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

Custom Search

Author Topic: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect  (Read 870200 times)

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1395 on: May 19, 2013, 11:53:33 PM »
Gyula, What about if I get it running with just the core removed, then carefully slide the core into the coil to see the difference, both shorted and not shorted with and without the core. It would be easier than removing the entire coil. Maybe that's what you meant ?

Without the core the rotor is about 3/4 of an inch from the coil end, but there is the clip leads and the spade terminals on the coil former as well to think about, I think they have steel in them. Would the clip leads and spade terminals matter ?

Motor sounds sweet hey.

Cheers

P.S.  To all, I want to be fair and forthright. I have no intention of fudging anything and if I see something odd I will say. No bias.

..

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1396 on: May 19, 2013, 11:58:58 PM »
Yes, if you can remove the core only, it is also good because I assume the air core coil with its tuning capacitor will not cause significant drag when the coil output is unloaded. The clip leads may cause also a negligible drag with their eddy current inductions in them.
The current meter does not change in the video when you short the coil output, it is good sign... ;)

Gyula

Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1397 on: May 20, 2013, 12:18:35 AM »
Yes, if you can remove the core only, it is also good because I assume the air core coil with its tuning capacitor will not cause significant drag when the coil output is unloaded. The clip leads may cause also a negligible drag with their eddy current inductions in them.
The current meter does not change in the video when you short the coil output, it is good sign... ;)

Gyula

Probably good to check all 3 ways. With coil and core, without core, without core and coil, just to have all stones unturned.   ;)


Mags

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1398 on: May 20, 2013, 01:47:06 AM »
OK done, And at three power levels.

At Power level (4) I got

No coil - 3017
Air coil - 3013
Shorted Air coil - 2986
Cored coil - 2854
Shorted Cored coil - 2967

At Power level (5) I got

No coil - 3106
Air coil - 3085
Shorted Air coil - 3063
Cored coil - 2928
Shorted Cored coil - 3062

At power level (6) I get

No coil - 3190
Air coil - 3176
Shorted Air coil - 3150
Cored coil - 2990
Shorted Cored coil - 3144

Fairly convincing experiment, I think it went well and is repeatable with similar results.
When I make the coil that will work alone with no added capacitance, I hazard a guess the result will be the same.

Oh and the power did increase this time when when the cored speed up happened at Power Level (6) only about 100 mA or so.
It didn't seem to move much on the other levels maybe because of the boost converter making a spongy voltage or something.
The higher levels of boost are 50% duty, the lower ones vary down to 20 % or so. Dunno bout that.

Cheers


Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1399 on: May 20, 2013, 05:36:11 AM »
Those are numbers that I would have expected where the core is the drag that speedup is overcoming. So many had failed to show that.

Your shorted numbers are good, cored or not compared to free running. Shorting is a bit different than just loading unless the load is heavy. Less of a load, more drag.

Thanks for showing that.  ;D

Mags

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1400 on: May 20, 2013, 10:52:18 AM »
...
When I make the coil that will work alone with no added capacitance, I hazard a guess the result will be the same.

Hi Farmhand,

Thanks for your efforts and showing the results.  Regarding your guess above, I agree the results would be the same or only a tad bit better without the added capacitor because when you tune the coil the resonant current circulating in the LC tank gives a small additional loss, negligible in practice (assuming the coil has a reasonable quality factor, say Q>10).


Quote
....
Oh and the power did increase this time when when the cored speed up happened at Power Level (6) only about 100 mA or so.
It didn't seem to move much on the other levels maybe because of the boost converter making a spongy voltage or something.
The higher levels of boost are 50% duty, the lower ones vary down to 20 % or so. Dunno bout that.

Regarding your boost converter's changing duty cycle, is not it normal as it varies: for higher levels the converter has to 'pump' out more juice hence duty cycle increases and vice versa?  And when the levels do not change much then duty cycle can stay at a relatively constant value, it has no much reason to correct for.

Gyula

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1401 on: May 20, 2013, 11:11:07 AM »
No Probs Mags, Yes the numbers make perfect sense. What I say next is not directed to you Mags so please bear with me.

