Tesla's Unipolar Dynamo

  • 693 Views
  • Last Post 2 weeks ago
Idea1man posted this 18 February 2018

 There are so many amazing energy inventions. The problem is they almost always require professional manufacturing which can't be done at home. So I prefer the simplest ones.

As has been shown here, about the Walter Russell coil generator, mankind moved away from the original correct design by Faraday. He had the correct perpendicular arrangements in his motor. Tesla followed Faraday's principles with his Unipolar Dynamo. And he made improvements. With it's very high current and low voltage, it was used for welding. That can be modified now, by rectifiers and a Cockcroft-Walton voltage multiplier, to get a house current. Voltage is also increased by using multiple disks separated by insulation layers. I'm not certain of this, but from something I think I heard in my father's business truck shop, when I was less than 10 years old, it's possible that those Unipolar welders continued to turn by themselves after they were started.

Here's how it would work. Tesla's Notes covered cutting the copper disk, between the electromagnets, into curved, spiral sections. The spiral curved paths, on the Unipolar Dynamo, are like a large electromagnet coil winding. They force the current, that runs through the disk, to produce a magnetic field. Curving the spirals in the right direction would reinforce the electromagnetic field acting on the disk. The stronger the current, the stronger the magnetic field would become, which increases the output.

Image result for unipolar dynamo

 

My idea, to modernize it, is to use two neo cylinder magnets in parallel, one above the other, on two separate axes. The two magnets are arranged in opposite polarity. A carbon fiber belt, or other conducting belt, would wrap around the outside of both magnets to be the electric connection. The disk part would become a very heavy gauge pancake coil, attached to both ends of each magnet.

It may or may not be self-running. It doesn't matter if it's less than unity. Faraday's correct arrangement would make it far more efficient than modern generators that fight themselves.

Bob

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Marathonman posted this 18 February 2018

Please post info regarding this from Tesla and Faraday and any graphs you might have. sounds interesting.

also look into the patent FR739458---Coutier-1932 Self- generating perpetual of electrical energy. it seems easy enough to make or demo rather.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 18 February 2018

      Faraday's generator

As a motor, DC electricity is connected with one wire on the axel, and the other wire on the edge of the disk which is between two, or more, magnets. The disk rotates.

The image, here, is as a generator. turning the disk physically produces DC electricity between the axel and edge.

Tesla's Notes on his Unipolar Dynamo: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/notes-unipolar-dynamo

Unipolar Dynamo Patent: https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-406968-dynamo-electric-machine

Tesla covered the disk completely with an electromagnetic field. Then used a second disk with the field opposite to the first. Therefore, electricity traveled from one axel, up through the disk, across a belt, inward from the belt to the second axel.

 

Image result for unipolar dynamo

 

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 18 February 2018

I have read a little on this in my Tesla book i have long ago but i found it lacking of any facts from the author as usual.

give the patent i posted a look see, easy to implement.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 19 February 2018

Yes, that Andre Coutier patent is an easy, good idea of multiplying output by simply adding more output coils surrounding one input coil. Don Smith did something similar with his small Tesla Coil surrounded by three matching receiver coils.

This is basically the idea behind Joseph Newman's idea. Make the output coil much bigger. Keely's Rule of Sympathetic Vibration comes in here.

I have my own idea for underground power lines. Simply surround the live power line with many more separate wires that are only connected to the Earth at the power company, but connected to the live end at the substations.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Marathonman posted this 21 February 2018

The thing about the Coutier device is it is so simple to build unlike the Smith device that took many years just to decipher what the heck he was talking about not to mention the perfect tuning of the device in which i gave up. and yes i still have the main coil (B&W) and the Neon sign transformer.

I am about to acquire a rather large three phase transformer from a friend and maybe by the end of the year i will be able to build this device (Coutier 1932 patent) since all of the legs are the same size i will have plenty of material to accomplish the task.

all my attention is on the Figuera device at the moment but the Coutier and the Walter Russel devices are the easiest and next on the list. these three devices could change the direction of the human race thus tipping the scale back in our favor.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Vasile
Marathonman posted this 21 February 2018

I am very sorry idea1man for posting off topic and i will try to refrain from that in the future.

