Quantum Energy Generator (QEG) Open Sourced (by HopeGirl)

[MarkE]

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    You can decide to adopt the same language that the rest of the world uses to describe induction .

So what do you call the tendency to minimize the change of flux through the hole of a shorted coil ?

Induction.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Faraday cages still work.  If you want one to work in all three axes, then it needs to be a closed surface.

Now you are changing the subject

Not at all.  Induction creates an image current.  Ideal induction, IE induction where there are zero losses induces an exact image current.  A Faraday cage creates image currents on all sides.  That's what makes it work.  Your ring is not closed on all sides, cannot generate an image current regardless of the orientation of the changing flux and therefore cannot cancel the flux independent of orientation.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    The subject as stated was the false assertion that the flat toroid violates Lenz' Law.

No you misunderstood.  I agree with the Lenz law.

First you have claimed that Lenz' Law states things that it does not.  Who knows whether you are saying that you agree with the actual Lenz' Law or the one that you have made up for yourself.  Second, here is your post that started this: 

Quote from: MarkE on May 06, 2014, 02:50:42 AM

    Lenz' Law enforces CoE for Faraday's Law of Induction.

Yes it does, but sth is different in this situation when a closed coil is used with movable ferrite and KE is accounted for.

In an ideal shorted coil, any non-zero EMF (ℰ) would result in infinite current because I=ℰ/R.
So Faraday's Law of Induction (ℰ = -dΦ/dt) does not seem to apply in case of ideal shorted coils because the Lenz law always keeps dΦ/dt=0.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    As there is nothing to create an image in the perpendicular axis, I disagree.

So are you claiming that this simulation is incorrect ?
If not, I do not see the total flux in the hole varying as the magnet is pulled out.

I have not evaluated the animation.

Which axis? What image?

Flux can change in the Z axis without generation of corresponding matching image currents in the X-Y plane.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Tell that to the ignition coil in your automobile.

I did and she said that it cares about varying flux only.  It does not care about local flux density.

Are you unclear what dt means?

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    If it is perpendicular to the length of a conductor, dB/dt most certainly induces a voltage.
    Which can be found as dB/dt x L and the induction occurs whether or not the coil is shorted.

Only when magnetic flux lines cut the conductor.  That does not happen in a superconductive loop.

Now you seem to be unclear about what "x" signifies as in cross product.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    In the plane of the flat torus that is true.

And the flux penetrating the inside plane of the loop is all that influences the current flowing in the loop.

But should not be confused for all of the flux from the magnet, much of which easily goes straight through that hole with its permeability of 1.  If you are having trouble with this, consider what happens when you make the ID of the donut approach the OD of the donut.  For a constant OD, do you think that  the current: 

a. gets bigger
b. stays the same
c. gets smaller

than with a small ID?

The distribution of that flux (B) across that plane does not affect the current flowing in that loop.

The rate at which the flux changes sure does.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 04:36:55 PM

    Perpendicular to it is a different matter.  If that were not true, think of all the money we could save shielding circuits, EMC chambers and the like by leaving two opposite sides open.

Yes, it is a different matter.  The height of the torus is negligible - that's why I call it a loop.

Thin or thick torus is not the issue.  Intercepting or not intercepting all the flux is the issue.  where a conductor does not intercept flux, it does not intercept that flux when that flux changes and does not in turn generate an image of that changing flux.

We are not discussing Faraday's cages.

Oh, but we are.  If one wants to make it look like there is no changing flux, then one needs to intercept and image all the flux that participates in the change.

We are discussing whether the rate of attempted change of flux (dΦ/dt) penetrating the inside plane of the loop (or a Gaussian surface bounding the inside of that loop) affects the final magnitude of the current induced in that loop.

That has been asked and answered.  The answer is yes the current depends on the rate of change of the intercepting flux.

Quote from: MarkE on Today at 02:39:31 PM

    The answer is yes: changing dB/dt changes the induced current.

Varying dB/dt was not even the subject of the original question.

Oh but it is.

However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until HC was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen

It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

[verpies]

The answer is yes the current depends on the rate of change of the intercepting flux.