The way I see it a normal Alternator or AC generator usually makes a forced sine wave, ie. you might notice that the little three phase model airplane motor makes a sine wave right off, at very low speeds because of the design of the motor, it has minimal resistance and inductance for use with PWM controllers but the effect of the immediate sine wave is the layout of the magnets and the coils/cores. But when we make a generator from just placing coils at a given distance and place magnets a similar way what we get is a frequency driven sine wave or a resonant condition is what make a sine wave, ie, we don't see a sine wave until a certain frequency is applied or reached and so when that frequency is passed resonance is passed and the coils experience increased impedance due to the reactance. This means the coil cannot pass currents very well. If the core is removed the resonant frequency is dropped by a whole bunch of Hz and so the coil can then pass currents but being air cored it doesn't process the magnet flux very well and generates much less so causes very little drag.

I only went to a harmonic but it was enough to cause drag on the cored coil that the shorting could not overcome because the wave form was a result of frequency and not generator design. A generator designed to output maximum power at best efficiency makes a forced sine wave at all frequencies has as little resistance as possible and the inductance is designed so resonance is not passed and reactance is not an issue. Such a generator when shorted will cause severe to catastrophic drag because it tries to work into the short. When a coil has a frequency induced sine wave or a frequency induced reactance situation that causes very high impedance the coil cannot power loads properly and cannot be shorted proper because current cannot flow well at that frequency.

The proof is in the inability of the generator coil to power loads even at a lower frequency, being that when a load is added the waveform is distorted even at lower frequencies.

If we want to use frequency induced sine waves they need to be high frequency and backed by the input of high energy pulses of input power not just a sniff of a passing magnet.

To make a good permanent magnet alternator it needs to have the cores and magnets arranged so that the machine makes a sine wave right from start up, the magnet to core distance should be as close as possible ,the cogging kinda needs to be counteracted using some Technique (there are some in use already), also the coils need to have not so much inductance that the resonance frequency is not passed during operation so that inductive reactance is not an issue. This type of alternator will load down the prime mover anytime a load is placed across the generator output because it it designed to generate electricity not to get funding from investors.

I'm not finished yet though. My demonstration is still not convincing enough, I have another with more impedance and higher voltage most likely no added capacitors as well. The coil I just used had 0.5 mm wire and not all that much inductance or resistance and it worked to get AUL because I added capacitors, I will try that coil with no capacitors first then if it won't accelerate without caps. I will record it's output with the caps and without. Then I will go to a coil that has Henries inductance rather than mH and 400 Ohms resistance. I have several other coils of my own making to try as well.

The next coil will cause acceleration with as little as only LED's as a load, or shorted.

My motor is a very good prime mover for testing these things because it can keep a constant pulse width, this means the speed of the rotor is very prone to slow with load and the voltage is spongy so a decrease in load will increase the working voltage of the motor coils and increase the speed by improving efficiency alone, it can accelerate under load without much increase in input power, sometime none. Which did kinda surprise me but I think the reasons I just outlined is why. It's not all the motor design but the supply circuit I'm using with it as well, a bit of both really, the decrease in load would unload the charging coil and so it would release more energy from it's magnetic field after pushing the rotor and as a result the main motor coil gets both - more energy and at a higher voltage to boot.

Cheers


Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1402 on: May 20, 2013, 11:40:18 AM »
No Gyula, My boost converter is manually controlled via a pot, I chooses between the battery voltage or 9 different levels of boost it stays where I select. However if the load is small on the lower levels of boost I use less than 50% duty so the motor pulls the voltage down, the boost converter only works at 3 kHz so the low duty makes a spongy voltage.

I use a picaxe to sense the voltage on the boost cap and it shut's off the PWM when the voltage on the cap gets to the set level. So I can very both the boost current (the duty) and the resulting unloaded voltage, when a load is applied at a lower level the voltage drops if the duty is so low so that the power remains the same around about.

You wanna see the code that controls it ? Would be no problem, it's not sophisticated programming or anything. Just hack programming but it works, I can write better code I have four switches for outputs on the picaxe control board I made it's a 14M2 so it has I think 5 outputs and 5 inputs I've configured it with 4 mosfets for outputs and 4 dedicated inputs with two spare. But I used low voltage mosfets 50 volts and IN5822 diodes so the switches are mainly for power control. I use one input and output for the boost converter hence the need to keep the initial boost below 40 volts but then the charging coil is a boost converter as well. More than first meets the eye.

Cheers

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1403 on: May 20, 2013, 11:53:52 AM »
Puff for me, lol   I thought your converter to be automatically PWM controlled, that is why I answered like that.
Never mind. Thanks for the code offer, I do not need it, I am not using picaxe or Arduino stuff, rather limited in tinkering place at the kitchen table.