Marathonman

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 21 February 2018

MarathonMan  ...  I didn't notice anything. It doesn't bother me.    ...  Bob

Idea1man posted this 23 February 2018

Since everyone is very astute with electronics, maybe you will prefer Vadim's resonating electromagnetic unipolar generator idea. 

 

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140015365

 

Idea1man posted this 13 March 2018

The beauty, of the Faraday motor/generator arrangement, is that electricity is allowed to take its natural path, in the disk, perpendicular to the magnetic field. It is not constrained within the path of a wire coil. The restriction, of the wire, may mandate back EMF.

Additionally, Faraday's arrangement takes advantage of the third axis force, torque on the disk, later named after Lorentz.

He also discovered a deeper functioning of a magnetic field, related to his paradox situation. A permanent magnet can be attached to the disk, and still generate electricity when they are both rotated. The magnetic field is fixed in space, or the ether, independent of the rotation of the magnet.

Finally, a permanent magnet can be rotated alone, without a metal disk, to perform the same motor/generator function.

 

 

Idea1man posted this 19 March 2018

Other modern versions of Tesla's Unipolar Dynamo have been invented, under the name homopolar, by Bruce DePalma, Trombly/Kahn, and Tewari. They were heavy and required a substantial motor to turn the rotor. That was before the new lightweight Neo magnets that I would use. They still claimed +unity. At a loss to explain this, they started the terminology that the energy came from "space", space generators.

Below is DePalma's beautiful unit, which he called the N-machine, "N" meaning to the Nth degree, suggesting electricity comes from an unlimited energy field. He was making units in the 1970's. The armature is 800 lbs.

 

Free Energy Pioneers: Bruce De Palma and the N-Machine

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 26 March 2018

My above post has been updated.

Also, Peter Barlow, in 1822, had the same motor/generator principle before Faraday. Below is Barlow's Wheel.

 

See the source image

 

Bob

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 22 April 2018

As often happens with me, I get a new idea about one subject when I'm looking at a completely different subject. I thought of a better design for a permanent magnet unipolar generator. Sorry I don't have a program to make an image of this. These generators have been criticized because of physical problems at the output brushes. With 100's of amps, there can be burning overheating.

My new design is to place two cylinder magnets inside of a thick walled aluminum pipe, or other metal. The magnets have the same poles facing each other, at a comfortable distance. The cylinder magnets have a large center hole, fit with a thick metal bar protruding outside the ends of the pipe. These are two separate metal bars ending at the inner edges of the magnets, so there is no inner connection between them. The purpose of the thick pipe, and bars, is to carry the large current without overheating so much. Water cooling may be necessary. I mention aluminum for it's heat-sink, cooling property. An isolated motor turns the assembly.

The current travels from one outside axel bar, up through one magnet, across the metal pipe to the other magnet, down through the other magnet to its metal axe bar, and out that bar on the other end. Output current is drawn from thick contacts touching the ends of each outside bar.

Bill Beaty thought of this design, also. Connect the two separate units, below, with a pipe cylinder.

 

Bob

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 23 April 2018

I found an OverUnity Forum member Post about Tesla's Unipolar Dynamo, by Bruce_TPU. Is he reliable?

overunity.com/8934/bruces-discovery-teslas-missing-link-for-his-unipolar-generator/#.Wt4T-LCWy00

He hadn't done it yet, but officially claimed, in 2010, that using a bifilar pancake coil would negate Lenz's Law and allow the Dynamo to self run.

Bob

Idea1man posted this 23 April 2018

When the setup is used as a generator, the Lorentz Force is causing the radial electric movement. It's interesting that Faraday induction is not working here because the magnetic field doesn't change. The Hall Effect may also play a part. With the Faraday Disk as a motor, the Lorentz Force evidently acts to cause the disk to spin.

Bob

Idea1man posted this 04 May 2018

I haven't seen anyone try it, but it appears that a pancake coil, alone with no magnet, would generate the magnetic field needed to function as a Faraday Disc. The generator mode would require an external electric jump start, to begin generating.

