Re: Electricity From Earth Rotation Part 3

Faraday was not in error, you are. Science has accepted that a field cannot rotate. A magnetic field is an area of space where magnetic things happen. An area of space cannot rotate or move, it is just there. Objects move through space, but space does not move. I'll agree with world renown genius Faraday. Who are you?

I copied this from a website on the subject: [By cementing a copper disc on top of a cylinder magnet, and rotating the magnet and disc together, Faraday created an electrical potential. After pondering this phenomenon for many years, he concluded that when a magnet is rotated, its magnetic field remains stationary. Thus, he reasoned, the metal of the magnet moves through its own field, and the relative motion is translated into electrical potential. Faraday's experiments led him to the revolutionary conclusion that a magnetic field is a property of space itself, not something attached to the magnet, which merely serves to induce or evoke the field.]

Research homopolar generator for yourself on a search engine and see that Faraday's ideas on this are accepted by science.

_______________________________________________________________________________ Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 -

Oh, my. We have another FEERguy nutcase.

If a magnetic field cannot rotate, then we have no electricity, since generators depend on rotating magnetic fields. ...as do their opposites; motors.

You really are trying to re-write physics here. ...or trolling.

Really? We aren't in orbit around ol' Sol? Space doesn't move? Whel nitwit, define *SPACE*.

You are clearly a nutcase, and it doesn't matter who "we" are.

Einstein had something to say about relativity too. The fact is that to generate electricity you have to "cut" magnetic "lines of force". Farady was quite clear here. You have to have relative motion.

Oh, goodie! You're a nutcase.

Nope, I was wrong. You're a fruitcake.

in article snipped-for-privacy@news1.news.adelphia.net, KR Williams at snipped-for-privacy@att.biz wrote on 4/3/04 7:16 PM:

You do not understand the meaning of a rotating magnetic field as pertains to this problem. There are two cases of major interest.

1. A bar magnet is rotated along its magnetized axis. For a slender bar magnet, the magnetization is along the long axis. That field does not rotate. Even if it did, you would not be able to distinguish between the original field and the rotated field. Currently accepted magnetic theory indicates that magnetization is the equivalent of circulating current produced by aligned atomic electrons.
2. A bar magnet is rotated about an axis normal to its length. In this case, the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet. It is this kind or rotating field that is used in electric machinery.

Bill

| If a magnetic field cannot rotate, then we have no electricity, | since generators depend on rotating magnetic fields. ...as do | their opposites; motors.

If a magnetic field has to rotate then we have no transformers.

Rotating an array of alternating north and south poles does not mean the field itself is rotating. The orientation of the north to south line is radially from the axis. Whether the field does rotate or not is not important as what is happening is that the field changes in polarity. That change in field strength and polarity is sufficient to induce current in the windings.

Faraday's disk had magnetic field oriented along the axis, not radially. Unlike a modern AC generator, the rotation of the disk did not result in (significant) changes in the field strength anywhere. This can be tested using very carefully designed magnets that give a very smooth field as the disk is rotated. That would be a good start to see whether this theory works or not.

If the disk has a brush touching the outer rim, and another touching the axis, these would not be where any magnetic field changes would be inducing voltage, because the fields are not really changing there, due to the field orientation along the axis.

I don't know whether it works or not. I only see that the arguments in favor of it are plausible, and the arguments against it aren't looking at all perspectives (and hence while also plausible against it, they are by no means certain).

Consider TWO disks on the same axis but with some space between them, with the axis constructed so that they conduct separately from each disk, but is insulated between the disks. The disks are constructed alike, but one disk is reversed so its magnets face in the opposite direction, or more specifically, its rotation will be in reverse to the other to. Along the rim of each disk, connect them with a lot of individual wires, or maybe even a solid strap. Now spin that. If Faraday's disk is for real, then why would this arrangement not also work? What it should do is induce voltage in one direction on one disk, and in the opposite on the other. Since they are connected in series, the sum voltage should be presented between the two ends of the axis.

Again, I have no idea if this will work. But if one works, I think the other should work. But my design lessens the stray magnetic effects and so it should be a cleaner test.

If it does work, I have some more variations on the design that should be more interesting (but more complex to explain).

Another test is to reverse everything and try to make a motor out of it. Would putting a voltage across the disk, or disks, cause a rotational force? Would be interesting to find out.

| Einstein had something to say about relativity too. The fact is | that to generate electricity you have to "cut" magnetic "lines of | force". Farady was quite clear here. You have to have relative | motion.

Faraday's concept does not contradict Einstein, given the explanation that the field remains stationary while the disk (think of it as a million radial wires) cuts across the field. The issue comes down to whether the field is, for this purpose, actually rotating with the magnets, or stationary.

