# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: luc2010 on November 27, 2014, 06:44:58 AM

Title: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on November 27, 2014, 06:44:58 AM
Hello All,

Sorry for my english!!

Befor starting experiments with this setup using 4 ordinary transformes connected in ( the attachment),  like an Infinity path symbole of mathematics..because our teacher must have some raison for chosen this strange symbole. lol

the questions is :

1*     could this work?
2*     if its possible to combine the two output into only one?

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: phoneboy on November 27, 2014, 09:02:44 PM
I think it could, I posted some pics in another thread but its basically the same thing, see:http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg421122/#msg421122 (http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg421122/#msg421122),http://www.overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg421007/#msg421007
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 01, 2014, 12:51:52 AM
Hi,

I think it could,
Could you elaborate a bit deeper? using only an ordinary transformers?

IF it possible to combine the two output into only one??

Thank You So Much
Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 02, 2014, 09:56:56 PM
The configuration does not cheat Lenz.  It just inverts the phase of one of the outputs.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 07, 2014, 01:19:29 PM
Hi MarkE,

Sorry for my ignorence, why not possible to use two identical output? because the two output we have  are 180 degree phase shift?? is not this the Lenzless generatore we are looking for?

By the way i really like the drawing!

Good to hear from you!!

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 07, 2014, 09:46:22 PM
Hi MarkE,

Sorry for my ignorence, why not possible to use two identical output? because the two output we have  are 180 degree phase shift?? is not this the Lenzless generatore we are looking for?

By the way i really like the drawing!

Good to hear from you!!

Best Regards
luc2010
The transformers all work by Faraday induction.  The direction of the induced currents are all consistent with Conservation of Energy, which is to say that they all conform to Lenz' Law.  If one shorts the output of a transformer, Lenz' Law is still very much at work.

Lenz' Law tells us the polarity of an induced voltage.  A lot of people set-up arrangements where the induced voltage is small and claim that they are getting around Lenz.  That would only be so if the voltage were zero, which they never get it to be, or the voltage were such that the induced currents accelerate rather than resist the changing magnetic field that induces them.  In a transformer this would mean that increasing the primary voltage and therefore magnetizing current from dot to not dot would cause an increasingly negative voltage on the secondary from dot to not dot.  It would mean that as the secondary load impedance is reduced, drawing more and more power, that the primary current would go down drawing less and less power from the source.

ETA:  The attached picture shows an ordinary transformer as it works conforming to Lenz' Law, and if it were to violate Lenz' Law.  A Lenz' Law violation would mean that even light loads would recharge the source through the transformer.  The heavier the load, the greater the recharge rate.  This has never been observed.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: dvy1214 on December 08, 2014, 06:57:36 AM
The configuration does not cheat Lenz.  It just inverts the phase of one of the outputs.

Most likely to see a constant voltage and split amperage 50/50 on the output of the two outputs.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 08, 2014, 08:37:46 AM
Most likely to see a constant voltage and split amperage 50/50 on the output of the two outputs.
That doesn't work either.  If one connects two phases that are in sync in parallel then each carries about half the current. It's simpler and cheaper to buy just one transformer with the right ratings.  If one hooks up two phases that are 180 degrees out from each other then each drives the other and no output power is available.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 08, 2014, 04:25:32 PM
I think the easiest way to understand transformer action is to understand that the movement of free electrons(an electric current) in the primary coil produces a changing magnetic field. If the current is increasing the field is expanding and if the current is decreasing the field is contracting and if the electric current reverses direction the magnetic field changes polarity.

The secondary coil has no electrical connection to the primary coil thus it is bound solely to the magnetic field changes produced by the primary current in the primary coil. As such if we want to understand what is happening in the secondary(s) we must first understand what the magnetic field is doing because it dictates the action induced in the secondary.

The best thing a person can do in my opinion is wind your own simple transformer and measure the current and voltage in the primary as it relates to the current and voltage in the secondary because there is no substitute for hands on experience. If you do this it will be etched in your memory and you will not forget the simple rules which apply.

I think people have been reading too many textbooks and an oscilloscope is useless unless we first understand exactly what we are seeing and why it is happening. There are no short cuts here and one must learn to crawl before we can walk let alone run.

