Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

[gyulasun]

Hi Tao,

Now that I slept on your idea a little, I would like to return to your point 6...

6. So, it is at this moment that the next key thing happens. The power pulse shuts off abrubtly, re-OPEN-ing the power coil. At this same instant, or slightly before, the pickup coil is CLOSED, preferably with a load of some sorts.

So if you close the pickup coil with a load exactly or even a little earlier when the power coil is switched off,  then the collapsing field of the power coil will certainly be 'seen' by the pickup coil, being placed on the same core, right?  If so, then you have to consider the current induced in the pickup coil and its magnetic field thus created, don't you?  How will this induced current/magnetic field affect the operation: in an aiding or in an opposing sense ?
I do not think we can leave this effect out from the operation without any consideration.  Also what I mentioned yesterday on utilizing the flyback pulse across the power coil is to be reconsidered again.

@Steven

Interesting question you ask with point 9.  My understanding is that the speed of the field "coming" from a permanent magnet is at the speed of the light so that the event the flux of the leaving magnet snaps back to the core happens much much quicker than the magnet is leaving. This should mean that the useful flux change in the core is able to induce current in the pickup coil much much earlier than the effect you ask is able to work (the speed of the leaving magnet is some thousand RPM and compare this to c).  So I think the negative effect of the  "moving-away" magnet will be small.

It is sure the power pulse fired into the power coil should be just enough to just counteract the permanent magnets field and I think the pulse duration is of high importance too (must be short enough and with very steep rise and fall times).

Thanks and Best Regards, 
Gyula

[supermuble]

Gyula, you are right. You can't normally step up power with an inductive kick back (back EMF). It is just a high intensity spark. I did not mean to use the word "power." I meant voltage. Though the fly back voltage contains less power, it does contain higher potential. You can use this potential to "activate" lead acid batteries so they will furnish their own power, so then power is greater from the fly back in this scenario. But of course, I have seen the oscilloscope readings, and the inductive kick back is high voltage, but very short duration so it is not normally useful.

According to Thane Neinz who finds that there is tremendous benefit to using different reluctance materials for a transformer, and according to P. Lindemann who says the best motor or generator is the reluctance type (with varying magnetic reluctance). Anyway I came up with this idea. It may or may not be useful.

[Nali2001]

Hi, supermuble,
Well about the setup you show, there is no real reason why the field from the magnet will 'go all the way though' the coil section since the field from one polarity will have to return to the other polarity. The field will just leak back to the magnet somewhere along the core. And even if there would be some induction going on, then the leakage will be even worse wince then the coil part will be even less a 'path of least resistance'

Steven

[supermuble]

Unless you try it, you cannot be sure. I just tried this same setup, without the arch piece in place. I used a transformer, with an EI core with a passing north/south series of magnets, induction created .225 volts at 1000 rpm, which is about 1/5th of the voltage generated with an open core, but since there is no Lenz drag, there could be a 90% reduction in resistance to spinning the rotor which means you can easily spin the rotor more than 5 times faster.

I can try it with an arch piece, but cutting through a piece of toroid is very difficult with a dremel. I need to get my chop saw out.

Take for example, Thane Heinz transformer that is up to 7000% overunity. You would never believe that this could form a magnetic coupling, but it does. The point is, if you get the rotor spinning very very fast, induction will have to occur, since Farday's law of induction says the rate of change is just as important as the magnetic flux. Increase the speed enough and you should get induction without Lenz's law.

If you have a better idea please show it. My idea is to combine Heinz transformer principles over into the design of a generator. Since generators and transformers both are plagued with Lenz's law, they should both be able to use the same principle to avoid Lenz's law. Both use a moving magnetic flux to create electricity, and remember that flux has no weight, so it should not take any physical force to move it.

Look at the attached pic. Imagine what the flux should do. In real life it only travels in one direction (mostly towards the secondary) so that the force creating the flux never knows it did any work at all, since it is largely unaffected by the secondary magnetic field.

In the picture below, there is no reason at all for the main flux from the primary coil to travel out into the secondary core, but it does.

2nd Revision: I just tested the design with an unmodified toroid attached to a square inductor. There is about 10 times less voltage induced into the core, meaning the flux is staying in the toroid, so it doesn't work at all with a regular toroid. I will try a half circle (cut toroid) when I get the opportunity and compare the difference. It is quite possible that it will not work like you say. 11:27 AM

[hoptoad]

Take for example, Thane Heinz transformer that is up to 7000% overunity.

You need to re read Thanes posts about his bi-toroid transformer - very carefully. Far from being 7000% O/U, when you compare the actual output power with the input power, his bi-toroid transformer is much less efficient than an ordinary transformer.

Cheers.