Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



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

Started by syairchairun, November 09, 2014, 09:05:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

gotoluc

Quote from: lumen on December 18, 2014, 09:05:34 PM
To get around the Lenz problem,  you put the magnet and the core inside the coil and use iron to pull the loops outside the coil.
With this reverse Lenz effect as the iron attracts the loops outside the coil they must pass through the coil inducing a current that instead attempts to retain the magnetic loops inside the coil. Whatever is held inside the coil causes less attraction to the rotor that's trying to pull the loops out.

If this was designed well, you should be able to pull as many loops out through the coil as you could push into a coil in a typical generator. The difference would be that additional load would not need additional work from the Lenz effect because you have reversed the direction of Lenz by inverting the magnetic field in the coil to the rotor direction.

Hi Lumen,

you're making me think and interestingly I stumbled upon this video today and was wondering if this would qualify as a Lenz work around design?

I chopped the original video to get to the final design.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/4385356

Please let me know what you think

Luc

lumen

Quote from: gotoluc on December 18, 2014, 11:34:59 PM
Hi Lumen,

you're making me think and interestingly I stumbled upon this video today and was wondering if this would qualify as a Lenz work around design?

I chopped the original video to get to the final design.

http://www.tubechop.com/watch/4385356

Please let me know what you think

Luc

Luc
I think it can be done much easier. I'll post a drawing of my new test device after I measure the coil and draw it up. It's much less complicated.


gotoluc

Great lumen!

Looking forward to see the design you have come up with.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

Jimboot

Quote from: lumen on December 19, 2014, 12:03:12 AM

Luc
I think it can be done much easier. I'll post a drawing of my new test device after I measure the coil and draw it up. It's much less complicated.
Hi lumen please post when you can. I'm looking forward to seeing it. I think you right that the lenz is certainly present, but the rotor material in this design will not see as it flips to become part of it. Anyway just a gut feel,

lumen

This arrangement should prevent Lenz in the coil from affecting the rotor if that is possible.
The key factors are:
1: No movement between coil and magnet.
2: The field propagates outward as the rotor approaches the core and propagates into the core as the rotor moves away.
The idea is that Lenz will work to contain the field within the core as the magnet tries to push it outward into the rotor.
With Lenz working against the magnet not against the rotor.
When the rotor is moving away, Lenz will push back against the collapsing field and prevent pulling back on the rotor.
The total pull back on the rotor to the core can only be the same as the pull into the core as the field would be the same magnitude minus some losses from other events.

This is only a concept until proven to work anything like described.