Horace Heffner wrote:
> Since all the balls rotate about the same axis, > namely the x axis in his paper, aligned with the axis of the shaft, a > net angular momentum is continually conferred upon the balls and then, > through friction, to the motor mount. My theory does exactly the same > thing, except it also indicates similar (but canceling in the sum for > the two raceways) self-forces developing in the raceways. > [ ... ] > > After reflecting on this a while, and after much internal conflict and > some further experimentation, I came to accept the inevitable conclusion > that my theory was bogus But I'm not so sure it is! It's hard to see how AM balances; that's true. However, take a look at the attached jpeg, which is a much simpler system: It's a set of ball bearings in a race, just as you've been using. The balls are assumed to be NON-MAGNETIC. In fact, the balls may be assumed to be FLAT DISKS, which will make this simpler in some ways (make 'em planetary gears if that's easier to picture). The blue "current loop" is just that: it's a current loop, current going clockwise, which provides a magnetic field, which goes "up" outside the loop and "down" inside the loop, indicated with "o"s and "x"s. If the "balls" are flat disks this is easy to do; if they're actually 3-d balls it's a little harder but the basic field arrangement is surely realizable. There is current through the balls, going radially out, as shown. Surely there is a TORQUE on each ball, just as in your "model" of the ball bearing motor. This sort of thing is practical to realize; it strikes me as a simple variant on the homopolar motor but I haven't thought about the comparison a lot. So.... WHY IS ANGULAR MOMENTUM CONSERVED IN THIS CASE? I don't see it, off the top of my head. But it surely is, and whatever the mechanism, the same thing may be at work in the ball bearing motor. For that matter COAM in the case of the homopolar motor is pretty hard to sort out, too!
<<inline: horace-ball-bearing-motor-1.jpg>>
