Lenz free generator

[EMJunkie]

@tinman

Okay I see where your going, however the textbook picture you posted below is inaccurate and the actual total field at the center (blue line) can extend many feet to the side as can the total field past the poles (red line).



The poles I think because while there may be slightly less lines (less flux) the line density is greater (greater field density). In reality a coil will never be induced by all the flux lines at the center red line unless your coil is two feet in diameter which is impractical. On the other hand a small coil covering the whole pole face/end will be induced by nearly all the flux having a very much greater flux density.


You did try covering the whole pole face/end of the core/coil with a secondary coil of identical wire length to your center coil to determine the difference in inductive properties didn't you?. The problem we know all too well is that most of the time our best laid plans are foiled by reality. We see a picture in a textbook or run a simulation and say hey this looks easy. Then we hit the bench and all hell breaks loose and nothing is as it seemed, that's reality and it's a bitch.


Meanwhile I noticed an anomaly in the hall sensor scans I did a year or so ago which EMJ referred to that may prove interesting...back to the bench.


AC

@Ron, it may be worth reading the posts referred to? It was a lengthy investigation!


@AC and Tinman:

We were right, we still are, we found some interesting data, data that gave us some insight!!!

We were right, the Iron Filing experiment is inherently flawed, we pointed this out many times, none listened!!!

@AC - I too have found that some Hall Probes are problematic, I asked Ron to try a few different types for this reason. I don't want to speculate too much, but suspect that some probes detect the Electric Field Intensity as the Magnetic Field and as a result gives an Incorrect Magnetic Field Reading. I am not totally sure on this however...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

P.S: Iron Filings make lots of patterns, each being its own tiny Magnet in its own right:

[EMJunkie]

To prove the point, of Field Lines, I should have gone and spent $20 on some Ferro Fluid.

Examining why this is as it is, the following Image, should really start those interested asking some hard serious questions: Credit: Ferrofluid Piston This s a very cool experiment also!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[allcanadian]

@EMJ

@AC - I too have found that some Hall Probes are problematic, I asked Ron to try a few different types for this reason. I don't want to speculate too much, but suspect that some probes detect the Electric Field Intensity as the Magnetic Field and as a result gives an Incorrect Magnetic Field Reading. I am not totally sure on this however...

Here's the trick, the hall effect sensor only measures the flux through the sensor face which means it is a directional sensor. In my Labview setup with an oscilloscope graph and bar graph I can easily see large swings at any given point simply by rotating the sensor on it's axis. This tells me the exact direction of the flux at any given point and the max value correlates to the max field density and direction. In effect simply moving the sensor face straight through any region will always give inaccurate readings because the flux/sensor face angle changes.

In effect when I_ron was taking his gauss meter readings and the measure approached zero near the pole this was not because the field strength was decreasing to zero. It was because the direction of the flux was now near 90 degrees to the sensor face and the sensor could not detect it. As I said we must be very careful concerning what we think we are measuring and how we are taking the measurement. If the flux direction is 45 degrees off from the sensor face then we see about one half the real field density measurement and when the flux direction is 90 degrees off from the sensor face we see zero of the real field density measurement. For the record, last year I was making the same mistake as I_ron and my graphs should have been corrected to compensate for the sensor face/flux direction deviations.

AC

[i_ron]

In effect when I_ron was taking his gauss meter readings and the measure approached zero near the pole this was not because the field strength was decreasing to zero. It was because the direction of the flux was now near 90 degrees to the sensor face and the sensor could not detect it. As I said we must be very careful concerning what we think we are measuring and how we are taking the measurement. If the flux direction is 45 degrees off from the sensor face then we see about one half the real field density measurement and when the flux direction is 90 degrees off from the sensor face we see zero of the real field density measurement. For the record I was making the same mistakes as I_ron and my graphs should have been corrected to compensate for the sensor face/flux direction deviations.

AC

AC, you are quite correct... but this is rather obvious and not something I was attempting to ignore or circumvent.


To try and keep this discussion relevant let me again state, that as tinman built JB's Zero Force motor and I am currently in the process of building one the focus was on the directionality of the flux lines that propel the external magnet along its path.


Now JB claims to switch "at the block wall", Whereas tinman and myself are suggesting that this is not relevant. What I was attempting to show in my video was that there are two lock up points at each end of a solenoid coil and that in between  there is a rather continuous motive force independent of any block wall... and that the strongest field is in the middle.


My understanding at the moment is that these flux lines are a flow. That any static depiction is inherently misleading because the inclusion of an external magnet and the "flow" automatically adjusts to conform to this intrusion.


That said I am learning, thanks for all your inputs, they are appreciated.


Ron 

[allcanadian]

@I_ron

To try and keep this discussion relevant let me again state, that as tinman built JB's Zero Force motor and I am currently in the process of building one the focus was on the directionality of the flux lines that propel the external magnet along its path.

Now JB claims to switch "at the block wall", Whereas tinman and myself are suggesting that this is not relevant. What I was attempting to show in my video was that there are two lock up points at each end of a solenoid coil and that in between  there is a rather continuous motive force independent of any block wall... and that the strongest field is in the middle.

My understanding at the moment is that these flux lines are a flow. That any static depiction is inherently misleading because the inclusion of an external magnet and the "flow" automatically adjusts to conform to this intrusion.

I'm not sure if you know this but I built and tested the motor you are trying to build as well as a generator based on the same principals around 5 years ago. I built and tested many variations of both and posted some of the designs in this forum. I built one similar motor in which the driving coil could not be induced by the rotor magnet in any way which was kind of neat.

Here is what I found concerning the motor your trying to build, first there is no flow and there are no flux lines and there are no North/South poles as these are simply notations. The field has direction we call polarity and it has field density we call strength or magnitude. In your video you simply demonstrated the fact that opposite poles attract and like poles repel. What makes this setup different however is the fact that the rotor magnet is simultaneously in attraction and repulsion with only one stator coil but utilizing the field from both ends of the coil in the same instance.

Now why do you suppose the strongest force is in the middle?, because the magnet is interacting with both poles of the coil simultaneously not only one. Why does the rotor magnet lock up at the coil ends?, when the coil is off the magnetic field from the magnet couples to the core material which ends at the end of the core. When the coil is on the magnetic field from the magnet couples to the nearest unlike pole and is repelled from the nearest like pole. You can prevent the lock up at the coil poles by momentarily switching off the current at the poles and you may also reverse the coil current after the magnet has left the coil poles to increase the force on the rotor. Why switch at the center of the stator coil or supposed bloch wall?, because the rotor magnet interacts with both stator coil poles equally following the inverse square law. As well we should note that at the exact center of the stator core the field from the rotor magnet should diverge towards both ends of the stator core equally provided the coil was not energized prior. Does this matter?... maybe it does maybe it doesn't.

What I can tell you is your not going anywhere using that infernal manual switch shown in the video, the switching must be of the proper magnitude, timing and duration with respect to the rotor magnet.

AC