This is not a thread to be confrontational. The purpose of this thread is to pick it up where it left off the other day without censorship when discussing technical matters. Anybody is free to contribute but all of you should refrain from personal attacks and name calling.
Here is Luc's last posting:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi everyone,
as promised here is a video demo with accurate input power measurements done by using a DC input to the Dremel (universal motor) instead of AC which is difficult to measure.
The power is supplied by a variac connected to a full wave bridge rectifier and a 1000uf DC capacitor to smooth the DC.
Link to video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TKByKqLV0M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TKByKqLV0M)
TEST RESULTS:
Input to Dremel on load is 60vdc @ 0.500ma = 30W
Input to Dremel off load is 60.3vdc @ 0.475ma = 28.64W
Power difference is 1.36W of extra power consumption by prime mover when coil is on load
Output is a 25 Ohm load @ 7.84vrms = 2.46W
then we subtract - 1.36W = 1.1W of gained power output which is not supplied by prime mover.
You may of noticed this is not the same coil as the first test since that one was not performing very well (too small), so I made a new one since the first one only had a half a watt gain and I was sure it would of been argued that it's just measurement error.
So I went trough the time, trouble and expense to make this new one so there's no second guessing.
Like I have said, a coil can be made to give more of this effect but more testing needs to be done to understand what are the ideal perimeters as I've seen coils with more gain then this new one but I think it's a good starting point.
A stronger magnet will also give more output. If someone is ready to pay for a larger 1" Diametrically Magnetized magnet, I'm ready to do the test: http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RX04X0DIA (http://www.kjmagnetics.com/proddetail.asp?prod=RX04X0DIA) please pm me and I'll send you a US address.
COIL INFORMATION:
Coil DC resistance is 2 Ohms.
Coil has 41.56mH with magnet pole in attraction to core and 49.42mH with magnet positioned between poles.
Coil is wound Bifilar but connected in parallel.
I tested the Capacitance between open wires strands and it is 38.46pf with magnet in attraction to core and 38.51pf with magnet between poles.
Coil wire (with enamel) measures 0.8mm and the core is a square Ferrite rod measuring 12mm x 12mm x 90mm long.
I can wind more turns on the coil at a later date to confirm if it give a boost in gain.
This was the first load test and more will be done to find the coils most efficient output (most watts out with minimum effect to prime mover).
Please share your thoughts as to what is contributing to this effect.
Luc
Here are my comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Luc:
You saw an increased power draw when the generator coil is loaded. Before you were insisting that there was no increased power draw. You should try to account for your past errors and try to square them away with your readers.
QuoteInput to Dremel on load is 60vdc @ 0.500ma = 30W
Input to Dremel off load is 60.3vdc @ 0.475ma = 28.64W
Power difference is 1.36W of extra power consumption by prime mover when coil is on load
Output is a 25 Ohm load @ 7.84vrms = 2.46W
then we subtract - 1.36W = 1.1W of gained power output without affecting prime mover.
I hate to say it again but you are leading yourself down a garden path. Also, you are making real measurements here, you should not be ignoring the resistance of the coil. The coil capacitance measurement is also meaningless and has no affect and should not be considered.
Here are some issues that have to be factored in: 1) You have no idea what the efficiency of the Dremel is. 2) You have no idea if the efficiency of the Dremel will change under different supply voltages, loads and RPM. 3) You are drawing a conclusion without having enough data to support the conclusion. 4) You are not correctly relating the waste heat with the "payload" power that goes into the generator.
Here is your real data:
UNDER LOAD:Input: 30 watts electrical
Generator output: 2.46 watts
Motor output: 27.54 watts heat
Total output: 30 watts
Note: The motor heat output power is derived by subtracting the generator output power from the input electrical power. That is how the power is split in your setup.
NO LOAD:Input: 28.64 watts electrical
Motor output: 28.64 watts heat
The above is the real analysis of your data. That's all that you can conclude from your experiment with the caveat that the heat dissipation in the coil windings was not accounted for.
QuoteOutput is a 25 Ohm load @ 7.84vrms = 2.46W
then we subtract - 1.36W = 1.1W of gained power output without affecting prime mover.
The above calculation is an invalid calculation. If you review what I wrote above this should become clear to you.
MileHigh
I will just repeat: The purpose of this thread is to have a technical discussion without any technical censorship at all. There is no intention to be confrontational at all with this thread. Personal attacks and abuse and demeaning comments and name calling are to be avoided.
As long as that is understood, people are free to say anything they want about the alleged "delayed Lenz effect."
MileHigh
Here is a decent posting I made that I think is worth repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Tinman:
In the first half of my posting I stated that my comments were geneic and not directed at anyone in particular.
Mark often makes great succinct technical arguments and makes graphics and I thank him for that. Here is my version of a short summary of the issues:
1. With a resistive load on the generator coil, there is no Lenz delay, it's simply impossible.
2. With a capacitive or inductive reactive load then there is a Lenz drag during the charging phase and then a push when the reactive load discharges its stored energy for a net gain of zero (ignoring losses.)
3. What has only been mentioned a few times is the "fake out" Lenz delay. This is when the generator coil and load together dissipate less power when you are making the Lenz delay test as compared to the original configuration. Less power dissipated by the generator coil + load equals a higher RPM for the rotor. This is a no-brainer and many beginning experimenters simply failed to make these measurements.
4. Changes to the mechanical and electrical configuration of the setup when doing a Lenz delay test can inadvertently change the overall average electrical impedance of the pulse motor and where the power flows in the system. If the impedance goes down the current draw from the power supply will increase and most likely the rotor will speed up. If the impedance goes up the current draw from the power supply will decrease and most likely the rotor will slow down. That's what's taking place in the JLN clip that was linked to. That is another "fake out" and you have to be on your toes to not hoodwink yourself.
When it comes to #4, you might make a change and the rotor speed will in increase by just a few percent. Something like simply lowering the stresses on the main bearing while rotating at high RPM could cause an effect like this.
What's been happening over the past two years is that many amateur experimenters when working with their pulse motors will say "delayed Lenz effect" when they observe a speed up in the RPM for whatever reason. They don't actually investigate the real reasons, they just use the blanket term "delayed Lenz effect" when they see a speed up and they are convinced that they have "replicated the effect."
As a generic shout out, guys and gals, you have to do better than this. Working an investigation together might help where people encourage each other to get the right answers. You have to think "outside of the box" and in this context thinking "outside of the box" actually means that you do a proper investigation using standard electronics principles and measurement techniques. You all can do better if you work together and encourage each other to improve your craft.
MileHigh
Here is a great technical posting bt MarkE that is also worth repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone who believes in the idea of free energy from a "Lenz delay" should study the graphic below.
Lenz' Law sets the orientation of induced voltage resulting from Faraday induction.
If a load is resistive, induced current is in phase with induced voltage and the resulting magnetic field at all times acts directly against the inducing current. This is a unity power factor.
If a load is purely reactive, then energy is stored in the load and later returned to the source, and no net energy conveys to the load. This is a zero power factor.
If a load is resonant, then the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance magnitudes are equal. The load appears resistive. In the case of a series L-C, the resistance appears low. In the case of a parallel L-C, the resistance appears very large.
If a load is partially resistive and partially reactive, then more energy transfers to the load each cycle than is returned. This is a power factor greater than zero but less than one.
Can making a load reactive unload a driver? Of course it can: Less work is done on the load. In the extreme case the load effectively disappears, along with any useful work that could have been done by transferring net energy to the load.
Can making a load reactive actually drive the source? Not net across one or more complete cycles. A reactive load can only return less energy in any given cycle than supplied by the source.
Can resonance help? No, at resonance, the load appears resistive as either an effective short circuit across the source, or an open circuit.
I have to do a little bit of house cleaning here.
Luc is accusing me of being a liar. I am no liar and Luc's statement is offensive to me and I will respond to it to set the record straight.
QuoteBTW, please read my closing post of that topic which will once again confirm MileHigh has written an untruth "I don't acknowledge an error when it is pointed out to me"
You are using flawed logic Luc, like some political spin artist. "Once again" is pure spin and it's a lie on your part. The fact that you acknowledged an error in a posting to Poyny99 a year ago doesn't mean that you acknowledge some or all of your errors and the efforts that people put in to correct them and educate you. It certainly doesn't make me a liar, that's ridiculous. I have corrected your errors numerous times and often went to considerable effort to explain the reasoning and to educate you so you wouldn't make them again. Many times you didn't acknowledge the error nor did you acknowledge the effort that was made on my part to correct you and teach you and that's wrong.
Example #1:http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg427963/#msg427963 (http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg427963/#msg427963)
Luc:
QuoteHumm (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/undecided.gif (http://overunity.com/Smileys/default/undecided.gif)) ... why do you keep writing unknown Inductance when I have already posted the DC Resistance and Inductance value?
http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg427939/#msg427939 (http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg427939/#msg427939)
MileHigh:
QuoteIt's because the measured inductance of your generator coil and the unknown inductance are different things. Some of the unknown inductance may be coming from the generator coil.
The generator coil is responding to the spinning magnet attached to the prime mover. That turns the generator coil into an EMF source. This is not the inductance and it does not act like an inductance. It's an AC voltage source, a.k.a. an EMF source. As an AC voltage source, it does not have the property of inductance.
So you had no idea that the generator coil was not the "unknown inductance." You did not understand the difference between a coil acting like an active EMF source vs. a passive inductance. That's a big deal, and you never acknowledged your mistake and my follow-up posting.
Example #2:Just look at the fist two postings in this thread. Your analysis of your test was all wrong and you thought that you had "
1.1W of gained power output which is not supplied by prime mover" and nothing could be further from the truth. My response to you took considerable effort and you have not acknowledged your error or the work I did to help you.
Bonus:"New" information about the 25-ohm resistor vs. the 1-ohm resistor and if the load will affect the prime mover.
http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg428583/#msg428583 (http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg428583/#msg428583)
Luc Dec 22:
QuoteThe test was using a 25 Ohm load. Show me the post where I wrote a 25 Ohm load will have no increased in power draw.
Also, I was testing this with half the RPM and power input then the first test but it's clear to me now that you are not here to help a researcher as you have once again taken the first opportunity to try to discredit me and that I don't know what I'm doing.
You will not be able to support your written statement above and I'm no longer going to bother replying to your posts.
http://overunity.com/15289/delayed-lenz-or-not-post-your-explaination/msg428047/#msg428047
Luc Dec 17:
QuoteThe Dremel is connected to a Kill-Watt power meter at all time to verify its power consumption.
The power meter has zero change when the coil is connected to the 1 and 12.5 Ohm load. There may be a half Watt increase (hard to tell) when the coil is connected to the 25 Ohm load but it's delivering 3.2 Watts.
So the coil connected to the 25 Ohm load delivers 2.7 Watts output at no power cost to the prime mover.
and the coil connected to the 12.5 Ohm load delivers 2 Watts output at no power cost to the prime mover.
You note I backtracked and stated that you were only talking about the one-ohm load resistor not affecting the prime mover. Of course saying it won't affect the prime mover is wrong. Well it turns out just a few days ago you did state that the 25-ohm load would not affect the prime mover. Of course that is wrong also and lo and behold, people are human and they don't have perfect memories. That includes me and it includes you.
In summary, many times I have corrected your errors and have gone to considerable effort to explain why and to educate you. You did not acknowledge your errors, nor the effort put in to help you, nor did you state to your audience how your reconciled this and how you would move forward with your testing. I am expecting this to change from now on and see you show respect for my efforts and other people's efforts. You can't "turn invisible" when you make a mistake, especially when you are making a presentation for your peers on the site and to the wider Internet audience. You have to be real.
I am no liar, and I just gave you the real deal.
MileHigh
MH:
I thank you for posting this information. I also appreciate the drawings that Mark provided. Even I can now see that Mr. Lenz is still there with us, sort of like gravity. It appears that, at least for now, like gravity, we will be stuck with him. It is one of those hurdles that we may never get over searching for something for nothing. I will not say that there will never be a workaround, but for now at least, I don't think we are there yet.
Thank you,
Bill
Bill:
Thanks for your comments. Mark is very knowledgeable and he is a great example of using the power of proper scientific terminology and concepts to make his points. I am a bit embarrassed when it comes to that because I can't do it myself. Most, but not all, of what Mark discusses I am familiar with because I sat through the classes and did the labs but it was 30 years ago now. Nor was I really a hard-core academic. I actually went through a period of about 15 years where I stopped thinking about electronics altogether. So although most of the time I have a good sense of what is going on, I sometimes struggle with expressing myself properly and understanding things. For people that are real keeners, they should be reading Mark and Googling at the same time.
Anyway, between my "meat and potatoes" approach and with the help of Mark and others, the real deal about the alleged "delayed Lenz effect" will hopefully be clarified for the vast majority of the experimenters. I view the delayed Lenz effect to be almost like a virus. Just like for a few years people were doing CFL projects and stating that "power is coming up from the ground."
One possibility would be to look at setups where people believe that they are manifesting the delayed Lenz effect. They can present their data here and we can collectively examine it. If that actually happened you can expect that all of the setups will be explainable using conventional electronics concepts with no undefined "delayed Lenz effect" in sight.
MileHigh
Challenge to all of you:
If you think you have a setup that shows the "delayed Lenz effect" then post your information here and let's discuss it.
Requirements:
1. Explain exactly and precisely what you mean by the "delayed Lenz effect."
2. Document your setup with measurements and scope shots showing your data and explaining where the "delayed Lenz effect" is manifesting itself in your setup.