  • Liked by
  • Jagau
  • Chris
Jagau posted this 04 May 2018

Hi idlea1man

If I can afford I found a little secret in the pancake coil,

try it with coaxial cable RG58 50 ohm impedance, besides being a perfect asymmetric capacitor it is more pancake even more powerful.

The other coaxial cables are more isolated at 2kv and more.

 

Jack

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 07 May 2018

Lenz's Law doesn't apply to the unipolar arrangement. Lenz's Law opposes Faraday's Induction Law which requires a change in the magnetic field. There is no change in the magnetic field of a unipolar dynamo.

It's possible that the Lorentz Law could cause a counter reaction.

Bob

Idea1man posted this 18 May 2018

This video shows that when a disk/ring magnet is centered below a spinning copper disk, the eddy currents (Lenz's Law) do not oppose/brake the copper disk. The double ring in the bottom of the cup holder is the magnet. The ring far above is to center the axel.

When the magnet is moved to the edge of the copper disk, the eddy currents do slow the copper disk.

 

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 13 July 2018

Prof-E Robert Kincheloe's, Stanford, independent test results of DePalma'a first Sunburst homopolar device.

Quote: We are therefore faced with the apparent result that the output power obtained when the generator magnet is energized greatly exceeds the increase in drive power over that needed to supply losses with the magnet not energized. This is certainly anomalous in terms of convential theory. Possible explanations?

1. There could be a large error in the measurements resulting from some factor such as noise which caused the digital meters to read incorrectly or grossly inaccurate current shunt resistances.

If the measured results had shown that the computed generated output power exceeded the input drive power by only a few percent this explanation would be reasonable and would suggest that more careful calibration and measurements might show that the results described above were due to measurement error.

With the data showing such a large ratio of generated power to input power increase, however, in my opinion this explanation  of the results seems unlikely.

(A later test showed that the digital meters are insensitive to a large AC ripple superimposed on the measured DC,  but within their rated accuracy of 0.1% give a true average value).

2. There could be a large difference between the measured voltage at the metering brushes and the actual generated voltage in   the output brush circuit due to armature reaction, differences in  the external metering and output circuit geometry, or other unexplained causes.

As discussed above the various data do not seem to support this possibility.

3. DePalma may have been right in that there is indeed a situation here whereby energy is being obtained from a previously unknown and unexplained source.

This is a conclusion that most scientists and engineers would reject out of hand as being a violation of accepted laws of physics, and if true has incredible implications.

4. Perhaps other possibilities will occur to the reader.

The data obtained so far seems to have shown that while DePalma's numbers were high, his basic premise has not been disproved. While the Sunburst generator does not produce useful output power because of the internal losses inherent in the  design, a number of techniques could be used to reduce the friction losses, increase the total generated voltage and the fraction of generated power delivered to an external load.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 17 July 2018

With regard to the Faraday paradox. 

One part of any testing arrangement that is virtually always overlooked are the leads which must pass through the outer return part of the H field of the magnet, which is of opposite direction.  If the field rotates, current is induced in those leads and this is often overlooked.

If the magnet rotates alone the induced current throughout the entire circuit, which includes all elements of the circuit, and the leads, is equal and opposing, therefore no net current appears.  The wiggle on the scope, in the the above video, at that time, is an indication of this.  In all cases all elements including connecting leads, test leads etc etc must be considered as part of the circuit.

Only in a fully closed magnetic circuit (B field) is it possible to avoid the effects of the return part of the H (correction made here) field.

The fact that a magnetic field, in a magnet, is in fact the sum of its domains is proof that the field must rotate with the magnet. The domains are not theoretical constructs as they can be observed under a microscope.  They would also need to somehow be rotating within the magnet itself if the field is independent of rotation, and that is obviously absurd... Theories that do not take the physicality of the magnet into account are little more than numeric play things.  They are I believe simply intellectual auto eroticism.  Perhaps they are meant to confuse, and that is their purpose.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 17 July 2018

Thank you for that, Vince. You must be right since a defect in a magnet would change the magnetic field as it rotates.

