# What is the Faraday disc theory now?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Ruptor, Jul 29, 2009.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
Are there any physicists out there that understand and can explain to me, using the modern view of particles, why the Faraday disc generates electricity when the magnet is stuck on to the disc.

2. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
Whether the magnet is fixed, or rotating with (i.e. stuck to) the disk has a minor effect. The magnetic field is approximately uniform over the disk in both cases.

The Faraday disc generates electricity because the Lorentz force pushes electrons radially on the disc. This creates a potential difference between the center to the outer radius. The uniform magnetic field interacts with and is perpendicular to the electrons that are moving due to rotation. This generates a radial force on the electrons.

In this device, the dominant EMF generated is a potential difference due to charge accumulation, not an induced one from magnetic flux changes.

3. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
Hi Steveb
From your explanation it sounds like it is a redistribution of charge that already exists in the copper. Can you explain how that works when current is drawn via contacts on the centre and outter edge of the disc and the current is only limited by the resistance of the load.

4. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
I wouldn't say that the redistribution of charge already exists in the copper. Rather the redistribution occurs as a result of the force induced as the charges move in a magnetic field. This force is called the Lorentz force, as you may have heard. I'll answer as if you don't know the details, but don't take offense if you already know. It's just easier to explain this way, and it's also helpful for other readers who may not know it.

The Lorentz force law says the that force is the cross product of current and magnetic field. This means that if the charges (electrons in this case) flow perpendicularly to the field, there will be a force on the charge which is perpendicular to both the field and the direction of flow.

This Lorentz force explains the force and torque in motors and also the voltage generation in hall-effect current and field sensors. In this case it explains the force that causes the electrons to move radially on the disk.

A key fact here is that the electrons are free to move in the conductive (e.g. copper) disk. There is (ideally) little force to move them in the angular direction, so they just spin around with the disk. However, once they spin in the field, the are driven either to the center of the disk or to the outer rim of the disk. The direction depends on the field and rotation directions. Either way, the charge buildup generates a voltage (albeit, a small one of the order of volts), and if the field and rotation are stable, the voltage is stable and can drive a load. Since the copper has very low resistance, this is very much a nearly ideal voltage source that can generate large currents provided the rotation is driven with enough mechanical power.

Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
5. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
This is the part I was hoping to get the modern physics explanation about. The voltage is dependent on how fast one turns the disc but the current is not dependent on how much mechanical power one uses. The current extracted can be as large as the load can take. Although there are the real world contraints of the contacts. So what explains this phenomenon?

6. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
Why do you say that the current is not dependent on how much mechanical power one uses? The mechanical power is paramount to the operation. Mechanical power is torque times rotational speed and this must be greater than electrical power which is voltage times current. The difference between the two is accounted for as heating loss.

If there is insufficient mechanical power, the disk will slow down when the electrical load is connected. The slower speed means lower voltage and hence lower current for the given electrical load resistance. There will be an equilibrium point for current, voltage and speed.

Also, there is a finite source resistance for the voltage source due to the resistance in the copper disk. If too much current is drawn, this implies a very low load resistance. Once the load resistance is comparable to the source resistance, the voltage on the load is reduced.

Also, keep in mind that the disk acts as a flywheel that can store mechanical energy. Hence a heavy spinning disk can provide electrical power even with no input mechanical power, but the disk would eventually slow down as it releases its stored energy.

By the way, there is no need to bring modern physics into the discussion. The operation is easily explained with Newton's force laws and Maxwell's electromagnetic equations.

Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
7. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
Not me. I point you in the direction of the N- machine that has prompted me to start this thread to see what modern Physics thinks.

Unfortunately these equations do not explain why more energy can be extracted from the faraday disc than is put in by the mechanical power. Although maybe Maxwell's original equations, before Heaviside altered them, may hold the answer. The proof is there but the explanation is not, well not in a simple form that I can understand anyway.

8. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
I'm afraid I don't believe this to be true. I would not be the one to answer your questions if this is an assumption you are not willing to abandon in the face of experimental evidence.

If you provide the details of your experimental setup, the way you did your measurements and the data you obtained, we can probably figure out where the discrepency is coming from. Otherwise, you won't find much help here.

If you are relying on the experiments or claims of others, I would remind you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

9. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
Here is a link of many to just one piece of equipment that main stream physicists choose to ignore.

http://www.brucedepalma.com/

The British Equinox TV program on the subject of energy from the background energy of space is what brought this to my attention many years ago. It shows many unexplained over unity systems but the N machine looks like the most likely to bring it in to use. Every phenomenon that has no explanation is a pointer to new information that will change our view of the universe. At the moment and throughout history the establishment has been the proverbial horse. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Can anyone point me to any new theories relating to energy from space?
Thanks

10. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
Are you calling me a horse that doesn't want to drink? That takes a lot of nerve coming from someone who watched a TV show and visited a website. I can assure you I have a thirst for knowledge. I've been learning and experimenting for years. It's my job to model, design, experiment and build motor/generator systems. I've never seen the law of conservation of mass/energy violated ever, in any experiment. That's 30 years of experience telling me that it's much more likely that any claim of free energy is a hoax. This is comfirmed by the fact that every time I ask for data from a free energy device experiment, the request is ignored, and vague hyberbole is provided instead.

The Faraday disk is a perfect device to lure in gullible people. You can store mechanical energy in the disk, since it is a flywheel. Then, start the measurements after it is up to speed and it will appear that you are extracting free energy. Any good high school physics student will see through that trick.