Gyula

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1404 on: May 20, 2013, 01:06:16 PM »
I just thought it would be a good idea so there was no confusion that's all. Not just for you. The code shows the PWM for the levels but the sensed voltage is converted to a scale between 0 and 255 for the voltage limit. I use the same type of code that I wrote for my boxed up picaxe boost converter. One ADC input has the pot to choose the levels and another ADC input senses the voltage, it's a custom setup and I can adjust it to whatever. I do go to 55 % duty if I want a more solid voltage. The way it works I can turn the boost converter on and with a flicker of current the boost cap is charged and the PWM only kicks in if the resistor potential divider drains the voltage over time or a load is attached.

Pulsing coils and stuff for just charging batteries is a long gone for me, I use a similar setup to boost the voltage of my small solar battery conditioner, it can work in low light to condition batteries with 24 volts capacitor discharges because of the boost function, in full sun the boost stops and the setup pulses the solar panel charged capacitor to keep the panels at 17 volts and things need to look after themselves, when the battery is charged it goes into float mode and if loaded it begins charging again if there is sunshine.

All the pulsing of coils for flyback is just boost converter stuff. Tesla's resonant charging circuit from the "IGNITER FOR GAS ENGINES" patent was/is a type of boost converter. It uses the discharge of the coil to charge a capacitor to a higher voltage.

Basically my motor shows several principals that are very useful. As well it put's into perspective some claims of the likes of "in a  Bedini machine the rotor work is free", I see that when the rotor is loaded the charging coil produces less voltage into the charging capacitor, ergo the work from a coil's magnetic field on a rotor is not free. Lets see someone prove otherwise.

I don't want to seem as though I'm trying to teach you more educated folks circuit theory or anything, that would be pretentious. I very much respect and appreciate the expert help. ie. My friend SeaMonkey I think knew I had a busted diode because he could tell by the wave forms but being a fantastic teacher he just mentioned it and allowed me to find the fault. SeaMonkey has taught me much, I see him as a mentor not just in electronics but also as an example of self control and decorum, and in that area I lag far behind. As a rule I always defer to the knowledge of the educated men such as yourself and others of the like, I am very grateful for you all.  But by the same token I don't want to be treated as if I know nothing (not saying anyone in particular is doing that, just sayin), I am learning. I might lack words and some experience but not brain power and vision. I'm trying to tread lightly.  :)

I don't go for pretty stuff, I want to get into the guts of things. As Mags said leave no stone unturned. I like to design my own little experiments to see how and why things happen. My analysis might not be spot on but I think I'm getting warm. On a number of fronts.

The way I see it the guru's have attacked our intelligence and deceived many of us for profit or otherwise. For me that means war. On all fronts, propaganda and covert operations are par for the course for the other side, they even team up to from a stronger deception, I work alone. I've been attacked ridiculed and marginalized on several forums, this one seems tolerant of me, but it makes no difference. I strive to find the truth and reveal it. Whatever it may be. It's a straight road and easy to follow, but it's not paved well yet. Others are doing it too. The truth will prevail. My advice to the Guru's is "Ante up and show the goods or give it up" I won't be the last and I'm far from finished.

Some Guru's I think are thrust into the role but don't fight it, I think because it seems desirable due to the adoration/attention.

I have the rest of my life to fight deception and coercive persuasion anyway I might as well make a sport of it.  ;D

No one has tried to sue me yet, but I have had attempted anonymous contacts. They don't scare me one bit. Neither do the threats like those UFO Politics and his followers throw at me. Talk of firearms and all kinds of childish stuff like they think they can shoot me from the USA. hahahaha. Or are they saying they are working for dark forces and can actually make something happen. I doubt it. But don't discount it. Regardless I am not afraid. I poke tongues at them all.  :P

Free energy is all around us. There is no doubt. Before money everything was free. Energy cannot be created so all that can be done is to collect it or harness it, just like a solar panel does.

Thane says energy can be created. That is like he is saying he can add something to the universe that did not previously exist. It's baloney.

Cheers

 


MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1405 on: May 20, 2013, 10:14:38 PM »
Farmhand:

I have seen several references to guns also.  The tradition of having an anonymous handle predates the Internet and goes back to computer bulletin board systems and that is predated by the same tradition with Citizen's Band radio.  Because of a preponderance of unusual characters with unusual beliefs on the free energy forums in comparison with the general population, I don't give my name to anybody.  I don't want to be attacked or harassed by a nutcase.  Relatively recently I tried to help somebody on YouTube understand their circuit, somebody that most people would consider to be a cool and laid-back guy, and he thew a complete and total freak-out on me.  A year before this he asked me for my email and even though I had a few nice chats with him, I got cold feet and didn't reply.  Not so much worried about this person, but more the people he was in contact with.  And look how it turned out, he was the one that had the psycho freakout.  If he knew my real name he could have given it out to his flaky free energy friends and then I would have to live with the nagging thought that someone would attack me because I am "part of the MIB."

