Faraday Paradox Unipolar Dynamo Part 2: The Solution

[@philoso377]

Nice video and presentation. Thanks for the demonstrations enabling us to learn and realize what universe we live in. As opposed to an imaginary universe absence of Aether, in which nothing is absolute, can’t tell energy versus matter, age is governed by clocks worn by other and not our biological clock. Also we are a second class citizen not part of the imaginary universe.

[@plenum88]

Thanks!

[@stevenjones6561]

Well done! Are you looking at amplified voltage on the capacitor, or "raw voltage"? What can be done to increase the unamplified voltage besides increasing the Radius of the cap (outer plate), increasing B, and increasing omega?

[@plenum88]

Yes, looking at amplified voltage. Yes, I think you have covered it, radius, B and omega, I don't know what else could be helpful.

[@MrSkypelessons]

Really fascinating! I watched it through twice. I first subscribed to your channel as I loved the DIY Sagnac experiments you have done (great to see channels not afraid of getting their hands dirty!). I've read about criticisms of relativity in books by Al Kelley (Questioning Einstein) and Andre Assis (Relational mechanics), and I found them persuasive. The website your channel is linked to looks really interesting, so time to get reading. Happy experimenting!

[@plenum88]

Thanks, positive feedback is always appreciated!! Yes, please check out www.conspiracyoflight.com, there are a lot more experiments there.

[@MrSkypelessons]

Really interesting articles on that website and great links to the sources of experiments and essays. I'm really enjoying it so thanks very much for all the hard work. If you are the author too, I have to commend you on both the style and the argument. Clear and convincing.

[@plenum88]

Wow, thanks! Yes, I am the author, I have tried to make the concepts as understandable as possible to the "sophisticated reader" since I think a lot of physicists talk over peoples heads as a way of alienating them from the subject matter. Much better to say what you mean and then people can actually decide what they believe using their own judgement and rationality.

[@ameerachannel2539]

There still one paradox that didnt solve, does the homopolar generator doesnt produce counter torque when the magnet and disc is attach together?

[@JenkoRun]

The magnetic field of a magnet is ab-extra to it and is always in motion as centrifugal divergence and centripetal convergence, so the field definitely would not rotate with it, rotating the magnet would have no effect on the position of the magnetic flow relative to the disk, rotating the disk inside the field is where mutual induction comes into play with the disk material. Hence the results of both the disk and the capacitor experiments are not unusual. I also want to touch on the first possibility you presented at the end of the video, absolutely, this is further reinforced when taking into account how a "Generator" actually works: "A time variable electric current creates an electric field parallel to that current. The field exerts an electric force on the charge in the nearby conductors thereby creating induced electric currents in them. This in the term “electromagnetic induction” is an actually a misnomer, since no magnetic effect is involved in the phenomena, and since the induced current is caused solely by the time variable electric current and by the electric field produced by that current." "There exists a sourceless electromagnetic field whereas according to equation 528 such fields are impossible since there is no doubt that they represent a dual wave field, but as we've seen neither Maxwell's equations nor their solutions indicate the existence of causal links (no causation) between electric and magnetic fields. Therefore we must conclude that an electromagnetic field is a duel entity always having electrical and magnetic components simultaneously created by their common sources; time variable electric charges and currents." "according to these equations in time variable systems electrical and magnetic fields are always created simultaneously because they have a common causative source, the changing electrical current, once created the two fields coexist from then on without any effect upon each other. Therefore electromagnetic induction is a phenomenon in which the field creates the other, I.E energy generation is an illusion. The illusion of mutual creation arises from the facts and time-dependent systems of the two fields appearing predominantly together." -Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields by Oleg D. Jefimenko In Laymen's terms this means there is no transduction between the kinetic input and electrical output, the power in the system comes from the changing net quantity of magnetic induction with respect to time, a Back-EMF situation is not a requirement for power producing and is a result of EM Retardation (Lenz), neutralizing it or redirecting it away from the input as an opposing force to instead assist it are purely advantageous goals.

