I Got a Speedup Effect..

[Verpies]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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 ?

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

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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".

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.

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 .

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 .

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.

[floodrod]

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.

[floodrod]

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.

[Verpies]

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.

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.

You changed the terms of the question to avoid answering,

Not to avoid but to make sense of it.

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 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.

That's not clarity, that's obfuscation.

No, that's precision.

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...

the induced current opposes flux change,

Almost.
The induced current generates an opposing internal flux that opposes total flux change.

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).

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.

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 ? 

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.

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.

"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 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.

[floodrod]

(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.

[Verpies]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[floodrod]

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.

[Verpies]

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:

   

   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.

There is no "Lenz Drag" but there is "Ohm's Drag" or "Resistance Drag". 

 

  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 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.

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).

Resistance Or Losses do not create that magnetic force.

But we are talking about the net drag - not 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, ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

[floodrod]

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.
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.

[Verpies]

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.

And show me where I specifically claimed "Lenz Law that is responsible for creating the drag".

Every time you use the phrase "Lenz Drag".

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.

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.

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 ?

..., 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 and like Gemini - and if they don't know math or physics ...then 3 days.

[T-1000]

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!

[Verpies]

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.

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

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.

[T-1000]

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.

[JimBoot]

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?"

[floodrod]

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."

[JimBoot]

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.

[T-1000]

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!

[chief kolbacict]

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?

[Grumage]

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. 

[chief kolbacict]

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. 

[Advanced Water Technics]

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.

[chief kolbacict]

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 ?

[Verpies]

Will the rotating electrostatic field be virtual?

Yes, the rotoation will be virtual.

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.

[F6FLT]

...
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.

[Verpies]

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), at a constant angular speed, is a linear or 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.



^*  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.