I am creating a "Paradox" for Lenz drag with this generator build. Either Lenz Law OR Faraday's Law of Induction must bend. No permanent magnets.
Here is the result..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NA_lXULhNk
It's a stock armature and commutator (rewound in a special way) slapped inside a crappy induction motor stator as the output. There is more happening than shown. More to investigate..
This video shows the output looped to the motor input. The output power of 1 output phase + the Lenz assist is enough to sustain the motor..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NA_lXULhNk
Now it is not OU at this point, because I am powering the brushes. Remember this is using no magnets or field coils. The output coils become the field coils that helps sustain rotation.
dude. very impressed!
my grandfather told me about his dad where he had 2 motors on a board cannected at the shaft with all wires run to a small box with a switch. he said he flipped the switch and gave it a spin by hand and off it went.
thought about that a lot. thought there could be nothing other than an unconventional rewire of one or both motors. was 1910s or so. so cant think of any other special parts that could make that happen. its part of what keeps me in belief of such things. you have just revived excitement in it again
thanks for showing.
mags ;)
Hi Mags,
I am willing to answer detailed questions. As long as replicators and seekers share what they find. I released the main gain mechanism in a public-domain release.
The idea is to rotate the magnetic field in an armature that is physically rotating in the opposite direction as the field. . So what is Lenz to do? If Lenz opposes the magnetic rotation, it inadvertently motors the armature, thus increasing RPM of the rotating field.
Mr.Jim Mac ( aka Floodrod )
Thanks for sharing...
Hoping for the best !!!
Here the link to your forum and topic...
https://www.mooker.com/showthread.php?tid=322
Respectfully
Chet K
This is the same tech that Thane Heins was working on, very cool.
Not sure how much relation it has to thanes stuff.
I have an update..
I don't need to even loop it. Lenz alone is enough to sustain the rotation. The more I input into the armature, the quicker it spins, and the more output I get. I do not know if the output is enough to keep the armature powered. But it absolutely needs to be made with proper wire gauge and 3 phase output so we can find out!
Here is a vid of the output coils becoming the field coils, and spinning the motor when the motor is totally disconnected. Remember, there are no field magnets or field coils. The output coils become the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbDwc_N-tiQ
ok. that last vid... do you still have input to the armature? or is that disconnected also?
had a situation once... starter wasnt working on a suburban. i had previously used the seat heater switch as a sort of kill switch, or say starter enable switch in my bosses daughters vehicle, the suburban. shop forman said my switch was the problem.
i disagreed. the starter solenoid was being engaged but the starter motor was not. i said it was the contacts in the starters built in solenoid. but he went ahead and put an outboard ford solenoid, wired it with heavy wire to the starter motor post AND the starter solenoid in parallel to engage the starter to the flywheel..
this did energize the solenoid to engage the flywheel and run the starter motor. but now we had a new problem...
when the engine started and the ford outboard solenoid was no longer sending power to the starter/ starter solenoid, meaning no power from the battery to the starter, the starter gear remained engaged with the flywheel. wasnt at first apparent what was going on.
what we found was, the ford solenoid(large relay) that sent power to the starter WITH the starter solenoid input still in parallel with the starter motor, when the ford solenoid no longer sent power to the starter, the magnetic field in the starter motor was sustained with no power input, but being the starter motor shaft was still engaged with the flywheel, and the starter acted like a generator and kept the starter solenoid energized, holding the starter shaft gear engaged with the flywheel. after about 10 to 15 seconds, i suppose the field in the spinning starter deminished and the gear would finally release.
so once the starter was linked to the flywheel which kept the starter spinning, the starter became a generator for a short period after the battery was disconnected, and energized its own solenoid coil keeping the starter gear in place with the flywheel gear. was the strangest thing. once the forman realized what i was arguing was fact, he said " i thought i was fixxing a starter but instead made a generator. we laughed for days on that. but the fact that the starter motor, while spinning, held some mag field even after the external solenoid deenergized, and was putting out current still, was very interesting. the starters built in solenoid being kept energized by the starter, was the load, and it was the resistance that let the starters self sustained field die out in like i said, about 10 to 15 sec.
so now you have me thinking on that more. there were no magnets in the starter. as long as the starters solenoid coil was in parallel with the starter solenoid coil, residual mag flux and current flow kept it going for a bit....
finally i told him to get a new starter....prob solved
mags
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.01, 03:37:41
Not sure how much relation it has to thanes stuff.
I have an update..
I don't need to even loop it. Lenz alone is enough to sustain the rotation. The more I input into the armature, the quicker it spins, and the more output I get. I do not know if the output is enough to keep the armature powered. But it absolutely needs to be made with proper wire gauge and 3 phase output so we can find out!
Here is a vid of the output coils becoming the field coils, and spinning the motor when the motor is totally disconnected. Remember, there are no field magnets or field coils. The output coils become the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbDwc_N-tiQ
Very interesting Jim. Love your builds. It's not clear to me how you're powering the armature but it reminds me of the homopolar type motors that just used the armature. I built one years ago from one of Brad's vids I think. They were DC though. Looking forward to understanding this more.
Reading the starter story, I am not not sure what was happening.
Jimboot- My armature is custom wound with magnet wire to create a rotating magnetic field when the armature commutator spins against the brushes. And it's wired so the magnetic field (once spun) rotates counter to the shaft from an outside perspective. So the outside power just powers the brushes just like a universal motor. Then it just needs a kick from a motor to start up. The counter rotating field induces the output stator for usable power. And the magnetic field of the output stator becomes the field coils, as that field is now aligned in the proper orientation to assist rotation rather than oppose it (because the direction of the physical shaft rotation is opposite that of the magnetic field).
To get the armature to counter-rotate it's field compared to the shaft, the armature needs to be wound to create a rotating field in space that rotates quicker than the shaft. The formula is: Field RPM Minus Shaft RPM = RPM in Space.. So rotating the shaft one way doubles the frequency. Spinning the opposite way sets the RPM equal to the shaft but in opposite directions.
It took me a little while to figure out how to wire the armature because AI basically concluded it can not be done with 2 pole. But I found a way. One thing I did not mention yet is the brush placement is no longer standard. That also needs to change to make that field rotate at 2X the frequency of the shaft.
To make this happen, some commutator contacts need the magnet wire connections + Jumpers connected. And others just need jumpers.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.01, 03:37:41
Not sure how much relation it has to thanes stuff.
I have an update..
I don't need to even loop it. Lenz alone is enough to sustain the rotation. The more I input into the armature, the quicker it spins, and the more output I get. I do not know if the output is enough to keep the armature powered. But it absolutely needs to be made with proper wire gauge and 3 phase output so we can find out!
Here is a vid of the output coils becoming the field coils, and spinning the motor when the motor is totally disconnected. Remember, there are no field magnets or field coils. The output coils become the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbDwc_N-tiQ
He made motors that speed up under load. Many videos. Years ago. That's how it relates.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.11.01, 05:39:17
ok. that last vid... do you still have input to the armature? or is that disconnected also?
mags
Mags,
The brushes are still powered separately. This is an electromagnetic generator (no magnets) that uses Lenz counter torque to rotate itself from the induced output's magnetism. Whether or not it can produce enough output to to keep the armature powered -by looping- remains to be seen. A model will have to be built with proper specs and precision to find out. I believe it may..
I have another video on private of the generator spinning itself while lighting a 12V bulb with roughly 1.5 amp going through it. As soon as I disconnect the bulb, the generator stops rotating. So it is confirmed the induced magnetism of the output is acting as the field coil for rotation.
No other claims have been made at tis point, as I have not designed a proper output stator etc. I just whipped this together with parts I had on-hand to see if I can verify the effect.
I am attaching the armature winding pattern. Please download and share it, leaving my name and credentials in-tact. So if I go silent, this info isn't scrubbed from existence.
@ floodrod,
First thing, I have NOT built this but from my interest the thing thst makes the most sense is that the phasing of the coupling would have to b exactly right as claimed by others who had claimed success.
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2025.11.01, 22:18:24
@ floodrod,
First thing, I have NOT built this but from my interest the thing thst makes the most sense is that the phasing of the coupling would have to b exactly right as claimed by others who had claimed success.
Magic of stationary brushes is they lock the phase to the shaft position mechanically.
Pitfall of brushes is they create a choppy rotating field.
My thought is "Looping" hinges on how smoothly you can rotate that field. More commutator contacts results in less loops of wire flipping at the same time.
One thing is for sure, phasing of the output is important. When using single output phase, effect is almost unnoticeable. No drag, but difficult to get the speedup effect. But when I short or load the 2nd phase at 90, It takes off. My build can only sustain it's own rotation with both output phases loaded or shorted.
I am thinking output phases may need to be configured to rotate the field also. Like 2 phase at 90 or 3 phase at 120 cause rotation. I will know soon enough
Sorry I meant the mechanical coupling shaft.
Quote from: 3D Magnetics on 2025.11.01, 23:32:20
Sorry I meant the mechanical coupling shaft.
Can you explain more? I have an attached motor, but seems it doesn't even need that once going. It should be able to start with a lawnmower pull string or an Disengagable starter once optimized. I don't understand where a "shaft coupling" comes into play.
Please share the sources of the people you heard of doing this. I have not seen any builds or information that mentions rotating the magnetic field opposite that of the shaft or armature.
Thanks!
It was way back on a site called Keelytnet. gone now.
the coupling phase of the joining shaft needs to be in the right position rationally to each other .
I cant explain it better than this.
at first i had thought you had no power input. so now it is more like a shunt motor effect. the powered armature induces the shorted stator, and just so happens to do so propperly to stay in motion. i think i remember a teslabpat that was similar. not sure...
mags
The lower the resistance of a load across a coil, the more of the coil's stored magnetic energy is preserved.
The higher the resistance of a load across a coil, the more of the coil's stored magnetic energy is lost.
With zero-resistance load, an ideal coil repels with the same energy as it attracts (over the same distance), thus the energy dissipation over the entire cycle is zero. However, the mechanical energy required to turn it half a cycle is at its maximum.
(the above assumes one generator coil, with more coils the cycle gets divided into more parts).
Thus it is nothing unusual that the mechanical energy required to turn a generator a full cycle decreases as the total electric resistance approaches zero.
There is also an electric resistance when the mechanical energy required to turn a generator a full cycle reaches a maximum. That resistance is far from zero.
Verpies;
Except it spins itself with a Light Bulb load + a shorted phase. It will probably even spin itself with a load on each phase and nothing shorted.
There is a Net Positive Rotational Torque. It's not just getting easier to spin from resistance changes. Not only does it spin the armature, the net positive torque is great enough to overpower the resistance of the brushes, the bearings, the shaft coupler and it spins the open-circuit startup motor continually.
YES there is DC going into the brushes. But powered armatures do not rotate without field coils or magnets. The output coils induced EMF are aligned to become the field coils.
Observe- Spinning itself with a Light Bulb Load + a shorted phase... When the outputs are disconnected, it stops rotating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RZjkmlwWFA
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.02, 12:52:02
Verpies;
Except it spins itself with a Light Bulb load + a shorted phase. It will probably even spin itself with a load on each phase and nothing shorted.
There is a Net Positive Rotational Torque. It's not just getting easier to spin from resistance changes. Not only does it spin the armature, the net positive torque is great enough to overpower the resistance of the brushes, the bearings, the shaft coupler and it spins the open-circuit startup motor continually.
YES there is DC going into the brushes. But powered armatures do not rotate without field coils or magnets. The output coils induced EMF are aligned to become the field coils.
Observe- Spinning itself with a Light Bulb Load + a shorted phase... When the outputs are disconnected, it stops rotating. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RZjkmlwWFA
I would agree that there seems to be something going on here other than magnetic energy storage period being lengthened by low resistance. In order for that light bulb to light from the stator windings, there has to be a magnetic field cutting those windings which would usually end in counter rotational opposition from Lenz. The fact that it doesn't stop the rotor seems significant, like Lenz inversion. Thanks for sharing and am looking forward to any new developments.
Dave
Ball bearing motor - Wikipedia https://share.google/gFkNJN18F6gCKSroP
Mike
Quote from: web000x on 2025.11.02, 16:40:47
I would agree that there seems to be something going on here other than magnetic energy storage period being lengthened by low resistance. In order for that light bulb to light from the stator windings, there has to be a magnetic field cutting those windings which would usually end in counter rotational opposition from Lenz. The fact that it doesn't stop the rotor seems significant, like Lenz inversion. Thanks for sharing and am looking forward to any new developments.
Dave
there is a magnetic field cutting the windings. he is powering the armature. keeps saying that there is only power to the brushes,thus magnetic field from the armature.
mags
As I said, the armature is specifically wound in a way that makes the magnetic field in the armature rotate Clockwise by physically rotating the armature Counter-Clockwise.
Lenz tries to oppose the Clockwise Magnetic Field rotation by applying a Counter-Clockwise torque. But the physical armature is rotating Counter-Clockwise.
I posted the exact winding pattern in this thread.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.11.02, 19:02:52
there is a magnetic field cutting the windings. he is powering the armature. keeps saying that there is only power to the brushes,thus magnetic field from the armature.
mags
I get that he is powering the armature via the brushes. It seems like that magnetic field from the armature is finding some sort of attractive rotary force from the stator through Lenz inversion.
Dave
Quote from: web000x on 2025.11.02, 19:33:49
I get that he is powering the armature via the brushes. It seems like that magnetic field from the armature is finding some sort of attractive rotary force from the stator...
If the stator is unpowered and there are no ferromagnetic elements in the stator then there cannot be an attractive force to the stator.
There can be repulsive forces from non-ferromagnetic but conductive elements in the stator, though.
Does the stator contain soft ferromagnetic elements ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.03, 16:23:45
If the stator is unpowered and there are no ferromagnetic elements in the stator then there cannot be an attractive force to the stator.
There can be repulsive forces from non-ferromagnetic but conductive elements in the stator, though.
Does the stator contain soft ferromagnetic elements ?
I believe the DUT is using a standard universal motor stator with a modified armature.
Cheers Grum.
Stator is from an induction motor. Identical to this
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.03, 16:23:45
If the stator is unpowered and there are no ferromagnetic elements in the stator then there cannot be an attractive force to the stator.
There can be repulsive forces from non-ferromagnetic but conductive elements in the stator, though.
Does the stator contain soft ferromagnetic elements ?
Yes, the stator contains ferromagnetic elements.
In a typical Lenz situation, an approaching magnetic field to a stator pole causes a repulsive magnetic field and a receding magnetic field an attractive magnetic field. This action of magnetically inducing energy into the stator windings should cause the rotor to slow to a halt. The fact that it continues to spin and induce a field into the stator windings is evidence that there is an inversion of Lenz at play.
Dave
This is the armature. It is wound in a fashion so it makes two magnetic rotations for every one Rotation of the physical shaft. In this manner, the magnetic field rotates opposite that of the physical armature. For every one step forward, the commutator steps the field two steps back.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=54589)
Quote from: web000x on 2025.11.03, 21:48:40
Yes, the stator contains ferromagnetic elements.
So the
varying magnetic field generated by the commutated rotor can attract the soft ferromagnetic stator poles. This forms a variable reluctance motor similar in operation to the stepper motor but with the coils on the inside (in the rotor / armature) - an inside out topology.
Some toothed rotors of commercial stepper motors are composed entirely of soft ferromagnetic materials without any embedded permanent magnets. This design is used in variable reluctance (VR) stepper motors, where the rotor is typically made of soft steel, iron, ferrite or similar materials with salient teeth that align with the stator's magnetic field to minimize reluctance.
In contrast, permanent magnet (PM) and hybrid stepper motors incorporate permanent magnets in the rotor for higher torque and efficiency.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.11.03, 21:48:40
In a typical Lenz situation, an approaching magnetic field to a stator pole causes a repulsive magnetic field and a receding magnetic field an attractive magnetic field.
Let's call this statement #1.
This is kinda true ...but with two qualifications:
1) the stator pole consists only of a conductive coil.
2) the coil is neither open nor shorted (if the coil is not ideal then it can be shorted).
If the stator coil is ideal and has been shorted in the absence of an external magnetic flux, then your statement must be transformed to:
"The rotor's magnetic pole approaching a stator pole is repelled and a receding magnetic pole is repelled, too"
Let's call this statement #2.
There is a gradual transition between these two behaviors (illustrated by these two statements) that depends on the electric resistance of stator coil's circuit, its inductance and the speed between the rotor's pole and stator's pole.
Quote from: web000x on 2025.11.03, 21:48:40
This action of magnetically inducing energy into the stator windings should cause the rotor to slow to a halt. The fact that it continues to spin and induce a field into the stator windings is evidence that there is an inversion of Lenz at play.
I wouldn't go that far.
The fact that it continues to spin and induce current in the stator windings merely means that the torque of the variable reluctance (VR) motor (described in my 1
st paragraph of this post) is greater than the counter-torque of the pure coil stator (acting as generator), which is abstracted in the Statement #1 with my two qualifications.
In other words: the torque of the variable reluctance (VR) motor overcomes the counter-torque of the the loaded stator / generator.
This counter-torque is created by the Lenz dependent forces acting between the rotor and the loaded stator / generator, as described in the Statement #1. This counter-torque becomes zero in the limit case described by the Statement #2.
You said:
"VR torque > Lenz counter-torque → keeps spinning"
My PDF Page 3 (my own words):
> "The rotation will continue until the load is removed, then the rotation will cease."
→ NO LOAD = NO FIELD = NO TORQUE = STOPS
Variable Reluctance:
- Runs with OPEN-CIRCUIT stator (no Lenz)
- Torque from teeth alignment
My machine:
- STOPS with open-circuit stator
- SPINS only when stator is LOADED
- Rotor: DISTRIBUTED COILS (PDF Page 2)
Video: Load OFF → stops. Load ON → spins.
Diagram: Page 3 — 90° brushes + back-half wiring
Reluctance motors keep spinning without load.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 01:32:56
Variable Reluctance:
- Runs with OPEN-CIRCUIT stator (no Lenz)
- Torque from teeth alignment
My machine:
- STOPS with open-circuit stator
- SPINS only when stator is LOADED
I acknowledge the difference and will think more about it.
What happens when you short the stator coils ?
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.04, 02:03:16
I acknowledge the difference and will think more about it.
What happens when you short the stator coils ?
1. 1 phase shorted, 2nd phase open. = CAN self Spin once initiated.
2. BOTH phases shorted- Self-Spins With Force and Drastic RPM increase
3. 1 Phase powering incadescent bulb- Other phase shorted= Self Spins Good Force
4. Both phases with Light Bulbs= ?? Not tried, but I assume it self-spins
5. Start generator with open outputs, then connect load= Speedup.
6. When in self-spinning mode, increasing current to brushes causes More current to Bulb + more RPM with motor unplugged.
7. No field magnets or coils. Just special wound armature, 2 brushes at 90, commutator. And Stator with 2 output phases from induction fan motor with Stock windings.
I am rewinding the armature now to get smoother rotation
Floodrod (also known as Jim Mac proprietor of mooker.com )
Thanks for sharing...
Hoping for the best !!!
Here the link to your forum and topic...
https://www.mooker.com/showthread.php?tid=322
Respectfully
Chet K
Cool setup, this is pretty easy to explain and I was playing around with similar concepts around 2018.
The basic effect is Lenz Law repulsion, if we energize a coil near a conductive plate or shorted coil loop the induced currents will produce a magnetic field which opposes the magnetic field change which created it. The induced field acting on the field which induced it produces a force. So coil A induces coil B, the induced current in B produces a magnetic field in B which then repels magnetic field A.
What floodrod seems to have done is create an inside out induction motor. An induction motor uses the stator coils to induce the shorted armature loops/coils where floodrod uses the armature to induce his shorted stator coils. It works either way and I have tested both setups. However a shorted stator needs the armature to be switched requiring brushes unlike an induction motor.
The light bulb is also neat. If we could add a low voltage light bulb to the one turn loop in the armature of an induction motor it would also light up. Floodrod should find a shorted coil produces a higher rotor rpm than the same coil with a light bulb because the greater the induced current the greater the induced magnetic field and repulsive force driving the armature.
So the motor should speed up when the stator circuit is closed/shorted or a load is connected because it is the load current through the stator coils which produces the magnetic field repulsion between the stator and armature making it rotate.
