The new generator no effect counter B. EMF part 2 ( Selfrunning )

[MileHigh]

Luc:

I chalenge you to show a post where I wrote we need to "rewrite the physics books" based on any of my experiment results.

From your "Reactive Generator Research" thread from about a year ago:

http://overunity.com/14013/reactive-generator-research-for-everyone-to-share/150/#.VIk4g3sxLHg

From what I now know and have proven to myself and shared with you all is: the only mistake is to believe what they have been teaching in Universities around the world.

The very reason I built a generator turned by an electric motor is to test if a circuit operating on a PF of Zero will have an effect on the Generator prime mover (mini Grid equivalent).
My generator load test is the only one available on the internet which proves you can have a power factor of Zero, output over 20 Watts of Real Power and have Zero effect reflected back to the prime mover. Just that in itself is amazing since engineers like Farmhand an so on say it's impossible to do.

Now, you did not literally state "rewrite the physics books" but the intent in what you state above is clear.  Then Poynt99 worked with you for a few weeks, and finally together you discovered where the measurement fault was.  It was something like using AC coupling when you should have been doing DC coupling or one of your scope channels was inverted, I don't remember the specifics.  I only glanced at the thread.

Look at the attached graphic for a typical pulse motor generator coil output waveform.  If the rotor is relatively large and the rotor magnets are far apart then the "dead zone" will be much larger.

Supposing that you have a rotor with four magnets equally spaced 90 degrees apart.  You hook up scope channel A to a sensor pick-up coil that is 90 degrees away from the actual generator coil.  You trigger on channel A.  You hook up scope channel B to the actual generator coil output.  When you run the pulse motor you can then try different types of loads on the generator coil and observe if there is any delay or "phase shift" in the generator coil output relative to the reference unchanging waveform on channel A.  That is the real way to see if there is a "Lenz delay."

Did you do that?  I don't think you did.  I think that you just saw the rotor speed up and you just assumed that there was a "Lenz delay."  Now when people see a rotor speed up they say that it is a "delayed Lenz effect" and it's wrong.

Why is it wrong?

He is what we all should know:  When you look at the attached graphic for a typical generator coil waveform, that can represent an unloaded generator coil waveform.  In the unloaded case, you are looking at the pure EMF from the coil.  We know how a coil generates EMF due to a changing external magnetic field.  We know that the load is a resistor.  We know that the frequencies are relatively low.  When we take all that into account, we conclude that there is no reason for a delay in the waveform of the generator coil output.  We are simply applying standard well-known electronics principles.

That is the reason I am telling you there should not be a phase shift.  If anyone wants to comment or disagree, they are welcome to.

Here is what we also know:  When we change the value of the load resistor connected to the generator coil, the amount of energy dissipated in the (coil resistance + load resistance) per rotor magnet flyby will change.  If the energy per fly-by decreases, then the Lenz drag will decrease and the rotor will speed up.  If the energy per fly-by increases then the Lenz drag per fly-by will increase and the rotor will slow down.

That is the reason the rotor changes speed.  That is my reasoning.  If anyone wants to comment or disagree please feel free.

Now, let's assume that I am correct.  There is no "delayed Lenz effect" and the speed change is simply related to the power dissipated in the generator coil system as it runs.

I am trying to help you guys understand so you can build better pulse motors.  When I hear people talking about the "delayed Lenz effect" I want to teach them what is really happening for their own benefit.  In contrast to this, if nearly all of the pulse motor builders keep on talking about the "delayed Lenz effect" then they are just preventing themselves from learning.  I figure people want to learn and they don't want to reinforce bad ideas.  Bad ideas can easily take on a life of their own and that is not a good thing at all.

All of you pulse motor builders with your pulse motors that have ever used the term "delayed Lenz effect" when talking about their own pulse motors should go back and make some measurements and check what is really going on.   Collectively, you owe it to yourselves to keep on learning an improving and to not lead yourselves down garden paths.

MileHigh

[MarkE]

I'm sure that you recognize that I have very little interest in the "by and large".  Perhaps this is not the time nor place for my suggesting alternatives.  I don't need to be careful about terminology, the terms I used apply to what I do, not what is being demonstrated here.  If you recall, I mentioned symmetrical operation, and non symmetrical operation, you can assume that by non symmetrical I am implying non linear, that is what I want, what I have found, what I use to get to that which this thread is discussing, namely, the effect (current limiting) associated with the induced is neutralized.  Comprehending the force in motors and taming it "is" the lesson for how to deal with it in generators.  Quite literally we are working with the generator in the motor, this is my take....I am here to share my experiences, not to state how it is, or why it is. 

I do appreciate you taking time to respond to my posts.  I guess it would be wise to stop at this point, as you have specified that you all are discussing something that I have little or no interest in. 


Regards

If you measure carefully you will find that there is no cheat on induction other than not to induce in the first place and therefore do nothing.  If you want to impart mechanical power through an electromagnetic machine then you do that via induction.  If you want to use mechanical power to impart electrical output through an electromagnetic machine then again you do that via induction.

[lumen]

Induction is the action, Lenz's Law only specifies the orientation.  If you go after eliminating induction, you eliminate either desired voltage generation in machine operating as a generator, or desired torque in a machine operating as a motor. 

It is sort of like trying to eliminate the force required to push something up an inclined plane:  You can reduce that force by lowering the incline angle of the plane.  But then you immediately and proportionately reduce the potential energy that you put into any mass you move up the plane.  The force that you would rather not have to work against is part and parcel to the energy that you would like to end up in the mass.  The same behavior occurs with induction:  Build a machine with a low BEMF constant and it will have a low torque/force constant.

Did you even read what I suggested?

I want as much induction as possible and all the Lenz force I can get. That would mean good output.

Any increase in load would increase the Lenz force and that would serve to reduce rotor drag.

The idea is to have the flux already at one end of the coil and the rotor creates the path and lets the field pass through the coil.
In this configuration the Lenz force will impede the field through the coil as always, but will not fight the rotor because it's on the other side.

Like I said, I think this was Ecklin's theory.

[MarkE]

Did you even read what I suggested?

I read it carefully.  You keep using the word "Lenz" to refer to the effects of induction.  Lenz's Law only states the orientation of induced voltage.  Induction is as I stated the action.

I want as much induction as possible and all the Lenz force I can get. That would mean good output.

The mechanical force is the Lorentz force.

Any increase in load would increase the Lenz force and that would serve to reduce rotor drag.

Such an effect is unknown on this planet.  Induction couples the load to the source.  For any coupling coefficient greater than zero, more load means more drag on the source, not less drag.

The idea is to have the flux already at one end of the coil and the rotor creates the path and lets the field pass through the coil.

Whatever the idea, the reality is as just stated:  more load means more drag on the source.

In this configuration the Lenz force will impede the field through the coil as always, but will not fight the rotor because it's on the other side.

You keep saying "Lenz force" of which there is no such thing.  If what you mean is the Lorentz force the best that you can do is whittle away at sources of parasitic losses such as eddy currents.  If you drive those to zero, then the output power will be just slightly smaller than the input power.

Like I said, I think this was Ecklin's theory.

I don't care who originated or promoted the idea.  It has the problems stated.

[T-1000]

So much words fighting and no results. Where are your experiments following them?
Wish would be this amount of tests done in each post to share experience...