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

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

Lenz' Law can be restated as:  "The direction of magnetically induced
currents is such so as to conform to the Conservation of Energy."  If a current
is magnetically induced, then Lenz' Law ALWAYS applies.  There
are NO EXCEPTIONS.

I wouldn't state it that way because the statement is speculative. I would say the direction of magnetically induced currents are such that they oppose the magnetic source which created them is more accurate. As well phenomena do not conform to the conservation of energy as if it were a religion which is an extreme view, the phenomena support the conservation of energy.

If a current is magnetically induced, then Lenz' Law ALWAYS applies.  There are NO EXCEPTIONS

Hence the reason I said Lenz Law is Valid.

Here is a hint, when you listen to the most intelligent people on this planet speak they never use extreme terms like must conform, cannot ever change, no exceptions etc... because they do not know, nobody can know everything. This is the reason why they are considered the most intelligent people because they always leave room for doubt, it means they never look stupid or have to remember what they said.

AC

[MarkE]

@Mark EI wouldn't state it that way because the statement is speculative.

Actually it is not speculative at all.  It is the literal translation of the orientation that Lenz' Law defines.

I would say the direction of magnetically induced
currents are such that they oppose the magnetic source which created them is more accurate.

That means that the induced current conforms to Conservation of Energy.

As well phenomena do not conform to the conservation of energy as if it were a religion which is an extreme view, the phenomena support the conservation of energy.Hence the reason I said Lenz Law is Valid.
AC

There are only a few possibilities:  Induced currents never oppose the orientation of the field that induces them (anti-Lenz), they sometimes orient to oppose (conditional Lenz), or they always orient to oppose (Lenz' Law).  Lenz' unbroken law is that they always orient to oppose.  That means that they always orient so as to enforce Conservation of Energy.  It is a big point because it immediately shuts down all claims to induction based free energy machines, including coupled motors and generators:  What Sterling Allan calls QMoGens.  In order for any induction machine to be able to produce excess energy, one must show a true Lenz' Law violation:  Induced current orients so as to reinforce the magnetic field that induces it.  Such an observation has never occurred.  All the V-belts, gears, pulleys, windings, etc in the world won't help if they don't get nature to do something that no one has ever seen nature do and that is induce a current that orients so as to reinforce the changing magnetic field that induced that current.

[allcanadian]

@Mark E

That means that the induced current conforms to Conservation of Energy.

In most every case we know of yes, however this in no way implies it must happen in every case everywhere because obviously we do not know, nobody knows and to infer otherwise is speculation.


It may help to relate my perspective of the concept of free energy. I read everything I can get my hands on and the most intelligent people on the planet using the most advanced technology known to man are publishing some incredible peer reviewed science in the most respected science journals.
For instance it would appear that a particle having mass and energy can disappear then reappear in another place now what does that tell you in regards to the conservation of mass and energy?. As well a particle may appear to transfer it's energy to another through a distance with no known connection between the two. Another scientist built a hydro-morphic wall of engineered material (nano-material) based on quantum casimir effects where many droplets of water would climb the wall against the force of gravity. Another scientist built an object which bends microwaves around itself rendering it invisible to said wavelengths. As well there are the new solar cells which extract energy from multiple EM spectra. I mean I could go on for days if you would like.


Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a simple crystal radio and it's operation has been known for decades. I then etch 100 million of them on a chip with each having a discrete frequency which is relatively easy considering the chips we have contain over one billion transistors. Now I take one hundred of these chips each having 100 million zero threshold detectors on each, that is 100 times 100 million detectors each extracting energy from one discrete wavelength of the EM spectra. What is the difference between this device using known if not old technology and a black box nobody can seem to understand?. There is little difference in my opinion because in both cases the observer would have literally no idea what was going on. Oh I'm sure everyone would have opinions and objections however this in no way changes the reality of what may be happening.


