Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[poynt99]

What i am saying is that the changing E field also has a magnetic field as well-moving/accelerated charged particles create magnetic fields.
You simply cannot have a changing E field without a changing magnetic field accompanying the E field. The two coexist . So,as the E field also has a magnetic field,it is then an EM field.

Perhaps few are aware that when it comes to EM waves, there are near field and far field effects. At the frequencies and rates of rise that we work with in our transformers and OU experiments, usually there are very little far field effects, ie. there is very little EM radiation or propagation. Most of the effects manifest as near field, which means if you start out with a changing magnetic field, you will induce one strong associated E field. Beyond that the subsequent B and E fields drop off very rapidly in strength and have no bearing on our coils.

It is this changing magnetic field that is riding along with the electrical field that creates the EMF across the conductor. But both fields must be moving/changing together-as you simply cannot have one moving without the other.

Again, see above. Our experiments manifest as near field effects, i.e. little to no EM radiation.

The E field is not reliant on the changing flux within the core,as we would still have an E field if the core was not there.

That is true if we are discussing a stand alone air-core coil. If you remove the toroid core in my example and energize the primary coil, indeed an E field will be produced around that coil. There will of course be little to no induction to the secondary coil if its position remains the same as before.

But we are discussing a pair of coils, both wound on opposite sides of a high permeability toroid core. The purpose of which to form a transformer.

In summary, as the primary coil is energized, it produces magnetic flux within the toroid core. This confined flux flows around the core as shown in my diagram, and its path includes directly through the axis of the secondary coil. Simultaneously, a changing E field is induced all around the toroid as shown in my diagram, including directly in-plane and to the extent (and beyond) of the windings of the secondary coil, inducing an emf in that coil.

[tinman]

Perhaps few are aware that when it comes to EM waves, there are near field and far field effects. At the frequencies and rates of rise that we work with in our transformers and OU experiments, usually there are very little far field effects, ie. there is very little EM radiation or propagation. Most of the effects manifest as near field, which means if you start out with a changing magnetic field, you will induce one strong associated E field. Beyond that the subsequent B and E fields drop off very rapidly in strength and have no bearing on our coils.
Again, see above. Our experiments manifest as near field effects, i.e. little to no EM radiation.
That is true if we are discussing a stand alone air-core coil. If you remove the toroid core in my example and energize the primary coil, indeed an E field will be produced around that coil. There will of course be little to no induction to the secondary coil if its position remains the same as before.

But we are discussing a pair of coils, both wound on opposite sides of a high permeability toroid core. The purpose of which to form a transformer.

In summary, as the primary coil is energized, it produces magnetic flux within the toroid core. This confined flux flows around the core as shown in my diagram, and its path includes directly through the axis of the secondary coil. Simultaneously, a changing E field is induced all around the toroid as shown in my diagram, including directly in-plane and to the extent (and beyond) of the windings of the secondary coil, inducing an emf in that coil.

So,in the video below,are you saying that the current flowing through the secondary coil is being produced by an E field only?,as the magnetic field/magnetic flux is contained within the core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EuPGl8JjE

Can you also post a paper or any information that shows a changing/varying E fields that has no magnetic field associated with it.

[poynt99]

So,in the video below,are you saying that the current flowing through the secondary coil is being produced by an E field only?,as the magnetic field/magnetic flux is contained within the core.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EuPGl8JjE

Yes.

Can you also post a paper or any information that shows a changing/varying E fields that has no magnetic field associated with it.

If I said that, yes. Since I did not say that, no.

However, if you want to understand why the B and E fields drop off rapidly in the near field (reactive near field), you will need to delve into antenna and RF theory a little. btw, once an EM wave propagates in the far field, the two EM components are an E and H field, not an E and B field.

Wiki Near and Far Field
Wiki EM Radiation
The World of the Near Field


Here are some excerpts:

In the far-field region of an antenna, radiation decreases as the square of distance, and absorption of the radiation does not feed back to the transmitter. However, in the near-field region, absorption of radiation does affect the load on the transmitter. Magnetic induction (for example, in a transformer) can be seen as a very simple model of this type of near-field electromagnetic interaction.

