Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect

[Allen Burgess]

Skycollection

Delayed Lenz effect video from Skycollection:



SKYDRIVER GEN (2) REGENERATIVE ACCELERATION EFFECT - YouTube

[qvision]

IMHO ...

It's not that the motor goes faster with a load or only draws a little more power, the rotor goes faster and the input current goes down.

The effect is also more rewarding at higher input powers, your percentage return increases.

Thane is working with an electric vehicle company, i see no reason why this won't go to market. In it's motor/generator form it is ideally-suited to devices that use alternators and batteries.

This isn't a phase-changing, reactive power trick either, the rise-time of the inductor is increased.

The effect works well in a simple transformer, i use a function generator in series with a DC supply so that i can choose suitable power levels and frequencies.

I for one certainly think it worth exploring further.

All the best,

DC.

[garrys]

I listened to thane on the video and im quite happy that what he said will give exactly the results he has though some of his facts couldnt be correct.
farm hand said ...
Oh yeah I almost forgot to mention, I think it is in a general way an
Increased Lenz Effect not a decreased Lenz effect.

And i would tend to agree with this i see it as a conversion of the lenz effect to provide additional drive without additional input but it is a static effect which not only is produced by reducing the efficiency of the motor but will not increase in return as the motor increases its draw doing work. I noted he was careful to say that its an unexpected effect and not supposed to be possible without making a single claim of OU, FE or FEMF from it and further noted that when the charge was showed on the meter he showed it going up and then falling off but failed to leave it there long enough to show that there was any actual gain in the battery other than the voltage increase while running. This is not the first time someone has shown a motor that goes faster with a load on it and im guessing it probably wont be the last.

[Farmhand]

I've almost refreshed my supply battery and gave it a friend to help with the
voltage drop problem I hope a bit. So I have 2 x large 12 volt batteries in parallel.

I should be able to show a respectable voltage across a 100 watt bulb and
show the idle input power before and input power during along with AC voltage across the
secondary, just to prove the transformer can power real loads. I'll only be
using one of the two 240v outputs, each one consists of two roughly 240 mH
or so secondary coils in series, so one 240 v output is about 480 mH (I think).

Edit: (My LC meter is telling me fibs, I think I was actually right in the video 240 mH each) I'll confirm that later more accurately.
Each secondary has about 9.5 Ohms resistance.

I'll show the non moving meter as well, almost non moving anyway it does flicker.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Oh I can show the input power not change hardly at all when the load is applied,
but that is no more use than having the idle input higher then drop under load.

The load still is under powered because of the frequency restriction of the
secondary self inductance. I think a very similar thing is happening with the
motor generator of Thanes and with the Bi- toroid transformer but in a slightly
different way with the Bi-toroid. I think it is possible the wasted power is not
seen in the Bi-toroid demo's because there may be an intermediate transformer
where the losses would be seen if shown. What is the power source of the
Bi-toroid, after the grid socket ? Is there an intermediate transformer or does
the Bi-toroid plug into the grid directly ?

Fair question I think.

And with the motor generator what is the total input to the prime mover from
the grid socket to power those couple of bulbs ?

Another fair question I think.

Things might look very different if the setups were run from inverters powered
from batteries and the input to the system determined by the draw on the
batteries as it should be done in my opinion. Any useful system should work
just as well when powered from a true sine wave inverter as opposed to the
grid socket and if OU it should be readily seen then.

Cheers

[Farmhand]

Hi Geotron, I don't have the equipment to say exactly what is going on, but it
seems to me (my opinion and intuition) that with no load the self inductance
of the secondaries and the increased frequency causes a situation where the
difference of phase will not allow the secondary to return energy to the
primaries so input current is more and flux continues to build until it leaks and
is wasted.

Then when the resistive load is added the self inductance of the secondaries
is changed, the input drops as some energy is returned, the flux also drops
but cannot be replenished to maximum because of the load and because of
the inability of the secondaries to produce power on demand the load cannot
be powered. The drop in flux under load is indicated I think by the fluro not
lighting when the 25 watt bulb is loading the secondary.

When the fluro is touched to the active secondary wire and lights causing an
increase of the input the self inductance of the secondary is also changed,
but it appears to be changed in the opposite way to the resistive load.

The frequency was measured at one of the secondary active wires. It's an AC
transformer the load gets the same frequency that is imposed by the primaries.

Bottom line is the output is restricted, loads can't be powered properly, there
is an increased load on the battery at idle as compared to normal idle power
input. The output is still less than the input and the load is under powered.

During normal operation at lower frequencies the transformer can fully power a
100 watt resistive bulb or run a 100 watt motor, my 12 volt wiring is not
sufficient for over 100 watts so there is voltage drop in my 12 volt side under
load which reduces the output voltage to about 210 volts when powering a
100 watt bulb with 8.5 amps from the battery. If my 12 volt input circuit had
less voltage drop the secondary voltage would remain reasonable under load.


At the correct frequency the idle input power is less than 1 amp but the
transformer can meet loads on demand of over 100 watts depending on the
load some well over If I use capacitors inductive loads can also be driven,
such as the 240 volt motor in the video, if the frequency is suitable for the
motor or the inductive load that is.

Any reactive power is simply a product of the real power applied, it is already
paid for. It's just that some people don't consider all the input.

As I said before, to see the real efficiency of such a setup the AC must be
produced so that it must be seen to be considered as input.

Overunityguide clearly showed the inefficiency of this method with the full
backing of Thane. He showed that the output is always less than the input
when the total input is considered.

Here. I sum it up http://www.energeticforum.com/162268-post236.html

And he admits it won't power endless loads for nothing here.

http://www.energeticforum.com/160681-post214.html

Overunityguide has disappeared so it seems he had no intention of defending his claims.
His video's are removed also.

Maybe he realized he was


Cheers

P.S. To sum up my thoughts. The AC used to conduct the test should be
produced by the experimenter from batteries or the like so that a true input is
determined, tricks of reactive power measurement are completely useless and
beside the point if the reality is that when producing ones own AC from
batteries the true input to the system can be seen.

It's plain to see that at idle "extra energy" is wasted by the increased idle
input power to see the effect manifest. Then only the "extra wasted energy"
is recovered or a fraction of the extra wasted energy.

..

When the input power drops as the energy is supplied, doesn't this otherwise indicate
that a reactive energy pool is matching with a load? The output power is being applied
at the input pulse. When 80Khz is at the supply and the load is receiving 120Hz,
wouldn't it somehow leverage the energy?

[Farmhand]

14 watts reduction in input power under load

The effect showed by Overunityguide and Thane Heins is bogus in my opinion,
as I pointed out in my calculations in this post.http://www.energeticforum.com/154347-post4.html

And confirmed by Overunityguide himself here http://www.energeticforum.com/160681-post214.html
when the effect is produced the output is only ever a fraction of the input and
the entire setup is very very inefficient, pathetically so. The available output is
reduced and fixed at a very small fraction of the total input or consumed power.

In the video below I show the effect as I produced it, at 10:2 mins I showed
an idle input power of 41.48 watts (no load) which is similar to the effect of
Thanes
rotor being powered by the prime mover at the rotational speed required for
the effect to manifest, or also similar to the effect Overunityguide sees when
his transformer is used at the higher frequency.

Then by adding a 25 watt - 240 volt bulb as a load the input power reduced
by 14.76 watts to 25.83 watts while obviously providing some power to the
load, but as can be seen the power available is not very much, not enough to
power the load.

However I also show the transformer if used with a reasonable frequency can
be quite efficient and work as normal to power 240 volt compatible loads.

Also I show that when the frequency is raised to produce the effect and
given the right circumstances it can be shown that the incandescent light
globe as the load reduces the voltage and flux in the transformer, I think.
This is shown by the fluro lighting brightly when touched to the active
terminal then going out when the 25 watt globe is added, it can only power
one or the other, not both.

(Regenerative acceleration transformer effects ?) Bogus or not - YouTube

I don't have the equipment to measure the AC power through the load
properly but I don't think it necessary there is obviously some power there but
not 25 watts.

So to sum up I can easily show a 14 watt input power reduction with the
addition of a load. I take power from the transformer secondary and reduce
the input power to the transformer. No big deal. It's easy and it's a trick and
it is a waste of power.

If experimenting with powerful transformers near or at resonance or even any
time really I think great caution is required for safety especially at the lower
frequencies. Take care.

Cheers all

P.S. The thing is if I had a 5 watt 240 v bulb it would have lit up almost fully.
But the cost is the total efficiency, I don't think Thane ever shows the "total"
efficiency. Overunityguide shows the total efficiency but seems to ignore it.
If the grid is used all power drawn from the grid to show the effect must be
considered. Reactive power is not free it is a product of real power, only real
power can power loads. If a trick is used to manipulate reactive power it just
means the power company pays and not you. If the power company's costs
increase then so will the price of the power they sell.

Oh yeah I almost forgot to mention, I think it is in a general way an
Increased Lenz Effect not a decreased Lenz effect.

..

[M0rg0]

Gotoluc didn't discover it, he was working from OVerUnityGuide's videos, which are archived in my youtube channel as OUG is no longer active because he has started work.

My channel :

deepcut66's Channel - YouTube

overunity thread :

Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect


All the best,

QV.

Just fininished looking at OUG's vids. I have seen them previously, prior to him removing then to go work in SA. However what he is demonstrating utilizes Thane Heinz's method of increased impedance in the secondary to achieve the phase differential. Perhaps you missed "He introduced a capacitor in series between them" that I wrote previously.

gotoluc used a primary and secondary that were identical. Virtually an exact impedance match. The phase differential was achieved via a capacitor/s which I do not see in OUD's vids, nor anywhere else.

What he demonstrated was different also in that he does not alter the phase between the two windings on the toroidal transformer he used. The primary transformer, rather than winding, in this case was provided by the utility company. The phase diff was between his transformer and theirs.

OUD is an energetic and thoroughly competent experimentalist and I was very disappointed that he had to stop what he. Perhaps his next project would have been a replication of gotoluc's arrangement.

The arrangement to which I refer is to be found here.
Delayed Lenz Effect in Transformer Test 3

All the best.
Cheers

[M0rg0]

Gotoluc didn't discover it, he was working from OVerUnityGuide's videos, which are archived in my youtube channel as OUG is no longer active because he has started work.

My channel :

deepcut66's Channel - YouTube

overunity thread :

Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect


All the best,

QV.

Than you for that. I had thought he'd discovered it himself. Although I had seen something very similar applied to an AC generator previously.
I'll take a look at those vids ASAP.

Thank's again.

Cheers

[qvision]

Gotoluc didn't discover it, he was working from OVerUnityGuide's videos, which are archived in my youtube channel as OUG is no longer active because he has started work.

My channel :

deepcut66's Channel - YouTube

overunity thread :

Confirming the Delayed Lenz Effect


All the best,

QV.

[M0rg0]

If people want to prove free reactive power they will need to
make their own AC from a stored energy source like a battery. Then you can
see if it is really truely free or if it is just using the power station
infrastructure and real power to make reactive power, which would of course
cause wear and tear on the power station the transmission hardware and
cause losses in the generation and transmission system. Just because you don't pay for it does not make it free or OU.

To put it bluntly use your own hardware and show a "complete system" to see the real story.

Cheers

An LC resonator is a good source of reactive power. If one were to replace the rotor with such, the amount of real power required to keep the resonator chugging is low and easily and accurately measurable.

Using a delay line one could engineer the exact phase differential required, even make it adjustable during operation by varying the capacitance within the delay line via one or more of the capacitors. In fact, theoretically you could take the phase differential to say 95 degrees and perhaps feed just enough back into the resonator to cover the copper losses thereby requiring no external power whatsoever. This is even easier than building a rotor, in my opinion.

I don't quite get the "real power to make reactive power" above. If you are referring to mechanical and line losses, as I believe you are, then I get it.

How would using reactive power "cause" losses, other than those already existing?

It wouldn't be fair, nor tolerable, for everyone to start using reactive power from the power companies. Perhaps they'd have to start charging a line rental like the phone companies do, or use other proven means to prevent it happening at all.

Cheers

[M0rg0]

@MOrgO,

Who's Gotoluc?

Firstly, please accept my most humble apologies Allen.
I was reading more than one thread simultaneously and got this mixed up with another.
gotoluc is a youtube identity/researcher. Not long ago he discovered a simple method of defeating back EMF in the coupling of two transformers. He introduced a capacitor in series between them, and by adjusting the capacitance was able to achieve a zero load condition at the wall socket. The real load was resistive at 10 watts, 120/60hz. Apart from scope shots he also used a power meter that agreed with what the scope was showing.
This has been replicated quite extensively, though not always in a satisfactory manner.
I am sorry I replied as I did. It was very inconsiderate indeed.

[Allen Burgess]

Self inductance

@Farmhand,

Go to the Cosmovotaic thread and look at my last post. Try and build that simple little Reed Switch spinner; Test it and see what happens!

[Farmhand]

When the rate of change of current flow in an AC circuit containing a coil
becomes rapid enough and the self inductance great enough, the opposition
to current flow caused by the counter emf and the delay caused by the self
inductance are sufficient to allow only so much current to flow into or out of
the circuit. If the input power required to do this is say 50 watts then maybe
up to almost 50 watts can be used out of the system and it wont cause any
more input because it can't. But it also wont cause any more output than 50 watts.

A spinning rotor is not output, it's stored energy in kinetic form, to get output
you must load the rotor. Unless the output is more than the input there is no OU.

Just adding a load and seeing some output with no increased input is not OU.
I can do that too, but I can see it's not OU.

The output must exceed the "total" input including what it costs to make the AC.

Using the power station as a source of AC is not factoring in what it costs to
produce the AC. If people want to prove free reactive power they will need to
make their own AC from a stored energy source like a battery. Then you can
see if it is really truely free or if it is just using the power station
infrastructure and real power to make reactive power, which would of course
cause wear and tear on the power station the transmission hardware and
cause losses in the generation and transmission system. Just because you don't pay for it does not make it free or OU.

To put it bluntly use your own hardware and show a "complete system" to see the real story.

Cheers