Note: You can't just show a scope waveform. You actually have to discuss the details in the scope waveform and explain it.
That's the deal. Just running a pulse motor and changing the load resistor on a generator coil and observing a speed increase of the rotor and saying, "delayed Lenz effect" will not cut it. You actually have to show measurements and explain why it is an alleged "delayed Lenz effect."
The issue is that for years now forum members have been talking about the "delayed Lenz effect" as if it were real without even defining it. It has been used as a catch-all term and it is meaningless. If you use the term "delayed Lenz effect" when you talk about your setups you are just hurting yourself and preventing yourselves from learning.
MileHigh
One thing that I think is happening is that most of the devices and circuits that are supposed to show the effects that are attributed to DLE are actually so inefficient that the usual tests might be just "running on inefficiency" if you know what I mean.
My "garden hose" example tries to illustrate what I mean. Say you are in the back yard with your garden hose, on full blast, and you have a sensitive flowmeter attached to the nozzle. You're spraying your garden, the sidewalk, over the fence etc. like mad, at full power, and you take a reading on the flowmeter. Now someone comes along with a bucket and collects some of the overspray. Does the flowmeter reading change? Of course it doesn't. Now the person pours the water in the bucket onto the garden where it belongs... so you are getting more water to the garden than before. Does the flowmeter reading change?
Get it? Running on inefficiency.
There is a belief, it seems, that simply shorting an output coil provides the "heaviest" load on a generator system. This may not be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem
Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2014, 03:45:39 PM
Here is a great technical posting bt MarkE that is also worth repeating:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anyone who believes in the idea of free energy from a "Lenz delay" should study the graphic below.
Lenz' Law sets the orientation of induced voltage resulting from Faraday induction.
If a load is resistive, induced current is in phase with induced voltage and the resulting magnetic field at all times acts directly against the inducing current. This is a unity power factor.
If a load is purely reactive, then energy is stored in the load and later returned to the source, and no net energy conveys to the load. This is a zero power factor.
If a load is resonant, then the inductive reactance and capacitive reactance magnitudes are equal. The load appears resistive. In the case of a series L-C, the resistance appears low. In the case of a parallel L-C, the resistance appears very large.
If a load is partially resistive and partially reactive, then more energy transfers to the load each cycle than is returned. This is a power factor greater than zero but less than one.
Can making a load reactive unload a driver? Of course it can: Less work is done on the load. In the extreme case the load effectively disappears, along with any useful work that could have been done by transferring net energy to the load.
Can making a load reactive actually drive the source? Not net across one or more complete cycles. A reactive load can only return less energy in any given cycle than supplied by the source.
Can resonance help? No, at resonance, the load appears resistive as either an effective short circuit across the source, or an open circuit.
Your "Lenz Delay Fallacy" diagram is just an abstract schematic that has nothing to do with magnetizem or
"Phase Lag in Core Material". DLE has nothing at all to do with electricty floiwng through a conductor and is strictly an effect of Magnetizem.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2014, 11:43:48 AM
One thing that I think is happening is that most of the devices and circuits that are supposed to show the effects that are attributed to DLE are actually so inefficient that the usual tests might be just "running on inefficiency" if you know what I mean.
My "garden hose" example tries to illustrate what I mean. Say you are in the back yard with your garden hose, on full blast, and you have a sensitive flowmeter attached to the nozzle. You're spraying your garden, the sidewalk, over the fence etc. like mad, at full power, and you take a reading on the flowmeter. Now someone comes along with a bucket and collects some of the overspray. Does the flowmeter reading change? Of course it doesn't. Now the person pours the water in the bucket onto the garden where it belongs... so you are getting more water to the garden than before. Does the flowmeter reading change?
Get it? Running on inefficiency.
There is a belief, it seems, that simply shorting an output coil provides the "heaviest" load on a generator system. This may not be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem
Gotoluc's latest tests involved a resistive load, not coil shorting. The greater the load the closer it is to a dead short. A dead short can also be compared to an infinite capacitor.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 11:55:58 AM
This is just an abstract schematic that has nothing to do with magnetizem or "Phase Lag in Core Material". DLE has nothing at all to do with electricty floiwng through an conductor and is strictly an effect of Magnetizem.
Synchro1 you keep repeating this claim. The claim is false.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html
QuoteQuoteLenz's Law
When an emf is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced emf is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the change which produces it. The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant. In the examples below, if the B field is increasing, the induced field acts in opposition to it. If it is decreasing, the induced field acts in the direction of the applied field to try to keep it constant.
Induction is an electromagnetic phenomenon.
As seen above induction is necessary in order to have a situation where Lenz' Law is applicable.
Ergo Lenz' Law describes an aspect of an
electromagnetic phenomenon.
Ergo any reference to Lenz must reference electromagnetics.
This is very fundamental. There is no give.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 12:03:38 PM
Gotoluc's latest tests involved a resistive load, not coil shorting. The greater the load the closer it is to a dead short. A dead short can also be compared to an infinite capacitor.
You have just shown that you do not get the point of my comment at all. Please read the power transfer theorem page that I linked.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 22, 2014, 03:29:18 PM
Here are my comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Luc:
You saw an increased power draw when the generator coil is loaded. Before you were insisting that there was no increased power draw. You should try to account for your past errors and try to square them away with your readers.
I hate to say it again but you are leading yourself down a garden path. Also, you are making real measurements here, you should not be ignoring the resistance of the coil. The coil capacitance measurement is also meaningless and has no affect and should not be considered.
Here are some issues that have to be factored in: 1) You have no idea what the efficiency of the Dremel is. 2) You have no idea if the efficiency of the Dremel will change under different supply voltages, loads and RPM. 3) You are drawing a conclusion without having enough data to support the conclusion. 4) You are not correctly relating the waste heat with the "payload" power that goes into the generator.
Here is your real data:
UNDER LOAD:
Input: 30 watts electrical
Generator output: 2.46 watts
Motor output: 27.54 watts heat
Total output: 30 watts
Note: The motor heat output power is derived by subtracting the generator output power from the input electrical power. That is how the power is split in your setup.
NO LOAD:
Input: 28.64 watts electrical
Motor output: 28.64 watts heat
The above is the real analysis of your data. That's all that you can conclude from your experiment with the caveat that the heat dissipation in the coil windings was not accounted for.
The above calculation is an invalid calculation. If you review what I wrote above this should become clear to you.
MileHigh
You can't use the 1.36 watts to factor a heat loss. This value needs to be converted to "negative microhenries" and results in cooling.
Quote from: MarkE on December 23, 2014, 12:03:57 PM
Synchro1 you keep repeating this claim. The claim is false.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/farlaw.html
Induction is an electromagnetic phenomenon.
As seen above induction is necessary in order to have a situation where Lenz' Law is applicable.
Ergo Lenz' Law describes an aspect of an electromagnetic phenomenon.
Ergo any reference to Lenz must reference electromagnetics.
This is very fundamental. There is no give.
You'e just full of crap.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 23, 2014, 11:43:48 AM
One thing that I think is happening is that most of the devices and circuits that are supposed to show the effects that are attributed to DLE are actually so inefficient that the usual tests might be just "running on inefficiency" if you know what I mean.
My "garden hose" example tries to illustrate what I mean. Say you are in the back yard with your garden hose, on full blast, and you have a sensitive flowmeter attached to the nozzle. You're spraying your garden, the sidewalk, over the fence etc. like mad, at full power, and you take a reading on the flowmeter. Now someone comes along with a bucket and collects some of the overspray. Does the flowmeter reading change? Of course it doesn't. Now the person pours the water in the bucket onto the garden where it belongs... so you are getting more water to the garden than before. Does the flowmeter reading change?
Get it? Running on inefficiency.
There is a belief, it seems, that simply shorting an output coil provides the "heaviest" load on a generator system. This may not be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_power_transfer_theorem
This sort of situation happens frequently: A fundamentally inefficient process is used as a reference. A variable is changed and presto there is better overall efficiency. When the source of inefficient operation is a shunt regulator then the change in the output is not detected by the input. A shunt regulator can be configured to load an input with a constant load, while delivering a variable output. Another analogy is controlling the motion of a vehicle by maintaining constant throttle and varying control over the brakes. Power from the engine goes into heating the brakes or accelerating the car / overcoming friction and aerodynamic losses. Even though the engine load can be arranged to be very steady, this is a very inefficient way to run a car.
You are also absolutely correct that minimum load impedance rarely means most
externally delivered power. It often means the most
internally dissipated power. In the simple DC case: Given a source with an internal resistance R
SOURCE and an external load with impedance R
LOAD the maximum load current occurs when R
LOAD approaches zero. However, that means that almost all the source voltage appears across R
SOURCE, and therefore almost all power is dissipated in R
SOURCE.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 12:19:42 PM
You'e just full of crap.
If so then you should be able to refute my statements using verifiable facts.
Quote from: MarkE on December 23, 2014, 12:47:25 PM
If so then you should be able to refute my statements using verifiable facts.
Everybody knows you jerks are just a couple of clowns. Lenz's law has nothing to do with DLE. The effect should be termed
Magnetic core delayed Lenz effect.
No one can make heads nor tails out of anything you monkeys say. You grifters have been running a "Back Alley Shell and Pea Game" the enire time for your "Tar Sand" payolla group. Your're completely shameless about trying to dupe the learners. I refuse to let you get away with it.
What I need help with is to determine what effect magnets have on core viscosity and phase lag. All you three have done is side track this branch of research. Last year this time, Milehigh bombed in on my Conradelectro magnet core coil test and caused a serious problem. Nothing meaningfull has taken place in the meantime.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 02:45:34 PM
No one can make heads nor tails out of anything you monkeys say. You grifters have been running a "Back Alley Shell and Pea Game" the enire time for your "Tar Sand" payolla group. Your're completely shameless about trying to dupe the learners. I refuse to let you get away with it.
What I need help with is to determine what effect magnets have on core viscosity and phase lag. All you three have done is side track this branch of research. Last year this time, Milehigh bombed in on my Conradelectro magnet core coil test and caused a serious problem. Nothing meaningfull has taken place in the meantime.
Kiss my ass with your bullshit about Conradelectro. You are fully aware that Conradelectro respects me and despises you. I think at this point the whole forum looks at you with bewilderment and fear. You are the new "Separated at birth from Wilby Inebriated" wild and scary guy.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 23, 2014, 04:15:08 PM
Kiss my ass with your bullshit about Conradelectro. You are fully aware that Conradelectro respects me and despises you. I think at this point the whole forum looks at you with bewilderment and fear. You are the new "Separated at birth from Wilby Inebriated" wild and scary guy.
Get a life!
Here is a little interlude. Call it a public service announcement.
'I won't be doing THAT again': Twitter troll sorry for abusing boxer who then turned up at his door
Cyber-bully who targeted Curtis Woodhouse also abused Victoria Beckham, Davina McCall, Katie Price, Lennox Lewis, Rio Ferdinand and Michelle Keegan
This is the Twitter troll who got the shock of his life when a boxer he had been abusing turned up in his street.
Shamefaced cyber bully James O'Brien yesterday issued a grovelling public apology to professional fighter Curtis Woodhouse for spending months taunting the former footballer on the micro blogging site.
It has now emerged the boxer was not the only celebrity to fall victim to the cowardly tweeter's obscene rants.
He has also targeted Victoria Beckham, Davina McCall, Katie Price, Lennox Lewis, Rio Ferdinand and Coronation Street actress Michelle Keegan, sending them all vile messages.
Curtis, 32, was so enraged with the foul-mouthed abuse that he offered a £1,000 reward to any of his 18,000 followers who could help him find the culprit.
After his plea paid off he drove 60 miles from his home in Driffield, East Yorkshire, on Monday night to the 'keyboard warrior's' address and tweeted a picture of his street in South Yorkshire.
When tracked down by the Daily Mirror about his disgusting behaviour the following day, embarrassed O'Brien said: "I'm sorry."
Mr O'Brien, 24, who was in bed at midday after working a night shift, said: "I really regretted it. You see, all of my mates were egging me on to say things.
"It was just a bit of fun but it got really our of hand. I couldn't believe it when I realised he was coming here."
In response to the outrage his offensive tweets to celebrities has caused, he added: "I won't be doing it again and I would like to apologise for my actions again.
"I'd tell other people to think twice about doing this kind of thing because you never know what the consequences will be.
"Now I just look silly."
The internet bully said he was desperately trying to delete his profile from Twitter.
He said: "I've been trying to delete my account since last night but for some reason my phone won't let me.
"I just can't believe how out of hand the whole thing has got.
"I was at work when Curtis came here so I wasn't home but my phone was ringing off the hook. It was crazy."
Messages he sent to Curtis, who played for Hull City and Sheffield United, included: "retire immediately cant even defend a pathetic little title you are a complete disgrace #awfulboxer".
After this appeared the boxer threatened to track him down, he tweeted; "chill out pal i was only doing it so you would bite back it was only a bit of harmless fun."
Then he was left in shock when Curtis tweeted a picture of a street sign on the road which 'Jimbob' lives with the words, 'Right Jimbob im here', adding: 'Someone tell me what number he lives at or do I have to knock on every door £itsshowtime.'
Quickly backtracking, Jimmyob88 tweeted: 'I am sorry it's getting a bit out of hand,' he tweeted. 'I am in the wrong. I accept that.'
