Faraday paradox unipolar dynamo demo Part1

[@davidorr947]

The best 'Faraday's paradox' experiment I have seen on KZbin. Well done! Thank you.

[@plenum88]

thanks!

[@rajeev_kumar]

Spinning of magnet doesn't rotate magnetic field, it just changes the strength of the magnetic field insignificantly.

[@plenum88]

Mr Catsro - in this test the generator was driving an amplifier before the scope so I could see the small mV difference at low speed. In previous direct tests with a thick copper rotor with graphite brushes driven at 2300 RPM in a 0.05T field, the mV output was 9.7mV. You would have to use ohms law and know the total resistance of the circuit, which may have been 6 uohms for the disk and then perhaps 1.5 milli-ohms for the brushes. So you might reach a few amps at 9.7mV, so not much power.

[@stevec700]

When the magnet rotates the field lines remain stationary. This is consistent with the experimental results. This can be seen using FeroFluid. The question is then, why do the field lines not rotate? The only conclusion is that the field lines are not associated with the magnet, but with the surrounding space, which is being distorted by the magnet. It would be interesting to see if any experiments have been carried out to determine what determines the orientation of the field lines.

[@stevenjones6561]

Excellent! Part 2 is even better, IMO.

[@plenum88]

Thanks!

[@plenum88]

The amplifier consists of two inverting TL082 operational amplifiers in tandem (series), such that the final output is non-inverted. Each amplifier has a 10K resistor to the inverting input, and a 1m resistor from the inverting input to the output of the each individual amp. The non-inverting input is grounded. So this gives 100x gain x 100x gain = 10,000x. Optionally, a 50uF cap to ground can be used at the input to reduce noise if necessary. The power supply to the amps is +5V and -5V DC.

[@walterdennisclark]

Are we still waiting for Part 2 ? By the way this is absolutely the best youTube and in fact the best description of the homopolar generator and the associated paradox. Congratulations Mr. Plenum. You walk on water; man.

[@plenum88]

Wow, thanks - yes, regarding part 2, I have been working on a replication of Kennard's experiment to answer the question experimentally once and for all - but I have gotten sidetracked onto bigger things recently so unfortunately it is going to take more time to get that video out. Sorry for the delay.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

Maybe you answered this before but how do the current and voltage change in relation to the rpm in generator mode? Thanks

[@plenum88]

I don't think I ever graphed it out with this one since I was using a fixed RPM stepper for this one. The electrostatic version in part two has some graphs, I think the Keene patent shows a linear change in voltage with RPM.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

Is it linear with the current (amps) also?

[@plenum88]

As I said, I haven't measured it so can't say anything for certain.

[@chajimun]

When the magnet co-rotate with the disk and current is created.So is there a Lenz Law or something like that when the magnet and disk co-rotade which pushing back the rotation? Sorry for my English.

[@bullerheden]

Thank you for a very, very interesting video. However I think the test when the stator is moved alone is disturbed by the EMF generated in the hanging wires to the oscilloscope when they move relative to the magnet field.

[@plenum88]

Yes, the stator is no different than the rotor - moving it relative to the stationary magnet generates a voltage.

[@JustNow42]

The rotation of the magnet is irrelevant

[@Latrocinium086]

The pins or contacts are picking up stray electrons. The magnet is just... Think this is like a van de graf generator. Does it work without the magnet?

[@plenum88]

Blade runner - I think the theory goes that if the magnetic field does not rotate with the rotating magnet, then when the magnet and copper disk rotate together, the "stationary" magnetic field lines are cut by the rotating copper disk. If the alternative theory is correct, namely that the magnetic lines rotate with the magnet, then it is the stationary stator circuit that is cut by the rotating magnetic lines. As always, the experimental result can't distinguish between the two possibilities!

[@luistorh]

What if both the stator and magnet rotate and the copper disk remains stationary. Would that have the same result as when stator and magnet were fix but the disc rotated?

[@trueteslaenergy]

In step five with only the brushes moving....if the brushes are moving counterclockwise that would be the same as if the brushes are stationary and the disk was rotating clockwise. So as it apears on your scope its is the same in regard to direction. But the left hand rule deals with the motion on the CONDUCTOR....not the CONDUCTED.

[@plenum88]

The first part of what you say is certainly correct - the second part there is no need to clarify since the brushes are no different than a second disk, so there is no problem conceiving of them as a a conductor in motion just like the disk.

[@trueteslaenergy]

But the voltage could be being created by the movement of the brushes relative to the surface of the disk. That is evident by the fact that the brushes moving alone produce a voltage. if what I am saying is correct then if the brushes are rotating with the disk and no voltage is produced then that proves my theory that the voltage is induced from movement of the brushes from one potential on the disk to another...weather the disk is moving or the brushes are moving. and if the brushes are not set up in a horizontal fashion and are vertical to the disk and field then no voltage should be induced in them therefore...what I stated earlier. I believe the voltage to be a product of contacts changing potential location and is not lorentz force or whatever else that has to do with the disk spinning. the disk and magnet can be stationary and produce voltage from rotating contacts. That alone shoots every theory down except walter russell.

[@plenum88]

If what you are arguing is true, then if you removed the magnet and rotated the brushes over the disk, you would still see a voltage, and from past experience we know this does not happen. Conversely, if the brushes rotate with the disk and there is no voltage, you can't tell whether this is because two counter-flows of current are cancelling out or whether what you are arguing is correct. The necessity of the magnetic field and the moving conductor as a minimum to see the effect suggests that the Lorentz force is responsible, that is at least what the last 150 years of researchers have told us, I am simply demonstrating what they have all done. : )

[@beforebefore]

The largest versions of this (MW) use full peripheral rim contacts with the conductive disc... to maximize output current. Many use a ring of mercury bath that the copper disc edge rides in for full-time, full-peripheral contact. If the contact point needs to move relative to the disc, how does that type work? It seems that the "stator" (the point-of-contact with the conductive disc) would be "virtually-stationary" relative to the disc... since there is no "one point of contact".....??

[@plenum88]

What is more important is the circuit, and not the point of contact. The stator can be a disk and the rotor can be a disk, and their relative movement through the field determines the final current difference generated. So this depends only on the Lorentz force exerted on the electrons in the sections of copper that are moving relative to the field, regardless of whether they reside in the stator or rotor.

[@plenum88]

Jorg - Haven't finished part 2 yet - hopefully will get that out this fall.

