Totally agree mate. That's why I'm looking for more input. I've built a much better rotor since this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_Kf5RsTGZ4 but it will give you an idea what I'm talking about. Just trying to understand where lenz should be in that config.

Hi Jim,

Okay I looked at your clip and now can more or less make sense of it.  The news from my end is not that good.  One possibility that comes to mind for me is that you stared out as a fresh newbie with a blank slate and willing to learn.  Then your first exposure to generators and pulse motors and all that stuff came exclusively from various free energy forums.  I am guessing your goal is to find the proverbial "alternative and better way" to implement a generator.

Honestly, I would advise that you "hit the reset button" and start over with a "brand new blank slate."  What you want to do is do some conventional research and some alternative research in parallel.  Mix and match and pick the "best of both worlds" or however you want to state it.

What I see in your clip is this:   You have a fan frame with magnets glued on the inside of the frame where I assume that the flux from the disc magnets is directed towards the center of the frame.  We can call that "radially polarized."  The you have your ferromagnetic rotor that also presumably has magnets glued on the circumference where they are also radially polarized.  Then you have your "pick-up bars" that pass changing magnetic flux to the coils that are suspended on the bars.

Assuming that I am more or less right, then when the rotor spins you get some sort of a flux "mish-mash" happening inside the metal rotor as the moving rotor magnets pass the stator magnets glued to the inside of the fan frame.  A very small proportion of this flux "mish mash" leaks into your pick-up bars and that results in the light bulb being faintly lit.

Please don't be offended, but that is right out of some some kind of Rube Goldberg motor-generator on drugs.  The fundamental goal when you design a generator is to get nearly all of the flux from your magnets to pass through the center holes in your pick-up coils so that you can extract power from the moving magnets with as much efficiency as possible.  It looks to me like your strange contraption might be seeing 0.5% of that flux.

Nonetheless, the fact that the light bulb lights up means there is a faint imperceptible Lenz drag on your spinning rotor.  There is just no way around that.   If that was your goal, to extract power and yet keep the Lenz drag to a bare minimum, sorry but no prize!  The feeble Lenz drag was there, providing the feeble power to light up your light bulb.

I hope that you are not offended, I am just giving you my honest opinion.  My honest advice would be to look at "regular electronics hobbyist" clips on YouTube for a month and take notes.  Do some basic research online also.   If you did that and got 30% up the "conventional learning curve" and then went back and looked at your generator I am pretty sure that you would blush!

Please don't shoot the messenger but that generator setup was just about the strangest generator setup I have ever seen in my life!  I don't care if I am being "politically incorrect" relative to this thread or this forum.  I have to be true to myself and be honest with you.

MileHigh

MH,

Your belief does not have place on experiments we are doing and magnets are source of energy like Sun is. How much it was ridiculed before solar panels was invented?
I see same situation here...

T-1000:

I wish you the best of luck with your research.  Also I hope that you have lots of fun in the process.  If the time comes where you want to present your final data and the results of your research I would be pleased to look at it.

Here is an ironic twist for you to consider:  Everybody says, "They said it was impossible to make a man-made flying machine and look what happened.  You can see how having a closed mind to new ideas can stop progress." 

However, it was the newspaper editors that said "a flying machine is impossible."  At the same time there were scientists researching aeronautics in the 1870s, 1880s, 1890s.  They built gliders big enough to carry a man and they made thousands and thousands of test flights.  This was happening at many places around the world in the 19th century.  Many researchers into flight in the 19th century knew that a flying machine was possible if only they had a strong enough and light enough power source.  They did the calculations and knew this with 100% confidence.  Finally, the gasoline engine was developed and we all know what happened after that.

MileHigh

yeah but davinci visualised, conceived and designed flying machines centuries before that. Intelligence, real intelligence looks centuries into the future, and the society of its era is unable to accept/comprehend its ideas. firstly something is "unimaginable", we cant even conceive its happening as a possibility and completely disregard it as scifi. on a second level it becomes utopian. we consider it theoretically possible but we believe it will happen centuries later or even never. and then there is materialization. but even when it happens society is too dumb and suspicious to digest it yet, so it goes through - a usually long - transition/adaptation period.

u just look  but you do not do a s..t
suspicious

ok lets say i am one of them what is next?

I suspect the idea here is not to look for a way around Lenz law since it is a function of the current flowing in the coil and without it you are simply not generating any current.
The idea is to find a way to force the field through the coil against lenz but in such a way as to not feel the affect of the increasing lenz force on the rotor.
 
You can have delayed lenz in the same manner as you can have a delayed magnetic field through a core. A shaded pole motor relies on this fact and is achieved by the copper ring around the core to slow the progression of the field by using lenz itself.
 
It may be possible to switch the flux through the coil in such a way as to not cause significant lenz effect on the rotor or switching component itself. This is the main idea behind MEG devices (that never seem to work).
 
In the end, the more lenz in the coil, the more current is being generated. Finding a way to do this without much work applied, would be the trick!
 

I suspect the idea here is not to look for a way around Lenz law since it is a function of the current flowing in the coil and without it you are simply not generating any current.
The idea is to find a way to force the field through the coil against lenz but in such a way as to not feel the affect of the increasing lenz force on the rotor.
 

The induced Lenz force(magnetic field) in coil has to be in place but its vector should be not aligned to the prime mover which is causing change of magnetic field. The only one way to get that is when magnet and coil is not on same direction as physical movement is. So it is up to everyone how to design that just the best case I find out is on 90 degrees between Lenz force and prime movement.

P.S> Maybe my explanations are not understood properly due non native English so it get ignored in this forum but eventually people who will spend time on experiments will arrive to what I am trying to say...

Be careful about terminology:  A magnetic amplifier is a device that uses the non-linear characteristics of the transition from the linear portion of the B-H curve to the saturated portion in order to function as a signal amplifier.  By and large here we are talking about operation in the linear region of the B-H curve.