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: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )  (Read 608475 times)

gotoluc

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3096
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #390 on: December 11, 2014, 03:13:24 AM »
Well Luc I could sense the setup in your question but I gave you an answer filled with lots of information anyway.  Have you ever considered some of the issues that I mentioned?  I didn't answer your question because I could not magically be sure of the results unseen based on some sketchy information.  Nor is your setup the same as what I have been discussing the whole time.  I have always discussed a single coil driving a load resistor.

I can't tell you why you see what you see based on a few sentences from you.  On the other hand, over the years, how many times have you been "so sure of yourself" that you had convinced yourself that you had found a new discovery?  I think it's a least four or five times.  The last time you wanted to "rewrite the physics books."  It didn't happen.

You go ahead and explain why you see what you see.  I would be very interested to know why myself.

MileHigh

I see you can't answer because you don't know, never done the experiment and does not fit your education.

Instead of saying you don't know, you try to make me look incompetent. Very sophisticated approach!
I chalenge you to show a post where I wrote we need to "rewrite the physics books" based on any of my experiment results.

Anyone who knows my style would know those are lies.
Since I make no claims, freely share what ever I find interesting in hopes to help other researcher.
You won't find any advertising on my videos. I have over 850,000 views, so I'm not doing this for monetary gain.
I volunteer 60 hours a week (do not get paid) just to do research, since the world is in such a bad place because of most know it all have concluded they know it all and there is nothing new to discover. I fact, they do their best to spread their kool-aid that it is so.
How ridiculous is that?... when gravity, magnetism and electricity are not fully understood by your fully knowledgeable science.

Enjoy finding the post to cover yourself

Kind regards

Luc

Cap-Z-ro

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3545
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #391 on: December 11, 2014, 03:46:43 AM »
Noooooooo Luc...don't do it !

Your foot is too close to the tar baby.

The best thing to do is to direct your comments to the readership like I do...that really upsets and discourages them.

But I wood like to analyze the situation...

" Instead of saying you don't know, you try to make me look incompetent. Very sophisticated approach! "


Deflection transmitted on a projection carrier wave.



" I chalenge you to show a post where I wrote we need to "rewrite the physics books" based on any of my experiment results."


When you make stuff up, naturally you have to make up supportive scenarios...no matter how ridiculous.

Then you leave the thread and show up somewhere else with a fresh set of downs...just like in football.



" Anyone who knows my style would know those are lies. "


Recalling how indignant he was in claiming I had inferred that he was a liar, a few posts back...now he's really being accused of lying ?

This wood represent a 'cliff hanger' if this happened back in the old TV daze.

Regards...




albator10

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #392 on: December 11, 2014, 03:58:24 AM »
The real reason I dropped into this thread was to discuss the myths surrounding the "delayed Lenz effect" and clearly explain that it is all about understanding the power dissipation in the generator coil + load resistor.  I think I covered that issue in good depth and if anybody has any questions about that I would be pleased to respond.

I am not here to discuss builds and all that stuff, or any strategies for trying to "bypass Lenz" because that can't be done.  You don't have to believe my statements if you don't want to.  Anybody that wants to challenge what conventional electronics states about pulse motors and generators is welcome to do so with the caveat that the burden of proof rests on their shoulders.

MileHigh

There are strategies to "bypass Lenz"

This is one.

 I dont say this is overunity but it will bypass the bad effect of the Lenz

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #393 on: December 11, 2014, 05:53:10 AM »
So I have this theory to omit the Lenz drag from an iron rotor.
I also believe it's possibly the same theory Ecklin had.

Instead of trying to push a field into a coil and have Lenz fight the process, suppose we arrange the magnets in some efficient way on the other side of the coil.
Then the inner iron core simply creates a path for the flux.
Because the flux comes from the back of the coil the Lenz opposition will resist the field and in the worst case cause less drag on the rotor.

Lenz will simply delay the field depending on the coil load. More load the more it shades the rotor.
The power you can get out will depend on how well you can design it to achieve the most flux from the magnets through the coils.
In any case, the more current the less rotor drag.

Can you see it?


MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #394 on: December 11, 2014, 07:22:46 AM »
So I have this theory to omit the Lenz drag from an iron rotor.
I also believe it's possibly the same theory Ecklin had.

Instead of trying to push a field into a coil and have Lenz fight the process, suppose we arrange the magnets in some efficient way on the other side of the coil.
Then the inner iron core simply creates a path for the flux.
Because the flux comes from the back of the coil the Lenz opposition will resist the field and in the worst case cause less drag on the rotor.