On a side note, the newest AC motors use a rotary transformer section added to the front of the motor to get power to the armature without brushes. So it's more like a brushless PM motor without the PM's.
AC Said; "However a shorted stator needs the armature to be switched requiring brushes unlike an induction motor."
A powered brushed armature that is rotating does NOT induce a magnetic field in a stationary loaded output stator that causes the machine to rotate itself.
My machine does.
**PDF Page 3 — MY OWN WORDS:**
> "the output stator creates a magnetic field **when powering a load**... The rotation will continue **until the load is removed**, then the rotation will cease."
**My machine:**
- **Stator = unpowered, stationary**
- **Rotor = powered, spinning**
- **Field rotates opposite the shaft** (PDF Page 2)
- **90° brushes + back-half wiring** (PDF Diagram)
I find it baffling no one references my armature wiring and brush alignment (secret ingredients) in their evaluations.
Without intuitively evaluating my armature wiring diagram in my PDF and understanding WHY I wired it like that, this will continue to elude.
Rotate a magnet Clockwise, the field rotates Clockwise. Rotate my armature Clockwise, the field rotates Counter-Clockwise
**ORION: Opposite Rotational Induction Opposes Nature**
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 16:22:04
I find it baffling no one references my armature wiring and brush alignment (secret ingredients) in their evaluations.
Without intuitively evaluating my armature wiring diagram in my PDF and understanding WHY I wired it like that, this will continue to elude.
Rotate a magnet Clockwise, the field rotates Clockwise. Rotate my armature Clockwise, the field rotates Counter-Clockwise
Your armature wiring and brush alignment are not a mystery to me.
I am more concerned with rotor's poles repulsion from shorted stator coils, which is what an induction motor does ...but with the rotor and stator coils swapped.
It's obvious that repulsion from open coils is not possible.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.04, 17:47:13
I am more concerned with rotor's poles repulsion from shorted stator coils, which is what an induction motor does ...but with the rotor and stator coils swapped.
Induction motors don't spin when the stator is unpowered and shorted. Mine does. That's not induction motor logic..
Induction motors work because the moving rotor is shunted or shorted. Not the stationary part.
Like saying- It's Almost like an induction motor- Just completely opposite.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 21:19:08
Like saying- It's Almost like an induction motor- Just completely opposite.
No, the roles of the rotor and stator are swapped. Not almost but completely.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 21:19:08
Induction motors don't spin when the stator is unpowered and shorted. Mine does.
But the rotor of a common induction motor spins when it is unpowered and shorted using the same principle as in your machine with swapped roles of the rotor and stator.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 21:19:08
That's not induction motor logic..
It qualifies because it utilizes induction in a shunted or shorted coil in both cases. The definition of an induction motor rests in the principle of force generation and does not include the location of coils - IOW: it allows for an inside-out construction like yours.
You could conceivably clamp your "rotor" in a vise (which would make it a "stationary rotor" relative to the vise) and allow your "stator" to rotate (which would make it a "rotating stator" relative to the vise) hence obtaining an
outrunner induction motor that stops working when the coils in the "rotating stator" become open.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.04, 21:19:08
Induction motors work because the moving rotor is shunted or shorted. Not the stationary part.
It does not matter to the induction principle whether the shunt or short is in the rotor or in the stator, because
motion is relative and only the relative motion between the stator and rotor matters to the induction.
We could conceivably have both the stator and the rotor moving with respect to the workbench, yet not moving relative to each other. In such case the lack of relative motion between the stator and rotor would prevent motional induction between them.
Name 1 other device that rotates only when the stationary output coil is shorted / loaded and has no input current ---> with no outside motoring device causing the rotation.
No induction motor does that.
No shaded pole.
No hysteresis.
No reluctance.
No motor. Period.
Show me **one** — video, name, link.
I'll wait.
My build does.
PDF Page 3:
> "The rotation will continue until the load is removed, then the rotation will cease."
**Load = spin. No load = stop. No input to stator.**
If you can explain how it's a common motor, surely you can find ONE example that meets the criteria:
"rotates only when the stationary output coil is shorted / loaded and has no input current ---> with no outside motoring device causing the rotation"
The answer is: an Outrunner Induction Motor.
I repeat:
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.04, 23:34:03
You could conceivably clamp your "rotor" in a vise (which would make it a "stationary rotor" relative to the vise) and allow your "stator" to rotate (which would make it a "rotating stator" relative to the vise) hence obtaining an outrunner induction motor that stops working when the coils in the "rotating stator" become open.
Also, in such motor, the "rotating stator" is
not energized by electric conduction.
In general, a moving part is not fundamentally different from a stationary one.
Motion is relative, sorry :(
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.05, 00:07:36
Name 1 other device that rotates only when the stationary output coil is shorted / loaded and has no input current ---> with no outside motoring device causing the rotation.
so... are you saying that the powered armature is not inducing power into the stator?
lets reverse things... power 1 of the stator windings and short the brushes to the armature and give it a spin....should work both ways.
dont change the brush angle or anything else,
mags
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.05, 00:16:33
The answer is: an Outrunner Induction Motor.
Also, in such motor, the "rotating stator" is not energized by electric conduction.
Outrunner Induction Motor- The stationary coil (stator) is the primary winding that receives the input current. It is NOT shorted.
Notice the condition in my challenge- "
stationary output coil is shorted". A "Rotating Stator" does not meet this condition as it is not "Stationary".
My stator is Stationary and loaded / shorted with no input power. And the rotor ONLY rotates when the stationary (non-moving) coils are shorted / loaded.
No known machine can do this.
Mine does.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.11.05, 00:35:32
so... are you saying that the powered armature is not inducing power into the stator?
lets reverse things... power 1 of the stator windings and short the brushes to the armature and give it a spin....should work both ways.
dont change the brush angle or anything else,
mags
Armature IS inducing power into the stator. And the induced output coils magnetic fields rotate the rotor without need for the drive motor. In fact- the armature spins the open circuit drive motor.
Powering stator windings with DC while shorting the brush leads causes Immense Bog-down when motor spins the armature.
Power this like a motor (feed input to stator)- It Fights Lenz.
Run it as a generator- Lenz Drives Rotation with no need for a motor.
Here's the vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gziTB8M51s8 (Just recorded)
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.05, 00:37:10
Notice the condition in my challenge- "stationary output coil is shorted". A "Rotating Stator" does not meet this condition as it is not "Stationary".
The distinction is meaningless because motion is relative. It depends on the observer's motion (frame of reference). It would be more descriptive to name them the: inner and outer coils.
For motional induction only the relative motion between the inner and outer coils matters, i.e. it does not matter which coil is stationary w.r.t. the workbench.
When this is understood, your condition degenerates to:
"the outer coil is shorted" vs.
"the inner coil is shorted"
Id want to see it spin without that other power supply hooked up.
It does seem like an interesting project which I'll be exploring when I get back from hols. (vacation) in a couple of weeks. Sorry if I missed it but what is the Pin for the brushes? The only other device I've worked with that sped up under load, was a pulse motor using high impedance gen coils. As soon as you loaded the output the motor sped up and Pin dropped due to shorter pulse duration. This is very different. I can't see where the energy would come from to loop it given heat losses but it certainly looks like it could be a very efficient generator.
Quote from: bte on 2025.11.05, 02:48:27
Id want to see it spin without that other power supply hooked up.
That would be one of the arguments that would convince me that my analysis is incorrect.
Quote from: verpies on 2025.11.05, 02:05:12
The distinction is meaningless because motion is relative. It depends on the observer's motion (frame of reference). It would be more descriptive to name them the: inner and outer coils.
For motional induction only the relative motion between the inner and outer coils matters, i.e. it does not matter which coil is stationary w.r.t. the workbench.
When this is understood, your condition degenerates to:
"the outer coil is shorted" vs. "the inner coil is shorted"
Exactly, this is what I was trying to point out.
The first principal is that an energized coil with a changing magnetic field will repel a loop of wire or loop with a load placed in it.
It doesn't matter if the induced loop is inside or outside, it doesn't matter whether the coil or induced loop or both move...the induced repulsion effect is the same.
I concede that it does appear to act like an unusual motor and does in fact share many of the same qualities, but there are differences.
There does happen to be an unusual motor configuration that closely resembles my setup, but these unusual motor designs work both ways as Mags pointed out. Power the rotor or power the stator and the effect is the same. As demonstrated in my last video, this is not the case with my design.
This next part will certainly raise eyebrows and many will think I am nuts.
So if 3 phase AC was inserted to a properly wired rotor that was on a bearing and free to rotate, the Lenz force from it inducing the stationary stator would make it rotate. The output stator would be induced by the rotating field and attempt to oppose it, thus applying a counter-torque. So the rotor would rotate opposite to the field.
The above is basically what mine does, except there is another feature being overlooked.
In the 3 phase induction motor described above, Lenz's job is to oppose and ultimately slow or stop the magnetic rotation—so it exerts a counter torque that will rotate the rotor opposite the field as I stated earlier.
Since the physical coils on the rotor are now in rotation (because they are wired to the armature), the rotating field now slows its RPM when viewed from the stator's vantage point. So Lenz was successful in its attempt to squash the rotating field.
This may be difficult to understand, but if the magnetic field is travelling CW at 2 units but the armature, carrying the coils, was rotating the opposite way at 1 unit, 2-1=1. Lenz successfully slowed the magnetic rotation from 2 units to 1 unit.
In my machine, the RPM of the magnetic rotation is mechanically linked to the RPM of the armature through the commutator. Which means Lenz will attempt to slow the magnetic rotation with its counter torque but ends up rotating the armature opposite that of the field (just like the motor above).
But because the armature's physical rotation controls the brush speed against the commutator, it also controls the rotating magnetic field rotational frequency:
- Lenz attempts to slow the magnetic rotation with its counter torque
- But ends up increasing the RPM in the armature proportionally
- Setting up a condition where Lenz is constantly trying to slow the magnetic rotation
- But the very act of doing so spins the commutator quicker, which makes the field rotate quicker
- **Meaning Lenz can NEVER accomplish its goal of slowing the magnetic rotation**
In essence, we may be able to benefit from the Lenz force without the downside of slowing the rotating field.
It is my belief that this is why my machine drags and resists rotation when powered from the stator, but speeds up when powered from the brushes.
Regarding output, I have made no claims of a self-runner, nor did I say it was OU.
If I have a wound rotor motor,Can I make a device like yours, or do I need to change the manifold?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.06, 00:07:48
- Lenz attempts to slow the magnetic rotation with its counter torque
...
- **Meaning Lenz can NEVER accomplish its goal of slowing the magnetic rotation**
It is a misconception that the quantitative Lenz Effect slows down the mechanical motion over a full cycle.
This is a
net-zero effect over a full cycle under ideal conditions.
It is the non-zero impedance (usually just resistance) of the non-ideal conditions that steals the mechanical energy (e.g.: maximum conversion to heat occurs when R = ωL, where ω is the cycle frequency. When R is 0 or ∞ then this conversion rate is zero).
Also, it is a misconception that shorting a coil dumps all of its stored energy (that is true about a capacitor, though).
In fact the opposite is true - shorting a coil
preserves the energy that is stored within it. In case of an ideal short, the energy stored in an ideal coil is preserved indefinitely.
It is these two misconceptions that are the source of the struggles experienced by most OU motor engineers.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.11.21, 08:47:33
It is a misconception that the quantitative Lenz Effect slows down the motion over a full cycle.
This Effect is a net-zero effect over a full cycle under ideal conditions.
It is the resistance of the non-ideal conditions that steals the energy (converts it to heat).
Also, it is a misconception that shorting a coil dumps all of its stored energy (that is true about a capacitor, though).
In fact the opposite is true - shorting a coil preserves the energy that is stored within it. In case of an ideal short, the energy stored in an ideal coil is preserved indefinitely.
It is these two misconceptions that are the source of the struggles experienced by most OU motor engineers.
Also why my freewheel diode extends the on time when switched off, right?
Quote from: bte on 2025.11.21, 16:43:31
Also why my freewheel diode extends the on time when switched off, right?
Yes, especially the diodes with a low voltage drop V
F.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.11.06, 00:07:48
Lenz will attempt to slow the magnetic rotation with its counter torque but ends up rotating the armature opposite that of the field (just like the motor above).
But because the armature's physical rotation controls the brush speed against the commutator, it also controls the rotating magnetic field rotational frequency:
- Lenz attempts to slow the magnetic rotation with its counter torque
- But ends up increasing the RPM in the armature proportionally
- Setting up a condition where Lenz is constantly trying to slow the magnetic rotation
- But the very act of doing so spins the commutator quicker, which makes the field rotate quicker
- **Meaning Lenz can NEVER accomplish its goal of slowing the magnetic rotation**
The problem with every single conventional motor and generator have is by design.
Once you understand how to solve by changing magnetic forces interaction geometry from direct magnetic transformer attraction and repulsion to magnetic flux switching like mag amps with alternative magnetic flux paths are doing - the whole issue will be non-existant.
Treat Lenz force as dynamic magnetic flux created which needs to close loop on alternative path and not on primary mover.
And here is a kicker with N. Tesla patent US447921A: once you have rotating magnet in the middle and 2 sets of different coils(at least 1 resonant high voltage (you control the frequency/rpm with it) and 1 high amperage type) under load with induced Lenz force, the coils will interact between themselves on the ring and not with the rotating magnet over air in the center of ring(the magnetic flux rule #1 - the shortest path, least resistance. And the air gap is worst case scenario. The goal is to force induced magnetic flux to travel along the ring and not over air gap). The rotating magnet in the center ring acts as catalyst to induce secondary magnetic induction reaction and not as energy transfer component. All you need to do is just to find right way to build resonant free wheeling circuit with bucking coils and circuit for the load on that ring.
Cheers!
T1000
Original poster Floodrod also owns Mooker.com open source FE forum ( post #1 this topic)
Has experiments ongoing at his ORION build thread at Mooker
I believe he will gladly discuss any applications you have for improving the build ( bucking etc etc)
Link to Mooker topic
https://www.mooker.com/thread-322-page-13.html
Floodrod s handle at Mooker is "Jim Mac"
Quote from: T-1000 on 2025.12.01, 14:39:55
The problem with every single conventional motor and generator have is by design.
Once you understand how to solve by changing magnetic forces interaction geometry from direct magnetic transformer attraction and repulsion to magnetic flux switching like mag amps with alternative magnetic flux paths are doing - the whole issue will be non-existant.
Treat Lenz force as dynamic magnetic flux created which needs to close loop on alternativer path and not on primary mover.
And here is a kicker with N. Tesla patent US447921A: once you have rotating magnet in the middle and 2 sets of different coils(at least 1 resonant high voltage (you control the frequency/rpm with it) and 1 high amperage type) under load with induced Lenz force, the coils will interact between themselves on the ring and not with the rotating magnet over air in the center of ring(the magnetic flux rule #1 - the shortest path, least resistance. And the air gap is worst case scenario. The goal is to force induced magnetic flux to travel along the ring and not over air gap). The rotating magnet in the center ring acts as catalyst to induce secondary magnetic induction reaction and not as energy transfer component. All you need to do is just to find right way to build resonant free wheeling circuit with bucking coils and circuit for the load on that ring.
Cheers!
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 00:59:40
Contrary to most understandings, Lenz Drag is not a negative manifestation of power output.
This is not even wrong because there is no such thing as "Lenz Drag". If you had ideal components in your system then the Lenz Effect would take away as much mechanical energy on approach as it would give back on the departure of the rotor's pole. Thus you better rename it to "Resistance Drag".
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 12:50:04
If you had ideal components in your system then the Lenz Effect would take away as much mechanical energy on approach as it would give back on the departure of the rotor's pole. ".
I do not want to get into a debate but I will simply state my views are in opposition to this claim. From all the evidence I have seen on the bench, a rotor's magnetic pole cutting across the face of the coil will cause the output coil to repel the rotor on the approach then attract the rotor on the depatrure. The output's zero crossing occurs when the rotors magnetic pole is aligned to the center of the coutput coil's face.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 13:39:11
I do not want to get into a debate but I will simply state my views are in opposition to this claim. From all the evidence I have seen on the bench, a rotor's magnetic pole cutting across the face of the coil will cause the output coil to repel the rotor on the approach then attract the rotor on the departure. The output's zero crossing occurs when the rotors magnetic pole is aligned to the center of the output coil's face.
And I want to help you to understand - not to perpetuate a debate.
Your mistake is that you are overgeneralizing from the specific behavior of the Lenz Effect mixed with resistive energy dissipation that you observe on your workbench to the general universal principle.
Your observations are correct ...but only because your components are far from ideal (ideal means: no resistance, no ferromagnetic hysteresis, no interturn and interwinding capacitances, etc...).
If your components were ideal then a rotor's magnetic pole flying across the face of a shorted coil would:
1) cause the output coil to repel the rotor on the approach
2) cause the output coil to
also repel the rotor on the departure
I know you don't believe me because you are not seeing this on a a workbench, but you would believe me if you had shorted superconducting coils.
I know it is a tall order to start using superconducting coils, but if you cannot than all is not lost because the mechanical force in pt. 2 does not suddenly switch from attraction to repulsion as you hit superconductivity but changes to repulsion gradually as the resistance decreases and/or inductance increases and the speed of the moving pole increases.
Satisfying these 3 conditions lets you approach the superconducting operating regime without actually reaching superconductivity:
- Speed (or frequency) up ↑
- Inductance up ↑
- Resistance down ↓
This opens up an avenue of experimentation to you that does not involve superconducting coils.
There is a simple equation that tells you when the mechanical energy lost by approaching and departing the coil is the highest. This happens when R = 2*
π*f*L
where:
f is the angular frequency in rotations per second,
L is the inductance of the winding in Henries,
R is the resistance of the coil including the resistance of the load in Ohms.
At R = 2
πfL you get the highest energy loss, but the good news is that below it, the losses decrease and eventually reach zero. This happens because more and more energy remains in the coil after the approach phase, causing the departure phase to remain in the repulsion regime for longer and longer times. Without R=0 you'd require infinte speeds or infinite inductances (which is not practical) but you can approach it close enough to witness the effect.
Above R = 2
πfL the losses decrease, too ...and eventually they reach zero. This usually happens when the resistance reaches infinity (i.e. coil becomes open-circuited) or the rotor speed falls to zero (which is obvious and boring).
There is a little complication with that formula when the approach phase doesn't last 50% of the entire cycle time, but as rule of thumb you just multiply the f by (50% divided by the duty cycle of the approch phase).
think you may be overlooking a key distinction. The reversal I'm describing on departure isn't caused by resistive decay of the induced current, it's caused by the geometry of induction itself. Even in a superconducting coil, the induced current is not free to "just persist" in one polarity. As the rotor's pole sweeps past the coil face, the flux linkage changes sign. By Faraday's law, the induced EMF must change sign as well, which forces the current to reverse.
So the attraction I see on departure is not a symptom of copper losses—it's the inevitable consequence of the flux derivative changing sign across the coil's two walls. Superconductivity would only eliminate resistive losses and extend the magnitude/duration of the induced current, but it would not prevent the polarity flip.
In other words:
Approach phase → flux increasing → induced current opposes increase → repulsion.
Zero crossing → flux change = 0 → current crosses zero at coil center.
Departure phase → flux decreasing → induced current opposes decrease → attraction.
That sequence is dictated by Faraday's law and coil symmetry, not by resistance. Superconductivity strengthens the effect but doesn't alter the fundamental reversal.
I can see how your explanation might hold in the case of a static transformer, where the flux modulation is essentially one‑dimensional and the induced current can remain in a single polarity for longer intervals. But a rotational device is fundamentally different.
In a rotating geometry, the coil face is sequentially exposed to increasing flux over one wall as the flux is decreasing over the other wall. That symmetry forces the induced EMF to change sign as the pole passes through center alignment. Even with zero resistance, the current cannot remain in one polarity because the flux derivative itself reverses.
So while a transformer can sustain a single‑polarity modulation under steady "Single Polarity" excitation, a rotating coil is bound to alternate:
Approach → flux increasing → repulsion.
Center alignment → zero crossing.
Departure → flux decreasing → attraction.
