Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 780083 times)

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #555 on: February 19, 2013, 11:42:15 PM »
Hi NoBull,

If you have not seen the second part of those tests, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsN2sr3U0PY

I agree with what you wrote.  You can find a new thread on these videos on this forum started by Hel who speculated whether the test was a hoax and  where I have given a possible explanation for the phenomena. 
This is the link to that thread: http://www.overunity.com/13313/please-disproof-this-video-it-could-be-a-hoax/msg353207/

rgds, Gyula

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #556 on: February 19, 2013, 11:45:26 PM »
Thanks nobull, and thanks gyula for the second link.

What do you think of the effect in a rotor riven by a DC motor, both current draw decrease and rotor speed increase ?


Cheers,

DC.


Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4137
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #557 on: February 19, 2013, 11:51:09 PM »
Hi Deepcut,

It would help me if you explain a bit more details on the setup you think of...  sorry.  You mean the phenomena in the video NoBull referred to here or something else?

Gyula

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #558 on: February 20, 2013, 02:25:40 AM »
I mean delayed lenz, is it something more than just increasing the rise time in the coil ?


DC.


Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #559 on: February 20, 2013, 07:16:33 AM »
I mean delayed lenz, is it something more than just increasing the rise time in the coil ?
DC.

With reference to a rotor driven by a dc motor, the rise time of the generating coils is not the cause of the AUL (acceleration under load) and the resultant reduced dc motor drive current.

Rather, when the generator coil is sufficiently loaded at a given rpm, (frequency), the current delivered by the coil will be phase shifted with respect to the voltage, within the coil.

It is a delayed current phase with respect to voltage (within the generator coil) that causes the "delayed lenz" effect.
The magnetic drag of the cores and the counter mmf produced by the coils with respect to the inducing rotor magnets are both greatly reduced by the delayed current (phase shifted wrtV).

It is specifically the ratio between the total combined resistance of the load and the coil itself, and the inductive reactance of the coil, that matters most.

Since the inductive reactance of any coil increases with frequency, then the frequency of the generated AC will determine whether current phase (within the coil) lags (i.e delayed wrtV) and AUL occurs, or whether normal counter mmf occurs with a resultant DUL, because the current phase shift is less than 45 degrees.

The same coil that causes DUL (deceleration under load ) when the rpm of a given rotor is, lets say, 2000 rpm, will likely surprise you by showing AUL when the rpm is 3000, because at the higher rotor speed, (higher frequency), there will be a greater coil current phase shift when under load, than at 2000 rpm.

Hope that's clearer than mud ....... KneeDeep
Cheers

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #560 on: February 20, 2013, 08:24:41 AM »

The same coil that causes DUL (deceleration under load ) when the rpm of a given rotor is, lets say, 2000 rpm, will likely surprise you by showing AUL when the rpm is 3000, because at the higher rotor speed, (higher frequency), there will be a greater coil current phase shift when under load, than at 2000 rpm.




May be you are right.   I don't believe in any 'delayed lenz effect'.    Actually action and reaction happen at the same instant.  Force always happens in pairs.  Action cannot be performed without reaction and reacion cannot exist without action.   If reaction is delayed  beyond action  then Newton's third law itself becomes invalid which is highly impossible.  ' delayed lenz effect'  is the funniest name that you can give to this phenomenon.  If AUL happens because of delayed lenz's effect,  then it should happen at all speeds of the rotor but we know that it happens only after crossing certain minimum speed.

I feel that AUL happens because  of remenance or residual force which is also portrayed in another experiment posted in this forum in which two U shaped cores with a shorted coil stick together even after switching off the source current.





 

Offline kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #561 on: February 20, 2013, 08:55:55 AM »
Quote
Actually action and reaction happen at the same instant...

And this is where you are wrong...
When it comes to induction the reaction is not instant. It is restricted by the speed of light!
That is why there is a possibility for that 'trick' (Delayed Lenz) to happen.
Tesla knew that and that is why his transformer is so interesting.
Imagine pulsing a one turn primary (d=2m) with a nano second HV pulse and turning of the power...
The secondary in the middle will receive that disturbance of the field (which 'travels' through the air at the speed of light @~0,3 m/ns) ~3ns later!
So any EMF induced in the secondary is decoupled from the primary power, and that 'reflected BackEMF WAVE' can be harvested back in the primary.

Is it not?

Offline Newton II

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #562 on: February 20, 2013, 09:51:03 AM »

The secondary in the middle will receive that disturbance of the field (which 'travels' through the air at the speed of light @~0,3 m/ns) ~3ns later!
So any EMF induced in the secondary is decoupled from the primary power, and that 'reflected BackEMF WAVE' can be harvested back in the primary.

Is it not?



But that is not the principle used in Thane Hein's device.   Is it not?   I am talking about the motor - generator set which is shown by overunityguide at the beginning of this thread.     Can you meet the above said condition in that motor - generator set?

Offline kEhYo77

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #563 on: February 20, 2013, 10:05:06 AM »
That was an example for the speed of the 'disturbace' in air.
In the case of using a ferromagnetic core as a transfer medium for 'momentum' the speed will be much lower than the speed of light :)
For a conductive core, where there is lots of eddy currents the 'wave' slows down the most, hence the delayed effect can be observed at lower frequencies with solid iron cores. Laminated silicon steel cores are 'a bit faster highway' and ferrites are like a race track ;)

Take a look at this video from MrAnguswangus

He can obtain the effect at very low frequencies as the core (a bunch of solid iron rods in 'U' shape) he is using provides significant delay because of its length (long path to travel for the wave) and eddy currents, IMHO.

