Talk:Homopolar generator

A crank is inserting links to his relativity denial website by hiding them as 'external references'

Self-promotion is against wiki policy, and since it seemed bad form to have two separate link sections I removed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.170.103 (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments for the explanation table

I think the explanation table is somewhat misleading, when it terms, that it if both disk and indicator are moving the result is undetermined. It is surely not undetermined. Like some strange explanation also tries to say: The voltage is "undetermined" when both the indicator and the disk are rotated, regardless of whether the magnet is moving. There is an EMF and a nonuniform charge density, but no reaction of the indicator.[3] An electric field is generated, but no voltage is brought out for display. This differs from the different relative motions of the parts of a rectilinear homopolar generator (where the answer would be "No"). I think this is explanation is unnecessarily complex. Simply stated: If the magnet rotates or not doesn't make any difference. If both indicator and disk rotate only the relative difference in rotation is relevant for the voltage seen on the indicator, which means if both rotate at the same speed the indicator doesn't see any voltage. The reason for this is simple, if both rotate at the same speed, then also the wires of the indicator circuit will develop the same voltage as the disk itself (the wire behaves the same as a second disk), therefore the indicator wouldn't see any voltage difference. Peace 83.77.199.33 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Current direction?

Nearly all cases of which wiki talks about electromagnets, could we add the direction of which the current flows? Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The generator is AC not DC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.79.241 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, it IS a DC offset potential ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.228.198 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How it works

Paragraph from the bottom of the page:
"The correct interpretation of the velocity of the electron is that it is relative to the static parts of the machine, which are the sliding contacts and the circuit to which they are connected. In the language of special relativity, these objects act as the 'observer'. It is the velocity of the electron relative to these components that causes it to experience the Lorentz force."
How can this be true, since the results of moving the whole machine conflicts with this statement. Seb-Gibbs (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Earliest Patent?

Is it certain that the earliest patent referenced (US238631) is really a homopolar generator? I'm certainly no expert, but it looks like an induction dynamo to me. See: US238631 at Google Patents 70.60.39.47 (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, it is not a homopolar generator. Tkircher (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Misguided: How magnetism makes current

Since Lorentz Force Law and not traditional induction is governing the generation of current in the Homopolar Generator isn't the section "How magnetism makes current" somewhat misplaced? --Enghoff 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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[s] that we are know everything and all of our theories are absolutely correct and complete'. Anyway, that's not the point. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia until it is proven. --Heron 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Because this device is not readily understood by beginning Physics students it lends itself to misunderstanding, and claims that it operates in some 'special' new way, thus feeding the free energy rumor mill. A paragraph about how it forms the core of several (purported) free energy/perpetual motion machines would not be amiss in alleviating some of this confusion. I bet half the people reading this article got here from a fringe alternative energy website.

I do get tired of people saying things don't work because they violate laws of physics instead of just saying that, "to date, no rigorous scientific testing has ever shown one of these machines to produce anti-gravity or over unity energy." Claiming no one has ever made a working device is a fact, claiming that it will not work because it violates a law of physics is a belief. Now if you will excuse, I'm going to go play with my Bessler Wheel, and my SMOT, which I will get working any day now. :P

Stating that something doesn't work because it violates a basic law of physics is perfectly reasonable. I can run faster than the speed of light, and I have a video tape and some crayon drawings to prove it. But no one takes me seriously, so I'm forced to conclude that I'm a persecuted visionary with ideas ahead of my time, right?

Tiki God 02:42, 14 September 2007 (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)

Dubious material

This is highly dubious ". However, there are no records of the performance of [Tesla's] 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'[s his patent. 134.193.168.244 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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. [Revised: February 1, 1987]

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 [Professor of Electrical Engineering (Emeritus), Stanford University]. 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 [1] (and others [2]) 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)

I agree, the term "indicator" needs to be explained. I can't believe that moving the meter/sink would generate any current so anyone who understands what is meant by "indicator" kindly elaborate. --User:Enghoff 09:58, 14 September 2007 (IST)

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)

I agree. Media reporters and even amateur science people keep confusing POWER with ENERGY, eg: Kilowatts and Kilowatt Hours. (A joule is a watt-second.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjcscott (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 August 2009 (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)

WikiProject Paranormal

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

Bruce DePalma

Bruce DePalma (born Bruno James DePalma) (October 2, 1935–1997), son of noted orthopaedic surgeon Anthony DePalma and elder brother of film director Brian De Palma, was a well known figure in the Free energy suppression community.