I haven't followed this thread for a week and will try to catch up soon.  I know that I have given others some push-back when it comes to misconceptions about electronics and energy concepts for their own good.  You would probably agree with me that there is a lot of peer pressure for people to agree with each other as they research, even if they are talking silliness and sometimes complete nonsense.  Stirring up the pot is a good thing if it gets people to think and view what they are doing more seriously.  Look at the UFOPolitics threads, they are a classic example of most things going wrong with a tangible peer pressure amongthe followers to agree with each other all the time.  As of a few months ago, nobody made any comparisons with a motor with the original wiring configuration with a rewound "asymmetric" configuration to see if there was any merit in the rewinding.  The so-called "energy destroyer 'witch'" in a motor that UFOPolitics talks about is almost certainly the voltage drop in the coils do to the export of the input electrical energy being converted into mechanical energy that makes the motor spin.  If I am correct, the entire "belief system" in the UFOPolitics threads are based on confusing the conversion of electrical energy into mechanical energy to actually make the motor turn, with an "energy destroyer," the belief that there is something in a regular motor that "destroys" energy.

Sometimes I might give you yourself some push-back when I hear a concept that I suspect could be rooted in a misconception.  The intention is to encourage you to possibly think more about your analysis and perhaps get a new perspective.  I am not doing it for some perverse thrill to make anybody angry.  Suppose somebody says, "the motor will run much more efficiently at resonance."  My ears perk up.  What resonance?  What data do you have to substantiate this?  What evidence of resonance do you see?  Can you show timing diagrams that demonstrate what you are talking about?  If nobody says that then people can just hum along and blindly believe it, start repeating it to others without really knowing what they are talking about, and so on.  It can become a vicious circle that ultimately hurts people and prevents any progress.  A few years ago myself and Poynt dealt with Aaron of the the Energetic Forum when he replicated the Rosemary Ainslie circuit.  We started talking about coils and we mentioned to him that an ideal coil has zero volts across it when pure DC current passes through it.  He was confused and couldn't understand this.  What that means is that Aaaron had been "on the bench" for about 10 years at that point, he would go visit Johnny B. and talk about working on the bench with him.  It means that after 10 years of running a free energy forum and 10 years worth of tinkering on the bench, hosting conferences and even writing books related to electronics, that Mr. Aaron had no real understanding of how an inductor works.  That's the kind of thing that is to be avoided at all costs.

MileHigh

Farmhand

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1583
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1406 on: May 21, 2013, 12:45:02 AM »
I agree, but the problem i see with some of you educated guys is you stick and linger on small points that actually mean little. Many of us are not always concerned with the little things as we don't have the time to learn how to be an electrical engineer in our spare time. Also sometimes people might be put off by the using of the "proper" language. Not me if people want to talk to me they need to tone down to language I use or explain it well as they go.

I don't get the MIB angle, it doesn't make sense to think that suppressors would just call up and not talk. I'm more suspicious of a certain site mod and co. that like to track people down to their real names by the IP addresses and so forth then out them. I think they do the spook thing to try to scare people off. Not buyin it.

So MileHigh is a resonant charging circuit actually not resonant. if Not what should it be called to differentiate it's operational characteristics ? Remember I'm not claiming less energy
to turn a rotor and looking at my input current meter you should see I am no overly concerned by micro input devices. What I am claiming is a motor that is capable of more torque and power for the number of coils (iron and copper) than most pulse motors. And energy recirculation causing an increase of energy in the circuit until dissipation halts it.

I understand that power is power and energy is energy. We cant get the energy delivery without the application of sufficient power. I'm not trying to make energy.  :) And the word resonance can have several meaning in different contexts.

In reality the word means to re-sound and it's actual meaning has no basis in electronics at all, it is about sound - pressure waves, electro-magnetic waves were not defined when the meaning of the word came into existence. So any use in electronics is convoluted to some degree in my opinion.

I mean we can get technical beyond technical if we wish. But what is the point. It's just like the back emf thing, it's only back emf or counter-emf that is opposing he flow of current to form the field, the field itself is a magnetic field and when it collapses it creates an emf which causes current in the same direction, how could it be back-emf if the current flows the same way ? I gave up on that and just skirt it by using different words that mean the same thing like flyback and inductive energy release rather than back-emf or counter-emf as well as just understanding what people mean (in context) when they say back-emf.