Now a clue from Ed Leedskalnin's notes to use, solid, aluminium bobbins for the generator coils with ferromagnetic cores might be understood this way. It provided a closed loop flywheel effect for eddy current, slowing down the wave... like a permanent magnet slowly falling down through a copper pipe :)
 

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #564 on: February 20, 2013, 10:38:05 AM »
snip.....
I feel that AUL happens because  of remenance or residual force which is also portrayed in another experiment posted in this forum in which two U shaped cores with a shorted coil stick together even after switching off the source current.

The dynamics of the two different systems give rise to two different phenomenon. In the case of the two U shaped cores experiment, predominant reason for the sticking is residual magnetism.

In the case of the moving rotor magnets and generator coils, phase delays in coil current cause a phase delay in the core/coil's self induced magnetic field. It is this self induced field created by the coil's current, when the coil has a load, that normally has a breaking effect on the driver.

Cheers

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #565 on: February 20, 2013, 11:27:45 AM »
OK, quite a few things to absorb there.

Hoptoad you said "the rise time of the generating coils is not the cause of the AUL".

You then said "It is specifically the ratio between the total combined resistance of the load and the coil itself, and the inductive reactance of the coil, that matters most."

Well, the rise time of the generator coil IS the ratio between the total resistance and the inductance ?

Newton, you said "If AUL happens because of delayed lenz's effect,  then it should happen at all speeds of the rotor but we know that it happens only after crossing certain minimum speed. ".

If it happens because of a delayed rise time then it SHOULDN't happen at all speeds of the rotor, if it was about releasing CEMF when the magnet was at TDC then we would have dead zones and normal generator action zones.


Cheers,

DC.


Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #566 on: February 20, 2013, 12:26:30 PM »

Sorry to be off topic, but

And this is where you are wrong...
When it comes to induction the reaction is not instant. It is restricted by the speed of light!
That is why there is a possibility for that 'trick' (Delayed Lenz) to happen.
Tesla knew that and that is why his transformer is so interesting.
Imagine pulsing a one turn primary (d=2m) with a nano second HV pulse and turning of the power...
The secondary in the middle will receive that disturbance of the field (which 'travels' through the air at the speed of light @~0,3 m/ns) ~3ns later!
So any EMF induced in the secondary is decoupled from the primary power, and that 'reflected BackEMF WAVE' can be harvested back in the primary.

Is it not?


So in theory a radio emitter/receiver which is basically a loosely coupled air core transformer can be OU at condition the receiver is at 1/4 wave from the emitter.
Natural over-unity !? This concept could be applied to any frequencies and radio wave man made or natural !?
So first, a coil emit a wave then the receiver absorb that wave and produce a "back wave" 180° opposed (as per Lenz Law explain). Before that "back wave" cut the emitter coil, the power is stopped or polarity reversed (to recharge source with that back wave). Then you have OU...


I speak about that because I 've put in the download section some scientific Chinese paper that explain the possibility of such weird things.

Offline DeepCut

  • Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 640
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #567 on: February 20, 2013, 12:56:14 PM »
Thanks Schubert, i will read the papers.


DC.


Offline Doug1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 763
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #568 on: February 20, 2013, 06:18:48 PM »
Schubert
  A primer wave goes out but is reflected eventually. On it's return back it stacks up against more outbound waves and gains some power relative to the outbound wave. A transmission of information can be piggybacked onto this wave to increase distance of transmission with out adding extra power. Normal use is to filter out everything but the information. If a freaquency matching a wavelength of a steady nture not man made can be sent out the extra power can be drained off as a surplus. Cell phones use very unique patch antannas,very small. When you operate on made made frequencies they claim theft even though they except no resposibillty for trespass. You go round and round, hairpin ect..I even went as far as looking into pizzo transducers weapons grade to see if it could be used as a collector if tickled with RF. Mostly I see a lot of red tape. Good luck

Offline hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #569 on: February 20, 2013, 10:56:32 PM »
OK, quite a few things to absorb there.

Hoptoad you said "the rise time of the generating coils is not the cause of the AUL".

You then said "It is specifically the ratio between the total combined resistance of the load and the coil itself, and the inductive reactance of the coil, that matters most."

Well, the rise time of the generator coil IS the ratio between the total resistance and the inductance ?
snip...

The rise time (of a loaded coil) is affected by the combined impedance of the inductive reactance and the circuit resistance.

Lets look at the two following scenarios (examples only, for the purpose of depicting the ratio difference).

CCt 1.  A) Coil and cct resistance = 5 ohm            B) Coil impedance (inductive reactance) at a given rpm =  2ohm
Total Impedance = square root of ((5*5)+(2*2)) = square root (29) = 5.385 ohms
Reactance less than resistance:        Result = DUL

CCt 2.  A) Coil and cct resistance = 2 ohm            B) Coil impedance (inductive reactance) at a given rpm =  5ohm
Total Impedance = square root of ((2*2)+(5*5)) = square root (29) = 5.385 ohms
Reactance greater than resistance:         Result = AUL

Same total impedance, with same effective rise time, but different ratio between inductive reactance & total circuit resistance.
The voltage rise time and the current phase shift are two different phenomena, though both are affected by impedance.
Rise time is affected by total impedance, while phase shift is affected by the ratio of resistance and reactance which forms the total impedance.

Cheers