Woodhouse - dubbed the Driffield Destroyer - eventually went home, and later jokingly tweeted: 'Just found out you can block people. Could have let me know earlier, I could have saved 20 quid in petrol.'
Since the drama unfolded Curtis Woodhouse has 5,000 more followers - including Lennox Lewis and John Prescott - who applauded the fight back.
Boxing giant Lennox Lewis had also been targeted by O'Brien who had threatened to give the heavyweight a "knuckle butty."
The former world heavyweight champion tweeted: 'Ha! I LOVE this story about @woodhousecurtis paying a visit to a £keyboardwarrior on Twitter.'
And former Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott - who once famously punched a heckler for throwing an egg at him - tweeted: 'THIS is how we deal with things in Hull.
Boxer @WoodhouseCurtis tracks down a Twitter troll to his street!'
Other victims of twitter trolls also thanked the boxer for taking action and passed on their own experiences of other trolls with one revealing: "I had someone wish my family die of cancer.
"Beyond belief. Just evil."
- Mr O'Brien apologised to Mr Woodhouse live on television today.
Appearing on ITV's Daybreak he said: "I was really childish. Looking back on it, I realised that I had done a wrong thing," he said.
"I can only offer my deepest apologies to anyone I ever abused on Twitter. I've let everyone down - friends, family - and I do feel really embarrassed."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5xnmvnEwuI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5xnmvnEwuI)
I will dedicate this posting to Synchro1.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFw2nk4VntU
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 01:35:33 PM
Everybody knows you jerks are just a couple of clowns. Lenz's law has nothing to do with DLE. The effect should be termed Magnetic core delayed Lenz effect.
Oh my: are you really claiming that "Delayed Lenz Effect" has nothing to do with Lenz's Law?
Once again: What you refer to as a delayed Lenz effect is ordinary Faraday induction. Lenz's Law applies to all Faraday induction. Lenz's Law specifies the direction of the induced EMF. The direction is not subject to delay.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 23, 2014, 02:45:34 PM
No one can make heads nor tails out of anything you monkeys say. You grifters have been running a "Back Alley Shell and Pea Game" the enire time for your "Tar Sand" payolla group. Your're completely shameless about trying to dupe the learners. I refuse to let you get away with it.
What I need help with is to determine what effect magnets have on core viscosity and phase lag. All you three have done is side track this branch of research. Last year this time, Milehigh bombed in on my Conradelectro magnet core coil test and caused a serious problem. Nothing meaningfull has taken place in the meantime.
Synchro1 if you put away: 1) Junk like your first paragraph, and 2) Your preconceived ideas then it would be a lot easier to communicate a correct explanation to you of what is going on. So in the spirit of the season:
Two effects that can cause a magnetic field to change in time are: image currents, and magnetic viscosity. Image currents, IE eddy currents create opposing magnetic fields. If you had access to nifty expensive instruments you would be able to do things like map the time response of force in a magnetic actuator versus current in the exciting coil. You would readily see that all the time that the current is changing in the coil and then for some time beyond that in cores where eddy currents can flow freely, there is a big lag in mechanical force. You would see how insulated laminations greatly reduce the image currents and the lag. Ways that you could see those effects without expensive instruments include simply measuring performance of a transformer that uses laminations, and then replacing that core with one machined from ingot iron.
The second effect: magnetic viscosity expresses delay in the rotation of magnetic domains in ferromagnetic material when exposed to a change in external field. Behaviorally this is very similar to what happens with image currents.
In either case what you see from the outside is a lag in the strength and orientation of a magnetic field in the vicinity of high permeability material, IE ferromagnetic materials like iron, steel, nickle, cobalt etc.
To see if one could utilize this behavior for some purpose one needs to understand that things in this world fall into four categories:
1) Things that dissipate energy: resistors, friction devices etc. These are things that present a force that always opposes flow of current in the resistor case, or direction of motion in the case of friction.
2) Things that store energy: water columns, flywheels, springs, capacitors, inductors. In the ideal case no stored energy is lost before it is transferred out of storage.
3) Things that convert energy: electric motors, solar panels, combustion engines all convert energy from some source into a form more useful to the application.
4) The ever elusive OU or free energy thing. This is something that either converts energy from a source yet to be recognized, or creates energy ex-nihilo.
Induction devices of all kinds are a mix of 1) and 2). The hope put forth for so called "Delayed Lenz Effect" devices is that by using phenomena that cause a time delay that BEMF can become forward EMF. IOW that a changing magnetic field because it is routed through a delay can induce a current that will increase the strength of the field and cycle by cycle energy will build up leading to a vast surplus of energy.
As long as the devices employed are limited to some combination of 1), and 2) such a scheme can never work. Some amount of the source energy goes into and comes back out of storage 2), while some is dissipated 1). Storage just holds some energy for some time and then gives it back. It doesn't create the stuff. It is a Japanese bank account. Dissipation loses energy ultimately to waste heat. Combine 1) and 2) in any combination that you like and you always end up with less than you started out with.
Now, what can be done with storage is one can build resonant networks. Resonant networks store energy by passing it back and forth from one stored form to another. Resonant networks are energy storage devices. The higher the Q of the network the greater the percentage of energy applied each cycle they retain. High Q networks can accumulate energy for many, many cycles. If unleashed all at once that can result in very high instant power levels, but power which operates only at a low duty cycle. Total energy stored and ultimately released is still less than total energy input.
Using time delay to create a defacto resonance won't do what you want. If you build a quarter wave delay in one direction then the resulting network looks like a short to the source: A crest takes a quarter cycle to get to the end and bounce back, IE transfer little or no energy to the far end: very high impedance. By the time the crest returns to source, the source is now at a valley. The difference between the crest and the valley is very large and lots of current flows. The load looks like a short circuit. And that is what quarter wave networks do: present low impedance at one end and high impedance at the other. If you double the length then you get a half wave network. A half wave network returns the crest in phase with the next crest and bucks it: presenting a high impedance. If there are no losses along the path the transmission line takes virtually no energy from the source, and performs no work. However if the far end takes energy the returning crest is smaller and energy passes into the transmission line as though the line is a transparent connection from the source end to the far end.
So, what you are hoping to find is 4). There are a number of people who have proposed or claimed that energy can be coaxed out of the vacuum by various means. Often they have suggested that exciting a resonant tank will make this happen. In your case you hope like Steorn claimed that magnetic viscosity: an energy loss mechanism can realize energy gain. If you want to go looking for such a thing, be my guest.
Quote from: MarkE on December 24, 2014, 05:32:59 AM
Synchro1 if you put away: 1) Junk like your first paragraph, and 2) Your preconceived ideas then it would be a lot easier to communicate a correct explanation to you of what is going on. So in the spirit of the season:
Two effects that can cause a magnetic field to change in time are: image currents, and magnetic viscosity. Image currents, IE eddy currents create opposing magnetic fields. If you had access to nifty expensive instruments you would be able to do things like map the time response of force in a magnetic actuator versus current in the exciting coil. You would readily see that all the time that the current is changing in the coil and then for some time beyond that in cores where eddy currents can flow freely, there is a big lag in mechanical force. You would see how insulated laminations greatly reduce the image currents and the lag. Ways that you could see those effects without expensive instruments include simply measuring performance of a transformer that uses laminations, and then replacing that core with one machined from ingot iron.
The second effect: magnetic viscosity expresses delay in the rotation of magnetic domains in ferromagnetic material when exposed to a change in external field. Behaviorally this is very similar to what happens with image currents.
In either case what you see from the outside is a lag in the strength and orientation of a magnetic field in the vicinity of high permeability material, IE ferromagnetic materials like iron, steel, nickle, cobalt etc.
To see if one could utilize this behavior for some purpose one needs to understand that things in this world fall into four categories:
1) Things that dissipate energy: resistors, friction devices etc. These are things that present a force that always opposes flow of current in the resistor case, or direction of motion in the case of friction.
2) Things that store energy: water columns, flywheels, springs, capacitors, inductors. In the ideal case no stored energy is lost before it is transferred out of storage.
3) Things that convert energy: electric motors, solar panels, combustion engines all convert energy from some source into a form more useful to the application.
4) The ever elusive OU or free energy thing. This is something that either converts energy from a source yet to be recognized, or creates energy ex-nihilo.
Induction devices of all kinds are a mix of 1) and 2). The hope put forth for so called "Delayed Lenz Effect" devices is that by using phenomena that cause a time delay that BEMF can become forward EMF. IOW that a changing magnetic field because it is routed through a delay can induce a current that will increase the strength of the field and cycle by cycle energy will build up leading to a vast surplus of energy.
As long as the devices employed are limited to some combination of 1), and 2) such a scheme can never work. Some amount of the source energy goes into and comes back out of storage 2), while some is dissipated 1). Storage just holds some energy for some time and then gives it back. It doesn't create the stuff. It is a Japanese bank account. Dissipation loses energy ultimately to waste heat. Combine 1) and 2) in any combination that you like and you always end up with less than you started out with.
Now, what can be done with storage is one can build resonant networks. Resonant networks store energy by passing it back and forth from one stored form to another. Resonant networks are energy storage devices. The higher the Q of the network the greater the percentage of energy applied each cycle they retain. High Q networks can accumulate energy for many, many cycles. If unleashed all at once that can result in very high instant power levels, but power which operates only at a low duty cycle. Total energy stored and ultimately released is still less than total energy input.
Using time delay to create a defacto resonance won't do what you want. If you build a quarter wave delay in one direction then the resulting network looks like a short to the source: A crest takes a quarter cycle to get to the end and bounce back, IE transfer little or no energy to the far end: very high impedance. By the time the crest returns to source, the source is now at a valley. The difference between the crest and the valley is very large and lots of current flows. The load looks like a short circuit. And that is what quarter wave networks do: present low impedance at one end and high impedance at the other. If you double the length then you get a half wave network. A half wave network returns the crest in phase with the next crest and bucks it: presenting a high impedance. If there are no losses along the path the transmission line takes virtually no energy from the source, and performs no work. However if the far end takes energy the returning crest is smaller and energy passes into the transmission line as though the line is a transparent connection from the source end to the far end.
So, what you are hoping to find is 4). There are a number of people who have proposed or claimed that energy can be coaxed out of the vacuum by various means. Often they have suggested that exciting a resonant tank will make this happen. In your case you hope like Steorn claimed that magnetic viscosity: an energy loss mechanism can realize energy gain. If you want to go looking for such a thing, be my guest.
This is nothing but complete horseshit!
Quote from: synchro1 on December 24, 2014, 07:09:31 PM
This is nothing but complete horseshit!
Is this a scientific term? Care to offer an explanation of what you mean by this?
I am curious.
Are you still claiming that Lenz's law has nothing to do with "Delayed Lenz effect"? How does the Lenz effect differ from Lenz's law?
On its face, this appears to make no sense to me, which is why I am asking.
Thanks,
Bill
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 24, 2014, 07:17:56 PM
Is this a scientific term? Care to offer an explanation of what you mean by this?
I am curious.
Are you still claiming that Lenz's law has nothing to do with "Delayed Lenz effect"? How does the Lenz effect differ from Lenz's law?
On its face, this appears to make no sense to me, which is why I am asking.
Thanks,
Bill
MarkE'S comment is too eclectic and obtuse to be of any value. He thinks too big. He's all over the map with a rambling comment that is completely directionless. All he's out to do is flummox people into thinking he's a top brain when he's just a phony punk. MarkE is guilty of "Free association". He can't stick to the point.
synchro1,
MarkE's a scientist and you're a skeptic. Interesting conflict, question is
who will win?
John.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 25, 2014, 05:41:29 PM
MarkE'S comment is too eclectic and obtuse to be of any value. He thinks too big. He's all over the map with a rambling comment that is completely directionless. All he's out to do is flummox people into thinking he's a top brain when he's just a phony punk. MarkE is guilty of "Free association". He can't stick to the point.
It's a topsy-turvy world sometimes. MarkE is highly educated and really knows his stuff. Granted, he speaks at a technical level that will be above many people. If you really want to through, you have your magic computer on your desk that can access millions of terabytes of data. Syncro1 is guilty of the very criticisms that he directs towards MarkE. Synchro1 is the one that is all over the map and the "secret sauce" that he talks about changes from week to week.
So although it may be tough to follow sometimes, MarkE is brilliant and knows his stuff. He is knowledgeable across many disciplines also.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 25, 2014, 06:32:50 PM
It's a topsy-turvy world sometimes. MarkE is highly educated and really knows his stuff. Granted, he speaks at a technical level that will be above many people. If you really want to through, you have your magic computer on your desk that can access millions of terabytes of data. Syncro1 is guilty of the very criticisms that he directs towards MarkE. Synchro1 is the one that is all over the map and the "secret sauce" that he talks about changes from week to week.
So although it may be tough to follow sometimes, MarkE is brilliant and knows his stuff. He is knowledgeable across many disciplines also.
But is he one or many?
Anyway,im still not done with this subject yet,must look at it a little more,a few more experiments to do yet.
Dose a wave roll quicker through water or oil?. Is there something that can hinder the speed at which the magnetic wave/field can travel through the iron core that is the lenz force?.
Has anyone ever done an experiment to see if current flows through a 1 ohm resistor faster or slower than it dose through a 1k ohm resistor?
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2014, 07:17:12 PM
But is he one or many?
Anyway,im still not done with this subject yet,must look at it a little more,a few more experiments to do yet.
