Author Topic: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods (Read 267470 times)

Grumpy · « **Reply #135 on:** December 09, 2008, 04:55:11 AM »

The current that is produced by induction is opposite - it is a mirror image, see? A reflection.

A smart person will realize that not all reflections are opposite.

BEP · « **Reply #136 on:** December 09, 2008, 05:28:56 AM »

Quote from: Grumpy on December 09, 2008, 04:55:11 AM

The current that is produced by induction is opposite - it is a mirror image, see? A reflection.

A smart person will realize that not all reflections are opposite.

And not all opposites are reflections

For example: my wife one week and then the next. Definite opposites but one isn't a reflection of the other, at all! Sometimes even as out of balance as my first of these generators

You were right Grumpy. They scream they want fish. You hand them a fish. They look at it and keep screaming they want fish.

Should I just smack them in the head with the fish?

>>Edit

Oh WTH. I should just fry the bastard in beer batter and eat it. Maybe it is time for another pond

Grumpy · « **Reply #137 on:** December 09, 2008, 02:57:07 PM »

Quote from: BEP on December 09, 2008, 05:28:56 AM

And not all opposites are reflections

For example: my wife one week and then the next. Definite opposites but one isn't a reflection of the other, at all! Sometimes even as out of balance as my first of these generators

You were right Grumpy. They scream they want fish. You hand them a fish. They look at it and keep screaming they want fish.

Should I just smack them in the head with the fish?

>>Edit

Oh WTH. I should just fry the bastard in beer batter and eat it. Maybe it is time for another pond

I love fried fish - beer batter is great - few hush-puppies on the side - little lemon to squeeze on top - tasty good!!

BEP · « **Reply #138 on:** December 09, 2008, 11:45:29 PM »

Quote from: Grumpy on December 09, 2008, 02:57:07 PM

I love fried fish - beer batter is great - few hush-puppies on the side - little lemon to squeeze on top - tasty good!!

When I get some time off the road I'll serve you up a plate

SkyWatcher123 · « **Reply #139 on:** December 22, 2008, 08:28:19 AM »

Hi folks. i posted a pic of the motor ive been testing a few posts back. what if a pulse motor when driven with a given input voltage say 24V we then measure its speed, then we bring the motor up to this speed without applying any input we are just mechanically rotating the rotor to see what the induced voltage is in the coils. now what if the induced voltage at this rpm is only 2 to 3V, would this not have some usefulness as far as converting electricity to mechanical power. Again by the way this is the Garry Stanley motor design. any thoughts appreciated.

i_ron · « **Reply #140 on:** January 01, 2009, 03:17:26 AM »

Quote from: BEP on December 05, 2008, 06:57:33 PM

But be prepared to do a great deal of work before it is useful to you

I'll continue on my other project.

BEP,

Here is my start of the project... how am I doing?

Ron

BEP · « **Reply #141 on:** January 01, 2009, 05:27:06 AM »

Quote from: i_ron on January 01, 2009, 03:17:26 AM

BEP,

Here is my start of the project... how am I doing?

Ron

Very nice start! You certainly have the concept. I never did well with a ferrous center because the flux will find sneak paths just like electric current. I always wound up using brass, silicon bronze or plastic for the axel of the rotor.

Don't throw it out by any means. If it is a problem you can modify later. When sizing the stator sections try to maintain the same amount of cross section as the rotor portion facing the stator.

I had to take a short break from a newer design. These things can really wear on you

i_ron · « **Reply #142 on:** January 01, 2009, 05:00:18 PM »

Quote from: BEP on January 01, 2009, 05:27:06 AM

Very nice start! You certainly have the concept. I never did well with a ferrous center because the flux will find sneak paths just like electric current. I always wound up using brass, silicon bronze or plastic for the axel of the rotor.

Don't throw it out by any means. If it is a problem you can modify later. When sizing the stator sections try to maintain the same amount of cross section as the rotor portion facing the stator.

I had to take a short break from a newer design. These things can really wear on you

Thank you!

I note that on the drawing it says, "low permeability rotor core"

Other than that, couple of questions, what did you use for magnets? that is what material and about
what size? Is the magnet stationary? gap at the rotor interface? Have you tried the "magnet stack"
in the vertical leg? or even additional magnet material in the vertical leg?

Ron

BEP · « **Reply #143 on:** January 01, 2009, 10:44:45 PM »

Quote from: i_ron on January 01, 2009, 05:00:18 PM

Thank you!

I note that on the drawing it says, "low permeability rotor core"

Other than that, couple of questions, what did you use for magnets? that is what material and about
what size? Is the magnet stationary? gap at the rotor interface? Have you tried the "magnet stack"
in the vertical leg? or even additional magnet material in the vertical leg?

Ron

By 'core' I meant the supporting structure of the rotor. To me the rotor and 'core' were different materials.

The ceramic magnets were liberated from the largest welding ground clamp magnets I could find. they are about 3/4 thick and 2-1/2 O.D.
The magnet is attached to the rotor.

Some of my first experiments used a magnet in the stator. I found I had better coupling with a rotating magnet coupling to a stator than magnet in a leg plus another air gap.

The post with the sketch was meant to show the basic function. I usually build with what I can find so all the other measurements must follow.

i_ron · « **Reply #144 on:** January 02, 2009, 12:46:46 AM »

Quote from: BEP on January 01, 2009, 10:44:45 PM

By 'core' I meant the supporting structure of the rotor. To me the rotor and 'core' were different materials.

