The Lenz delay propulsion effect is authentic !

[Chet K]

Allen Burgess [one smart Cookie  }
Quote:

""The Lenz delay propulsion effect is authentic, albeit a bit elusive. Persistence pays! Good luck.""

Overunityguide started the thread  here,

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/8980-confirming-delayed-lenz-effect-2.html#post155235

Also here

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=11350.0

Now this is all starting to make sence.

Chet
PS
Plus a movie for MH
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGstOJ4NDQQ

[MileHigh]

Chet:

I watched the clip.

So what does it all mean?  What are the implications?

MileHigh

[Chet K]

Thank you MH

This is My Take

"TIME"   

IMO These fellows are finding they can "Alter Time",as it relates to the Lenz effect!!
  Instead of Killing Lenz they seem to be effecting the way it shows up in their device[timing] ,postponing the "Grab"
and benefitting from the out come.

If they are accomplishing anything remotely like this......................
It would be amazing.

Of one thing I am quite sure,the beast they chase [ou] ,is on the run............................

Thane ,The "Meg", Muller,Romero, and many other devices are on This particular menu!!

Thats what I think!
Chet

[EMdevices]

The guy has a variable frequency controller and AC motor, very nice setup!

Let the hunt begin!

[MileHigh]

Chet:

From my perspective it's the same old story.

First you have the fantastical notion that you can "beat" the Lenz effects in time.  It all happens at the speed of light so that's simply ridiculous.

When you observe a speed increase, it could be from an increase in output power, or a decrease in friction.  It has to be due to a decrease in friction.  It was discussed extensively on this forum not too long ago.

It's almost the same thing with playing with biasing magnets.  By moving the biasing magnets around you are changing the electrical impedance of the motor.  Changing the electrical impedance of the motor can increase or decrease the power draw which will result in the motor increasing in speed or slowing down.

None of these effects bring you even remotely closer to over unity, and that includes all of the resonance experiments with capacitors in series or in parallel with the drive coils.

Focusing on the Romero replication, the whole thing is just one giant colossal waste of time.  This has been going on for nine months now with no end in sight.  There is a huge "opportunity cost" here when you think about all of the other experiments that people could have been doing, not to mention all the money they are spending on this stuff.

If only Romero had the courage to come out and admit that the whole thing was a fake he would be sparing the victims another nine months or year of wasted time, money, and resources before this awful mess dies.

MileHigh

[EMdevices]

Beating or cheating Lenz's law is an illusion, and if it could be done it only makes sense for motor applications, because for a generator, we need it.

[EMdevices]

Under the correct operating conditions, I wonder if the following may be happening:

a rotor magnet approaches a stator coil, and if the coil is shorted, the coil can oppose changes in flux due to the approaching magnet, but how fast does it react?  We have to remember and keep in mind the time constant governing the coil irrespective of how an emf is generated, or is it irrespective?  Assuming it is, if the magnet moves in faster than let's say 1 time constant, the coil is still ramping up the current, which opposes the magnet, but the magnet might now be past TDC and the opposition is now beneficial as the developed torque now aids the rotation, at least for a short duration.  If we integrate the forces and the energy imparted, before TDC and after, we may just find an asymetry, maybe.  That's why I've been saying higher speed operation might be more beneficial, but realizing frictional losses also increase.  The little dynamo spun up by the dremmel tool is one of the best videos I've seen in ages, and I haven't forgotten about it.

[ion]

Having reviewed the video and EM's comments, I would offer the following:

The motor should be connected to the rotating magnet assembly via a long non-magnetic shaft to eliminate any possible magnetic influence back into the motor or it's bearings.

A separate bearing block at the rotor end should be monitored with a thermocouple to note changes in frictional loading. I would suggest a non-magnetic sintered bearing. This should appease MH.

Perhaps also use a DC PM motor instead of the variable speed drive and inverter drive. This may more accurately reflect the actual power and avoid regulation effects of the inverter drive. Use a Variac, bridge rectifier and smoothing cap  for speed control, should be easier to measure.

EM, your theory sounds interesting, should be easy to test with a linear Hall sensor monitoring flux buildup vs rate of rise of current.

my 2 cents

[wattsup]

OK, here is a question for y'all. lol

As the magnet approaches the coil, let's say the voltage rises gradually to 20 volts. So the total magnetism in the coil reaches that 20 volts level.