De Palma claimed that his N-machine Homopolar generator, a device based on the Faraday disc, could produce five times the energy required to run it. According to mainstream physics, no such device is physically possible. De Palma studied electrical engineering at Harvard (1958) and taught physics at MIT for 15 years, working under Harold Eugene Edgerton. He was also employed by Edwin H. Land of Polaroid fame.

Bruce De Palma's development of the N-machine concept in 1977, among his other anomalous devices (at least one of which, De Palma claimed, displayed anti-gravity characteristics) and the claims surrounding them, set him on a collision course with his more mainstream peers. His claims of "free energy" were vigorously refuted over the course of twenty years, by conventional scientists and some members of the alternative energy community alike.

His search for financial backing for the construction of a marketable N-machine saw him relocate from Santa Barbara, California to Australia c. 1994, and then New Zealand in 1996. Probably his greatest ally in his conviction that the N-machine could solve the world's energy and environmental crisis was Paramahamsa Tewari, a Project Director with the Indian Nuclear Power Corporation, with whom he corresponded regularly over many years. Tewari's Space Power Generator, claimed to be 200% efficient, is based on the same theoretical foundations as the N-machine.

De Palma's death in New Zealand in October 1997 put an end to his most ambitious free energy project, and occurred only weeks prior to the official testing of a device constructed over the course of 6 months in an Auckland workshop. The test was attended by, among others, the project's financial backer, Bruce Bornholdt, a prominent Wellington barrister, as well as the pioneering developer of the Adams motor, Robert Adams (now deceased), who observed the operation of, and measured electrical output from, the N-machine. This single test failed to demonstrate the over-unity potential of the N-machine - most of the output energy being lost as heat - and the project was immediately dissolved.

• Homopolar generator
• Perpetual motion
• History of perpetual motion machines
• Steorn

• THE HOME OF PRIMORDIAL ENERGY, De Palma's website with numerous articles.
• Free Energy - The N-Machine

J. D. Redding 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

You note that DePalma studied at Harvard and taught physics at MIT. Did he graduate from either of these institutions? 104.172.216.137 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Editorial comments by 97.100.194.145

Please check statement about flux being a vector above. Magnetic flux is a scalar quantity ($\int {\vec {B}}\cdot d{\vec {A}}$), not a vector. Moreover, the Lorentz force law, mentioned below, is derived using Faraday's Law of electromagnetic induction.

In all honesty this section needs to be reviewed.

(Copied from article. --Art Carlson (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC))

Problems with the Homopolar Generator section

I recently realized that I do not truly understand how a Faraday disc (I use this spelling on purpose). I am getting on in years so I apologize that my mind may not be working as well Isould lie it to. I find problems with the entry on the Homopolar generator. The entire introductory paragraph is confusing and ambiguous. It really should be rewritten.

The disk does not have to be magnetic. It does not even have to bn conductive unless significant output is required.

The fundamental description arises out of the special theory of relativity (SR). In SR, the fundamental field is a tensor that combines the electric and magnetic vector fields we all know and love into one tensor field usually represented by an antisymmetric 4 x 4 matrix. See the Wikipedia entry for Special relativity.

Given the tensor field (in laboratory coordinates), local motion transforms the tensor to produce an electric field locally at a moving point from the magnetic field present in the laboratory coordinates. Surprise, surprise; this is just the Lorentz force law. I do not yet understand how that fits in with the definition of electric field F = q E. Does magnetic force F = q v x B arise from F = q E merely by requiring invariance of the field tensor under a Lorentz transformation?

The electric field produced by motion does not require conductivity. In principle, that electric field should be observable by means of the Stark effect or various electrooptical effects.

More later.