Electromagnetic radiation is associated with those EM waves that are free to propagate themselves ("radiate") without the continuing influence of the moving charges that produced them, because they have achieved sufficient distance from those charges. Thus, EMR is sometimes referred to as the far field. In this jargon, the near field refers to EM fields near the charges and current that directly produced them, specifically, electromagnetic induction and electrostatic induction phenomena.

Maxwell's equations established that some charges and currents ("sources") produce a local type of electromagnetic field near them that does not have the behaviour of EMR. Currents directly produce a magnetic field, but it is of a magnetic dipole type that dies out with distance from the current. In a similar manner, moving charges pushed apart in a conductor by a changing electrical potential (such as in an antenna) produce an electric dipole type electrical field, but this also declines with distance. These fields make up the near-field near the EMR source. Neither of these behaviours are responsible for EM radiation. Instead, they cause electromagnetic field behaviour that only efficiently transfers power to a receiver very close to the source, such as the magnetic induction inside a transformer, or the feedback behaviour that happens close to the coil of a metal detector.

The near field region
includes two sub-regions: radiating, where the angular field
distribution is dependent on the distance, and reactive,
where the energy is stored but not radiated.

In the reactive near field, energy is stored in the electric and magnetic fields very close to the source but not radiated from them. Instead, energy is exchanged between the signal source and the fields. Should a device capable of coupling energy from the fields be nearby, a received signal will be developed by that device.

[Magluvin]

Yes.
If I said that, yes. Since I did not say that, no.

However, if you want to understand why the B and E fields drop off rapidly in the near field (reactive near field), you will need to delve into antenna and RF theory a little. btw, once an EM wave propagates in the far field, the two EM components are an E and H field, not an E and B field.

I think what Brad is asking for is info on how it is the E field in the closed 'transformer', not the mag field, that induces the secondary from the primary.

Like a book or paper that states this in 'transformer' theory and or design.

Because that was what I was about to ask.

Mags

[Magluvin]

Wiki Near and Far Field
Wiki EM Radiation

NIU is technically right - Wikipedia can't be used for 'legitimate business purposes' The NIU prompt warning about Wikipedia also contained an interesting caveat about accessing the site for "legitimate business purposes." The suggestion was that Wikipedia can't really be used for this, with no clear indicator as to why this might be the case -- after all, Wikipedia is an information source monitored by the people and for the people, right?

Well, if you've been following Natural News in recent months, you probably already know about Wikipedia's gross manipulation of information and active censorship of topics that it deems "inaccurate." One of these, of course, is natural health and issues related to nutritional medicine -- or what the mainstream media would consider "alternatives" to the conventional model of preventing and treating illness.

As we reported as far back as 2010, Wikipedia has been caught actively altering entries about topics like orthomolecular medicine and nutrition, tainting them with a bias for conventional medicine and passing them off as absolute truth. The situation over at Wikipedia has gotten so out of control, in fact, that multiple well-respected academic institutions published a study on Wikipedia corruption earlier this year, declaring up to 90 percent of Wikipedia's health-related content to be inaccurate or blatantly false.

Join the real truth movement at TruthWiki.org This is why Natural News' own Health Ranger, Mike Adams, decided to launch an alternative to Wikipedia at TruthWiki.org. The purpose of this site, which is still in development, is to offer a source of information on topics that are actively censored, ignored, or maligned by the establishment. The public desperately needs an information source that is not overrun by industry trolls and their blind apologists, who masquerade as truth-bearers but actively promote their own corrupt agendas.

"[M]uch of the information [on Wikipedia] related to holistic approaches to healing is biased, misleading, out-of-date, or just plain wrong," reads a petition filed against Wikipedia's reign of corruption by the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology. "As gatekeepers for the status quo, [Wikipedia refuses] discourse with leading edge research scientists and clinicians or, for that matter, anyone with a different point of view."

The TruthWiki.org project is still under development, but you can monitor its progress here:
TruthWiki.org.

Learn more:  http://www.naturalnews.com/046611_Wikipedia_Truth_Wiki_internet_censorship.html#ixzz3nWjrNofn



Mags
[/color]