Dose a wave roll quicker through water or oil?. Is there something that can hinder the speed at which the magnetic wave/field can travel through the iron core that is the lenz force?.
Has anyone ever done an experiment to see if current flows through a 1 ohm resistor faster or slower than it dose through a 1k ohm resistor?
Are you suggesting that I am really a group of people?
The speed at which waves propagate does indeed depend on the medium that they propagate through. An E/M wave propagates more slowly through materials that have higher uR * eR products than smaller uR * eR products. Let us suppose that one has a lossless transmission line. For some design frequency one can construct either a quarter wave long line or a half wave long line. A quarter wave line transforms transfer impedance between ports from high to low. If we drive a quarter wave line that is open at the far end, it looks like a short to the near end that we drive. If we short the far end, then the near end looks like an open. In the half wave case, the line reflects the far end impedance to the source. If the far end impedance is low, then the source sees a low impedance. If the far end impedance is high, then the source sees a high impedance. If the transmission line is real, then the the transformations degrade. In all cases we are talking about a combination of loss mechanisms and storage mechanisms. Neither create energy. Ideal storage mechanisms, none of which truly exist, simply hold onto energy for some time allowing us to get that energy back later.
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2014, 07:17:12 PM
Has anyone ever done an experiment to see if current flows through a 1 ohm resistor faster or slower than it dose through a 1k ohm resistor?
That's an excellent question Bard!... Just yesterday I found power calculations issues when using different resistive loads and it was only between 1 and 12.5 Ohms
What I found is a higher resistive value seemed to yield a better power efficiency.
Luc
Quote from: tinman on December 25, 2014, 07:17:12 PM
But is he one or many?
Anyway,im still not done with this subject yet,must look at it a little more,a few more experiments to do yet.
Dose a wave roll quicker through water or oil?. Is there something that can hinder the speed at which the magnetic wave/field can travel through the iron core that is the lenz force?.
Has anyone ever done an experiment to see if current flows through a 1 ohm resistor faster or slower than it dose through a 1k ohm resistor?
You're kidding, right? Sitting at a working computer, asking if current flows at different speeds through different values of resistors?
Just in case you aren't kidding, you can easily do the experiment yourself. Use two resistors of the same kind and power capacity: for example two metal film 1/4 watt resistors. Keep your wiring lengths the same, and as short as possible, so that your results aren't contaminated by inductive effects. Send a pulse from your FG through both resistors in parallel, and monitor what comes out the other ends with your 2-channel oscilloscope. Do you detect any phase difference in the signal outputs from the two resistors?
As MarkE points out:
QuoteThe speed at which waves propagate does indeed depend on the medium that they propagate through. An E/M wave propagates more slowly through materials that have higher uR * eR products than smaller uR * eR products.
So if your resistors are the same type, they should both have the same transmission speed (the speed of light in that medium) and their actual resistance value should make no difference, if their effective lengths are the same.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 25, 2014, 09:54:49 PM
That's an excellent question Bard!... Just yesterday I found power calculations issues when using different resistive loads and it was only between 1 and 12.5 Ohms
What I found is a higher resistive value seemed to yield a better power efficiency.
Luc
It's actually a rather bizarre question and hopefully Brad will explain himself further. It's a topic that would never be mentioned in an electronics lab because on face value it doesn't make sense. MarkE discussed transmission line effects related to wavelength/frequency and the relative permeability and relative permittivity of the line affecting the propagation speed but I somehow doubt that was related to what Tinman was discussing.
Meanwhile, you called me a liar and I take serious issue with that. You used ridiculous contorted logic to make that allegation that doesn't even make sense. I gave a full reply to your false allegation in posting #5 on this very thread. I suggest that you read it. There are other issues discussed there also pertaining to you that you should seriously consider.
If you decide to play invisible in plain sight and not acknowledge this, that's your choice. Do not falsely allege that I am a liar again, especially with the kind of nonsensical logic like you used recently.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 25, 2014, 10:58:25 PM
As MarkE points out:
So if your resistors are the same type, they should both have the same transmission speed (the speed of light in that medium) and their actual resistance value should make no difference, if their effective lengths are the same.
Theoretically there is a small difference: propagation through larger value SMT resistors should be slightly faster than through smaller value resistors of the same package size. The differences for common SMT sizes are in femtoseconds. The reason for the difference is that the larger value resistors will have more of the field in the air above the resistor than smaller value resistors where more of the field is in the eR ~= 10 of the alumina, and the eR ~= 4 - 5 of the printed circuit substrate.
MH:
Tinmans' question actually makes sense to me given your water analogy with electricity. I am going out on a limb here a bit but...consider a water hose of say, 3/4" dia connected to a garden spigot. Say the hose is 10 foot long. Turn the spigot on, and based upon the pressure provided by the water company (voltage, right?) and given the I.D. of the hose you get "X" amount of water output/minute. (Amperage or power) The water will also flow at a given velocity that is easily calculated (not by me) given the above parameters. Call this velocity "V". It is fixed for this configuration unless something is changed.
Now, let us pinch this hose and restrict the flow. This increases the pressure but restricts the flow. It also increases the velocity of the water.
Now I know that resistors do not increase the pressure (amperage) but isn't the pinched hose an analogy of a resistor? If so, it would increase the velocity of the "flow" which makes Tinman's question make sense to me.
Perhaps my analogy is flawed somewhere and does not fit with your water analogy. I am not seeing in this case how a resistor can restrict the flow of amperage without increasing the voltage (pressure) and the velocity (speed of flow) as in my above example.
Please excuse my ignorance, but the good news is that I was trained to see electricity as analogous to the flow of water, so, I just need to fill in a few holes in my understanding.
Bill
Quote from: MarkE on December 25, 2014, 11:28:41 PM
Theoretically there is a small difference: propagation through larger value SMT resistors should be slightly faster than through smaller value resistors of the same package size. The differences for common SMT sizes are in femtoseconds. The reason for the difference is that the larger value resistors will have more of the field in the air above the resistor than smaller value resistors where more of the field is in the eR ~= 10 of the alumina, and the eR ~= 4 - 5 of the printed circuit substrate.
That blew some fuses in some heads! lol Next thing you know you will be talking about "light pancakes" being emitted by pulsed lasers.
Bill:
No your example is not good, so let me give you a better example. Certainly the idea of a hose being pinched acting like a resistor is correct in principle, but we will put that aside for a better and simpler example.
See the attached pic of an in-line particle filter. That is a 'much purer' form of a 'water resistor.' It's evident that here is no pinching of the hose or increased velocity. It will give off heat just like an electrical resistor.
MileHigh
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 25, 2014, 10:58:25 PM
You're kidding, right? Sitting at a working computer, asking if current flows at different speeds through different values of resistors?
Just in case you aren't kidding, you can easily do the experiment yourself. Use two resistors of the same kind and power capacity: for example two metal film 1/4 watt resistors. Keep your wiring lengths the same, and as short as possible, so that your results aren't contaminated by inductive effects. Send a pulse from your FG through both resistors in parallel, and monitor what comes out the other ends with your 2-channel oscilloscope. Do you detect any phase difference in the signal outputs from the two resistors?
As MarkE points out:
So if your resistors are the same type, they should both have the same transmission speed (the speed of light in that medium) and their actual resistance value should make no difference, if their effective lengths are the same.
I have done the experiment under strict controlled conditions TK--have you?
Light can travel at different speed's depending on the enviroment that it is traveling through.
Magnetic waves can travel at different speeds depending on the enviroment it is traveling through.
So why is it that you think !the speed of current traveling through a different resistance couldnt be different! is such a silly question?.
I will wait a bit before i post me result's.
I will also be posting a video in regard's to the delayed lenz force,which also brought about some interesting finding's in regards to Thane Heins bi toroid transformer.--> have the guru's really had a close look at the effect's?-->have you built one and tried it?--me neither until today.
VERY surprising result's !i must say!. :o
Quote from: Pirate88179 on December 25, 2014, 11:30:11 PM
MH:
Tinmans' question actually makes sense to me given your water analogy with electricity. I am going out on a limb here a bit but...consider a water hose of say, 3/4" dia connected to a garden spigot. Say the hose is 10 foot long. Turn the spigot on, and based upon the pressure provided by the water company (voltage, right?) and given the I.D. of the hose you get "X" amount of water output/minute. (Amperage or power) The water will also flow at a given velocity that is easily calculated (not by me) given the above parameters. Call this velocity "V". It is fixed for this configuration unless something is changed.
Now, let us pinch this hose and restrict the flow. This increases the pressure but restricts the flow. It also increases the velocity of the water.
Now I know that resistors do not increase the pressure (amperage) but isn't the pinched hose an analogy of a resistor? If so, it would increase the velocity of the "flow" which makes Tinman's question make sense to me.
Perhaps my analogy is flawed somewhere and does not fit with your water analogy. I am not seeing in this case how a resistor can restrict the flow of amperage without increasing the voltage (pressure) and the velocity (speed of flow) as in my above example.
Please excuse my ignorance, but the good news is that I was trained to see electricity as analogous to the flow of water, so, I just need to fill in a few holes in my understanding.
Bill
The analogy works in terms of flow: Pinch a hose introducing a pressure drop and the flow rate drops. Introduce a resistor into a DC circuit introducing a voltage drop and the current (rate of charge movement) drops.
The linear speed that water passes through the hose does not have a direct analogy in electricity. In a wire there is a drift rate of electrons which is very slow.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 01:57:33 AM
I have done the experiment under strict controlled conditions TK--have you?
Light can travel at different speed's depending on the enviroment that it is traveling through.
Magnetic waves can travel at different speeds depending on the enviroment it is traveling through.
So why is it that you think current traveling through a different resistance is such a silly question?.
I will wait a bit before i post me result's.
Certainly if one builds an RC circuit it emulates a restriction and an accumulator in both the hydraulic and pneumatic analogies. However in all three cases: the resistor or restriction reduces the flow of charge and fluid respectively. The linear speed of molecules in the linear flow increases according to Bernoulli's Principle. The simple fluid model analogies work well at low frequencies. They don't work well at high frequencies. in the hydraulic and pneumatic cases, the fluid is the "stuff" that moves. In electromagnetics: waves move through media, and with few exceptions do so very fast.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 25, 2014, 10:58:25 PM
You're kidding, right? Sitting at a working computer, asking if current flows at different speeds through different values of resistors?
Current flows at different speeds in different size wire,which in turn has a different resistive value per meter.
This should be fun ;)
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 03:54:58 AM
Current flows at different speeds in different size wire,which in turn has a different resistive value per meter.
This should be fun ;)
So, according to your thesis if one has a rectangular wire that is say 1 unit thick by 5 units wide and another that is 1 unit thick by 10 units wide which would show the faster propagation, and what would the approximate speed ratio be?
Hi.
My thoughts about delayed Lenz effect.
Firstly, let us look at Tesla's 524 426 patent. http://www.google.com/patents/US524426 (http://www.google.com/patents/US524426)
Here, the principle of this motor's operation depends on a delayed EMF emanating from the elongated cores.
Using this topology it is possible to have a four pole (two phase) AC motor and driving it with only one phase.
So it is clear that the elongated core introduces a delay line for magnetic field propagation of a quarter wave phase shift in his design (for 60Hz I guess).
So a simple question from me to the forum gurus is this:
Can EMF be significantly delayed by using a long ferromagnetic core?
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 05:58:24 AM
Hi.
My thoughts about delayed Lenz effect.
Firstly, let us look at Tesla's 524 426 patent.
Here, the principle of this motor's operation depends on a delayed EMF emanating from the elongated cores.
Using this topology it is possible to have a four pole (two phase) AC motor and driving it with only one phase.
So it is clear that the elongated core introduces a delay line for magnetic field propagation of a quarter wave phase shift in his design (for 60Hz I guess).
So a simple question from me to the forum gurus is this:
Can EMF be significantly delayed by using a long ferromagnetic core?
With the appropriate material selection, yes one can introduce substantial delay in the propagation of the magnetic field along the length of a pole piece. If one places pick-up coils at the far end of the pole piece, the induced signal will be delayed. Along with the delay comes substantial loss.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 01:57:33 AM
I have done the experiment under strict controlled conditions TK--have you?
Light can travel at different speed's depending on the enviroment that it is traveling through.
Magnetic waves can travel at different speeds depending on the enviroment it is traveling through.
So why is it that you think !the speed of current traveling through a different resistance couldnt be different! is such a silly question?.
I will wait a bit before i post me result's.
The experiment is performed every time anyone uses any of a slew of different electronic devices. Like a computer! And under conditions that are far more precisely controlled than anything you or I can come up with on our benches.
Different _size and shape_ wires will have different _self inductances_ for a given length and/or resistance though. This may cause a detectable phase delay that you might be able to see on your scope at very fast settings.