Lenz will simply delay the field depending on the coil load. More load the more it shades the rotor.
The power you can get out will depend on how well you can design it to achieve the most flux from the magnets through the coils.
In any case, the more current the less rotor drag.

Can you see it?
Induction is the action, Lenz's Law only specifies the orientation.  If you go after eliminating induction, you eliminate either desired voltage generation in machine operating as a generator, or desired torque in a machine operating as a motor. 

It is sort of like trying to eliminate the force required to push something up an inclined plane:  You can reduce that force by lowering the incline angle of the plane.  But then you immediately and proportionately reduce the potential energy that you put into any mass you move up the plane.  The force that you would rather not have to work against is part and parcel to the energy that you would like to end up in the mass.  The same behavior occurs with induction:  Build a machine with a low BEMF constant and it will have a low torque/force constant.

MileHigh

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7600
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #395 on: December 11, 2014, 07:58:35 AM »
Luc:

Quote
I chalenge you to show a post where I wrote we need to "rewrite the physics books" based on any of my experiment results.

From your "Reactive Generator Research" thread from about a year ago:

http://overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/150/#.VIk4g3sxLHg

Quote
From what I now know and have proven to myself and shared with you all is: the only mistake is to believe what they have been teaching in Universities around the world.

The very reason I built a generator turned by an electric motor is to test if a circuit operating on a PF of Zero will have an effect on the Generator prime mover (mini Grid equivalent).
My generator load test is the only one available on the internet which proves you can have a power factor of Zero, output over 20 Watts of Real Power and have Zero effect reflected back to the prime mover. Just that in itself is amazing since engineers like Farmhand an so on say it's impossible to do.

Now, you did not literally state "rewrite the physics books" but the intent in what you state above is clear.  Then Poynt99 worked with you for a few weeks, and finally together you discovered where the measurement fault was.  It was something like using AC coupling when you should have been doing DC coupling or one of your scope channels was inverted, I don't remember the specifics.  I only glanced at the thread.

Look at the attached graphic for a typical pulse motor generator coil output waveform.  If the rotor is relatively large and the rotor magnets are far apart then the "dead zone" will be much larger.

Supposing that you have a rotor with four magnets equally spaced 90 degrees apart.  You hook up scope channel A to a sensor pick-up coil that is 90 degrees away from the actual generator coil.  You trigger on channel A.  You hook up scope channel B to the actual generator coil output.  When you run the pulse motor you can then try different types of loads on the generator coil and observe if there is any delay or "phase shift" in the generator coil output relative to the reference unchanging waveform on channel A.  That is the real way to see if there is a "Lenz delay."

Did you do that?  I don't think you did.  I think that you just saw the rotor speed up and you just assumed that there was a "Lenz delay."  Now when people see a rotor speed up they say that it is a "delayed Lenz effect" and it's wrong.

Why is it wrong?

He is what we all should know:  When you look at the attached graphic for a typical generator coil waveform, that can represent an unloaded generator coil waveform.  In the unloaded case, you are looking at the pure EMF from the coil.  We know how a coil generates EMF due to a changing external magnetic field.  We know that the load is a resistor.  We know that the frequencies are relatively low.  When we take all that into account, we conclude that there is no reason for a delay in the waveform of the generator coil output.  We are simply applying standard well-known electronics principles.

That is the reason I am telling you there should not be a phase shift.  If anyone wants to comment or disagree, they are welcome to.

Here is what we also know:  When we change the value of the load resistor connected to the generator coil, the amount of energy dissipated in the (coil resistance + load resistance) per rotor magnet flyby will change.  If the energy per fly-by decreases, then the Lenz drag will decrease and the rotor will speed up.  If the energy per fly-by increases then the Lenz drag per fly-by will increase and the rotor will slow down.

That is the reason the rotor changes speed.  That is my reasoning.  If anyone wants to comment or disagree please feel free.

Now, let's assume that I am correct.  There is no "delayed Lenz effect" and the speed change is simply related to the power dissipated in the generator coil system as it runs.

I am trying to help you guys understand so you can build better pulse motors.  When I hear people talking about the "delayed Lenz effect" I want to teach them what is really happening for their own benefit.  In contrast to this, if nearly all of the pulse motor builders keep on talking about the "delayed Lenz effect" then they are just preventing themselves from learning.  I figure people want to learn and they don't want to reinforce bad ideas.  Bad ideas can easily take on a life of their own and that is not a good thing at all.

All of you pulse motor builders with your pulse motors that have ever used the term "delayed Lenz effect" when talking about their own pulse motors should go back and make some measurements and check what is really going on.   Collectively, you owe it to yourselves to keep on learning an improving and to not lead yourselves down garden paths.