[@beginnersmind8385]

Exceptionally profound. I have watched this and your previous video and read all the comments and your replies many times. Thank you for your posting these beautiful experiments and explanations. Your table of "Outcomes from Faraday disk generator tests" is absolutely spot on including the three tests with the meter rotating you did not display. Few people have pondered all 8 possibilities as thoroughly as you and therefore have reached erroneous or ambiguous conclusions with closed circuit tests. If you are reading this would you mind replying whether you ran the Keene experiment where the meter, disk and electromagnet all co-rotate while the electromagnet is powered by constant DC, thus simulating a permanent magnet? Your discussion implies you only powered the electromagnet with low frequency pulses, as apparently did Keene, which leaves the slightest doubt whether either a permanent magnet or unvarying electromagnet would yield the same results. In summary: Did you run experiments with an electromagnet actually powered with constant DC that also demonstrate that the magnetic lines of force do not rotate? Thank you again most sincerely for this tremendous work.

[@plenum88]

Thanks for that! Regarding the pulsed DC verses constant DC, as I recall I only did pulsed D.C. but I compared it to a non-rotating control also with pulsed DC so that any artifacts due to the pulsation itself could be eliminated.

[@beginnersmind8385]

I really appreciate your reply! Driving a coil with pulsed DC has some unusual features as you know. It may not necessarily generalize to driving a coil with direct DC in a rotating system. Since Keene used AC waveforms at 30Hz to energize his e-magnet and if you used pulsed DC, it is not yet conclusively shown that the field of a permanent magnet/constant DC electromagnet remains stationary in space upon axial rotation. How important to definitively know that specific answer! Would it please be possible for you to repeat your experiment with the disk, e-magnet and meter co-rotating while driving the e-magnet with constant DC to simulate a permanent magnet? I am happy to contribute a few hundred dollars towards this work if you let me know how to get it to you. You are likely one of the few people on earth with the knowledge and experience to be able to conduct this experiment. I beseech you to do so. Many thanks.

[@benstembridge3158]

I wonder if the magnetic gyro has the sensitivity of modern fiber gyros that can detect motion in degrees per hour? If so, I wonder if it can detect the so called ether drift of 15 degrees per hour that the FE core folks have demonstrated that changes with altitude? In regards to the paradox, starting with the hypothesis that our reality is some sort of virtual simulation, what if they used short cuts for magnetic objects and simply assign a vector to it thats used to calculate the behavior of moving metallic objects in the vicinity. Whatever rotation the magnet has about the vector axis is disregarded.

[@plenum88]

Hi Ben, I think the magnetic gyro is fairly insensitive compared to the fiber optic gyro, so it likely wouldn't be able to detect down to 15 degrees/hour, but that rotation should be detectable with a good FOG and is the expected absolute rotation of the earth with respect to the universe. Not sure about your second question, but if we are in a simulation, then I must just be a figment of your imagination anyway : )

[@tootalldan5702]

Thanks for the demonstration. Might I enquire what you used for the datalogger and bluetooth transmitter connection?

[@plenum88]

originally i used a custom microchip datalogger with a rs-232 to usb bluetooth transmitter, but more recently i have started using an arduino datalogger which writes to a Sd card, which is more convenient since it creates a csv file directly for import into Excel. Both i had to make from scratch...

[@TheRealFreznoBob]

Does that mean that a rotating planet would show charge differential between it's surface and interior and act like a capacitor?

[@TheRealFreznoBob]

a shorted capacitor? I'm thinking fault lines and volcanoes a sudden. It could explain alot of things, even the expansion of the earth over time, thx.

[@plenum88]

I am not sure if it would but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some related effects like that arising.

[@hannibal9664]

What do you measure when the copper disk is between two magnets? Between north-north and north-south? What if the disk is in the homogeneous field, Helmholz coils?

[@plenum88]

Just going by memory, I think it depends on the net magnetic field lines cutting through the disk - so you would need to determine the field line direction and then work out the voltage based on the Lorentz force.

[@horus2779]

Wow, i just got interested in gyroscopes to because of professor Eric and his antigravity wheel

[@luistorh]

0:54 Thanks for the table with full results! This is really fascinating! We cannot tell whether the magnetic field moves with the magnet or not!

[@plenum88]

Ur welcome - the Kean patent of course suggests that the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet, since an electrostatic field is generated even when the magnet, rotor, stator and meter rotate together, a bizarre result indeed!