Just try this. Set your function generator to make a triangle ramp waveform so you can tell precisely where the peaks are. (It's more accurate to use zero-crossings but easier to use peaks.) Take two resistors of the same type and wattage rating but different resistances. Connect one end of each resistor to the output of the FG. (If your setup is normal, the scope and FG will share a common ground, so for this test you don't have to connect the FG's grounded output lead or the scope probe ground references. If your system is ground-isolated you should connect the black leads of the probes and the shield lead of the FG output together.) Make sure you have the same length of wiring for each resistor/probe combination, no other connection nodes, etc. Take your scope probes and set them both to 10x attenuation so you are using the builtin voltage divider in the probes, connect one probe to one resistor and the other probe to the other resistor. Start at a low frequency. Do you see any difference in where the peaks are of the two signals? Now start increasing the frequency. At the very highest frequencies my FG emits, between 3-4 MHz, I start to see some very slight phase difference between the two signals. At lower frequencies there is no phase difference. This dependence of the tiny phase difference on frequency indicates that this is an inductive effect, not a resistive one. The metal-film resistors I am using have slightly different inductances, which show up as tiny phase shifts in the measured peaks at high frequencies. On my equipment, using a well matched 1 ohm and a 10 ohm I don't even see any phase shift at the highest frequencies my FG will produce. Comparing the 1 ohm and a 100 ohm, I start to see some phase shift at the highest frequencies. Examining the resistors themselves, I see that the length of the metal film portion on the body of the 100R is almost twice as long as it is on the 1R, whereas the 1R and 10R have the same length of the resistive portion.
As MarkE has said, the speed of light, or current, in a material is set by the relative permittivity and permeability constants of the material. The time it takes for current to traverse a given length of material depends on those two constants, and the length of the material. For a given material making up a physical object like a resistor, resistance is often proportional to length! So a current "slowdown" in a resistive material can be due to the fact that the signal is travelling through a longer bit of material, rather than due to resistance as such. But no resistor is only a resistor, it is also an inductor. No piece of wire is just a piece of wire, it is an inductor and a resistor both. So the results of signal phase tests show the effects of both.
Quote from: MarkEIf one places pick-up coils at the far end of the pole piece, the induced signal will be delayed. Along with the delay comes substantial loss.
That is exactly what I wanted to point out next. :)
So the coil placed at the end of this elongated pole piece would exibit a delayed reaction to the EMF.
So Lenz reaction there is instant at the end of the core but only in reference to an already delayed EMF at that point.
All in all CEMF will be delayed as well from the point of view of the 'primary' coil.
So the 'delayed Lenz effect' is real and we just can not come to an agreement how to call it properly.
I hope my reasoning is sound and well laid out in English (not my native language).
kEhYo
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 26, 2014, 06:50:11 AM
The experiment is performed every time anyone uses any of a slew of different electronic devices. Like a computer! And under conditions that are far more precisely controlled than anything you or I can come up with on our benches.
Different _size and shape_ wires will have different _self inductances_ for a given length and/or resistance though. This may cause a detectable phase delay that you might be able to see on your scope at very fast settings.
Just try this. Set your function generator to make a triangle ramp waveform so you can tell precisely where the peaks are. (It's more accurate to use zero-crossings but easier to use peaks.) Take two resistors of the same type and wattage rating but different resistances. Connect one end of each resistor to the output of the FG. (If your setup is normal, the scope and FG will share a common ground, so for this test you don't have to connect the FG's grounded output lead or the scope probe ground references. If your system is ground-isolated you should connect the black leads of the probes and the shield lead of the FG output together.) Make sure you have the same length of wiring for each resistor/probe combination, no other connection nodes, etc. Take your scope probes and set them both to 10x attenuation so you are using the builtin voltage divider in the probes, connect one probe to one resistor and the other probe to the other resistor. Start at a low frequency. Do you see any difference in where the peaks are of the two signals? Now start increasing the frequency. At the very highest frequencies my FG emits, between 3-4 MHz, I start to see some very slight phase difference between the two signals. At lower frequencies there is no phase difference. This dependence of the tiny phase difference on frequency indicates that this is an inductive effect, not a resistive one. The metal-film resistors I am using have slightly different inductances, which show up as tiny phase shifts in the measured peaks at high frequencies. On my equipment, using a well matched 1 ohm and a 10 ohm I don't even see any phase shift at the highest frequencies my FG will produce. Comparing the 1 ohm and a 100 ohm, I start to see some phase shift at the highest frequencies. Examining the resistors themselves, I see that the length of the metal film portion on the body of the 100R is almost twice as long as it is on the 1R, whereas the 1R and 10R have the same length of the resistive portion.
As MarkE has said, the speed of light, or current, in a material is set by the relative permittivity and permeability constants of the material. The time it takes for current to traverse a given length of material depends on those two constants, and the length of the material. For a given material making up a physical object like a resistor, resistance is often proportional to length! So a current "slowdown" in a resistive material can be due to the fact that the signal is travelling through a longer bit of material, rather than due to resistance as such. But no resistor is only a resistor, it is also an inductor. No piece of wire is just a piece of wire, it is an inductor and a resistor both. So the results of signal phase tests show the effects of both.
TK,as you have no load on either resistor,you will only be measureing voltage,not current. The resistors must be under load to see if there is a delay between the current flow in either resistor.
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 06:56:58 AM
That is exactly what I wanted to point out next. :)
So the coil placed at the end of this elongated pole piece would exibit a delayed reaction to the EMF.
So Lenz reaction there is instant at the end of the core but only in reference to an already delayed EMF at that point.
All in all CEMF will be delayed as well from the point of view of the 'primary' coil.
So the 'delayed Lenz effect' is real and we just can not come to an agreement how to call it properly.
One needs to take "Lenz" out of the name because the time it takes a field to propagate has nothing to do with Lenz' Law.
Quote
I hope my reasoning is sound and well laid out in English (not my native language).
kEhYo
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 07:13:10 AM
TK,as you have no load on either resistor,you will only be measureing voltage,not current. The resistors must be under load to see if there is a delay between the current flow in either resistor.
If the hypothesis is that two different resistors of like construction but different resistances exhibit different propagation delays, then one will need large body resistors, very fast test instruments or both. Due to the Christmas break I can probably get time on a friend of mine's equipment that goes into the GHz. Do you have a specific situation in mind?
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 07:22:27 AM
One needs to take "Lenz" out of the name because the time it takes a field to propagate has nothing to do with Lenz' Law.
How do you propose to call this effect then? Make it short please. :)
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 07:31:33 AM
How do you propose to call this effect then? Make it short please. :)
It is: Induced magnetic field opposition.
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 06:11:56 AM
With the appropriate material selection, yes one can introduce substantial delay in the propagation of the magnetic field along the length of a pole piece. If one places pick-up coils at the far end of the pole piece, the induced signal will be delayed. Along with the delay comes substantial loss.
Well this is interesting,but i have just found the reverse. I have been setting up a test bed generator system to test many different configuration's,and have just found out that the coil furtherest away can in actual fact be leading in phase ???. Im not sure why this is,but it is.I am using 1 ferite C core with the primary coil rapped around it,and a second C core the same that forms a D core. The coil on the D core is leading in phase to that of the coil on the C core that the magnets pass through.
Below is a pic of the setup(1st pic)
2nd pic is of the two coils and two C core's.
1st scope shot is with a 10 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil(back coil furtherest away from the rotor). This is the yellow trace. The primary coil(one nearest to the rotor) has a 100 ohm resistor across it at all times,and this is the blue trace on the scope.
2nd scope shot is with a 100 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil.
So who here can tell me why the secondary coil is leading in phase to that of the primary coil?. Why is there a phase lag on the coil closest to the magnet's?How is the magnetic field phase being delayed in the primary when it is that coil that is closest to the magnets on the rotor?.
Do you have your dots backwards?
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 07:52:52 AM
Do you have your dots backwards?
What do you mean by dots backwards?.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 07:13:10 AM
TK,as you have no load on either resistor,you will only be measureing voltage,not current. The resistors must be under load to see if there is a delay between the current flow in either resistor.
Not true.
There is a small current flowing through the test resistor, through the probe's voltage divider, through the scope's input impedance, to ground. Use the 1x probe setting, for even more current flow.
Quote from: TinselKoala on December 26, 2014, 08:07:48 AM
Not true.
There is a small current flowing through the test resistor, through the probe's voltage divider, through the scope's input impedance, to ground. Use the 1x probe setting, for even more current flow.
Extreemly light wouldnt you say?
I will show you what i mean tomorrow by way of a video.
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 07:38:24 AM
It is: Induced magnetic field opposition.
Delayed Induced Magnetic Field Opposition.
DIMFO it is.
So can we use DIMFO to achieve a delayed push force against the rotor with magnets using a loaded generator coil
positioned at a far end of a long ferromagnetic core?
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 08:54:26 AM
Delayed Induced Magnetic Field Opposition. DIMFO it is.
There is no delay. The induced opposition is immediate. The appearance of a net external field change gets delayed by the opposing induced field.
Time Inducing Opposing Net External
T
0 1 - 0.999 = 0.001
T
1 1 - 0.995 = 0.005
T
2 1 - 0.990 = 0.010
...
T
n 1 - 0.001 = 0.999
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 09:01:38 AM
There is no delay. The induced opposition is immediate. The appearance of a net external field change gets delayed by the opposing induced field.
Time Inducing Opposing Net External
T0 1 - 0.999 = 0.001
T1 1 - 0.995 = 0.005
T2 1 - 0.990 = 0.010
...
Tn 1 - 0.001 = 0.999
The induced opposition is immediate at the location of a secondary coil but the phase delay causes this opposition to be seen shifted in time from the primary point of view.We have a long core with 2 coils at its ends and You telling me that there is no delay in induction in the secondary?
I do not understand what You are saying.
And please answer my question from the previous post.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 07:57:11 AM
What do you mean by dots backwards?.
Hi Brad,
Dots refer to coils winding sense. In a schematic for instance a dot is put as symbol to one end of a coil to indicate say the start of a winding and if there are other coils on the same core, then the dots are put to those coils corresponding endings or starts.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on December 26, 2014, 09:50:01 AM
Hi Brad,
Dots refer to coils winding sense. In a schematic for instance a dot is put as symbol to one end of a coil to indicate say the start of a winding and if there are other coils on the same core, then the dots are put to those coils corresponding endings or starts.
Gyula
Would it not be easier and simpler to say !phase correct!,or are the coils in phase with each other-->or even polarity correct?.
In which case,they are. And either way,why are they out of phase?.
So who wants to tell me why or how(in this simple setup)that two coils on the same core that are polarity correct,can be out of phase with each other? And why can i shift that phase veriation simply by adjusting the load on one of the coil's?. Also note that it is the coil that is furtherest away from the rotor that is leading in phase. If it is the magnetic field that induces the current in the inductor's,then this clearly show's either a delay of that field in one inductor,or an advanced field in the other.
Oh but wait-there's more.
1st-there is no reflection what so ever on the prime mover when the secondary coil is loaded,as you can see on the scope shot's,the Hz didnt change with varing loads.101.761Hz with both load's-it dosnt come much more accurate than that.The DMM also never changed,not even by .1mA
2nd-with the secondary coil loaded with a set load,the primary coil will produce the same voltage across a 100 ohm resistor as it will over a 220ohm resistor,a 470 ohm resistor,and a 1k resistor.
There is no speed up under load,but there is also no change to P/in or rpm when the secondary is loaded.
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 09:09:24 AM
The induced opposition is immediate at the location of a secondary coil but the phase delay causes this opposition to be seen shifted in time from the primary point of view.
I agree. But induction is where the flux is. In this case the secondary.
Quote
We have a long core with 2 coils at its ends and You telling me that there is no delay in induction in the secondary?
I do not understand what You are saying.
Again: Induction is where the flux is. And where the flux is there is no delay in the induced EMF.
Quote
And please answer my question from the previous post.
I will go back to it and answer it if I have not already done so.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 10:09:35 AM
Would it not be easier and simpler to say !phase correct!,or are the coils in phase with each other-->or even polarity correct?.
In which case,they are. And either way,why are they out of phase?.
The phase delay can be caused by several things. Because you are only using resistors and inductors, the induced current should only go from being in phase with the inducing EMF to lagging it. There is insufficient information so far to determine which coil is leading. If you capture a one time step then which is leading and which is lagging will be self-evident.
Quote
So who wants to tell me why or how(in this simple setup)that two coils on the same core that are polarity correct,can be out of phase with each other? And why can i shift that phase veriation simply by adjusting the load on one of the coil's?. Also note that it is the coil that is furtherest away from the rotor that is leading in phase. If it is the magnetic field that induces the current in the inductor's,then this clearly show's either a delay of that field in one inductor,or an advanced field in the other.
The phase shift through an L/R network depends on the relative magnitude of the inductive reactance at the driven frequency to the resistance. Changing the resistance changes that ratio and therefore the phase shift.
Quote
Oh but wait-there's more.
1st-there is no reflection what so ever on the prime mover when the secondary coil is loaded,as you can see on the scope shot's,the Hz didnt change with varing loads.101.761Hz with both load's-it dosnt come much more accurate than that.The DMM also never changed,not even by .1mA
2nd-with the secondary coil loaded with a set load,the primary coil will produce the same voltage across a 100 ohm resistor as it will over a 220ohm resistor,a 470 ohm resistor,and a 1k resistor.
There is no speed up under load,but there is also no change to P/in or rpm when the secondary is loaded.
When loading a secondary does not affect the load seen by the primary it means that the primary and secondary have poor coupling.
Quote from: MarkE on December 26, 2014, 10:16:18 AM
Induction is where the flux is. And where the flux is there is no delay in the induced EMF. I will go back to it and answer it if I have not already done so.
Please elaborate on that. Right now it is a bit murky explanation.
What causes the induction of current in a coil at an end of our long core is the change in magnetic field in the immediate vicinity of that coil,
so only within the volume of space close to copper and a short core part at the end. The flux is already there. Every magnetic domain
is attached to magnetic flux going through it at all times but their direction is random (mainly oriented to Earth's magnetic field).