Also, most of the homopolar patents mention the idea of magnetic return, or closed circuit. I admit I haven't investigated how that works, and I don't know what H and A fields are. I'll need to study those.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 17 July 2018

I have never given Tesla's version of this more than a passing glance.  Not because I saw no merit in it, but due to the sheer number of patents and notes available.  He was somewhat prolific in his output.

However, now that I look more closely at it I see that he closed the B field, thereby avoiding the effects of an H field on the circuit elements, which are primarily his metal connecting belts.  What less should one expect from a genius of his caliber.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 17 July 2018

Looking closely at the magnet spinning over the large copper plate I don't see that it is actually opposing the copper disk when it is first spun up.  It may well be in attraction when it's that close.  I believe it reaches a point when he lifts it where it quite suddenly does oppose it's field.  This I think is similar to, or the same effect as when you push a small magnet into the opposing field of a larger one.  When the small one gets to a certain distance the fields interact at close distance such that they are attracted to each other.  However in this case it is done in reverse.

"

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 18 July 2018

Vince, there are too many hoax videos on Utube. The N-N video has several accusation comments. However, the magnetic field is a torus with a weakness at the center, and strength at the outer edge of the pole face. This is illustrated by the magnetic void above the poles of the Earth. I just learned, from a comment, that two same faces, of magnets, can be stuck together by inserting a steel plate between them. This, after using plastic clamps, with difficulty, to keep two same poles together. Neo magnets are plated with nickel. If the smaller magnet is weak enough, possibly the semi-magnetic nickel layer is enough to hold the same poles together at the weak center. Otherwise, there are comments about uneven magnetization of the Neo magnets.

Thanks for your interest in my Topic.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 18 July 2018

Here is the actual explanation of why it works Bob..  This guy's statement about the thickness to width ratio is valid in I believe. 

"

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 18 July 2018

Vince   ... Thank you very much for that last video. He's a quality instructor with the best magnet sales company, and he's connected to a full magnet engineering and production corp.

Apparently he's the only one, in science, who knows about thin magnets, of a certain size, sticking together at the center, as he named the effect after himself.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Vince posted this 20 July 2018

Excellent observation Bob.  It is of quite a large diameter too when you see the affect it has on the spinner.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 3 weeks ago

This quote is from Prometheus:

I conceived of a device working upon the same principle, but also using triboelectric charge separation to get a much more pronounced charge separation effect (think along the lines of scuffing across the carpet in your socks... you get enough charge separation to shock someone).

So in my gedanken device, I used a cylindrical magnet with a low electronic work function material lining its inner surface (in my case, I chose rabbit fur) and rubbing against a higher electronic work function inner stator electrode (a nickel electrode coated with perforated Teflon so the electrons could be transferred to the Teflon, flow to the nickel electrode and out to a spark gap).

The spark gap, wired between the inner electrode and the outer magnet surface, allows one to shut down the device by shorting the spark gap or vary the speed by varying the voltage.

Spin the cylindrical magnet by hand and it'll set up a small rotational charge separation (just as in the Searl device), transferring electrons to the inner surface of the cylindrical magnet. The low electronic work function material (rabbit fur in this case) will then transfer those electrons to the inner electrode.

What does this get us? A Lorentz transform! In the frame of the magnet, the electrons in the magnet are stationary, but as soon as they're transferred to the inner electrode, in the frame of the magnet they're rotating opposite the magnet.

In the lab frame, the inner electrode has a static electric field, but in the magnet's rotating frame, the inner electrode has a rotating magnetic field! And that rotating magnetic field is in opposition to the magnetic field of the rotating magnet... meaning the faster the device rotates, the faster it'll try to rotate.

As for the gravitoelectromagnetic effects which Searl claimed, that's plausible. There is a weak coupling between EM and gravity (hence gravitoelectromagnetism)... but at typical electron speeds in a conductor (cm / minute) the effect is negligible.