PEBill (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"and a vertical-axis generator could allow the entire rim of a disk to be "brushed" by liquid metal"

I think this should say horizontal axis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.177.137 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No, he has it correct... Vertical shaft, means disc's flat to earth, and gravity's influence. Unless you know of some different kind of liquid metal than we do, lol... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.228.198 (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

How it works

Parts of the explanation of how it works, described in the Physics section, seem confusing to me. In particular, I find misleading the paragraph starting with "There is a subtle difficulty in this explanation". In my opinion, there is no problem with the Lorentz force explanation. If one raises the question, how can this be reconciled with special relativity, this is what I think. In a moving frame, the electric and magnetic forces get transformed (the transformation laws are described by the electromagnetic tensor). What appears as a homogeneous magnetic field and no electric field in the reference frame of the stationary machine, appears as a combination of an electric and a magnetic field in the reference frame of an electron moving with the rotating disk. In the reference frame of the electron, the electron responds to this electric field. Mateat (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Liquid metal brushes and rotation axis orientation

From the section above, Talk:Homopolar_generator#Problems_with_the_Homopolar_Generator_section, we had an objection from an unregistered editor:

"and a vertical-axis generator could allow the entire rim of a disk to be "brushed" by liquid metal"

I think this should say horizontal axis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.177.137 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on this, Tkircher (talk · contribs) changed the word to horizontal. This seems to assume that the author intended a pool of liquid metal at the lowest point of a rotor, and that by "the entire rim" was meant "the entire width of the rim". I find this assumption premature. One can conceive a rotor with a vertical axis, disposed in a horizontal plane, with a annular tank of liquid metal under its rim, in which the metal would contact the rotor along the entire circumference. With suitable seals, this tank could be extended to enclosure the rim and seal against the top and bottom of the rotor, thus unambiguously producing the result as claimed, that the entire rim of the disk is contacted by liquid metal. This configuration does not necessarily require that the axis be vertical, though it does relax the mechanical requirements of the seals, as the pressure at the bottom of a tank disposed in a vertical plane would necessarily be greater than that for one disposed in a horizontal plane.

Further, the ANU generator, with a vertical axis, used liquid metal brushes in its original configuration. The metal was shot in jets against the rotor, and collected underneath. See Fire in the Belly, Chapter 3: The Big Machine. Such jets could be arrayed densely enough around the rotor that the liquid metal again, contacts the entire rim.

I posit that the result of contacting the entire rim of a homopolar generator with liquid metal in a usable configuration does not depend on the orientation of the rotation axis. Thus, the phrase in quotes above is superfluous and should be removed. Cstaffa (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it because of your suggestion, and I think the article is better for it. You're welcome to change other things if the mood strikes you, of course, that's part of the nature of the thing. Tkircher (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I just commented on this above, before scrolling down to see an expanded discussion of this niggle.

As I read this, I saw another oversight though...

There is talks of "Seals", where creativity would render them needless.

If the disc/disk was fashioned with an "L" edge, with said "L" facing down, into a trough of liquid metal instead. Only an inner baffle for splash, and an outer "C" casing would be needed. No seal... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.182.228.198 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Patents

The United States Patent Office uses the clasification class 310 (Electrical generator or motor structure) and subclass 178 (Dynamoelectric; Rotary; D.C.; Homopolar) for these devices. Many of the homopolar patents were obtained prior to 1975. Below is a list of homopolar generator patents.