It is the moment when all those fluxes line up in unified direction (causing net change in unified now magnetic fluxes sum) things start to get interesting.
But this magnetization arrived there in the form of a wave front, decoupled from the source by the mere existence of space and distance and propagation limits.
Any counter reaction obeys the same laws of interaction between neighboring domains and and a wave front of that change has to travel some distance to be felt by the source.
Quote from: kEhYo77 on December 26, 2014, 11:03:55 AM
Please elaborate on that. Right now it is a bit murky explanation.
I think it is quite simple: Faraday + Lenz, and Maxwell / Heavyside both give us EMF across a conductor when changing magnetic flux impinges the conductor orthogonally. That effect is instant to the impinging field. No impinging field and no induction.
Quote
What causes the induction of current in a coil at an end of our long core is the change in magnetic field in the immediate vicinity of that coil,
Exactly, so from a timing perspective we want to know when flux changes impinge that coil.
Quote
so only within the volume of space close to copper and a short core part at the end. The flux is already there. Every magnetic domain
is attached to magnetic flux going through it at all times but their direction is random (mainly oriented to Earth's magnetic field).
It is the moment when all those fluxes line up in unified direction (causing net change in unified now magnetic fluxes sum) things start to get interesting.
It's changing flux that induces EMF. Static flux is of no concern.
Quote
But this magnetization arrived there in the form of a wave front, decoupled from the source by the mere existence of space and distance and propagation limits.
On a nanosecond scale yes. Otherwise we are talking about eddy currents and/or magnetic viscosity effects as the source of delay.
Quote
Any counter reaction obeys the same laws of interaction between neighboring domains and and a wave front of that change has to travel some distance to be felt by the source.
Sure.
Quote from: tinman on December 26, 2014, 07:41:24 AM
Well this is interesting,but i have just found the reverse. I have been setting up a test bed generator system to test many different configuration's,and have just found out that the coil furtherest away can in actual fact be leading in phase ???. Im not sure why this is,but it is.I am using 1 ferite C core with the primary coil rapped around it,and a second C core the same that forms a D core. The coil on the D core is leading in phase to that of the coil on the C core that the magnets pass through.
Below is a pic of the setup(1st pic)
2nd pic is of the two coils and two C core's.
1st scope shot is with a 10 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil(back coil furtherest away from the rotor). This is the yellow trace. The primary coil(one nearest to the rotor) has a 100 ohm resistor across it at all times,and this is the blue trace on the scope.
2nd scope shot is with a 100 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil.
So who here can tell me why the secondary coil is leading in phase to that of the primary coil?. Why is there a phase lag on the coil closest to the magnet's?How is the magnetic field phase being delayed in the primary when it is that coil that is closest to the magnets on the rotor?.
Tinman,
You might consider adding a pickup coil to generate an external trigger for your scope so that you can be certain which coil is actually leading.
A small pickup coil could be positioned next to the leading edge of one of the main core's poles to ensure that the generated trigger pulse leads the phase of both the primary/secondary coil outputs. Although a bit more difficult to implement, you could also generate a trigger optically if you feel a magnetic pickup coil affects your results. However, I'd try a small pickup coil first.
PW
Picowatt:
Exactly, you can't trigger on something that itself might be changing in phase if you are looking for phase shifts. I made a similar recommendation a while back.
I already see a lot of positives coming from this ongoing debate. Experimenters are starting to think, and to think critically about what they are doing and what they are sayng. The catch-all term "delayed Lenz effect" was holding them back and preventing them from truly thinking.
I also note that the term "Lenz" goes much further than that, and it's also corrupting the debate and corrupting the thinking processes of the experimenters for other things.
"Lenz" in the context of the forum and in general just refers to the "Lenz drag" (the mechanical drag) that a rotor experiences when it passes a generator coil that is driving a load. That is the generally accepted usage of the term.
But people use terms like "Lenz free transformer" and "Lenz free generator." There is a related term, "Generator no effect counter BEMF." I don't even understand what the third term is supposed to mean.
So to expand the debate and the thought processes a bit, people have to start using the proper terms, and stop making up terms that include the "magic word" "Lenz."
There are words and proper terms and concepts to describe what you are trying to accomplish. If in doubt discuss it on the forum and figure it out.
Again, there is no such thing as a "Lenz free transformer" in the sense that there is no mechanical drag associated with a transformer. If you are alluding to the fact that the transformer is supposed to not show an electrical load on the primary while driving a load on the secondary (a hypothetical over unity device) then come up with a term that properly describes that. Something like "minimal primary load transformer" or something. Just don't use the term "Lenz" when it clearly does not apply.
MileHigh
Tinman:
QuoteBelow is a pic of the setup(1st pic)
2nd pic is of the two coils and two C core's.
1st scope shot is with a 10 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil(back coil furtherest away from the rotor). This is the yellow trace. The primary coil(one nearest to the rotor) has a 100 ohm resistor across it at all times,and this is the blue trace on the scope.
2nd scope shot is with a 100 ohm load(resistor) across the secondary coil.
So who here can tell me why the secondary coil is leading in phase to that of the primary coil?. Why is there a phase lag on the coil closest to the magnet's?How is the magnetic field phase being delayed in the primary when it is that coil that is closest to the magnets on the rotor?.
I don't have the answer for you here and I didn't read all the postings so I am not sure if this is an open or closed investigation for you.
I just want to discuss the process for you. Recently Gotoluc saw a 90 degree phase lag on the output of a generator coil when the load resistor on the generator coil was only one ohm. Right away he said, "delayed Lenz effect." I asked him to increase the value of the load resistor and as he did that the phase delay disappeared and went towards zero degrees. It looked like his setup was (AC EMF source) -> (unknown inductance) -> (load resistor). With a setup like that you will get the results that he saw on his scope.
The moral of the story is you can take your original data and then start to develop a plan for figuring out what is going on. You see a different phase shift between a 10-ohm resistor and a 100-ohm resistor? Your setup is a bit more complicated but you can develop some kind of process for investigating that. Let's assume that you can keep your rotor speed constant. So what happens as you vary the values of one, the other, or both resistances? Do you see any trending in the phase shift as you change the values of the resistances? These are the kinds of things that you have to do to figure out what is going on. We collectively have to get past the times where people say, "Look, I just proved that something unusual is going on" or "I just proved the 'delayed Lens effect' is real." The way circuits like this is often work is a function of frequency, resistance, capacitance, and inductance. You have to explore the variations and make your own notes and observations to understand what might be going on. This is getting a bit deeper into how electronic circuits work. Hopefully, you have fun in the process of doing the investigation!
MileHigh
It's always the NATURE that misunderstood.
Quote from: Mister Caribbean Roots on December 26, 2014, 01:51:11 PM
TM, nice going there mate... ;)
As long as we use the right mixture of the ingredients we will have the Delayed Lenz Effect... 8) ;D
Here is one tiny coil showing this effect,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlCyY5hp6HQ&index=56&list=UUNk6nZuUrTLRnp__hAgAqjw
Here are two of the same tiny coil showing this effect,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwPDDvzZFXQ&list=UUNk6nZuUrTLRnp__hAgAqjw
As one can see i've taken another route to achieve this Delayed Lenz Effect but it is being done with the same ingredients but the difference is in thier amount... ;D 8) ;)
It's like baking a cake, you can use the same ingredients but if you don't follow the amount needed you'll end up with a brick or a sponge...lol... :o ;D ;)
If the claim is that the coils can be configured such that the right hand wheel is actually operating as a motor then you need to put a torque transducer between that wheel and the rest of the system.
Quote from: MileHigh on December 26, 2014, 02:56:32 PM
Tinman:
I don't have the answer for you here and I didn't read all the postings so I am not sure if this is an open or closed investigation for you.
I just want to discuss the process for you. Recently Gotoluc saw a 90 degree phase lag on the output of a generator coil when the load resistor on the generator coil was only one ohm. Right away he said, "delayed Lenz effect." I asked him to increase the value of the load resistor and as he did that the phase delay disappeared and went towards zero degrees. It looked like his setup was (AC EMF source) -> (unknown inductance) -> (load resistor). With a setup like that you will get the results that he saw on his scope.
The moral of the story is you can take your original data and then start to develop a plan for figuring out what is going on. You see a different phase shift between a 10-ohm resistor and a 100-ohm resistor? Your setup is a bit more complicated but you can develop some kind of process for investigating that. Let's assume that you can keep your rotor speed constant. So what happens as you vary the values of one, the other, or both resistances? Do you see any trending in the phase shift as you change the values of the resistances? These are the kinds of things that you have to do to figure out what is going on. We collectively have to get past the times where people say, "Look, I just proved that something unusual is going on" or "I just proved the 'delayed Lens effect' is real." The way circuits like this is often work is a function of frequency, resistance, capacitance, and inductance. You have to explore the variations and make your own notes and observations to understand what might be going on. This is getting a bit deeper into how electronic circuits work. Hopefully, you have fun in the process of doing the investigation!
MileHigh
MH
Regardless of load resistance,why is there any phase difference in this simple setup?. It opperates at a very low frequency(101Hz),and i am using ferite cores of the same type with a 1 to 1 coupling.
Some things you may have missed.
the phase difference grows larger as i decrease the load(increase the resistance value)on the secondary coil,un like Luc's setup where as you had to increase the load to bring the two back into phase.
So the next thing i tried was to use my SG to power the primary using an AC sine wave so as to obtain the same P/P voltage across the primary coil. I ran it up to 150KHz,and no phase shift what so ever-regardless of load on the secondary. The effect(what ever it is-->and i havent called it this lenz delay,only that it seems that the magnetic field is some how being delayed or advanced to one of the coil's) only seems present when the PM's are used to generate the current flow in the coils.
I am going to do what PW suggested,and put a small coil on the setup to trigger from. I have a feeling that each phase is going to move -one advancing,and one retarding.
Hi Brad,
Would like to ask on the difference in the number of turns (if there is any) between the two (front and back) coils. The best would be if you had an L meter to check the actual inductances.
I think of phase shift in R-L circuits and it could also be checked by calculations.
Thanks, Gyula
Quote from: MileHigh on December 26, 2014, 02:56:32 PM
Recently Gotoluc saw a 90 degree phase lag on the output of a generator coil when the load resistor on the generator coil was only one ohm. Right away he said, "delayed Lenz effect."
MileHigh
I am not attached to calling this effect "delayed Lenz effect."
FYI, the topic I started was an attempt to study the effect so you EE could debate and decide what the effect is and call it what ever you decided was best to call it and that would of been fine with me. However, you dominated the topic an tried to make me look incompetent and even writing things that I did not do, write or say. So I locked the topic to stop this nonsense.
BTW, here was my opening post of that topic:Hi everyone,
I'm starting this topic to further study the effects of a generator coil which causes no load to its prime mover once connected to a 1 Ohm resistive load.
It seems we have many views about what could be happening in such a coil and maybe together we can find an explanation we can all agree upon.
I made a video of a simple test device that demonstrates a coil I consider having this quality.
A sense coil has been carefully positioned in order for both coil sinewaves to be in phase which can also serves as a rotor magnet timing reference.
During the video I didn't verbally explain because of the prime mover noise. However, it should be clear to most who have experience on the matter that once the coil is placed under the 1 Ohm load there is next to no change in Frequency (motor RPM). What's also clear is there's a delay in phase once I adjust the scope probe voltage division.
So the question is, what causes current to delay in a resistive load and what is going on in the coil to cause such an effect?
Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0N0-sxa09c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0N0-sxa09c)
Regards
Luc
Now I ask you or anyone else;Does this sound like someone who is saying this effect is Delayed Lenz and or can only be call delayed Lenz?
So again I ask you, please show me the post I wrote where I had: " a 90 degree phase lag on the output of a generator coil when the load resistor on the generator coil was only one ohm and right away said, "delayed Lenz effect."
If you do find such a post I will be happy to apologize, because as you see from that topics first post I was not attached to calling it that.
However, if you don't find such a post I would like the same respect from you.
Regards
Luc
Luc:
Okay, I concede right away that you did not state "delayed Lenz effect."
Now, was that hard? Just to continue the narrative about that clip and the testing, I helped you and worked with you on that investigation. I suggested that you change the value of the load resistor, and then the phase shift went away and started to go towards zero degrees. Then I explained the likely simplified circuit was the EMF source in seres with an unknown inductance connected to the load resistor. You thought that the "inductance" was the inductance of your generator coil and I explained to you that the coil was acting like an EMF source, and not like an inductance.
In other words, in working with you I basically explained to you want was happening over a dozen postings and a decent amount of effort tapping away at my keyboard.
I don't recall a single acknowledgment or thank you from you for that work. Why is that? I notice that when somebody makes a simple one-liner suggestion to you you heap praise on them.
Finally, you lied about me and I challenged you on that with a separate posting and I don't think that there was a single peep from you about that. You are not without fault by a long shot.
So see how easy it is for me to admit that I was wrong? I am just suggesting to you that you get your priorities straight. If people help you have the courtesy to acknowledge it. If you are wrong or make mistakes and you are corrected, acknowledge it and suck it up. Sorry, but there is no magic halo over you protecting you from just the simple plain truth about your investigations. Like I said before, I am not going to hire a Hallmark greeting card ghost writer to make everything all soft and sweet. Enough effort goes into getting the information out there, and I am not going to double or triple the required effort to make the prose all sweet and serene just for you.
MileHigh
Well, this makes it the third time you write something I did not say or write as you wrote in your post. Your audience can decide why you would do such a thing.
