PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Theory and Learning Center > Induction > "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy
2024-11-27, 02:33:46
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy  (Read 20148 times)
Topic Options img
img  exnihiloest
"Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « on: 2013-04-05, 14:21:15 »
Group: Guest
Lenz law:
"An induced electromotive force (emf) always gives rise to a current whose magnetic field opposes the original change in magnetic flux."

The new JLN experiment at http://jnaudin.free.fr/dlenz/DLE21en.htm is alledged to show that this effect is delayed. It isn't. What is delayed is the alignment of the magnetic dipoles which propagates along the ferromagnetic core.

Of course there is not instantaneous action/reaction between the coil creating the varying field and the coupled coil which can be far from the first one. But that's not the point.

When a current is increasing in a coil, a magnetic field is created. When the field reaches the magnetic core, the elementary dipoles of the magnetic domains rotate in order to align with the field. This rotation creates a counter-magnetic field that opposes the magnetic field from the coil. Lenz's law applies: you need energy to magnetize the core by fighting the reaction from the magnetic domains. This energy is 1/2LI2. Even without core, you need energy to build the magnetic field because even the vacuum has a magnetic permeability (which can be viewed as a reaction from the virtual particles). You just need more energy when there is a ferromagnetic core due to its higher permeability than vacuum. In any case there is a reaction from the medium in which the magnetic field is expanding and hence the reaction still applies locally.

The fact that the magnetic disturbance propagating along the core will induce a current in a distant coil, and the current in the distant coil will not instantly oppose the current in the primary coil is not the proof of a delayed Lenz's effect but a proof a complete misconception of the physic's laws. The Lenz's law as stated above is valid only when the dimensions of the elements are small enough to not need to imply the propagation: this formulation reduces the phenomenon to a direct effect between the two coils, eluding (here for good reasons) the role of the medium that links them and that is only and one in this case.
But this approximation must be abandonned when the propagation is not negligible because the field at the positon of the primary coil is not the same as at the position of the distant coil. The two coils don't more share almost instantly the same field. In this case we must take into account the delayed field and its medium of propagation, and so the action/reaction applies locally between the "disturbance of the medium" and the object on the way, not between distant objects. In other words, the primary coil puts its energy in the medium that reacts. The energy progates up to the secundary coil which can use this energy but in order to do it, it reacts, depleting the energy from the medium.
The "delayed Lenz's effect" is only a product of a lack of understanding of a physical phenomenon, and the ignorance of the domain of validity of a scientific evidence.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #1 on: 2013-04-06, 10:02:50 »
Group: Guest
Hi Ex. On that point I agree, This motor patent from Tesla http://www.google.com/patents?id=uwhBAAAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
he states he can get a difference in phase because of the delay in the magnetization of the longer cores at the end.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd168/Toey1/Teslamotor.jpg
"Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy

 
I also argue against the "delayed Lenz effect" and have for quite some time, I've made several video's which show
the same effects as others claim is "delayed Lenz effect" or the "acceleration under load effect" and the associated "transformer effect",
the effects shown by some people can be achieved in other ways. It's not delayed Lenz effect, nor can it be, not in my opinion.
When I first seen the effect I did some research and quickly discovered what I thought the cause was and set
about to show I could produce the same effects in somewhat different ways. I was originally clued onto why
the effect of the transformer input under load reductions occur because of my experiments with two Tesla transformers.
I asked the transformers why it happens and they told me.  ;D

It was the MIT lecture on Inductance that was the clincher and convinced me I could show the same results.

I can link the video's showing the acceleration under load and the input reduction of the regular transformer under load
if you would like. My reason for doing the video's was to show people that Thane does not own the effect he only owns
the way he is doing it and it is not even an efficient thing to do. Nothing showed me anything but losses.

However I could make the same regular transformer light a globe with more than the rated voltage across it
with good efficiency, good enough to negate some of the idle power draw of the unloaded transformer,
however to do it efficiently the idle power is low and the input increases when loaded as it should.


Cheers



 
   
img  tinman
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #2 on: 2013-04-06, 13:50:44 »
Group: Guest
Hi FarmHand-good to see you here.
Here is a test that i carried out that you may wish to try.
First have your load coil(generator coil) place where you would normaly have it.
2-Start the system and record the input current of the prime mover.
3-Load your output coil,and record output current and difference in input current-and add them together.
4-remove the output coil from the system,and record input current to prime mover again.

I think you will find that the output current from your generator coil and the reduction in input current added together, will not amount to as much as the reduction in input to the prime mover without the coil there at all.I have built many different configurations of this setup that achieves this so called delayed lenz effect,and the result is always the same-the input power reduction without the gen coil there, always is higher than the output of the gen coil and reduction in input added together with the gen coil loaded.If you place your gen coil in position while the prime mover is running,and note the increase in current draw-you will see that your gen coil will not produce as much current as the increase was when you placed the coil there.If this wasnt the case,then we would only have to add as many coils as needed to have a self running unit.So one must wonder why this hasnt been done if the effect did actualy output more than took to create it in the first place-i'll give you one reason why no self runner has been made with this type of effect.But im guessing you know why.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #3 on: 2013-04-07, 01:11:17 »
Group: Guest
Hi Tinman, I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of my post.  It was very inefficient the way I did it,
and it is very inefficient the way Thane does it as well, I see no benefit to doing it. I think it's silly.

