The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[T-1000]

In other words, if you get rid of coil's response according to Lenz's law then you get rid of Faraday's law response, too and all induced current with it. 
Mathematically Lenz's law is the -1 factor in the Faraday's law. Getting rid of it (setting it to zero) would cancel the entire Faraday's law and kill all induction with it

The another way is leave Lenz force (induced magnetic field) as it is but have it on 90 degrees to the force changing magnetic flux on coil. So you isolate it from external force in that way. And this is what was shown in CAD drawings on beginning of this thread...


P.S> Merry Christmas everyone!

[NoBull]

Do not read above pointless debate, instead read older posts, if you are looking for free energy devices! so many hothads we have.

"Do not read" ?  -  this server is not in North Korea.

Logical analysis is not pointless.  That's how coils respond whether you like it or not. 
There is ~200years of experimental evidence to support this.

[NoBull]

The another way is leave Lenz force (induced magnetic field) as it is but have it on 90 degrees to the force changing magnetic flux on coil.

Orthogonal flux in a core is something else, even if it has merits in ferromagnets. 
It is beyond the scope of the Lenz's law which involves ONLY the response of a coil to varying magnetic flux perpendicular to the coil's cross section.  Don't conflate these two.

There is an Annis-Eberly patent involving orthogonal flux redirection in a ferromagnetic core (see attachment) but the response of its coils is still in full accordance with the Lenz law.

Gunderson also has a patent involving orthogonal flux redirection in a ferromagnetic cores which does not change the Lenz response of its coils.  See here and here.

[PhysicsProfessor]

 Allow me to pose a thought experiment, based on the fact that magnetic fields propagate at finite speeds.


Consider three single-loops of wire, A-B-C with A (to the right) and C (to the left) separated by a distance L from B, axes co-linear.


Initially, none is carrying a current and all three are stationary in the lab frame, on a fixed frame which however is free to move.


Then one sends a current through B in a short pulse such that it is OFF when any return field comes back from A and C.  Shortly before the magnetic field from B arrives, short current pulses are sent into coils A and C in directions such that the arriving B-field will push A to the right and will also push C in the same direction.  Then these currents are also quickly shut off.


How does the frame move after the currents are shut off?  Is linear momentum conserved?  How?


(One can also place A-B-C on a large wheel which is free to spin, and ask the same questions, this time about angular momentum being conserved, or not.)


Merry Christmas to all.

[epwpixieq-1]

Your logic is flawed.  I stated that water is a good analogy for electricity.  If you search you will probably find thousands or tens of thousands of references stating that.  Yes, you will find a 19th century Oliver Heaviside reference where he says it's not the case.

So, how do you yourself analyze this situation?   You have thousands or tens of thousands of references that agree with me.  You have perhaps just a few that disagree with me.  What do you do in a case like this?

Water can model electricity perfectly when you look at the energy dynamics.  That is the context for this statement.  Beyond that, I don't have to look anywhere to make this statement.  I can use my education and intellect to clearly and unambiguously see that this is 100% true.

In the above I am just going to quote Heaviside ( "Electrical Papers", Volume 1, p. 283, the end of the second paragraph ):

Self-confidence is, no doubt, an excellent thing in its way, but when coupled with ignorance of the fundamental truths of dynamics (which they should know is an exact science), leads to extraordinary jumbles sometimes. Did they only deceive themselves in their delusions little harm would be done, but when they take to writing books for students, then a whole body of blind followers is precipitated into the ditch of mental confusion, from which extrication is so difficult, and whose mud sticks for so long.

I have a doubt that anyone with a higher weight in the development of the Electro-magnetic theory could have summed it better. So, as one can detect, it is NOT the volume that counts but the QUALITY of the reasoning and 2x10^4 Google results do not make a truth, for for that matter any number ( as googleplex for example)  of Google results in your searches will not make the truth.
The truth about the real world does not care at all of our misunderstanding of it, and only the strongest antithetical and experimentally oriented minds can understand that.

Heaviside may have been referring to some other aspect of electricity, I don't know.

It would be helpful if you read Heaviside's writing on "a perfect conductor is a perfect obstructer":  https://books.google.com/books?id=YIhDAQAAMAAJ ( p. 592, The Electrician, March 24 1893 )
Of course, reading ONLY this will make little sense and you may end up reading the entire "Electromagnetic Theory" Volume 1, 1893, a collection of all of the Heaviside's papers published in the Electrician. As general, everyone should read Heaviside, for I can tell you by personal experience, this is quite an enrichment process, and drives to the core of our misunderstandings on many levels.

So, it looks like you have a problem with the fact that a magnetic field will be outside of a wire, and the is nothing outside of a water pipe.  The interesting thing about that is it does not matter.  The analogy in terms of power and energy still works perfectly.

Actually, the CORRECT  analogy and understanding meters a lot, and this can be quite strikingly see in the theory of Carl Anton Bjerknes, published and lectured by his son, Vilhelm Bjerknes, in his Columbia University Lectures:  https://archive.org/details/fieldsofforce00bjeruoft
The most fundamental idea in this understanding , is that the forces and interactions correctly, theoretically and experimentally, model the magnetic and the electric phenomena when the incompressible fluid is on the OUTSIDE, of the pulsating/vibrating bodies and not on on the inside, as I noted in my post.

Sorry for diverging from the thread. Hopefully this comments are not wasteful and will be educational for the audience.