Lenz free generator

[TinselKoala]

(snip)


TK, I don't think so and I highly reccommend you do this simple experiment personally right now.


Peace

Yes, I do think so, and the "experiment" is performed every time anyone runs an electric motor or generator. MH has explained it above, it is incorporated in Maxwell's Equations, you can see it happening in CRT tubes (remember those?) and in many other places in our modern lives, if you know where to look. If you could draw out accurately the "field lines" produced by your magnets or solenoids and the lines produced by the current-carrying wires, and could do the math, you would see that the vector cross-product interaction is describing accurately how things move. After all, it is just that very math that _real engineers_ use to design _real systems_ that _actually work as designed_.

Don't forget that there is a very real and important distinction between "experiment" and "demonstration". An experiment varies one or more "Independent Variables" and examines the effect of this variation on one or more "Dependent Variables" , with other variables that may confound results held constant or otherwise controlled and accounted for, and is able to assign cause-and-effect relationships between the IVs and the DVs. An experiment tests a well stated hypothesis in an attempt to falsify it, and when the attempt at falsification fails, then the hypothesis can be taken as supported by the data. "Proof" is something that is really not part of an experiment; support for a hypothesis, and by extension the overarching theory that generates the hypothesis, is all a real scientist can expect. But _disproof_ is real and is solidly attainable; if the experiment, properly done, falsifies the original hypothesis you can be confident that it is disproven.

A demonstration, otoh, just illustrates a phenomenon, and is usually conducted to try to  "prove" a point... and in the cases we encounter here and in places like this, that point is generally some hard-held item of faith that the demonstrator wants to convince others about. It is a _lot_ easier to do demonstrations, than to do actual experiments. But you can conclude nothing reliably from a mere demonstration.

[dieter]

TK, that's a lot of cynical, sarcastic mambo jambo, considering the appearent fact that you still were unable to this extremly basic test personally. Maybe you ain't got no battery, wire and magnet at hands. Or maybe it's lazyness.
However, I may no more exceptionally unignore your comments because the mood of it outweights the scientific value.


Peace.

[MileHigh]

Although, I have made slightly diffrent observations with a coil and a small cylindrical magnet: the closer the magnet is to the edge, the more is the force horizontal. The closer the magnet is to the center of the coil, the more vertical is the force. As we have seen with the wire, this has nothing to do with the distance. There clearly IS a 90 deg shifting of the reaction. Instead of attraction to north and repulsion to south, we now see Attraction at the left edge of north and repulsion at the right edge of the same pole, or visa versa with a reverse current, and the same thing works with the south pole.


As I have already mentioned, this phenomenon can be seen only in gyroscopical recession.
Tinman, I'm afraid turning the PMs by 90° will nullify the induction efficiency.

The problem is that the above is the mambo jambo.  The terminology is not correct and you are not stripping the investigation down to the bare essentials.  How does a wire with current flowing though it react to the presence of a magnetic field?   The clip I linked to gives you the real answer.

Then if you extend the investigation to a magnet you have to ask yourself what is the direction of the magnetic field around the magnet.  Then once you have established the direction of the magnetic field where you want to make your test, put the current-carrying wire in place and make your observations.

You can't render a judgment on something from a position of half-awareness and speculation with a bias towards "we don't know everything" all the time.  If you just back up and watch my clip and absorb the information then everything will make sense when you explore magnet/wire interactions.

This one is a done deal, and hopefully you and others will appreciate this.  The Rodin coil demo where they turn it into a tinny speaker is a farce because they fail to explain the mechanism producing the sound and instead attempt to bundle it in with the alleged "unique properties of the Rodin coil."

[TinselKoala]

TK, that's a lot of cynical, sarcastic mambo jambo, considering the appearent fact that you still were unable to this extremly basic test personally. Maybe you ain't got no battery, wire and magnet at hands. Or maybe it's lazyness.
However, I may no more exceptionally unignore your comments because the mood of it outweights the scientific value.


Peace.

Ah, no it is not. If I performed the DEMONSTRATION you have suggested of course I will get the same result. And I have explained why, already, and I've suggested, twice now, how to explain those result properly and how they actually do correspond to what is predicted by the actual math. You seem to think that magnetic field lines of force are uniformly straight up out of a magnet or solenoid pole. They are not, they are closed curves and are especially tightly curved at the edges of the magnet or solenoid face. The vector cross product applies, and fully describes the movement of the wire in the DEMONSTRATION you are talking about.

And the examples I gave: electric motor design, generator design, the performance of CRTs, etc etc are instances that work the way they do because they were designed by engineers using that math. The FACT that these and other systems work is a consequence of the understanding of the relationships embodied in the equations that predict the motions and interactions concerned. And your DEMONSTRATION actually demonstrates the truth and validity of those predictions. But since your mental model is incorrect, you cannot perceive this fact, and you will be hopeless if you actually try to design something using your incorrect model.

The paragraph I wrote about the nature of true experiments is solid fact and you can look it up for yourself. Google "true experiment" and read some of the 235 million results you get back.

Do you seriously think that I don't have batteries, magnets, wires and all of that? That I am lazy, with over 700 videos concerning various topics? You are funny indeed.

[dieter]

Broli, that is an interesting channel, for an electrical engineer with 30 years experience this guy is remarkably openminded. I like his attitude and even more the attitude of Mr. T., who is introduced in "New Magnetism".


And I wasn't aware that Heaviside was selfthought, postmortem kudos. Even if he allowed some facts be slipped under the table in order to simplify things for Steinmetz and Co.


I was reading your quote on MH. I don't want to spend too much energy in a defensive statement, but consider that in his teaching he didn't even mention any vector or speed of motion that mechanicly causes the flux change. This way he does not only miss the whole point of this discussion, but reveals a severe lack of understanding in the field of induction. So this may be worse than I thought. I don't want to insult the guy, this is just a conclusion.


When you read about Lenz' Law, as well as the Lorentz force,  on Wikipedia then the part that explains the thing that brakes a generator under load takes less than a half a phrase, stating that the lorentz force opposes every force that "causes" the induction. Now THAT is totally scientific, right? The whole bunch of equations certainly proofs it. NOT. Nonetheless it is stated that the lorentz force is in 90° angle to the B field (regardless of motion vector).


I think we really need to reexamine the very basics, find the flaws in the doctrine so we can proceed.


Peace