Explaining Lenz's Law without the "Law of Conservation of Energy"

[WesTheSavage]

I didn't know where to post this question on the forum, so I went here to the General Discussion threads if that's alright with the managers of this forum.

Look, I'm looking for the best explanation for Lenz's Law without invoking the Law of Conservation of Energy as it's strawmanned by the teachers unions, physicists, and lamestream academia today, IDEALLY not invoked at all.

I get that the Lenz's Law is also a manifestation of the same electricity you put into the electro-machine you use or the Lines of Force that you invoke that make Faraday's Law show up in said electro-machine.

I get that much, I think, but every single DAMNED physics page "explaining" their relationships invoke Einstein a lot, they invoke this strawmanning of the Law of Conservation, they invoke the Lorentz Transformation, and they invoke especially Einstein's expansions of Henri Poincare's Special Relativity he modified with his "general relativity".

I know that Steinmetz, Heaviside, Thomson and others have works to explain this, but I haven't managed to dig into them or have the time for myself to do it due to IRL bull****.

If anyone here's willing to take the time to read this request and possibly answer it when they actually HAVE the time to take, I'd appreciate it.

I'm also posting this here because I've NEVER been able to get the chance to call into Eric's live calls when he gets on due to SOMETHING about the universe or at least this local environment seeming to flip me off.

[JenkoRun]

I'm no expert but this kind of what I understand about it. First, when it comes to magnetism polarity is defined by spin direction, CW for North and CCW for south. In attractive configuration magnets have their fields rotating in the same direction so they spatially void out and come together, opposites repel and like attracts.

Second, the Lenz drag effect is directly related to the right hand rule and likely related to how circular Magnetic and radial Dielectric fields are usually perpendicular to each other, leading to their cross electrification product inherently having this perpendicular "drag" in them as a transverse waveform and where the RHR comes into play.

If we take the basics of what happens between magnets and conductors we may have an answer, when a changing magnetic field is applied to a conductor it becomes electrified, it induces both a magnetic and dielectric field at right angles to each other, if we take this principle and shrink it down to the particle and a magnet example the right angle push would line up with the particle being electrified and responding as a radial component, resulting in it moving perpendicular to the circular magnetic field.

Basically, if the thing in question is electrified, it will respond to magnetic fields as a radial dielectric field and will attempt to operate perpendicular to it, and vice versa. I don't know why exactly though, the answer is probably in Ken's book, I don't have the willpower go sludge through that right now.

“The great mystery, now understood, is that while magnetism and dielectricity move 180 degrees from each other, in binding closed systems where gravity is immense, either in galactic structures, or in nuclear structures, the disk-dumbbell formations of dielectricity and magnetism move (only apparently) 90 degrees from each other in the special geometric formations of a disk and a pair of inverse double hyperbolas, since the structure is of course binding and contractive, this is the lowest pressure model of magneto-dielectric mutual repulsion.

How do two opposite forces that are “tied” together in a system (inter-atomic, galactic, permanent magnet) move 180 degrees from each other when one is spatial and polarized, and the other is radial and counterspatial, the answer is an inertial plane accretion disk and a double hyperbola. What appears as perpendicular movement is in fact maximum repulsion in a binding system.”

-Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism 4th edition. Also found this here post from Wheeler: http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...943#post363943 so perhaps it's just the electrified cross product at 90 degrees making its own magnetic field at another 90 degrees leading leading the opposing polarity and the Lenz effect.

This is just a basic outline of the little I understand of the exact mechanism behind Lenz law, I need to dedicate more time to the topic before I can understand it. Hopefully someone who knows more will comment here about it,

[WesTheSavage]

I also understand that the Faraday's Law EMF and Lenz's Law Back EMF are both manifested from the exact same electrical energy inputs that you use to move a motor or invoke in a generator.

So the sum total of that energy expression is manifested in both and both can transform part of that into mechanical work.

[JenkoRun]

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, but if you're saying that all your input energy is appearing as the sum of both the input EMF and the Back EMF it's not that way at all, the Lenz induced field is induced by but not made from the original EMF, it arises on its own through self induction stimulated by the input EMF, for all intense and purposes that Lenz drag is free, unfortunately it's operating against the input which creates the drag.

Engineer around Lenz drag or even utilize it to aid the prime mover and you'll easily move into COP > 1 ranges, conservation of energy has no validity outside of artificial machinery. Peter points out some of this stuff in his Electric Motor Secrets series. I'm not going to dig up all the references to this point across the forum right now so you'll have to search for yourself if you want validation and references for that.

I just came across an old post from Peter on the topic, seems useful: http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...562#post400562

jettis and erfinder also have posts around here for overcoming Lenz drag, very much worth reading what they've posted here. Monopolar activities appear to be the key to avoiding the action-reaction equivalence, Tesla accomplished that through both mechanical and electrical resonance.

