The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )

[MarkE]

Monkey see monkey do. Laws are not violated, they are used properly if we can look out of the box.
For example : one may state the ball fall in gravity field never bounce higher then the level it was originally.Most people would agree because simple experiments prove that right, but someone could take two balls, drop in proper sequence and got violation of "law"

It all comes down to what we actually observe.  The laws work until they don't.  Establishing that a law doesn't work requires overcoming a high standard.  Until we have observations that clear that standard, the laws remain intact.

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

The relationship between Lenz' Law and conservation of energy is mathematical.  If Lenz' Law as expressed is true, then it is also true that the direction of the induced current is such as to enforce Conservation of Energy.  Just as 2+2=4 is an arithmetic fact, not just a highly likely outcome, the direction opposition stated by Lenz' Law reinforces Conservation of Energy is a mathematical fact.

I think we must look beyond black and white thinking, for instance Earnshaw proved mathematically that point forces can never find equilibrium, true. However if I spin a magnet on axis it can balance so in this exception which is just outside of the context of the theorem it is false. My magnetic attraction bearing is 99% passive thus I am 99% right and Earnshaw 1% right. You see we can all be right in a sense and all win.

You could but until you can convert any of those observations into an actual disproof of any particular law, the laws all hold.

I am not sure if you know this but the only definition I have ever found for a "field" ie. E,B,G is -- "virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes". It is the accepted definition nobody wants to talk about and even Richard Feynman cringed at the prospect of having to explain it to anyone. The math is extraordinary because it reduces everything we know to fairies and unicorns. Basically all the known laws of science rest on this foundation which is in itself extraordinary when we think about it, virtual particles popping in and out of existence... go figure.

Free energy as far as I know has never been produced.  Maybe someday it will.

As an Engineer who's profession is Energy I would disagree, you see I do not discriminate in regards to energy. Energy is Energy, and a solar cell is free energy because it is free beyond the initial cost of the materials just as a supposed QEG or other unproven contrivance would be. As I said if I put a crystal radio array in a black box and in another box an exotic unproven OU technology there would be no difference to the observer. Energy is energy and free/cost is a man made construct found nowhere in nature.

What you propose is three things:  That people pay attention to your personal interpretation of those you classify as the best and brightest, that they ignore even the conclusions offered by the "best and brightest", and that they accept your conclusions.  Should a set of experiments actually strongly evidence violations of any physical law then that will be big news that will have been confirmed by peer review.  The strength of broad confirmation will make moot any single person's opinion independently of that person's qualifications.

No, what I propose is that the best and brightest scientists on this planet with impeccable credentials from the best universities who are overachievers in every sense of the word are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and I and we should pay attention to what they say and do. If you want to rigidly enforce some laws concocted centuries ago by whale oil lantern with quill pen then be my guest however I'm going to stick with the present because it is our future in my opinion.


On another note, my 10 year old son disproved the lines of force concept by experiment to his teachers with his science project last year, the false concept is still found in every textbook. It is an extraordinary thing to watch a 10 year old make his teachers look ridiculous don't you think?. He is presently building a microcomputer controlled RC flying skateboard which can transition from hover mode to forward flight. I told him he must program it himself so he understands both the logic behind coding as well as the dynamics for a stable 3-axis controlled hover. My daughter not much older just requested that I dust off the 24" Van De Graaff I built years ago for her latest project...I can only imagine what their future holds, lol.


AC

[luc2010]

Hi,
i have right now, only two identical transformers!, so i am waiting until that time, what you think can we do with only two transformers? any ideas?


being an average person and from a small country so  can learn from you all  and spacialy from the experimenters!

Thank You All

rgds
luc2010

[MarkE]

@Mark E


I think we must look beyond black and white thinking, for instance Earnshaw proved mathematically that point forces can never find equilibrium, true. However if I spin a magnet on axis it can balance so in this exception which is just outside of the context of the theorem it is false. My magnetic attraction bearing is 99% passive thus I am 99% right and Earnshaw 1% right. You see we can all be right in a sense and all win.

Who says that a spinning mass is either supported on a single point?  Why do you ignore the gyroscope effect of that spinning object?  These are examples of why the scientific method is so powerful:  Ideas that do not match the broadly available evidence don't pass.  What the data says is what is right.  Many times people do not see the data, see distorted data, and/or misinterpret the data.

I am not sure if you know this but the only definition I have ever found for a "field" ie. E,B,G is -- "virtual particles popping in and out of existence from multiple parallel universes". It is the accepted definition nobody wants to talk about and even Richard Feynman cringed at the prospect of having to explain it to anyone. The math is extraordinary because it reduces everything we know to fairies and unicorns. Basically all the known laws of science rest on this foundation which is in itself extraordinary when we think about it, virtual particles popping in and out of existence... go figure.

My understanding is that Feynman treated VPs as bookkeeping devices.

As an Engineer who's profession is Energy I would disagree, you see I do not discriminate in regards to energy. Energy is Energy, and a solar cell is free energy because it is free beyond the initial cost of the materials just as a supposed QEG or other unproven contrivance would be. As I said if I put a crystal radio array in a black box and in another box an exotic unproven OU technology there would be no difference to the observer. Energy is energy and free/cost is a man made construct found nowhere in nature.

You are in company with Sterling Allan. I find most people are amenable to a definition of free energy as energy from an unidentified and seemingly inexhaustible source.  When one uses the same term for the ordinary such as solar power and the extraordinary:  Say claims of harvesting vacuum energy, one loses the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary.  I find that at best it creates confusion, and at worst it turns attention away from resolving whether the extraordinary is real or not.

No, what I propose is that the best and brightest scientists on this planet with impeccable credentials from the best universities who are overachievers in every sense of the word are most likely more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and I and we should pay attention to what they say and do. If you want to rigidly enforce some laws concocted centuries ago by whale oil lantern with quill pen then be my guest however I'm going to stick with the present because it is our future in my opinion.

First you are making an appeal to authority.  Second, you fail both to identify the authority or their stated position.  You merely conclude that "top men" offer a position that supposedly makes First Principles malleable.

On another note, my 10 year old son disproved the lines of force concept by experiment to his teachers with his science project last year, the false concept is still found in every textbook. It is an extraordinary thing to watch a 10 year old make his teachers look ridiculous don't you think?.

He would not be the first.  Bright kids often pick-up on concepts better than some of their adult teachers.

He is presently building a microcomputer controlled RC flying skateboard which can transition from hover mode to forward flight. I told him he must program it himself so he understands both the logic behind coding as well as the dynamics for a stable 3-axis controlled hover.

Good for him.  I hope he is enjoying the process.

My daughter not much older just requested that I dust off the 24" Van De Graaff I built years ago for her latest project...I can only imagine what their future holds, lol.

Potentially it could armies of floating million volt arc wielding robots out to imprison or destroy the older generation.[quite]


AC
[/quote]

[luc2010]

@luc2010

Lenz Law is a specific phenomena whereby one induced magnetic field opposes another and it is valid. However the trick is understanding exactly what it is, how it works and more important when it does not apply. Obviously if it does not apply then it is not a concern so the first step is determining exactly what it is and how it works and proceed from there.


AC

I put a lot of taught into this!  not sure if i understand this, and that what i can think of

1*geomerty
2* dimentions
3*material

start from the last,
as we know, lenz law work against all the copper coils? (diamagnetism material)
so what if we make an iron coils? my guess is that lenz law here work for us? (feromagnetism material)

Is that what You mean?

Thanks and Regards
luc2010