Remember, a transformer works by a field that is not physically in motion because the windings themselves do not move (aside from tiny vibrations mechanically carried from the core). The field merely changes to induce voltage in other windings.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 22:16:25 -0500, KR Williams Gave us:

No. Two factors are involved. They depend on looped conductors mounted on ferrous cores moving through magnetic fields, or the rotation of said field generating assemblies, or on magnets which rotate around fixed cores with coils of wires. The assembly rotates. The key is that the coils of wire MUST "cut" through the flux field lines of the magnetic field, be it a standing field from a permanent magnet, or a standing field from a DC fed coil OR a moving field on an AC fed coil. The field(s) on the coils or magnets on the assembly rotate along with the hardware. The "field" coils or magnets make up the frame of the motor or generator, and provide the flux field that the rotating portion must cut through.

Motors and generators depend on the cutting of magnetic fields by coils of conductive wire, NOT the rotation of a magnetic field.

The key is that movement between flux and wire must occur. The wire must also have a closed path, ie coil in field, and source or load outside field.

Actually, the most fundemental 'key' here is that the force on charged particle is a function of the amount of charge, the electrostatic field strength and any velocity it has with respect to a magnetic field. F=q*(E + VxB) (were * is multiplication, and 'x' is vectorial cross-product)

So an electron in a piece of conductor has a force from any applied voltage, and another force from its motion through a magnetic field. If no external current flow is allowed, then the force caused by movement through a magnetic field will build up a charge displacement until the electrostatic force exactly equals the magnetic one (that is, equilibrim occurs when E = -VxB)

But the problem gets messy when trying to describe 'V'. If the magnet is stationary, and the conductor is moving, it's not too hard to visualize 'V' as the velocity of the conductor (A normal DC generator with fixed magnetic poles for example). If the volume of space with the high magnetic field strength is moving (such as the magnetic poles on the rotor of an AC generator), it is still pretty simple to visualize the relative motion between the conductor and the volume of space that has a high magnetic field strength.

But the problem gets worse when the magnetic field is from a bar magnet rotating on its magnetic axis. The 'space' where the field is doesn't move. Put a moving conductor in that space (a rotating disk) and you have a bunch of charged particles moving in a magnetic field. This is where the 'flux rule' breaks down. The 'flux rule' would predict that the lines of flux follow the end faces of the magnet around the axis of rotation, and since the conductor moves with the same rotoation, there should be no induction. But there *is*.

If you put the galvonometer (or light bulb) on the rotating assembly so that every bit of the whole thing rotates with the magnet *BUT* shield the galvonometer wiring from the magnetic field so it moves in a weaker field strength, there *is* still a net induction. If the galvonometer and associated wiring are rotating in the same strength magnetic field, then the forces on the electrons in the wire exactly match and cancel the forces on the electrons in the disk and not EMF is available.

Feynman (a famous 20th century physicist), devoted a couple of lectures on the 'exceptions to the flux rule'. It is interesting to point out, that the homopolar generator is an *exception* to Faraday's rule.

But getting back to the original idea, the only way to use this and the earth's magnetic field to generate power would be if the return path of the current could be made via a different route through the core of the planet and not along its surface so that it would be in a different strength field. If radial 'spokes' from the pole spread out and have an EMF induced in them from this affect, then any return path back to the pole would have a similar EMF. Even the very ground itself (slightly conductive, but certainly containing many electrons) has an EMF already induced in it and everything that we put there would have exactly the same EMF resulting in zero voltage available. This would be akin to the galvonometer on the rotating assembly in the same field strength.

daestrom P.S. If you like to see some of the physics, http://128.148.60.98/physics/demopages/Demo/em/demo/5k1080.htm

| 1. A bar magnet is rotated along its magnetized axis. For a slender bar | magnet, the magnetization is along the long axis. That field does not | rotate. Even if it did, you would not be able to distinguish between the | original field and the rotated field. Currently accepted magnetic theory | indicates that magnetization is the equivalent of circulating current | produced by aligned atomic electrons. | | 2. A bar magnet is rotated about an axis normal to its length. In this case, | the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet. It is this kind or rotating | field that is used in electric machinery.

Looking at this from a different perspective, given some point in space in the field, the field is changing as the magnet is rotated. That change in the field is what induces the voltage in wire segments. Given enough of these wire segments in series, and you can get enough voltage to be useful.

Consider a transformer. It does not have any physical rotation. A single phase transformer doesn't even rotate the magnetic field. Yet voltage is induced in the wires in the field. The field is changing.

But Faraday's homopolar disk doesn't seem to have any field change at the points where voltage would seem to be induced (in the radials of the disk), unless what was happening was that the field was not totally uniform, and what was induced occurred as a result of field strength changes as radials passed from one point to another.