But for a rotor spinning at thousands of RPM, the electrons on the inner electrode will appear to the rotor to be moving at a much faster speed, so the gravitoelectromagnetic effect should be much more pronounced.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 2 weeks ago

My new design is to place two cylinder magnets inside of a thick walled aluminum pipe, or other metal. The magnets have the same poles facing each other, at a comfortable distance. The cylinder magnets have a large center hole, fit with a thick metal bar protruding outside the ends of the pipe. These are two separate metal bars ending at the inner edges of the magnets, so there is no inner connection between them. The purpose of the thick pipe, and bars, is to carry the large current without overheating so much.

Put a bearing on each output bar and connect your output leads to the outer race of the bearings... the current will flow from the output bar, into the inner race, through the ball bearings, to the outer race and out to the output leads... no arcing, no overheating, low friction. Don't use grease to lubricate the bearings (wash out any grease that is in the bearing with a degreaser), use tungsten disulfide (WS2). It has a lower coefficient of friction (it is, in fact, the lowest coefficient of friction of any known lubricant) and is semi-conductive (10−3 Ω/cm, n-type semiconductor) but at the micron-depth of coating the bearings will have, the resistance will be negligible, and it has an incredibly high mechanical load carry capacity.

The WS2 I got came in a small plastic ziplock bag. I use a small spoon to scoop it out (I stole one of my wife's measuring spoons... and caught hell for it because WS2 ingrains itself into the plastic of the spoon and won't wash out... so that spoon is mine now), and a stiff-bristle brush to apply it in hard-to-reach areas. For a bearing, it's easiest to just put a small amount of WS2 in a ziplock bag, but the bearing in, and shake it up for awhile. Then take the bearing out and apply downward pressure to the inner race (I use my thumb inside the bearing) while running the bearing across your workbench to ensure the WS2 is ingrained into the balls and races. Shake out the excess and you're done. It'll spin so easily you'll think it'll just keep on spinning forever.

Be careful when handling it... it's not dangerous to health, but the powder gets on your hands and only certain types of soap take it off easily (I've found ZEP Round One takes pretty much everything off)... it's worse than molybdenum lubricant in that regard. If you don't get it off, your hands will have a lovely gray/silver sheen to them until your skin naturally exfoliates and takes the WS2 with it.

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 2 weeks ago

==Put a bearing on each output bar and connect your output leads to the outer race of the bearings... the current will flow from the output bar, into the inner race, through the ball bearings, to the outer race and out to the output leads... no arcing, no overheating, low friction. Don't use grease to lubricate the bearings (wash out any grease that is in the bearing with a degreaser), use tungsten disulfide (WS2).==

Thanks Pro. I haven't heard of WS2. I did use an engine product, as an oil additive, that claimed it was a nano coating inside the cylinders that reduced friction, and filled in worn areas. Sounds like WS2. A search revealed that WS2 needs to be blasted onto parts to coat them.

I already want to use ball bearings, for a different reason. I've seen videos of those under high amperage. They drastically overheat, with burning and seizing. The problem is that all of the current is going thru one point on the spherical balls. They can get red hot quickly.

I think the contacts, for the axels, needs to be a long hemispherical trough, possibly made of carbon, and lubricated with graphite.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 2 weeks ago

No, you don't have to blast WS2 onto parts... it'll try to stick to pretty much everything (even smooth plastic and glass) via the Van der Waals force. You can 'work it in' to the surface just with a bit of pressure (as described above), and after that, you'll never get it off.

As for the bearings, you can use either deep-groove ball bearings:

or roller bearings,

...which have a wider contact patch than a standard ball bearing. You'd have to size the bearing to the amount of amps you're generating.

Typically, a bearing will only arc or heat up if it's very small for the current carried and/or its got grease in it (look up bearing fluting to see examples of the capacitive effect of grease which causes arcs in bearings and thus pitting of the race)... if it's got no grease (or conductive grease), there'll be no arcing, therefore no bearing race fluting.

The bearings in large wind generators are mechanically pre-loaded so even with grease in them, they're still conductive so a lightning strike doesn't flute the race. You can order pre-loaded bearings (keeping in mind the WS2 coating will further reduce bearing/race clearance by approximately 2 microns).

