On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:33 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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 think the answer is that there is a return current segment (or are
current segments) not shown that goes from the outside race to the
inside race. If the sum of the ball currents is N*i = 5*i then the
return current is also exactly N*i. The torques exactly cancel. What
you have are two independent circuits acting on each other, which is
well known not to violate COAM.
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!<horace-ball-bearing-motor-1.jpg>
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