[jettis]

Regarding the SSG in single pole operation as first taught by John, with all north poles on the rotor and a single coil that charges a second battery, in conventional SSG mode and or generator mode. You will find the spike and additive EMF will increase current consumption (increase in primary battery current draw) and drag (rpm loss) in both cases. If you increase the voltage of the secondary battery (keeping the primary at 12 volts) to 120 volts, current consumption will decrease and rpm’s will increase. If you block the spike from its path to the charging battery, current consumption will also vastly decrease. In all cases with the standard SSG the spike and EMF (generating action) causes an increase of primary battery current consumption.

To me that is the same problem that is found in a dc motor with its output shaft connected to the dc generator shaft. That is what I have found and therefore I am looking for other ways to use the spike and EMF, generator action, now that I understand.

The way I currently think is that the SSG was just the first of multiple steps in advancement into this field, the next step is the zero force motor, window motor, window motor with the extra coil at 90 degrees and the Bedini 3 coil ferris wheel.

Dave Wing

[gmang73]

Lorentz is a ***** that needs to be slapped.


I hope this helps.

[jettis]

I’ll say some more on current consumption and circulating current when running a SSG.

1) If you connect the flyback diode back to the primary positive, you will see high current consumption and a high loss of rotor RPM. If you measure these currents you will find close to 90 to 95 percent of your applied current being returned through this diode. The higher the applied voltage the higher the percentage of output flowing through the diode back into the coil.

2) If you connect the diode to the secondary battery positive and connect the negative to the primary positive you will see less current consumption and RPM loss than number 1. Your rate of charge will be around 30 percent recovery. The current is still making its way into and through the secondary battery and into the primary positive and back into the power coil causing current consumption.

3) If you connect the diode to a secondary battery of equal voltage as the primary and tie the negatives together (gen mode), you will see increased current consumption and rpm loss because of circulating currents, currents are being pulled out of the primary battery as it is acting as a source charge with a power/ generating coil in series with the primary battery causing a differential in potential over and above the secondary battery voltage. The lower the impedance of the power / generator coil the more current comsumption or draw from your primary battery. This is the circulating current that charges your secondary battery. The SSG coil pulls current from the primary and sends it to the secondary battery bank, the secondary battery is receiving the energy from the magnetics of the rotor / coil and the primary battery, the two are additive and charge the secondary battery. To me this is not ideal, but it is a device that can demonstrate a high rate of power consumption from the primary battery and an equally high rate of energy transfer or charge to the secondary battery when used with low inductance (impedance) power/ generator coils. High inductance coils have a lower transfer rate, because of less current flow or current consumption.

The machine demonstrates the use of circulating currents, the lower the coil impedance the higher the circulating currents. Some may have noted they have more ***out*** than in on their amp meters but yet have no over unity as the primary battery continues to drop in voltage at the proportional rate of the output and not input.

This machine is quite interesting and has taken a lot of lab work to get this far in my understanding.

Dave Wing

[jettis]

I copied and pasted point number 3 into Chat GPT and it summarized it for better clarity.



“Core Principles at Play

1. Back EMF Recovery:
   • The system described appears to leverage the recovery of back EMF, a common technique in energy recovery circuits (like those proposed by John Bedini in SSG systems).
   • Back EMF is the energy produced when a magnetic field collapses in a coil, which can be redirected into a secondary battery via a diode.
2. Circulating Currents:
   • When the primary and secondary batteries are interconnected, circulating currents flow between them, driven by potential differences and coil impedance.
   • These currents increase the load on the primary battery, consuming more energy but transferring it to the secondary battery.
3. Impedance Effects:
   • Low Impedance: Allows more current flow, resulting in higher energy transfer rates but also greater energy consumption and potential mechanical loss (RPM drop).
   • High Impedance: Restricts current flow, reducing energy transfer and consumption but limiting the charging rate.”Quote from: Chat GPT

Although Chat GPT failed to include the coil collapse as an independent event aside from the generation of an additive EMF and not back EMF, it did mention leveraging or amplification of the recovery, which is the spike plus the additive emf. This is why you see an immediate increase in charging in gen mode (number 3) over Conventional mode (number 2).

Maybe this is not news to many but I often wondered why gen mode had so much more output.

Dave Wing

[jettis]

IMG_6221.png This is Peter Lindemann’s image of the CEMF analogy from Electric Motor Secrets DVD… the CEMF opposes the applied voltage limiting current from the applied power source.

[jettis]

Here is an example of the classic SSG waveform with all North Pole rotor. There are two different EMF’s a CEMF or Back EMF and a additive EMF… CEMF blue circle opposes the applied or primary battery voltage and the additive EMF in red circle adds to the applied primary battery voltage. There are two emf’s in a North Pole face of a magnet. IMG_6222.jpeg

[WesTheSavage]

Thanks for clarifying so many things for me, including some still nagging misconceptions that wouldn't budge.

Seriously, this is immensely appreciated.

This ****'s making a HELL of a lot more sense.

The page Dr. Lindemann commented on also helped drastically, so thanks for linking it JenkoRun!

