Yes the analogy with the N3 law is worth emphasizing. A changing magnetic field, intercepted by a solenoid, creates an induced current, and vice versa--a changing electric current induces a magnetic field, through the solenoid.
Ludwik =========================================== On Feb 8, 2016, at 7:05 AM, Vibrator ! wrote: > Lenz's law is the EM manifestation of Newton's 3rd law, conserving momentum, > and is simply the reciprocal / mutual self-induction of Faraday's law - > currents generate magnetic fields, and vice versa; an induced current has > its own magnetic field which reacts back with the applied field. It's an EMF > - the same force as voltage and the force between two magnets - and its sign > is always opposite to that of the applied motion or voltage. > > As with Newton's 3rd law, many people miss why conservation of energy should > be dependent upon equal and opposite reactions. The reason is that while > momentum scales linearly (P=MV), KE scales as half the square of velocity > (KE=1/2MV^2) - IOW compound interest on rising speed. From a standing start, > we can accelerate 1 kg by 1 m/s using just 1/2 a Joule of energy. But to > then increase its speed by another 1 m/s will cost four times the initial > price - 2 J. To bump it up again by a third meter per second will cost 4.5 > J, and so on. To get it from 9 m/s up to 10 m/s, that same 1 m/s increment > of acceleration is gonna cost 9.5 Joules. > > So why does the cost of KE square up like this? It's because we have to > apply the same given force over an ever-increasing displacement, in order to > achieve the same consistent acceleration. Alternatively, we could > progressively raise the applied force over a constant displacement increment, > but either way, the whole joules per meter/sec/kg game is one of massively > diminishing returns. > > The reason is that the force is normally considered as applied from a second, > usually non-inertial (non-accelerating) frame - hence there's an ever rising > displacement between the thing you're accelerating and the thing it's pushing > against. Hence KE rises as half the square of displacement / time. > > But not so for momentum - since its very units and dimensions are mass times > velocity, it scales linearly. Inertia is velocity-independent. > > So an effective N3 violation would allow you to create energy by effectively > towing your reaction mass along for free. Consider two adjacent 1kg masses > in free space connected via a perfectly elastic slack tether: an impulse is > applied between them, but because abracadabra, only one moves, until they > collide again; from either mass's frame of reference, that detail is > irrelevant - if we input 1 J of energy then that's all the system has, and > whether 1/2 a J resides in each mass or one has more than the other may seem > academic... > > Until we repeat that input condition. A second input Joule will raise the > net system energy to just 2J, no OU yet, but from an external FoR the net > system momentum has risen by a Joule or so... and as we repeat that input > condition, the net system momentum begins to square up, as KE is, by > definition, wont to do... while internally, the relative velocity between > the oscillating masses never exceeds the linear sum of 1 J/kg/m/s inputs. So > when the net system momentum reaches 10 m/s, we'll only have input 20 J of > work, but for a 100 J net system energy... IOW we've created 80 J from > dodging the usual 1/2V^2 premium. > > So an N3 violation basically converts the dimensions of our input energy into > those of momentum - obviating the 1/2^2 accumulator. We could accelerate a 1 > kg mass to 10 m/s using just 5 J (1/2 J per m/s) - a speed at which it'll > have 50 J of KE from the stationary reference frame. > > And exactly this same dynamic applies to EM systems - it's the same > fundamental symmetry; a Lenzless motor has a linear input energy for an > exponential output KE (RKE = 1/2 angular inertia times angular velocity > squared)... therefore beyond some (low) threshold of performance the output > energy integral punches diagonally straight through the flat-line input > integral, and keeps rising.. > > Essentially, accelerating a mass Lenzlessly would present no load upon the > power supply - only usual resistance losses remain, following Joule's 2nd law > for heat (Q=I^2RT where Q = J and I^2RT is current squared times resistance > times time)... calorimetry would thus show gains, while a passively > superconducting Lenzless reaction could summon infinite free momentum from > the vacuum without any incidental heating > > EM or mechanical, the peak efficiency of an N3 break is a power of ten of > whatever's input. In the admittedly spartan world of classical symmetry > breaks, an N3 exception would be the motherload. Reactionless propulsion AND > free energy. > > The source or sink is whatever manifests the fields in question (Higgs / > virtual photons or whatever vacuum activity they represent).. but either > way, an effective N3 violation means a system is thermodynamically open.