Basically the way many explain it  is that the magnetic field is made up of back-emf. I think it's magnetic flux, and when the field collapses it creates a forward emf. Now I think that is more like elastic bag behavior than that of a flywheel a flywheel cannot release it's energy so quickly as in the catastrophic energy release we see when a magnetic field collapses. I think the flywheel analogy confuses people because they don't see flywheels release energy all of a sudden like a magnetic field collapse, I think you must agree that flywheels don't do that. I know it's sacrilege to think a model you promote may be confusing but that is how I see it.

I see myself and quite a few others as being in the middle, on one side is fantasy and fiction and the other is deliberate confusion tactics and abject denial. Just a generalization, no person in particular in mind.

Some of us just want to tinker in the shed and share about it. Some of us almost live in the shed mine is a second home, sometimes first it has a bed,sink TV and all I'm guessing many others have similar  too.

Anyway I think it is very much like as Tinsel said, people are talking right past each other, and no one wants to admit anyone else can be correct.

About 5-6 years ago I didn't know what a diode was. I began looking on the internet for help to set up my new solar panels and kept getting hits for free energy when I searched for solar panel installation help, one hit was Otis-T-Carr and his spinny thingy which has purportedly been replicated by a Russian research group as a Searle device when it more closely resembles a Carr device, I find it interesting that the Searle device is so similar to the Carr device. But I digress. The point is I am here because I am curious.

I don't need others telling me what I should be doing, I am an adult. I'll do whatever I want. But I was deceived by claims made after I found the forums and I aim to make it harder for others to be deceived the same way. The MIB thing is just a convenient way for people like RomeroUK to get out of jail free, so to speak, and at the same time that alludes to them having something when they don't.

It was the Bob Boyce self charging thing that distracted me for a bit. Once I learned about batteries that became clear as a complete farce.

The problems lay with the sensationalism of Peswiki ect. they seem legit to most. Why are they allowed to continue. Why do engineers not collaborate to have them taken down if they lie ? Who protects them? Why can they commit fraud and get a way with it ? Something smells funny in free energy town. I think you'll agree with that.

And then there is Thane saying he can make energy and with claims NASA and so forth are interested in his stuff. Why no legal action ? Is he protected.

If there is MIB involvement it is in the form of the high quality fakes that work to trick people, like Don Smith, Kapanadze, and many others, At least I believe these folks are sanctioned or allowed to continue for some reason when they should be arrested on fraud charges. I guess they could just know where to draw the line so as not to break the actual law.

I think you have more to fear from the folks whose money train you upset than from the experimenters themselves.

Cheers

 

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1407 on: May 21, 2013, 03:05:58 AM »
Farmhand:

You made lots of good comments, I will make some comments.

As far as language goes, it's impossible to know what terms the other person is familiar with.  I won't use common-use terminology on the forums that I know is misleading, which is just a small subset of what is normally used.  I don't have a problem with using some of the common terminology on the forums.  Don't be shy and ask me what my terminology means if you don't understand it.  Plus there is always Google and people should go there first.  If anything, I generally use the correct terminology as long as it is not too technical.

As far as resonance goes I know that debate took place a month or so ago on OUR.  Resonance by definition means that something is resonating, like an LC circuit.  It's stored energy that sloshes back and forth between two states or circuit components.  You need those properties for true resonance.  As I mentioned before, a Joule Thief does not resonate.  A 555 timer circuit does not resonate.  Both examples fail to comply with the criteria just mentioned.  Rather, they have an "operating frequency."  They both are pulse circuits that are triggered by voltage potentials that cross a certain threshold.  For many people there is a school of thought that says to not water down or reinterpret the meaning of technical terms because that leads to confusion.  I can't make general comments about what some people call "resonant charging circuits" without the details.  Also, I wasn't making any comments about the work you are doing because I haven't looked at it.  I am kind of getting worn down so your probably won't hear me discussing too many nit-picky details.  Also, resonance is a fundamental concept in electronics even if resonance means "re sound."

Quote
It's just like the back emf thing, it's only back emf or counter-emf that is opposing he flow of current to form the field, the field itself is a magnetic field and when it collapses it creates an emf which causes current in the same direction, how could it be back-emf if the current flows the same way ?