[@gcerri524]

plenum88 Why you keep mentioning “magnet”, there are no magnets in the Kean patent. Do you mean the coil? You said the same thing in the video. Thanks. Great work!

[@plenum88]

@@gcerri524 - Yes I am referring to the "electromagnet" of course.

[@andersemanuel]

@Kenzo Kenzo Faraday did this with a magnet, not a coil. There is something else going on here. This is so interesting.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

I had been waiting for this solution to the paradox. Thanks for posting. Isn't it possible to rotate a traditional power supply and/or measurement device to obtain the same results?

[@plenum88]

Not sure what you are asking exactly. Are you taking about the design of the meter /power supply, or are you talking about the Faraday effect itself?

[@jameswilliamson1726]

I was thinking of rotating all of your original equipment as seen in your video Part 1... only the stationary magnetic field would remain... except the heavy oscilloscope which I suppose could be reached by a blue tooth device. I realize that this would be an inconvenient experiment but shouldn't the results be about the same?

[@plenum88]

Actually, no, the result would not be the same. If you rotated the original part 1 machine with everything, then there would be no net current flow, but this is actually because there would be an equal and opposite current flow in the disk and the stator that would cancel out. But because they cancel out, you can't tell if there is no flow at all or two opposing flows. That is why the experiment has to be performed as an open circuit instead, because the disk current is blocked and the stator current flows, but it is tiny (because the circuit is open) so you have to measure it with a very sensitive electrostatic voltmeter. Follow me?

[@jameswilliamson1726]

+plenum88 I'm not sure I understand how the circuit is cancelled if the disc magnet is facing one way.

[@plenum88]

It is a bit hard to visualize, but If you imagine the magnetic lines of force as closed loops, then any closed loop conductor that attempts to cross the lines only once (like a disk), must be cut by them a second time in any geometry that tries to lead out of the magnetic field. It is this double cut that leads to the cancelling currents.

[@Azzinoth224]

I think you have done the experiment correctly and I also think the conclusion that the magnetic field lines do not rotate with the magnet is correct. However that does not contradict the theory of relativity as you claim. Transversal movements are relative and rotational movements are absolute. That is true in special relativity and it was even true in classical physics. If you sit in a train that is moving, if you throw a ball around it will behave in the same way as if the train is standing still (as long as the acceleration is zero). If you sit on a rotating earth and you throw a ball it will not behave like a ball thrown on a non rotating earth. For example foucaults pendulum proves that. Rotational motion is absolute, in the sense that you can find a system of reference which is not rotating, without having to make a reference to some other system that is rotating relatively to your system. The same is not true for transveral motion, if you are in a system that is moving you have to define relative to what you are moving. If i tell you this ball is moving at 1m/s you have to ask me "relative to what?", but if i tell you this ball is rotating at 1 rad/s you have not to ask relative to what, you could just build a foucault pendulum and verify it. All of this doesn't prove relativity wrong.

[@plenum88]

Let's just summarize - which relativistic propositions would appear to be proven false by this experiment? If relativists argue that the magnetic field lines do rotate with the magnet, then this assertion is proven false, you say as much in the first sentence of your response. But more than that, there is the relativistic assertion that electromagnetic forces arise from relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, and that they should not be present if there is no relative motion. That would appear to be dis-proven by the Kennard and Keene experiments, which shows that when the meter, disk and magnet all rotate together, induction still occurs. Induction can't be measured normally not because it isn't present, but because equal and opposite forces arise which cancel out. This is what the experiment implies.

[@Azzinoth224]