[@AETHERscience]

Hi, regarding the Faraday disk experiment, I would like to ask you to check what happens if you rotate the stator alone but NOT in contact with the disk. Do you still get the opposite voltage compared to the disk for the same movement (as you say at min 2:19) ? Thanks.

[@JohnWilkinsonTesla]

VERY interesting. Especially the ending.

[@Kinetic_CGI]

Does flipping the magnet change the polarity of the voltage reading, also how well or bad does it work without a magnet, or with the magnet perpendicular?

[@plenum88]

Dan Goe - from Maxwell's perspective, if the lines don't rotate with the magnet, then rotating the disk and the magnet in opposite directions will only lead to an emf from the disk rotating and thus the same amount as if the magnet was stationary. From Einsteins perspective, if the magnetic lines rotate, then the lines cut the rotating disk twice as fast, but the lines cutting the stator are half as much and in the opposite direction so the result is the same emf generated as the disk rotating alone. So you still can't tell which theory is correct from such a test!

[@plenum88]

You will only potentially see a voltage if the circuit forms a closed loop of some kind. So If the stator rotates but is not in contact with the disk, then it would be an open circuit and you would see nothing, since the circuit needs to be closed through the disk. However, if you were to close the stator circuit by a wire that rotates with it, you would also see no voltage, since the upper wire and the lower wire would both cut the magnetic flux in the same direction, generating opposite currents that would cancel out. This is the same if the stator and the rotor turn together, with or without the magnet turning - no voltage.

[@vinceovist1277]

except that, according to your description, when the stator leads contact the disc, the disc essentially becomes the "wire" connecting the leads, and therefore should produce zero voltage since the top and bottom of the induction circuit are cutting the lines of force in the same direction as you pointed out.

[@plenum88]

Yes, if the stator and the disk rotate together is the same direction, the voltage would be zero. If they rotate in opposite directions, then the voltage would be double.

[@vinceovist1277]

Yes, if you accept that the Magnetic field IS stationary and all current is generated from the circuit wire cutting the "line of flux" of the stationary field. If that is the case, then one must also explain why the field is stationary when rotated about the poles and why the field is NOT stationary if rotated around the poles (north to south for example)

[@plenum88]

Actually, the result must always be the same whether the magnetic field rotates with the magnet or not (for a closed circuit). So the outcome can never be used to determine which hypothesis is right, no matter what is rotating with respect to what (magnet, rotor, stator).

[@vinceovist1277]

Any chance of getting the cad and spec files for this rig. I would love to build one and experiment with it to compare notes. Let me know.

[@plenum88]

JP - I did just now read your article, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I see what you are saying about Ampere's argument about the apparent violation of Newton's third law. I have constructed recently the motor that you describe at the end of the article with the rotating wire and the stationary magnet/battery, and it spins great. In defense of Faraday, I would say there is the work of Kennard who claims to have seen a reactionless generation of an electrostatic potential in a unipolar generator, but as far as I can tell his work has never been replicated. Muller apparently tried to replicate Kennard but was unsuccessful.

[@steveforbin911]

what if you counter rotate the disk and magnet ? Results = and what conclusions could you draw from that test?

[@plenum88]

Should be the same as case 1, the polarity determined by which way the disk rotates. Rotating the magnet reverse to the disk shouldn't add or subtract anything. So this variation shouldn't provide any additional information.

[@steveforbin911]

Being the angular moments is supposedly twice the rate with both going in counter rotation, means the flux is cut twice as much... Thus you are cutting lines of magnetic force twice as much. That is the theory anyway. Will the voltage double?

[@plenum88]

From the point of view of Faraday's theory, the lines do not move when the magnet rotates, so spinning the magnet in any direction will not change the result, it is only the rotation of the disk that determines the amount of voltage, so no, the voltage should not double unless the disk velocity doubles with respect to the lab.

[@steveforbin911]

If that theory is true then I should be able to get a coil of wire to generate power as the earth rotates my coil at a very fast rotation of earth and generate electricity. There was an experiment like this in space as the space craft pulled a coil thru earth's magnetic orbit but the cable broke ..end of experiment.

[@gunpaljain8350]

I believe you can remove the magnet, that voltage is produced due to contact potential of probes and the disk. Just thinking out aloud.

[@plenum88]

Pretty sure contact potential is not what we are seeing here.

[@plenum88]

I see what you are saying, and intuitively that would seem correct. But if you look at the last part of the video, when I turn the stator alone, you will see that a signal of similar size to turning the disk is generated. This is the inverse of the magnet rotating and the stator stationary. Somehow, the magnetic lines cut the stator such that geometrically the sum of the effect is the same as it would be if the disk rotates. Thus, if you rotate all three together (disk, stator and magnet) you see zero induction. Or if you rotate the disk and stator together, there is also zero induction.

[@plenum88]

If you argue that the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet, then the lines of force of the stationary field are cut by the rotating disk. If you argue that the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, then the rotating lines of force of the magnet cut the stationary stator wire circuit. The problem is that it is experimentally very difficult to prove which description is true.

[@spiritresonancejv]

Hi , thanks for working on the whole homopolar generator. I just got done reading Thomas vallone book on it. I have a suggestion about improving the voltage of the Dynamo. It occurred to me while thinking about kirchhoff's laws first and second. That's if you use the electrostatic electricity from the environment and added it to the amperage of the homopolar generator you would not violate kirchhoff's second law and the law conservation, since the available voltage in the environment is more than the total Watts input of the homopolar generator motor, then the voltage from the environment would rush to meet the wattage requirements of the the conservation of energy operating in the homopolar generator, yet these would be mostly voltage. By using open system thermodynamics such as as used to explain the operation of the homopolar generator, we can satisfy kirchhoff's first and second laws and the conservation of energy in an isolated system. Since the capacity of the Earth is larger then the current in the homopolar generator and since the power from the Earth's atmosphere comes from the sun, the homopolar generator would be the smaller of the two Energies. In this way we can give local amp hours 2 the high electric field in the environment around us. Please contact me if you'd like to discuss this further. Otherwise keep up the good work. Jeff Van Engineer Tachyon Aerospace tachyonaerospace.earth/

[@sedevacantist1]

Perhaps the experiment is not complete, when the magnet alone is spinning the pick-up brushes should also spin because perhaps the charge is spread out over the disc. I would also like to see the experiment made with multiple brushes around the wheel. Thank you for sharing this demonstration.