American

• G. D. Hathaway, "U.S. patent 5,587,618, Direct current homopolar machine".
• W. F. Weldon, "U.S. patent 5,530,309 Homopolar machine ".
• Antonios Challita, "U.S. patent 5,049,771 Electrical machine".
• W. F. Weldon, "U.S. patent 4,858,304, Method of constructing a rotor assembly for homopolar generator".
• W. F. Weldon, "U.S. patent 4,800,311 Rotor assembly for homopolar generator".
• W. F. Weldon, "U.S. patent 4,544,874 Homopolar generator power supply system".
• W. F. Weldon, "U.S. patent 4,246,507 Removable brush mechanism for a homopolar generator ".
• Esko Ensio hubta-Koivisto, "U.S. patent 3,469,137 Electric unipolar motor".
• E. C. Ketchum and D. H. Andrews, "U.S. patent 1,082,579 Dynamo electric machine".
• A. Kingsbury, "U.S. patent 992,965 Dynamo electric machine".
• W. A. Dick, "U.S. patent 992,943 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 988,377 Dynamo electric machine".
• H. Hertz, "U.S. patent 988,340 Unipolar exciter for turbo-generators".
• D. W. Troy, "U.S. patent 979,603 Dynamo electric machine".
• A. S. Hubbard, "U.S. patent 970,827 Dynamo electric machine".
• B. Von Ugrimoff, "U.S. patent 970,407 Cooling device for electrical sliding contacts".
• E. C. Ketchum, "U.S. patent 966,839 Brush holders for dynamos".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 960,383 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 959,959 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 937,462 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 920,626 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 900,771 Armature for unipolar machines".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 895,888 Unipolar dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 895,887 Acyclic machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 890,697 Protective device for unipolar machine".
• A. C. Eastwood, "U.S. patent 881,387 System of control for electric motors".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 873,072 Dynamo electric machine".
• W. Mathiesen, "U.S. patent 861,192 Unipolar dynamo".
• E. Thomson, "U.S. patent 859,350 Unipolar generator".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 854,756 Dynamo electric machine".
• C. Macmillan, "U.S. patent 854,749 Power transmission mechanism".
• C. Macmillan, "U.S. patent 850,664 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 832,742 Unipolar alternating current machine".
• E. C. Ketchum, "U.S. patent 826,668 Dynamo".
• H. H. Wait, "U.S. patent 806,217 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 805,315 Unipolar machine".
• C. P. Steinmetz, "U.S. patent 804,440 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Noeggerath, "U.S. patent 789,444 Electric motor".
• E. R. Cox, Jr., "U.S. patent 742,600 Dynamo electric machine or motor".
• B. Bjarnason, "U.S. patent 678,157 Dynamo electric machine".
• F. W. Throop, "U.S. patent 662,042 Dynamo electric machine".
• G. Dalen and A Hultovist, "U.S. patent 645,943 Dynamo electric machine".
• F. G. Mayer, "U.S. patent 561,803 Dynamo electric machine".
• E. Thomson and M. J. Wightman, "U.S. patent 550,464 Dynamo electric machine".
• G. Rennerfelt, "U.S. patent 523,998 Dynamo electric machine".
• H. E. Dikeman, "U.S. patent 518,444 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. E. Maynadier, "U.S. patent 515,882 Dynamo electric machine".
• T. L. Willson, "U.S. patent 495,538 Dynamo electric machine".
• N. Tesla, "U.S. patent 406,968 Dynamo electric machine".
• J. B. Entz, "U.S. patent 400,838 Dynamo electric machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 396,149 Unipolar dynamo electric machine".
• E. A. Sperry, "U.S. patent 354,946 Dynamo electric machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 352,234 Electro magnetic and megneto electric machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 351,907 Device for taking electric currents from or to moving surfaces".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 351,904 Magneto electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 351,903 Magneto electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 351,902 Magneto electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 342,589 Dynamo electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 342,588 Dynamo electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 342,587 Dynamo electric and electro magnetic machine".
• R. Eickemeyer, "U.S. patent 342,504 Magneto electric and electro magnetic machine".
• S. Z. De Ferranti, "U.S. patent 341,097 Unipolar dynamo electric machine".
• C. Batchelor and H. E. Walter"U.S. patent 339,839 Dynamo electric machine".
• C. Hering, "U.S. patent 339,772 Unipolar dynamo electric machine".
• G. Forbes, "U.S. patent 338,169 Dynamo electric machine".
• A. E. G. Lubke, "U.S. patent 293,758 Dynamo electric machine".
• A. F. Delafield, "U.S. patent 278,516 Dynamo electric machine".
• C. E. Ball, "U.S. patent 238,631 Dynamo or magneto-electric machine".

--J. D. Redding 17:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Homopolar generator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.plasma.uu.se/CED/Book/EMFT_Book.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515232314/http://wwwrsphysse.anu.edu.au/admin/php/fire_in_the_belly/Fire_in_the_Belly01.pdf to http://wwwrsphysse.anu.edu.au/admin/php/fire_in_the_belly/Fire_in_the_Belly01.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)