@@plenum88 "If relativists argue that the magnetic field lines do rotate with the magnet, then this assertion is proven false, you say as much in the first sentence of your response." If Einstein said that, he was wrong. Does that mean he was always wrong? No, his special relativity theory can still be true. Do you call everyone who believes that the theory of relativity is correct a "Relativist"? Because in that case I am a Relativist too, but i don't claim that rotational movements are relative. I claim that transversal movements are relative. Special relativity is based on two postulates: -"the laws of physics are invariant (i.e. identical) in all inertial systems (i.e. non-accelerating frames of reference)" -"the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source." Notice that a rotating frame of reference is not an inertial frame. If I am standing on earth I am on a circular path around earths axis of rotation. A circular path requires a constant acceleration towards the center of my path, perpendicular to my velocity. I am not in an inertial frame and the result is that i have to modify newtons laws of motion (if we talk about classical mechnics) by adding the coriolis force. The coriolis force is a ficticious force, meaning I view the situation from a frame outside of earth which is not rotating with earth, i don't need the coriolis force to explain what i see. This postulate which is used in SR was true already in classical physics. Translational movements are relative and rotational movements are not. The consequences are, that the unmodified laws of physics are only true in frames moving with constant velocity and which are not rotating. If I have a spaceship and see another spaceship moving, i can either assume that i am standing still and the other ship is moving, or i can assume that i am moving and the other ship not, or I can use any other inertial frame. The only thing that physically matters is the relative velocity between the two ships and calculations in any reference frame will give the same results. But imagine i look down trough a window in the floor of my ship and i see the other ship rotating relative to me and the ships are placed in such a way that the axis of rotation goes through the center of mass of both ships. If i would show you camera footage of that, you could not tell whether my ship or the second ship is rotating right? But the truth is that rotational motion is not relative, it is absolute and I can tell whether or not my own ship is truly rotating or the second ship. For example by measuring the centrifugal forces on my ship, by building a gyroscope etc. This was true in classical mechanics and it is true in SR. You can also see that rotation and translation are two different things by looking at the conservation laws. Conservation of momentum and angular momentum both hold true independent of each other. SR doesn't claim that rotational movements are relative, the first postulate only states that for transversal movements. Einsteins statement about magnetic field lines rotating with the magnet was wrong, but that statement was independent of special relativity theory. "But more than that, there is the relativistic assertion that electromagnetic forces arise from relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, and that they should not be present if there is no relative motion." No there is no such assertion. I am currently studying physics and i already have my bachelor. I worked together with many physicists in my work group while doing my bachelor thesis. You would probably call all of them "Relativists". I can tell you that that none of them wo has put tought in this stuff would claim what you are assuming. "That would appear to be dis-proven by the Kennard and Keene experiments, which shows that when the meter, disk and magnet all rotate together, induction still occurs. Induction can't be measured normally not because it isn't present, but because equal and opposite forces arise which cancel out. This is what the experiment implies." Yes, and there are even more easy ways to demonstrate that. Look at this for example: www.maxwellsociety.net/PhysicsCorner/CurrentLoopPolarization/ElectromagnetismAndRotationalRelativity.html It shows that a rotating disc shaped magnet will polarize itself radially. It could be rotating just like that in empty space. It isn't working because it's rotating "relative" to anything in its vicinity, but because its rotating absolutely. You could use that effect to build a gyroscope and use it for measuring or maintaining orientation in space. What I'm saying is that all of this is compatible with special relativity. You are correct with everything what you say, except that it disproves SR.

[@plenum88]

@@Azzinoth224 It is nice that you are so passionate about this...I am not trying to disprove the entire theory of relativity with this video - I am simply trying to disprove the moving line theory, not sure how you jumped to that conclusion. You perhaps should also qualify the second of your bulleted laws in your first paragraph - the speed of light is not the same for ALL observers without qualification... rotating observers can see a variable speed of light, as has been proven in the Sagnac experiment. With regard to your arguments about the differences between inertial and rotating frames, this does not in any way save the moving line theory. And with regard to my comments on magnetic induction, I am specifically referring to the Lorentz force experienced by a charge moving relative to a magnet which is the subject of this video. If the two are moving together, there is no magnetic field "seen" on the charge by the magnet, and therefore no Lorentz force. The Lorentz force between the two arises when one moves relative to the other, at least according to Einstein's theory.

[@Azzinoth224]

@@plenum88 You said: "which relativistic propositions would appear to be proven false by this experiment?" I assumed you were referring to special relativity. If thats not the case then what do you mean when you say "relativistic" or "relativists"? "With regard to your arguments about the differences between inertial and rotating frames, this does not in any way save the moving line theory." Which I am not trying to do. I thought we both agreed that the moving line theory is wrong? "If the two are moving together, there is no magnetic field "seen" on the charge by the magnet, and therefore no Lorentz force." But the electrons do see the magnetic field if they both rotate together, isn't that what you say yourself in your video?

[@plenum88]

@@Azzinoth224 Here is an example: www.fisicarecreativa.com/informes/infor_em/Spacetime-Spin.pdf see page 2. Guala-Valverde refers to the "relativistic view" and the "absolutist view" of the Faraday disk explanation, and I have used similar descriptions of the "two solitudes", except I have referred to the absolutists as "Maxwellians". So when I speak of "relativists" I mean people like Guala-Valverde who advocate the moving line explanation of the generator. He says (p.143) " as far as induction is concerned a wire clockwise rotation upon a stationary magnet is equivalent to a magnet counterclockwise rotation with the wire stationary in the lab." - this is Einstein's view from 1905 (SR) - see for example: www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html (Magnet and Conductor section) About your other comment, you compelled me to explain Einstein's view about the moving conductor in the magnetic field and the Lorentz force, I said immediately after that it was Einstein's view, when I qualified it by saying "at least according to Einstein." Hope that clears it up.

[@olgermannik1830]

2:05 I think it is not generating EMF in disc, but in wire from stator to voltmeter. If wires were placed differently, it would not show EMF on screen. Could you repeat the experiment with wire from stator being directed straightly upward in different position? Read more here: www.physicsforums.com/threads/request-about-experiments-on-the-linear-motion-faraday-paradox.966883/#post-6141798

[@brettmoore3194]

Best research I've seen on this. Doesn't this stand as proof of the aether🎉

[@plenum88]

Yes, I think so...

[@jameswilliamson1726]

Are you getting voltage with or without amperage?

[@plenum88]

The way I see it, each cylinder experiences a different degree of Lorentz force, since one is spinning faster than the other, one being closer to the rim and the other closer to the axle. The capacitor charges because of this EMF difference between the two plates.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

to plenum88: this question might show my ignorance, but if a capacitor is charging, doesn't that show amperage and more than a static (stationary) charge coming off the device?

[@plenum88]

Hi James, The way I interpret it, is that a very small current does flow, but only in the sections of wire where the magnetic field cuts the stator wires. The problem with the original setup is that there is a current generated in the disk that is opposed by an equal and opposite current in the stator wires. By using a capacitor instead of a disk, the current flows unipolarly only in the stator wires, since there is no disk. There is no closed circuit flow of current.

[@plenum88]

Please see my comment to James just now.

[@plenum88]

Yes, that sounds right

[@olgermannik1830]

What is the stator? It it the brush?

[@plenum88]

Yes, it is the brush assembly/circuit.

[@consciousenergies]

What are you thoughts on Sir Charles Wheatstone's experimental calculations on the velocity of electricity? I have not seen any empirical evidence showing he was incorrect in his calculations. Great video by the way, keep up the fantastic experiments, and thank you for sharing.

[@plenum88]

Not sure what to make of Wheatstone's experiment - there is a component of the EM wave that can travel much faster than light, it is called the evanescent field, and is created when EM goes through a refractive index step, but it is short range. The gaps in Wheatstone's wires where the sparks happen are effectively RI steps.

[@consciousenergies]

RI?

[@plenum88]

RI = "refractive index" just trying to save typing.

[@consciousenergies]

Thats interesting to consider. I would think it would impede the velocity as it passes through an air medium. I will research more about RI and different mediums that facilitate it. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[@timothyblazer1749]

So...if Kennard is correct, Einsteinian relativity is incorrect, and we're back to Lorentz. I'm dubious, not because of that, but because the Kennard device is isolating away from any possible intra or intermolecular effect of the solid disc. That's laudable, but my point is that Kennard could be proving an entirely different mechanism, or only one part of the mechanism of the Faraday disc. So, I would say that although the Kennard device does violate Einsteinian relativity, I don't think it accounts for the full explanation of the Faraday effect. Also, the "rotation of the earth" may or may not have anything to do with this effect. If it did, one world expect different results depending on the orientation of the device relative to the earth's rotation, and I don't believe that is the case. What say you?

[@johnheath7073]

Well done. Too early to have thoughts on this.

[@finlayfraser9952]

Amazing!