[@plenum88]

I suppose the problem is that the effect is not reciprocal - so spinning the brushes or the disk are not equivalent to spinning the magnet. So spinning the brushes leads to a positive effect, which is not enhanced or diminished by spinning the magnet. So spinning the magnet and the disk together is very much like spinning the brushes and the magnet together, both effects are positive, but ultimately the motion of the magnet is irrelevant since it never adds anything to the effect. Spreading the charge over the disk likely wouldn't change anything since the current will still flow through the brushes wherever they choose to close the circuit across the disk.

[@sedevacantist1]

@@plenum88 Thanks, after watching your video I watched this one kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWbamKCKfM5oprc I see you did rotate the brush while the magnet and disc were stationary and there was a voltage produced. I need to reflect on this strange effect for awhile.

[@Supr3me9123]

Hi Please I'd like to know what frequencies are you reading there when its on

[@fidelcatsro6948]

great demo, but 200yrs on what I.wana know how many amps did you get on the scope?

[@dangoe9908]

what if you rotated the disk and the magnet in opposite directions ? Would the rate of magnetic flux cut be twice as much? Thus should induce twice the voltage on the meter. As you move the stator you are only picking up the voltage moving through that circuit at that moment. Very interesting issue and very nice way to display the effects. Thanks for the video.

[@freeelectricgenerator7921]

Wonderful experiment, But I've few questions i want to ask you i we be grad if you can answer me accordingly (1) rotating both magnet, copper disk which one produce good amount of power (2) when the generator got loaded or short circuit do you noticed any changes in the motor i mean slow down of speed because you mentioned EMF so i want to know if the reaction doesn't affect the prime mover (3) what type of circuit do you use to step up the voltage is transformer or step up module

[@MitkoGorgiev]

Great video, thank you. Can you please explain how you apply the left hand rule to determine the direction of electricity flow?

[@christophercochran5883]

what happens when you rotate the cooper disk clockwise and the magnet counterclockwise?

[@plenum88]

Should be the same as rotating the copper disk clockwise and the magnet standing still - so you will get induction.

[@csteve6234]

I like this. This is my favorite subject to investigate. But volatage is so low that I can not put a load to fine out large current. Any suggestions?

[@plenum88]

Make it much, much bigger : )

[@vylbird8014]

The voltage should be proportional to angular speed. Make it spin faster. You might have to experiment with a good contact design - I've had good results using a bit of copper braid.

[@serkanozkan8793]

what if you rotate the brush and disk together? This option has never been seen. The question, Is there any energy generated if the copper disk and brush rotates together?

[@StefanDanov]

You never show what happens if you turn all three things simultaneously: the disk, the magnet, and the scope probe on the disk. What does the scope show in that case?

[@plenum88]

in this case the voltage is zero.

[@HitAndMissLab]

What about this idea: when conductor is rotated currents are created by centrifugal force. That is why there is no current when only the magnet is rotated and conductor is stationary. Try removing the magnet and than rotating the conductor without the magnetic field. If you stil get current, that means that centrifugal force creates a prt of current.

[@plenum88]

+HitAndMissLab - yes, I have tried that - the current depends on how close the rotating conductor is to the magnet. So no magnet or distant magnet = no current.

[@HitAndMissLab]

+plenum88 thanks for the reply. Really weird watching that magnet rotate and create no current???

[@francoligabue9727]

Now try moving "stator" and disk together relative to the magnet, which is the real "reciprocal" of case 1.

[@alexanderuvarov3587]

Could you please share Amplifier scheme?

[@inox1ck]

all you need is relative motion between the stator and the rotor. It doesn't falsify relativity. nice demo

[@plenum88]

The evidence contradicting relativity is in part2 of the video series.

[@trueteslaenergy]

Actually its in the last step. No theory has yet been proposed to explain how ONLY the brushes moving creates a voltage.

[@plenum88]

I think there is some disagreement between authors about if and how Lenz's law applies to the unipolar machine. I believe Tesla thought that Lenz's law would not apply. Even when it would appear difficult to apply the law to a dynamo, usually nature finds a way to prevent you from getting excess energy, as was the case in our tests with the Marinov generator.

[@64etto]

Ma far girare il disco di rame con il magnete equivale a far girare il solo disco di rame visto che questa è la fonte, oppure come il vero generatore due magneti uno sopra e uno sotto al disco di polarità opposta

[@bmind23]

You forgot case 6: statoe ratatig with magnets

[@plenum88]

Unfortunately I can't do that test with this demonstrator since it is too difficult to get the motor and the stator to move together, considering that the stator is encumbered by the wire leads going to the amplifier.

[@superanne1547]

Hi plenum88, very nice experiment you did here! Which magnet polarity are you facing the copper plate?

[@igorstaszak133]

Where i can get this small brush? Can you give me model?

[@plenum88]

I used 18 AWG stranded copper wire - simple and effective...

[@igorstaszak133]

But with high speed do you have electric continuously contact connection?

[@plenum88]

it works best at low to moderate speeds

[@plenum88]

Mr Runner - if the magnet and the disk are spinning, and the magnetic lines of force do not move (theory of Faraday/Maxwell) then the disk cuts the lines of force and the stator wires don't. In the theory of Einstein, if the lines of force move (and so does the disk) then the moving lines of force cut across the stationary stator wires, inducing an EMF in them instead, but not in the disk, which is co-moving. Since both theories lead to the same result (EMF flows) the result doesn't tell you which theory is right or wrong. That is why the paradox is hard to solve.

[@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. I think 5. case test failed. Could you repeat it with wire from stator being directed straightly upword in different position? Read more here: www.physicsforums.com/threads/request-about-experiments-on-the-linear-motion-faraday-paradox.966883/#post-6141798

[@plenum88]

Yes, you are absolutely right, when the stator wires move the current is generated in the moving wires, not the disk, that is already well known and I have never disputed that. But there is no way to position the moving wires to eliminate it - doesn't matter which way you place them, they will always cut the field when they move, dog knows I have tried this every possible way to no avail : ).

[@jameswilliamson1726]

is it possible to tell us the rpm and the amount of amperage and voltage generated in your demo? I thought that your experiment was well designed. thanks

[@plenum88]

Sorry, for the late reply, had some computer problems : ( The RPM is about 150. The voltage generated before amplification is quite low, like around a few hundred micro volts at most. That is why I have to amplify so much to see it. However, since the disk resistance is so low, like in the uohm range, the current is theoretically in the tens of amps range. The power would then be perhaps in the mW range. I haven't characterized fully, that is why these are ball park numbers. The highest voltage across the disk I have ever seen was about 9.6 mV at 2300 RPM and 0.05 Tesla.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

According to my information 0.05 Tesla would be 500 Gauss. Was this measured at the edge of the magnet or at the center, or perhaps at the height of the copper disc? It appears to be a ceramic magnet due to it's dark grey color. I have a small neodymium disc magnet (grade N42, I think) and according to the K&J magnetic field calculator, it has 4129.6 Gauss at the center and 8252.6 Gauss at the edge. If you would like to compare notes with my homopolar experiments, you can write me at [e-mail] as I haven't made this data public yet.