The theory of operation of the Faraday disk has been understood for over 150 years and it does not provide over unity energy. Good luck in your search, but it will be a fruitless endeavor - I promise you.

Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
11. ### Ruptor Thread Starter Active Member

Apr 26, 2009
44
0
What's with the personal attack? My statement was "the establishment has been the proverbial horse" so I am sorry if you thought it related to you. I was just pointing out that people stick to established theories until, as history has shown, a heretic comes along and turns everything upside down.

If you read about the N machine you will see it continuously gives out more energy for as long as it runs so it has nothing to do with stored energy in any flywheel since that would soon get depleted.
I am sure a viable method of taping the pool of zero point energy will surface soon. So I think we should agree to disagree.

12. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
What is "the establishment"? Whether you realize it or not, it is people like me and most of the people here who devote much of their life to working with science and technology. There is a scientific method in place, that we employ, and it requires experimental evidence and peer review of that evidence. Ideas are not just blindly accepted, and it is insulting to say that we are horses that refuse to drink, as if we are thoughtless people that don't realize that new ideas come along and change the old views. The only thing we say is: "Provide the evidence!", and the hoax-makers and hoax-believers never do provide it.

I have read about the N-machine and know it is all unproven.

Last edited: Jul 30, 2009
13. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,808
294
Well, this thread got moved to Off Topic as it has departed from physics and reality.

The free energy and overunity movement is essentially looking for contributions to keep the "researchers" from having to hold day jobs. Despite the promise of breakthroughs and lots of bafflegab, no documented demonstrations have ever or will ever take place. The presentation is nicely done, but meaningless.

This is all a scam. Videos prove nothing.

14. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
Yeah, I got suckered into responding to this nonsense. The OP started off with a very intelligent question which is a common one about the Faraday Disk. It was all looking very legitimate until he dropped the "no mechanical input power dependence" bomb on the works. I give him credit for the good ploy though. His attempt to deceive is obvious in hindsight. It's a Catch-22 though, because if you don't answer the legitimate question, he can point to the forum as say "Look, even the engineers and scientists can't explain how this works."

Hey, perhaps we should report this incident to the "establishment". If he gets too close to discovering that free energy we've all been hiding, they may need to send out the assassins.

15. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,808
294
I don't know if it always that case, but we do get postings now and again that are hard to tell about motive. Some are obviously designed to point out the inability of "establishment" types to explain the phenomena presented. more are from persons who have been utterly taken in by the scammers and are reallt trying to get some odd apparatus to function.

We are in the position of establishing the negative case. I would imagine that, as we cannot jump through all the hoops, the scammers use our replies as "proof" that we cannot refute the claims. Nobody ever seems bothered that the devices/principles only function correctly in videos.

The essential truth that scammers rely on is: "A fool and his money are soon parted". I do wonder why the government doesn't get onto these scam sites and the scammers. The fact that they can operate so publicly is disturbing. Surely they don't contribute to reelection campaigns?

16. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
21,477
2,961
Hey, I'm trying very hard to steer them to gyroscopes.

17. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,808
294
I might think of a set of low head turbines and the Bay of Fundy. The Dutch have arrangements of such things in tidal estuaries like the Westerschelde. It's impressive to see. Possibly less disruptive than wind turbines, and also powered by the earth's rotation, but at 2 RPD.

18. ### BillO Distinguished Member

Nov 24, 2008
992
139

On Wikipedia no less! It mentions the paradox that would have a 'believer' think this N machine might work, and then explains why this is fools thinking. And it does it using physics and presents the associated mathematics. Which of course DePalma does not. None of the 'free energy' whizzes ever do.

Okay Ruptor, since I know you will not be convinced by mere science I have a business proposition for you. Im not too bad off on the financial side of things and am always looking to improve it. Build one of these N machines for me to use for my country cottage. About 10KW would be ideal. If you can prove it works, I will buy it off you for \$25,000 to cover your expenses, help you patent it, put up \$500,000 to get you started in manufacturing and all I will ask in return is 50% of the net profit.

I would estimate that you and I would be the richest men on the world within 1 year of the production model hitting the market. What do you say?

19. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,808
294
BillO

The OP has doubtless gone elsewhere. We get occasional postings from true believers who do actually wish us to made the impossible happen, and who go away with hard feelings after we explain that the device is a scam. Their level of education in the sciences and/or electronics is zero.

They simply cannot accept that the device or effect that they want to produce is impossible. They have an even harder time with us when we explain that investigation is pointless because the laws of physics tell us that it's impossible. There is always some reason why the device absolutely must work, generally followed by a conspiracy theory about why "they" do not want the device to be produced.

It is interesting that they have no compunction about appearing in public and asking us to do the development. As if posting on an internet site with an international participation is not ever going to be monitored by "them", or that by expressing interest in or making progress on the device will not place all at risk.

We also get drive bys, where the OP makes a generally unintelligible commentary about some magical energy creating device. They never engage in a discussion.

There is a strong temptation to delete all future postings on the subject, as they always end poorly. But many people seem to follow along, and the hope is that they might learn something - if no more than to save their time and money.

I've placed some links to various things in the past. Find the one to Stanley Meyer's patents if you want some sensationally irrational reading.

20. ### steveb Senior Member

Jul 3, 2008
2,432
469
.... or, he has been eliminated for getting too close!

sorry, I couldn't resist