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

[gotoluc]

Supposing that you have a rotor with four magnets equally spaced 90 degrees apart.  You hook up scope channel A to a sensor pick-up coil that is 90 degrees away from the actual generator coil.  You trigger on channel A.  You hook up scope channel B to the actual generator coil output.  When you run the pulse motor you can then try different types of loads on the generator coil and observe if there is any delay or "phase shift" in the generator coil output relative to the reference unchanging waveform on channel A.  That is the real way to see if there is a "Lenz delay."

Did you do that?  I don't think you did.  I think that you just saw the rotor speed up and you just assumed that there was a "Lenz delay." Now when people see a rotor speed up they say that it is a "delayed Lenz effect" and it's wrong.

Why is it wrong?

He is what we all should know:  When you look at the attached graphic for a typical generator coil waveform, that can represent an unloaded generator coil waveform.  In the unloaded case, you are looking at the pure EMF from the coil.  We know how a coil generates EMF due to a changing external magnetic field.  We know that the load is a resistor.  We know that the frequencies are relatively low.  When we take all that into account, we conclude that there is no reason for a delay in the waveform of the generator coil output.  We are simply applying standard well-known electronics principles.

That is the reason I am telling you there should not be a phase shift.  If anyone wants to comment or disagree, they are welcome to.


MileHigh

The experiment can be setup the way you suggest and there is still a 20 to 80 Degrees phase delay on the load from the AUL coil compared to the sense coil.

Regards

Luc

[NoBull]

Below is a chart showing the electromagnetic induction laws defining direct relationships between electromagnetic induction variables in a closed circuit.
Note that the Lenz's law relates the change in magnetic flux to the induced EMF (ℰ) and current (i) only qualitatively.
In other words, the Lenz law (as currently stated) tells you how and in which direction stuff gets induced but it does not tell you "how much".

Note that you can use the Faraday's law and Ohm's law to indirectly establish a quantitative relationship between dΦ/dt and i variables, as long as the resistance of the circuit is greater than zero (R>0).
These two laws are incapable of directly and indirectly relating dΦ/dt  and ΔΦ to i in a superconducting loop, such as the one in my experiment.

[MarkE]

See, I knew you would be one of the few who would be in the position and of the proper mindset to measure when measuring is required.  The scientific community doesn't need my assistance verifying the validity of the observations they felt justified in calling laws.  I owe it to myself to find deeper meaning in those things which "would" impede my progress.  I see the force as it manifests in the motor and seek to understand it, the laws all of them, are a guide to me, that's it. 

Guided by the laws, I have developed my own way of looking at these systems, on several occasions I have tried, and failed (the latter more often than the prior) to communicate what I see, my perspective with others.  I need not define "inductance" for you know what it is, general description is that its that property which opposes the starting, stopping, and changing of current or flux.  The relation that inductance has to self induction you know.  I view self-induction as if it were (and it is) a generator, one which operates more or less independent from the induced.  The output, when conditions are established making an output possible from the actions of self-induction, can be directed against the induced proper.  In my experience the proper mixing of the two AC sources result in the reversing of the current limiting.  Consumption inverts, increasing with increasing RPM versus decreasing as is customary.

We owe it to ourselves and the authors of the laws to think outside of the box they built for us, or at the very least, use the sand in the box to build a box of our own.




Regards

The bottom line is that modification or repeal of a law requires reliable data that refutes the law.  And with respect to the laws we have been discussing that is where the challengers all fall flat.

[MarkE]

Yes, customarily the Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage.

No, not customarily:  ALWAYS.  Lenz's Law states ONLY orientation.

...but the wording of this law also mentions current that is caused by this voltage.  See below:
When applied to a behavior of a coil, this wording is somewhat inconsistent because current does not flow if the coil is open
(non-conducting).  This impacts the validity of the word "always".

There is no problem.  Without current flow there is no induced magnetic field.  There is only induced voltage.

However, when the coil is closed (conducting) then the induced voltage causes a current flow whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux penetrating this coil. 
This response happens immediately without delay.  The Viscous Remanent Magnetization experiment does not invalidate this immediacy, because it applies to the delayed behaviour of a ferromagnetic core - not the response of a coil to a changing magnetic flux.

We agree that induction is immediate.

Furthermore, according to my experiment [1] and prof. John Belcher [2] from MIT Department of Physics, if no resistance hampers the induced current in a coil, then its magnetic field not only "opposes" the original change in magnetic flux, but it opposes it so much, that the total magnetic flux penetrating this coil remains constant.

Zero resistance leads to a perfect image current, yes.

In an ideal coil this behavior is independent of the flux change rate, too.

The Wikipedia's wording of Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage and current in response to changing magnetic flux and as such it is a qualitative statement.

I think it would be more informative to expand the wording of this law to a quantitative form.

Any ideas how to phrase it well?

A Scotsman did that rather nicely.  His name was Maxwell.

[MileHigh]

The experiment can be setup the way you suggest and there is still a 20 to 80 Degrees phase delay on the load from the AUL coil compared to the sense coil.

Regards

Luc

Fine, but that is just an observation.  You apparently don't know why that is happening and therefore you can't draw any conclusions from it.

Also, your first measurement should be with a standard setup with a single output coil.  That is what is being discussed.  You want to take it to a next step with two coaxial coils with different properties, that's fine but it is a different discussion.  It may be similar, but it is still a different discussion.

I am also not comfortable with the term "phase delay."  It's because although the waveform is periodic, it's really just a stream of pulses with what I am calling a "dead band" in between.  I know I am splitting hairs here but simply quoting the milliseconds of delay would be the more appropriate way to express what you are observing.

MileHigh