Superconductivity would only amplify the magnitude and persistence of those induced currents, but it wouldn't eliminate the polarity flip dictated by rotational symmetry.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
Think you may be overlooking a key distinction. The reversal I'm describing on departure isn't caused by resistive decay of the induced current,
That is exactly it. You understood me ...but you don't believe me. That's OK - we will get there.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
...it's caused by the geometry of induction itself. Even in a superconducting coil, the induced current is not free to "just persist" in one polarity.
In a shorted superconducting coil that is exactly what happens! The induced current persists indefinitely. There is a superconducting coil on Earth in which the current has been persisting for over 20 years !
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
As the rotor's pole sweeps past the coil face, the flux linkage changes sign.
Ah, but the magnetic flux that penetrates a shorted ideal coil cannot change (by penetration I mean a loop integral of the flux). That is the beauty of it - it is the key to understanding the entire electromagnetic induction phenomenon.
The current induced in the shorted loop is such that the internal magnetic flux generated by that current cancels any change that the external flux is trying to make, thus keeping the total flux penetrating the coil
constant and preventing any flux lines from cutting the coil (i.e. changing your flux linkage). This simulation (https://youtu.be/c3kxyqbsERI) shows this principle beautifully.
Oh, ...and and one more thing: The magnitude of current induced in an ideal shorted coil by an external flux source DOES NOT DEPEND on the speed with which that external flux changes. Nanosecond or a year - the induced current ends up the same magnitude.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
By Faraday's law, the induced EMF must change sign as well, which forces the current to reverse.
Faraday's law (induced EMF ℰ by a changing external flux) breaks down with an ideal shorted coil because when R=0 and i=ℰ/R then this would means that i=∞ for any ℰ>0, which is ridiculous.
In my opinion analyzing coils through the prism of induced EMF (ℰ) and Ohm's Law: i=ℰ/R, is exactly the kind of wrong path that prevents people from fully grasping electromagnetic induction.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
So the attraction I see on departure is not a symptom of copper losses
Oh, yes it is ! ...and the transfer of coil's stored energy to the load, too, of course,
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
—it's the inevitable consequence of the flux derivative changing sign across the coil's two walls.
The external flux's time derivative dΦ/dt has absolutely no influence on the magnitude of the current induced in a shorted ideal coil. Like I already wrote: The flux can change in a nanosecond or in a year - it makes no difference.
You are just so used to common coils leaking their stored energy/current all the time (like Mr. Faraday), that you think that the speed of the external flux changes makes a difference in the induced current (because the external flux represents energy replenishment to the leaky coil) ...but I got news for you - to an ideal shorted coil that speed (rate of Φ change) makes not an iota of difference.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
Superconductivity would only eliminate resistive losses and extend the magnitude/duration of the induced current, but it would not prevent the polarity flip.
Not only - it also prevents the flux from cutting the coil and changing flux linkage which completely defeats the Faraday's Law. Not a small feat.
Also, what "polarity flip" ? The direction of induced current in a shorted ideal coil does not change direction by itself.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
In other words:
Approach phase → flux increasing → induced current opposes increase → repulsion.
I agree with the proviso that when you write "flux increasing" you mean external flux, because the total flux (internal + external) that penetrates an ideal shorted coil stays constant.
Also, you skipped one arrow - it should have been:
Approach phase → external flux increasing → induced current generates an internal flux → internal flux opposes the external flux (or increase of total penetrating flux) → repulsion and the total penetrating flux stays
constant.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
Zero crossing → flux change = 0 → current crosses zero at coil center.
Departure phase → flux decreasing → induced current opposes decrease → attraction.
No, in an ideal shorted coil you do not start from 0 flux. The current induced during the approach phase still circulates in the coil and it generates internal flux that opposes any changes in total flux penetration attempted by the external flux. This means repulsion. If you were starting form zero internal flux, then you'd have attraction on departure ...but you don't because an ideal shorted coil has not lost its current (and the internal flux it generates) that has been induced during the approach phase.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 16:22:16
That sequence is dictated by Faraday's law and coil symmetry, not by resistance. Superconductivity strengthens the effect but doesn't alter the fundamental reversal.
...
Superconductivity would only amplify the magnitude and persistence of those induced currents, but it wouldn't eliminate the polarity flip dictated by rotational symmetry.
Nothing of the sort. Faraday's law is not applicable to ideal coils because when R=0 then Ohm's Law i=ℰ/R dictates that i=∞ which is ridiculous.
The Quantitative Lenz Effect (QLE) nips the Faraday's Law in the bud before the bastard has a chance to act, because QLE does not allow for the change of the flux linkage through an ideal shorted coil.
His little brother (the qualitative Lenz Effect) which you all know and love, defines only the sign of the induced EMF in the parent law. The qualitative Lenz Effect is the minus sign in the Faraday's parent Law: ℰ= -dΦ/dt. Both of them say noting about the quantity of the induced current. The big brother (QLE) - does ...and it slaughters the brother and the father.
The "20‑year persistence" example refers to a static trapped current in a superconducting loop — a DC bias that remains when you induce it once and then leave the coil isolated.
That's a very different case from a coil under a continuously alternating or rotating field.
When the external flux keeps changing polarity, the coil must adjust its current to conserve the fluxoid.
If the external flux excursion crosses the conserved value, the induced current polarity flips. In other words, under AC drive the coil does not sit there producing one‑direction DC forever — it responds dynamically, and the output polarity changes with the inducing field.
So:
Persistent DC for decades = trapped current in an isolated superconducting loop.
Polarity reversal = inevitable when the external field swings through the conserved fluxoid value.
Mixing those two cases is what causes the confusion.
As the rotor's field sweeps, the coil generates currents that oppose flux changes.
Even though there are no resistive losses, the rotor still feels drag because it must do mechanical work to maintain fluxoid conservation.
That work is stored as magnetic energy in the coil's persistent current.
If the rotor keeps rotating, the coil's current adjusts continuously — and if the external flux crosses the conserved value, the current polarity flips. Each adjustment resists the rotor's motion, manifesting as drag.
im with flood on this one. saying that the magnet approaching the face of a super coil begins somthing that cant be stopped is silly. if the approaching magnet sees a lenz repell effect on approach, and the coils condition cannot be changed from there, then id say the magnet could never make it past or to tdc.. besides, why are we shorting the super coil??? why would we not use that possitive and then negative output from the magnet pass?? special useless case i suppose.
like saying the cap to cap losses are because of resistance. another useless circuit. but that 50% loss is not due to resistive loss. ideal, same loss.
mags
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
The "20‑year persistence" example refers to a static trapped current in a superconducting loop — a DC bias that remains when you induce it once and then leave the coil isolated.
That's a very different case from a coil under a continuously alternating or rotating field.
The behavior is the same - complete and total penetrating flux preservation.
What the current does, to keep the flux constant is a different issue
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
When the external flux keeps changing polarity, the coil must adjust its current to conserve the fluxoid.
If the external flux excursion crosses the conserved value, the induced current polarity flips. In other words, under AC drive the coil does not sit there producing one‑direction DC forever — it responds dynamically, and the output polarity changes with the inducing field.
I agree, but an approaching and departing pole of a motor is not an AC drive.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
So:
Persistent DC for decades = trapped current in an isolated superconducting loop.
It's more of a "trapped flux".
Current is only reactionary to keep the trapped flux constant.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
Polarity reversal = inevitable when the external field swings through the conserved fluxoid value.
No flux nor current polarity reversal happens when a pole approaches and departs an ideal coil.
If another pole comes along and it is of a different polarity, then it can reverse the current ...but not the flux through the ideal coil.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
As the rotor's field sweeps, the coil generates currents that oppose flux changes.
Yes.
It is important to answer the question "changes measured from what datum ?". In case of an ideal shorted coil the datum is always the state of the coil the moment it was frozen (when it became superconductive). In case of resistive coils, the datum is always moving in time but stays behind us just a short time. What "time" ? The RL time, of course.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
Even though there are no resistive losses, the rotor still feels drag because it must do mechanical work to maintain fluxoid conservation.
No because with an ideal coil there is no drag. There is only repulsion on approach and departure ...and the magnitudes of these repulsions are the same.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
That work is stored as magnetic energy in the coil's persistent current.
The work done by an approaching pole is stored, yes. In an ideal case - indefinitely.
Work is energy. The same stored energy repels the pole when it is departing.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
If the rotor keeps rotating, the coil's current adjusts continuously.
Yes and if there is no rotor pole in the vicinity to bother it, then it defaults to the current which was flowing through it the moment it was frozen with Liquid Nitrogen or Helium (I think you call it the "conserved value" of flux).
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 18:28:36
— and if the external flux crosses the conserved value, the current polarity flips. Each adjustment resists the rotor's motion, manifesting as drag.
You need to analyze this point more precisely.
Let's say that the "conserved value" of flux is 1 Weber.
And the undisturbed coil needs 10kA to maintain it.
Then if an external flux source comes around and tries to push -1 Webers through the ideal coil (tries to reverse the flux), then the coil responds with 20kA of internal current (no current reversal !), which generates 2 Webers of internal flux and the total flux stays constant at 1 Weber again because 2 + (-1) = 1. This means repulsion.
However when an external flux source comes around and tries to push 2 Webers through the ideal coil (flux in the same direction), then the coil responds with -10kA of internal current (current reverses), which generates -1 Weber of internal flux and the total flux stays constant at 1 Weber because (-1) + 2 = 1. This means repulsion, also. An ideal coil always repels external flux. If it didn't, then the flux linkage would change.
For the sake of easier analysis it is better to start with a "conserved value" of flux equal to zero and the undisturbed coil current also zero.
Then an approaching pole of any polarity will induce nonzero current (reaching i
MAX at TDC) and will be repelled from the coil during the entire approach phase. When the same pole starts departing, it will also be repelled from the coil as the coil reduces its current from i
MAX to zero.
When the pole gets away, the coil returns to its undisturbed state, i.e. conserved value of flux equal to zero and the coil's current also zero. That is why I cal the QLE a "net zero" effect.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 18:58:04
...besides, why are we shorting the super coil???
Because a shorted coil is a happy coil :)
Shorting a coil preserves its energy.
Shorting a capacitor dumps its energy.
Shorting a battery dumps its energy.
Opening a coil dumps its energy.
Opening a capacitor preserves its energy.
Opening a battery preserves its energy.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 18:58:04
like saying the cap to cap losses are because of resistance. another useless circuit. but that 50% loss is not due to resistive loss. ideal, same loss.
Coils and capacitors do not act the same way. In fact they act in opposite ways.
Resistance is a killer of coil's stored energy and a saviour of capacitor's stored energy.
cap-to-cap energy transfers and coil-to-coil energy transfers are both 50% efficient because one meets its own match.
cap-to-coil energy transfers are almost 100% efficient because of their complementarity.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 18:58:04
why would we not use that possitive and then negative output from the magnet pass??
Because coils are current sources (while capacitors are voltage sources).
The current in an ideal shorted coil does not reverse as a pole approaches it and departs it. It only decreases to its original value that had been before the approach.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 18:58:04
Saying that the magnet approaching the face of a super coil begins something that cant be stopped is silly.
It can be stopped. Just move the magnet away and the current will stop ....or add resistance. Resistance dissipates energy stored in a coil. The higher this resistance the faster the dissipation.
I find it amazing that you don't find it silly that a once-charged capacitor retains its charge, by the same token.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 18:58:04
if the approaching magnet sees a Lenz repel effect on approach, and the coils condition cannot be changed from there, then id say the magnet could never make it past or to TDC..
It couldn't if the magnet was trying to thread the ideal shorted coil and had its OD equal to the ID of the coil and its flux could not make a detour and was forced down the throat of the coil ...but when the magnet's flux can make a detour, then it does and the magnet passes (albeit with repulsion), while the total flux threading an ideal shorted coil is preserved. The detour usually looks like the flux is getting bent/distorted. Look at this simulation (https://youtu.be/c3kxyqbsERI) to observe it.
You probably wonder, whether the magnet could be forced through that superconducting ring. The answer is yes as long as the magnet is smaller than the ring and sufficiently heavy or pushed. If the loop became superconductive while the magnet was inside the coil (or nearby) then after the passage of that magnet through the ring and moving it far away, the current induced in the would circulate indefinitely until the magnet (or another one like it) comes back and threads the ring again. See this (https://youtu.be/VhOF-ANajr8).
Quote
I agree, but an approaching and departing pole of a motor is not an AC drive."
"No flux nor current polarity reversal happens when a pole approaches and departs an ideal coil.
Rotational induced EMF is governed by motion of the field relative to conductor orientation.
Rotor induction (moving magnet/rotor): The reversal isn't caused by resistive decay, and it's not about a weakening field either — it's built into the geometry of a rotor cutting the coil. A single‑polarity magnet sweeps across one side of the coil on approach and the opposite side on departure, and those conductors run in opposite directions around the loop. That change in which leg is being cut flips the terminal polarity, even though the magnet pole itself never changes. In a superconducting coil there are no resistive losses, but the induced output still reverses because the conductor orientation and motion dictate the sign — not decay.
Transformer induction (time‑varying flux in a core): In a transformer, reversal comes from the flux itself rising and falling in time. The primary winding drives a sinusoidal flux in the core, and the secondary sees that flux linkage increase, then decrease, so the induced voltage follows the derivative of that sinusoidal flux. In other words, transformer reversal is about the time profile of flux amplitude, while rotor reversal is about geometry — which coil wall is being cut and the winding orientation.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 19:36:45
Rotational induction polarity is cutting of conductor directions, not growth / decay.
But the external flux from the rotor's pole is unable to cut the windings of an ideal shorted coil. So all of your arguments that rely on flux cutting the coil go out of the window.
The only way an external flux can cut the coil is when the internally generated flux is weakened by resistance an unable to oppose the external flux completely.
P.S.
An ideal transformer is capable of transforming direct current :o
hey flood.
that vid is a perfect example of what i explained earlier. beautiful representation. but, with the coil setup of the tpu bottom ring coils cannot accomplish that. the arrangement of where the poles of the windings with only 2 phased inputs cannot even drive that motor presented earlier. that motor is an altered example that i cannot accept in this case of the tpu windings. that is my arguement.
and one more thing, the vid verp has presented of the magnet dropped above the super ring, also had another example showing a heavier magnet drop, of which the mag does fall through and the super ring does reverse its current. so his proofs shown, in sim mind you, does not hold water here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-nAh9TMM30
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 20:43:03
and one more thing, the vid verp has presented of the magnet dropped above the super ring, also had another example showing a heavier magnet drop, of which the mag does fall through and the super ring does reverse its current. so his proofs shown, in sim mind you, does not hold water here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yMg6j-UoUfo
Good catch, but that minuscule current movement after the exit was is not the way an ideal ring behaves.
I was corresponding about this with prof.Belcher and he acknowledged that this ring was simulated as very low resistance - not superconducting, (because his software could not handle dividing by zero), so the current in it has dissipated a smidge during the fall.
Like I wrote previously, if you allow the resistance to dissipate the current that was induced in the ring by the magnet on approach then it will start with zero current afterwards and upon departure of the magnet, the current will reverse, but that is ONLY because it was allowed to decay earlier.
QuoteBut the external flux from the rotor's pole is unable to cut the windings of an ideal shorted coil
I really don't have time to debate much more what a superconductive coil will do. From what I gather, you are now suggesting that flux cutting vanishes in an ideal coil. I think my point stands, in any normal setup "Lenz Drag" is an appripriate description where a magnets motion is opposed on the entry and exit while passing a coil.
This convo would have been better to place in it's own topic as it was initiated when Verps challenged what I consider a well established concep and has little to do with my Orion presentation.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
From what I gather, you are now suggesting that flux cutting vanishes in an ideal coil.
Not only do I suggest it but I claim it.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
I think my point stands, in any normal setup "Lenz Drag" is an appripriate description...
It isn't. The Lenz Effect is not responsible for the drag. The resistance is.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
where a magnets motion is opposed on the entry and exit while passing a coil.
That is what happens in resistive coils. For 1 pole, drag is the difference of the force during approach minus the force during departure integrated over the two half cycles ...and it depends on resistance like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55021)
As you can see, the drag disappears with no resistance. Do you think that the Lenz Effects stops working when it is deprived of resistance ?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
This convo would have been better to place in it's own topic as it was initiated when Verps challenged what I consider a well established concept
Rather a well established misconception.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
I really don't have time to debate much more what a superconductive coil will do.
It is not only about superconductive phenomena. It is also about fast and very inductive phenomena if you were paying attention.
You can ignore what I have to teach you but physics will not ignore you.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 22:51:28
If that's the case then the magnet should simply pass the super coil with no impediment!!!!!
just when i thought i was done with this, but i gotta do it...
WHAT???
if thats the case then the magnet should simply pass the super coil with no impediment!!!!!
NO RESISTANCE, NO DRAG???? :-\ UGGHH said charlie brown
mags
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 22:51:28
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55021)
As you can see, the drag disappears with resistance. Do you think that the Lenz Effects stops working when it is deprived of resistance ?
Sweeping a single pole magnet across the full face of a coil produces a full sinewave. Please show me a live demonstration of you getting a single polarity output from a full sweep past the face of a coil with a magnet.
GOD I hope you can show me how to do that! I would have had OU years ago if it did what your pic shows
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 23:06:51
just when i thought i was done with this, but i gotta do it...
WHAT???
If that's the case then the magnet should simply pass the super coil with no impediment!!!!!
...and it does pass without any energy loss OVER THE ENTIRE CYCLE.
It is not so over half a cycle, where you observe the motion on approach being impeded but you completely ignore that the motion on departure is accelerated by the repulsion.
Over the entire cycle you have to integrate these two forces ...and when you do you get zero.
Do you even read what I post ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 22:51:28
...drag is the difference of the force during approach minus the force during departure integrated over the two half cycles ...and it depends on resistance like this:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55021)
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 23:06:51
NO RESISTANCE, NO DRAG???? :-\ UGGHH said charlie brown
Can you read the axis labels on a graph ?
It clearly states "
Mechanical Enegy Loss (Drag) over 1 cycle".
...but no, you don't pay attention and then shoot out this knee-jerk response to me because you saw a magnet slow down
for half-a-cycle when going through a super ring.
While completely ignoring the second half of the cycle in the energy balance sheet.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 23:15:38
Sweeping a single pole magnet across the full face of a coil produces a full sinewave.
A full sine wave of what ?
Me thinks, you are conflating voltage with current.
Voltage cannot even be measured in an ideal shorted coil. Not even in theory.
ill let this all sink in with the readers of this thread. O0
mags
you. changed my quote from you. you cannot do that to fit your narrative
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.03, 23:40:55
you changed my quote from you. you cannot do that to fit your narrative
Wait, these are YOUR WORDS in your message attributed to me in
your Reply #72 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117721#msg117721)
I never wrote: "
If that's the case then the magnet should simply pass the super coil with no impediment!!!!!" - show me in which reply I wrote that.
You better change it to what it was that I wrote, which was:
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 22:51:28
It isn't. The Lenz Effect is not responsible for the drag. The resistance is.
This sets the record straight. ...and it does not change any narrative because there isn't any narrative - just science based on logic, math and experiments.
Also, I stand by that statement and I challenge you to disprove it.
dont worry. its all going to be handled by higher ups than you at this point.
magluvin
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 00:04:20
dont worry. its all going to be handled by higher ups than you at this point.
I am not worried and you still haven't changed my words that you have misquoted in your Reply #72 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117721#msg117721).
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 00:08:02
I am not worried and you still haven't changed my words that you have misquoted in your Reply #72 (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117721#msg117721).
i have not misquoted you. you changed it. i screen shot everything. all time stamped pics
told chet that yesterday. so what now, you edited the record of the change to look like i did it??? will find out soon.... ^-^
mags
It's obvious that posting personal viewpoints that one thinks are worthy of investigating is discouraged in this forum. If it's not F6, it's Verpies.
Start my own thread showing Lenz can be used to do work while inducing output- Verpies jumps in and shuts it down. Determines it's NOT worthy of investigation. Nothing to see here- move along..
Reply to a thread that was discussing virtual rotation- Get the third degree because I don't agree with his theory that drag is not the "right term" because he believes a superconducting coil does not induce from flux cutting.
And people don't understand why the forums are mostly crickets?