AC
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: dvy1214 on December 08, 2014, 06:04:37 PM
That doesn't work either.  If one connects two phases that are in sync in parallel then each carries about half the current. It's simpler and cheaper to buy just one transformer with the right ratings.  If one hooks up two phases that are 180 degrees out from each other then each drives the other and no output power is available.

if they are connected to the same load. Other wise, your output is 50/50. 50%+ 50%-
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 08, 2014, 08:21:09 PM

..

The secondary coil has no electrical connection to the primary coil thus it is bound solely to the magnetic field changes produced by the primary current in the primary coil. As such if we want to understand what is happening in the secondary(s) we must first understand what the magnetic field is doing because it dictates the action induced in the secondary.

...

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

Best regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 08, 2014, 08:49:19 PM
Hello,

not sure if i understand this?

if they are connected to the same load. Other wise, your output is 50/50. 50%+ 50%-

Assuming that we have two  identical different output connections?
is this one way transformes?  like we hope..

Best regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 08, 2014, 08:55:46 PM
if they are connected to the same load. Other wise, your output is 50/50. 50%+ 50%-
Sure, if you have two identical transformers connected to identical loads they perform identically each delivering half the total power.  The question was in effect:  "Is there a way to wire transformers so that we can get free energy?"  The answer is:  "No.".
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 08, 2014, 09:18:56 PM
Sure, if you have two identical transformers connected to identical loads they perform identically each delivering half the total power.  The question was in effect:  "Is there a way to wire transformers so that we can get free energy?"  The answer is:  "No.".
Hi,

Sorry, in my setup we have 4 transformes? not two

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 08, 2014, 09:26:06 PM
Hi,

Sorry, in my setup we have 4 transformes? not two

Best Regards
luc2010
That does not matter for the reasons already explained.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 08, 2014, 09:51:52 PM
That does not matter for the reasons already explained.

Sorry for my stupid questions?

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 08, 2014, 11:47:59 PM
@luc2010
Quote
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
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 09, 2014, 10:18:58 AM

Sorry for my stupid questions?

Best Regards
luc2010
You proposed that wiring four transformers together might defeat Lenz' Law.  All that your four transformer configuration could do is reverse one phase.  The intrinsic Lenz' Law obeying Faraday induction is unaffected by how you choose to wire your transformers externally.  If you wire two counterphased signals together that are of equal magnitude, they cancel out and you get nothing.  Wire two counterphase signals in parallel and they effectively short each other out.  It does not take four transformers to demonstrate these effects.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 09, 2014, 10:22:14 AM
@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.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: minnie on December 09, 2014, 11:00:43 AM

I think the study of time travel needs to be explored in the quest to beat old Lenz!
John.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 09, 2014, 03:15:13 PM
@Mark E
Quote
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.

Quote
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

Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 09, 2014, 03:42:02 PM
@Mark EI wouldn't state it that way because the statement is speculative.
Actually it is not speculative at all.  It is the literal translation of the orientation that Lenz' Law defines.
Quote
I would say the direction of magnetically induced
currents are such that they oppose the magnetic source which created them is more accurate.
That means that the induced current conforms to Conservation of Energy.
Quote
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.Hence the reason I said Lenz Law is Valid.
AC
There are only a few possibilities:  Induced currents never oppose the orientation of the field that induces them (anti-Lenz), they sometimes orient to oppose (conditional Lenz), or they always orient to oppose (Lenz' Law).  Lenz' unbroken law is that they always orient to oppose.  That means that they always orient so as to enforce Conservation of Energy.  It is a big point because it immediately shuts down all claims to induction based free energy machines, including coupled motors and generators:  What Sterling Allan calls QMoGens.  In order for any induction machine to be able to produce excess energy, one must show a true Lenz' Law violation:  Induced current orients so as to reinforce the magnetic field that induces it.  Such an observation has never occurred.  All the V-belts, gears, pulleys, windings, etc in the world won't help if they don't get nature to do something that no one has ever seen nature do and that is induce a current that orients so as to reinforce the changing magnetic field that induced that current.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 09, 2014, 05:44:24 PM
@Mark E
Quote
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
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 09, 2014, 09:22:52 PM
@Mark E

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.
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.