Or you could use a rotary transformer setup with a stationary permanent magnet to 'cut' the electric field in a primary coil on the shaft and thereby create a form of AC, which can then be inductively coupled to a stationary secondary-coil output.

Here are a few more ideas:

https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/75633/HagenThesisMS_FINAL.pdf

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 2 weeks ago

Pro, I really appreciate that info. I found what "fluting" is. Again that fits what I'm working on.

Have you heard of ball bearing motors? Ten, or so, degreed scientists disagree about how it works. From what I'm doing, in this Topic, I think it must be the Faraday Lorentz force working, but that doesn't seem to fit either. Maybe you can understand it.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Prometheus posted this 2 weeks ago

The ball bearing motor operates upon much the same principle as the Searl rollers (and, by extension, my triboelectric charge-separation motor idea)... Lorentz force of opposing sign attempting to conserve angular momentum of two magnetic fields.

The difference is that my idea is predicated upon an electrostatic field (in the lab frame) / rotating magnetic field (in the rotor's frame) on the central stator, whereas the ball bearing motor depends upon a current flow, simply due to the fact that a ball-bearing motor doesn't perform a Lorentz transform to generate a frame-dependent magnetic field, and thus must depend upon a magnetic field generated by a (spinning) electron flow. Searl's device used permanent magnets to generate the rotating magnetic field juxtaposed against a permanent magnetic field from a central stator (but I think the current Searl research team will find their roller rotation is (at least partially) canceling the A field curl {B=curl(A)}, which is part of the reason (their other reasons being insufficient charge separation, and attempting to push charge opposite to where it naturally wants to flow) their device doesn't currently work.

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/motor.pdf

Note the diagram on Page 2 of the PDF above:

and compare it to:

So while the effect is weak in a ball bearing motor (because the round balls have the degrees-of-freedom to precess out of alignment with the rotor's field), a motor of this design using roller bearings should provide much more torque (the torque being dependent upon current flow, RPM of spinning shaft and bearing diameter), since the rollers are locked into proper alignment.

To get a rough idea of how my triboelectric charge separation motor idea works, imagine the roller above (in the first picture) placed inside the rotor, pinned so it cannot rotate, and the rotor magnetized, with a triboelectric material between roller and rotor to transfer electrons (generating a Lorentz transform). The permanent magnet field of the rotor and the frame-dependent magnetic field of the 'roller' (in this case a central stator) oppose each other, and in attempting to conserve angular momentum will cause a vector force upon the rotor.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 2 weeks ago

Pro  .. I'm having great difficulty understanding your latest Post, but I see you have a very detailed understanding of it. I don't have the meaning of some of those symbols, with only High School physics. Actually I'm surprised that you already know about bearing motors, and have your own analysis. It's not well known. I already have McDonald's Paper. So you agree with his explanation? The problem is that, as you know from McDonald, all of the scientists have a different explanation. Personally, I'm looking at a simpler explanation, merely the Faraday/Lorentz motor, that I'm already familiar with, and which scientists likely don't think of, because it's old. I think the direction of movement, of the balls, trace an arc in space, which would create an electromagnetic field in the direction of the axle. That would, as usual, cause rotation. There would be a loss caused by the other movement of electrons thru the balls to the outer race, causing their own magnetic field at 90*. The BB motor has been called the Huber Effect, which is the same as mine except the traces are laid down as a straight line, as in a rail gun. But I don't think my explanation would account for the fact that alternating current can be used. The direction of rotation would change direction with the alternations, I think. I don't know if any of the scientist's explanations can account for the use with AC. In fact, Marinov may have the only explanation, with his idea of the heat expansion at the point of the ball's contact with the races. But there's a video of the BB motor running underwater. I guess ice-cold water should be tested to see if it slows or stops.

 

I have tested using a Neo magnet inside, or on the side, of a ball bearing. It doesn't turn well. The balls tend to stick to the races. However, there is this video of one that clearly must create an electromagnetic field, because the current runs thru a coil.

 

  • Liked by
  • Chris
Idea1man posted this 2 weeks ago

Prometheus  ..  I've sent you a Private Message. You should see numbers on your Account Heading.

Close