The Infinity Transformer? ... ( another Creazy Lenzless idea!! )

[MarkE]

@Mark EI didn't ignore the gyroscope effect of that spinning object Uhm... that was what I was referring to.

Then you of all people should recognize that your example is not an exception to the rule you claimed is faulty.

I'm not sure I understand, are you saying different things utilize different energy?. Like I move a ball and thats one energy and I move an electron and well that's a completely different energy...really?, So tell me how many energies are there? Like one or two or maybe hundreds because I have no idea what you could be thinking to be honest.

Now you conveniently remove the "free" from "free energy". 

No, I'm saying there may be people smarter than you or I who may have a better understanding of things which apparently you have a real problem with.

You have so far repeatedly made appeals to authority without even citing the supposed authorities, or their supposed positions.  You offer only your personal interpretations of what these supposed authorities may have said and based on their authority declare your position correct.

However you know everything don't you?

I do not make fallacious arguments from authority, especially any claims to my own.

, you know everything but you just can't seem to succeed at anything that really matters... been there, didn't work.

Are you just tossing around gratuitous insults now?

AC

[MarkE]

@luc2010
I think Mark E made a good point in his last post concerning your questions. We can reduce a motor, a generator and a transformer to two parallel wires a couple inches long and Lenz Law still applies, I have done this before. We can add exotic cores, we can wind special coils, we can make it as simple or as complex as we want and Lenz Law still applies because fundamentally the induced magnetic field still opposes the magnetic field which induced it and this is the premise of Lenz Law. You cannot actually say your doing something different and then do exactly the same thing, it doesn't work that way. The action and reaction must fall outside the context of Lenz Law if it is to be truly different and to be honest I'm not willing to show and tell. Your going to have to figure this riddle out for yourself which is actually the fun part in my opinion. You have one induced magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it so how do you change this?. Obviously we can't have two magnetic fields can we?, I know this makes absolutely no sense but if this was easy then everyone would be doing it. AC

If you think you have found a cheat on Lenz' Law, then you are going to have a devil of a time with things like skin effect.

[luc2010]

Lets assuming

first exemple:
that one wire are into the other,  the primery wire are into the secondery wire?  something like coaxcable

or another simple exemple:
one wire are normal (90 degrees) to the other

what are the effect of lenz law  here? 
in the above exemples i forget to mention using different wire material, like iron wire??

In fact i dont know the details!! i am just trying to Listen to different peoples opinians!!

rgrds
luc2010

[luc2010]

Hi,

i am looking in front of my eyes to a transformer and wondering:

why not using the iron seets core like a capacitor? because iron are always attractive? so the secondery coils are not used in this configuration,

Anyone try this before? or its just a stupid idea?

Best Regards
luc2010

[MarkE]

Hi,

i am looking in front of my eyes to a transformer and wondering:

why not using the iron seets core like a capacitor? because iron are always attractive? so the secondery coils are not used in this configuration,

Anyone try this before? or its just a stupid idea?

Best Regards
luc2010

There are lots of layers of enamel, and enamel's dielectric constant is pretty low, and you will also have to eliminate the intentional electrical connection across the lamination stack.