Is there a way to use a type of zenor diode rectifier that would open at 10 volts, thus bleeding off the first 10, then closing to fill up again to 10 volts and opening for a second bleed off. I know this sounds very rudimentary but it is easier to harvest two times 10 volts then it is to harvest 20 volts when it is delivered by a coil that is trying to fight Lenz Law. I am imagining if such a rectifier was possible and scoped it would show a sawtooth type waveform.

wattsup

[Peterae]

Maybe the way to study this is to use 1 long bolt, wind a low impedance driver coil and also wind a high impedance coil on the same bolt then pulse the low impedance coil and see what happens to the BEMF when the high impedance coil is open and shorted.Just wind up the drive frequency, if this effect is showing on a rotor at low hertz imagine what may happen up in the kHz range.

[ion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kluw71YC5p4

Considering "overunityguide" video #3, where he switches to what he calls a "normal resistive load incandescent lamp", I must point out that an incandescent lamp is a very non-linear resistive load, whose resistance changes dramatically with applied voltage due to the large positive temperature coefficient of resistance of the tungsten filament.

It is important to note this because in some tests you cannot generate enough current to get the lamp resistance further up the curve of the cold resistance and it can look like a near short to the generator output, especially if it is high impedance coil, the lamp can be a fraction of an Ohm cold.

Fortunately, this is of little consequence for OG's video #3 as he is using a rather small lamp and has the reserve current to get further up the curve.

A ideal normal resistive load would have no change in resistance versus applied voltage, but in the real world the resistive element such as Nichrome will have a small usually positive coefficient of resistance versus temperature. Best to use Manganin for a near zero TC, if you can get you hands on some.

[Allcanadian]

@Ion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kluw71YC5p4

Wow that was amazing --- not the demonstration but how clear the video was,lol.
I would like to see a comparative experiment, that is we remove the AC motor from the experiment and replace it with a flywheel. The flywheel is spun up to X rpm then disconnected from the driver and allowed to spin down to Y rpm,  then it is spun back up to X rpm disconnected from the driver and allowed to spin down to Y rpm with the load attached.  If the flywheel/generator takes longer to spin down to Y rpm with a load attached, which it should if an accelerating effect is actually present, then there would be no skirting around this issue any longer because according to conventional theory this cannot happen. I think we have to remove all distractions to show a test that nobody could dispute to know the truth.

I should note the generator would have to be disconnected from the flywheel in the first spin down test otherwise we would never know the difference between a reduction of losses inherent to the generator or a true accelerating effect. It should be obvious that a simple reduction in losses does not imply an efficiency above 100% it simply means losses have been reduced approaching 100% efficiency, it gives no indication that the 100% boundary can or will ever be crossed.
Regards
AC

[MileHigh]

AC:

Your test doesn't really change anything.  Let's assume for the sake of argument a shorted generator coil can cause less rotor friction compared to a coil driving a load because it removes almost all of the tangential disturbance torque and radial disturbance forces on the bearings as the flywheel rotates.  Assume these effects more than offset the energy burned off in the coil wire and the core material.

So who is to say that a load cannot do the same thing?  In other words, assume that a load with a low resistance that allows current to flow from the generated EMF but at the same time reduces the disturbance forces.  If this is the case the flywheel might also take longer to spin down when driving a load.

The energy dynamics demonstrated in Overnityguide's clips look intriguing and even promising at first glance.  But I am certain that an in depth analysis would reveal some very conventional surprises.

We also can't forget that the rotor spins even more smoothly when there is no generator coil present at all.  In other words, bringing a shorted generator coil close to the rotor causes drag also.

Perhaps somebody could spin their rotor by hand with different generator coil setups and also do some spin-down timing?   Get a "human touch" feel for what is going on.  It could help.

MileHigh

[Peterae]

overunityguide needs to add another generator coil and compare results, if he can light another bulb without consuming more power then he maybe home and dry, anyone know what happened to zerofossilfuel, he was promising OU by the weekend a month or so ago  ,at the time he only had one pair of coils tuned, so what happened when he tried tuning another set?