[@ameerachannel2539]

thanks for sharing

[@alterego5124]

Looking from a different perspective and just started looking into magnetic properties. This may sound crazy but.... Has anyone ever considered looking at the magnetic field on a much larger scale? .. Look at the magnetic field of the earth as a flowing river, but this river flows both north and south at the same time. Now think of a magnet as a pipe in the river and flowing into it. You will always get turbulence at the mouth of the pipe but it will always yield to the direction of the river, north and south, no matter how you rotate the pipe.

[@plenum88]

Modern physical models of the magnetic field are hard to come by but historically some of the best physical models were developed by James Clerk Maxwell in his early works and followed on by the so called " Maxwellians." In more recent times this model has been explored by the late Akira Tonomura, a real visionary. I describe this model here: www.conspiracyoflight.com/Lorentz/Lorentzforce.html

[@timontherocks7521]

Shouldnt there be a difference if the whole apparatus is turned 90`?

[@exxzxxe]

Good job.

[@jagadhariseno]

DePalma N Machine seems exploit this paradox principle

[@ronietrump1862]

still a fixed magnetic field cannot explain why a homopolar generator cannot work as motor.

[@plenum88]

Actually, it can work as a motor, just apply DC voltage instead of drawing it : )

[@Naomi_Boyd]

Oxygen is strongly paramagnetic. Oh and ummm... Earth is a magnet.

[@johnheath7073]

There is effective electron movement and there is real electron movement. A magnet would be an example of effective electron movement. Electrons all orbiting clockwise in a magnet tend to cancel each other out. It is for this reason that the magnet field is only on the outer edge of the magnet where the counter effect is not there. Magnet sensing paper placed on a round magnet will show a magnetic field on the outer edge only to confirm this. I will call this effective electron movement as the electrons in a magnet are not literally moving around the magnet. There is real electron movement such as a coil of wire that will lead to a magnetic field. The fuzzy point I am trying to make is a magnet and spool of copper wire with current are not the same in that a magnet has effective electron movement and a spool of wire has real electron movement. I feel this has meaning to Faraday part 2 saying Uncle Albert must be wrong. Like a gyro fiber cable the both the fiber and the photons are rotating together leading to the impression of c+v however if one lived inside the fiber's frame of reference it is c not c+v. Same would be true of a spool of wire where both the wire and the electrons are rotating together. However in the case of a magnet this is not true as the electrons only have effective movement not real movement. If this sounds confusing not to worry has I the author of these words also find it confusing.

[@plenum88]

Hi John, I think I see your point - if you read Kennard's 1917 paper he does address the solenoid vs. magnet issue, since Barnett tried to say also that the solenoid was an exceptional case. Kennard argued otherwise, since he said that it would have to mean that the magnetic fields from a magnet and a solenoid would have to be physically different in space, and he argued there was no evidence of this. Perhaps this geometric difference of the lines from one configuration to the other is significant.

[@johnheath7073]

"the magnetic fields from a magnet and a solenoid would have to be physically different in space" I have a string attached to a shoe and another string attached to a feather. The string attached to the feather is easier to pull. Do I blame this on the string or the difference between a shoe and a feather? The string being analogous to a magnetic field is the point I am driving at. To give this balance Kennard's argument is valid for high frequencies where a pulse on a string is shorter in wave length than the distance traveled. However at the speed of light for this experiment it is unlikely the wave length is shorter than the distance traveled.

[@plenum88]

Hi John, Not quite getting your argument - the pulses in my experiment were slow, like once per second, or one every 5 seconds. So I can't see how frequency can make a difference in the way you are saying, because these are DC effects, not frequency effects.

[@johnheath7073]

Yes low frequency and that is the point. Allow me to restate in a different way. I jerk a bull whip. The wave propagates down the length of the whip then snaps as the whip is moving faster than sound. The wave length of the pulse is shorter than the whip. Under these conditions Kennard has a point as the pulse going down the whip has left my hand. This being analogous to a magnetic pulse. From this "the magnetic fields from a magnet and a solenoid would have to be physically different in space" is a valid argument. However if I move my hand slowly on the whip , low frequency , the wave length of this movement is much longer than the length of the whip therefore my hand is directly responsible for action at the end of the whip. Under these conditions the hand that moved is responsible for the properties of action at the end of the whip in the same way the difference between a coil of wire or a magnet can be held responsible for action at the end of a whip or distance in space. At high frequencies yes but at low frequencies no therefore the Kennard argument is not valid. Formally in physics the distinction is called near and far electromagnetic radiation.