Let me post a reminder, most people seeking free energy believe the mainstream understandings and laws are incomplete at best or maybe have undisclosed exceptions. To continually shut down exploration and alternative theories is in opposition to the point of these forums IMHO. A moderators job is not to "Correct all proposed viewpoints and theories" so they conform to the moderators viewpoints and beliefs..
very well said. thank you for that. ;)
mags
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
It's obvious that posting personal viewpoints that one thinks are worthy of investigating is discouraged in this forum. If it's not F6, it's Verpies.
Pointing out errors should not be discouraging to a scientist.
Post any viewpoint you want but be prepared to support it empirically or theoretically or logically.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
Start my own thread showing Lenz can be used to do work while inducing output- Verpies jumps in and shuts it down.
I have done no such thing. The thread is still up. I participated in it as a contributing scientist, not as a moderator.
I never told you (or anyone else) "don't do this experiment". I just tried to teach you how induction really works. Not only with words but with equations, animations and diagrams.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
Determines it's NOT worthy of investigation. Nothing to see here- move along..
Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Show me a quote.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
Reply to a thread that was discussing virtual rotation- Get the third degree because I don't agree with his theory that drag is not the "right term" because he believes a superconducting coil does not induce from flux cutting.
If I was the only scientist in the world that thought that you might have a point calling it my belief, but this is not my theory - this is a mainstream theory and practiced fact that has been proven with many experiments.
Go ask a physics professor or AI if you like. e.g.: is this graph true ?:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55021)
My mortifying observation is that you don't even know where your devices are on this graph.Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
Get the third degree because I don't agree with his theory that drag is not the "right term"
And people don't understand why the forums are mostly crickets?
What you call a "third-degree" is a typical manner of scientific discourse supported by math and diagrams. You might not be used to it, that's all.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
...that drag is not the "right term"
"Drag" is the right term for resistive coils. Just not "Lenz Drag"
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
Let me post a reminder, most people seeking free energy believe the mainstream understandings and laws are incomplete at best or maybe have undisclosed exceptions.
I think so too but not to the degree that I would throw the baby out with the bath water.
I have done all of these experiments in my student years and I remember how stuff works. I had Niobium superconducting coils in my hands (LH cooled), I don't forget how they behave.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
To continually shut down exploration and alternative theories is in opposition to the point of these forums IMHO.
Why do you keep using these misleading words ? Shut down, shut down...
No thread has been shut down and I never said to anyone don't do an experiment. I just try to teach people how things really work.
If correcting your misconceptions hurts so much and you haven't learned to appreciate a knowledgeable critic then you are in the wrong field.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 01:46:11
A moderators job is not to "Correct all proposed viewpoints and theories" so they conform to the moderators viewpoints and beliefs..
I participate in these forums more as a scientist than a moderator. The last 20 posts in this thread clearly illustrate that. However, I will move this post and others like it (posts that have
no technical content), to another public thread that is better suited for it, but I will not delete them.
What do you expect ? Ignorant "yes"-men who nod to everything you write ?
There is no "Lenz Drag" but there is "Ohm's Drag" or "Resistance Drag". By using the wrong words you promulgate wrong concepts and entrench misconceptions that are harmful to scientific progress and especially to newbies. I am open to continuing this discussion if you are still not convinced.
All I offer is the truth - nothing more.
You can ignore what I have to offer but Physics will not ignore you.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 03:53:52
Post any viewpoint you want but be prepared to support it empirically or theoretically or logically.
You can ignore what I have to offer but Physics will not ignore you.
I participate in these forums more as a scientist than a moderator.
The bar is VERY High to post here. You can explore, but if you share, be prepared to "support it empirically" and scrutinized by the community "Scientist" who will determine if your idea aligns with "Physics".
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 03:53:52
Why do you keep using these misleading words ? Shut down
What do you expect ? Ignorant "yes"-men who nod to everything you write ?
I have done no such thing. The thread is still up. I participated in it as a contributing scientist, not as a moderator.
I just tried to teach you how induction really works.
There are many exploratory minds that saw an interesting effect in my project and also think it warrants further exploration. But apparently this is no longer a place for fringe ideas, but is a place for scientific scrutiny. Anyone who may have the desire to post or show interest must weigh the reprucussions of pubically showing interest. Because the community scientist will surely be teaching you how induction really works.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 03:53:52
If I was the only scientist in the world that thought that you might have a point calling it my belief, but this is not my theory - this is a mainstream theory and practiced fact that has been proven with many experiments.
You also MUST usee the accepted terms the community scientist declares correct or be prepared to be scrutinized and be prepared to defend the terms you use.
Apparently Drag is not a reprocussion of Lenzes law where induced EMF opposes the magnetic change that induced it.
I don't have the time to keep going ATM, but I get your drift. I can present my thoughts and ideas, but be prepared to be taught and corrected how things really work by the community scientist.
So let me add this so we are clear.
I am not looking to be educated by Scientists. I am not submitting my theories, works and ideas to a scientific journal to be scrutinized by scientisits. I care less about what scientists think. I
OFTEN present fringe theories and angles that are dismissed by Scientists.
To The Contrary; the I am a "Fringe" explorer who questions the scientific model. I purposely avoid learning the scientific explainations. I HAVE contemplated and tested many theories that turn out to be erronous during my many thousands of hours of testing concepts. Sure a Scientist could have just told me I am wrong and saved me the time, but there just MAY be that one time where the Scientist was in error and the answer was missed.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 10:56:27
You also MUST usee the accepted terms the community scientist declares correct or be prepared to be scrutinized and be prepared to defend the terms you use.
Yes be prepared to defend the veracity of your statements. This is the scientific method.
It is not as much about the exact words you use, but the about the concepts that they represent or misrepresent.
If these concepts do not agree with the empirical body of knowledge or logically conflict with your other statements then they must be challenged lest they are allowed to impede scientific progress, ingrain misconceptions ...especially for newbies.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 10:56:27
Apparently Drag is not a repercussion of Lenzes law...
That's right.
The mechanical drag (which is a net integral of the attractive and repulsive forces over a full cycle) that a non-ideal coil manifests is caused by the resistive and hysteresis energy dissipations. When these factors are eliminated with an ideal coil, then the pure Lenz Effect remains. This effect alone does not cause any drag.
I am not discouraging you from performing experiments that may refute this.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 10:56:27
...where induced EMF opposes the magnetic change that induced it.
See, this is an example of using incorrect words that communicate incorrect concepts that hinder scientific progress.
I write this because induced EMF is incapable of opposing magnetic changes directly. Only current can do that by the virtue of generating an opposing magnetic flux.
The presence of EMF does not mean the presence of current. Your words appear to conflate the two. This sows confusion...especially in the inexperienced members.
As a side note: An EMF can be measured only across resistance (open circuit is also a resistance, albeit very high). It is impossible to measure EMF in an ideal shorted coil - even in theory. The current flowing in a coil always causes the generation of magnetic flux. EMF does not. Because of this unwavering relationship, the current can always be calculated from the flux by dividing it by the inductance of the coil, since L=Φ/i
EMF cannot be derived from the flux. It can be derived from the rate of change of flux but only in non-ideal coil circuits, i.e.: across a resistance.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 10:56:27
I don't have the time to keep going ATM, but I get your drift. I can present my thoughts and ideas, but be prepared to be taught and corrected how things really work by the community scientist.
Yes and there is nothing wrong with learning and correcting one's own misconceptions.
If I don't correct your misconceptions then Physics will.
If you don't like my input, ask someone else who is knowledgeable ...or ask AI.
Below is a non-leading question that you can paste directly into any AI:
Quote
An immovable shorted ideal loop without resistance is in an environment where the magnetic flux density is zero. The current flowing in the loop is zero. The plane of the loop is horizontal in a gravitational field. Suddenly a change is made and a permanent magnet is dropped into the loop. The magnet's OD is smaller than the loop's ID and the magnet is sufficiently heavy to penetrate the loop. Calculate the function of the force vs. vertical distance F(x) where positive values of F(x) indicate an upward force between the magnet and the loop and negative values of F(x) indicate a downward force. Gravity always generates a constant downward force (so negative). Generate a linear SVG plot of F(x) if you can. Describe the direction of forces between the magnet and the loop, before, during and after exiting the loop. Describe the kinetic energy evolution of the magnet, before, during and after exiting the loop. Compare the kinetic energy of the magnet to a situation in which the loop is completely absent. Especially long after exiting the loop.
As you recommend- Here is "MY QUESTION" to AI: be exact
Question- "Is the mechanical "Drag" a generator experiences during induction directly caused by Lenz's Law of the magnetic fields between the output and rotor opposing motion?"
Answer- "Yes, the mechanical "drag" or counter-torque a generator experiences during induction is a direct consequence of Lenz's Law and the resulting opposing magnetic forces.
🧭 The Role of Lenz's Law
Lenz's Law is a fundamental principle of electromagnetism and is also a statement of the conservation of energy"
Let me guess- You think my question was worded in a way to provoke than answer.
YES I said "EMF" instead of "EM Field" erronously. So apparently I need to be educated on textbook acronyms. (Which I care NOTHING about).
Maybe the Slogan of this site should Change from "Forum for Free Energy Researchers"
to
"A Place Where Your Statements and Theories must be challenged lest they are allowed to impede scientific progress, ingrain misconceptions
This Mindset Directly Excludes Sharing "Fringe" Theories and Viewpoints.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 10:56:27
I am not looking to be educated by Scientists.
Then who are you looking to be educated by ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 12:41:13
Then who are you looking to be educated by ?
Surely you understand the difference between trying to learn how a clutch works verses seeking Free Energy.
If I want to learn how a Clutch works, I ask a Mechanic because he mastered the task.
If I seek Free Energy, Scientists have not mastered the task, so I seek alternative viewpoints.
Stop wining man, jeez.
Verpies is only trying to help you to put your "thoughts and idea" in line with "how things really work" so you don't keep on making wrong U-turns due to misunderstandings.
You should be grateful he takes the time trying to help you to reach the goal you are pursuing all this time, apparently without any real success up till now.
Absorb the given info, apply it to your "thoughts and ideas" and benefit from it, it's free!
Itsu
Quote from: Itsu on 2025.12.04, 15:02:31
Absorb the given info, apply it to your "thoughts and ideas" and benefit from it, it's free!
Itsu
Please clarify if you agree with the notion I am being told to absorb.. --->
"Drag is not a repercussion of Lenzes law"..Floodrod; "Apparently Drag is not a repercussion of Lenzes law...
Verpies: That's right.
The mechanical drag (which is a net integral of the attractive and repulsive forces over a full cycle) that a non-ideal coil manifests is caused by the resistive and hysteresis energy dissipations. When these factors are eliminated with an ideal coil, then the pure Lenz Effect remains. This effect alone does not cause any drag."
Paste those statements into Gemini AI. I have attached small snips of each response unpersuaded as-is. Look at the responses....
I continually hinted that I am not in agreement with his views or teachings. Enough is Enough.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 12:38:35
As you recommend- Here is "MY QUESTION" to AI: be exact
Question- "Is the mechanical "Drag" a generator experiences during induction directly caused by Lenz's Law of the magnetic fields between the output and rotor opposing motion?"
Answer- "Yes, the mechanical "drag" or counter-torque a generator experiences during induction is a direct consequence of Lenz's Law and the resulting opposing magnetic forces.
Lenz's Law is a fundamental principle of electromagnetism and is also a statement of the conservation of energy"
You have not asked my non-leading question which I have posted at the end of this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117740#msg117740).
Also, you have not asked about drag due to pure Lenz Effect. You asked for Lenz Effect mixed with Resistive Joule heating and Hysteresis Losses.
I asked the Grok AI a more precise question involving pure uncontaminated Lenz Effect and Grok initially replied that the magnet is repelled on approach and attracted on departure just like you and
floodrod were claiming all along. Here (https://grok.com/c/8b24a7b8-08f9-402f-8dc3-d18ea54e5484?rid=51df14f0-35a4-4e3d-bd2f-d84f0c6396f3) is a link to my conversation with Grok 4.1 in the "Expert" mode.
What AI did you use ?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:06:00
Paste those statements into Gemini AI. I have attached small snips of each response unpersuaded as-is. Look at the responses....
You asked about the pure Lenz Effect. I appreciate that.
You did not push the AI for precise answers, though.
I wish you had posted my non-leading question that I posted at the end of this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117740#msg117740).
@All
Could someone lend me an access to the full version of Gemini so I can have more detailed conversation with it about this issue ?
I have only Grok and Claude...
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 16:14:53
You have not asked my non-leading question which I have posted at the end of this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117740#msg117740).
Also, you have not asked about drag due to pure Lenz Effect. You asked for Lenz Effect mixed with Resistive Joule heating and Hysteresis Losses.
I asked the Grok AI a more precise question involving pure uncontaminated Lenz Effect and Grok initially replied that the magnet is repelled on approach and attracted on departure just like you and floodrod were saying all along. Here (https://grok.com/c/8b24a7b8-08f9-402f-8dc3-d18ea54e5484?rid=51df14f0-35a4-4e3d-bd2f-d84f0c6396f3) is a link to my conversation with Grok 4.1 in the "Expert" mode.
What AI did you use ?
I can only use Gemini or Copilot due to security propocols at this location. Later tonight (at home) I can use anything.
Obviously we are referencing 2 different setups. You are defending something about dropping a magnet into an "Ideal" coil loop which is TOTALLY different than sweeping the face of standard coils with a magnet. Our debate started from my comment on Lenz drag from a rotating field.. Rotating fields do not drop magnets through superconducting coils. And I have no idea why the convorsation ended up on dropping magnets through freezing cold coils at all. I don't think ANY of my replies were in reference to a magnet dropping through a coil. My replies were all directed at sweeping past the face of a coil. And really, I will probably never work with Ideal Coils.
My original claim was (and still is) "The braking effect from sweeping a magnet past the face of a coil is caused because of Lenz's Law".
I see no need to correct the above statement. Paste that exact statement into ANY AI and the answers will probably be the same. But start changing the terms by asking it about Magnets dropping magnets through "Ideal Coils" with zero flux density, etc, etc, etc, and I have no idea what AI will spit out.
It does not really matter what AI says will happen with nitrogen cooled super-conducting coils or whatever- because I will probably NEVER drop magnets through Superconducting coils.. My builds will probably ALL use standard coils, magnetic fields, and resistive loads.
if the magnets field never cuts the super coil, then how is it that the supper coil repels it in the first place? preexisting opposing field?
what is the binder between the moving magnet and the super coil that causes the effect? if we pass iron by the coil, will there be any effects similar to the magnet pass? there must be some interaction.
now, it is said that drag is due to resistance and is not drag when there is no resistance. if we have a copper coil, short it with a current meter, the coil dimentions are say 4in dia, 2 in inner dia, and a 1in magnet on a rotor for passing the coil face. as the magnet approaches the coil, current will be induced in one direction, producing a repelling field, opposite that of the magnet, causing slowdown of the rotor. then tdc, no current in the winding, then magnet passing the second half of the coil induces currents in the opposite direction in the coil where the coils field is said to be attracted to the magnet, slowing down the rotor once more until it passes.
so now we have a supper coil of the same dimentions, with a super current meter to measure the current. when the magnet approaches the coil, will there be any current read on that meter? if so, then after tdc, the magnet passes the other side of the coils face, will there be any current read by that meter? will that current be in the opposite direction on the meter? if so, then the magnet will be dragged down throughout the pass, same as the copper. granted the magnet passing the super coil will need to be spaced to a point where it doesnt just stop.
so, in the super coil, when the magnet approaches, is there a preexisting opposing field in the super coil to repell the magnet? or does the magnet induce the coil to produce that opposing field?? if you say the magnets flux never gets to cut the coil, then how is that opposing field produced? if you say that once the current in the coil is produced, and that current continues on forever, is it stick in that condition? forever and cannot be changed unless the winding is cut open?
will continue once that is addressed...
mags
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
I can only use Gemini or Copilot due to security propocols at this location. Later tonight (at home) I can use anything.
Obviously we are referencing 2 different setups. You are defending something about dropping a magnet into an "Ideal" coil loop which is TOTALLY different than sweeping the face of standard coils with a magnet. Our debate started from my comment on Lenz drag from a rotating field.. Rotating fields do not drop magnets through superconducting coils. And I have no idea why the convorsation ended up on dropping magnets through freezing cold coils at all. I don't think ANY of my replies were in reference to a magnet dropping through a coil. My replies were all directed at sweeping past the face of a coil. And really, I will probably never work with Ideal Coils.
My original claim was (and still is) "The braking effect from sweeping a magnet past the face of a coil is caused because of Lenz's Law".
I see no need to correct the above statement. Paste that exact statement into ANY AI and the answers will probably be the same. But start changing the terms by asking it about Magnets dropping magnets through "Ideal Coils" with zero flux density, etc, etc, etc, and I have no idea what AI will spit out.
It does not really matter what AI says will happen with nitrogen cooled super-conducting coils or whatever- because I will probably NEVER drop magnets through Superconducting coils.. My builds will probably ALL use standard coils, magnetic fields, and resistive loads.
i agree. the ideal concepts are not in place on anyones bench here. drag is a fine word to use here in the real world. O0
mags
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
if the magnets field never cuts the super coil, then how is it that the supper coil repels it in the first place? preexisting opposing field?
what is the binder between the moving magnet and the super coil that causes the effect? if we pass iron by the coil, will there be any effects similar to the magnet pass? there must be some interaction.
now, it is said that drag is due to resistance and is not drag when there is no resistance. if we have a copper coil, short it with a current meter, the coil dimentions are say 4in dia, 2 in inner dia, and a 1in magnet on a rotor for passing the coil face. as the magnet approaches the coil, current will be induced in one direction, producing a repelling field, opposite that of the magnet, causing slowdown of the rotor. then tdc, no current in the winding, then magnet passing the second half of the coil induces currents in the opposite direction in the coil where the coils field is said to be attracted to the magnet, slowing down the rotor once more until it passes.
so now we have a supper coil of the same dimentions, with a super current meter to measure the current. when the magnet approaches the coil, will there be any current read on that meter? if so, then after tdc, the magnet passes the other side of the coils face, will there be any current read by that meter? will that current be in the opposite direction on the meter? if so, then the magnet will be dragged down throughout the pass, same as the copper. granted the magnet passing the super coil will need to be spaced to a point where it doesnt just stop.
so, in the super coil, when the magnet approaches, is there a preexisting opposing field in the super coil to repell the magnet? or does the magnet induce the coil to produce that opposing field?? if you say the magnets flux never gets to cut the coil, then how is that opposing field produced? if you say that once the current in the coil is produced, and that current continues on forever, is it stick in that condition? forever and cannot be changed unless the winding is cut open?
will continue once that is addressed...
mags
Good questions, I concur with the magnetic / induction events you have elegantly outlined as a magnet passes a coil. And I look forward to the response also.
If there is a hidden event I am missing, it would require a step by step explaination (as you outlined) that would make it clear to me.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
Obviously we are referencing 2 different setups. You are defending something about dropping a magnet into an "Ideal" coil loop which is TOTALLY different than sweeping the face of standard coils with a magnet.
It is true that the the setups are different but not fundamentally (and not totally).
Resistive coils exhibit drag - ideal ones do not.
However this transition is not abrupt.
If you look at the graph below and at the formula for the peak on that graph, you will notice that below some critical resistance the setup starts gradually behaving more and more like an ideal coil. Thus it should never surprise you that shorting your coils reduces the drag.
You should always calculate where your devices place themselves on that graph using the simple formula 2*
π*f*L (with f adjusted by the duty cycle).
The takeaway from all this is that decreasing resistance and increasing frequency (speed) and inductance puts your setup in a different operating regime.
...and because the resistance of a coil varies linearly with the number of turns yet its inductance varies with the
square of the number of turns, then it pays off to have many turns as that maximizes the L/R ratio.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55021)
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
Our debate started from my comment on Lenz drag from a rotating field.. Rotating fields do not drop magnets through superconducting coils.
Rotating fields are interesting because the unipolar ones accelerate charged particles like a Lorentz fan. They deserve their own thread.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
And I have no idea why the convorsation ended up on dropping magnets through freezing cold coils at all. I don't think ANY of my replies were in reference to a magnet dropping through a coil. My replies were all directed at sweeping past the face of a coil.
Because it is the simplest setup to analyze. Sweeping a magnet instead of threading it does not make a difference in the response of the coil.