MileHigh

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #396 on: December 11, 2014, 08:18:09 AM »

I'm sure that you recognize that I have very little interest in the "by and large".  Perhaps this is not the time nor place for my suggesting alternatives.  I don't need to be careful about terminology, the terms I used apply to what I do, not what is being demonstrated here.  If you recall, I mentioned symmetrical operation, and non symmetrical operation, you can assume that by non symmetrical I am implying non linear, that is what I want, what I have found, what I use to get to that which this thread is discussing, namely, the effect (current limiting) associated with the induced is neutralized.  Comprehending the force in motors and taming it "is" the lesson for how to deal with it in generators.  Quite literally we are working with the generator in the motor, this is my take....I am here to share my experiences, not to state how it is, or why it is. 

I do appreciate you taking time to respond to my posts.  I guess it would be wise to stop at this point, as you have specified that you all are discussing something that I have little or no interest in. 


Regards
If you measure carefully you will find that there is no cheat on induction other than not to induce in the first place and therefore do nothing.  If you want to impart mechanical power through an electromagnetic machine then you do that via induction.  If you want to use mechanical power to impart electrical output through an electromagnetic machine then again you do that via induction.

lumen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1388
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #397 on: December 11, 2014, 08:39:40 AM »
Induction is the action, Lenz's Law only specifies the orientation.  If you go after eliminating induction, you eliminate either desired voltage generation in machine operating as a generator, or desired torque in a machine operating as a motor. 

It is sort of like trying to eliminate the force required to push something up an inclined plane:  You can reduce that force by lowering the incline angle of the plane.  But then you immediately and proportionately reduce the potential energy that you put into any mass you move up the plane.  The force that you would rather not have to work against is part and parcel to the energy that you would like to end up in the mass.  The same behavior occurs with induction:  Build a machine with a low BEMF constant and it will have a low torque/force constant.

Did you even read what I suggested?

I want as much induction as possible and all the Lenz force I can get. That would mean good output.

Any increase in load would increase the Lenz force and that would serve to reduce rotor drag.

The idea is to have the flux already at one end of the coil and the rotor creates the path and lets the field pass through the coil.
In this configuration the Lenz force will impede the field through the coil as always, but will not fight the rotor because it's on the other side.

Like I said, I think this was Ecklin's theory.

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #398 on: December 11, 2014, 09:20:17 AM »
Did you even read what I suggested?
I read it carefully.  You keep using the word "Lenz" to refer to the effects of induction.  Lenz's Law only states the orientation of induced voltage.  Induction is as I stated the action.
Quote

I want as much induction as possible and all the Lenz force I can get. That would mean good output.
The mechanical force is the Lorentz force.
Quote

Any increase in load would increase the Lenz force and that would serve to reduce rotor drag.
Such an effect is unknown on this planet.  Induction couples the load to the source.  For any coupling coefficient greater than zero, more load means more drag on the source, not less drag.
Quote

The idea is to have the flux already at one end of the coil and the rotor creates the path and lets the field pass through the coil.
Whatever the idea, the reality is as just stated:  more load means more drag on the source.
Quote

In this configuration the Lenz force will impede the field through the coil as always, but will not fight the rotor because it's on the other side.
You keep saying "Lenz force" of which there is no such thing.  If what you mean is the Lorentz force the best that you can do is whittle away at sources of parasitic losses such as eddy currents.  If you drive those to zero, then the output power will be just slightly smaller than the input power.
Quote

Like I said, I think this was Ecklin's theory.
I don't care who originated or promoted the idea.  It has the problems stated.

T-1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #399 on: December 11, 2014, 10:15:15 AM »
So much words fighting and no results. Where are your experiments following them?
Wish would be this amount of tests done in each post to share experience...

MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #400 on: December 11, 2014, 10:47:04 AM »

I leave the measuring to those who are qualified to make the measurements.  I have no immediate desire to measure anything, having too much fun exploring, and contemplating the what ifs.  To measure implies that I am prepared to make a claim, and would support my claim with the data gained from the measurements taken during various experiments. 

My tone may be direct, and the reason for this is over the years I have sharpened my focus and know exactly what I want.  Knowing what I want comes across differently to different folks, please understand that I am in no means being offensive, please don't offend me by placing me in the box with those whose motivation is to circumvent a law they don't comprehend.  I am not nor have I suggested that I am looking to cheat anything. 

I don't want to impart mechanical power through an electromagnetic machine, not really sure what that means.  What I want is for the mechanical power to manifest within the electromagnetic machine, and this, without the limitations set and governed the internal mechanisms whose primary function is to oppose change.