[Peterae]

Maybe the way to study this is to use 1 long bolt, wind a low impedance driver coil and also wind a high impedance coil on the same bolt then pulse the low impedance coil and see what happens to the BEMF when the high impedance coil is open and shorted.Just wind up the drive frequency, if this effect is showing on a rotor at low hertz imagine what may happen up in the kHz range.

and then it occurred to me that a conventional transformer with a low impedance primary and high impedance secondary is exactly what i described above, so luckily i had in stock a red miniature audio matching transformer and believe i maybe seeing the same effect.

the transformer is 3.2Ohm primary and 1.2kOhm secondary.

Driving using a signal generator at low frequency i get as follows(No camera here today  )

Scoping primary waveform and secondary waveform and placing a low ohm resistor across secondary as load, at lowish frequency drive i get reduced primary and secondary amplitudes no phase change between primary and secondary waveforms when loaded.

Increase the drive frequency, i get a much smaller amplitude for primary and secondary but when the load is applied i get a larger primary amplitude and smaller secondary amplitude but more importantly the phase shifts between the 2.So i am seeing the primary with a larger voltage under load

The effect starts gradually at about 100kHz upwards

Then above 350kHz the primary amplitude is no longer affected by secondary loading but the secondary still changes in phase relation to the primary.

[Peterae]

OK i understand the phase shift with and without the load resistor, i am going from scoping voltage without load and then with load scoping the voltage across the resistor which in effect is now scoping current which has a different phase relation.

so i can see the secondary current is always out of phase with the secondary voltage no matter what the frequency.
That leaves me with an increase in primary amplitude between the tested frequency range, which i would imagine could be due to altered resonant frequency of the coils with the load applied, the load is merely bringing the transformer closer to resonance and shows a bigger primary voltage.
Question is, can there be any relationship to what the motor guys are seeing with a magnet in place of my primary

[Peterae]

Next test was to scope primary current and primary voltage, so i inserted a low value resistance in series with the primary, 1 scope across the resistor and the other probe across the primary coil.
The result is that when i short the secondary i get an increased primary voltage with no change in primary current and no change in phase angle between primary voltage and primary current.Therefore i think i am safe in saying it's the primary impedance that changed to allow the greater voltage on the primary, because the primary voltage increases and the current stays the same it also means i am pumping more power into the primary.

Why am i not seeing a change in the primary current with the secondary shorted?

[Peterae]

Now this is interesting, i only see the increased amplitude on the primary with the shorted secondary over 100kHz.

Now if i sweep the frequency below and above 100kHz my primary voltage goes from lagging current to leading current, so over 100kHz i have phase leading primary voltage and it is only under this condition that i see increased primary voltage on shorting the secondary.

There is a transition frequency range that i go from lagging 90 degrees to leading 90 degrees primary voltage and the current/voltage phase is totally adjustable to any phase value dependant on the frequency set.

[ion]

Hi Peterae, good work....you speak the language of engineering.

Have you computed the power factor for each measurement of primary voltage and current, such that you can really know what the power into the primary is?

[ion]

MH said:

quote]We also can't forget that the rotor spins even more smoothly when there is no generator coil present at all.  In other words, bringing a shorted generator coil close to the rotor causes drag also.
[/quote]

Agreed and this is the crux of the matter. Because of inductive kickback, the coil becomes a dynamic brake sensitive to a certain frequency of rotation.

Energy is still wasted in the brake, and the motor draws less energy if the brake is not present.

[Peterae]

Hi Peterae, good work....you speak the language of engineering.

Have you computed the power factor for each measurement of primary voltage and current, such that you can really know what the power into the primary is?

Thanks ION
No i have not computed the power factor for each measurement, that should be interesting, not sure how to do it, so will go and have read  

EDIT OK i have just worked out that above 100kHz when i get the increase in amplitude my voltage leads by 90 Degrees
and from what i have read PF = COS (Deg) then my power factor is 0 

[Peterae]

I thought overunityguide determined that without the coil in place versus coil in place and shorted it was drawing less current than the coil not being in place at all, maybe i missread this.?

[ion]

I have not seen the video where he removes the coil and computes motor power at each speed. Have I missed this?

[Peterae]

OK maybe i was confused, for some reason i thought he had determined this.

