Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

Thought about it some more and can't figure out why the current would want to go in the direction of the big red arrows I added if the diode wasn't there. I don't see why it wouldn't keep flowing clockwise if just a short was there instead of the diode. If current is already going in a clockwise direction when power is applied, why wouldn't it keep going in that direction even with power removed, since an object in motion wants to stay in motion unless some other force causes it to change. What other force would cause the current to switch directions and flow counterclockwise if the diode wasn't there?
With a dead short and no diode present, I still see the current flowing in the correct direction, clockwise, so I don't know why we need the diode? Would the current in a dead short start to bounce back and fourth like self oscillation so we need the diode to keep it all moving in only one direction?

OK-you lost me.
The current will continue to flow in the same direction if the diode is removed,it just will not be recirculated through the inductor. The larger red arrows you added are wrong,as the current flow will not reverse direction like that.
I dont think you read my explanation correctly,and it can be clearly seen by the blue and red arrows i drew that the current flows in the same direction-only the voltage inverts.

[poynt99]

TinMan-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
Poynt-Yes.

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

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


So i ask if the current in the secondary in that video is being produced by an E field only,and clearly stated that the magnetic field/magnetic flux is being contained within the core-->and you say yes.
Then i ask you to post a paper or some sort of proof that a varying E field has no magnetic field associated with it,and you say-->i never said that.

I said the subsequent E and B fields fall off rapidly as they are near field effects, which don't contribute to radiated energy. You asked me to post a link to anything that proved the E field has no associated magnetic field at all. I trust you see the difference.

You then go on to say that the E field has a H field as well.
Well,the H field is a magnetic field,and so that can only mean that the secondary in that video is NOT producing current flow from the E field only.

Yes I did say that, but what was with that reference to?

So,if there is a H field (the determined magnetic field strength) with that E field,then all the magnetic field is not contained within the core,where as the B field is only that that determines magnetic flux density.

As i said,a varying electric field cannot induce an EMF or current flow through a conductor,as a varying electric field alone dose not exist. Any varying E field(be it a near or far field) also has a magnetic field.

Since there is no H field in the reactive near field, and we are dealing with the reactive near field, I fail to understand why you bring it up in this part of your argument.

Please point to where I stated that an E field does not have an associated B field (or vice versa).

[poynt99]

Mags,

Lewin's non-conservative fields experiment is another great way to learn about induction and the induced E field.

This is my test jig which is similar to Lewin's.

His lecture has a fundamental flaw, but its still interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqjl-qRy71w

[tinman]

I said the subsequent E and B fields fall off rapidly as they are near field effects, which don't contribute to radiated energy. You asked me to post a link to anything that proved the E field has no associated magnetic field at all. I trust you see the difference.
Yes I did say that, but what was with that reference to?
Since there is no H field in the reactive near field, and we are dealing with the reactive near field, I fail to understand why you bring it up in this part of your argument.

Please point to where I stated that an E field does not have an associated B field (or vice versa).

When i asked-Quote: 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.
And you answered,Quote:-yes

Quote near and far fields-While the far field is the region in which the field acts as "normal" electromagnetic radiation, where it is dominated by electric-dipole type electric or magnetic fields, the near field is governed by multipole type fields, which can be considered as collections of dipoles with a fixed phase relationship. The boundary between the two regions is only vaguely defined, and it depends on the dominant wavelength (λ) emitted by the source.

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.

So now some time for testing. In the video- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EuPGl8JjE
do you believe in this instant that the secondary would be energized by a near field or far field?.

Second(to help me with my testing and understanding)in regards to a setup like that of the above video-,if it is the current flowing through the primary that causes the E field that is inducing the EMF and current flow through the secondary,should not the secondaries EMF be in phase with the current flow of the primary,and not the voltage across the primary?.

If i raise the frequency on the primary so as we get a phase shift between the voltage(leading)and the current(trailing),should not the secondaries EMF be in phase with the current of the primary(as it is the current that produces the E field),and not the voltage across the primary?.

[EMJunkie]

...

an interesting debate...

A sponge can hold a specific quantity of water, the water does not "Leak" as such unless there is sufficient pressure put on the Sponge.

A Magnetic Core is the same, it can hold, or "Link" a specific quantity of Magnetic Flux, the Flux will not "Leak" unless sufficient pressure is placed on the Core.

This is called Permeability, how Permeable the Core is.  is often seen written as µ₀. Air has a Permeability of approximately 1.257 x 10 -6 henry's per meter.

Magnetic Flux is always going to take the absolute easiest path, this is called Reluctance, increase the Reluctance, the Magnetic Flux will be less likely to flow through that path and taken the next easiest path.

In the video: Large secondary loop transformer - I believe there is a very good chance that Raselli1 is using a Metglas Core. These cores have massive Permeability's! Some are around 600,000

See: Permeability (electromagnetism)

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org