Induction isn't a thing in and of itself, it is a complex mechanism. 

At any rate, please give me the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I have done at least a little homework and as such feel that I can come here and hold my own with others who have done their homework. Real progress in my opinion can only be made when we think for ourselves.  I am guided by those who wrote the laws, I am not governed by them, the laws nor the genius who wrote them,  and neither are the systems in which these so called laws are operating. 


Regards
I have done my share of measurements.  With respect to induction measurements they have always conformed to textbook formula within the error limits of the measurement set-up.  There are some very important relationships that at Newtonian velocities always hold:

Conservation of Momentum:  Momentum is conserved.
First Law of Energy:  Energy is conserved.
Newton's Second Law:  F = mA
Newton's Third Law:  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's Second and Third Laws together tell us that if we attempt to accelerate something that something will present us with a reaction force equal to the product of the thing's mass and the acceleration that we impress on that thing.  Now consider an arrangement:  an ideal electric motor coupled to an ideal electric generator coupled to an ideal electric motor.  If the whole thing except for the two motor shafts were concealed inside a black box then we would be unable to distinguish  the behavior of the two shaft ends from that of a single solid shaft of equivalent inertia supported by ideal bearings.  When we are not talking about things like eddy current losses, the "Lenz drag" that people bemoan is just the load reflected back to the source as Newton's Third Law says that it must.

Veritas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #401 on: December 11, 2014, 11:52:41 AM »
WHY DO YOU CENCORSHIP MY COMMENT? THAT'S UNFAIR. IM NOT TROLLING. I HAD ANOTHER ACCOUNT I TRIED A WHOLE AFTERNOON TO RESET THE PASSWORD AND THE SYSTEM WAS BROKEN. I PUT THE NEW CODE AND ALWAYS SHOWED "ERROR", SO I HAD TO MAKE A NEW ONE. PLEASE DONT BE UNFAIR.

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #402 on: December 11, 2014, 04:18:14 PM »
Lenz's Law only states the orientation of induced voltage. 

Yes, customarily the Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage.
...but the wording of this law also mentions current that is caused by this voltage.  See below:
Quote from: Wikipedia
An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux.

When applied to a behavior of a coil, this wording is somewhat inconsistent because current does not flow if the coil is open
(non-conducting).  This impacts the validity of the word "always".

However, when the coil is closed (conducting) then the induced voltage causes a current flow whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux penetrating this coil. 
This response happens immediately without delay.  The Viscous Remanent Magnetization experiment does not invalidate this immediacy, because it applies to the delayed behaviour of a ferromagnetic core - not the response of a coil to a changing magnetic flux.

Furthermore, according to my experiment [1] and prof. John Belcher [2] from MIT Department of Physics, if no resistance hampers the induced current in a coil, then its magnetic field not only "opposes" the original change in magnetic flux, but it opposes it so much, that the total magnetic flux penetrating this coil remains constant
In an ideal coil this behavior is independent of the flux change rate, too.

The Wikipedia's wording of Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage and current in response to changing magnetic flux and as such it is a qualitative statement.

I think it would be more informative to expand the wording of this law to a quantitative form.

Any ideas how to phrase it well?



T-1000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #403 on: December 11, 2014, 05:03:23 PM »
Furthermore, according to my experiment [1] and prof. John Belcher [2] from MIT Department of Physics, if no resistance hampers the induced current in a coil, then its magnetic field not only "opposes" the original change in magnetic flux, but it opposes it so much, that the total magnetic flux penetrating this coil remains constant
In an ideal coil this behavior is independent of the flux change rate, too.
The QEG is close to the concept in first post due changing coil inductance with passing by part of core. But to go further when that part of core is shorting flux path between magnet and coil and is doing movement on 90 degrees to flux path.
Here is question to answer in MIT lab experiment: will induced magnetic flux vector(Lorenz force) be on 90 degrees to kinetic force which brings core between magnet and coil?
I hope you can do this test in lab there and return with answer.. ;)

NoBull

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 130
Re: The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )
« Reply #404 on: December 11, 2014, 05:13:28 PM »
I hope you can do this test in lab there and return with answer.. ;)
I had already verified that the "Gary effect" is real.

My post was not about the QEG, it was about the qualitative wording of the Lenz's law, which was recently discussed in this thread.

I put a link to the QEG thread only because I had some info about my experiment there. This experiment was not related to the operation of the QEG.  It just happened to come up in that thread.

Now back to the subject at hand:
How would you phrase the Lenz's law quantiatively?