[@plenum88]

Yes, I use a ceramic magnet. I measured it with a F.W. Bell gauss/tesla meter at the height of the copper disk, as I recall.

[@jameswilliamson1726]

You mentioned current in the 10s of amps range. My experience is that it would measure far less. Can you rerun your setup to verify?

[@plenum88]

James - I didn't actually measure the current since the conductivity of the disk is too low - so I am just stating the theoretical current flow using ohms law, based on the measured voltage and the estimated resistance of the disk.

[@Eric-vk6cy]

Exelent video

[@falrus]

Does it even need the magnet?

[@DerekRoss1958]

I wonder where the reaction force applies. There is a force causing the copper disc to spin. Presumably there is a reactive force. I would have expected it to act on the magnet before seeing this experiment. But now? Perhaps not.

[@plenum88]

Do you mean like a Lenz repulsion? It might be quite weak since the output voltage is so tiny.

[@DerekRoss1958]

My apologies. I'm thinking of the motor version of this device, not the generator version.

[@plenum88]

PHA - the last waveform is real - and it it is entirely what is expected due to the reciprocal nature of the effect. Yes, Faraday is probably right, but you need a Kennard type electrostatic experiment to prove it.

[@maciejnajlepszy]

I recommend Robert Sungenis opus magnum "Galileo Was Wrong, the Church Was Right" for detailed explanations about the ether properties and its consequences.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

You forgot to do the clockwise and anti-clockwise experiments, without the magnet being there at all.

[@plenum88]

No, I didn't forget, I think that control is irrelevant since this is a magnetic induction experiment. So we are measuring the current generated by the relative motion of a magnet and a coil. If you are implying that voltages could be generated spuriously by friction or electrostatic generation, i ruled that out experimentally already.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

@@plenum88 No, I'm not implying that at all, I say that you will find more or less the same results when you take away the magnet. I assume that the spikes on the scope may look different, just like the spikes are different for the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. The spikes from the counter-clockwise direction are way more heratic than those from the clockwise direction. So I predict that without the magnet, the spikes would be even less heratic than the latter. What everybody is trying to say is that the spinning metal is forcing the electrons towards the rim, since electrons have a mass. Try it, and don't forget to make video of it. Thanks!

[@plenum88]

@@_John_Sean_Walker Hi John, I think maybe you are looking at this the wrong way - the reason why the electrons move is not because the spinning metal is forcing them to the rim due to their mass. That would be implying that this is all to do with centrifugal force. What is actually happening is that when the disk rotates the electrons develop a magnetic field around themselves due to their motion. This magnetic field then interacts with the magnetic field of the fixed magnet, forcing them to move along the conductive disk according to the rules of the Lorentz force. In the first two examples I show that the electron current can be either towards the rim or towards the center, depending on the rotation direction of the disk, following the left hand rule. If I take the magnet away, then there will be no current when the disk rotates, I felt that was sufficiently obvious that I wouldn't need to show that in the video.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

@@plenum88 Your line of thinking may look logical, but you'll have to try it to see for yourself. Show me the video that shows zero current between the probes for the copper disk spinning without the magnet being there, please. Good luck.

[@plenum88]

Yes, I think we are thinking along the same lines here...

[@igorstaszak133]

How much voltage you get?

[@plenum88]

Its very small, like maybe 100 microvolts at this speed. Have to amplify 10,000x to see it.

[@srotovnikabc6919]

You are discovering America. I did such experiments a long time ago. it doesn't matter if the magnet is rotating or not. Silociars are fiction, so there is no point in asking if they rotate with a magnet. Even relativists (whose opinions I do not support) don't say that, according to mnanics. The EMF determines whether a fixed and a moving part move relative to each other in the magnetic field.

[@arthurbaraov240]

Hi, Plenum88, I would like to make a couple of points. (1) The suggestion that the magnetic field doesn't rotate with the magnet seems preposterous to me. Here is why. Take a cylinder-shaped bar of magnet with axisymmetric magnetic field around it. When we rotate this cylinder around its axis, it is hard to tell, indeed, whether the magnetic field gets rotated or not because the intensity of the magnetic field remains the same everywhere in space before and after the rotation. However, if we rotate the magnet a bit around any other line, it is plain that the intensity of the magnetic field would be different almost everywhere in space before and after the rotation. So it does not seem reasonable to think that the magnetic field did not rotate in the former case. (2) But can we prove this experimentally? It seems to me that it could be done with slight modification of your experiment. Assume that you have improved the experimental setup as to enable yourself to detect not only the direction of the current but also its magnitude. Now, consider the following two cases: (a) the conducting disc is rotating CW with angular velocity ω, while both the magnet and the stator wire circuit are stationary; and (b) the stator wire circuit is rotating CCW with the angular velocity ω, while both the magnet and the conducting disc are stationary. Since the magnet is not rotating in either case, the question “whether the magnetic field is rotating or not” simply does not arise in these cases. Note also that in both cases currents will be induced of the same direction. Now, the crucial question is: are these two currents of the same magnitude as well? If they are, then my idea of experimental resolution of the conundrum will not work. However, there is a good chance that the currents will be of different magnitude: I believe that Ia > Ib, i.e. in case (a) we’ll get more current. Why? Here is my reasoning. In case (a), the magnitude of the current is determined by what is happening in the rotating disk alone for, evidently, nothing is happening in the stator wire circuit. But current generation is due not only to what is happening in that part of the disk which connects directly two points where the stator wire touches the disk. In other words, the current is generated not only in that short segment of the disk, which completes the loop, but also in all over parts of the disk, all these creeks of current flowing to the loop. Now we repeat the experiments (a) and (b) with only one and the same change in both cases: we rotate now the magnet CW with the same angular velocity ω. Let us call these modified experiments (a*) and (b*) respectively. Now the question is: will we observe Ia* > Ib* as before? If Faraday/Maxwell conjecture is correct then, obviously, we shall observe no change, i.e. we shall have Ia* > Ib*. However, if the relativists are correct then we shall observe Ib* > Ia*. Indeed, if the magnetic field does rotate with the magnet, then nothing is happening in the conducting disk (it rotates at the same rate as the rotating field and there is no cutting of lines of force), and current generation is due exclusively to what is happening in the stator wire circuit where cutting the lines of force is taking place.