I have updated my conversation (https://grok.com/c/8b24a7b8-08f9-402f-8dc3-d18ea54e5484?rid=51df14f0-35a4-4e3d-bd2f-d84f0c6396f3) with Grok to include swept magnets but it did not change anything.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
And really, I will probably never work with Ideal Coils.
You don't have to. There is another method to approach the superconducting behavior. I outlined it above ...and before.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
But start changing the terms by asking it about Magnets dropping magnets through "Ideal Coils" with zero flux density, etc, etc, etc, and I have no idea what AI will spit out.
You would have an idea what it will spit out if you had read my conversation (https://grok.com/c/8b24a7b8-08f9-402f-8dc3-d18ea54e5484?rid=51df14f0-35a4-4e3d-bd2f-d84f0c6396f3) with AI about this issue.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
It does not really matter what AI says will happen with nitrogen cooled super-conducting coils or whatever- because I will probably NEVER drop magnets through Superconducting coils.. My builds will probably ALL use standard coils, magnetic fields, and resistive loads.
It matters because in the beginning of this post (...and earlier) I have described to you how to approach that superconducting behavior with resistive coils.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:50:42
My original claim was (and still is) "The braking effect from sweeping a magnet past the face of a coil is caused because of Lenz's Law".
And my original response to that claim was (and still is) that the braking effect from sweeping a magnet past the face of a coil is caused by resistance and hysteresis losses, not by the pure Lenz Effect. Lenz effect without resistance and hysteresis losses is a net-zero effect that does not cause any braking effect over entire cycle of approach and departure.
When, I get full access to Gemini you will see that this is true.
question reposted on future pages
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
if the magnets field never cuts the super coil, then how is it that the supper coil repels it in the first place? preexisting opposing field?
Cutting is not needed for repulsion.
The repulsion happens because the ideal coil generates its own internal flux in response to the flux of an approaching magnet. Both fluxes meet midway and interact.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
what is the binder between the moving magnet and the super coil that causes the effect?
I do not understand what you mean by 'binder". If you are asking me how the coil and magnets repel then I will answer "the same way as two magnets repel" - with opposing fluxes.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
if we pass iron by the coil, will there be any effects similar to the magnet pass? there must be some interaction.
There are two cases of that situation. I do not know which one you are asking me about so I will answer both (I assume soft iron without remanent magnetization):
1) Initially the shorted ideal coil has no current circulating in it (because it became superconductive when there was no magnetic field around it):
Result: The soft iron has no effect on the coil and the coil has no effect on the iron.
2) Initially the shorted ideal coil has current circulating in it (because it became superconductive when there was a magnetic field around it):
Result: The soft iron is attracted to the coil and the current in the coil decreases as its energy is used up to polarize the iron's magnetic domains in the direction of the coil's field.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
now, it is said that drag is due to resistance and there is no drag when there is no resistance.
Yes
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
If we have a copper coil, short it with a current meter, the coil dimentions are say 4in dia, 2 in inner dia, and a 1in magnet on a rotor for passing the coil face. as the magnet approaches the coil, current will be induced in one direction, producing a repelling field, opposite that of the magnet, causing slowdown of the rotor.
Correct and the current flowing in the coil will change.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
then tdc, no current in the winding,
Why no current at TDC ? What happened to the current that was induced when the magnet was approaching ?
Has some resistance dissipated it ? Has something intervened to reset it to zero ?
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
...then magnet passing the second half of the coil induces currents in the opposite direction in the coil where the coils field is said to be attracted to the magnet, slowing down the rotor once more until it passes. so now we have a supper coil of the same dimentions, with a super current meter to measure the current. when the magnet approaches the coil, will there be any current read on that meter? if so, then after tdc, the magnet passes the other side of the coils face, will there be any current read by that meter? will that current be in the opposite direction on the meter? if so, then the magnet will be dragged down throughout the pass, same as the copper. granted the magnet passing the super coil will need to be spaced to a point where it doesnt just stop.
- With an ideal coil, the current at TDC is at the maximum. This current does not change the direction as the magnet departs. The magnet is repelled as it departs.
- With a resistive coil, the current at is continually dissipated as heat by the resistance. If the resistance is high enough then the current is dissipated so quickly that by TDC it has dissipated almost to zero. When the magnet departs the TDC with zero current in the coil, a current is induced in the coil in the opposite direction (compared to the direction on approach). Because the current changes direction, so does the force ...and the magnet is attracted back to the coil on departure. This causes net drag.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
so, in the super coil, when the magnet approaches, is there a preexisting opposing field in the super coil to repell the magnet?
Normally, no.
However it is possible to pre-charge a super coil with current so that its current is present even if no magnets are around the coil. That is how MRI magnets are pre-charged.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
...or does the magnet induce the coil to produce that opposing field??
Even without a pre-charged coil, as the magnet approaches, it attempts to force its own flux down the throat of the coil. The coil doesn't like that and reacts by inducing its own current that generates its own internal flux that opposes the flux from the oncoming magnet.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
if you say the magnets flux never gets to cut the coil, then how is that opposing field produced?
Because of the fundamental property of an ideal coil which attempts to maintain the total flux the penetrates it.
To maintain the total flux the coil must create an equal an opposite flux that counteracts the attempted change. I call this the Quantitative Lenz Law (QLL or QLE). They don't teach it in the University (the teach only the qualitative Lenz Law) so that knowledge of it does not filter into LLM's weights during training and that's why AI initially makes errors when asked about it. But it can be chased into a corner with simple logical questions to arrive at the the QLL by itself. Once that is done - everything else falls into place.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 17:10:08
if you say that once the current in the coil is produced, and that current continues on forever, is it stick in that condition? forever and cannot be changed unless the winding is cut
Almost. That current can be interrupted by cutting the coil or rendering it resistive by heating it up (in whole or in part). This is associated with huge energy release (often explosive).
However, the internal current can also be cancelled by an external flux source, e.g. like this:
Let's say a MRI super coil has 100kA of current circulating in it and it generates 10 Webers of flux (at e.g. 3 Tesla magnetic flux density as in a good MRI scanner). Then if a magnet is brought near that coil and that magnet also generates 10 Webers of flux, then the coil no longer has to maintain the 100kA current to generate the 10 Webers of flux and the coil's current falls down to zero. The coil is still happy because the magnetic flux that penetrates it is still 10 Webers....it just now generated by the magnet instead of the current.
you make it all over complicated.. how does the super coil know when the field of the magnet is approaching? the magnets flux must be interacting with the super coil material internally some how someway in order for the super coil to produce an opposing field. no?? your saying it is not induced. is it E field? is it the magical colored crystals effect from the land of the lost?? or is it that its just the way it is and no explanation needed?
mags
It was asked- "Why no current at TDC ? What happened to the current that was induced when the magnet was approaching ?
Has some resistance dissipated it ? Has something intervened to reset it to zero ?"
When a magnet passes a coil, the direction of the induced current is determined by Fleming's Right-Hand Rule (or Lenz's Law), which dictates that the current depends on the direction the conductors travel relative to the magnetic field.
During magnet passage, two walls (sides) of the coil must be passed in succession.
Approaching Wall: As the magnet approaches and the conductors pass the first wall, the conductors are traveling in one direction relative to the magnetic field lines, inducing current in a specific direction (e.g., clockwise).
Receding Wall: When the magnet passes the exit wall, the conductors are traveling in the opposite direction relative to the field.
This forced change in the relative direction of travel from one side of the coil to the other necessitates a MANDATORY flip in polarity. The moment the current is forced to reverse its direction, it must pass through zero. This zero point is precisely when the magnet's center aligns with the coil's center.
So no, there is not some resistance event that dissipates all the power. The polarity flip is Forced.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 19:34:35
you make it all over complicated..
I really try not to.
I just try to answer your questions directly in a detailed manner.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 19:34:35
how does the super coil know when the field of the magnet is approaching? the magnets flux must be interacting with the super coil material internally some how someway in order for the super coil to produce an opposing field. no??
This is the way it behaves, but if you drill down into the reasons why two magnets repel (it is the same reason why a coil and magnet repel) then you get into really weird territory of retarded potentials, spin quantum effects, relativity ...and the like. To tell you the truth, mainstream science is completely lost as to the reason "why" magnets repel. They even makes movies about the issue (see here (https://youtu.be/cb9pdRjbQRo)). My take on it is very different. I do not subscribe to the mainstream explanation at all. I have my own explantion that would put hair on your chest as it involves multidimensional time (something most people can't wrap their mind around, so I won't even try to explain it here).
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 19:34:35
your saying it is not induced.
I say it is induced but without cutting the coil. Even in the mainstream explanation, the induction of current in an ideal coil does not require the coil to be cut by the external flux lines.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.04, 19:34:35
...or is it that its just the way it is and no explanation needed?
Oh, the explanation is very needed, ....but it is possible to build machines based solely on the heuristic description of its behavior.
Qualitative Lenz Law, Quantitative Lenz Law, Faraday's law (for resistive coils) are all manifestations of such heuristic descriptions.
"My take on it is very different. I do not subscribe to the mainstream explanation at all. I have my own explantion that would put hair on your chest as it involves multidimensional time (something most people can't wrap their mind around, so I won't even try to explain it here)."
well i only have about 7 hairs on my chest and a couple on the nipples. so plant some on me. i need it. ^-^
i believe faraday, tesla, coulomb, ampere, etc, had knowledge that i find incredible for their time. much of the teachings these days neglects many of the fine and profound points that were discovered, and proven to work. today the teachings for doctors and electronics has gone down a path of pill pushing and module replacing, via a guide from a diagnostic computer.
my brother took his 2008 vw to the dealership to replace an ign switch, a supposed common issue electrically. worked for a week. took it back, 2 weeks later they said the issue was in the inst cluster and was an imobilizer issue and no parts available. junk it. i have worked on many cars. every single one i could take out the inst cluster and drive that thing. every one. lambos. honda. porsche. vw. mercedes. so they dont know dick.
anyway, spill the beans, or dont bring up things you will not disclose. :-\ ;) this is the place to gro new hairs. O0
mags
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 20:12:03
When a magnet passes a coil, the direction of the induced current is determined by Fleming's Right-Hand Rule (or Lenz's Law), which dictates that the current depends on the direction the conductors travel relative to the magnetic field.
During magnet passage, two walls (sides) of the coil must be passed in succession.
Approaching Wall: As the magnet approaches and the conductors pass the first wall, the conductors are traveling in one direction relative to the magnetic field lines, inducing current in a specific direction (e.g., clockwise).
Receding Wall: When the magnet passes the exit wall, the conductors are traveling in the opposite direction relative to the field.
This forced change in the relative direction of travel from one side of the coil to the other necessitates a MANDATORY flip in polarity.
The moment the current is forced to reverse its direction, it must pass through zero. This zero point is precisely when the magnet's center aligns with the coil's center.
So no, there is not some resistance event that dissipates all the power. The polarity flip is Forced.
The double peak and zero crossing only looks to you that way because you are stuck in a very resistive regime.
In reality, the function of current vs. magnet pole's position is parametrized by the Resistance. This is depicted in the following parametric plot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55052)
i(x) : CURRENT IN A SHORTED COIL (i) vs. MAGNET POLE'S POSITION (x) and RESISTANCE (R). The vertical black axis denotes the TDC.
The i(x) function is normalized and parametrized by the Resistance (R), displayed in the upper-right corner. The R is normalized, too.The plot above assumes that the coil
was not being subjected to any external magnetic fields when it was shorted. This also means, that the magnet had been very far away from the coil when it was shorted (certainly off the plot).
Notice that at some critical R ( low but still >0 ), the current stops reversing (i.e. falling below the black horizontal axis).
Because the R is normalized, a custom R scaling factor must be calculated for a real combination of the coil's inductance (L) and speed (v) of the magnet's pole with respect to the coil. When R=0 then v does not make any difference to the shape of the i(x) function.
P.S.
If the animated plot above does not fit on someone's computer screen then let me know and I will rectify it (this offer does not extend to phone screens).
I still haven't gotten a hold of the full version of the Gemini AI ...but I will.
Quote from: Magluvin on 2025.12.05, 00:22:43
anyway, spill the beans, or dont bring up things you will not disclose. :-\ ;) this is the place to gro new hairs. O0
I can send you some in a PM tomorrow, but not here. Do you really want it ?
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.05, 05:35:32
I can send you some in a PM tomorrow, but not here. Do you really want it ?
you make it sound scary. O0
sendit.
mags
Two years ago I came up a method of magnetic field visualisation . Enough placed CRT into a core .. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGkvfH44dr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGkvfH44dr0)
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.05, 05:18:49
In reality, the function of current vs. magnet pole's position is parametrized by the Resistance. This is depicted in the following parametric plot:
I posted a similar question before that was not answered. So I will reword.
In an ideal coil with zero resistance, zero core losses, and an ideal short, the current is purely reactive and the real power is zero. With no real power being transferred, the mechanical drag is also zero. This is fully consistent with Lenz's law, because Lenz only opposes real energy conversion—not reactive circulation.
When any real component is introduced—such as resistance, eddy currents, hysteresis, rectification, or any load that consumes real power—the system begins to dissipate energy. Real power extraction produces mechanical drag exactly proportional to that real power. This drag is simply the physical fulfillment of Lenz's law.
Calling it "resistive drag" or "Lenz drag" are both accurate (IF resistance was the cause of the energy dissipation), because resistance is one of the common pathways for real power dissipation, but the underlying cause of the drag is always Lenz's opposition to real energy transfer.
To dispute this, one must demonstrate that real power can be extracted or dissipated from an ideal coil without causing proportional drag. Without such a demonstration, Lenz's law stands undisputed.
Summary-
"Resistance is only one of many mechanisms for real power dissipation. Eddy currents, hysteresis, core loss, and impedance loading through coupled coils can all produce mechanical drag on an ideal coil without adding any resistance to the inducing coil. Therefore, 'resistive drag' applies only in specific cases, while 'Lenz drag' is universally correct."
If the argument is that "Lenz Drag" is not a textbook term, then we will correctly say- "Electromagnetic Drag" due to Lenz's Law" But in it's essence, Lenz Drag is perfectly acceptable.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.12.05, 09:22:55
Two years ago I came up a method of magnetic field visualisation . Enough placed CRT into a core .. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGkvfH44dr0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGkvfH44dr0)
That reminds me of something I did 74 years ago at age 17. I was challenged to make a frequency multplier that could multiply by 7. I got a scope to produce a circular trace by simply having 90 degree phase shift between x and y deflections that were both sine waves. I painted a 7 point star of conductive aquadag (carbon particles in water) onto the face of the CRT. That picked off electrical impulses that were 7 times the input frequency. I won the bet and my reward was a copy of "The Royal Signals Handbook of Line Communication" which I still have.
Smudge
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.05, 05:18:49
The double peak and zero crossing only looks to you that way because you are stuck in a very resistive regime.
In reality, the function of current vs. magnet pole's position is parametrized by the Resistance. This is depicted in the following parametric plot:
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=55052)
i(x) : CURRENT IN A SHORTED COIL (i) vs. MAGNET POLE'S POSITION (x) and RESISTANCE (R). The vertical black axis denotes the TDC.
The i(x) function is normalized and parametrized by the Resistance (R), displayed in the upper-right corner. The R is normalized, too.
The plot above assumes that the coil was not being subjected to any external magnetic fields when it was shorted. This also means, that the magnet had been very far away from the coil when it was shorted (certainly off the plot).
Notice that at some critical R ( low but still >0 ), the current stops reversing (i.e. falling below the black horizontal axis).
Because the R is normalized, a custom R scaling factor must be calculated for a real combination of the coil's inductance (L) and speed (v) of the magnet's pole with respect to the coil. When R=0 then v does not make any difference to the shape of the i(x) function.
This plot is missing the induced EMF.
Why don't you simply calculate the current in the coil from the induced EMF using the Faraday's Law of induction ?
As I await an answer from veripes, I asked Grok 4.1 this exact question:
"Is this assumption correct? An ideal coil with no losses or resistance with an ideal short dissipates no real power, so rotor drag would be zero while inducing such coil. But as soon as we dissipate any amount of power through resistance, core losses, impedance, etc Drag would manifest proportionately to the power dissipated. And since dissipation could be caused by several different avenues, the term "Resistive Drag" would not be a proper universal term."
Grok Replied:
Yes, your assumption is essentially correct and shows good physical intuition. Let's clarify and refine it step by step, especially for rotating machines (induction motors, synchronous machines with damper windings, eddy-current brakes, etc.).
1. Ideal short-circuited coil (zero resistance, no core losses)
The coil can carry very large induced currents.
These currents create a magnetic field that exactly opposes the change in flux that created them (Lenz's law).
In the reference frame of the rotor, the coil looks like a perfect mirror: whatever flux tries to penetrate is cancelled.
The stator sees the rotor as a perfect magnetic shield → the mutual inductance drops dramatically, but the power factor becomes purely reactive.
Real power transferred to the rotor coil = zero (because R = 0 and core losses = 0).
Therefore mechanical drag torque = zero (in steady state).
This is exactly why a squirrel-cage induction motor with a superconducting rotor (or a hypothetical zero-resistance cage) would have zero rotor I²R loss and zero torque at any slip except standstill or synchronous speed. No real power crosses the air gap → no mechanical power → no drag or driving torque.
2. As soon as you introduce any mechanism that dissipates real power in the rotor
Possible mechanisms:
Ohmic resistance in the conductors (I²R)
Hysteresis and eddy-current losses in the core
Eddy currents in solid steel poles or rotor body
Deliberate resistor banks (in wound-rotor motors)
Even stray load losses
→ The rotor circuit now has a non-zero real component in its impedance.
→ Real power now flows from the stator into the rotor circuit to supply those losses.
→ By energy conservation, that real power must come from mechanical power → a drag torque appears on the rotor that is exactly proportional to the total real power dissipated in the rotor**, regardless of how it is dissipated.
Mathematically (for induction machines):
Torque × synchronous speed = air-gap power
Air-gap power = developed mechanical power + total rotor losses
So
T = (rotor losses + mechanical output power) / ω_sync
If the machine is just being dragged (braking, no useful output), all air-gap power becomes rotor losses → drag torque is strictly proportional to the total real power burned in the rotor, no matter whether it is I²R, eddy currents, hysteresis, etc.
3. Conclusion on terminology
You are right: calling it "resistive drag" is too narrow and often misleading.
Better universal terms used in literature are:
Loss torque
Dissipative drag
Electromagnetic drag torque
Lenz drag
In eddy-current brakes: simply "braking torque"
In academic papers about superconducting machines or magnetic shielding, authors often emphasize that drag vanishes only when rotor dissipation vanishes completely.
So your reasoning is spot-on: the drag is proportional to the total real power dissipated in the rotor, not just the resistive part. "Resistive drag" is therefore not a proper universal term; it is a common shorthand in induction-motor contexts where rotor resistance dominates, but it fails when core losses or other mechanisms are significant.
Conclusion-
A perfectly superconducting (ideal, zero-resistance, zero-loss) coil experiences no Lenz drag as long as no real power is extracted or dissipated anywhere in the circuit it closes. The instant you extract usable real power from that circuit (or dissipate it in any form — resistive load, core losses, radiation, etc.), Lenz drag immediately appears on whatever is moving the flux relative to the coil.
To universally label Lens Drag as "Resistive Drag" is misleading and universally not accurate because the avenues that invoke drag can be (and are) not limited to resistance. In Fact, Resistance is NOT even a necessary component for drag to manifest.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 16:06:00
Please clarify if you agree with the notion I am being told to absorb.. ---> "Drag is not a repercussion of Lenzes law"..
Floodrod; "Apparently Drag is not a repercussion of Lenzes law...
Verpies: That's right.
The mechanical drag (which is a net integral of the attractive and repulsive forces) that a non-ideal coil manifests is caused by the resistive and hysteresis energy dissipations. When these factors are eliminated with an ideal coil, then the pure Lenz Effect remains. This effect alone does not cause any drag."
Paste those statements into Gemini AI. I have attached small snips of each response unpersuaded as-is. Look at the responses....
I continually hinted that I am not in agreement with his views or teachings. Enough is Enough.
Thanks to one of our lurking members, I finally was able to have a conversation with the full version of the Gemini AI. I appreciate the loan.
