Canceling Lenz's Law - Methods

[BEP]

@BEP

Bam, slam, boom, boing, blump, nay say, no no, never never. Hope you're happy now. Lol

That does make me feel things are back to normal  Thanks!

That incline when turning will move the rotor armature from left to right, right to left over the coils making the shifting field above the coils.

Incline? Armature?

Sorry, there is no incline or armature. There is a rotor that shifts an unchanging flux density from one coil to another and back for each revolution of the rotor. ‘Armature’ implies either there are windings on the rotor reacting to a field in the stator or the windings on the stator are reacting to pole switching at the rotor. Neither is happening.

Usually an energized armature will want to rub against the coil armature as close as possible and over the total exposed surface area, whereas in your design, the armature will cover maybe 20% of the surface area and slide left to right, right to left.

The rotor surface covers 100% of the left portion of the stator and about 78% of the right section. Each only when the rotor was making magnetic connection with that stator section. The sections are 180 degrees apart. It is not energized unless you wish to consider a non-rotating or changing magnetic flux as energized.

good point of your design is the way the rotor is shown, it will be able to counter a higher level of drag because the rotor is more "cutting through" and not the conventional "gliding over" any potential drag condition.

Sorry, there is no ‘cutting through’ or drag. The original generator had a third coil. This coil was on the stator section above the magnet. I kept trimming, grinding and rebuilding until the output of that coil was practically zero regardless of speed or load.

I suppose I’ll never be able to relay useful info. It seems most have lost the ability to visualize a 3D object from a 2D sketch. Sorry, I don’t mess with 3D. It is pretty enough but the machinists use my prints well enough. I work in AutoCad but convert to Paint so I can post. Too much is lost.

Think of that rotor section as a coin spinning on the tabletop. Just before it falls the spin axis tilts. At that point the spin axis of the coin is oblique to a perpendicular line from the tabletop. From the stator’s view this action is a linear motion, constantly shifting from one pole of the stator to the other.

The magnet sees NO change in flux density. Lenz is no longer part of the equation for the magnet.
Drive the shaft with a small motor. Take what you need from the stator coils until they fry.

So sorry to say but you DO have a good idea there. Lol

Thanks. If you only knew.  lol

I tried 

[wattsup]

@BEP

Well...........At least I got the first part right. lol
Man did I miss this or what.
Nah.... I don't think I got it that wrong.
My use of the word armature was simply to explain that the rotor is not a magnet but is magnetized by one side of the disk magnet. Also, the two coils look wound on an armature regardless if laminated or not. The incline is your angled rotor going over the coils twice per rotation.
I then compared it to a standard full rotor and mentioned that since this design has less "armature" ratio turning over the coils it may need more rpm's to produce a better output.

So I have two questions.
Do you think the center magnet located on the shaft has enough magnetism to then permit having eight coil pairs all around the rotor as a full stack that would give eight times more output per rotation while turning the rotor should not expend more energy. If yes, you could then add two, three or more stacks to increase even more the output.
Something like the Lutec stacks.
Anyways, sorry if what I posted was not clear enough.

[BEP]

The incline is your angled rotor going over the coils twice per rotation.

Nope, still no incline. In the stator's view there is no incline. The same amount of flux is connected regardless of the rotor's position.

So I have two questions.
Do you think the center magnet located on the shaft has enough magnetism to then permit having eight coil pairs all around the rotor as a full stack that would give eight times more output per rotation while turning the rotor should not expend more energy. If yes, you could then add two, three or more stacks to increase even more the output.
Something like the Lutec stacks.

Thats a 'run before walk' statement. There are improvements but if you jump to the improvements you will probably find nothing works and move on to something else that has no chance of working at all.
I do that all the time 

Lutec? There is nothing like this out there.

Multiple stators ( making a three phase generator? ) will cause problems because flux will take the shortest/best path. You will still only have one set of poles working.

Enough magnetic force with this one magnet? Nah. Not enough to run your space heater but it should be enough to make you see the idea works. ("Killing the dipole" is B.S. for 'I got nuthin and want you all to think I have sumptin')

Anyways, sorry if what I posted was not clear enough.

The mistakes in clarity are mine. I know you to be high in mechanical visualization. If you aren't screaming and jumping at this sketch then no one else on this forum will see anything. Not that they wait on you. Just they don't have the ability.

I know I don't have one at this stage for photos. It was hard to make by hand. Might be easier to strip a current one....

[sparks]

    The question here is what is going on when a magnet flips over magnetic dipole moments in a piece of steel.  Is the energy coming from the magnet to create the magnetic domains or is it coming from the atoms responding to the magnet.  Lets say we just put and electromagnet on the field pole.  Then cause current to flow through the solenoid windings and change the magnetic flux density inside the steel core with the stator coil open.  This will require energy investment by the rotor but the coils on the rotor are two chokes so that very little current flows just converts voltage to magnetic flux change.  The impedance of these chokes is such that current is resisted and all work goes into magnetic core saturation.  In other words all current is choked by the impedance of the rotor chokes.  Like a primary on a 60hz power company transformer with no secondary current messing with the impedance parameters of the circuit.
Unlike the secondary of the rip off power companies mess on the pole we abruptly open the primary just as the choke coil cores saturate.  The magnetic field in the stator now returns very quickly to unsaturated conditions.  This shut off is timed with the close of the connection of the stator coil to a capacitor.  As the magnetic field collapses around this coil  we get a kick for free.  We need the power companies voltage not there frigging inefficient secondary currents.

[BEP]

This will require energy investment by the rotor

I don't know about the rest but the above statement is incorrect. Stick a motor on the end of the shaft. The only energy needed to rotate the shaft is friction of the rotor mechanics, provided your flux shifting is equal throughout the cycle.

There are no rotor chokes on any version. Capacitors come later. They are not required to prove the point.

Lenz does indeed play a role but ideally only at the coils. The coils can become hot 

Hysteresis of the stator arms is important. If you want to get over that, to a limited extent, use the same principals used in a magneto. Then you will dramatically increase output power and speed operating range. Again, I didn't offer those improvements because we always want the latest and greatest, don't we? Do that and your build will fail and one more person will think I'm an idiot.