[@plenum88]

Hi Arthur, Unfortunately, with both scenarios there are instances where the correct answer is arrived at based on the assumption that the currents in both the stator and the rotor must exactly cancel in each closed circuit, like for instance when the magnet rotates and the disk and stator are stationary. I have seen no evidence of imbalanced currents in any of the 8 possible combinations of this test.

[@arthurbaraov240]

Thanks for the quick reply, Plenum. You are making an excellent point. If I understand you correctly, here is the essence of your argument. Look, Arthur, we don’t have to perform the experiments (a) and (b) in order to see that the inequality Ia > Ib you have conjectured is impossible. Indeed, let us assume that Ia > Ib is true, then Ia - Ib > 0 is also true. But the last inequality is much easier to check experimentally for we need to perform only one experiment, instead of two, in which - let’s call it experiment (c) - the magnet is not rotating while the copper disk and the stator are both rotating in the same direction at the same rate. What’s more, there is no need at all to measure the magnitude of the current in the experiment (c): all we need to do - observe whether a current of any magnitude arise or not. I have performed the experiment (c) and observed no current, therefore, your conjecture Ia > Ib must be wrong. Very formidable argument, indeed! Still, I am doubtful that this - seemingly unsurmountable - LOGICAL (not PHYSICAL!) objection shall carry much weight. Why? The short answer is: Because the inequality we are talking about is dealing with electric currents rather than electric potentials. What difference does it make? The best way to answer the last question is to resort to a lucid hydrodynamic analogy, which I will describe in the next comment.

[@arthurbaraov240]

Here is my hydrodynamic analogy. Imagine two tall vessels to hold a liquid - one is of large cross-section and has cylindrical form, while the other is of small cross-section and has the shape of a long and narrow rectangle when seen from above. There are lots of little tubes attached to the bottom of each vessel, which are distributed with equal density everywhere and shown as small circles in the diagram www.dropbox.com/s/yfwqt2xblyfz964/FaradayParadoxHydrodynamicArgument.pdf . Each tube has a valve at the end, which connects it to the vessel, while the other end is dipped into a sea of water. All valves are originally closed and the vessels are empty. We put the vessels next to each other, with their bottoms aligned below the sea level, and then we make big holes on the walls of both vessels where they are in contact with each other - the vessels are communicating freely now. Next, we open all valves simultaneously. What will happen? The sea water will start filling both vessels; however, we will not get water flowing from one vessel to the other because water level is rising at the same rate in both vessels. This is the hydrodynamic analogy of the situation we have in the experiment (c) - no electric current, no water current. Now, what would be the hydrodynamic analogy of the situations we have in the experiments (a) and (b)? It is pretty obvious. If we open only those valves, which are in the cylindrical vessel, we’ll get the hydrodynamic analogy of the experiment (a); and if we open only those valves, which are in the rectangular vessel, we’ll get the hydrodynamic analogy of the experiment (b). In both cases we’ll get water flowing from one vessel to the other. But will the water flow be of the same magnitude in these two scenarios? The answer is, obviously, no, because there will be more water arriving from the sea into the large cylindrical vessel in the case (a), as compared to the amount of sea water arriving into the small vessel in the case (b), while all that water has to flow to the other vessel through the open border between the vessels.

[@plenum88]

Hi Arthur, Sorry I am not quite following you, but I think the point is that the stator lead in wires and the disk form parts of the same closed circuit. So it stands to reason that one part will always current limit the other part no matter how you configure it as a closed circuit, with large conductors or narrow ones, regardless of how they are placed in different parts of the circuit. The net effect is that in any circumstance where opposite currents are generated in the different parts, they are of equal magnitude and thereby cancel out. Believe me, I have tried varying the dimensions and resistances of the conductors and the outcome is always the same, I can never see a "partial" effect like I think you are suggesting, where one current exceeds another. Also, it would be difficult to measure these currents accurately anyway, since they are very tiny - I had to amplify 10,000X in order to make these effects visible on the scope at these low rotation speeds.

[@arthurbaraov240]

Hi Plenum, I have to apologize for my long and confusing speculations. In short, my point was: unless the experiments (a) and (b) are performed as I have described them, it would be premature to say FOR CERTAIN what would be the outcome: Ia > Ib, Ia < Ib, or Ia = Ib. You are alluding to some other experiments you have, in fact, performed to pass a judgment about the possible outcome of my experiments, which is, admittedly, a perfectly legitimate way of conducting scientific business. Your experience suggests that if we have performed the experiments (a) and (b), which we have not, we would get Ia=Ib - a legitimate argument but not a conclusive experimental proof. Let me ask you a question that may sound naïve (I am not an experimenter so, hopefully, can be excused): I hear that the important feature of the homopolar generator is that it can easily generate large currents - hundreds or even thousands of amps - so why is it necessary to resort to amplification while experimenting with homopolar generator? Is it difficult to modify your generator to get a current, which would be easily measurable without any amplification?

[@Leviathan15s]

I was surprised to see that no voltage was generated rotating only the magnet, the other test voltages can be explained by the brushes cutting magnetic field lines. Have no idea why rotating only the magnet would have no voltage other than, the magnetic field is actually stationary.

[@Chicken_Little_Syndrome]

The magnetized body has a magnetic field that extends into the space around the magnetized object. The north and south poles act like an axis around which the field can be considered to be rotating. Rotating the physical magnet (alone) does nothing because you are not moving the field. Rotating the copper disk alone (or with the magnetized disk) produces electrical current because we now have a changing magnetic field interacting with the copper.

[@fidelcatsro6948]

ok im still waiting for part 2 the homopolar depalma replication, great video this was but we already knew the the paradox now lets get the thing going and create some real overunity!

[@Virigis]

. Place a section of wire over a longitudinal magnet and then over a ring magnet from a speaker, by passing a current through the wire you can see how the longitudinal wire interacts with the longitudinal magnetic pole. . Such interaction is not shown in schools, but if you look closely at the picture of the frame between the poles, you can see everything without experiments. . Расположите отрезок провода над продольным магнитом и потом над кольцевым от динамика, пропустив ток через провод, можно увидеть как взаимодействует продольный провод с продольным магнитным полюсом. . Такого взаимодействия в школах не показывают, но если пристально посмотреть на рисунок рамки между полюсами, то всйо можно увидеть и без опытов.