I could see almost immediately when watching Thanes video's he was running at a major loss to show the effect.
My point was to show how useless the effect is and it can be done without the high impedance coils, both with
a motor generator and a transformer if we know why it happens.

Now the Tesla patent I linked is NOT delayed Lenz, it is delayed magnetization propagation in the core to
secure a difference in "magnetic" phases. It's different but it shows there is a delay in core magnetization
the purpose of it is only to allow the production of two magnetic phases so a motor can be run from a single phase supply.

With Lenz Law the induced emf is instantaneous with the applied emf, in a generator any delay in the
current caused by the induced emf will only cause a lesser output.

Have you seen my video clips ? The wave forms have a story to tell.

Here is the short clip of the motor generator - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWin-crxQY

Here is the full video part 1, which mainly shows the setup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2NfmyyhbZs

Here is part 2 Which has the running experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_dm8COKBY

This is the transformer experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxde9qga79c

And here is the same transformer used efficiently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzqxQwxVGA

I'll leave the Tesla coils out of it because the effects from those has a slightly different cause/reason,
plus I don't think it's necessary to bring Tesla into it any more than I already did, for the core magnetization.

My point is some of us can see through the tricks. Even though we are not trained in electronics.
I'm a boilermaker, how many electronics Tech's or Electrical Engineers know all the tricks to my trade ?

I see something that looks suspicious and misleading I will make time to experiment to show it up for
what I see it as.

I mean no offence to Ex. but we shouldn't need him or others with his knowledge to point these things out
and we should not label them as "against us" or "suppressors" or some other negative label.

My only disappointment about the folks like Ex. is that they seem to never show anything. They just talk.  

Cheers  

P.S. Here's the MIT lecture I mentioned the entire lecture is good but at 33:00 to 37:30 he explains why the frequency
restricts the max current.

MIT Lecture (Inductance)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpO6t00bPb8


.....

« Last Edit: 2013-04-07, 01:37:22 by Farmhand »
   
img  tinman
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #4 on: 2013-04-07, 04:52:51 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Farmhand on 2013-04-07, 01:11:17
Hi Tinman, I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of my post.  It was very inefficient the way I did it,
and it is very inefficient the way Thane does it as well, I see no benefit to doing it. I think it's silly.

I could see almost immediately when watching Thanes video's he was running at a major loss to show the effect.
My point was to show how useless the effect is and it can be done without the high impedance coils, both with
a motor generator and a transformer if we know why it happens.

Now the Tesla patent I linked is NOT delayed Lenz, it is delayed magnetization propagation in the core to
secure a difference in "magnetic" phases. It's different but it shows there is a delay in core magnetization
the purpose of it is only to allow the production of two magnetic phases so a motor can be run from a single phase supply.

With Lenz Law the induced emf is instantaneous with the applied emf, in a generator any delay in the
current caused by the induced emf will only cause a lesser output.

Have you seen my video clips ? The wave forms have a story to tell.

Here is the short clip of the motor generator - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFWin-crxQY

Here is the full video part 1, which mainly shows the setup. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2NfmyyhbZs

Here is part 2 Which has the running experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV_dm8COKBY

This is the transformer experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxde9qga79c

And here is the same transformer used efficiently. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pzqxQwxVGA

I'll leave the Tesla coils out of it because the effects from those has a slightly different cause/reason,
plus I don't think it's necessary to bring Tesla into it any more than I already did, for the core magnetization.

My point is some of us can see through the tricks. Even though we are not trained in electronics.
I'm a boilermaker, how many electronics Tech's or Electrical Engineers know all the tricks to my trade ?

I see something that looks suspicious and misleading I will make time to experiment to show it up for
what I see it as.

I mean no offence to Ex. but we shouldn't need him or others with his knowledge to point these things out
and we should not label them as "against us" or "suppressors" or some other negative label.

My only disappointment about the folks like Ex. is that they seem to never show anything. They just talk.  

Cheers  

P.S. Here's the MIT lecture I mentioned the entire lecture is good but at 33:00 to 37:30 he explains why the frequency
restricts the max current.

MIT Lecture (Inductance)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpO6t00bPb8


.....


Yes i misunderstood,my appologies.Thanks for the link's aswell-good stuff.I will take the time to look at that MIT lecture aswell.As far as Ex go's,well i guess i would be much the same.If some one told me that they got a standard ICE and removed the rings and it ran just as good but used less fuel-as a mechanic,i wouldnt bother trying it for myself-as i already know that it is rubbish.
   
img  Farmhand
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #5 on: 2013-04-07, 18:41:50 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: tinman on 2013-04-07, 04:52:51
Yes i misunderstood,my appologies.Thanks for the link's aswell-good stuff.I will take the time to look at that MIT lecture aswell.As far as Ex go's,well i guess i would be much the same.If some one told me that they got a standard ICE and removed the rings and it ran just as good but used less fuel-as a mechanic,i wouldnt bother trying it for myself-as i already know that it is rubbish.

Who said that ?

..
   
img  tinman
Re: "Delayed Lenz's law" fallacy « Reply #6 on: 2013-04-07, 23:55:57 »
Group: Guest
Quote from: Farmhand on 2013-04-07, 18:41:50
Who said that ?

..
No one said it,it was just an example.
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 02:33:46