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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.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?
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.Why do you say that the current is not dependent on how much mechanical power one uses?
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.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.
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.more energy can be extracted from the faraday disc than is put in by the mechanical power.
Here is a link of many to just one piece of equipment that main stream physicists choose to ignore.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.
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.You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
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.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.
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."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.