You make reference to it being "forward EMF" and you are absolutely correct.  Perhaps people started calling it "back EMF" because they mostly saw a negative voltage spike?   The ironic thing is that the "negative voltage spike" is actually a "positive voltage spike" that wants to keep current flowing in the same direction.  It just so happens that more often than not the scope ground probe is at the "wrong" end of the coil and it appears to be a negative voltage spike.  Just flip the ground and signal contacts around and you will see a positive voltage spike and when you look at your schematic it will be much clearer that the inductor is in discharge mode trying to push the current in the same direction with a "positive voltage spike."

Quote
Now I think that is more like elastic bag behavior than that of a flywheel a flywheel cannot release it's energy so quickly as in the catastrophic energy release we see when a magnetic field collapses. I think the flywheel analogy confuses people because they don't see flywheels release energy all of a sudden like a magnetic field collapse, I think you must agree that flywheels don't do that.

Sometimes people need to contemplate things for a while and what first appeared to be counter-intuitive becomes intuitive.  Flywheels perfectly emulate a magnetic field collapse.  It's so close that it's in fact identical.

I put out that teaser about how a flywheel models a "back EMF spike" and it's good to know you were thinking about it.   So here we go:   A big flywheel is spinning and you want to stop it from spinning.   You put on gloves and grab the disk with your hands and slow it down.  Can you make it stop instantaneously?   You of course know that the answer is no.  You know that force equals mass times acceleration.  So to make it stop instantly you have to have infinite acceleration and that means it takes infinite force to make the flywheel stop instantly.

So you do the next best thing.  You have powerful hydraulic brake calipers clamp down hard on the flywheel as fast as possible.   You know that the calipers will experience a massive spike of force from the flywheel as it decelerates - there is your "back EMF spike."  A massive spike of voltage output from the coil means the current stops flowing in the coil nearly instantly.   A massive spike of of force (torque) put out by the flywheel means the flywheel stops spinning nearly instantly.  For a coil, if you disconnect it from the battery, it will literally ionize the air and turn it into a conducting plasma to keep the current flowing.  This happens at the speed of light.  It's literally impossible to stop the current flowing in a coil instantly.  Likewise, it's literally impossible to make a flywheel instantly stop spinning.  No metal alloy in the calipers will be able to make a flywheel stop instantly, no metal alloy can withstand an infinite force.  The metal will always flex and give a bit.  If the metal doesn't flex then the spinning flywheel will shatter the calipers.

So if you can follow that you see I was serious when I said a coil and a flywheel are essentially the same thing.   Any electrical circuit that you make on your bench can be emulated with an equivalent mechanical circuit and vice-versa.

MileHigh

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1408 on: May 21, 2013, 03:32:43 AM »
A few more comments:

Quote
The problems lay with the sensationalism of Peswiki ect. they seem legit to most. Why are they allowed to continue. Why do engineers not collaborate to have them taken down if they lie ? Who protects them? Why can they commit fraud and get a way with it ? Something smells funny in free energy town. I think you'll agree with that.

Most people are now in cringe mode when it comes to Sterling and all his web sites.  I can't see him changing though and I don't think that he has a bad heart.  Honesty it's almost unbelievable when you first encounter it.  "Nobody" in the real world of engineering knows that people like Sterling or Bedini exist.  Likewise there is no "MIB" or whatnot watching comical situations like the Yildiz affair.  None of these things are even a blip on a blip.  People in the engineering profession are worried about the real world projects that they are working on.

Quote
If there is MIB involvement it is in the form of the high quality fakes that work to trick people, like Don Smith, Kapanadze, and many others, At least I believe these folks are sanctioned or allowed to continue for some reason when they should be arrested on fraud charges.

I think they fly under the RADAR with respect to law enforcement.  Every now and then one of them gets busted.

MileHigh

hoptoad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1009
Re: Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect
« Reply #1409 on: May 21, 2013, 03:56:05 AM »
"It's just like the back emf thing, it's only back emf or counter-emf that is opposing he flow of current to form the field, the field itself is a magnetic field and when it collapses it creates an emf which causes current in the same direction, how could it be back-emf if the current flows the same way ?"

Problems arise in communicating concepts when their is no differentiation between normal back emf (rotor induced counter emf - which is opposite in polarity to forward emf) in a motor, and the back emf produced by a collapsing magnetic field in a pulsed system. Unfortunately, electronics convention does not differentiate between the two and refers to both types of emf as 'back emf', regardless of the origin of the emf.

I prefer to refer to rotor induced back emf as back emf or counter emf, while referring to the emf produced by a collapsing field as cemf or collapsing emf, in order to differentiate the two different types of back emf.

Cheers