The ceramic magnets were liberated from the largest welding ground clamp magnets I could find. they are about 3/4 thick and 2-1/2 O.D.
The magnet is attached to the rotor.

K, I was designing here for 2 1/4 inch MOT magnets and was wondering if I was close. I have a
couple of speaker magnets at 4 inch and 5 inch but every thing gets much bigger... so glad I am some what close.

This thread is open to all, jump in, if you have a question or comment....

Ron

broli · « **Reply #145 on:** January 05, 2009, 02:01:23 PM »

I was again surprised to find nothing on this page about DAN QUALE's lenzless generator. Found here...

http://www.overunitybuilder.com/lenzlessquale.html
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DQuale&view=videos

The idea is very simple and effective. You have a rotor with washers. in his case the washers blocks the magnetic field to the cols. The coils in turn see the change in flux and induce a current to counter this change. Now at the moment he hasn't shown really high speeds of his generator, Only hand spun. I think his current setup will give rise to Eddy currents in the washers he uses. These can be eliminated by engineering though. By using thin laminated pieces or some other method. Also the difference in neodymium magnets and ferromagnets hasn't been shown.

Now imagine this generator hooked to Lindermann's attraction motor. You have on one hand a highly efficient motor that gives you almost 90% of its energy back and which provides a non conventional electrical power-to-torque ratio and on the other hand hooked to this motor you have a generator that has no drag on it.

Regardless this makes for a simple replication project.

capthook · « **Reply #146 on:** January 05, 2009, 05:36:40 PM »

Quote from: broli on January 05, 2009, 02:01:23 PM

IDAN QUALE's lenzless generator.

http://www.overunitybuilder.com/lenzlessquale.html
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DQuale&view=videos

Hi broli - thanks for the links.

Interesting idea/build, but I don't see it being lenzless. Maybe low-lenz drag due to the large airgap. And he comments on the drag created between the washers and the magnets, which would be IMO much larger than the lenz drag.

So I see it as reduced lenz due to an inefficient air gap and also the washer setup helping but trading traditional lenz drag for an even larger drag between the washers/magnets.
Net result: worse efficiency than a standard design.

broli · « **Reply #147 on:** January 05, 2009, 06:06:45 PM »

capthook sorry but I disagree. I also thought about eddy currents heavily dragging the rotor but when he let it run down the rotor should have stopped way before the video ended. EVEN if we agree on this fact there's a SIMPLE engineering solution to avoid eddy currents. And that is using laminated washers in such a way that the eddy currents will have a hard time flowing. Here's a diagram that shows mainly the orientation of the laminates. The rest of the diagram shows a hypothetical improvement on his current design. I don't know how well it does really though. But theoretical there should be no back drag what so ever. But in practice there's no such thing as a uniform magnetic field so there will always be small losses.

When the "breaker" rotor is not near the magnetic fields are mainly crossing the air gap. As the breaker nears the magnet field prefer the breaker and the breaker also gets attracted by a magnetic force. At TDC the washer conducts all magnetic field while the coil is doing its thing inducing currents and what not. As the breaker leaves There's again an attraction force of the magnet but that's not a problem since it got attracted by an equal big force at the first stage. Since this a symmetrical process the net force is 0. Resulting in the in free energy from the coil at no cost from the rotor.

BEP · « **Reply #148 on:** January 05, 2009, 07:42:22 PM »

I tend to chuckle whenever I see a â€˜Lenz Freeâ€™ claim. Generally, if it is Lenz free it simply cannot work or do work.
I believe the only motors that can work without Lenz use the Lorenz force.
If a coil works then Lenz is part of the action.

So, even the generator I proposed several pages back is not completely free of Lenz.
In order for Lenz to be a factor there must be a variation of flux density. Without this variation there are no eddy currents or induction. If this varying flux only varies in the proximity of the coils and not the source of the force (i.e. the magnet or exciter coil) then there are no losses at the joining of this force and the rest of the mechanism. In other wordsâ€¦ keep Lenz at the coils only and not between the coils and the source of that force. This equals no drag on the driving mechanism.

While Dan Qualeâ€™s efforts may lead to something new Iâ€™m quite sure it will not be OU. Any time you have ANY cogging there is drag. Even when the in and out force equals zero. His large gaps and incomplete magnetic circuits should always result in very low output voltage and power.

The only chance to produce such a device is to make rotary motion result in linear change with no variation in the flux density, as seen by the source. Unfortunately, such a machine is difficult to build even though it is very simple.

I appreciate the work being done by others but I found a very long time ago that complexity leads to failure, in machine and circuit design.

broli · « **Reply #149 on:** January 05, 2009, 08:52:18 PM »

I'm not going to start a discussion about semantics here. The operation is obvious and simple. So I don't know why you're saying it's complex. Sure there are some parameters to play with but that's the whole point of research. When I said the speed of the rotor is independent of the generated power that's of course not 100% true. You can't spin it at 1.000.000 RPM and expect to have a linear behavior in output vs rotor speed. There are technical limitations like saturation and what not. But like I said that's the fun of research. So belittling a new idea like that puts you on the same page as ignorant skeptics in my book. Your "idea" is not better imo. You "idea" is pure words without a single proof of concept. As a matter of fact your idea is highly complex. It has a million parameters

.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods (Read 267470 times)

Grumpy

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

BEP

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

Grumpy

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

BEP

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

SkyWatcher123

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

i_ron

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

BEP

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

i_ron

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

BEP

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

i_ron

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

broli

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

capthook

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

broli

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

BEP

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

broli

Re: Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods