Multifilar Generator Coil - Lenz delay Experiments

[BroMikey]

I am not surprised that you do not accept classic physics. Why start now, right? You are very wrong. please visit a physics discussion forum, talk to a physics professor or read a book on it.

I'm not getting dragged into a big argument here.

bi

Discussion? Dragging into an argument? You don't even know the material.
Classical Physics is flawed many times over and your answer is
READ A BOOK? Plz

[bistander]

It's not just terminology; it's basic concepts

...
And bi, if you are saying no energy is required to move past the sticky point, which is what you APPEAR to be saying, I would argue, just for the fun of it, that the definition of work may be incorrect. It is defined as force over distance, as you said. I would argue that it is force over time. You cannot move a distance without the elapse of time. Work, however, can be done with no movement over distance. ...

if you are saying no energy is required to move past the sticky point

Nope, that is not what I said.

...
Likely not many will buy this explanation, but there it is.
...

Turion,

Like I said ^^^. I am not surprised that you do not accept classic physics. Why start now, right? You are very wrong. How wide is a point in space?

If you're interested in the truth, please visit a physics discussion forum, talk to a physics professor or read a book on it. History here shows you'll never believe me.

I wanted to see some more tests before appearing to draw a conclusion. But wtf. Did not Sky's recent test support what I've been saying and provide evidence towards proof that you are wrong?

I'm not getting dragged into a big argument here. You say you need to see it on your bench to believe it. Run the test like Sky did. Explain why it does not take less power to turn the rotor with the magnetic neutralization at speed.

Regards,

bi

[BroMikey]

The consequence of confusing the situation by the introduction of a rotating
frame of reference is that there prevails a further misinformed belief that the
centrifugal force is merely a product of the rotation of the frame of reference
itself rather than a product of the absolute rotation of the particle relative to the
inertial frame. The latter error leads to the bizarre notion that a particle at rest,
when observed from a rotating frame of reference, experiences a fictitious
outward centrifugal force in the radial direction, even though circular motion
can only induce transverse artefacts. This discrepancy is then patched up with
an even more bizarre argument involving a radial Coriolis force. The argument
runs that since the stationary object, as observed from the rotating frame of
reference, is seen due to its inertia to trace out a circular path, there must exist a
fictitious centripetal force acting upon it which can be justified as being the
resultant of the outward radial fictitious centrifugal force and an inward radial
fictitious Coriolis force.

While this is clearly wrong mathematically as well as being arrant nonsense
in its own right, this is the argument which is nevertheless used in modern
physics in order to mask the fact that both the centrifugal force and the Coriolis
force are real forces


End of story flawed yuppy targeted science

[BroMikey]

There was force, there was time, but there was NO distance. Just because the wall didn't move doesn't mean you did not do any work. I'm pretty sure after a few hours of that, you would agree that work was done. Or not.

They are not going to comment on any questioned posed to them just like
are unable to address the fundamental design laid out flawlessly. All
they do is quote out of specific 200 year old confused so called SCIENCE?
books as it is easy to pick and chose text for defense. It's all about
"I TOLD YA SO" "I AM MR. RIGHT" the schools are full of these.

Like John B. always said it is not science that is being taught today it is
"HERE ARE THE ANSWERS SAY THAT AND YOU WILL PASS"

Most of the students are in a state of exhaustion in their teen years
from public school brainwashing schedules of overwhelming floods
of garbage that is confusing and or untrue. As the text book evolve or
morph anyway the controllers determine.

In science, chemistry and physics there are many conflicts and everybody
talks about in the universities yet we are all suppose to gulp it all down
like GOSPEL.

[BroMikey]

Take Two

All you super smart boys who think they know and no time for the bench
time to look at these pages. One of many, plz explain.

Conclusion and Discussion

VIII. It has been suggested by the late Professor Eric Laithwaite that there must
exist an active spin-induced force and a spin-induced inductance, both of which
remain unrecognized in classical mechanics.


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283225757_Magnetic_Repulsion_and_the_Gyroscopic_Fo rce

The consequence of confusing the situation by the introduction of a rotating
frame of reference is that there prevails a further misinformed belief that the
centrifugal force is merely a product of the rotation of the frame of reference
itself rather than a product of the absolute rotation of the particle relative to the
inertial frame. The latter error leads to the bizarre notion that a particle at rest,
when observed from a rotating frame of reference, experiences a fictitious
outward centrifugal force in the radial direction, even though circular motion
can only induce transverse artefacts. This discrepancy is then patched up with
an even more bizarre argument involving a radial Coriolis force. The argument
runs that since the stationary object, as observed from the rotating frame of
reference, is seen due to its inertia to trace out a circular path, there must exist a
fictitious centripetal force acting upon it which can be justified as being the
resultant of the outward radial fictitious centrifugal force and an inward radial
fictitious Coriolis force.

YOU GOT THAT?

[BroMikey]

Hey PotHead can you go over that again? On how you are able to
get your circuits to run cold? You say magnets do this?

I would be interested in the coil configuration and magnets.

[Pot head]

Question

Just imagine how early record players worked with different speeds for different types of records.
The applied energies upon the wax/plastic allowed an analog storage of information that could crudely be used over and over until something broke.
One speed replaced the previous until tape became King and then CD format and now USB.
The record player is still in use for a reason.
Analog is best but a backup CD is nice.

Friction from air molecules?
What mix of neo magnet and what number of strength are they?
N52 is what is left on my repair work in progress.
When the core is glued into Woodstock the magnetic push/pull can be heard vibrating through the wood.
Energy Frequency Vibration.
The magnets reach to the bottom with their strength,
this causes a more efficient power use and your circuits run cold.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi turion, proves theorizing is only worth so much, the bench is where it is at, thanks turion.
peace love light

[BroMikey]

D But it does NOT as you know. If you spin the rotor slowly by hand you are actually GIVING it momentum, and the core attracts the magnet speeding it up, but then it hits that moment of "lock" that kills all the momentum as well as the acceleration the attraction caused

Exactly the right thinking, what about inertia, what about gravity, how
about momentum? You can't talk pull in and pull out = 0. These guys
are rambling, keep going Dave.

it's the same ole hat, the electrical freaks ONLY focus on charge and
the physics guys TALK about forces and each group thinks this stuff
exists in a world all buy itself when the project is submersed in all of
it, including what we can't explain and create cute little formula for.

You want TAKE TWO? Naw they don't want take two, just build it and
quite generalizing you sound helpless. Shouldn't work? And it does.

[SkyWatcher]

Hi turion, I think it is because as you add more cores, yet you still have the same rotor mass, it cannot store enough rotational energy to efficiently absorb each attraction to the cores.
This then causes an imbalance and more amp draw.
The neutralization method relieves that and helps with start up amp draw, so is a good passive method.
Though if one did not want the added complexity and cost of the magnet neutralization, we could have a small starter motor and then an appropriate sized flywheel attahced to the shaft, to absorb the needed kinetic energy, to cause the perfect cancelling of magnet to core attraction.
peace love light

[bistander]

Viewpoint

... there is a moment in time when the two are perfectly aligned, when the magnet is neither approaching nor leaving, ...
... it hits that moment of "lock" ...

Hi Turion,

Let's call that position the sticky point. And think of it as a position. Or a location. A point in space rather than a point in time. (Please leave space time discussion for another day, thank you)

At this sticky point, there is a force, correct? That force resists efforts to move from the sticky point either the core or the magnet. Work and therefore energy is defined as force applied for a distance, or simplified, force times distance. Since this force at the sticky point is only at a point, there is zero distance associated with it. So the force at the sticky point is there but only there and represents zero energy and therefore no power to move past.

Likely not many will buy this explanation, but there it is. I would like to see more of these types of tests. That is, measurements taken at various steps in the construction process.

Thanks to dragon for chiming in.

Regards,

bi

[dragon]

Dragon,
You are entitled to your opinion, but I have built this generator with ceramic magnets and neos and the power production from the neos is much greater. My FIRST version used ceramic, and then ceramic super poles, because I was following the work of John B. I have pictures and video of that build. Sometimes I think John sent us down one path instead of another to keep us SAFE rather than because it was the correct path. He only built toys until he built the Ferris wheel.

You are correct that the action of the magnet approaching the core and the magnet leaving the core cancel each other out. But I HAVE to believe there is a moment in time when the two are perfectly aligned, when the magnet is neither approaching nor leaving, and the attraction is GREATEST that adversely affects the performance of the motor turning the rotor. It is the only explanation for the increased amp draw of the motor when a coil is placed near the rotor. Well, maybe not the ONLY explanation, but certainly a possible one. The more coils you have, the greater the effect As each builds on the previous loss in a negative curve. It is also the only explanation for why my big machine requires an additional 24 amps to run when all the coils are in place unloaded.

By the way, if those two forces ARE canceling each other out, and that moment I spoke of does NOT exist, why would a magnet on a rotor lock up on the coil core AT ALL. It should spin right on by. But it does NOT as you know. If you spin the rotor slowly by hand you are actually GIVING it momentum, and the core attracts the magnet speeding it up, but then it hits that moment of "lock" that kills all the momentum as well as the acceleration the attraction caused. And THEN you get to deal with the fact that the core is trying to attract the magnet as it is leaving. Spend some time spinning a rotor by hand and you will see. Now with ENOUGH forward momentum (spin it hard enough) you can overcome this lock, but that required ENERGY in the form of amps to do, and the drag or lock was still there and still impacts the performance of the motor. Just because you went faster didn't make it go away. It just happened quicker.

I'm not criticizing what your attempting to do, simply clarifying the forces and their reactions as it applies to what your doing....

Most of the "lock" is caused by the separated cores. Each core/magnet wants desperately to balance all unequal forces. The magnet in one direction or the other will always move toward the core to lock it in place -restoring a natural balance. As the cores become closer together the smaller these forces become. As with a normal motor or generator the cores have small slots for wires and these separations cause a magnetizing/demagnetizing effect as it passes over each separation - small but noticeable vibration and torque as it rotates. A magnetic field (rotor) in a closed iron circle will float freely with no cog, all forces between the magnet and core are in balance. ( it will experience eddy current forces as it rotates, these of course are different forces than what cause the cog effect ).

The reason I mentioned the ceramics is because they have the ability of reaching out to more than one core, thus reducing the effect. Since neo's have such a small external field they are more prone to grabbing what is closest and holding hard because of their intensity. ( a very small distance for the action/reaction to occur ). They will produce a higher output but at what cost to the overall efficiency of the unit...

[dragon]

Sky, I wouldn’t worry about the magnetic neutralizing effect with just one coil in place. It probably isn’t worth your time. If you eventually put together a bigger machine and you start to see your motor bogging down just because of the number of coils you have in place you will understand why and what to do about it. I put 3 coils on my machine this morning and only saw the amp draw go up .7 amps but I KNOW when I have12 coils in place it averages out to more than two amps per coil increase. I am wondering if there isn’t a curve to this like there is to motor performance???? Never thought of that before. Will have to check that out as I put my big machineback together.

It doesn't really make much sense to me to add any neutralization... The magnet and core relation has an equal amount of force entering and leaving. As it enters it adds energy to the motion, as it's leaving it removes it - a balance. Adding the neutralization magnet you have the same situation - it has an equal amount of force to overcome as it enters the magnetic field as it does to be pushed away as it leaves - in both cases the net result is zero. This would explain the results of Sky's test.

It seems overcoming the initial lock is the only problem where staggering the cores would reduce the torque required on the initial start up. Once it's up to speed and the coils are producing an output you have a different set of rules to contend with. The cogging caused by Lenz can also be reduced by phasing the coils ( single phase would cog or vibrate far more than a 3 phase coil arrangement ). For instance 4 magnets and 3 coils.

Using the monopole layout ( all south or all north facing ) you've reduced the load the rotor would see so it would appear to need less input to drive the arrangement. In reality the reduction in output is the reason it's much easier to drive the rotor. Not only because of the monopole but the reduced (open) magnetic path from the basic layout. It would probably benefit the unit to use ceramic8 magnets instead of the neo's. Neo's have an extremely powerful field but it's tight to the surface and requires close tolerances to utilize it's field to the fullest benifit or use them in a closed path where they would enhance the field in an air gap ( such as an air core axial flux alternator ). Ceramic magnets have a very large field - although much weaker - they have the ability to extend their field into the core much more evenly ( without over saturation). In quite a few circumstances the ceramics can out perform the neos - again it depends on how they're used.

It would be interesting to debate where and how the energy in excess of the original source is derived. This might have more value than numbers read from any meter.

[BroMikey]

Okay thanks, the video's I did were a 24vdc my1016 running that big
10" steel wheel with 20 magnets and the table saw arbor 5/8" shaft
and bearings running off a power supply was 2 amps at 20vdc the rpm
was a little to slow.

I also got a 1.1 amp draw on my 24vdc motor at 14volts. I like these
tiny efficient motors. The dishwasher motor took 85vac at 2 amps big
difference but the rpm's were very high at over 3400 rpm's.

I was thinking of using a higher voltage scooter motor controller to bump
it up to 30vdc to get the extra rpm's.

[BroMikey]

Tomorrow I am going to drag out the three coil machine I built and run it with a power supply. I should be able to show amp draw of the motor without the coils (and cores) in place and WITH the coils (and cores) in place as well as the rpm of the motor in both situations. If I get time, I will hook it up to a load and show the output from a single coil (and core) and the speed up under load, which affects both the rpm of the motor and the amp draw of the motor. No promises though. I have a full day tomorrow.

You sure have a lot of versions, can't wait, hurry up

I had one question bugging me. Do you remember off hand the approx
amp draw on a 24vdc scooter motor just free wheeling, nothing connected.

Is it 2 amps? or less? Did you do any builds with a 24vdc scooter motor?