[@johnheath7073]

Nice demo , well done. Rotating magnet vs rotating copper disk. To myself it should be rotating magnet vs copper disk vs test equipment. Rotating or not rotating magnet appears to have no effect for all tests. At the end of the video the rotating test equipment was done with both magnet and copper disk stationary. It generated a voltage difference when rocked back and forth as seen on the scope. It should be noted that the test equipment , scope was not rotating. This leaves one more test that was not done. What if the whole room were rotating with the copper disk and the magnet ? According to special relativity the laws of physics are the same for all frames of reference therefore there should not be a voltage difference when the room , copper disk and magnet rotate together. Rotating the room for this final test could lead to a conflict with your landlord. As an alternative a small 9 volt DVM could could be tie-wrapped to the copper disk with one lead soldered to the outside and other lead to the center of the copper disk. This way when the system is rotated the copper disk , magnet and the test equipment are rotating together. Somewhat like the fiber gyro experiment. If this experiment does not render a voltage difference we can raise yet another beer to uncle Albert.

[@plenum88]

Hi John, Unfortunately, even if you rotate the DVM with the entire apparatus, (which I have done using a small datalogger), the negative result can be explained both classically or by relativity. So such an experiment (with closed circuits) can't be used to distinguish between the two theories. This is because if the magnetic field is stationary, then counter-EMFs are generated in the two moving circuits that cancel. If the magnetic field rotates, then no EMF is generated in either circuit. So both theories predict a null result. Rotating the lead-in wires is equivalent to rotating the room, since the EMF generated is primarily in close proximity to the magnet; wires far from the magnet are not influenced much, which can be demonstrated experimentally.

[@johnheath7073]

The small datalogger did not escape my attention. A home brew PIC processor then blue tooth the data over. It must have taken days if not weeks to sort that one out. Thumbs up. The datalogger showed a negative result , null result , for copper disk and contacts rotating with each other. Rocking the disk or the contacts back and forth generates AC voltage but if both disk and contacts are rotated together no AC voltage. Interesting. There is an electronic analog fet switch I.C. that will allow me to select one of 16 analog inputs somewhat like having 16 relays at your command . I will now solder 16 wires 1 degree apart on the outer edge of the copper disk. I think you know where I am going with this. I will now select 1 of 16 sequentially to simulate the contacts being rocked back and forth 16 degrees to generate an AC voltage. You see the problem? It takes next to no energy to electronically select 1 of 16 analog FET inputs. If an AC voltage is generated from this it would be a violation of energy conservation laws. We can not have free energy therefore my electronic FET substitute for your disk contacts should render a null result. Rock the contacts back and forth 16 degrees and an AC voltage is produced . Rock the contacts back and forth electronically with a FET analog switches and it can not produce an AC voltage without violating energy conservation laws. Not sure what this means but it has to mean something yes / no ?

[@plenum88]

Okay, I get what you are saying, but in order to generate a Lorentz force you need relative motion between the conductors and the magnetic field - if you have your contacts and disk stationary nothing will happen? It is not clear to me if you will still rotate the disk??

[@johnheath7073]

Only mover the stater. The magnet and disk are fixed so they can not move. Rotation generates a voltage as measured on a meter that is NOT moving. If the meter is attached to the stater to move with it there is no voltage , null result. As you say this neither proves or disproves classical electromagnet vs relativity theory as they both make the same prediction. However if I solder 16 wires 1 degree apart on the outside of the disk then select the wires 1 through 16 with cmos FET switches would this be the same as rotating the stater? I think not but you never know for sure until you try.

[@plenum88]

Hi John Health, No, you don't have that quite right - I am saying if you move the stator, rotor and meter together you will see a null result. But if you move the stator and the meter together you will see a voltage. The current is induced in the parts of the circuit very close to the magnet, so the meter, being remote from it, is largely unaffected. The opposing voltages are generated in the disk vs the stator if they move together, and this has to do with the geometry of the conductors in relation to the way current flows in the circuit, in close proximity to the magnet.

[@pmgriphone]

You need to look at everything from your perspective as the observer. Whether the magnet is stationary or not doesn't matter. The B-field remains the same over the disk as the magnet field lines cover the entire disk. If the copper disk is stationary, there is no force F=q*vxB as v=0. The only time you get a force is if the disc spins, in which case you are spinning the electrics in it which then encounter a force F not equal to zero. Now if you and your equipment were to sit on the spinning disc and the magnet is stationary or spinnnig, you would not measure anything. Seems a paradox, but all depends on your frame of reference for your measurements.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

There are now dozens of faraday disk youtube videos -- this one might be the best. What voltage might u expect if the lab was on a train travelling at high speed -- especially the case where both the disk & the magnetic disk are not spinning (u could try this in a car perhaps). I suspect that u will expect 00 mV -- & that u will indeed get 00 mV. But how & why?????? This question adds to the paradox -- it takes it to a higher level. What is a magnetic field, & what is a magnetic line of force, & what is charge etc. What is the seat of the back emf. The answer will of course involve aether. Still thinking. If u do do that there experiment, just use an ordinary magnet, with no disk (ie no copper) -- just measure the emf across the whole magnet, in every direction (ie in the vert & in the horiz) , & for every possible orientation of the magnet (ie in the vert & in the horiz). And if u wanted to tick all of the boxes, do it while the car is going in various directions NSEW. Anyhow there will be 00 mV in every case, or will there?????

[@plenum88]

Why would you think there wouldn't be 0 volts in these cases?

[@atheistaetherist2747]

