AC voltage from single magnetic pole

[nix85]

Nix,

Here is the source of the phase shift in the video you referenced.

A first test was made with a large coil for current sense with a flat voltage sense coil in parallel as in the test video.  This can be seen in the first pix.  A ceramic PM was passed in front of this assembly with the PM axis on axis with the coil assembly.  In the following scope pix we again see no phase shift.  CH1(yel) is the voltage and CH4(grn) is the current.

A second test was made with the same coils only now the current sensing coil was positioned at 90 degrees to the voltage sensing coil and the PM axis as seen in the third pix.  The PM was again hand passed in the same relative position as before and the 4th pix shows the resulting waveforms.  Here we see the source of the of the current lag in the video when one considers the positioning and timing of the PMs on the rotor to the coils.

This video therefore is no proof of your position IMO.

Regards,
Pm

Let's suppose you are about this video, but it does nothing to disprove the effect itself, it does not debunk Heins' delayed lenz coils.

It does not disprove the fact that higher in frequency you get inductors become more and more reactive. Etc.

90° shift is possible.

[NdaClouDzzz]

No and Citfta's answer is correct.


This is because the impedance of the scope probe is so high that it is negligible at frequencies occurring in these mechanical machine Hz or kHz at most.
However if you were dealing with MHz frequencies or higher then the impedance of a typical scope probe would NOT be negligible anymore.  That's why in such scenarios active FET probes are preferred - they have an even higher impedance than passive scope probes.
Using separate coils for sensing the voltage and current is not more accurate and in my opinion it is not even necessary to resolve this issue, but it is cleaner conceptually and it is more difficult to object to the result of an experiment that uses separate coils for sensing induced voltage and induced current ...and since it does not skew the experiment much when identical coils are used, I just agree to it.

Thank you for the reply.
Question: If using a sensing coil/s, would the current/voltage measured be that produced/induced in the sensing coil/s? I'm not sure if I'm asking this question correctly. For example, in a step-down transformer the secondary would have lower voltage/higher current. I'm wondering if using a sensing coil of say lesser turns than the coil you want to measure wouldn't cause some skewed results due to a change in voltage/current. I suspect that it would not make any difference in regards to phase. Thank you.
Regards

[verpies]

Which means you got too much resistance and capacitance in the circuit and you have proved nothing. Also you used way too low speed,

@ Citfta
You have not plugged all the "holes" in your experiment and now they are being used to undermine its validity.

inductive reactance is X_L= 2πfL.

@nix85
True, but only in reference to external sinusoidal AC voltage applied to an inductor (of magnitude V_rms). 
In such scenario, the rms of AC current (_redundant) flowing through this inductor is i_rms = V_rms / 2πfL  ...and for a square AC voltage applied to that inductor that current is  i_rms = πV_rms/ 16fL.


However, the above is not true in case of applying an external alternating flux through that inductor.
Are you able to provide a formula for the alleged phase difference (θ) between the induced voltage and induced current in an inductor that is subjected to a sinusoidally varying external magnetic flux ?

[nix85]

However, the above is not true in case of applying an external alternating flux through that inductor.

So now you are not claiming only for ideal coil but for all coils over which external flux changes.

Do you realize Heins' delayed lenz motor works only due to the fact that reality is opposite to what you claim. Yea, i believe he uses cores, but nonetheless.

Also did you see the quote above about superconductors, do you see it is common knowledge inductance plays the same role as in resistive coils.. delaying current.

[verpies]

Nix,
This test was done using an air core coil arrangement that has L1 ~100 turn for the voltage sense coil with L2 ~20 turns wound directly on top of L1 resulting in a rather tight coupling of k~.95 or so.  A ceramic PM was moved by hand past the coil assembly with the resulting traces sampled on a Tek MDO using a Tek TCP0020 current probe for the current sense.

Ch1(yel) shows the voltage across L1 and CH4(grn) shows the current through L2 shorted.  It is obvious that the voltage and current are in-phase.

Thank you for performing this experiment but unfortunately you did not keep it clean enough and I suspect that now Nix will try to punch holes in it. He is entitled to do so, BTW.
Most likely he will object to:
- The period of the magnet's motion is too long compared the the L/R time constant of the inductive circuit.
- the speed is not controlled precisely enough. Is not uniform.
- the coils are not identical (this would also be an objection from me) or have the wrong number of turns.


...and finally my objection: The coils are in too close proximity. This allows the shorted coil to influence the flux penetrating the open coil used to sense the voltage.  As you probably know, a shorted coil opposes the flux which attempts to penetrate it. It pushes the change of the flux out of itself.

[/font]
If you would like any changes made to this simple test, let me know as I can wind any configuration you would request apart from an SC coil.

In My Opinion this would do:
1) Attach two identical magnets on the perimeter of a bicycle wheel, diametrically oppositely.
2) Place two identical air core coils around the wheel diametrically oppositely.
3) Open both coils and precisely calibrate their position such that their induced voltage signals are identical and in phase.
4) Close one coil and prepare it for current measurement.
5) The bicycle wheel can be spun by hand but the i&v measurement must be made only when it is spinning down by itself (by its moment of inertia).
6) Repeat the experiment with the roles of the coils reversed, i.e. close the voltage sensing coil and open the current sensing coil.