Magnet coil cores, demagnetization power and Lenz delay.

[MarkE]

Here's a great video on the Wesley Gary effect proving you wrong:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACykTfXspfM&index=7&list=FL3v-1RhhS50L5H2_FYFFBqQ

The Reed Relay comes in multiple designs, some with slider points and springs. The industrial current reversing variety is designed to very high tolerance. The transistor requires a power source and eats juice.

Just what is it in that video that you think refutes what I have been saying?  The video does not measure induction.  It makes no direct measure of force or torque.

All switching mechanisms use power.  Some sap it mechanically, some sap it electrically, some do a bit of both.  Mechanical contacts have the problems and limitations that I have explained.  If you can live with those limitations then great.  If they represent a problem then use a different method that does not have those problems and limitations.

[MarkE]

A tiny relay coil at the back of the magnet stack would allow for re-positioning to the neutral zone without physically moving the coil. Reducing the power to the tiny backing coil would have the same effect as moving the entire coil away from the rotor. Fine tuning can be accomplished this way for "Lenz Propulsion" output. Mark maintains this is a zero sum approach. My experiments prove there's net gain.

Four magnet core GAP coils and a two pole rotor would deliver the same power as well as extend the demagnetization interval as kEhYo's version.

If you are convinced that you can "delay Lenz" in such a way as to gain energy then:  Diagram up your experiment set-up, describe how you collect data, describe your null experiments, and publish your test data.

[synchro1]

Just what is it in that video that you think refutes what I have been saying?  The video does not measure induction.  It makes no direct measure of force or torque.

All switching mechanisms use power.  Some sap it mechanically, some sap it electrically, some do a bit of both.  Mechanical contacts have the problems and limitations that I have explained.  If you can live with those limitations then great.  If they represent a problem then use a different method that does not have those problems and limitations.

"MarkE,

The video shows merely an unfinished portion of the entire Wesly Gary device. The original produced perpetual motion that was well documented at the time by science observers and journalists. The video shows basicly two horseshoe magnets facing one another in counter polaity so they are suspended by mutual attraction. One magnet is attached to a hinge. The metal shield is raised between these two horsehoe magnets inside the neutral zone where no attraction to either horsehoe magnet is in effect. This disengages the hinged magnet and it falls away. The original used the force of the descending shield to reraise the hinged magnet.

The point is, the magnet rotor is blind to the magnet core coil inside the neutral zone, an area of perhaps one sixteenth of an inch in width. However, the coil windings are effected by rotor induction. The high magnetic viscosity of the magnet backed core causes a Delay in the coils normal pole formation and produces instead a propulsion.

The elegance of the current GAP motor design couples the power and output in one coil eliminating the need for an auxilliary power source such as a D.C. motor which would need to be declutched to allow free wheeling of the rotor.

The Flynn Parallel path technology may help reduce the input to the Neutral Zone electromagnetic positioner coil at the back of the magnet stack.

Let me add MarkE that I appreciate your help.

[synchro1]

More rotor magnets will help lower the "Lenz Delay" threshold RPM and less magnets will increase the demagnetization interval. Consider this; Everyone has seen demonstrations of rotor speed up under load. Once the multi maget rotor is spinning fast enough, if we pull the DPDT Reed Relay back away from the rotor in the normally closed position open to the storage capacitor, and adjust the tiny positioner coil field strenght on the back of the core magnets to the Neutral Zone and experience rotor speed up, how can it not be a self runner at that point? Think about it. I've been perversly ridiculed as a cumpulsive lier and psychotic, but I moved the rotor in the sphere spinner spiral away from the power coil. How can the 'Lenz Propulsion" overcome the drag of a prime mover like a DC motor or anything. It's not difficult to achieve rotor speed up, if it's a free wheeling rotor how can it not be powering itself if the rotor's accelerating with zero input?

[MarkE]

"MarkE,

The video shows merely an unfinished portion of the entire Wesly Gary device. The original produced perpetual motion that was well documented at the time by science observers and journalists. The video shows basicly two horseshoe magnets facing one another in counter polaity so they are suspended by mutual attraction. One magnet is attached to a hinge. The metal shield is raised between these two horsehoe magnets inside the neutral zone where no attraction to either horsehoe magnet is in effect. This disengages the hinged magnet and it falls away. The original used the force of the descending shield to reraise the hinged magnet.

The point is, the magnet rotor is blind to the magnet core coil inside the neutral zone, an area of perhaps one sixteenth of an inch in width. However, the coil windings are effected by rotor induction. The high magnetic viscosity of the magnet backed core causes a Delay in the coils normal pole formation and produces instead a propulsion.

The elegance of the current GAP motor design couples the power and output in one coil eliminating the need for an auxilliary power source such as a D.C. motor which would need to be declutched to allow free wheeling of the rotor.

The Flynn Parallel path technology may help reduce the input to the Neutral Zone electromagnetic positioner coil at the back of the magnet stack.

Let me add MarkE that I appreciate your help.

I hope that you understand that pointing to one machine as an example of something and then saying that it is a different machine that has the desired behavior doesn't really provide evidence.  The permeable material, IE pole shoe goes up and down and with it the coupling between the left and right side magnets to the pole shoe increase and decreases and we see the right piece pivot.  Nothing about that looks unexpected to me.  If the claim is that the conductivity or magnetic viscosity of material used causes energy to be stored as opposed to dissipated the necessary measurements to show such a thing are missing.

The premise that you hypothesize as I understand it is that not only is energy stored without loss, but that there is an energy gain realized by the mechanism you are calling "Lenz delay".  If that understanding is wrong then please clarify.  My contention is that sufficiently accurate measurements will always show that not only does such a gain not occur but that in each case energy is dissipated.