From: nazrael@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (James Robert Vanmeter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: N-Machine
Date: 7 Feb 1993 03:33:39 GMT

*
                       THE CRUX OF THE FLUX

Abstract (to be pseudo-formal):  Look in any electromagnetism
textbook and you will find an example called the Faraday disk.
This is a conducting disk which rotates in a stationary magnetic 
field which is parallel to the axis of rotation; a voltage can then
be measured across the disk because of flux-cutting.  But in no
textbook will you find any mention of Faraday's other disk.  
Faraday's other disk is a simple variation:  the magnet rotates with 
the disk.  A voltage can still be measured across the disk, posing
a mystery:  is the magnetic field rotating with its source-magnet
and thus with the disk, and if so, then how can a voltage be measured
across the disk?  It would seem that when a magnet is rotated around
the radial axis of symmetry of the magnet's field, then for all practical
purposes (specifically in measuring the presence of a voltage across 
the disk) the field behaves as if it is stationary.  This may not
be fully explicable by established physics.  My introduction to this
phenomenon was via an article by Bruce dePalma, "On the possibility
of extraction of electrical energy directly from space", in Speculations
in Science and Technology, V13, No.4, p.283.  (DePalma calls the other
Faraday disk the "N-Machine", "N" for "Non-moving field lines".)  What
follows is the details on my subsequent experiments, some theorizing,
a bibliography, and two questions, for which it is the primary purpose
of this report to provoke answers.   

Note:  Credit for building the N-Machine Mark I, the N-Machine Mark II,
the spinnable voltmeter, and performance of the first set of experiments 
goes to my co-researcher Robert Staton: friendly, neighborhood electrical
engineer.

I.  EXPERIMENTS WITH THE N-MACHINE MARK I

A.  A washer-shaped magnet was glued to the shaft of a small electric
motor.  On top of the magnet a copper disk was attached.  One lead
of a voltmeter was held touching the center as the disk spun, the other
lead brushed the rim.  A voltage of of +-1.2 mV was measured.  By moving
the contacts (leads) around it was determined that the voltage was 
generated only in the area immediately above the magnet.

B.  A second magnet was placed on top the disk, spinning with the disk
and the first magnet.  A voltage of 2.4 mV was measured.

C.  The copper disk above was replaced by a thicker piece of metal.
As above it was sandwiched between two magnets.  When one of the leads
of the voltmeter was placed on top of the disk next to the edge of the
upper magnet, and the other lead was placed on the underside of the
disk directly below the first lead, a voltage of 3mV was measured
across the thickness of the disk.

D.  A copper cylinder was placed around the lower magnet.  No voltage
was measured between the top and bottom of the magnet, but a voltage
was measured from the end of the magnet to the end of the overlap of
the cylinder.

I.A and I.B confirm the basic "N-effect" (which alternately I call
the "rotationary field effect").  I.C and I.D can be explained by
visualizing the field lines and how they cut the metal, which 
seemingly further requires that the field lines be stationary 
in order to cut the rotating metal.

INTERLUDE:  DEMONSTRATION OF THE N-MACHINE MARK II.

The N-Machine Mark II was constructed specifically to withstand scientific
scrutiny.  Two speaker magnets sandwiched a metal disk, a bolt went
through (and was attached to) the center of the disk to serve as a
conducting shaft, and the whole assemblage was spun .  The bolt rotated
freely through mounted skateboard bearings and was driven by a small
electric motor.  A 1k resistor was connected across the leads of the
voltmeter to eliminate erroneous readings, and measurements were made by
touching one contact to the bolt-shaft and the other contact on the disk
next to the edge of the magnet.  The contacts were always held stationary.
Consistently, a voltage of up to 9mV was measured.  (That was DC.  AC
readings were always 0.)  

Three alternative explanations were offered by UCSC physicists to 
explain the voltage generation.  They were:

1. Disk moves through the           REFUTED!  Up to 9mV were measured
   Earths's magnetic field.         reguardless of the orientation of the 
                                    N-Machine.
 
2. Disk acts as electron            REFUTED!  Guesstimated voltage
   centrifuge.                      values for this, as determined by 
                                    a consulted physics professor,
                                    were far below the detectable range.
                                    See also experiment I.B.  Also,
                                    spinning the disk in the opposite
                                    direction generated the opposite
                                    voltage.

3. Stationary magnets in the        REFUTED!  The Mark II was designed
   motor are responsible for        with the disk/magnet assemblage
   the stationary field.            separated from the 3/2" diameter,
                                    1" long motor by a 7" non-conducting,
                                    plastic shaft.  See also I.B.
 
