«PACS-classification: 84.60.-h, 89.30.-g, 98.62.En, 12.20.-m, 12.20.Ds, 12.20.Fv Summary of a Scientfic Work by Claus Wilhelm Turtur Germany, ...»
Large forces might be expected from a ferromagnetic rotor. If it would be sensible to ascribe a susceptibility to ferromagnetic materials, this could lead for some materials to values several orders of magnitude larger the susceptibility of dia- or paramagnetic materials. But ferromagnetic materials produce a magnetization because of a regularity of the electron spins, which depends on the previous history of the material [Kne 62]. Thus, it is very doubtful whether it is allowed to carry forward our theoretical considerations to ferromagnetic materials at all. The image-charge method had been applied to the electrostatic rotor, and its analogue was developed for an ideal diamagnetic surface. Consequently it is not clear, whether these considerations are sufficient for dia-, para-, or ferromagnetic materials. In any case, the analogy with the currents compensating the magnetic field or the analogy with the image-charge method compensating the electric field is not clear for such materials. All the more we face this question of uncertainty regarding ferromagnetic rotor-blades, in which magnetic fields influence the whole spin-order [Kne 62]. Ferromagnetic domains are generated and kept in the material because of the Barkhausen-effect. This arises serious doubts, whether the spins and magnetic moments can follow an external magnetic field, as it is required for a rotor, which converts vacuum-energy into magnetic and mechanical energy.
the force (disturbing the rotation). Thus, it is essential to build up the mechanical arrangement of the components with extremely high precision in order to avoid that the radial forces will prevent the rotation. Deviations from the ideal exact movement of the rotor have to be kept such small, that the rotor will not find a minimum of energy at some position, which stops its rotation. Forces keeping the rotor in the position of an energy minimum because of tolerances in the mechanical setup have to be smaller than the driving tangential forces. This problem of a rotor being stopped in a minimum of energy regarding the tangential force was already practically experienced, but the magnetic rotor was not yet rotating in satisfactory in an experiment.
Also, the homogeneity of the magnetic field is a very critical and important aspect. This was also experienced in practical tests [Lie 08/09], and it also caused a standstill of the rotor, mostly after less then one turn, in very few cases between one and two turns, but even the angle of rotation was not reproducible. Nevertheless, the experiment for the conversion of vacuum-energy via magnetic field energy into classical mechanical energy seems worth being further developed until it will be successful.
The problem for the magnetic rotor is, that the self-adjustment mechanism (as known from the electrostatic rotor) does not exist for the magnetic rotor. But it was the self-adjustment mechanism, which made the rotation possible with a rotor of moderate mechanical precision and moderate field homogeneity. The reasons for the lack of the self-adjustment mechanism in the magnetic case is the following: The Coulomb-forces driving the electric rotor are attractive, but the Lorentz-forces driving the (superconducting) magnetic rotor are repulsive.
Attractive forces try to minimize the distance between the rotor and the field source in a way that a lateral movable rotor is being transported into the minimum of the potential – this is the self-adjustment mechanism of a rotor driven by attractive forces. Repulsive forces behave in the opposite manner. They transport a lateral movable rotor away from the field source. This is the lack of the self-adjustment mechanism of the magnetic rotor. It can be avoided only by a rigid fixation of the axis of rotation. With other words: If the magnetic (superconducting) rotor shall remain within the field, it needs a fixation of its axis of rotation, and thus the selfadjustment mechanism can not work at all. This is the reason why an experiment with moderate effort and expenses (as done in section 4.4) is not possible for the magnetic rotor.
After these explanations and calculations it is clear, that it should be possible by principle to convert vacuum-energy not only via electrostatic field energy but also via magnetic field energy. But the experimental challenge for the magnetic conversion is different from the experimental challenge for the electric conversion – and rather demanding. The magnetic conversion does not require vacuum, because magnetic fields do not ionize gas atoms (other than electric fields). A measurement of energy and power might be dispensable for the magnetic conversion, if the field is produced by a permanent magnet, because a permanent magnet does not take power at all. But the demand regarding the mechanical precision and the demand regarding the homogeneity of the field is very high for the magnetic energy conversion.
By the way: If the electric conversion of vacuum-energy shall be done with rigidly fixed axis of rotation (not with the hydrostatic bearing of the swimming rotor), the demand to the mechanical precision and to the homogeneity of the field is the same high as it is for the magnetic rotor. Therefore, the following section 5.2 is written.
5.2. Rotor with rigidly fixed axis of rotation 73
5.2. Rotor with rigidly fixed axis of rotation As mentioned in the numerical example of section 5.1, there are not only the tangential forces acting onto the rotor (causing a rotation) but there are also radial forces and vertical forces which want to move the rotor by translation into horizontal of vertical direction. If a rotor as seen in fig.27 (uncomplicated to assemble) is put onto a toe bearing, the risk is rather large that it falls down, when the field is switched on. Only when the adjustment is very good, it might rotate, but it can happen, that it falls down during the beginning of the rotation. These observations indicate the transverse forces, which act onto the rotor. It is under investigation whether those transverse forces are due to the limited mechanical precision of the rotors analyzed up to now (but by principle every mechanical assembly always has limited precision) and due to inhomogeneities of the field (which are also inevitable by principle) [Bec 08/09].