[@plenum88]

Hi John, What you are implying is that the polarization is due to frequency dependent induction effects. I don't agree. If this were true, then turning the magnet on and off while the device is stationary would cause the same kind of effect (like a transformer). That is why, in the protocol (and same as Keane I believe), the magnet was turned on and off in both the rotating and stationary conditions, and then one was subtracted from the other, to determine the net effect due only to the magnetic field being on when the device was rotating. The magnetic field was also tested with North up and south up, to determine if the effect was consistent with a magnetic Lorentz effect expected from a constant solenoidal magnetic field. Note also that in Keane's patent, they used a slow ramp up and down of the magnetic field, presumably to limit any frequency effects. All of this evidence combined suggests that what is observed is simply a polarization induced by a Lorentz force.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

KENNARD DRUM VERSION OF A FARADAY DISK. ............. ........ ............. ........... I cant see why Kennard made a drum type variation to the standard Faraday Disk. I suppose that a drum is good for accommodating a long coil (instead of having lots of magnets). But a drum is still only a disk, re the way it works, ie a drum-disk. And i cant see why he talks of capacitance. Capacitance doesnt change or help anything here. And doesnt change or help the emf. KEENE'S VERSION OF KENNARD'S DRUM. Re Keene's gyro, i cant see how this would work very well. His version of Kennard's drum has a graph error spread of about 5 microV at 100 rpm for 5 data points, & about 2 microV at low rpm. And the graph of sensitivity is 1.6 microV per rpm at 8 amps in the coil. Keene mentions the need for amplification balancing tuning & trimming of the emf signal. In any case if the noise at low rpm can be reduced to only 0.1 microV then the gyro would be blind to anything less than 1/16th rpm, which doesnt sound very good to me. Edit....... 1/16th rpm = 3/8th deg/sec = 1350 deg/hr, which is useable for some applications (based on a paper by Passaro 2017), but i haven't seen any evidence of a Keene gyroscope in use anywhere, or for sale, so i think that this Faraday Disk kind of gyroscope is not very sensitive, & the coil version must hav a lot of stray magnetic field noise. I think a permanent magnet would work better than a coil magnet. And a proper disk would i think be better than a drum-disk. A PROPER FARADAY DRUM. This has a radial flux. A Faraday Disk has an axial flux. U get a radial flux if u use one or more hollow ring magnets (having N on outside & S on inside)(or vice versa). If more than one magnet then there needs to be a large space tween magnets to get the full benefit. There is a youtube video with a Faraday Drum made of up to 5 ring magnets. This has a hollow drum. But a solid drum might be better, ie with a small hole along the center instead of a large hole (supermagnetman has them). On the rim of a Faraday Drum the charge is zero on the rim at one end & is at a max on the rim at the other end. On a disk of a Faraday Disk the charge is zero at the axle & a max at the rim (or vice versa). On a Faraday Drum the brush contact can be (1) on the axle at the negative end, or if at the positive end it can be (2) on the axle or (3) on the rim. I think (2) is best). The longer the drum the stronger the emf (if designed properly). If a drum has a disk at one or both ends then that disk will act as a Faraday Disk. I think that having a disk at both ends will hav little effect on the drum's emf. But having a disk at only one end can rob some emf or add some emf. I think that having a disc at the negative end of the drum will add emf, & if at the positive end will rob emf. A rotating stator will act like a Faraday Disk. If the stator is at the negative end then counterintuitively it will rob emf (i think). A disk at that end would add emf. In the "robbing" case, whether the stator emf wins the fight with the drum will depend on the exact design of drum & stator. Anyhow that's what i reckon.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

Great to see open minded people. I recommend Robert Sungenis opus magnum "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right" to see how the Universe works. Best regards :)

[@matheworman6308]