BTW, can you point me the post where I lied about you, as I'm not aware I did such a thing and would be more then happy to apologize if I did.
I think deep down you know that I do appreciate the opinion of EE as long as the message is done in a supportive way.
Maybe we can learn something from each other? ... I now see a supportive post: http://overunity.com/15083/the-new-generator-no-effect-counter-b-emf-part-2-selfrunning/msg429509/#msg429509
Kind regards
Luc
Quote from: Mister Caribbean Roots on December 27, 2014, 01:14:21 PM
Mark, that would be a good idea... ;D
But just seeing the drive side running faster with less energy input is more than enough for my satisfaction... :)
The problem is that it is not a direct measurement of what you want to know about. Thane Heins and many others have gone down a similar rabbit hole where their proxy for a power gain has been shown to be false.
Quote
A generator coil is basically a motor coil and visa versa... 8)
That's very true.
Quote
It does turn into a electro magnet when it is energized by the rotor magnets so we just need to let that happend at a different time and it will help out the drive side instead of working against it... :o 8) ;D
That's a nice thought but there is this elephant in the room problem that the only source of return energy is the source energy less losses. Losses don't get made up in volume.
Quote from: gotoluc on December 27, 2014, 01:00:30 AM
Well, this makes it the third time you write something I did not say or write as you wrote in your post. Your audience can decide why you would do such a thing.
BTW, can you point me the post where I lied about you, as I'm not aware I did such a thing and would be more then happy to apologize if I did.
I think deep down you know that I do appreciate the opinion of EE as long as the message is done in a supportive way.
Maybe we can learn something from each other? ... I now see a supportive post: http://overunity.com/15083/the-new-generator-no-effect-counter-b-emf-part-2-selfrunning/msg429509/#msg429509
Kind regards
Luc
Nowhere nor at any time did Gotoluc call Milehigh a lier. Milehigh has proven in this way that he really ls a lier.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 27, 2014, 01:24:50 PM
Nowhere nor at any time did Gotoluc call Milehigh a lier. Milehigh has proven in this way that he really ls a lier.
Please synchro1, I'm not asking for people to post there opinions... rather, trying to help us all see there are productive ways we can work together even if we see things in different extremes.
I think MileHigh is considering this approach and maybe why he has written a great post of his analysis to which I included a link to in my post above.
The way I see it now is, MH is making an effort not to shoot down these experiments and rather be standing by to assist (if needed) so they can unfold themselves and that way we can all learn what we each need to lean.
So now the ball is in your park, is there something you can learn from this which will assist the momentum to continue?
Kind Regards
Luc
Both of you:
My response to the accusation that I was a liar is in this very thread. It will take you a few minutes to find it if you want to. It's not a question of shooting down any experiment or any person either. It's just me sharing my technical evaluation of a given experiment or proposition with an expectation of getting reasonable feedback. Just like there is the misnomer "delayed Lenz effect" there is the incorrect idea that you can manipulate magnetic flux through a generator coil by some other method that will give you a gain. I have already rendered my opinion on that issue for Luc's new experiment so I don't have to say it again. Some people that favour this proposition have told me that they don't believe me and this "new technique" will give some benefits. That's their right and then we move forward from that point.
If I help Luc to get some meaningful data from his latest experiment then so much the better. If he can get good data (which won't be easy but if you are determined then it is possible) the data will show that I was correct. Nobody has to believe me right now if they don't want to.
Let's say that I am correct and the data shows nothing special and no gain. Instead of just moving on, the ideal thing to do would be to go back and look at the original proposition and make a critical evaluation of it. Understand what's going on and then a light goes off in your heads and you say, "I get it - redirecting flux with some external flux redirector system is no different than moving a coil past a magnet or moving a magnet past a coil - they are fundamentally the same thing with the same effects."
That would be the ideal knowledge gained from this experiment. You have to truly understand the basic fundamentals. Then next year when some funky design is put up by some YouTube guy in Moldavia (or wherever) that is just variation on the same thing - you guys can say I UNDERSTAND, this Moldavian guy's generator configuration is not going to do anything special. That would be a big win.
MileHigh
This is for TK, we briefly discussed the model of a water pipe for an inductor (or vice-versa). I can't remember what thread it was on, may have even been this one, so here goes:
The skinny: Inductance is often referred to as "electrical momentum" and in a water pipe you have the momentum of the moving water. End of story....
Let's look in more detail:
Let's look at the various analogies: (we are always working in an environment where water pressure is akin to voltage and water flow is akin to current (or vice-versa for both variables))
You apply voltage to a coil and the current slowly builds up over time.
You apply pressure to water in a pipe and the water flow slowly builds up over time.
You suddenly try to stop the flow of current in a coil by putting a resistance across it and you get a high voltage spike and rapid decrease in current flow.
You suddenly try to stop the flow of water in a pipe by putting a blockage at the end of the pipe and you get a high pressure spike and rapid decrease in water flow.
If you have current flowing through an ideal coil with no resistance, it will flow forever.
If you have water flowing through an ideal loop of pipe connected end-to-end, it will flow forever.
The voltage across a coil is the inductance of the coil times the rate of change of current with respect to time.
The pressure across a length of pipe is the mass of the water times the rate of change of the speed of the water with respect to time.
When you first apply voltage to a coil it acts like an open circuit and no current flows.
When you fist apply pressure to a pipe filled with water it offers infinite resistance to the water flow and no water flows.
The energy in a coil is 1/2 L i-squared.
The energy in a length of pipe is 1/2 the mass of the water times the velocity of the water squared.
In a nutshell, water flowing in a pipe is analogous to current current flowing through a coil and vice-versa.
The classic question is, "But where is the external magnetic field?" The answer is that you IGNORE the external magnetic field, it does not count. The only thing that counts is the energy associated with the external magnetic field. That magnetic energy is equivalent to the mass of water in the pipe times the square of the speed of the water. Some of you have to try to wrap your minds around that and this may help: On the bench you measure current flow with your multimeter and you don't think about the magnetic field that much. But the magnetic field is always there. The inductance even in straight wires is always there.
What's a water model for an LC resonator? Here, to make it simple, we have to think outside the box just a little bit.
Imagine a big coil of hose on the floor. It's 100 feet of hose coiled up into a coil five feet in diameter. One end of the hose is connected to a tall water tank with an open top. The other end of the hose is connected to another tall water tank with an open top.
Here are the initial conditions: The hose is filled with water. One tank is filled with water all the way to the top and there is a valve that is closed shut preventing the water to flow. The other tank is empty.
Now, when you open the valve you will have a water LC tank circuit that will oscillate back and forth between the two water tanks.
Now, some complainers may say that there is too much friction and it will not oscillate. Put your brains in gear, you are imagining that there is almost no friction in the hose or anywhere else in the water circuit. It it was frictionless then the water tank "tank circuit" will oscillate forever.
Water is a "perfect" analogy for electricity. All that you have to so is understand the limitations or use your imagination to bypass the limitations.
It means the plumbing in your house is like an electrical circuit consisting of real-world inductors where there is resistance in the wires.
No problems there, as you say the hydraulic analogy still works for inductors, considered as isolated circuit elements. And I'm sure most people have experienced "water hammer oscillators" in bad plumbing, I sure have. But what about magnetically coupled inductors? How do you model a transformer, say, in the hydraulic analogy?
There is no direct way to do it of course so we need to think about an alternative.
All that we need is a box (real or hypothetical) that has two input pipes and two output pipes. The input pipes will accept high-flow-rate/low pressure water and the output pipes will output low-flow-rate/high pressure water. In theory the water inlet can drive a primary real physical gear with teeth. That gear is meshed with a secondary gear that drives the output pump that produces the low-flow-rate/high pressure water.
What's certainly more important is to understand that the flow rate and pressure of the water can track the current and voltage in a circuit. Equally important is the energy dynamics will be the same.
Similar idea for a transistor. You have a device with two input pipes and an output pipe. The "base pipe" will control a valve that connects between the collector pipe and the emitter pipe. It will all really work in real life if you can construct a three-pipe box that does that.
MileHigh
Quote from: Mister Caribbean Roots on December 30, 2014, 03:08:36 PM
Yep, i've seen Thane Heins videos and know what you're saying and i also agree with you on this... :)
Personally i don't think this is enough to get OU...never said or write it but i do think that it is a nice way to get some inside idea of how and what... ;)
I did write enough on how to get this in simple and many ways once one mix the basic ingredients properly... ;D
All the extra drag is a real no no even if the conventional generators have that problem to and that's why they are all engine driven... :'(
Edit: the way Thane went about it is what i don't think is the way but the whole speed up under load is very nice indeed... ;D
There are both similarities and big differences between an engine or some other device driving a system and modulating a load such that it dissipates more or less power under some condition. Under no load, faster or slower is really of little consequence because no useful work is being done.
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 03:46:28 PM
There are both similarities and big differences between an engine or some other device driving a system and modulating a load such that it dissipates more or less power under some condition. Under no load, faster or slower is really of little consequence because no useful work is being done.
JLN makes it clear; "No Load" no "DLE'.
How the Delayed Lenz Effect (DLE) can be observed ?
•In the case of the motors/generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE
when the devices are loaded,
•In the case of solid state generator or special transformers (i.e. the Thane C. Heins' Bitt) , a drop of the input power is observed when a
load is connected at the output.•In the case of the generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE
when the devices are loaded above a critical minimum frequency. Below the critical minimum frequency the DLE coil will produce deceleration as per any conventional Lenz generator coil. Coil frequency dictates coil impedance which is a critical factor in producing generator DLE and
on-load system acceleration.
•
The greater the load i.e. the closer it is to a dead short (an infinite number of resistors connected in parallel) the greater the DLE produced and the more system acceleration will be produced.
•The DLE can also be used to produce an unbalance (sink effect) between the outside (i.e the Earth ground)
and the load, this is the case of the Tariel Kapanadze generator...
Quote from: synchro1 on December 30, 2014, 04:31:16 PM
JLN makes it clear; "No Load" no "DLE'.
How the Delayed Lenz Effect (DLE) can be observed ?
•In the case of the motors/generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE when the devices are loaded,
•In the case of solid state generator or special transformers (i.e. the Thane C. Heins' Bitt) , a drop of the input power is observed when a load is connected at the output.
•In the case of the generators, the increase of the turn rate is produced by the DLE when the devices are loaded above a critical minimum frequency. Below the critical minimum frequency the DLE coil will produce deceleration as per any conventional Lenz generator coil. Coil frequency dictates coil impedance which is a critical factor in producing generator DLE and on-load system acceleration.
•The greater the load i.e. the closer it is to a dead short (an infinite number of resistors connected in parallel) the greater the DLE produced and the more system acceleration will be produced.
•The DLE can also be used to produce an unbalance (sink effect) between the outside (i.e the Earth ground) and the load, this is the case of the Tariel Kapanadze generator...
That's pretty much just all signs of reduced power coupling. I contend that the best device in this class is a device with no coupling at all.
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 05:18:51 PM
That's pretty much just all signs of reduced power coupling. I contend that the best device in this class is a device with no coupling at all.
Once again your trying to pass complete nonsense off as sagacious wisdom. The best no coupling device is between your ears.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 30, 2014, 08:30:44 PM
Once again your trying to pass complete nonsense off as sagacious wisdom. The best no coupling device is between your ears.
Well then you should have no difficulty at all refuting my statement with a demonstration.
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 08:38:07 PM
Well then you should have no difficulty at all refuting my statement with a demonstration.
How about you coming up with some kind of demonstration rather then endless wise guy back talk.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 30, 2014, 10:49:05 PM
How about you comming up with some kind of demonstration other then endless wise guy back talk.
I don't make the false claim that an energy sink is an energy source.
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 10:52:43 PM
I don't make the false claim that an energy sink is an energy source.
You're the one with the false claim that an energy source is an energy sink. There's a phase lag in output coil core material that reverses "Lenz Drag" and propels the magnet rotor. You look in the wrong place for the cause. Then you maintain you can't find it, so it dosen't exist. There you sit with a big "Chimp Lip" rolled back.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 30, 2014, 11:05:40 PM
You're the one with the false claim that an energy source is an energy sink. There's a phase lag in output coil core material that reverses "Lenz Drag" and propels the magnet rotor. You look in the wrong place for the cause. Then you maintain you can't find it, so it dosen't exist. There you sit with a big "Chimp Lip" rolled back.
Unfortunately for you the "false claim" that you allege I make is backed up by solid physics. You are free to refute to try and falsify my conventional position with an appropriate experiment: Show actual energy production from your misnomer "Lenz delay".
Quote from: MarkE on December 30, 2014, 11:39:05 PM
Unfortunately for you the "false claim" that you allege I make is backed up by solid physics. You are free to refute to try and falsify my conventional position with an appropriate experiment: Show actual energy production from your misnomer "Lenz delay".
Gotoulc just got through doing that!
Quote from: synchro1 on December 31, 2014, 07:53:13 AM
Gotoulc just got through doing that!
Actually he did not. If you labor under the misconception that he demonstrated energy production you are free to say where you think you saw such a thing.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 11:05:20 AM
Actually he did not. If you labor under the misconception that he demonstrated energy production you are free to say where you think you saw such a thing.