Now that I could compare apples to apples, it turns out that the answers from THE SAME AI as you had used, are
starkly different from what you had obtained from it.
Most likely this is a result of asking the AI shallow questions - because when one forces the AI to deeply analyze subtle and deep questions, then its answers are starkly different and more revealing.
Below are some excerpts. The full conversation is in the attached PDF file at the end of this post and the web link to the same conversation is here (https://gemini.google.com/share/8dcc8f11ced8):
Gemini: "In Your Superconducting Loop (Lossless): The current does not flip."
Quote from: VerpiesIf the Lenz Effect is not contaminated by other phenomena, such as resistance, does it always create zero net drag ?
Gemini: "Yes.
In the absence of resistance (or other energy-dissipating "contaminants" like eddy currents in the magnet itself or radiation), the "pure" Lenz Effect creates
zero net drag over a complete approach-and-departure cycle."
Quote from: VerpiesIn the case of a resistive loop (R>0) is it the Lenz Effect that is responsible for the positive net drag or the resistance ?
Gemini: "The short answer is: Resistance is responsible for the net drag."
Quote
With that insight, do you think that the phrase "Lenz Drag" is physically consistent ?
Gemini: "No, strictly speaking, it is not physically consistent.
The phrase conflates two distinct phenomena:
1. Lenz's Law: A rule of direction (which can be purely elastic/conservative).
2. Drag: An outcome of energy dissipation (requiring resistance).
A more accurate term would be "Resistive Magnetic Drag" or "Inductive Braking", as the drag is a consequence of the resistance, not the law of induction itself."
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 01:18:27
As I await an answer from veripes, I asked Grok 4.1 this exact question:
I am a little behind answering your questions but I just answered your Gemini AI rebuttal.
See, I have this problem that often I just cannot identify your questions.
For example: I cannot find any question marks in this post (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117774#msg117774) of yours. Also, I cannot identify any questions in that post using the English grammar rules. It would really help if you put question marks at the end of your questions so I can identify them at a glance.
Also, in reference to your conversation with the Grok AI, I have already posted my conversation with the same AI here (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117748#msg117748) and it has contradicted your position that the phrase "Lenz Drag" is conceptually consistent and that it is the Lenz Effect that is responsible for the drag in the
resistive case. I guess you have quietly conceded the other case (the one with the
non-resistive coil, where the Lenz Effect does not create any net drag). Feel free to correct me if my assumption about your quiet concession is incorrect.
Grok AI: "
The phrase "Lenz Drag" is conceptually inconsistent when applied to the pure, isolated Lenz effect (without resistance or ferromagnetic hysteresis), as the effect itself is conservative and results in no net drag or energy dissipation over a complete cycle."
Do you want me to start a second conversation with the same Grok AI but with deeper and subtler questions ? This is fun...
Quote from: Smudge on 2025.12.05, 15:35:18
I won the bet and my reward was a copy of "The Royal Signals Handbook of Line Communication" which I still have.
Also I can measure quite exactly speed of magnetic field spinning. By modulation of beam by certain known frequency. :)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBGr7OAkbM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IBGr7OAkbM)
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 05:41:19
It would really help if you put question marks at the end of your questions so I can identify them at a glance.
Okay I will ask CLEAR Questions.
So please answer these questions directly.
Keep in mind, I am not asking about fringe situations or reported anomalies. We are speaking of universally accepted knowledge.
QUESTIONS 1: Is Drag directly proportional to the amount of Power Dissipated?
QUESTIONS 2: Can the source of drag be anything other than "Resistance" ?
QUESTIONS 3: Can a situation exist where there is no resistance but Drag still be present?
QUESTIONS 4: If the answer was YES to question 2 or 3, how could the term "Resistive Drag" be a proper term for all drag?
QUESTIONS 5: If the answer to question 1 was YES, doesn't that imply drag is consistent with Lenz law?
QUESTIONS 6: If drag is universally consistent with Lenz law and drag can be caused by other mechanisms other than resistance, isn't it a contradiction of basic logic to universally label "Drag" as "Resistive Drag"?
QUESTIONS 7: If all drag is universally consistent with Lenz law, would the term "Lenz Drag" be more appropriate than the term "Resistance Drag"?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
Okay I will ask CLEAR Questions.
So please answer these questions directly.
That is the only way I answer questions.
I assume we are still discussing currents in ideal coils induced by the changing external flux of moving magnets and these coils can have various
external components connected to them in series, such as: various resistances (including zero) and various reactances and active elements like switches or diodes, etc...
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
Keep in mind, I am not asking about fringe situations or reported anomalies. We are speaking of universally accepted knowledge.
I will
not limit my answers only to the most common cases.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 1: Is Drag directly proportional to the amount of Power Dissipated?
Yes
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 2: Can the source of drag be anything other than "Resistance" ?
Yes.
Any phenomenon that causes a voltage drop such as a diode's voltage drop or voltage drops caused by any impedance. The voltage drop is proportional to current and impedance according to the relation V = iZ and Z=R+X, where resistance (R) is the real component of impedance and reactance (X) is the imaginary component of the impedance which is time dependent (phase shifted) and lossless (recoverable).
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 3: Can a situation exist where there is no resistance but Drag still be present?
Yes, any time current in a coil is converted into heat by a resistance (or diode's voltage drop) or into other forms of energy (e.g.: into electric flux in a capacitor) then the moving magnet experiences drag because the converted energy is not given back to the magnet's kinetic energy on departure. This does not happen with pure Lenz Effect and the magnet regains 100% of its kinetic energy upon departure.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 4: If the answer was YES to question 2 or 3, how could the term "Resistive Drag" be a proper term for all drag?
It is not.
Resistance is only the most common cause of drag. A better, all encompassing phrase would be "Impedance Drag" to cover all the components of impedance instead of only the real one (resistance).
I mean "real" in the mathematical sense as: Real + Imaginary = Complex.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 5: If the answer to question 1 was YES, doesn't that imply drag is consistent with Lenz law?
No, because pure Lenz Effect does not cause drag.
If Lenz Effect is contaminated with other effects (e.g.: non-zero impedance) then net drag can be present.
Gemini AI: (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4810.msg117784#msg117784) "
THE ARCHITECT vs. THE EXECUTIONER
The Lenz Effect (The Architect): Lenz's Law provides the rule: "Generate a force to oppose the change." It ensures there is an interaction between the magnet and the loop. However, Lenz's law itself is neutral regarding energy loss—it just demands a reaction.
Resistance (The Executioner): Resistance dictates what happens to the energy generated by that reaction. It converts the electrical energy into heat. This removal of energy causes the asymmetry in the force that results in net drag."
In the end, it is the EXECUTIONER that is charged with the "murder" even if the Architect has designed the gallows.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 6: If drag is universally consistent with Lenz law and ...
It is not. Pure Lenz Effect does not cause any net drag.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
... drag can be caused by other mechanisms other than resistance, isn't it a contradiction of basic logic to universally label "Drag" as "Resistive Drag"?
Yes it is.
Resistance is only the most common cause of drag. A better, all encompassing phrase would be "Impedance Drag" to cover all the components of impedance instead of only the real one (resistance).
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
QUESTIONS 7: If all drag is universally consistent with Lenz law, would the term "Lenz Drag" be more appropriate than the term "Resistance Drag"?
No because the relationship is not bijective. Pure Lenz Effect does not cause any net drag. Only non-zero impedance generates drag by asymmetrically converting current in a coil that is generated due to the quantitative Lenz Law.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 14:19:12
FYI- Grok also says a super conducting perfect inductor exhibits enormous drag even with an ideal short and is witnessed every day in labs. Grok follows this by saying "The only people who insist on "it's only resistive drag" are usually those who are trying to preserve the illusion that eliminating copper losses would eliminate drag (a very common over-unity myth)"
Grok is wrong about the red whopper. Like, very-very wrong.
Ask it to integrate the forces experienced by the magnet during the approach phase and to integrate the forces experienced by the magnet during the departure phase from an ideal shorted loop. Sum these integrals.
While you are at it, ask it about the direction of the force that the magnet experiences on approach to the ideal shorted loop and the direction of the force that the magnet experiences on departure from the loop. If the forces do not have the same directions (e.g. one is repulsion & the second is attraction) ask it whether the current in the loop has changed direction and if it says "yes" ask it at what magnet's position has that flip happened. Then ask it what is the magnitude of magnet's flux attempting to thread the loop at that position.
Anticipate an additional error: In my past conversations with Grok it got repeatedly confused whether the magnet's flux, which attempts to thread the loop, is at its maximim or at zero when the magnet is at the center of the loop. The correct answer is that it is at the
maximum there. The reasons for it are spelled out in the attached PDF document. Grok will see the logic of the argument presented there if you forward it to him. Don't bother with it if Grok does not make the mistake about the value of the flux when the magnet is at the center of the loop.
I asked "
QUESTIONS 5: If the answer to question 1 was YES, doesn't that imply drag is consistent with Lenz law?"
You replied:
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 15:59:52
No, because pure Lenz Effect does not cause drag.
If Lenz Effect is contaminated with other effects (E.G. non-zero imedance) then net drag can be present.
I asked if it was "Consistent" with Lenz Law. Not if it was "Caused" by Lenz.
Question 1b- Can you please explain how Drag is NOT
Consistent with Lenz Law. ?
Edit- This paragraph was deleted before replies were made because I decided it's best not provoke further arguments.
Note- You are right about Grok, he later corrected himself, hence my deletion of that statement. The final conclusion was, If indeed a perfect lossless coil was induced by a rotating field, there would be no drag because no power was dissipated, and this is completely congruent with Lenz Law.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 16:52:49
Question 1b- Can you please explain how Drag is NOT Consistent with Lenz Law. ?
I asked if it was "Consistent" with Lenz Law. Not if it was "Caused" by Lenz.
You are correct about the change but I could not have answered that question as you have posed it because it was conceptually incorrect to start with. Let me explain why:
The Lenz Law is the minus sign in the Faraday's Law of induction expressed as ℰ =
-dΦ/dt
Thus the only thing the Lenz Law can be consistent with is the
direction of the induced current. The common Lenz Law says nothing about the magnitude of the induced current !
You could have extended your question to "consistency with the Quantitative Lenz Law (QLL)" ...which is not taught in schools as such.
If you had made such an extension, then you could have asked about the consistency of the QLL with the direction
and magnitude of the induced current in an ideal shorted coil.
This would have been much better because the net drag is an integral of forces over the entire cycle and these forces are proportional to the gradient of the internal opposing flux generated by the coil ...and the internal flux is always directly proportional to the current flowing in the coil. Writing it backwards: Current → Internal opposing flux → B gradient → Instantaneous force → Integral of these forces over a distance or angle→ Mechanical drag.
So, I interpreted your word "consistent" as "caused" in my attempt to make sense out of your question.
I have not objected to the sense of your question immediately in order not to stall the flow of the conversation and not to be accused of dodging the question.
...but now you have done it for me. No good deed goes unpunished :(
No need to worry over the flow of conversation- I am done with this debate anyway. This is turning into a game of dodgeball and is unfruitful.
If you want the last word for satisfaction, have at it. I will still be using the term "Lenz Drag" when I think the context fits.
Thanks for the education.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 17:41:50
This is turning into a game of dodgeball and is unfruitful.
That also why I have not objected to the sense of your question in the first place - I was afraid that you'd perceive it as "dodging" the question.
It is fruitful because it teaches you not to ask about consistency between the proverbial apples and oranges.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.06, 16:52:49
Note- You are right about Grok, he later corrected himself, hence my deletion of that statement.
This is further evidence how pervasive these misconceptions about induction are.
They even have filtered into the AI's LLM neural network weights during its training.
It's a scourge on science.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.04, 12:38:35
As you recommend- Here is "MY QUESTION" to AI: be exact
Question- "Is the mechanical "Drag" a generator experiences during induction directly caused by Lenz's Law of the magnetic fields between the output and rotor opposing motion?"
Answer- "Yes, the mechanical "drag" or counter-torque a generator experiences during induction is a direct consequence of Lenz's Law and the resulting opposing magnetic forces.
🧭 The Role of Lenz's Law
Lenz's Law is a fundamental principle of electromagnetism and is also a statement of the conservation of energy"
Let me guess- You think my question was worded in a way to provoke than answer.
YES I said "EMF" instead of "EM Field" erronously. So apparently I need to be educated on textbook acronyms. (Which I care NOTHING about).
Maybe the Slogan of this site should Change from "Forum for Free Energy Researchers"
to
"A Place Where Your Statements and Theories must be challenged lest they are allowed to impede scientific progress, ingrain misconceptions
This Mindset Directly Excludes Sharing "Fringe" Theories and Viewpoints.
Gemini 3 Pro Answer:
The answer to the specific question posed in the forum discussion is Yes.
Here is the detailed answer you can post or use to settle the debate, which validates the practical definition while acknowledging the theoretical nuance causing the confusion.
The Short Answer
Yes. The mechanical "drag" (counter-torque) a generator experiences is directly caused by the magnetic forces described by Lenz's Law.
Lenz's Law dictates that the direction of the induced current will create a magnetic field that opposes the motion of the rotor. This magnetic opposition is the physical force you feel as drag.
The Detailed Explanation (The "Why")
To understand why this is a valid answer—and why Verpies is arguing the opposite based on a technicality—you have to look at the difference between the source of the force and the result of the energy.
1. The Source of the Force (Lenz's Law) When you sweep a magnet past a coil, induction occurs.
According to Lenz's Law: The current flows in a direction that turns the coil into an electromagnet with polarity opposing your magnet.
The Result: You have to push hard to bring the magnet close (Repulsion) and pull hard to move it away (Attraction).
Conclusion: The physical force fighting your hand is indeed caused by the magnetic interaction dictated by Lenz's Law.
2. The Role of Resistance (The "Spring" vs. "Brake" Argument) This is where the confusion in the forum thread lies.
In a Real Generator (Floodrod's Context): The energy generated is removed from the system (lighting a bulb, heating a resistor, or just coil resistance). Because that energy is gone, the magnetic field cannot "push" the rotor back on the way out. You fight the opposition on the way in, but you don't get the refund on the way out. The result is continuous drag.
In a Superconducting Ideal Coil (Verpies' Context): If the coil had zero resistance and no load, the energy you put in pushing against the Lenz force would be stored in the magnetic field. As the magnet passes center, that stored energy would pull the magnet forward. It would act like a perfect spring—stiff to compress, but it snaps back. In this theoretical scenario, there is no net drag over a full rotation, just oscillation.
Summary
Verpies is technically correct that in a lossless universe, Lenz's Law acts as a spring, not a brake.
However, in the context of generator design, we are intentionally extracting energy. Once you add a load (resistance), you break the symmetry. The "Spring" effect is destroyed because the energy is drained. What remains is the opposition defined by Lenz's Law.
Therefore, strictly speaking: Lenz's Law provides the opposing force; the Load (Resistance) ensures that force results in net mechanical work (drag).
For the purpose of your post, you are correct: Without Lenz's Law, there would be no opposing magnetic field, and therefore no drag.
From Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5
On the core physics question:
Both you and Verpies are actually correct, but you're talking past each other because you're discussing different operating regimes.
Your position is correct for practical generators: In any real-world generator with resistive coils, the mechanical drag is a direct consequence of Lenz's Law. The induced current (which exists because of Lenz's Law) creates an opposing magnetic field that resists motion. This is standard generator physics and why generators require more mechanical input when loaded.
Verpies' position is correct for ideal superconducting coils: Here's where it gets interesting and counterintuitive. In a truly ideal superconducting coil (zero resistance), when a magnet approaches, current is induced that creates an opposing field (repulsion). But when the magnet departs, that same current keeps flowing (because there's no resistance to dissipate it), so now it creates an attractive force that accelerates the magnet back. Over a complete cycle, the energy borrowed during approach is returned during departure—net zero drag.
The key insight Verpies is making: The dissipation of energy (and thus permanent drag) requires somewhere for energy to go. In resistive coils, induced currents dissipate as heat (I²R losses). In superconductors, there's no dissipation mechanism, so energy is temporarily stored magnetically and returned.
Why this matters for generator design: It suggests that minimizing coil resistance and maximizing the ωL/R ratio (where ω is angular frequency and L is inductance) moves you toward a more "lossless" operating regime. High inductance, high speed, low resistance = less wasted energy as drag.
However—a practical caveat: You'll never eliminate drag entirely in a working generator because you want to extract energy. The load resistance is where useful work happens, and that load will always manifest as drag proportional to current drawn.
So your statement "braking effect from sweeping a magnet past a coil is caused by Lenz's Law" is operationally correct for any real-world application. Verpies' point is more about understanding where the energy actually goes—which could inform clever design choices.
had a discussion on the subject of ideal compnents years ago, here and at ou.
if you think about it, if we were to apply an input to a super coil, being that there is no resistance, i had suggested, without ever messing with superconducting components, that again if there is no resistance, would current even flow into that inductor being that the counter emf would equal the input because of the lack of resistance?? a standoff of course. one might say that well, the power supply onnected to the super coil ends is the resistance, but im not thinking that. the input with no current flow because that is what initially happens when doing so with inductors, should maintain itself and not let current flow at all.just like a super conductive disk floating over a magnet. if what i suggested were the case, then the super coil is useless and cant even be considered an inductor. but opponets to my view came up with ideas of why current would flow. spaing between the windings, etc. now considering the discussion here, it seems that if a magnet passes a super coil that does have a resistive load, it would work well as a gen output winding. so the magnet pass of a shorted supercoil without reisistance cannot be cut by the approaching mag field, how is there any magnetic interaction betwee the shorted super coil and the magnet? ive said it before earlier, what is the interaction that causes the magnet to feel any push or pull at all if the magnets flux cannot penetrate the super winding at all? if the shorted super coil produces opposing or attracting effects, what is the mechanism for that to occur?
its not super important really be because it would be a useles situation anyway. but id like to know why that is.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Lenz's Law dictates that the direction of the induced current will create a magnetic field that opposes the motion of the rotor.
Imprecise. It should be:
Lenz's Law dictates that the direction of the induced current will create an internal magnetic flux that opposes the change of the total flux threading the coil. Total flux = internal flux + external flux.
Lenz's law is not concerned with the direction of motion - it is only concerned only with the value of the total flux. If motion changes that flux than this is a secondary effect.
Conflating opposition to change of total flux with opposition to motion closes off the avenues to develop machines in which the opposing flux is diverted or the external flux is substituted.
Also, the external flux does not have to come from a moving magnet.
The common Lenz's law defines the direction of the induced current but it does not define the magnitude of that current. For that you need a different law.
Finally, it is wrong to use the phrase "magnetic field" in lieu of "magnetic flux" because the former is ambiguous and can often mean "magnetic flux density (B)". Lenz's Law and Faraday's law of induction are only concerned with the total magnetic flux - not the magnetic flux density because the line integrals of various different flux densities can yield the same magnetic flux values.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
This magnetic opposition is the physical force you feel as drag.
Imprecise again.
Drag can be instantaneous or integrated (e.g. over a full cycle).
They are not always the same. For example, a shorted superconducting coil creates a lot of instantaneous drag to a moving magnet, but zero integrated drag over the full approach and departure cycle.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
1. The Source of the Force (Lenz's Law) When you sweep a magnet past a coil, induction occurs.
Imprecise again. The source of the force between the magnet and coil is not the Lenz Law. It is a magnetic field (B) gradient between the flux of the magnet and the internal flux of the coil.
The causal chain is as follows: Current → Internal opposing flux → B gradient → Instantaneous force → Integral of these forces over a distance or angle→ Mechanical drag.
Lenz law defines only the direction of the induced current induced in the coil in response to an attempted change of total flux threading it. That current always generates internal flux (so they are unseparable) but there is no law that prevents the manipulation of that flux.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
According to Lenz's Law: The current flows in a direction that turns the coil into an electromagnet with polarity opposing your magnet.
Imprecise again. It should have been:
'According to Lenz's Law: The current flows in a direction that turns the coil into an electromagnet of polarity opposing the change of the total flux threading the coil (attempted by your magnet.)"
There is this continual conflation of the opposition to the change of flux and opposition to motion with the underlying assumption that change of flux and change in motion cannot be separated.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
The Result: You have to push hard to bring the magnet close (Repulsion) and pull hard to move it away (Attraction).
