Lenz isolation device

[BorisKrabow]

Hello All ! 
                 Today I present a device that can supposedly isolate Lenz in the secondary magnetic circuit.  In this case, the primary coil should work with low energy costs, since it is little affected by the secondary coil. This is achieved by adjusting the air gaps.
   Presumably, the following processes take place: Air gaps have different sizes. Therefore, Lenz overcomes the air gap of the secondary coil before he has time to influence the primary coil. Thus, the influence of the secondary coil on the primary coil is reduced.
          Apparently, it is necessary to carry out tests with the supply of various signal forms to the primary coil and also control the energy removal from the secondary coil. It is also necessary to adjust the air gaps to obtain the highest efficiency of the device.

                     Best regards Boris

[citfta]

Hi Boris,


You seem to be confusing Lenz with magnetic flux.  The air gaps will only affect how much energy gets transferred from the primary to the secondary.  In any configuration where the Lenz effect of the secondary is reduced in relation to the primary the efficiency of the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary will also drop so you can not get as much power from the secondary as you are putting into the primary.  It appears that you don't understand what Lenz actually is.


Respectfully,
Carroll

[Xavier]

Alex Manzanero has good solution about lenz effect :
https://www.youtube.com/user/alexmanzanero/videos

[onepower]

Citfa

You seem to be confusing Lenz with magnetic flux.  The air gaps will only affect how much energy gets transferred from the primary to the secondary.  In any configuration where the Lenz effect of the secondary is reduced in relation to the primary the efficiency of the transfer of energy from the primary to the secondary will also drop so you can not get as much power from the secondary as you are putting into the primary.  It appears that you don't understand what Lenz actually is.

Many people do not seems to understand Lenz Law and the only thing Lenz actually claimed is...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz%27s_law

Lenz's law, named after the physicist Emil Lenz (pronounced /ˈlɛnts/) who formulated it in 1834, says that the direction of the electric current induced in a conductor by a changing magnetic field is such that the magnetic field created by the induced current opposes changes in the initial magnetic field.

In this respect I believe many are confusing cause and effect. More so when someone claims that "In any configuration" without knowing the countless possible variations in any possible number of configurations. I think you meant in a normal configuration just like countless people have been repeating for the last 100 years but not every possible configuration. It's semantics but words matter...

I seldom agree with Einstein conceptually but I think he nailed this quote...

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

Ergo, it comes down to understanding the rules well enough to know how and when they apply and when they do not. Then as Einstein implied imagining a new way of doing things in which said rules may no longer apply to our new way of thinking.

So what is it were actually looking for then?. In effect, we would want the cause to act on something and the effect should not reflect back to the cause which produced it. As Tesla implied, a transformation, in which the cause acts on something then transforms in such a way that the thing it has now become cannot act on the thing which produced it because it has transformed. In this respect cause and effect cannot be equal because the equation has changed.

Normally A produces an action on B and we could assume the fact that it has results in a reaction from B back to A, equal and opposite as Faraday implied. It is symmetrical by design however what if A on arriving at B transformed into more A?.  Now we have more A and no B, what then?... that's the question.

Regards
AC

[phoneboy]

@ onepower, I know I'm gonna get flamed for this but screw it.  I'm going out on a limb here by assuming that this thread is in reference to mitigating the mechanical effects of inducing current in a coil (drag).  If so then I believe the way to do this has been shown to us in the Utkin paper (the only thing of real significance in that paper) from ages ago.  You simply don't allow current to flow and work off the changing difference in potential that's created in said coil. That changing difference in potential creates an changing electric field, and that electric field (non static) is due to a verifiable quantity (that can affect charges) that radiates outwardly effectively 1/r that if expressed uniformly in an area even while changing would not produce a magnetic field in that area but outside of it.  You would then use the outward area for induction and effectively bypass the mechanical effects of inducing current in your primary. It's still cause/effect. This would be one of its uses and is a really old idea that's long overdue.

Wayne.