@luc2010

IF it possible to got around lenz law in this configuration?? or this a wrong way to go!

Lenz Law is a specific phenomena whereby one induced magnetic field opposes another and it is valid. However the trick is understanding exactly what it is, how it works and more important when it does not apply. Obviously if it does not apply then it is not a concern so the first step is determining exactly what it is and how it works and proceed from there.


AC

@luc2010

Lenz Law is a specific phenomena whereby one induced magnetic field opposes another and it is valid. However the trick is understanding exactly what it is, how it works and more important when it does not apply. Obviously if it does not apply then it is not a concern so the first step is determining exactly what it is and how it works and proceed from there.


AC

Lenz' Law can be restated as:  "The direction of magnetically induced currents is such so as to conform to the Conservation of Energy."  If a current is magnetically induced, then Lenz' Law ALWAYS applies.  There are NO EXCEPTIONS.

@Mark E

Lenz' Law can be restated as:  "The direction of magnetically induced
currents is such so as to conform to the Conservation of Energy."  If a current
is magnetically induced, then Lenz' Law ALWAYS applies.  There
are NO EXCEPTIONS.

I wouldn't state it that way because the statement is speculative. I would say the direction of magnetically induced currents are such that they oppose the magnetic source which created them is more accurate. As well phenomena do not conform to the conservation of energy as if it were a religion which is an extreme view, the phenomena support the conservation of energy.

If a current is magnetically induced, then Lenz' Law ALWAYS applies.  There are NO EXCEPTIONS

Hence the reason I said Lenz Law is Valid.

Here is a hint, when you listen to the most intelligent people on this planet speak they never use extreme terms like must conform, cannot ever change, no exceptions etc... because they do not know, nobody can know everything. This is the reason why they are considered the most intelligent people because they always leave room for doubt, it means they never look stupid or have to remember what they said.

AC
 
 

@Mark E

That means that the induced current conforms to Conservation of Energy.

In most every case we know of yes, however this in no way implies it must happen in every case everywhere because obviously we do not know, nobody knows and to infer otherwise is speculation.


It may help to relate my perspective of the concept of free energy. I read everything I can get my hands on and the most intelligent people on the planet using the most advanced technology known to man are publishing some incredible peer reviewed science in the most respected science journals.
For instance it would appear that a particle having mass and energy can disappear then reappear in another place now what does that tell you in regards to the conservation of mass and energy?. As well a particle may appear to transfer it's energy to another through a distance with no known connection between the two. Another scientist built a hydro-morphic wall of engineered material (nano-material) based on quantum casimir effects where many droplets of water would climb the wall against the force of gravity. Another scientist built an object which bends microwaves around itself rendering it invisible to said wavelengths. As well there are the new solar cells which extract energy from multiple EM spectra. I mean I could go on for days if you would like.


Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a simple crystal radio and it's operation has been known for decades. I then etch 100 million of them on a chip with each having a discrete frequency which is relatively easy considering the chips we have contain over one billion transistors. Now I take one hundred of these chips each having 100 million zero threshold detectors on each, that is 100 times 100 million detectors each extracting energy from one discrete wavelength of the EM spectra. What is the difference between this device using known if not old technology and a black box nobody can seem to understand?. There is little difference in my opinion because in both cases the observer would have literally no idea what was going on. Oh I'm sure everyone would have opinions and objections however this in no way changes the reality of what may be happening.


In any case the real science performed by the best and brightest as we speak is much stranger than anything we could imagine. In my opinion it renders any of your objection's a mute point. We have never needed to violate any of our precious laws to produce what most refer to as free energy. However it should also be known that in many cases there is evidence to suggest the Laws are on shaky ground, obviously a particle having mass and energy which disappears then reappears somewhere else is a real problem.


The problem in my opinion is that people are listening to other people who do not have all the facts when they should be listening to the best and the brightest on the cutting edge of science who are creating the most advanced technology known to man which seems obvious to me.


AC

Monkey see monkey do. Laws are not violated, they are used properly if we can look out of the box.
For example : one may state the ball fall in gravity field never bounce higher then the level it was originally.Most people would agree because simple experiments prove that right, but someone could take two balls, drop in proper sequence and got violation of "law"

@Mark E

The relationship between Lenz' Law and conservation of energy is mathematical.  If Lenz' Law as expressed is true, then it is also true that the direction of the induced current is such as to enforce Conservation of Energy.  Just as 2+2=4 is an arithmetic fact, not just a highly likely outcome, the direction opposition stated by Lenz' Law reinforces Conservation of Energy is a mathematical fact.

I think we must look beyond black and white thinking, for instance Earnshaw proved mathematically that point forces can never find equilibrium, true. However if I spin a magnet on axis it can balance so in this exception which is just outside of the context of the theorem it is false. My magnetic attraction bearing is 99% passive thus I am 99% right and Earnshaw 1% right. You see we can all be right in a sense and all win.

You could but until you can convert any of those observations into an actual disproof of any particular law, the laws all hold.

