I'll be back. Harry
----- Original Message ----- From: Horace Heffner <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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/ > > > > >