II.  FURTHER EXPERIMENTS WITH THE N-MACHINE MARK II

A. Hand-turned, it yielded up to 1.2mV.

B. 1. The voltmeter wires were connected to form a square loop.  The
loop was held stationary with one corner near the center of the
spinning magnet, the other corner near the rim.  There was no detectable 
voltage.  2. The loop was held stationary lots of other places around
the spinning magnet.  No voltage.

C. The magnet assemblage was kept stationary, and the same loop used above
was moved (rapidly) diagonally towards and away from the center of the magnet
(diagonal = 45o from shaft and 45o from magnet-face).  Consistently,
.1mV was measured torwards the center, and -.1mV away. 

D. The above experiment II.C was repeated but with the disk/magnet
spinning.  The results were identical.

E. The contacts from the voltmeter were taped to the shaft and disk.
The disk was hand-turned while the voltmeter was held stationary.
.3mV was measured.

F. A "spinnable voltmeter" was invented, effectively consisting of
a loop of wire which caused an LED to light up whenever it cut
through a magnetic field.  A square loop was placed as in II.B.1
above, but this time it was taped to the magnet.  The spinnable
voltmeter was taped to the shaft so as to spin with the everything else.
When spun, the LED did not light up: no detectable voltage.  
(Incidentally, the spinnable voltmeter was tested for sensitivity,
and proved to be extremely so.)

DISCUSSION

In explaining the above experiments, a phenomenon I call the
"double-cross effect" must be made clear.  Basically, when a loop
of wire moves through a meagnetic field, a voltage is generated
on one side of the loop while an equal and opposing voltage is
generated on the opposite side of the same circuit.  This is obvious
when you see how the flux-cutting induces voltages in the same
direction on the different sides of the loop:
                         
                         ________
                       +|        |+
           <----------  | <----- | <-----flux
                       -|________|-


(The loop is moving either into or out of the screen, depending on the
right-hand rule, which I've forgotten, because I'm left-handed.)

That established, we seem to have essentially two models to explain
why the N-Machine generates a voltage.  One model has already been 
suggested.  Around its axis of radial symmetry a field is identical 
under the translation of rotation.  Thus intuitively it makes quasi-
sense that a symmetrically rotating field should be just like a 
stationary field.  This could have deep implications about the nature
of electromagnetic fields in general.  On the other hand (rule),
the rotating-field model would insist that the flux-cutting is being
effected not by the spinning disk but rather by the stationary
voltmeter lead-wires (or whatever circuit is being used to draw upon
the voltage).  

The case can be made that both models are equally viable, through the
mutually exclusive, complimentary ways in which each model would make
use of the double-cross effect to explain the experiments.  Examples:

Rotating-field model:  In II.B there is no voltage generated because
of double-cross.  In II.F there is no voltage generated because
both the field and the voltmeter are spinning with each other.  In
the general voltage measurement, with stationary leads brushing
the spinning disk, the double-cross is bypassed because the spin
of the disk with the field prevents induction of an opposing voltage.

Stationary-field model:  In II.B. there is no voltage generated
because both the field and the voltmeter are stationary.  In II.F 
there is no voltage generated because of double-cross.  

I am currently doing more research and experiments to determine which
model, if either, is completely satisfactory.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin, T. (ed). 1932. Faraday's Diary. (Bell) paragraphs 255-57
(dated December 26, 1831)

dePalma, Bruce. 1990. "On the possibility of extraction of 
electrical energy directly from space", Speculations in Science
and Technology, V13, No.4, p.283. I apologize for having forgotten
to write down the publisher of SST, which seems like a good
companion-journal for any subscriber of this newsgroup.  I'll
include it next time.

Djuric, Jovan. 1975. "Spinning magnetic fields", J. Appl. Phys.,
V46, No.2, Feb. 1975.  Djuric concludes that both the rotating
and stationary models are equally valid, for different reasons
than those presented here.

Crooks, M.J. 1978. "One-piece Faraday generator: A paradoxical
experiment from 1851", Am. J. Phys., V46, No.7, July 1978.
Voltage measured on "Faraday's other disk" and found to be wBr^2,
which is what established physics would predict for a rotating
disk cutting through a stationary magnetic field.

Pegram, George. 1917. "Unipolar induction and electron theory",
Physical Review, V10, No.6, Dec. 1917.  An experiment is
described herein which really must be repeated.

Slepian, J. 1951. Am. J. Phys. V19, p.87 and 1962: Am. J. Phys.,
V30, p.411.  On the reality of lines of force.



Ah yes -- and now my two questions:

1.  Where, how, and why, exactly, does back-torque apply to
    the N-Machine?

2.  Does the N-Machine fully satisfy Lenz's Law?  I need an analysis. 
 

Thank you and have a good day.  48^)