It should be said, that the rotor of fig.27 has a stable position on the tip of the toe bearing if the field is not switched on, because its centre of mass is located lower then the support point.
(Even when the setup is carried by hand from one table to another without special caution, the rotor does not fall down from the toe bearing.) This illustrates the extent of the transverse forces (horizontally of vertically) in the electric field (for the electrostatic rotor). In fact, it was not possible to operate the rotor on fig.27 inside the evacuated vacuum chamber without falling down – other than in air, where the gas ions give an additional propulsive force, causing a rotation, which stabilizes the rotor. Thus under air a rotation was possible (if the adjustment was good enough), sometimes with a plane of rotation not parallel to the plane of the field source. In the vacuum the rotor always fell down, when the voltage has been switched on. In this context we understand, why the transverse forces are more important in the vacuum than in the air.
one hand the hydrostatic bearing with the rotor swimming on oil is nonpractical for technical application (especially under vacuum), and on the other hand the fixed axis is possible only in the case of the electrostatic rotor, not in the case of the magnetic rotor.
For these reasons, an investigation of the transverse forces acting on the rotor during its rotation is important. This was done by filming a swimming rotor (producing short little movies of 30 seconds with a digital camera) during its rotation. For this purpose the rotor of fig.21 was used once more (diameter of the rotor 64 mm). The investigation was performed under air. The rotor was put onto a water surface inside a metal tub with a diameter of 18 cm.
The field source had a diameter of 13 cm and was mounted few centimetres above the rotor.
The short movies have been made during the rotation of the rotor driven by several values of the voltage (between field source and rotor).
The evaluation of the data was done with regard to the angle of rotation and with regard to a lateral movement of the rotor (following the self-adjustment mechanism). The lateral position of the rotor was taken in coordinates “x” and “y” as shown in fig.28, where “x” is the outermost left point of the rotor’s floating body and “y” is this point of the rotor’s floating body, which is most close to the camera. The movement of these both points are to be understood as x- and y- coordinates of the rotor (and thus also as the xy-position of the rotor’s axis). The investigations has been performed under air, but it is clear, that the lateral movement also occurs under vacuum. Actually, fact is that the lateral movement is stronger under vacuum then under air (as explained above).
The calibration of the x- and y- scale was done with a small piece of Styrofoam, whose edges have been orientated parallel to the x- and y- axis. After the calibration was done, the traces of the rotor in the xy-plane (during the time of rotation) have been analyzed by counting the pixels of the x- and y- position of the digital pictures of the movies (one picture after the
5.2. Rotor with rigidly fixed axis of rotation 75 other). The angle of rotation was found by looking to the coloured pattern on the outside of the rotor’s floating body (the rotor with floating body is shown in fig.21).
Three typical examples of such traces are plotted in fig.29 (for different voltages producing the electrostatic field).
Obviously, a permanent continuous adjustment of the lateral position of the rotor is indispensable during the rotation, otherwise the rotor would not spin. This experience was also reproduced with the large rotor of fig.9, which has a diameter of 46 cm. There the experience was made as following: The 46cm-rotor has an iron rod in its centre, marking its axis of rotation (thickness of the rod 2.2 cm). Swimming on the surface of water (with free lateral movement) it could be brought to rotation easily. But as soon as this free lateral movement was constrained by guiding the iron rod axis with a glass cylinder (such a cylinder with a diameter of 44 mm was put into the water below the surface so that the iron axis could not escape from it), the rotor was able to spin only as long as the iron rod did not touch the walls of the cylinder. When the iron rod touched the glass wall of the cylinder, the selfadjustment was stopped and with it the rotation. If the cylinder was shifted by hand for few centimetres, the self-adjustment could be continued and with it the rotation continued until the rod again touched the cylinder and all movement again stopped. This means that a circle of 44mm of diameter is not large enough for the self-adjustment mechanism necessary for the 46cm-rotor.
5.2. Rotor with rigidly fixed axis of rotation 77 So it is seen, that a rotor with a diameter of 64 mm needs a lateral freedom of movement of about 6…7 mm and a rotor with a diameter of 46 cm needs a lateral freedom of movement of more than 44 mm – if the self-adjustment mechanism shall work, which is necessary that the electrostatic rotors under investigation in the present work can be driven by an electrostatic
field. Because of this observation, it is necessary to ask for the reasons:
This could be inhomogeneities in the field and imperfections of the mechanical assembly.
The working mechanism which enables the rotation because of permanent continuous (self-) adjustment of the lateral rotor position is obviously the following: The rotor moves laterally until it reaches the position of the minimum of energy (potential) within the driving field, so that the Coulomb-forces are now free to produce a rotation in connection with the conversion of vacuum-energy. If this self-adjustment is not allowed (which is the case for an axis rigidly fixed at one position), the Coulomb-forces will also try to find a minimum of energy (potential), but they can only do this by producing a rotation (around the fixed axis), which stops as soon as the rotor blades are orientated along the gradient of the field.
The situation is like that: