Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 11 April 2007

Paranormal Unassessed

This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Paranormal

• Bruce E. DePalma and other assorted mad scientists. J. D. Redding

bullshit

Any reason we can't remove the bit about self-excited generators, aka perpetual motion machines, since we don't have a meaningful reference and aren't going to get one? Or should we link perpetual motion machines and bullshit to this page? Or is this some weird bit of gay humor? Here's a reference: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/sc_nm/technology_energy_dc_1

No reason. I deleted them for you. However, I think that Misplaced Pages policy would allow factual references to real, if futile or fraudulent, attempts to create perpetual motion machines. For example, it's OK to say 'Company X is trying to market a perpetual motion machine based on the HPG', as long as we make it clear that it is a perpetual motion machine and therefore only a fairy story. --Heron 09:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Never say never. Perhaps there is something we do not understand about the universe and its physics. It is assumed that we are know everything and all of our theories are absolutely correct and complete. However, this may not be quite the case. For instance, no one it seems understands just what a magnetic feild is. We dont have a unified field theory. We dont really understand where any of this comes from (although some religious types have a claim to this). Some scientists perhaps do seem to see their science is a religion, and for who many things are simply a matter of faith. Some do not contemplate for a second that maybe some of our theories are workable in certian situations, but they may be insufficient in giving a truly complete and accurate picture of the universe and how it all works. Even though present theories might explain things with sufficiency for some applications does not mean they are totally complete. Scientists it seems are so trapped in the box they have been put in that they are unwilling to challenge, retest and revisit things, think beyond the theories already established, and be able to accept the possibility that some theories are not entirely complete if some evidence was found to show that all things are not as they seem. Many rely simply on faith that the current theories are complete and defend them religiously. I for one, hope that there is a way to have a perpetual motion machine. It is the only way this civilisation will be able to survive. What are we going to do when all of the oil runs out? Not only oil, but what happens when we run out of copper? It would also be better for the planet too, so we no longer have to use up all of her resources. I am not saying either that I have seen enough proof of free energy. But I am open minded about it. We barely understand anything at all, there is so much we dont know. If I went back 400 years and told people we could send pictures and sound through the air, they would have laughed and said thats impossible. People once thought people who thought the world was round were nuts. If no one ever questioned the status quo, we would have never known differently. Perhaps, one day we will laugh at the idea that once people thought perpetual motion was insane.

Millueradfa 13:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of a scientist who 'assume that we are know everything and all of our theories are absolutely correct and complete'. Anyway, that's not the point. Misplaced Pages is here to describe the world as it exists, not as some people dream that it might be in the future. By all means dream, and good luck to you, but please don't write it in Misplaced Pages until it is proven. --Heron 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

research

Umm...a compulsator is a specialized type of alternator. It is not either a Faraday disk nor a drum HPG. I have built and used both. I can also tell you that without relative motion between the armature and the field, you get no voltage in an HPG. This article needs to researched more rigorously

Your first point is correct, so I fixed the article. Your second point is not correct. Relative motion between the circuit and the field is irrelevant, since the field is uniform. What counts is relative motion of the rotor and stator, within the uniform field. --Heron 20:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Gaypolar

Why is there still/again a Gaypolar generator page (even if it is a redirect)? --Art Carlson 15:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

homo is greek - not latin

The Greek form "homo-", which is an adjective meaning 'same', found also in forms such as homogeneous and homonym, and the Latin root "sexus", which means 'male or female sex, gender'. So, homo-sexual literally means 'of the same sex or gender'.

So the phrase 'homopolar magnet' would mean samepolar magnet or just a single pole.

I am not going to remove homopolar magnet from the main article, but I do suggest strongly that this be looked at and re-edited to make sense. DeleteThis 03:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dubious material

This is highly dubious ". However, there are no records of the performance of machine, nor of anybody else having tried to build one". A citation is needed, or the sentence needs to be revised or removed. 204.56.7.1

removed the above sentence, till a citation is provided. 134.193.168.244 16:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That was me, and I admit that I can't provide a citation, since it was just a statement of my own inability to find any evidence that one was ever built. I was hoping that someone would find an example of one and prove me wrong! While we're on the subject, does anybody know what a "Forbes dynamo", mentioned in the article, is or was, please? --Heron 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

G. Forbes, "U.S. Patent 338169 Dynamo electric machine". That'

I also just read from Valone's article that you can find info on the Forbes dynamo in an article in the Journal of the IEEE by Robert Belfield (Sept, 1976; pg., 344). 134.193.168.244 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I must go and check those out. --Heron 19:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Move?

Could someone make a List of homopolar generator patents and move the list there? 204.56.7.1 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Referenced material

The following was removed ....

The Faraday homopolar generator has been claimed to be a case of Sir William Thomson's "current accumulator" and provide a basis for "free energy".((ref|telsa01))((ref|Kincheloe)) The current, once started, may be sufficient to maintain itself and even increase in strength and the device would be operated as a self-excited generator. Under certain conditions the process of obtaining the electrical output energy is not manifested as a accompanying load to the driving source. The back electromotive forces that occurs in this generator where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the external magnetic field in devices heretofore recognized by the scientific community prevent this, though.

• note|telsa00 Nikola Tesla, "Notes on a Unipolar Dynamo". The Electrical Engineer, N.Y., Sept. 2, 1891. (Also available at tesla.hu, Article 18910902)
• note|Kincheloe Robert Kincheloe, "Homopolar "Free-Energy" Generator Test". Society for Scientific Exploration; San Francisco, June 21, 1986.

Heron 's coments @ Description and operation : rm free energy rubbish; Thomson's accumulator was a lead-acid battery, and the 'free energy' citation is from DePalma, who is wrong

Depalma and others are wrong because of the back electromotive forces that is not accounted for or misrecorded. The citation is not from Depalma, but Robert Kincheloe . As to Thomson's "accumulator", it was not his "battery" but part of his reaserch into magnetodynamic generators. 134.193.168.236 20:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, '236. I hope you weren't offended by my "rubbish" comment. I was criticising the sources that you were citing, not your own words. It seemed to me that the source of the "not manifested as a load" statement was De Palma, as paraphrased by Kincheloe, but perhaps I misunderstood. This is where Kincheloe says:

The term "free-energy" refers to the claim by DePalma (and others ) that it was capable of producing electrical output power that was not reflected as a mechanical load to the driving mechanism but derived from presumed latent spatial energy.

As for Thomson, the only substantial record of an accumulator that I can find is of the Faure accumulator, which was a battery of some kind. The term "current accumulator" appears only in a passing comment by Tesla, with no explanation. I need to find out more about this.

--Heron 21:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other Names for Homopolar Generator

Other names for HPG.

• Faraday disk
• HPG

Should they be added and if so where? DeleteThis 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Added redirect from acyclic generator to here

Since the page did not exist, but unipolar generator and disk dynamo I added Acyclic Genertor and redirected it to this page. DeleteThis 02:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of Alternators and Dynamos

From Dictionary.com

Alternator - An electric generator that produces alternating current.

Dynamo - A generator, especially one for producing direct current.

DeleteThis 02:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure of article

Current structure of article...

1 History and development
2 Description and operation
2.1 How magnetism makes current
2.2 Disk type generator
2.3 Drum type generator
3 Physics
4 See also
5 References and further reading
6 External links and other articles

Does this make sense.

How would the other pieces be added into this one.

DeleteThis 11:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reference to how Sir Oliphant designed the 500MJ homopolar generator? and any data on its efficiency 1%? 10%? We need to show why it is worse for homopolar generators than alternators.

500MJ is around 140 kWh and that would translate to about 187hp/hr. One gallon of Gasoline contains ~121 MJ. This is around 4 gallons of gas. DeleteThis 04:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Low speed flywheels, with typical operating speeds up to 6000 rev/min, have steel rotors and conventional bearings. For example, a flywheel system with steel rotor developed in a collaborative project at CCLRC in the 1980’s had energy storage capacity 2.3 kWh @ 5000 rev/min, and rated power 45kW. (rotor specific energy 5 Wh/kg, specific power 100 W/kg). ref

DeleteThis 04:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Indicator?

Am I correct to assume that the term "indicator" in the table is a meter used to measure the voltage generated across the disk? This is not 100% clear to me. --Jakohn 21:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to understand this

I apologise if these questions seem absurd, but I am a layperson trying to understand this.

I am trying to understand the homopolar generator, to visualise it. I think it consists of an axis, with a metal disk and a magnet attached to it? Does both the magnet and the disk rotate together, or just the one and the other remain stationary? I think I heard the magnet can either be stationary or move with the metal disk. However, strangely, if the magnet is moving but the metal disk is stationary you will get no voltage. I also guess the leads, which could connect to say a lightbulb, one lead would connect to the centre of the metal disk, and another to its edge? I think since the disk rotated, metal brushes are used to connect the wire to the moving piece. And what about this homopolar field. I thought magnets always had two polarities. How can a magnetic field have the same polarity everywhere?

Millueradfa 13:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your question is quite reasonable, given that the article doesn't have a clear diagram. The disc rotates like a wheel on an axle. As you said, there are brushes to make the connections. The magnet is roughly C-shaped and is placed with the north pole on one side of the disc and the south pole on the other, so that the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the disc and pass through it. Ideally, each pole covers the entire surface of the disc. 'Homopolar field' means that the magnetic field is uniform over the disc's area. There are of course two magnetic poles, one on each side of the disc. --Heron 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, it helped me understand it better quite a bit.

I do have another question. Does anyone know what would happen if the direction in which the device is spinning where to be reversed every so often? Perhaps, for instance, if the direction could be reversed every 90 degrees, or every 360 degrees, a permenant wire connection could be made to the device, with flexible pieces of wire. What would be the effects of this?

Millueradfa 17:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

megajoules?

"It produced 500 megajoules"

What, over the course of its lifetime? More context needed. — Omegatron 19:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncertain torque reaction?

The article says "There is an uncertain nature of the torque reaction in homopolar machines". What is uncertain about it? Equal and opposite forces occur on the two parts of the electrical circuit, the stator and rotor, and no force occurs on the magnet (unless it happens to be conductive and forms part of the electrical circuit). See "Sources of confusion" in homopolar motor. -- D.keenan 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed references

User:JzG removed these applicable references:

• Mike Galloway, "N-1 Homopolar Generator".
• Bruce E. DePalma, "The Trombly-Kahn Homopolar Generator; Critique of the N-Machine Constructed by Trombly & Kahn". 11 October 1985.
• Bruce E. DePalma, "A review of: "The Homopolar Handbook", by Thomas Valone". 2 February 1995.
• "The Faraday Disk Dynamo as the original over-unity device". Archer Energy Systems, Inc., 2006

J. D. Redding 21:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed paranormal articles
• Unknown-importance paranormal articles
• WikiProject Paranormal articles