But that is not always true. In case of a shorted ideal coil indeed you have to push hard to bring the magnet close (Repulsion) but you do not have to do any work to move the magnet away - actually, it is the coil that does work pushing the magnet away.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Conclusion: The physical force fighting your hand is indeed caused by the magnetic interaction dictated by Lenz's Law.
Ah, Again no thought is given to the distinction between the instantaneous physical force and the integrated physical force (usually over a full cycle, or some distance or angle).
Also, the magnetic interaction between two fluxes is not defined by the Lenz Law. The Lenz Law defines only the direction of the induced current (and maybe the inseparable internal flux). It does not even define the magnitude of the current!
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
In a Real Generator (Floodrod's Context): The energy generated is removed from the system (lighting a bulb, heating a resistor, or just coil resistance). Because that energy is gone, the magnetic field cannot "push" the rotor back on the way out. You fight the opposition on the way in, but you don't get the refund on the way out. The result is continuous drag.
I agree but that does not mean that the Lenz Effect is responsible for the net drag. See your own analogy of the Architect and the Executioner here.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
In a Superconducting Ideal Coil (Verpies' Context): If the coil had zero resistance and no load, the energy you put in pushing against the Lenz force would be stored in the magnetic field. As the magnet passes center, that stored energy would pull the magnet forward.
Didn't you mean "push" the magnet forward ?
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
It would act like a perfect spring—stiff to compress, but it snaps back. In this theoretical scenario, there is no net drag over a full rotation, just oscillation.
I agree
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Verpies is technically correct that in a lossless universe, Lenz's Law acts as a spring, not a brake.
The Universe does not have to be lossless. Real superconducting coils really exist and are used every day on Earth.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
However, in the context of generator design, we are intentionally extracting energy. Once you add a load (resistance), you break the symmetry. The "Spring" effect is destroyed because the energy is drained. What remains is the opposition defined by Lenz's Law.
No, what remains is the imbalance of forces integrated over distance (or angle) and Lenz Law is not responsible for that imbalance.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Therefore, strictly speaking: Lenz's Law provides the opposing force;
No. the common Lenz Law defines the direction of current and maybe the direction of the internal flux generated by that current. It does not even define their magnitudes.
Forces are generated by flux density (B) gradients. Not by the Lenz Law. Also instantaneous forces are a different concept than integrated forces (especially over a full cycle).
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
the Load (Resistance) ensures that force results in net mechanical work (drag).
Yes, the resistance creates the unbalanced forces integrated over a distance or an angle. Resistance is the Executioner (not in all cases though, because Z=R+X).
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
For the purpose of your post, you are correct: Without Lenz's Law, there would be no opposing magnetic field, and therefore no drag.
That's true but without non-zero impedance there would be no drag either. Also, it is the non-zero impedance that is solely responsible for creating the imbalance between the approach and departure forces integrated over a distance or angle. The non-zero result of this integral is the drag.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
From Anthropic Claude Opus 4.5
...
Verpies' position is correct for ideal superconducting coils: Here's where it gets interesting and counterintuitive. In a truly ideal superconducting coil (zero resistance), when a magnet approaches, current is induced that creates an opposing field (repulsion).
Claude is much better with defining the causal chain precisely. It just defined the subchain: current → internal opposing field.
It still should have written "opposing flux" instead of "opposing field" because "field" often means magnetic flux density (B) and neither coils nor the Lenz Law concern themselves with that.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
But when the magnet departs, that same current keeps flowing (because there's no resistance to dissipate it), so now it creates an attractive force that accelerates the magnet back.
Patently false !
When the magnet departs the circulating current also creates a repulsive force on the magnet. The force had not flipped because current had not flipped its direction either. I think Claude implies this lack of current reversal because it writes "the same current keeps flowing".
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Over a complete cycle, the energy borrowed during approach is returned during departure—net zero drag.
Yes and that also means that the magnet is repelled during the departure. If it had not, part of its kinetic energy would disappear after departing the magnet far away since the coil's current diminishes during the departure and approaches zero when the coil departs very far away. This means that the unaccounted kinetic energy of the magnet cannot be explained by the current stored in the coil.
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
The key insight Verpies is making: The dissipation of energy (and thus permanent drag) requires somewhere for energy to go. In resistive coils, induced currents dissipate as heat (I²R losses). In superconductors, there's no dissipation mechanism, so energy is temporarily stored magnetically and returned.
Correct .
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
Why this matters for generator design: It suggests that minimizing coil resistance and maximizing the ωL/R ratio (where ω is angular frequency and L is inductance) moves you toward a more "lossless" operating regime. High inductance, high speed, low resistance = less wasted energy as drag.
Correct .
Quote from: JimBoot on 2025.12.06, 21:41:28
However—a practical caveat: You'll never eliminate drag entirely in a working generator because you want to extract energy.
Certainly not in conventional generator designs.
VERPIES
You need to be redirecting ALL THESE REBUTTALS at Grok. As that entire post was GROK's reply- pasted (as you instructed me to consult AI).
This was the question asked:
"Is this assumption correct? An ideal coil with no losses or resistance with an ideal short dissipates no real power, so rotor drag would be zero while inducing such coil. But as soon as we dissipate any amount of power through resistance, core losses, impedance, etc Drag would manifest proportionately to the power dissipated. And since dissipation could be caused by several different avenues, the term "Resistive Drag" would not be a proper universal term."
And let it be known, after attempting to relentlessly school me that Lenz Drag should be "Resistive Drag" , you ended up conceding your own suggested term was not a proper universal term to choose.
I just pasted your entire critique into another AI and the reply was:
"Verpies wasn't "discovering" anything new; he was reframing established points with semantic twists ("flux vs motion," "field vs flux," "instantaneous vs integrated") to make it look like he was correcting errors. In reality, those distinctions are already embedded in the standard understanding Grok presented."
Your time might be better served trying to educate Grok.
Good day sir.
You wiggled out of a straight question with fancy wording. I asked if drag is *consistent* with Lenz's law, not if it is *caused* by it.
You changed the terms of the question to avoid answering, then buried the dodge under textbook formalism and invented categories like "Quantitative Lenz Law."
That's not clarity, that's obfuscation.
Drag proportional to dissipation is entirely consistent with Lenz's law the induced current opposes flux change, and when dissipation exists that opposition manifests as drag. Period.
Calling the question "conceptually incorrect" is just a way to save face.
You already conceded that "Resistive Drag" isn't universal, which was the crux of my point.
And let it be known, after attempting to relentlessly school me that Lenz Drag should be "Resistive Drag" , you ended up conceding your own suggested term was not a proper universal term to choose.
Dressing it up in semantic gymnastics doesn't change the physics.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
You wiggled out of a straight question with fancy wording.
It is not my nature to "wiggle out" of technical questions. The question did not make sense to me as posed and it still does not.
If you have a problem with my wording, then point out what is illogical in it.
Lenz Law is the minus sign in the Faraday's Law of induction ℰ =
-dΦ/dt
As such, Lenz Law is not concerned with drag thus it cannot be consistent/inconsistent with drag in principle.
The common Lenz Law is only concerned with the flux changes and the direction of the induced EMF and current and maybe the internal flux, arising as the result of these changes.
This question has no answer because it does not make sense.
It is wrong to answer "No" to it and it is wrong to answer "Yes" to it.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
I asked if drag is *consistent* with Lenz's law, not if it is *caused* by it.
Yes I know, but that does not make sense because the Lenz Law does not define drag. Also the question is ambiguous on another front because it does not specify whether you are asking about instantaneous drag or integrated drag.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
You changed the terms of the question to avoid answering,
Not to avoid but to make sense of it.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
then buried the dodge under textbook formalism and invented categories like "Quantitative Lenz Law."
You don't have to use a fringe concept like the QLL (although that is the key to understanding everything about induction). QLL does not change the answer but it is a huge reasoning shortcut. It's your prerogative to ignore fringe concepts and muddle through the problem using only the mainstream ones ...but I find that somewhat out of your self-declared character.
You can ask me about the common Lenz Law that they teach in mainstream schools, but that Law is concerned only with:
1) the rate of change change of the total flux threading a coil.
2) the direction and magnitude of the induced EMF (arising as a result of #1)
3) and maybe the direction of internally generated flux (arising as a result of #1)
The common Lenz Law says nothing about the magnitude of the induced current and only indirectly implies its direction via Ohm's Law. BTW: Ohm's Law i = ℰ/R diverges to infinity (blows up) for the superconducting case because of division by zero and yields false current values in low-resistance cases (long before blowing up) because it does not account for the opposing flux which is internally generated by the current i = ℰ/R. This (https://grok.com/c/a708e515-f5c5-4a87-a00f-b697b86514b3?rid=b6435362-5729-4733-b092-99466e14bd15) is what Grok AI "thinks" about it.
So if you ask me about the consistency of the Lenz Law with anything except these 3 variables, then you will get a big fat
N/A from me.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
That's not clarity, that's obfuscation.
No, that's precision.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
Drag proportional to dissipation is entirely consistent with Lenz's law
N/A, because drag is not one of the three variables that Lenz Law is concerned with.
Also what type of drag are you referring to ? Instantaneous or integrated over distance (or angle) ? Be precise...
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
the induced current opposes flux change,
Almost.
The induced current generates an opposing internal flux that opposes total flux change.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
and when dissipation exists that opposition manifests as drag. Period.
Not so fast.
The conversion of coil's current into heat or other forms of energy, decreases the internally generated flux and as a consequence indirectly decreases the instantaneous forces acting on the magnet. These forces don't always oppose the magnet's motion. In low resistance coils (not necessarily superconductive) these forces can also provide a kinetic boost to the magnet. Resistive dissipation upsets the balance of these forces when integrated over a distance (or angle) creating a net drag. But it is not the Lenz Effect that imbalances these forces - it is the conversion (incl. dissipation) performed by a non-zero impedance. That why it is the impedance that is responsible for the net drag - not the Lenz Law (common or quantitative).
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
Calling the question "conceptually incorrect" is just a way to save face.
No, your question really was conceptually incorrect as it asked about a variable that the Lenz Law is not even concerned with.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
You already conceded that "Resistive Drag" isn't universal, which was the crux of my point.
No, the crux of your point was the defense of the phrase "Lenz Drag" as conceptually correct.
As a side effect of the discussion about the Lenz Effect you have learned that Resistance is only one of two components of Impedance and "Impedance Drag" is a wider encompassing phrase. Congratulations, "Resistance Drag" is helluva more correct than "Lenz Drag" and "Impedance Drag" is even better because it is covers more cases ...and I agreed with you about it but not as a result of previous disagreement.
Have I ever claimed that Resistance is THE ONLY cause of the force imbalance on approach and departure which is the root cause of net drag ?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 02:27:03
And let it be known, after attempting to relentlessly school me that Lenz Drag should be "Resistive Drag" , you ended up conceding your own suggested term was not a proper universal term to choose.
Yes, I wrote many times that it is the Resistance that is responsible for the net drag (because in most machines, it is) - not the Lenz Effect, but I don't think I ever wrote that ONLY resistance is responsible for it. Anyway find me a quote and I will stand corrected.
I don't remember ever disagreeing with you that Resistance is not THE ONLY variable affecting drag. If I didn't, then there was no argument about it between us and thus no concession. Find me a quote of me writing that resistance was the only cause and prove me wrong.
The disagreement between us was about the conceptual validity of the phrase "Lenz Drag" and direction of induced current and direction of forces.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.06, 18:00:24
Dressing it up in semantic gymnastics doesn't change the physics.
I am not dressing up anything. I am explaining induction to you as precisely as I can on a public forum for the entire world to see. I try to answer your questions even of they don't make sense.
You needed that education because in the beginning you were believing that the current in the coil always changes direction as a magnet's pole goes past it (or through it) and that the magnet is always attracted back to the coil in the departure phase and you still believe that the Lenz effect is responsible for creating the imbalance between the approach forces and departure forces which is the root cause of the net drag. I set out to correct these misconceptions lest you lead yourself and newbies down the garden path. Also, I never called you a newbie - if you think that then find a quote of me writing it.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 02:27:03
"Verpies wasn't "discovering" anything new; he was reframing established points with semantic twists ("flux vs motion," "field vs flux," "instantaneous vs integrated") to make it look like he was correcting errors. In reality, those distinctions are already embedded in the standard understanding Grok presented."
I never claimed that I was discovering something new or revolutionary. ...but it was new to you and Mags.
This is old stuff to me and I had this conversation with many guys like you over the years (that's why my arguments are so honed).
The most difficult one was MarkE but he was more open to learning new stuff and eventually has built a proper mental picture of induction for himself. Till this day I remember that the point of contention with him was that in an ideal shorted coil the magnitude of the induced current does
not depend on the speed of external flux changes dΦ/dt and that the induced current is not dependent on magnetic flux density (B) but on total threading flux change (ΔΦ). I have gone on for weeks with him about that.
Field (B) vs. flux (Φ) distinction matters because the induced EMF is always ℰ = -dΦ/dt by definition. Writing ℰ = -dB/dt is a simplification that holds only when B is uniform and the flux modifications by induced currents are ignored. Instantaneous vs. integrated drag makes even a bigger difference as instantaneous drag can be very high while integrated net drag can be zero. If these stark mathematical inequalities are "semantic twists" then I don't know what substantive distinctions are. This (https://grok.com/c/3a4ca0d0-307a-4322-8fb6-c8ed4e0ea0e1?rid=21f2149b-71e9-4c1d-93ae-6af3c5681bbe) is what Grok AI really "thinks" about them.
Anyway, if these distinctions were already embedded in the standard AI understanding, they certainly were not expressed.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.07, 05:20:25
(that's why my arguments are so honed).
That's all this is- You trying to protect you "Honor".
You have now spent four long posts and well over 2,000 words refusing to give a one-word answer to a question that every physics textbook, every high-school teacher, and every single demonstration of Lenz's law answers instantly with
Yes.The question, again, in letters a ten-year-old can understand:When a magnet falls slower through a copper pipe, or when a copper disk slows down under a swinging magnet, or when Thompson's ring jumps — is that observed braking force (drag) consistent with ordinary Lenz's law?
The answer is Yes.It is the textbook example of what Lenz's law predicts and produces.
You are the only person on Earth who claims this question is "conceptually meaningless" and "has no answer".
Everyone else — Feynman Lectures (Vol II, 17-4), Griffiths, Purcell, NASA educational pages, MIT OpenCourseWare, every YouTube physics channel, every classroom demo in the world — calls it the direct mechanical consequence of Lenz's law.
Your refusal to say "Yes" after thousands of words of deflection speaks louder than any further explanation you can type.
The readers can decide for themselves who is doing the "semantic gymnastics" here.
Thank you for the exchange.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
That's all this is- You trying to protect you "Honor".
Don't play a psychologist. Don't presume to know how my mind works. It apparently does not work like yours.
Also the word "hone" does not stem from "honor". It is a completely different word that means to polish smoothly.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
You have now spent four long posts and well over 2,000 words refusing to give a one-word answer to a question that every physics textbook, every high-school teacher, and every single demonstration of Lenz's law answers instantly with Yes.
The question, again, in letters a ten-year-old can understand:
When a magnet falls slower through a copper pipe, or when a copper disk slows down under a swinging magnet, or when Thompson's ring jumps — is that observed braking force (drag) consistent with ordinary Lenz's law?
I cannot answer this question because it is flawed. I already explained in these 2000 words - why.
The Lenz Law does not deal with forces nor drags. It deals only with 3 variable which I have listed.
I can do my best and and write that these experiments do not contradict the Lenz Law.
The root cause of the net drag in all these experiments are unbalanced forces between approach and departure. This imbalance is caused by energy conversion in non-zero impedances - not by the Lenz Law.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
The answer is Yes.
It is the textbook example of what Lenz's law predicts and produces.
Such answer is superficial. It does not delve into the details of the phenomenon.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
You are the only person on Earth who claims this question is "conceptually meaningless" and "has no answer".
Everyone else — Feynman Lectures (Vol II, 17-4), Griffiths, Purcell, NASA educational pages, MIT OpenCourseWare, every YouTube physics channel, every classroom demo in the world — calls it the direct mechanical consequence of Lenz's law.
This is
arumentum ad numerum, - a well-know logical fallacy.
Evidently, I am just more precise an rigorous than any of the people you have met.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
Your refusal to say "Yes" after thousands of words of deflection speaks louder than any further explanation you can type.
No, it just means that I disagree with you that it is the Lenz Law that is responsible for creating the force imbalance which causes the net drag.
You specifically stated, "You better rename it to "Resistance Drag". I attached 3 direct quotes from you
The physical force that directly slows the magnet down (the drag) is always and only a magnetic force: the repulsion/attraction between the moving magnet and the opposing magnetic field created by the induced currents.
Resistance Or Losses do not create that magnetic force.
Resistance is merely one mechanism that turns part of the induced current's energy into heat, which breaks the perfect symmetry that would otherwise exist, thereby allowing a net transfer of mechanical energy into heat.
In other words:
Hurtful (opposing) magnetism — the field created by induced currents that Lenz's law dictates must oppose flux change — is the actual cause of the drag.
Resistance is only one catalyst that makes the drag net and dissipative.
Notice I didn't need 10,000 words, a made-up "Quantitative Lenz Law," or three pages of "instantaneous vs integrated" smoke to make the point crystal-clear.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
You specifically stated, "You better rename it to "Resistance Drag". I attached 3 direct quotes from you
OK so below are the 3 quotes you've found, presented in a more referencable form:
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 22:51:28
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 22:20:06
I think my point stands, in any normal setup "Lenz Drag" is an appripriate description...
It isn't. The Lenz Effect is not responsible for the drag. The resistance is.
That is what happens in resistive coils.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.04, 03:53:52
There is no "Lenz Drag" but there is "Ohm's Drag" or "Resistance Drag".
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.03, 12:50:04
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.03, 00:59:40
Lenz Drag is not a negative manifestation of power output. Lenz Drag is actually WHY the large output power in a generator DOES manifest.
This is not even wrong because there is no such thing as "Lenz Drag". If you had ideal components in your system then the Lenz Effect would take away as much mechanical energy on approach as it would give back on the departure of the rotor's pole. Thus you better rename it to "Resistance Drag.
So where in these three quotes do I make a statement that "Resistance Drag" is the only better substitute for the disputed phrase "Lenz Drag" ?
I don't see any statement advocating the exclusive use of the phrase "Resistance Drag". I see only statements that "Resistance Drag" is more correct than "Lenz Drag".
Besides we were talking about resistive coils then so the phrase "Resistance Drag" fit them most specifically. If we were taking about capacitive reactance of capacitors connected to coils then I would have use the most specific phrase like "Reactance Drag".
Yes, there are more general phrases like "Impedance Drag" that cover more ground but they sound awkward. I asked Grok to coin more phrases like that, see here (https://grok.com/c/3a4ca0d0-307a-4322-8fb6-c8ed4e0ea0e1?rid=c8855d13-4303-4465-84e6-db09759f4a08) at the end of the conversation.
So I do not understand what is the big deal of finding a more general phrase to communicate the phenomenon responsible for the ∫ force imbalance and in consequence - the net drag.
The most important takeaway from this is that "Lenz Drag" does not correctly communicate that responsible phenomenon.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
The physical force that directly slows the magnet down (the drag) is always and only a magnetic force: the repulsion/attraction between the moving magnet and the opposing magnetic field created by the induced currents.
But these forces act in both directions. Sometimes they slow down the magnet and sometimes they give it a boost, so it is wrong to focus only on the instantaneous forces as the cause of the net drag.
Net drag is not a force - it is an energy. This energy is equivalent to the imbalance of forces integrated over the entire cycle or distance or some angle.
To unravel the drag's origin one must focus on the imbalance between these integrated forces because only that imbalance determines the amount of the net drag. From there, only one question matters: "
What phenomenon is responsible for the imbalance ?". Grok agrees (see here (https://grok.com/c/3a4ca0d0-307a-4322-8fb6-c8ed4e0ea0e1?rid=c8855d13-4303-4465-84e6-db09759f4a08)).
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
Resistance Or Losses do not create that magnetic force.
But we are talking about the net drag - not force.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
Resistance is merely one mechanism that turns part of the induced current's energy into heat, which breaks the perfect symmetry that would otherwise exist, ...