I think that "what voltage would u expect" has more than one answer. For starters, what is voltage? What is emf? What is measured emf? I don't understand measuring (i am a civil engineer), but praps the conductors of the voltmeter will hav their own emf, thusly the voltmeter might measure 00 mV even tho there is actually an emf across the magnet. And then there is the super-paradox. We all know the mini-paradox, that's not difficult to understand, it is solved by simply assuming that the lines of mmf are static. This of course needs an aether to act as the absolute reference frame. But that immediately leads to the super-paradox. We hav an aether wind blowing throo Earth at 500 kmps (south to north) 20 deg off Earth's axis. Hencely our piddly little 0.000000001 kmps spin of our magnet or rotor should be trumped by the 500 kmps (ie c/600) aetherwind blowing throo our magnet or rotor. This can be solved by assuming that the lines of mmf are not static, they propagate straight ahead in the aether (ie with zero angle) at c kmps, & hencely they can hav an angle in the lab frame of c/c/600 which is 1/600. The trick is that the lines of charge emanating from every electron in the magnet must too hav that angle. Hencely the lines of mmf from the magnet do not cross the lines of cmf from the electron, & they ignore each other. But then we hav to include the piddly little 1 mps of spin. Here we hav to find some way that the lines of mmf retain their 1/600 angle & that the lines of mmf are not changed by the 1 mps, but that the lines of cmf are changed by the 1 mps, so that the mmf & cmf clash. This is making my brain hurt. I think that lines of mmf are not static in the lab frame. The 1mm in 600 mm angle would be difficult to see, partly koz that 1 mm is the max possible, mostly it would be a half of that (depending on orientation & time of day). Anyhow, the rogue emf across our voltmeter duznt hav to look for the 500 kmps, it only needs to find that there 1 mps. But then we come to a new level 3 super-duper-paradox. A non rotating magnet sitting in a car mooving at 10 mps should give the same kind of clash tween mmf & cmf that we get with a magnet spinning at 1 mps. After all, a rotating magnet can be considered to be made of lots of little magnets that are at any instant simply mooving straight ahead. And that is why i reckon that someone must do the test (ie it might not be 00 mV). And i wonder whether it would be possible to achieve enough accuracy to check for a 1 mm in 600 mm non-symmetry in the lines of mmf for some orientations of a magnet (sitting in a lab).

[@atheistaetherist2747]

I reckon that acceleration might hav an emf effect. Hencely the in-car tests should include acceleration & braking of the car. Waving the magnet around by hand (in the car or in the lab) might be easier & better. The radial acceleration in a spinning magnet might be important (other than simple velocity). Jerk might be a factor, ie acceleration of acceleration. Electromagnetics is difficult to understand. [A] Theories seem to be circular. [B] Theories involve much naming but zero explanation. [C] Cause & effect are a problem. [D] Amps & Volts & Ohms do not exist (Forrest Bishop)(Ivor Catt). Cause & effect are a problem. We know (Heaviside Catt Bishop) that the flow of electrons along a conductor does not give us electricity, the flow is because of electricity, electricity being Heaviside's energy current which lives outside the copper (ie in the insulation or air). Likewise the migration of electrons from the axle to the rim of a Faraday Disk might be due to an energy current effect of the magnetic flux. However once at say the rim the electrons might i think then give a charge difference, ie an emf (whatever that is). Or perhaps as in electricity a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current is continually flowing (radially) in the magnet & the buildup of electrons near say the rim is once again just an effect & not a real emf (or at least not the real cause). Still thinking. The energy losses & back emf might be due to an eddy current made up of electrons flowing say radially out along the surface & radially in below the surface of the copper or rotor or magnet etc. But this might disappear when a switch is closed & if that wiring makes an external circuit. The flow of electrons in conductors (or the resistance to such flow) gives us ohmic resistance & ohmic heat loss (even tho the flow of electrons is not itself the electricity). However, Amps & Volts & Ohms do not exist, another reason why finding proper explanations for the Faraday Disk Paradoxes (say 3 ovem) is going to be difficult.

[@plenum88]

@@atheistaetherist2747 - maybe a way to look at this hypothetically is with the soccer ball under the carpet analogy. The carpet is your aether, the soccer ball is your translating magnet- so the lump in the carpet is your bunch of magnetic lines . Although the lines are part of the aether (the carpet) they follow the ball as a disturbance in the carpet. So this satisfies the notion that the lines are in the aether but also can move. However, we know already that when a magnet and a conductor translate together, their is no induced EMF in the conductor. We don't know if this is because there is actually no emf induced, or if there are two counter-emf's generated that exactly cancel out. However, when the magnet rotates with the conductor, Kennards and Kean's experiments would suggest that the latter mechanism is the correct one. So it might be possible that a translating magnet always generates a polarization of space, but that this can't be seen by a co-moving observer. This would go against conventional wisdom of course, since it would contradict Einstein's hypothesis, but experimentally the outcomes would be the same.

[@atheistaetherist2747]

Yes counter emfs might be generated in relation to the 500 kmps aetherwind or perhaps only in relation to the 10 mps speed of the car. All of Einstein's SR & GR stuff is of course wrong. Unfortunately he made a good prediction of the bending of light, but that prediction is not in accord with his elevator thort X (chest actually), his elevator thort X gives the same bending (0.87 arcsec) as the erroneous Newtonian ballistic theory, ie a half of the correct bending (1.75 arcsec). His mercury precession anomaly explanation is hogwash, partly because he worked backwards so that his equation spat out the correct number. But i digress. Re Kennard & Keene in Part 2, i just then had a good look, & i will make a comment re that video soon.

[@xoox870]

Case 1 and Case 4 are the same !! what is your point here ?!? The voltage is generated whether the magnet is present or not. And the voltage is generated regardless of whether the magnet is rotating with the coil. Also your scope is hooked up only to the coil. No magic here; *at all !*

[@plenum88]

Case 1 and 4 are NOT the same. In one the magnet is stationary, in the other it rotates. The generation of voltage REQUIRES the presence of the magnet. There is no coil...? I think you may have a misunderstanding about Faraday's experiment, since what I present here is exactly what one would expect to observe, this is conventional stuff.

[@xoox870]

Yes, I see now that the cases are different ! However, the only thing that you are measuring is the change of the presence of a magnetic field across the probe tips either being blocked or not blocked by the conducting plates causing a very small differential voltage. The probe tips are inputs to a very sensitive voltage-current amplifier. There is still commutation (turning ON - turning off) and charging-discharging of the coil; in this case plates, but it is very small compared to the only one rotating and the other fixed. So what you are measuring is the rotating differential of a small conductor (probe tips) versus large probe surface are (with plates) in a magnetic field.If you perform the experiment with a better set of coils (not plates) you will find a MUCH larger differential between the cases. You can also reduce the plates to just some very thin lines that will be almost no change in the voltage.The connecting and disconnecting of any open circuit coil in a magnetic field will short circuit and create a circuit for current to flow. This is a FACT. The *efficiency* of that circuit depends upon the construction (and operation) of circuit and its elements.

[@plenum88]

The part 2 of this video has finally been completed. Please find it here at: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWbamKCKfM5oprc

[@adrianm4506]

You should watch distinti's channel - he's posted a video similar to yours and actually has a solution. Somewhere on FractalWoman's channel there is also an explanation for this.

[@Sir-Dexter]

now just rotate the magnet .by its self ...make amps too ..gd work

[@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

[@charlyzu70]

Mathew, could your hypothesis or theory explain the reverse voltage polarity when reverse spin direction?