So unloaded secondary i have computed my current and voltage using RMS values as follows

Unloaded
I=Vrms/R=52.31mA
Vrms=291.4mV
Instantaneous Power=15.24mW
Average Power= VI Cos(90)=0?

Loaded Secondary
I=Vrms/R=52.42mA
Vrms=431mV
Instantaneous Power=22.593mW
Average Power= VI Cos(90)=0?

Anyway i can clearly see my increased amplitude on the primary has used more power which makes complete sense, but the whole point of this was to compare it to the rotor drive and my primary is meant to represent the passing magnet.
In this case my primaries acceptance or impedance has changed to allow my signal generator to input a higher voltage, but what does this mean if my signal generator was a permanent magnet, does it mean the apparent magnet field strength has an increased effect on the core when the generator coil is shorted.

I am not clever enough to evaluate this LOL anyway food for thought.

[Allcanadian]

@Milehigh

Your test doesn't really change anything.  Let's assume for the sake of argument a shorted generator coil can cause less rotor friction compared to a coil driving a load because it removes almost all of the tangential disturbance torque and radial disturbance forces on the bearings as the flywheel rotates.  Assume these effects more than offset the energy burned off in the coil wire and the core material.
So who is to say that a load cannot do the same thing?  In other words, assume that a load with a low resistance that allows current to flow from the generated EMF but at the same time reduces the disturbance forces.  If this is the case the flywheel might also take longer to spin down when driving a load.

I guess I should clarify some things, first I have built countless motors and generators and if built properly with precision bearings and a balanced rotor then these disturbances you speak of are so small they are not worth considering, we should remember that a force is not energy nor a loss of energy. Now if we want to test this generator using scientific methods then I think we need to remove everything which does not matter so we may see clearly that which does. That is the only effects we need be concerned with are the electromagnetic drag forces relative to the electrical energy generated. This means the AC motor must be removed leaving only the rotor with magnets on it which can be considered as a flywheel, this flywheel has mass and a velocity thus a change in velocity represents a change in momentum(MV).

1) If we spin the rotor to 1000 rpm with no coil present then measure the time it takes to reach 800 rpm then we know the change in velocity (angular velocity) over time which is a change in momentum over time and these are losses which have nothing to do with the generation of electrical energy. These losses are relative only to the flywheel itself.

2) If we spin the rotor to 1000 rpm with the coil present but open circuit with no load then measure the time it takes to reach 800 rpm then we know the change in velocity (angular velocity) over time which is a change in momentum over time and these are losses which have nothing to do with the generation of electrical energy. These losses are relative only to the flywheel and the coil core.

3) If we spin the rotor to 1000 rpm with the coil present and attached to a load then measure the time it takes to reach 800 rpm then we know the change in velocity (angular velocity) over time which is a change in momentum over time. We can also measure the output electrical energy which the coil has generated as Voltage and Amperage over time powering a known load.

Now if we know the change in momentum over time due to only the flywheel losses in (1) and we also know the flywheel and core losses in (2) and we know the change in momentum of the input from the flywheel relative to the coil output in (3) then it does not seem that difficult to do the math here. The losses in (1) and (2) have nothing to do with the generation of electrical energy while (3) does and if we deduct (2) from (3) then we will know the losses related directly to the generation of electrical energy relative to the electrical energy which was actually generated and measured as an output to a known load. I think that knowing where the losses occur and why is the first step in determining what is happening and while this is not an exact science but more of a comparison it is still better than what I saw in the video.

We could also use a passive device such as a hall effect sensor to measure small changes in velocity as the magnet approaches and leaves the coil when using only the flywheel effect to determine if a so called accelerating effect is present and where it occurs. The hall effect sensor would also give us an indication of the frequency at which the magnets pass which relates directly to the velocity, change in velocity over time thus change in momentum over time. It can also give us an indication of the instantaneous position and velocity of the magnet relative to the induced voltage and current in the coil.

As well if these facts are different than a generator powering the same load but driven by an AC motor then we could determine if the changes in accceleration inherent in the AC motor may be interacting with the changes present when the magnets passed the coil in which case the AC motor must be considered an integral part of the process. In any case the video in question really gives us nothing in the way of facts in order to understand what is actually happening.
Regards
AC