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

[MarkE]

I leave the measuring to those who are qualified to make the measurements.  I have no immediate desire to measure anything, having too much fun exploring, and contemplating the what ifs.  To measure implies that I am prepared to make a claim, and would support my claim with the data gained from the measurements taken during various experiments. 

My tone may be direct, and the reason for this is over the years I have sharpened my focus and know exactly what I want.  Knowing what I want comes across differently to different folks, please understand that I am in no means being offensive, please don't offend me by placing me in the box with those whose motivation is to circumvent a law they don't comprehend.  I am not nor have I suggested that I am looking to cheat anything. 

I don't want to impart mechanical power through an electromagnetic machine, not really sure what that means.  What I want is for the mechanical power to manifest within the electromagnetic machine, and this, without the limitations set and governed the internal mechanisms whose primary function is to oppose change.

Induction isn't a thing in and of itself, it is a complex mechanism. 

At any rate, please give me the benefit of the doubt, and assume that I have done at least a little homework and as such feel that I can come here and hold my own with others who have done their homework. Real progress in my opinion can only be made when we think for ourselves.  I am guided by those who wrote the laws, I am not governed by them, the laws nor the genius who wrote them,  and neither are the systems in which these so called laws are operating. 


Regards

I have done my share of measurements.  With respect to induction measurements they have always conformed to textbook formula within the error limits of the measurement set-up.  There are some very important relationships that at Newtonian velocities always hold:

Conservation of Momentum:  Momentum is conserved.
First Law of Energy:  Energy is conserved.
Newton's Second Law:  F = mA
Newton's Third Law:  For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Newton's Second and Third Laws together tell us that if we attempt to accelerate something that something will present us with a reaction force equal to the product of the thing's mass and the acceleration that we impress on that thing.  Now consider an arrangement:  an ideal electric motor coupled to an ideal electric generator coupled to an ideal electric motor.  If the whole thing except for the two motor shafts were concealed inside a black box then we would be unable to distinguish  the behavior of the two shaft ends from that of a single solid shaft of equivalent inertia supported by ideal bearings.  When we are not talking about things like eddy current losses, the "Lenz drag" that people bemoan is just the load reflected back to the source as Newton's Third Law says that it must.

[Veritas]

WHY DO YOU CENCORSHIP MY COMMENT? THAT'S UNFAIR. IM NOT TROLLING. I HAD ANOTHER ACCOUNT I TRIED A WHOLE AFTERNOON TO RESET THE PASSWORD AND THE SYSTEM WAS BROKEN. I PUT THE NEW CODE AND ALWAYS SHOWED "ERROR", SO I HAD TO MAKE A NEW ONE. PLEASE DONT BE UNFAIR.

[NoBull]

Lenz's Law only states the orientation of induced voltage. 

Yes, customarily the Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage.
...but the wording of this law also mentions current that is caused by this voltage.  See below:

An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux.

When applied to a behavior of a coil, this wording is somewhat inconsistent because current does not flow if the coil is open
(non-conducting).  This impacts the validity of the word "always".

However, when the coil is closed (conducting) then the induced voltage causes a current flow whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux penetrating this coil. 
This response happens immediately without delay.  The Viscous Remanent Magnetization experiment does not invalidate this immediacy, because it applies to the delayed behaviour of a ferromagnetic core - not the response of a coil to a changing magnetic flux.

Furthermore, according to my experiment [1] and prof. John Belcher [2] from MIT Department of Physics, if no resistance hampers the induced current in a coil, then its magnetic field not only "opposes" the original change in magnetic flux, but it opposes it so much, that the total magnetic flux penetrating this coil remains constant. 
In an ideal coil this behavior is independent of the flux change rate, too.

The Wikipedia's wording of Lenz's law states the polarity of the induced voltage and current in response to changing magnetic flux and as such it is a qualitative statement.

I think it would be more informative to expand the wording of this law to a quantitative form.

Any ideas how to phrase it well?

[T-1000]

Furthermore, according to my experiment [1] and prof. John Belcher [2] from MIT Department of Physics, if no resistance hampers the induced current in a coil, then its magnetic field not only "opposes" the original change in magnetic flux, but it opposes it so much, that the total magnetic flux penetrating this coil remains constant. 
In an ideal coil this behavior is independent of the flux change rate, too.

The QEG is close to the concept in first post due changing coil inductance with passing by part of core. But to go further when that part of core is shorting flux path between magnet and coil and is doing movement on 90 degrees to flux path.
Here is question to answer in MIT lab experiment: will induced magnetic flux vector(Lorenz force) be on 90 degrees to kinetic force which brings core between magnet and coil?
I hope you can do this test in lab there and return with answer..

[NoBull]

I hope you can do this test in lab there and return with answer..

I had already verified that the "Gary effect" is real.

My post was not about the QEG, it was about the qualitative wording of the Lenz's law, which was recently discussed in this thread.

I put a link to the QEG thread only because I had some info about my experiment there. This experiment was not related to the operation of the QEG.  It just happened to come up in that thread.

Now back to the subject at hand:
How would you phrase the Lenz's law quantiatively?