That has nothing to do with the finite reach of our observations.  While it is always possible that we will find exceptions, all our experience to date with these laws makes for all practice and purpose that they really are immutable.  Only contradictory evidence can sway them.
Quote

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

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.
Your antenna/rectifier bank would still be limited by the incident flux that it intercepts which at radio through microwave frequencies is low.  When you get up to infrared and visible, that ball of fire in the sky puts out some serious flux.
Quote

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

AC
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: forest on December 09, 2014, 10:12:33 PM
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"
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 09, 2014, 10:52:59 PM
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"
It all comes down to what we actually observe.  The laws work until they don't.  Establishing that a law doesn't work requires overcoming a high standard.  Until we have observations that clear that standard, the laws remain intact.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 09, 2014, 11:30:05 PM
@Mark E
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 10, 2014, 02:07:26 AM
Hi,
i have right now, only two identical transformers!, so i am waiting until that time, what you think can we do with only two transformers? any ideas?

being an average person and from a small country so  can learn from you all  and spacialy from the experimenters!

Thank You All

rgds
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 02:15:01 AM
@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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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]
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 10, 2014, 02:30:50 AM
@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
I put a lot of taught into this!  not sure if i understand this, and that what i can think of

1*geomerty
2* dimentions
3*material

start from the last,
as we know, lenz law work against all the copper coils? (diamagnetism material)
so what if we make an iron coils? my guess is that lenz law here work for us? (feromagnetism material)

Is that what You mean?

Thanks and Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 10, 2014, 03:08:10 AM
You proposed that wiring four transformers together might defeat Lenz' Law.  All that your four transformer configuration could do is reverse one phase.  The intrinsic Lenz' Law obeying Faraday induction is unaffected by how you choose to wire your transformers externally.  If you wire two counterphased signals together that are of equal magnitude, they cancel out and you get nothing.  Wire two counterphase signals in parallel and they effectively short each other out.  It does not take four transformers to demonstrate these effects.
Hi MarkE,

Sorry, most likly i am wrong, OK

lets assuming the impossible became possible? right
what we think about a free energy device with two outputs? like MEG of Tom Bearden and many others...

So i am wondering,

You give me a nice picture about lenz law violation but for 1 output?

in textbooks we have two type of systems:

1*open system (no feedback)                                 /// ......and may be we could say no lenz here **ZERO Lenz / the ''impossible'' case**
2*closed system
2-a/closed system with negative feedback (may we can say lenz law here against us)      /// ....  **negative lenz/ the ordinary case**
2-b/closed system with positive feedback (here lenz law work for us)                                /// ....   **positive lenz/ the ''impossible'' case

for the moment i thinkof the fist case, so my setup is an open system!
no faraday here because the total change of flux is ZERO! that the idea! i dont know if it work

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 05:47:10 AM
Lenz' Law applies even if we have just a single straight piece of wire or a sheet of conductive metal or any more complicated shape.  All Lenz' Law tells us is that if we set-up a changing magnetic field and that field intersects a conductor what the orientation of the induced voltage will be in that conductor.  The source of the changing magnetic field can be current that we drive through the conductor.  If things worked where the induced current would act to reinforce the field then just connecting a battery across a length of wire would cause the current to increase exponentially without limit.  The current versus time curve would be concave up instead of concave down.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 10, 2014, 02:54:12 PM
@Mark E
Quote
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 didn't ignore the gyroscope effect of that spinning object Uhm... that was what I was referring to.
Quote
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.
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying different things utilize different energy?. Like I move a ball and thats one energy and I move an electron and well that's a completely different energy...really?, So tell me how many energies are there? Like one or two or maybe hundreds because I have no idea what you could be thinking to be honest.
Quote
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.
No, I'm saying there may be people smarter than you or I who may have a better understanding of things which apparently you have a real problem with. However you know everything don't you?, you know everything but you just can't seem to succeed at anything that really matters... been there, didn't work for me.
AC

Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: minnie on December 10, 2014, 03:16:58 PM