What I need to understand now is how to explain this in Transformers, because I'm wanting to explain to people about Thane C. Heins' Bitoroidal Transformer Core invention that does produce an OU effect by making the Lenz reaction manifest, but routes it away from interfering with the conventional forces in the transformer, an MIT professor by the name of EmeritusMarkus Zahn admitted it did stuff, but said professor was so indoctrinated in lamestream dogmatism that he wouldn't confess how well it worked..

I got archives of the actual media posts if anyone wanted to see ithem.


https://archive.ph/rls2b

https://archive.ph/LdUJp

https://archive.ph/bqVOn

The last link here was to confirm this was the same dude, he sadly died in 2022 at the age of 75

https://archive.ph/qkU2r

[JenkoRun]

I can't comment much on Heins' Bitoroidal Transformer as I've not spent much time looking at it, nor do I really understand the inner workings of how Lenz's Law operates, though I did hear something once about the magnetic flux paths to the primary coil being smaller and thus a high resistance return path compared to the outer portions of the core.

From my own research I believe the role of conduction current is the same as that of mechanical torque, it's job is to fight through any kind of resistance or impedance encountered, hence the more you load a common circuit the higher the current draw becomes, it's why perfectly tuned resonant circuits have a very low current cost compared to being out of tune, I've seen a few circuits that when built correctly and perfectly tuned the current is so low the watt meters end up showing 0 watts, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhrzn0tYS-s

In a conventional transformer when the induced Lenz field shows up it's moving in path and rotation that is against the induced flux, so perhaps Hein's transformer uses the core geometry to open a new path for the induced Lenz field to traverse away from the input flux? That seems to be what's indicated here about it: https://www.slideshare.net/PDiCEOTha...nsformer-bi-tt

From what I've seen of other experiments and devices I'm reasonably confident that Lenz's law can be made to oppose, ignore, or assist the prime mover by changing the orientation in compliance with the right hand rule, jettis gets his results by changing the magnet orientation from the poles facing the coils to being orthogonal to them, which also gives monopolar voltage readings in the coils: http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...-rectification

After seeing that I contemplated if making the poles orthogonal to both the coils and the vector of rotation would make the Lenz field assist the rotation, devices like the Kromrey generator show a similar effect under load (and also show "cold electricity" effects which has other implications) and a contact of mine showed me a device that verified my assumption, the results also indicate that the AEMF (Assistive EMF) had a voltage above that of the prime mover, not transient, which is supposed to be impossible.

I threw this together shortly afterward based on what I currently understand:

unnamed.gif

Assistive configuration also happens to align with the orientation of the planetary bodies of the solar system, which also has implications of how the solar system really works on top of Jim Murray's discoveries on rotational reference frames, and with every celestial body sharing sympathetic harmonics on top of that. One thing I'm not sure about though is if the orientation of the coils matter here or if it's solely dependent on the magnet orientation relative to the motion, jettis if you're reading this perhaps you could comment on it?

Edit: I made a mistake, the Kromrey is more related to using Lenz to neutralize drag rather than pushing the rotation.

[WesTheSavage]

Now I gotta ask, why are they assuming overunity is the same thing as somehow getting something from nothing like that Emeritus Markus Zahn and other "physicists" at MIT were claiming about these Lenz's Law EMF rerouting devices that do work?

I mean, for f#ck's sake, JL Naudin recreated this stuff EXACTLY and got repeatable results on his test beds and oscilloscopes!

[JenkoRun]

From what I know it ultimately comes down to 2 things, the first is the failure to recognize the existence of the universal medium, the aether, they will always parrot the MM experiment while ignoring not only the experiments that came after it, with much more notable results, but even the second MM experiment.
Resume of ether detection results throughout history.jpeg


A source of experimental data Aaron recommends is Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

The second is that academia has, and excuse my language, utterly no f***ing idea what Energy is. Today energy is defined as "the ability to do work" but that's a description and descriptions are not explanations, Aaron has tackled this topic before with a new definition of energy that makes a whole lot more sense, although personally I use "Energy" and "Power" inversely to how Aaron defines it, sounds more right to me, if there's a reason for the way he defines the two I'm unaware of it:

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...e25#post444196
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...e10#post392575
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...e26#post444221
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...ge8#post355609
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...ge2#post354815
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...e11#post392612
http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...ge6#post392395

http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...178#post173178

So if I had to summarize the reason behind this mess of physics I'd say it boils down to:
1. Pride
2. Dogma
3. Control
4. Funding
5. Ignorance

[WesTheSavage]

Citing the Michelson-Morley experiment as a "debunk" of the Aether fails Poppers Falsification criteria, Kuhn's and Lakatos' Falsifiability precursor, and can have the Russell Teapot invoked against it.

AT BEST it made the STATIC Ether a nullified hypothesis, but we know that's iffy.

You also have other interferometer experiments besides Dayton Miller's and Maurice Allais' that also contradict the MM Experiment.

Then you got some other physics and proto-physics issues that are gonna make my head hurt trying to explain by the mainstream I'll simply say are cope spirals and leave them at that...