[@matheworman6308]

@@charlyzu70 When circuit is complete with load resistor virtual current path rotates and the direction of charge flow is governed by Lorentz force...

[@matheworman6308]

@@charlyzu70 Yes, the virtual current path direction obeys Laplace law... In any case there always must be mechanical contact and relative motion of brush and conductor in magnetic field... MHD generator works the same way in which electrodes are brushing against the flow of electrolyte or stream of ionized gasses...

[@charlyzu70]

@@matheworman6308 Thanks for your answer, MHD generator helps to co-relate some aspects. I'm still perplex, can't fully connect all phenomena related with it. I can't believe it is that complex, there must be a simpler solution.

[@shinzon0]

There is no paradoxon... the magnetic field lines have a symmetry in this case. By rotation of the magnet only, there is no effective change due to the symmetry. You may think of it as rotating virtual photons (the field lines), but since these are virtual photons, nothing is actually rotated. But if you rotate the copper disc, you rotate the charge carriers, i.e. matter. And this IS a difference. You may possibly see a difference if you rotate the magnet near the speed of light... and the rotation speed is NON-RELATIVISTIC here... so it is nonsense to argue with relativity. Thus rotating the magnet in this configuration is the same as NOT rotation the magnet. Also if you rotate both, this means, that it is the same as only the disc is rotated.

[@weslingm]

When the disk and magnet rotate (same time) obviously the magnetic Flux lines are being cut by the aether and due to that action creates voltage in the disk.Some how the magnet interacts with and prepares the aether to induce a voltage in the copper disc. WOW

[@KenTheoriaApophasis]

i wrote the book (literally) on magnetism, ......i have the answer for your "paradox". when both move there is phase shift and energy generated see book "electromagnetic retardation" by Dr. Oleg D Jefimenko

[@kilokilos]

hi ken

[@MrBesmir7]

If use Lorence'force. When move on magnetic field ...it will appear force centrifuge..when speed is tangents.....paradox deaappear

[@Valerysom]

Since I solved this a decade ago, and was check to see if others had yet. Occam’s racer that which you have suspect was correct. All magnetic fields with the earth’s magnetosphere are governed by it. the permanent magnet flux field lines that extend beyond the physical material even when rotated remain fix to the magnetosphere. So rotation of only the magnet causes no induction. Where when both are rotated the permanent magnet still fix to the magnetosphere the induction occurs just it did in just the rotation of plate only. The same motion is observed even thou the physical magnet is turning in motion the flux field remains stationary lock to the magnetosphere. More in 2020 Jan 20 @ motionthatmatters.com

[@tomshaa391]

Perfect démonstration, good job, thanks. Thanks depalma Read about Gabriel Lafreniere, you understand how work space/time planar wave ... And you will understand unipolar effect. cf Michale Tajamar Eugène Podkletnov John SEARL Rochin & Godin Bruce depalma (N-machine) Tewari (indian N-machine) etc Cf Rexresearch.com for any information about interesting subject.

[@plenum88]

Yes, good ol' RexResearch - thanks for the comments.

[@goosecouple]

Top secret

[@Saemsen78]

You make it look like moving a magnet on a motionless static coil will not generate a voltage ?? , I do not get the same results you do , you have errors in your design and thinking ! I have been doing designs like this for 40+ years and I always generate power moving a Magnet faced to a Motionless Coil @ right angles as your demonstration shows this is not done @ right angles , the coil also has a magnetic field and this is induced into the field of the magnet and this field cuts the forces at right angles , So when both the coil and the magnet are rotated the field is static from the magnet and thus the coils again cuts the field at right angles and will generate a current (( NO PARADOX)) ?? EXAMPLE : you have a glass and fill this glass with water, then hang a wire in the center of the glass filled with the water the glass is then rotated at a sudden RPM and then stops and you will notice there was no effect on the wire and very little of the water was effected by this rpm rotation this is the same way the magnetic field behaves , now holding on to the wire move the glass to the left and to the right as you will see the wire has moved also from the water deflecting the wire , so you see their is no paradox here at all , the magnetic field will move at a greater force @ right angles to the conductor, Einstein and Farraday were both right but thought about it differently the magnetic field can be moved @ right angles with the MASS but cannot be spun about it`s axis the magnetic field exist in it`s peripheral domain at the center of the magnet in a (( static dynamic state )) , (( meaning it has a static peripheral structure )) but it is dynamic in (( fractal quantum energy ))

[@plenum88]

Hi Kiki - your comment got blocked initially because of the link you attached. To answer your question, in order to get magnetic induction with a moving magnet and a stationary conductor, you need the magnetic field across the receiving conductor to be changing in time. A symmetrical disk magnet rotating over a conductor presents a constant magnetic field to the conductor. So no induction takes place. What would appear to be paradoxical is that if the conductor is rotated instead, then you do get induction. If you were to move the disk magnet sideways off the axis, then you would certainly see induction. Do you see the difference?

[@Saemsen78]

It is hard for 2minds to clarify each other`s visions in word`s , but I do understand what you are saying it is just that I feel in word`s I have not been able to project the dynamic implications of your prototype as not a paradox at all that is why I attached this link to you that your machine paradox will be solved , I see other`s have attached links to you so I thought this would be a suitable way to communicate an Idea , please do not take offense as I meant none just wanted to be helpful !

[@jpchaib3071]

I recomend the reading of this article : dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4746698 to deepen the argument.

[@soonhietan3319]

The Faraday Paradox is not a paradox at all. All the classical laws of electromagnetism apply to the Homopolar Machine exactly and the three observations with the machine can be explained from the theory of classical electrodynamics given by Maxwell (and Lorentz). There is no possibility of over-unity from the Homopolar generator, as claimed by the zero point energy (free energy) proponents. The DePalma, Trombly-Kahn and Tiwari implementations all failed to prove over-unity, as can be expected from their flawed understanding of the electromagnetic principles.

[@JustNow42]

The magnetic field does rotate, however since there are no change in the field there is no effekt. So actually your formulation is not relevant.

[@plenum88]

Do what I do - if you believe that, try to prove it.

[@СергейТ-ш8м]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/iKS9lICIpZd2qKs уніполярний генератор змінного струму

[@JustNow42]

It is absolutely nonsens that it is important that the magnate should need to rotate. The field does not rotate and Faraday tried it. It is not a paradox that when the disk and the magnet corotate it (still) generate electricity. Regardless what the magnet do, electricity is produced by rotating the disk,