a circular component as well as radial, the motor still spins. DOH! I wrongly called these self-acting Faraday motors, but the real term is self-excited, as with standard DC generators where the generator output is used to excite the generator's own field coil. If we short out a self-excited Faraday motor, then spin the shaft, it starts generating a current. But this only works above a certain RPM, where the output energy is greater than the resistive losses. If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. I'm looking for an effect which would drive an all-copper ball bearing motor into rotation. Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Yes, a relative torque between each bearing and the ring enclosing them. (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:14 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: From the stationary view point a magnetic dipole would be created only if electron drift tended not to spiral. Then a simple spiral-shaped coil would not produce a magnetic dipole. No, you misunderstand what I was saying. In a spiral shaped coil the protons aren't moving in a circle producing a magnetic field, here they are, the opposite to that produced by the electrons hence no field from the electrons to a stationary frame. However IF due to the voltage gradient the electron drift takes a less rotational path than the protons then you will have more rotating protons than electrons and hence you will have a magnetic field. Production of the dipole magnetic field seems likely just not quite the way that seems most obvious.
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 1:25 PM, William Beaty bi...@eskimo.com wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: After re-reading I still fail to understand your contact point thought, but is it merely to produce a magnetic field in the shaft? A Faraday motor has a radial current in a disk, and a magnet to produce a b-field perpendicular to the disk. This produces a torque between the disk and the sliding contact at the edge (but zero net torque on the permanent magnet.) If instead we remove the magnet and place a coil on the copper disk, and route some current through the coil, the motor still spins. If instead of a coil, we carve spiral slots into the copper disk, which forces the current to have a circular component as well as radial, the motor still spins. Sure, makes sense. DOH! I wrongly called these self-acting Faraday motors, but the real term is self-excited, as with standard DC generators where the generator output is used to excite the generator's own field coil. If we short out a self-excited Faraday motor, then spin the shaft, it starts generating a current. But this only works above a certain RPM, where the output energy is greater than the resistive losses. If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. Ah, but it wouldn't. At least not on the shaft. If you had say a magnetic dipole shaft and tapped one end and the center then you would get a force as the magnetic lines of force exit that half of the shaft then you would get a net rotational force as the current cuts across. However if the current cuts across both poles then it encounters as much magnetic field exiting as entering over it's length resulting in opposite twists at each end. I'm looking for an effect which would drive an all-copper ball bearing motor into rotation. Is the force you are envisioning one that puts a torque on the individual ball bearings? Yes, a relative torque between each bearing and the ring enclosing them. Ok, above I am speaking to the ability of an current in the shaft to generate a force and I find none. I am not yet considering how the ball bearings or rings might react.
Re: [Vo]:vortex balls!
On Jun 26, 2009, at 5:25 PM, William Beaty wrote: On Sat, 27 Jun 2009, John Berry wrote: If we used a magnetized shaft, north at one end south at the other would this still be required to create the effect? That would work. A magnetized shaft would turn it into a conventional Faraday motor. I think an axially magnetized shaft, by symmetry, would produce an equal but opposite torque at opposite ends of the shaft, resulting in no net torque, assuming radial symmetry exists as in the videos and photos of the existing motors. The current goes radially in opposite directions on each end, but the B field must go axially in one direction at both ends, at a given radius, thus there is no torque produced within the shaft or the bearings from the radial current flow. I think the true driving force is due to hysteresis in the balls, the rotating ring (ball race) and any magnetic material within the shaft that is free to rotate and is near enough to the rotating ring. A circular magnetic field H about the current i through the contact point and vicinity induces a circular M field within the balls and ring, i.e. circular about the radial current i. As the balls and ring rotate the M field remains in position within and relative to the ring, and thus the current then goes radially through an axial M field which is comprised of the trailing edge of the circular M moving into position to intersect the current. The i x M force reinforces the motion of the rotating ring. The above is also true with regards to the M fields within the ball bearings. I have updated: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/HullMotor.pdf to improve the Figures 3 and 4, which illustrate the principles in the above two paragraphs. I also corrected some erroneous text, though the major principles are unchanged. The faster the ring rotates the stronger the latent M fields are, because the less time M must be sustained without an inducing H. The faster the motor goes the more torque it should produce. This is the opposite of the effect that would be obtained if the torque were due to thermal expansion, i.e. a reduced torque with increased motion due to the shortened heating/cooling time. The motor should work with copper bearings or a copper stationary ball race, but requires at minimum *either* a magnetic rotating ball race and/or shaft, or magnetic ball bearings, and should work best with all magnetic components. A magnetic ball race is more important than magnetic bearings because there is a lot more magnetic material involved. The motor should not work with copper balls, copper rotating ball races, and a copper shaft. The motor should not work as effectively with roller bearings because the current is distributed over a wider area and the H field is much weaker, thus the M field is weaker, and the current density is weaker, thus the i x M force is much weaker. Best regards, Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