In any case the real science performed by the best and brightest as we speak is much stranger than anything we could imagine. In my opinion it renders any of your objection's a mute point. We have never needed to violate any of our precious laws to produce what most refer to as free energy. However it should also be known that in many cases there is evidence to suggest the Laws are on shaky ground, obviously a particle having mass and energy which disappears then reappears somewhere else is a real problem.


The problem in my opinion is that people are listening to other people who do not have all the facts when they should be listening to the best and the brightest on the cutting edge of science who are creating the most advanced technology known to man which seems obvious to me.


AC

[MarkE]

@Mark E

In most every case we know of yes, however this in no way implies it must happen in every case everywhere because obviously we do not know, nobody knows and to infer otherwise is speculation.

The relationship between Lenz' Law and conservation of energy is mathematical.  If Lenz' Law as expressed is true, then it is also true that the direction of the induced current is such as to enforce Conservation of Energy.  Just as 2+2=4 is an arithmetic fact, not just a highly likely outcome, the direction opposition stated by Lenz' Law reinforces Conservation of Energy is a mathematical fact.

That has nothing to do with the finite reach of our observations.  While it is always possible that we will find exceptions, all our experience to date with these laws makes for all practice and purpose that they really are immutable.  Only contradictory evidence can sway them. 

It may help to relate my perspective of the concept of free energy. I read everything I can get my hands on and the most intelligent people on the planet using the most advanced technology known to man are publishing some incredible peer reviewed science in the most respected science journals.
For instance it would appear that a particle having mass and energy can disappear then reappear in another place now what does that tell you in regards to the conservation of mass and energy?. As well a particle may appear to transfer it's energy to another through a distance with no known connection between the two. Another scientist built a hydro-morphic wall of engineered material (nano-material) based on quantum casimir effects where many droplets of water would climb the wall against the force of gravity. Another scientist built an object which bends microwaves around itself rendering it invisible to said wavelengths. As well there are the new solar cells which extract energy from multiple EM spectra. I mean I could go on for days if you would like.

You could but until you can convert any of those observations into an actual disproof of any particular law, the laws all hold.

Let's do a simple thought experiment, I have a simple crystal radio and it's operation has been known for decades. I then etch 100 million of them on a chip with each having a discrete frequency which is relatively easy considering the chips we have contain over one billion transistors. Now I take one hundred of these chips each having 100 million zero threshold detectors on each, that is 100 times 100 million detectors each extracting energy from one discrete wavelength of the EM spectra. What is the difference between this device using known if not old technology and a black box nobody can seem to understand?. There is little difference in my opinion because in both cases the observer would have literally no idea what was going on. Oh I'm sure everyone would have opinions and objections however this in no way changes the reality of what may be happening.

Your antenna/rectifier bank would still be limited by the incident flux that it intercepts which at radio through microwave frequencies is low.  When you get up to infrared and visible, that ball of fire in the sky puts out some serious flux.

In any case the real science performed by the best and brightest as we speak is much stranger than anything we could imagine. In my opinion it renders any of your objection's a mute point. We have never needed to violate any of our precious laws to produce what most refer to as free energy.

Free energy as far as I know has never been produced.  Maybe someday it will.

However it should also be known that in many cases there is evidence to suggest the Laws are on shaky ground, obviously a particle having mass and energy which disappears then reappears somewhere else is a real problem.


The problem in my opinion is that people are listening to other people who do not have all the facts when they should be listening to the best and the brightest on the cutting edge of science who are creating the most advanced technology known to man which seems obvious to me.

What you propose is three things:  That people pay attention to your personal interpretation of those you classify as the best and brightest, that they ignore even the conclusions offered by the "best and brightest", and that they accept your conclusions.  Should a set of experiments actually strongly evidence violations of any physical law then that will be big news that will have been confirmed by peer review.  The strength of broad confirmation will make moot any single person's opinion independently of that person's qualifications.

AC

[forest]

Monkey see monkey do. Laws are not violated, they are used properly if we can look out of the box.
For example : one may state the ball fall in gravity field never bounce higher then the level it was originally.Most people would agree because simple experiments prove that right, but someone could take two balls, drop in proper sequence and got violation of "law"