Lenz free generator

[barbosi]

Erfinder did no such thing--the law stands.


Brad

I did not say he beat the law, but apparently you cannot tell the difference.
The law stands as you say, however I stand correct, erfinder found at least one way not to fall into Lenz conditions and he has shown it.

If you don't trust me, ask gotoluc.
Who snoozes, looses...
What are you trying to do again? Aah:

It would seem you must have missed my post some time back.
I do not try to defeat lenz. In fact,i try to do the very opposite to that of the thread title.
I try to increase lenz as much as i can,to the point where it exceeds that which created it in the first place.


Brad

Good luck with that.

What is what you are showing in your videos again? Confirming Lenz? That's rich....

[tinman]

.
The law stands as you say, however I stand correct, erfinder found at least one way not to fall into Lenz conditions and he has shown it.

If you don't trust me, ask gotoluc.
Who snoozes, looses...
What are you trying to do again? Aah:
Good luck with that.

What is what you are showing in your videos again? Confirming Lenz? That's rich....

I did not say he beat the law, but apparently you cannot tell the difference

Perhaps you do not understand english so well?
To quote:

As regarding Lenz, erfinder made public demonstrations about circumventing his Law

To circumvent--find a way around.

I repeat--Erfinder did no such thing--the law stands-you just dont know where to look.

So as to refresh your memory
Lenz law-->The direction of current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field due to Faraday's law of induction will be such that it will create a field that opposes the change that produced it.
Lenz's law is shown by the negative sign in Faraday's law of induction:
which indicates that the induced voltage and the change in magnetic flux  have opposite signs.[1] It is a qualitative law that specifies the direction of induced current but says nothing about its magnitude. Lenz's Law explains the direction of many effects in electromagnetism, such as the direction of voltage induced in an inductor or wire loop by a changing current, or why eddy currents exert a drag force on moving objects in a magnetic field.


Brad

[tinman]

I did not say he beat the law, but apparently you cannot tell the difference.
The law stands as you say, however I stand correct, erfinder found at least one way not to fall into Lenz conditions and he has shown it.

If you don't trust me, ask gotoluc.
Who snoozes, looses...
What are you trying to do again? Aah:
Good luck with that.

What is what you are showing in your videos again? Confirming Lenz? That's rich....

You just dont get it-do you.

Once again for your benefit.
Lenz law-->The direction of current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field due to Faraday's law of induction will be such that it will create a field that opposes the change that produced it.

What happens when we increase this opposition to change in an electric motor?
When is the greatest BackEMF induced?
What is it that reduces current flow in an electric motor?

What i stated is correct--i try to increase the field that opposes the change that produced it.
I try to increase Lenz
The more you try to reduce(circumvent) Lenz,the more inefficient your device becomes.
If there is no opposition to current flow(no Lenz)(no impedance),then current would rise to a maximum value instantly in a motor and inductor.
If there was no Lenz in a generator,there would be no current flow at all.
Is it sinking in now?.

Oh look-i circumvented Lenz 
As i said,it can hide where it cant be seen-if your not looking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IVxO94mcB0

Brad

[EMJunkie]

You mean the impedance (Z) (of a series circuit) is equal to the Square Root of the Sum of (Resistance Squared plus the Reactance Squared) Assuming of course that you have already subtracted the XC from the XL (or vice verse, depending on whether XL or XC is the greater value)
Cheers

Hoptoad, there you go, thanks for correcting me! I am glad youre paying attention!

For others, I wrote a small app, I can share if you like?

            double Ohms = Math.Sqrt((Math.Pow(Volts, 2) + Math.Pow(Amps, 2)));

            double PhaseAngle = RadianToDegree(Math.Atan2(Volts, Amps));

            double Real = (Resistance * Math.Cos(DegreeToRadian(PhaseAngle)));

            double XL = (Resistance * Math.Sin(DegreeToRadian(PhaseAngle)));

            double Impedance = Math.Sqrt((Math.Pow(Real, 2) + Math.Pow(XL, 2)));

            double Inductance = XL / (2 * Math.PI * Frequency);

            double Xc = 2 * Math.PI * Frequency * Inductance;

            double Capacitance = 1 / (2 * Math.PI * Frequency * Xc);

I really do appreaciate being corrected, I am not perfect although I do try...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

@Emj

On a note of interest, before the term "Reactance" was invented everyone called any resistance to change "Resistance". Which has led to a great deal of confusion when reading old patents because resistance meant ohmic resistance and reactance.