There is no paradox and no induction (induction requires changes in magnetic field direction and or intensity)... Due to magnetic field copper disk experiences radial emf and brushes simply collect charges in both cases.. The emf is dynamic (rotation speed dependent) but based on static charge and radial path of the virtual conductor has very small amount of charge but faster the brush action more charges are collected thus emf potential is proportional to the brush rotation... The rule of Lorentz force defines the direction of EMF of the rotating virtual current path... Finally, Faraday's motor effect creates torque, thus no free energy generator possible... Mathew Orman

[@plenum88]

Hi Mathew -interesting idea, but I think induction occurs when electrons move across a magnetic field, and if you concede that the Lorentz force is operating from your statement then you can't argue that there is no induction, see: phys.libretexts.org/TextBooks_and_TextMaps/Book%3A_Electricity_and_Magnetism_(Tatum)/10%3A_Electromagnetic_Induction/10.2%3A_Electromagnetic_Induction_and_the_Lorentz_Force "electromagnetic induction is nothing more than the Lorentz force on the conduction electrons within the metal."

[@plenum88]

See my reply to your identical comment in part 1.

[@matheworman6308]

Induction works on neutral copper and Lorentz fores needs excess charge of one or the other sign...

[@plenum88]

That sounds totally wrong - what textbook did you get that from?

[@matheworman6308]

www.scienceforums.net/topic/116060-motional-emf/

[@KaliFissure]

Have we met? :)

[@MINe19830522]

The sound of this video hurt anybody else?

[@matheworman6308]

No, Einstein is right the field rotates with the magnet... Also in your experiment you have an effect of magnetic induction due to the Earth magnetic field... Most of all in open circuit electrostatics the air friction generates excess charges which effect is also proportional to the rotation speed... Airplanes has to discharge itself after landing because the charge amount represents dangerous amount of electrostatic energy...

[@Greg_Chase]

No, the field *does not* rotate if the magnet is rotated. Need proof? Very simple: 1) get a sheet of white paper, thick enough to support the weight of iron filings 2) hold the piece of paper in a horizontal position 3) sprinkle some iron filings on the top side of the paper 4) hold a round magnet stationary under the paper (needs to be close enough to make the iron filings line up with the magnet's field) 5) now, rotate the magnet -- did the iron filings rotate? NO, they didn't. When he rotates his ring of neodymium magnets, the filings *do not rotate* with the magnet rotation. The only time they move is 1) if he fails to keep the magnet ring in one place, if he moves the magnet off the vertical axis 2) if he reverses direction of the magnet rotation. Once the magnet is rotating you do not see the filings all rotating like a wheel. Not affected by the rotation. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZqamdKCupp2YbdE Magnets polarize the virtual particle fluctuations of the vacuum. On one side of the magnet the virtual particle field sees either a "N" or a "S" pole. Focus on the "N" pole side of the magnet. The virtual particle field (which consists of electrons and other virtual particles) -- sees the "N" pole. Now rotate the magnet. What does the virtual particle field see? The "N" pole. It still sees the "N" pole. Even though Faraday was unaware of the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum, after he dwelled on this "why doesn't the magnetic field rotate with the magnet" he concluded "the space around the magnet is the purveyor of the magnetic field. The field is *in the space around the magnet* and does not rotate. **ANALOGY** - hold a vanilla ice cream cone in your hand. Your tongue is the virtual particle field. - lick the top of the cone - "Okay that tastes like vanilla ice cream" - now rotate the cone and while it's rotating, lick the top of the cone. "Okay, it *still* tastes like vanilla ice cream." Another idea - two strong magnets - you have one in each hand during a spacewalk, you're an astronaut on the space station. (Do magnets work in space? Yes or no NASA space mission would have succeeded). You move the "N" pole of magnet #1 close to the "S" pole of magnet #2. You hold them apart then suddenly the magnets close the gap and SNAP together. *WHAT IS THE MEDIUM OF TRANSFER IN 'EMPTY' SPACE HERE?* How did magnet #2 'know' magnet #1 was there? The magnets polarize the virtual particle field of the quantum vacuum. Both in outer space, and on Earth. SEE HERE => en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle . . .

[@ivanzaremez4773]

please give a source whre Einstein does write about that?

[@ChrisFolgersDeHaan]

i have the real formula

[@ameerachannel1667]

Einstein is wrong again, the other one is about entanglement.