Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[rakarskiy]

Rakarskiy
Indeed, we cannot generalize and lump everything together using conventional concepts...

Lenz Law does not apply to one magnetic field acting on or inducing another magnetic field unless an induced current is present. That's the limitation of Lenz Law and it only applies to Electro-Magnetic fields. Ergo Lenz Law cannot apply to a purely magnetic motor which uses switched/displaced field phenomena with no coils or conduction currents.

Lenz Law is very specific and applies to an induced current producing a magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field which induced it, no more no less.

Here is where most make mistakes...https://byjus.com/physics/lenzs-law/
Many make this mistake and it's called a false cause fallacy. Lenz Law does not "depend on the principle of conservation of energy and Newton's third law" that's absurd. Lenz Law tends to agree with the COE and support the concept. I agree with the COE just not the backwards way most use it. As we can see many put the cart before the horse which relates to false cause.

The author then goes on to confuse the matter even more...
Again we see false cause and Lenz's law is not based on the COE it supports the concept. They then go on to confuse the issue further by claiming "the induced current is always opposed by the cause that produces it" which is false. The induced current is only opposed by the cause if said cause is a changing magnetic field.

So we can see how many start adding there own assumptions and false cause to the equation. In fact, I have found a few instances where a current can be induced in a conductor and it has little or no effect on the phenomena which induced it. Obviously it wasn't a changing magnetic field otherwise Lenz Law would apply and that's not what we want...

Regards
AC

An interesting approach of transfusion from empty to empty.
Faraday's law (describes the relationship between fields when they interact) or Lenz's law (describes how these fields interact).
There is only one question: where is the detailed mechanism of the interaction of causes and effects?

[onepower]

Rakarskiy

An interesting approach of transfusion from empty to empty.
Faraday's law (describes the relationship between fields when they interact) or Lenz's law (describes how these fields interact).
There is only one question: where is the detailed mechanism of the interaction of causes and effects?

There can be no true detail relating to cause and effect because the translation is discontinuous. Supposedly A acts on B through a space which it cannot logically act through because there is no mechanism to support said translation. Ergo, a wave cannot act through a distance without a wave carrier otherwise it cannot be a wave by definition. We can label said translation as a "field" however this is obviously problematic when nobody has any idea what said field is. Ergo, labeling something in no way implies understanding...

It also begs the question what Faraday actually said and it's consequences. In my opinion Faraday's laws are inseparable from Lenz Laws as they imply the same logic and outcome. Faraday basically said this is how induction works then Lenz said this is a consequence of what Faraday said. Then as a further consequence everyone believed nobody could be intelligent enough to work around what they said...obviously they were wrong.

That's the kicker isn't it?, many suppose nobody could be more intelligent than they are yet there always proven wrong. In fact, the exponential growth of knowledge proves many 20 years from now will be magnitudes more intelligent than we are... such is life.

Regards
AC

[Jimboot]

.

[rakarskiy]

Rakarskiy
There can be no true detail relating to cause and effect because the translation is discontinuous. Supposedly A acts on B through a space which it cannot logically act through because there is no mechanism to support said translation. Ergo, a wave cannot act through a distance without a wave carrier otherwise it cannot be a wave by definition. We can label said translation as a "field" however this is obviously problematic when nobody has any idea what said field is. Ergo, labeling something in no way implies understanding...

It also begs the question what Faraday actually said and it's consequences. In my opinion Faraday's laws are inseparable from Lenz Laws as they imply the same logic and outcome. Faraday basically said this is how induction works then Lenz said this is a consequence of what Faraday said. Then as a further consequence everyone believed nobody could be intelligent enough to work around what they said...obviously they were wrong.

That's the kicker isn't it?, many suppose nobody could be more intelligent than they are yet there always proven wrong. In fact, the exponential growth of knowledge proves many 20 years from now will be magnitudes more intelligent than we are... such is life.

Regards
AC

It's all philosophy! You can philosophize when you know for sure.
Philosophy for an engineer is like the fifth leg of a mare. An engineer needs accurate data and methods.
Therefore, if there is no precise step-by-step understanding of the processes of electromagnetic induction, the result will always be philosophical.
Have you performed at least one complete engineering calculation of a synchronous generator according to existing methods?

[onepower]

Rakarskiy

It's all philosophy! You can philosophize when you know for sure.
Philosophy for an engineer is like the fifth leg of a mare. An engineer needs accurate data and methods.

Philosophy; The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning.

As a fellow Engineer it sounds a lot like engineering doesn't it?. The important part many seem to have overlooked is logical reasoning. So while engineering may be about data/methods philosophy is about having the insight to understand what data/methods apply and what doesn't. It allows us to separate the wheat from the chaff and make progress.

As we know all the greatest engineers, scientists, inventors followed multiple disciplines which may be why they found success. As such I find it very strange why anyone would limit themselves in any way. As they say, we should listen to the people who found success not those who wish they had. In this respect the only real expert here would appear to be Holcomb...

Regards
AC