Exactly, but it is this breaking of the perfect symmetry that creates the net drag ...not the instantaneous forces before integration.
Also, the Lenz Effect is not responsible for creating this asymmetry.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
Hurtful (opposing) magnetism — the field created by induced currents that Lenz's law dictates must oppose flux change — is the actual cause of the drag.
No, the opposing flux creates only the instantaneous forces that diminish or boost the magnet's kinetic energy. The real cause of the net drag is the asymmetry of these forces when integrated over a full cycle.
The Lenz Law is not responsible for creating this asymmetry.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
Resistance is only one catalyst that makes the drag net and dissipative.
Yes, resistance is one of the factors that can cause the asymmetry of these ∫ forces from which drag arises (the other one being reactances).
Without this asymmetry, the net drag is zero
even when the Lenz Effect is fully active.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 15:29:46
Notice I didn't need 10,000 words, a made-up "Quantitative Lenz Law," or three pages of "instantaneous vs integrated" smoke to make the point crystal-clear.
By not making the distinction between the instantaneous vs integrated forces you made it murky - not clear. You conflated net drag with a force. This conflation doesn't even pass the rudimentary dimensional analysis because net drag has the units of energy - not force.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 13:47:51
Everyone else — Feynman Lectures (Vol II, 17-4), Griffiths, Purcell, NASA educational pages, MIT OpenCourseWare, every YouTube physics channel, every classroom demo in the world — calls it the direct mechanical consequence of Lenz's law.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.07, 15:14:52
This is arumentum ad numerum, - a well-know logical fallacy.
Evidently, I am just more precise an rigorous than any of the people you have met.
No, it just means that I disagree with you that it is the Lenz Law that is responsible for creating the force imbalance which causes the net drag.
Calling consensus among Feynman, Griffiths, Purcell, NASA, MIT, and every classroom demo a 'fallacy' doesn't make you more rigorous—it just shows you're denying accepted physics to protect your own redefinition. Net drag proportional to dissipation is taught everywhere as the mechanical consequence of Lenz's law. You can call it pedantry, but you can't erase the fact that the entire field agrees.
And show me where I specifically claimed "Lenz Law that is responsible for
creating the drag". You were the one who changed my wording to "Created" so you can escape answering. And yet you persist to do it again.
You are FREE to call it whatever you wish! But in this particular case, I wish NOT be to educated with information that conflicts established consensus.. Thank you anyway for the offer, but I politely decline the offer.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
Calling consensus among Feynman, Griffiths, Purcell, NASA, MIT, and every classroom demo a 'fallacy' doesn't make you more rigorous—it just shows you're denying accepted physics to protect your own redefinition.
There is no consensus among these entities that Lenz Effect is responsible for creating the net drag even if they have used the phrase "Lenz Drag" colloquially carelessly couple of times.
The fallacy to which the argument
ad numerum or
ad populum refers to, is not the alleged consensus, but your attempt to use a group consensus (real or imagined) to prove a physical law.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
And show me where I specifically claimed "Lenz Law that is responsible for creating the drag".
Every time you use the phrase "Lenz Drag".
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
Net drag proportional to dissipation is taught everywhere...
Yes but that does not mean that the Lenz Effect is responsible for creating that drag.
It is no coincidence that the net drag is proportional to energy dissipation because it is this dissipation that is responsible for unbalancing the force integrals and hence - creating the net drag ...and it is the non-zero resistance that is responsible for this dissipation - not the Lenz Effect, which in its pure form is conservative and non-dissipatory.
Also, drag can be caused by reactances that do not dissipate energy as heat, so for the ultimate conceptual coverage the umbrella-term: non-zero impedance, should be used in lieu of the resistance.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
You were the one who changed my wording to "Created" so you can escape answering.
I have not changed you wording. I just have not provided a direct answer to your question because a direct answer was impossible since your question did not make sense ...and it still does not.
So you will ignore what I reply and I will state it again: Your question asked about the consistency of Lenz Law with forces and drag and this law does not refer to either of those, thus it cannot be answered.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
And yet you persist to do it again.
Not again but still. That question still does not make sense as you have posed it.
Why are you harping on this so much ? Is my refusal to answer a nonsensical question and the existence of a more general phrase than "Resistance Drag" the only things you can find against my argument ?
Are you trying to distract me from discussion of the conceptual validity of the "Lenz Drag" phrase which is the main topic of our discussion ?
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.07, 19:40:44
..., I wish NOT be to educated with information that conflicts established consensus..
I find your clinging to the establishment at odds with your self-declared character of a fringe researcher and boundary-pusher.
Anyway, the consensus is only in your head. Just because these misconceptions about induction are so pervasive that they have penetrated the mainstream does not make them correct. Give me 15min with these guys and they will sing like Grok (https://grok.com/c/3a4ca0d0-307a-4322-8fb6-c8ed4e0ea0e1?rid=c8855d13-4303-4465-84e6-db09759f4a08) and like Gemini (https://gemini.google.com/share/8dcc8f11ced8) - and if they don't know math or physics ...then 3 days.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.07, 20:34:25
The fallacy to which the argument ad numerum or ad populum refers to
First thing - I would say it is more empty arguments words in forum than actual experiments providing new data as proof.
Second thing - even my post was completely ignored here there is still useful data to look at with how I dealt with Lenz magnetic force redirection back in a day. The things to learn from it - https://www.youtube.com/@grumc4928/search?query=Grumage%20builds%20the%20T-1000%20motor. (Even when that was very crude experiment just to show proof of concept)
Third thing - not a single LLM will tell you about what is really happening without real experimental data.
Cheers!
Quote from: T-1000 on 2025.12.08, 18:14:14
First thing - I would say it is more empty arguments words in forum than actual experiments providing new data as proof.
The words are not empty. They carry the body of experiences gained by observation and experimentation over a century.
There is little to gain from repeating the same experiments, over and over. That's why we have memories longer than the ones of a gold-fish.
Quote from: T-1000 on 2025.12.08, 18:14:14
Second thing - even my post was completely ignored here there is still useful data to look at with how I dealt with Lenz magnetic force redirection back in a day.
If this was an experiment about an unknown phenomenon then that's inexcusable.
Please find a link to to your post (the one that was ignored) and post it here. I will make sure to review it.
BTW: Below are the links to the build of your motor by Grumage:
https://youtu.be/9STbGa5zvpg
https://youtu.be/uzdf8kOfSow
https://youtu.be/s95CwLmqB-0
https://youtu.be/5VTlQdTDLcg
https://youtu.be/YUoyuiQTrRA
Quote from: T-1000 on 2025.12.08, 18:14:14
Third thing - not a single LLM will tell you about what is really happening without real experimental data.
LLMs are good at putting together data that they have hoover'ed up from humans. The experimental data too. The good and the bad. Unfortunately they also hoover up misconceptions. Fortunately LLMs can also reason logically so it is easy to unwind any conundrums with them logically.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.08, 19:28:40
Please find a link to to your post (the one that was ignored) and post it here. I will make sure to review it.
Time to refresh memory? https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=2678.msg43489#msg43489
Not asking for review just the fact it is one of many cases where important details are ignored then science dogma gets in a way with "impossible" results mindset.
Quote from: Verpies on 2025.12.07, 01:44:18
Imprecise. It should be:
Lenz's Law dictates that the direction of the induced current will create an internal magnetic flux that opposes the change of the total flux threading the coil. Total flux = internal flux + external flux.
Lenz's law is not concerned with the direction of motion - it is only concerned only with the value of the total flux. If motion changes that flux than this is a secondary effect.
Conflating opposition to change of total flux with opposition to motion closes off the avenues to develop machines in which the opposing flux is diverted or the external flux is substituted.
Also, the external flux does not have to come from a moving magnet.
The common Lenz's law defines the direction of the induced current but it does not define the magnitude of that current. For that you need a different law.
Finally, it is wrong to use the phrase "magnetic field" in lieu of "magnetic flux" because the former is ambiguous and can often mean "magnetic flux density (B)". Lenz's Law and Faraday's law of induction are only concerned with the total magnetic flux - not the magnetic flux density because the line integrals of various different flux densities can yield the same magnetic flux values.
Imprecise again.
Drag can be instantaneous or integrated (e.g. over a full cycle).
They are not always the same. For example, a shorted superconducting coil creates a lot of instantaneous drag to a moving magnet, but zero integrated drag over the full approach and departure cycle.
Imprecise again. The source of the force between the magnet and coil is not the Lenz Law. It is a magnetic field (B) gradient between the flux of the magnet and the internal flux of the coil.
The causal chain is as follows: Current → Internal opposing flux → B gradient → Instantaneous force → Integral of these forces over a distance or angle→ Mechanical drag.
Lenz law defines only the direction of the induced current induced in the coil in response to an attempted change of total flux threading it. That current always generates internal flux (so they are unseparable) but there is no law that prevents the manipulation of that flux.
Imprecise again. It should have been:
'According to Lenz's Law: The current flows in a direction that turns the coil into an electromagnet of polarity opposing the change of the total flux threading the coil (attempted by your magnet.)"
There is this continual conflation of the opposition to the change of flux and opposition to motion with the underlying assumption that change of flux and change in motion cannot be separated.
But that is not always true. In case of a shorted ideal coil indeed you have to push hard to bring the magnet close (Repulsion) but you do not have to do any work to move the magnet away - actually, it is the coil that does work pushing the magnet away.
Ah, Again no thought is given to the distinction between the instantaneous physical force and the integrated physical force (usually over a full cycle, or some distance or angle).
Also, the magnetic interaction between two fluxes is not defined by the Lenz Law. The Lenz Law defines only the direction of the induced current (and maybe the inseparable internal flux). It does not even define the magnitude of the current!
I agree but that does not mean that the Lenz Effect is responsible for the net drag. See your own analogy of the Architect and the Executioner here.
Didn't you mean "push" the magnet forward ?
I agree
The Universe does not have to be lossless. Real superconducting coils really exist and are used every day on Earth.
No, what remains is the imbalance of forces integrated over distance (or angle) and Lenz Law is not responsible for that imbalance.
No. the common Lenz Law defines the direction of current and maybe the direction of the internal flux generated by that current. It does not even define their magnitudes.
Forces are generated by flux density (B) gradients. Not by the Lenz Law. Also instantaneous forces are a different concept than integrated forces (especially over a full cycle).
Yes, the resistance creates the unbalanced forces integrated over a distance or an angle. Resistance is the Executioner (not in all cases though, because Z=R+X).
That's true but without non-zero impedance there would be no drag either. Also, it is the non-zero impedance that is solely responsible for creating the imbalance between the approach and departure forces integrated over a distance or angle. The non-zero result of this integral is the drag.
Claude is much better with defining the causal chain precisely. It just defined the subchain: current → internal opposing field.
It still should have written "opposing flux" instead of "opposing field" because "field" often means magnetic flux density (B) and neither coils nor the Lenz Law concern themselves with that.
Patently false !
When the magnet departs the circulating current also creates a repulsive force on the magnet. The force had not flipped because current had not flipped its direction either. I think Claude implies this lack of current reversal because it writes "the same current keeps flowing".
Yes and that also means that the magnet is repelled during the departure. If it had not, part of its kinetic energy would disappear after departing the magnet far away since the coil's current diminishes during the departure and approaches zero when the coil departs very far away. This means that the unaccounted kinetic energy of the magnet cannot be explained by the current stored in the coil.
Correct .
Correct .
Certainly not in conventional generator designs.
Gemini 3 response - with some advice (use the hammer of not bickering )
Verpies has provided a highly technical, rigorous rebuttal. He is technically correct on the physics definitions, and his pedantry has a specific purpose: he is trying to preserve the theoretical possibility of a "reactionless" generator.
If he accepts that "Lenz's Law = Drag," then "Free Energy" is impossible. By insisting that "Lenz's Law = Opposition to Flux Change" (which is distinct from opposition to motion), he leaves the door open for a device that generates power without the rotor feeling the drag.
Here is an analysis of his points and a draft response for you.
Analysis of Verpies' Rebuttal
Precision is Key for Him: He dislikes "Lenz's Law opposes motion." He insists "Lenz's Law opposes the change in total flux."
Why this matters: If you can change the flux without the motion directly fighting the opposing field (e.g., by diverting the flux through a different iron path), you theoretically bypass the drag.
The "Executioner" (Resistance): He agrees with the "Architect vs. Executioner" analogy.
Lenz (The Architect): Sets the rules/direction.
Resistance (The Executioner): Kills the energy (turns it to heat), ensuring the "spring" doesn't bounce back, creating the net drag.
Instantaneous vs. Integrated Force: He is right. A superconductor has huge instantaneous drag (force) at any specific moment, but zero integrated drag (net energy loss) over a full cycle because it acts like a perfect spring.
How to Respond
You should concede the technical definitions—fighting him on physics textbook definitions is a losing battle and misses his deeper point. Instead, pivot to synthesizing his high-level theory with Floodrod's practical reality.
Here is a draft response you can post:
Draft Response:
"Verpies, I appreciate the rigorous breakdown. You are spot on with the technical distinctions, and I see why you are making them:
If we lazily conflate 'Opposition to Flux Change' with 'Opposition to Motion,' we conceptually close the door on designing machines that might decouple the two. Your entire point is that while standard generators lock these two together (resulting in drag), a clever design might separate them.
To clarify the consensus for the thread:
1. The Architect (Lenz): Lenz's Law solely dictates the direction of the induced response. It demands that the induced system tries to maintain the status quo of the total flux. It does not dictate the magnitude of the force or the energy loss.
2. The Executioner (Impedance/Resistance): This is where the 'crime' of Drag is committed. In Floodrod's specific case (and all standard generators), the circuit impedance dissipates the energy. This breaks the symmetry of the 'magnetic spring.' The repulsive force on approach is real, but the attractive 'refund' on departure is lost to heat/load.
Result: The integrated force over the cycle becomes negative (net drag).
3. The Loophole: Your correction highlights that the 'Opposition to Motion' is a secondary effect caused by the B-field gradients interacting with the current. If one could engineer a geometry where the Opposition to Flux Change (induction) happens without creating a B-gradient that pushes back against the rotor's specific vector of motion (e.g. flux diversion), one could theoretically generate current without the corresponding mechanical torque.
So, to answer Floodrod's original confusion:
In his current build: The drag is a direct, unavoidable consequence of the system's impedance preventing the 'Lenz Spring' from returning the energy.
In your theoretical context: Lenz is just a traffic cop directing traffic; he isn't the one physically stopping the car. That is done by the friction (resistance) or the road design (geometry).
Does that accurately bridge the gap between your theoretical precision and his practical observation?"
AI's will say anything you lead them to.
Just ask ANY AI:
1. Is mechanical drag "CAUSED" from magnetic fields opposing the rotor's motion? It WILL answer YES
THEN ASK
2. What Dictates the direction of magnetic opposition that causes drag? IT WILL SAY "Lenz's LAW"
``````````````````````
We use terms like Ohmic Heating, Coulomb Repulsion, Archimedean Buoyancy all the time. Each connects an action with the law that dictates it. 'Lenz Drag' is no different — it's simply the drag mandated by Lenz's Law."
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.08, 23:05:34
AI's will say anything you lead them to.
Just ask ANY AI:
1. Is mechanical drag "CAUSED" from magnetic fields opposing the rotor's motion? It WILL answer YES
THEN ASK
2. What Dictates the direction of magnetic opposition that causes drag? IT WILL SAY "Lenz's LAW"
``````````````````````
We use terms like Ohmic Heating, Coulomb Repulsion, Archimedean Buoyancy all the time. Each connects an action with the law that dictates it. 'Lenz Drag' is no different — it's simply the drag mandated by Lenz's Law."
I'm staying out of this argument - just sharing what was requested. I use Claude Opus 4.5 and Gemini 3 pro as they are less agreeable.
Quote from: floodrod on 2025.12.08, 23:05:34
2. What Dictates the direction of magnetic opposition that causes drag? IT WILL SAY "Lenz's LAW"
The right question is to ask:
"What happens when the moving transformer steel core is introduced on rotor which: stage 1) is closing magnetic flux of magnetic poles between magnets; stage 2) Is transfering magnetic flux between one magnet at the time and the coil placed behind "stage 1)" loop as second action; stage 3) multiple magnet/transformer steel cores pairs are introduced in a ring to balance attraction/deflection magnetic forces to net 0; stage 4) The rotor movement is 90 degrees to the magnetic force vectors? Couple key moments: shorting coils or providing continuous load results Lorenz force assisted motion. The magnets pairs/rotor core ratio around ring: 8 magnets/coils and 7 cores on rotor. The primer mover is used in similar principle as transistor gate. Magnets demag ratio target around 0.1%/year."
That is the reason why i brought up my attempt a decade ago back to topic.
Cheers!
Why is it that when a magnet is repelled or attracted by another magnet, there is no energy loss due to resistive heat.
And when a magnet is repelled from a coil with a wire according to Lenz's law, we have inevitable losses?
Quote from: T-1000 on 2025.12.09, 03:44:26
The right question is to ask:
"What happens when the moving transformer steel core is introduced on rotor which: stage 1) is closing magnetic flux of magnetic poles between magnets; stage 2) Is transfering magnetic flux between one magnet at the time and the coil placed behind "stage 1)" loop as second action; stage 3) multiple magnet/transformer steel cores pairs are introduced in a ring to balance attraction/deflection magnetic forces to net 0; stage 4) The rotor movement is 90 degrees to the magnetic force vectors? Couple key moments: shorting coils or providing continuous load results Lorenz force assisted motion. The magnets pairs/rotor core ratio around ring: 8 magnets/coils and 7 cores on rotor. The primer mover is used in similar principle as transistor gate. Magnets demag ratio target around 0.1%/year."
That is the reason why i brought up my attempt a decade ago back to topic.
Cheers!
Hi Arunas.
The gubbins sits in a cupboard, gathering dust. The main reason for the project stalling was the task of hand machining and winding the 8 coil bobbins required to finish the generator. I had neither the time or inclination. :) Today a simple CAD drawing to produce an stl file for printing those bobbins would take no time at all ! If you, or any UK based member would like to take on the project ( if it is deemed viable ) I would be happy to post it to you/them.
Sadly my current physical disabilities preclude me from any further progress.
Cheers Graham. O0
It turns out that it's better to make V-gate-type devices. At least the permanent magnets repel each other perfectly elastically. And there are no Joule-Lenz heat losses. Bearing friction is present in both devices. :)
AI is not dumb if you don't ask it dumb questions. If they are detailed then it can reason about them and you can point out any illogic or contradictions that it makes, and it will correct itself.
Will the rotating electrostatic field be virtual?
I mean, so that the rotation would be on its separated, without any costs from the power source.
Similar to the rotation of a virtual magnetic field, for example, in Paul Cotnoir ?
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.12.20, 15:44:54
Will the rotating electrostatic field be virtual?
Yes, the rotoation will be virtual.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.12.20, 15:44:54
I mean, so that the rotation would be on its separated, without any costs from the power source.
I don't know. The capacitances between the electrodes will need to be charged and that takes ½CV of energy ...however ideal capacitors can return this energy.
Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025.12.09, 07:29:44
...
And when a magnet is repelled from a coil with a wire according to Lenz's law, we have inevitable losses?
Why would there be losses?
There are no losses with an ideal conductor and an ideal magnet.
Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.06.23, 17:22:50
There are no losses with an ideal conductor and an ideal magnet.
Yeah, that's what this thread is about.
Somehow some people get this wrong idea that the average torque needed to turn a rotary electromagnetic generator, composed of a permanent magnet rotor and air-cored
* output windings in the stator (or vice-versa like this (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=56513)), at a constant angular speed, is a linear or monotonic function (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotonic_function) of the total electric resistance of the output circuit ( including the resistance of the windings themselves in the output circuit being considered ).
They just measure an increasing average torque over some limited range of decreasing resistances and intuitively assume that the torque just keeps increasing monotonically up to some maximum value as the resistance approaches zero.
...and when the torque is kept constant then they are surprised that the generator speeds up when it is shorted or with some small resistance loads.
(https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4525.0;attach=56529)
* This is usually applicable to non-air cored output windings, too, but such coils unnecessarily complicate the average torque calculations with their ferromagnetic effects and require FEA.