I think the terminology seems skewed, take Inductance for example...
Inductance: is the property of an electrical conductor by which a change in current through it induces an electromotive force in both the conductor itself and in any nearby conductors by mutual inductance.


Is Inductance a property, attribute or component of something which conducts electricity?. I would think it is a property of moving charged particles which produce a changing magnetic field which then produces a force on other charged particles. Yet when we read the definition is gives us literally no insight into what actually happens. For instance by definition we could say charged particles streaming from the Sun have the property of Inductance... what the hell does that mean?. How, why, when and where would seem to be completely missing in action and the term seems meaningless.


Inductance would seem to the property(electrical conduction) of another property (a changing field) of yet another completely different property (an Emf) which then acts on the first supposed property. All lumped into one neat tidy little package which reminds me of a cat chasing it's tail in the dark.


AC

Most definitely! The terminology is skewed! Almost by Design?

Inductance is one that I like to refer to the old definition of "Induct" or "To Induct", this sounds like rubbish, but to me it makes very good sense:

Definitions

noun
1. the act of inducting or state of being inducted

2. the act of inducing

3. (in an internal-combustion engine) the part of the action of a piston by which mixed air and fuel are drawn from the carburettor to the cylinder

4. logic
a. a process of reasoning, used esp in science, by which a general conclusion is drawn from a set of premises, based mainly on experience or experimental evidence. The conclusion goes beyond the information contained in the premises, and does not follow necessarily from them. Thus an inductive argument may be highly probable, yet lead from true premises to a false conclusion

b. a conclusion reached by this process of reasoning. Compare deduction (sense 4)

5. the process by which electrical or magnetic properties are transferred, without physical contact, from one circuit or body to another. See also inductance

6. biology the effect of one tissue, esp an embryonic tissue, on the development of an adjacent tissue

7. biochemistry the process by which synthesis of an enzyme is stimulated by the presence of its substrate

8. mathematics, logic
a. a method of proving a proposition that all integers have a property, by first proving that 1 has the property and then that if the integer n has it so has n + 1

b. the application of recursive rules

9.
a. a formal introduction or entry into an office or position

b. (as modifier) ⇒ induction course, ⇒ induction period

10. US the formal enlistment of a civilian into military service

11. an archaic word for preface

Some amount of insight can be gained by generalising the use of the term, so I agree with you: "To Induce a flow of Charged Particles"

Of course this is the "EMF" the Electro motive Force! But alas, Voltage is only a Potential, and EMF by definition is: "a difference in potential that tends to give rise to an electric current." So realistically, we have no Flow of Charged Particles, but instead, we have the potential for the Flow of Charged Particles!

Completely different things!

I guess, the definition of Induction should change to: "To Induce the potential for Charged Particles to Flow"

Because the Flow of Charged Particles is Current and One Ampere is termed as: 6.25 × 10¹⁸ per second, but this is MMF, Magneto Motive Force and not EMF...

MMF, Magneto Motive Force is defined as: "a quantity representing the sum of the magnetizing forces along a circuit." - Which is true, but 180 Degrees out of phase, and in the Math there is not direction of travel, because there is no need in some situations.

There is also nothing in the equations to state that any Time Rate of change is needed for a Flow of Current. Only Voltage.

So, to stop boring all here with lengthy definitions, and the question of accuracy of them, we really should question all of it intensely if we are serious about this. There is a very large area where Holes exist, and if one properly understands the terms and how the terms fit together, them more sense can be made from this field. But, until that point, there lays a road of confusion and circles.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org