However if changing dΦ/dt changes the induced current then inserting the magnet slowly into the hole and pulling it out quickly, and doing that repeatedly would increase the magnitude of the current flowing in the closed superconducting loop with each cycle, until H_C was reached and all hell broke loose ... yet somehow this does not happen

It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

Similarly to what?
To the work done by the pull-in ?

You have answered but you have not proven that the work done during fast withdrawal of a magnet from a closed ideal current loop is greater than the work done by the loop attracting the magnet back into the loop from the same distance.

Are you stating that if you connected that magnet to an ideal Whitworth mechanism (click here to see it animated) then it would take non zero work to turn that crank over integer number of revolutions and after a while the superconducting loop would explode?

I claim that not only the integrals of the force over the distance are equal in both of those cases but the functions of force vs distance are equal too.

In other words the loop is conservative as far as this work is concerned and it does not matter how fast that work is done on the loop or by the loop.

Magnet & Superconducting Loop Animated GIF Test
Click here to see it animated

I am not finished...

[MarkE]

It doesn't happen because the work required for each new withdrawal similarly increases.

Similarly to what?
To the work done by the pull-in ?

Similarly to the current increasing.  For your example of slow in and fast out, after the first cycle the work released pulling in increases each cycle and the work required to withdraw the magnet faster than it gets pulled in increases.  This continues until the magnet saturates.  Then the rate of change of flux drops way off and the increases each cycle become smaller and smaller.

You have answered but you have not proven that the work done during fast withdrawal of a magnet from a closed ideal current loop is greater than the work done by the loop attracting the magnet back into the loop from the same distance.

Ordinary text book induction backs my position.  What backs yours?  On what basis would you claim that induction fundamentally changes because the conductor gets really really good?

I claim that not only the integrals of the force over the distance are equal in both of those cases but the functions of force vs distance are equal too.

Lorentz would disagree for the same reasons as Faraday and Maxwell.  A different rate of change of flux changes the image current and the Lorentz force.

In other words the loop is conservative as far as this work is concerned and it does not matter how fast that work is done on the loop or by the loop.

You are greatly abusing the term "conservative".  There is not a fixed quantity of energy stored in a superconductor.  Consider that if there were that superconductors would offer no promise for energy storage.

Magnet & Superconducting Loop Animated GIF Test
Click here to see it animated

I am not finished...

Well I hope you eventually learn something from this.

[F_Brown]

I have yet o work out the math for your magnet and super-conductor gizmo, although I expect the law of conservation of mass and energy would apply to this in such a way that if the super-conducting ring has zero current to begin with, then if the magnet was moved a fixed distance into the center of the loop, then withdrawn exactly the same distance, the current in the loop would return to zero, at the end, regardless of how fast the insertion or withdrawal were each separately done.

In simple terms a faster motion might take a higher value of instantaneous energy to accomplish although since the action is happening at a faster rate, the total amount of power used will equal the amount required to move the magnet in the opposite direction at a slower speed.  Fast action means more energy for less time, and slow action means less energy for more time.  I would expect the area under the curves for both cases to equal the same amount. 

[F_Brown]

I'd also like to explore a potential misconception about the CEG and harmonic frequencies.

People have been saying they they intend to or that he CEG can operate with its fundamental resonant frequency higher than the modulating or driving frequency.  Such a state would be like a rotor rpm of 100Hz and a tank resonance of 400Hz.

The Russian paper on parametric excitation that I read, http://faculty.ifmo.ru/butikov/Parexcit.pdf, only talks about modulating the system with harmonic frequencies that are higher than the primary resonant frequency.  In other words it avoids discussion of modulating the system with sub-harmonic frequencies, that is frequencies that are lower than the fundamental resonant frequency of the system.
The paper goes on to say the best way to drive the system is with a modulating frequency that is twice the fundamental resonance, that is with the 2nd harmonic, and that driving the system with higher harmonics is possible, although that works significantly less well.

Now, driving the system with a sub-harmonic may be possible, however if it was a useful and or efficient way to do so, my guess is that the paper, which was quite thorough otherwise, would have mentioned so.