Circumventing the Lentz law

[jake]

Why not consider using a differently wound coil for power generation (in a standard alternator).  Instead of using a coil that is wound one layer at a time over another horizontally; wouldn't a coil that is stacked vertically (rather than horizontally) provide less of an electromagnet drag as power is drawn from the coil?

Not just any shape of coil and orientation works the way you want it to.  No matter what the orientation, as long as a conductor is "cutting" lines of flux, there will be current generated.  But if the conductor is in the wrong orientation, the current may flow across the conductor (like an eddy current), and not along the conductor the way you need it to to get current flow through the conductor.

Also, it is advantageous for only one side of the coil to be passing through the field at a time, because if the other side is passing through a field it can be generating exactly the opposide current flow which will have the effect of cancelling the current flow.

What has to happen to create a current in the conductor is for the conductor to cut through the flux lines - this works the best if the conductor is 90 degrees to the flux lines.  When it cuts through one way the electric current flows one way.  When the conductor comes back out of the flux (cuts the other way) the current is opposite.

Thus, the way that works the best for current generation suffers the most from the lenz law - this is why the 2nd law is not broken by the whole process.  The more current you generate, the more force it takes to pass the conductor through the flux.  But if you orient the conductors so they don't intersect the flux in a perpendicular way, you don't get the current flow you want.

To say it another way, if the conductor moves along the flux lines, and does not "cut through" the lines, nothing happens.  To generate effectively you must cause the conductors to cut through the flux lines.  If you look at the traditional generator, the long straight sections of the conductors are moved right across the stator pole faces, causing the best condition for current flow - the conductors are cutting right through the flux as they rotate past the coil face.  The wires on the opposite side of the armature are cutting across the opposite magnetic pole - the conductors are pointing the opposite direction, so the magnetic flux is being cut the opposite way on the other side - so the current circulates in the coil - not opposing itself from the other side.  This is a good orientation for effective generation. - it also causes a lot of torque when current flows - this is the conservation of energy being satisfied.

[Liberty]

Why not consider using a differently wound coil for power generation (in a standard alternator).  Instead of using a coil that is wound one layer at a time over another horizontally; wouldn't a coil that is stacked vertically (rather than horizontally) provide less of an electromagnet drag as power is drawn from the coil?

Not just any shape of coil and orientation works the way you want it to.  No matter what the orientation, as long as a conductor is "cutting" lines of flux, there will be current generated.  But if the conductor is in the wrong orientation, the current may flow across the conductor (like an eddy current), and not along the conductor the way you need it to to get current flow through the conductor.

Also, it is advantageous for only one side of the coil to be passing through the field at a time, because if the other side is passing through a field it can be generating exactly the opposide current flow which will have the effect of cancelling the current flow.

What has to happen to create a current in the conductor is for the conductor to cut through the flux lines - this works the best if the conductor is 90 degrees to the flux lines.  When it cuts through one way the electric current flows one way.  When the conductor comes back out of the flux (cuts the other way) the current is opposite.

Thus, the way that works the best for current generation suffers the most from the lenz law - this is why the 2nd law is not broken by the whole process.  The more current you generate, the more force it takes to pass the conductor through the flux.  But if you orient the conductors so they don't intersect the flux in a perpendicular way, you don't get the current flow you want.

To say it another way, if the conductor moves along the flux lines, and does not "cut through" the lines, nothing happens.  To generate effectively you must cause the conductors to cut through the flux lines.  If you look at the traditional generator, the long straight sections of the conductors are moved right across the stator pole faces, causing the best condition for current flow - the conductors are cutting right through the flux as they rotate past the coil face.  The wires on the opposite side of the armature are cutting across the opposite magnetic pole - the conductors are pointing the opposite direction, so the magnetic flux is being cut the opposite way on the other side - so the current circulates in the coil - not opposing itself from the other side.  This is a good orientation for effective generation. - it also causes a lot of torque when current flows - this is the conservation of energy being satisfied.

Testing by experiment would be the way to really see if Lentz 'law' can be used to our advantage by using the vertical spiral tesla coil setup described earlier (with a hole in the center).  My hunch is it will still have some torque drag, but it should be reduced a bit as compared to a solenoid coil arrangement (horizontal windings aimed at the magnet source creating maximum torque drag). 

When I get my household and shop set up at my new location, I will be able to give it a test (if no one else has).  I think that might be why Tesla showed a coil in this vertical spiral fashion instead of a solenoid form of coil. 

[jake]

go for it.  Keep us up to speed on what you find out.

[hartiberlin]

The following diagram represent a transformer able to circumventing the Lentz Law according to my interpretation of: http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelka/ttf2/fields8.htm
I guess, the function principle is the same than motor explained there.

Notes:
-Two ferromagnetic cores (blue): Primary Core and Secondary Core.
-Two windings (red): Coil I and Coil II.
-The primary winding do generate the magnetic Flux I.
-The magnetic Flux II is generated by load current circulating through the Coil II
-The gap I and gap II avoid that magnetic Flux II pass to Primary Core
-The gap III serve to prevent splitting of the magnetic flux I, so the magnetic Flux I only pass through Coil II.

I think this will not work !
Why should the counter flux go from the secondary just in the small
core to the right side ?
It would only work, if you change the airgap widths
mechanically during the Back EMF, if you first charge up the main core
with flux from the primary while not drawing power from the secondary and
then switch off the primary coil and connect a load to the seondary and
change the airgaps in width...
But changing the airgaps mechanically will also require energy...

I think the original ideas from Slavek are much better as there is also a mechanical movement,
so that the counter and Back EMF flux can go elsewhere and not counter the source coils...

2. Regarding the Tesla flat coil idea I am pretty skeptical cause when you
have less coil area seeing the energizing flux  you will also have less
output atthe coil, so you will just reduce your output power also... so I think
it really needs a moving mechanical part which closes "side-cores" so the counter-
or Back EMF flux can not reduce the energizing flux !

Regards. Stefan.

[penguin hood]

Why should the counter flux go from the secondary just in the small
core to the right side ?

Welcome to the discussion Stefan.

From this quote from Krepelka:
"Magnetic field always finds the shortest path through the SI material in order to close a magnetic loop"

Moreover the gaps between the ferromagnetic cores, the assumption was that magnetic path through the primary core is longer than magnetic path through the secondary core.

Oviously the Lentz Law circunvention is not supported by the conventional theory. However I guess that beyond if Krepelka's theories and assumptions match with reality or not, they are interesting mental exercises to think how to apply the conventional electromagnetism theory. This is important to know what results from a krepelka's prototype we should wait for and how we should interpret the results from our experiments.