There have been billions of electrical machines built and the well designed ones work as
predicted, we use them every day.
Imagine this scenario,    your car gives up the ghost and a technician looks at it, shakes
his head and says "sorry mate,  nothing can be done,  it's a Lenz law violation".
John.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: allcanadian on December 10, 2014, 03:44:02 PM
@luc2010
I think Mark E made a good point in his last post concerning your questions.
Quote
Lenz' Law applies even if we have just a
single straight piece of wire or a sheet of conductive metal or any more
complicated shape.  All Lenz' Law tells us is that if we set-up a changing
magnetic field and that field intersects a conductor what the orientation of the
induced voltage will be in that conductor.  The source of the changing magnetic
field can be current that we drive through the conductor.  If things worked
where the induced current would act to reinforce the field then just connecting
a battery across a length of wire would cause the current to increase
exponentially without limit.  The current versus time curve would be concave up
We can reduce a motor, a generator and a transformer to two parallel wires a couple inches long and Lenz Law still applies, I have done this before. We can add exotic cores, we can wind special coils, we can make it as simple or as complex as we want and Lenz Law still applies because fundamentally the induced magnetic field still opposes the magnetic field which induced it and this is the premise of Lenz Law. You cannot actually say your doing something different and then do exactly the same thing, it doesn't work that way. The action and reaction must fall outside the context of Lenz Law if it is to be truly different and to be honest I'm not willing to show and tell. Your going to have to figure this riddle out for yourself which is actually the fun part in my opinion. You have one induced magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it so how do you change this?. Obviously we can't have two magnetic fields can we?, I know this makes absolutely no sense but if this was easy then everyone would be doing it. AC
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 03:49:49 PM
@Mark EI didn't ignore the gyroscope effect of that spinning object Uhm... that was what I was referring to.
Then you of all people should recognize that your example is not an exception to the rule you claimed is faulty.
Quote
I'm not sure I understand, are you saying different things utilize different energy?. Like I move a ball and thats one energy and I move an electron and well that's a completely different energy...really?, So tell me how many energies are there? Like one or two or maybe hundreds because I have no idea what you could be thinking to be honest.
Now you conveniently remove the "free" from "free energy".
Quote
No, I'm saying there may be people smarter than you or I who may have a better understanding of things which apparently you have a real problem with.
You have so far repeatedly made appeals to authority without even citing the supposed authorities, or their supposed positions.  You offer only your personal interpretations of what these supposed authorities may have said and based on their authority declare your position correct.
Quote
However you know everything don't you?
I do not make fallacious arguments from authority, especially any claims to my own.
Quote
, you know everything but you just can't seem to succeed at anything that really matters... been there, didn't work.
Are you just tossing around gratuitous insults now?
Quote
AC
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
@luc2010
I think Mark E made a good point in his last post concerning your questions. We can reduce a motor, a generator and a transformer to two parallel wires a couple inches long and Lenz Law still applies, I have done this before. We can add exotic cores, we can wind special coils, we can make it as simple or as complex as we want and Lenz Law still applies because fundamentally the induced magnetic field still opposes the magnetic field which induced it and this is the premise of Lenz Law. You cannot actually say your doing something different and then do exactly the same thing, it doesn't work that way. The action and reaction must fall outside the context of Lenz Law if it is to be truly different and to be honest I'm not willing to show and tell. Your going to have to figure this riddle out for yourself which is actually the fun part in my opinion. You have one induced magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it so how do you change this?. Obviously we can't have two magnetic fields can we?, I know this makes absolutely no sense but if this was easy then everyone would be doing it. AC
If you think you have found a cheat on Lenz' Law, then you are going to have a devil of a time with things like skin effect.
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 10, 2014, 04:17:05 PM
Lets assuming

first exemple:
that one wire are into the other,  the primery wire are into the secondery wire?  something like coaxcable

or another simple exemple:
one wire are normal (90 degrees) to the other

what are the effect of lenz law  here?
in the above exemples i forget to mention using different wire material, like iron wire??

In fact i dont know the details!! i am just trying to Listen to different peoples opinians!!

rgrds
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: luc2010 on December 10, 2014, 04:33:06 PM
Hi,

i am looking in front of my eyes to a transformer and wondering:

why not using the iron seets core like a capacitor? because iron are always attractive? so the secondery coils are not used in this configuration,

Anyone try this before? or its just a stupid idea?

Best Regards
luc2010
Title: Re: The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )
Post by: MarkE on December 10, 2014, 06:11:50 PM
Hi,

i am looking in front of my eyes to a transformer and wondering:

why not using the iron seets core like a capacitor? because iron are always attractive? so the secondery coils are not used in this configuration,

Anyone try this before? or its just a stupid idea?

Best Regards
luc2010
There are lots of layers of enamel, and enamel's dielectric constant is pretty low, and you will also have to eliminate the intentional electrical connection across the lamination stack.