What about Gotoluc? You're contradicting what he said took place. Who are you to stage yourself in as knowing better than Luc what actually took place? Luc's not an untrained beginner. Myself along with alot of other people have to ask what kind of authority you pretend you have to act like your more important then Luc. We're over here taking a close look at you. I caught you saying some really stupid things. You have a tendancy to venture into areas where you're not that knowlegable, then you start slinging it like crazy to worm your way out. What motivates you to act that strange? Why not pay Luc the respect he deserves, instead of running him down like some kind of incompetent? You're the one who comes up looking stupid! How long's it going to take before you wise up to yourself?
Quote from: synchro1 on December 31, 2014, 02:10:57 PM
What about Gotoluc? You're contradicting what he said took place. Who are you to stage yourself in as knowing better than Luc what actually took place? Luc's not an untrained beginner. Myself along with alot of other people have to ask what kind of authority you pretend you have to act like your more important then Luc. We're over here taking a close look at you. I caught you saying some really stupid things. You have a tendancy to venture into areas where you're not that knowlegable, then you start slinging it like crazy to worm your way out. What motivates you to act that strange? Why not pay Luc the respect he desearves, instead of running him down like some kind of incompetant? You're the one who comes up looking stupid! How long's it going to take before you wise up to yourself?
First you need to establish that he claims he is producing energy. Please point to where he does that.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 02:17:19 PM
First you need to establish that he claims he is producing energy. Please point to where he does that.
He locked his thread down. Apparently you failed to follow it.
I followed that thread and to the best of my recollection Luc never claimed that he was producing energy. He may have claimed that a generator coil was driving a load with "no affect on the prime mover" and that was wrong. His measuring instruments could not show any apparent affect on the prime mover but his conclusions were wrong.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 31, 2014, 02:20:02 PM
He locked his thread down. Apparently you failed to follow it.
So that's a big no then on showing that Luc claimed to produce energy? That sort of tears apart your entire argument.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 04:05:18 PM
So that's a big no then on showing that Luc claimed to produce energy? That sort of tears apart your entire argument.
This thread is completely null and void as a consequence; Just a tiresome exercise in futility by you malignant cynics. Both you and Milehigh are shameless frauds!
Quote from: synchro1 on December 31, 2014, 04:31:01 PM
This thread is completely null and void as a consequence; Just a tiresome exercise in futility by you malignant cynics. Both you and Milehigh are shameless frauds!
And yet when it comes to supplying facts to refute what you claim is overtly wrong, you come with empty hands.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 05:22:27 PM
And yet when it comes to supplying facts to refute what you claim is overtly wrong, you come with empty hands.
Everyone knows Luc proved DLE generated an extra charge. You're left alone here whining in your impotence.
There's something diabolical about MarE and Milehigh and their vendetta against DLE.
Quote from: synchro1 on December 31, 2014, 06:53:13 PM
Everyone knows Luc proved DLE generated an extra charge. You're left alone here whining in your impotence.
Well then you should have no difficulty leveraging that to get yourself off the power grid. Please let everyone know when you do.
Quote from: MarkE on December 31, 2014, 11:05:13 PM
Well then you should have no difficulty leveraging that to get yourself off the power grid. Please let everyone know when you do.
That's with all the help from draging you along behind me like a dead bloated jackass.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 12:29:19 AM
That's with all the help from draging you along behind me like a dead bloated jackass.
So, I guess this means that you can't/won't get off the grid then? Also, then you will blame Mark for this?
Bill
PS Happy New Year.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 12:29:19 AM
That's with all the help from draging you along behind me like a dead bloated jackass.
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891
Quote from: Pirate88179 on January 01, 2015, 12:56:16 AM
After I hire an actuator programmer and patent attorney.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 05:45:23 AM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891
You're threatening to have my ass kicked, huh? You can eat shit, die, and go straight to hell in the meantime and take your filthy "Big Shiek" payola lucre with you!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 12:46:38 PM
You're threatening to have my ass kicked, huh? You can eat shit, die, and go straight to hell in the meantime and take your filthy "Big Shiek" payola lucre with you!
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428894/#msg428894
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 12:29:19 AM
That's with all the help from draging you along behind me like a dead bloated jackass.
So, just let me know when you build one of these machines and use it to get yourself off the grid.
Quote from: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 01:06:35 PM
So, just let me know when you build one of these machines and use it to get yourself off the grid.
It's a
"misnomer"!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 01:12:36 PM
It's a "misnomer"!
Your use of "Delayed Lenz Effect" to describe delays in the build-up of a net external magnetic field is a misnomer. Your asserted belief that you can construct an arrangement of magnetic and non-magnetic materials to produce more energy from induction than is consumed by same is flat wrong.
Quote from: MarkE on January 01, 2015, 01:21:04 PM
Your use of "Delayed Lenz Effect" to describe delays in the build-up of a net external magnetic field is a misnomer. Your asserted belief that you can construct an arrangement of magnetic and non-magnetic materials to produce more energy from induction than is consumed by same is flat wrong.
Gotoluc just conclusively proved a net gain from DLE. You set yourself up over here on this bogus thread as some kind of official and set about falsely finalizing his test results after he locked his thread down. Your just a non-stop horse shit punk!
Chris Skykes Offers a Lenz free gift for the new year..
He says "its Now up to you"!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA&feature=youtu.be
http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf
from Hanon here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5911-garry-stanley-pulse-motor-11.html#post269177
thx
Chet
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 01:54:43 PM
Gotoluc just conclusively proved a net gain from DLE. You set yourself up over here on this bogus thread as some kind of official and set about falsely finalizing his test results after he locked his thread down. Your just a non-stop horse shit punk!
Again, then you should have little difficulty building a free energy machine based on what you claim that he has demonstrated. Be sure to let me know when you disconnect from the grid.
Quote from: ramset on January 01, 2015, 02:14:42 PM
Chris Skykes Offers a Lenz free gift for the new year..
He says "its Now up to you"!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-V1z2TdQJA&feature=youtu.be
http://www.hyiq.org/Downloads/Guidelines%20to%20Bucking%20Coils.pdf
from Hanon here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5911-garry-stanley-pulse-motor-11.html#post269177
thx
Chet
He has made fundamental errors and then built upon those. While he acknowledges that voltage reflects through a transformer of N:M turns as M/N output voltage/input voltage he makes the false claim that output current does not reflect back to the input by the same ratio.
@ramset,
Thanks Chet!
This an is interesting assertion from the "Bucking Coil" PDF, as it bears out my "Flux Density to Ohmic resistance" proportion:
"It is the Magnetic Field itself that creates drag; it creates Friction on Electric Charge itself".
Chet:
That clip from the hyiq.org guy is nonsense. This is a complete and total failure of understanding what is covered in grade 10 physics class. You might spend a few weeks in grade 10 physics to learn about the basics of electronics including coils and transformers and how they work. You probably only have to have an IQ of 51 (just above the idiot level) to do a basic bench experiment to refute that nonsensical mind-polluting clip. It feels sometimes like people in the free energy community want to actively make themselves stupid.
I barely looked at the pdf, and I clipped a diagram out of it which I am attaching here. There is no Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet. How many times does that have to be stated to the free energy community until they get it I wonder. I wonder if they ever will get it.
I know you are just trying to be helpful and you are just the messenger. The problem in that you are pointing to 100% crap, mind-corrupting foolishness that any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in his physics class would laugh at.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 04:42:50 PM
Chet:
That clip from the hyiq.org guy is nonsense. This is a complete and total failure of understanding what is covered in grade 10 physics class. You might spend a few weeks in grade 10 physics to learn about the basics of electronics including coils and transformers and how they work. You probably only have to have an IQ of 51 (just above the idiot level) to do a basic bench experiment to refute that nonsensical mind-polluting clip. It feels sometimes like people in the free energy community want to actively make themselves stupid.
I barely looked at the pdf, and I clipped a diagram out of it which I am attaching here. There is no Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet. How many times does that have to be stated to the free energy community until they get it I wonder. I wonder if they ever will get it.
I know you are just trying to be helpful and you are just the messenger. The problem in that you are pointing to 100% crap, mind-corrupting foolishness that any astute 15-year-old kid that did well in his physics class would laugh at.
MileHigh
@MileHigher,
How do you explain this exerpt from the Wikipedia article on "Bloch Wall"?
"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next. The magnetization rotates through the plane of the wall unlike the Néel wall where the magnetization rotates in the plane of the wall. For example,
a Bloch wall is formed at the center line of a bar magnet where the domains switch north/south direction".
The Wikipedia article you are quoting is out of date and is now called "Domain Wall."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_wall_%28magnetism%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_wall_%28magnetism%29)
QuoteBloch wall
A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch. The magnetization rotates through the plane of the domain wall (see above image) unlike the Néel wall where the rotation is within the plane of the domain wall, see the external link below to view an example of a Bloch and Néel wall.
Bloch domain walls appear in bulk materials, i.e. when sizes of magnetic material are considerably larger than domain wall width (according to the width definition of Lilley [16]). In this case energy of the demagnetization field does not impact the micromagnetic structure of wall. The mixed cases are possible as well when demagnetization field changes the magnetic domains (magnetization direction in domains) but not the domain walls.[17]
The quote you referred to is now gone. I remember reading it myself and I complained to the Wikipedia people so it would seem that they have corrected that error.
So the junk was removed, thank God. All that you really have to do is pay attention when you learn about magnetism and magnetics and you would realize by yourself that there is no Bloch wall in a bar magnet. I have to assume that the original problem happened because an ardent Bedini follower contributed to the original Wikipedia article. So a Bedini fan 'poisoned the Knowledge Well,' so to speak.
Anybody that believes that there is a Bloch wall in a standard bar magnet is wrong. One way to get your head on straight is to do a thought experiment where you pass from one side of the alleged Bloch wall to the other side. If you understand basic magnetism then you will quickly see how the whole nonsensical idea quickly falls apart.
If you persist in believing that there is a Bloch wall inside a standard bar magnet then you are demonstrating that you do not posess a fundamental grasp of basic magnetism. It's that serious. If you can't get this then everything else you do in an attempt to understand magnetism will most likely fall short.
@MileHigh,
First you state:
"There is no Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet"
Then you go on to quote from Wikipedia on "Domain Walls":
"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".
Now which side is up bub?
"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".
Show me in the statement you quoted above, just where it says that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 08:32:14 PM
"A Bloch wall is a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next, named after the physicist Felix Bloch".
Show me in the statement you quoted above, just where it says that there is a Bloch wall in the center of a bar magnet.
A bar magnet has "Magnetic Domains" hence, it has a Bloch Wall!
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 09:04:23 PM
A bar magnet has "Magnetic Domains" hence, it has a Bloch Wall!
Sorry, wrong. Please just go read up on it and do your research.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 09:09:00 PM
Sorry, wrong. Please just go read up on it and do your research.
Who are you to send me back to pre-school when you're the one pounding another square peg through a round hole? You're just a wicked Satanist! I want you back in hell where you came from you sick bastard.
Quote from: synchro1 on January 01, 2015, 09:19:28 PM
Who are you to send me back to pre-school when you're the one pounding another square peg through a round hole? You're just a wicked Satanist! I want you back in hell where you came from you sick bastard.
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891
Quote from: MileHigh on January 01, 2015, 09:26:21 PM
http://overunity.com/15309/reboot-is-the-delayed-lenz-effect-real-or-just-a-misunderstanding/msg428891/#msg428891
You're just a Queen!
The Bloch wall's visable through a magnet viewer in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r38qMrjrSqs
The clip is completely wrong.
Here is what a "magnet" with a Bloch wall down the center looks like: [S---N][N---S]. Now, does that look like a proper magnet to you? No! It looks like two separate magnets in opposition "glued into one." A "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" is totally nonsensical and will defeat itself. You have to contemplate this and THINK. That entire separate clip about Bloch walls is completely wrong and the author doesn't understand what he is looking at with the magnetic viewing film. Again, you have to really THINK.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 09:05:15 AM
The clip is completely wrong.
Here is what a "magnet" with a Bloch wall down the center looks like: [S---N][N---S]. Now, does that look like a proper magnet to you? No! It looks like two separate magnets in opposition "glued into one." A "magnet with a Bloch wall down the center" is totally nonsensical and will defeat itself. You have to contemplate this and THINK. That entire separate clip about Bloch walls is completely wrong and the author doesn't understand what he is looking at with the magnetic viewing film. Again, you have to really THINK.
@MileHigh,
First we need to limber up to bend over far enough backwards to bury are heads as far up our asses into deep shit as you managed to bury yours.
Here is a clip on magnetic domains designed for a child. Perhaps you will be able to understand it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq-rqGaBIM0
Do you see the graphic of the paper clip after all of the magnetic domains are aligned in the same direction? That's what a magnet is like. Note that if all of the magnetic domains are aligned in the same direction then by definition there is no Bloch wall.
Here is a definition for willful ignorance:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/willful_ignorance
"A decision in bad faith to avoid becoming informed about something so as to avoid having to make undesirable decisions that such information might prompt."
Synchro, be the change you want to see.
I stopped reading milehigh posts some time ago and others of same energy.
Point is, they will not go away if one keeps fanning the flame of conflict.
If one wants harmony and cooperation for the highest good of one and all, then be it, they will all eventually transform into the model you are BEing.
Believe in goodness, for goodness sake, hehe.
peace love light
Peace, love, light, and willful ignorance.
Nothing to be proud of there.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 02, 2015, 02:15:46 PM
Peace, love, light, and willful ignorance.
Nothing to be proud of there.
Skywatcher is trying to convince synchro1 to do himself a favor. There's nothing wrong with that.
Happy New Year: Calm, Patience, Persistence, Truth.