I am not sure if you know this but the only definition I have ever found for a "field" ie. E,B,G is -- "virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes". It is the accepted definition nobody wants to talk about and even Richard Feynman cringed at the prospect of having to explain it to anyone. The math is extraordinary because it reduces everything we know to fairies and unicorns. Basically all the known laws of science rest on this foundation which is in itself extraordinary when we think about it, virtual particles popping in and out of existence... go figure.

Free energy as far as I know has never been produced.  Maybe someday it will.

As an Engineer who's profession is Energy I would disagree, you see I do not discriminate in regards to energy. Energy is Energy, and a solar cell is free energy because it is free beyond the initial cost of the materials just as a supposed QEG or other unproven contrivance would be. As I said if I put a crystal radio array in a black box and in another box an exotic unproven OU technology there would be no difference to the observer. Energy is energy and free/cost is a man made construct found nowhere in nature.

What you propose is three things:  That people pay attention to your personal interpretation of those you classify as the best and brightest, that they ignore even the conclusions offered by the "best and brightest", and that they accept your conclusions.  Should a set of experiments actually strongly evidence violations of any physical law then that will be big news that will have been confirmed by peer review.  The strength of broad confirmation will make moot any single person's opinion independently of that person's qualifications.

No, what I propose is that the best and brightest scientists on this planet with impeccable credentials from the best universities who are overachievers in every sense of the word are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and I and we should pay attention to what they say and do. If you want to rigidly enforce some laws concocted centuries ago by whale oil lantern with quill pen then be my guest however I'm going to stick with the present because it is our future in my opinion.


On another note, my 10 year old son disproved the lines of force concept by experiment to his teachers with his science project last year, the false concept is still found in every textbook. It is an extraordinary thing to watch a 10 year old make his teachers look ridiculous don't you think?. He is presently building a microcomputer controlled RC flying skateboard which can transition from hover mode to forward flight. I told him he must program it himself so he understands both the logic behind coding as well as the dynamics for a stable 3-axis controlled hover. My daughter not much older just requested that I dust off the 24" Van De Graaff I built years ago for her latest project...I can only imagine what their future holds, lol.


AC

@Mark E


I think we must look beyond black and white thinking, for instance Earnshaw proved mathematically that point forces can never find equilibrium, true. However if I spin a magnet on axis it can balance so in this exception which is just outside of the context of the theorem it is false. My magnetic attraction bearing is 99% passive thus I am 99% right and Earnshaw 1% right. You see we can all be right in a sense and all win.

Who says that a spinning mass is either supported on a single point?  Why do you ignore the gyroscope effect of that spinning object?  These are examples of why the scientific method is so powerful:  Ideas that do not match the broadly available evidence don't pass.  What the data says is what is right.  Many times people do not see the data, see distorted data, and/or misinterpret the data.

I am not sure if you know this but the only definition I have ever found for a "field" ie. E,B,G is -- "virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes". It is the accepted definition nobody wants to talk about and even Richard Feynman cringed at the prospect of having to explain it to anyone. The math is extraordinary because it reduces everything we know to fairies and unicorns. Basically all the known laws of science rest on this foundation which is in itself extraordinary when we think about it, virtual particles popping in and out of existence... go figure.

My understanding is that Feynman treated VPs as bookkeeping devices.

As an Engineer who's profession is Energy I would disagree, you see I do not discriminate in regards to energy. Energy is Energy, and a solar cell is free energy because it is free beyond the initial cost of the materials just as a supposed QEG or other unproven contrivance would be. As I said if I put a crystal radio array in a black box and in another box an exotic unproven OU technology there would be no difference to the observer. Energy is energy and free/cost is a man made construct found nowhere in nature.

You are in company with Sterling Allan. I find most people are amenable to a definition of free energy as energy from an unidentified and seemingly inexhaustible source.  When one uses the same term for the ordinary such as solar power and the extraordinary:  Say claims of harvesting vacuum energy, one loses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary.  I find that at best it creates confusion, and at worst it turns attention away from resolving whether the extraordinary is real or not.

   



No, what I propose is that the best and brightest scientists on this planet with impeccable credentials from the best universities who are overachievers in every sense of the word are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and I and we should pay attention to what they say and do. If you want to rigidly enforce some laws concocted centuries ago by whale oil lantern with quill pen then be my guest however I'm going to stick with the present because it is our future in my opinion.

First you are making an appeal to authority.  Second, you fail both to identify the authority or their stated position.  You merely conclude that "top men" offer a position that supposedly makes First Principles malleable.

On another note, my 10 year old son disproved the lines of force concept by experiment to his teachers with his science project last year, the false concept is still found in every textbook. It is an extraordinary thing to watch a 10 year old make his teachers look ridiculous don't you think?.

He would not be the first.  Bright kids often pick-up on concepts better than some of their adult teachers.

He is presently building a microcomputer controlled RC flying skateboard which can transition from hover mode to forward flight. I told him he must program it himself so he understands both the logic behind coding as well as the dynamics for a stable 3-axis controlled hover.

Good for him.  I hope he is enjoying the process.

My daughter not much older just requested that I dust off the 24" Van De Graaff I built years ago for her latest project...I can only imagine what their future holds, lol.

Potentially it could armies of floating million volt arc wielding robots out to imprison or destroy the older generation.[quite]


AC
[/quote]