After all the Lorentz Force (of Lenz' drag) is a force...

[penno64]

In a system designed to serve as an exciter, where the inducing and induced field interactions are orthogonal, where one assumes that the induced circuit, under "normal" circumstances is configured series cancelling, and the inducing circuit is from a magnetics standpoint "unidirectional", an inversion of Lenz's law can be experienced when the excited circuit is placed under load.


That which is being suggested here has nothing to do with anything that anyone has demonstrated nor discussed on this or any other forum.


Regards

Oh yeah -

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnGwp_xxmyJiY-r1oshJn9Q

[ALVARO_CS]

Erfinder: thank you for your substantial answer.
It will be saved. (and studied)
cheers

[Dog-One]

... where the inducing and induced field interactions are orthogonal, ...

Meaning at right angles to each other AND independent of each other correct?

This would seem at first sight to be non-intuitive.  However, I would bet my next paycheck Erfinder is correct.  He's done the work required to flesh this out.  It's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking these two fields are tied to each other in ways they are not.  And as soon as you do that, you simply the formulas down to something that will never allow you to achieve the results you are looking for.       The same thing is true with the original Maxwell equations--they are indeed complex, but contain the freedom to see the whole picture from whatever perspective you place yourself.

[verpies]

I see some times, what I think of as analogies between the curves in force x displacement integrations and the curves in a single wave form. I think this is especially interesting in the context of pulse motors.

Did you ever consider a force vs. displacement curve of a piece of a soft ferromagnetic material (not a permanent magnet) attracted into an energized shorted air-core ideal inductor ?   ... and how that curve differs when the same is attracted by a permanent magnet?

[dieter]

Thanks everybody for your contributions to this thread. Please excuse me for being around so rarely.

Personally, I prefer to simplify things as much as possible. I imagine electrons as little refugees, hunted by magnetic invasion. As little dudes who love their homes so they return back home when the magnetic invaders back off.

Once you realize how simple it is, it becomes much easier to think out of the box.

Flux density is important, but I'd gladly give it away for inverted Lorentz force. However, within a small space both may be possible simultanously.

This experiment is as simple as amazing:
When you move a permanent magnet PM away from a coil L, you'll get, say, negative voltage. If you approach it, you'll get positive voltage. Now fix the PM at a certain distance, eg. 1inch, above the L. This gives you a static field in L, a bias.
Take a disc of iron, same radius as PM, eg. 1/8 inch thick, and put it between PM and L. The iron now becomes an instance of PM, showing the same polarity. But there's a big diffrence: If you move the Iron up, within the space between PM and L, the voltage is now positive, you move it down and get negative voltage. And yet, the iron disc is a copy of the PM. Think about it. Or even better, try it.

If we choose to limit our action to a small space between PM and L, we're getting both, high field strength and reversed Lorentz force.
Needless to say, the attraction of the disc by the PM can be nullified by mechanical compensation.

Implementing a rotating version might be trickier, as the polarity is no longer identical when approaching from the side. But I think it's still possible.

@Floor,
" ....
Also.... Some thing I have pondered is;  do two permanent magnet approaching one another (pole to
pole)  either attracting or repelling, induce electric currents each in the other ?  "

I think this depends on shape and conductivity. Two ring magnets of conducting material certainly do. And there are also eddy currents.

Regardless of whether PM or Coils, there is always the dilemma of selfinduction and recursive induction, but, in the end of the day, with every iteration this stuff gets weaker and weaker and therefor, what is really important is the first action and reaction. The action should be as effective as possible (field strength/flux density/chanche) and the reaction should be small or even better: reversed. (though that is considered impossible by "accepted theories")...

.