Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Red_Sunset]

Again, it is well known to Engineers that when a Transformer is properly Loaded, there is a Net Zero Magnetic Field in the Transformer. Where the Ampere Turns AT are Equal but Opposite to each other.

Why?
Lenz's Law:   

Gents,

I am amazed at the tenacity of members who remain lock jaw engaged in a fruitless agument based on unsubstantiated logic.
--> "Again, it is well known to Engineers that when a Transformer is ...........................,"
                     Question:  Who are these engineers ?   (possibly phantom)
                     Question:  Where is the reference to acknowledged theory material that substantiates this statement (since it is different to mainstream accepted theory)

Precision is key:  I would guess, the intention of the statement was, (from a field vector viewpoint angle.)
** Again, it is well known to Engineers that when a Transformer is properly Loaded, the load current effectively results in no additional  Net "Magnetic Field" in the Transformer.     The secondary load current field will be met by an equal increased primary current and field, equal opposing fields (in simple & ideal conditions).  Magnetizing current and field will always remain and drive the transformer and result in a non zero field in the core at any time.

By talking past each other, it starts to look like discussion of believes (like religion).  Believes do not necessary obey logical reason
Mechanics of science is not religion.  A believe could be equated to a "hypotheses", to be proven by verifiable validation.

If in a discussion, the proper etiquette is not adhered to, than we do not have a discussion any longer. (no benefit to either party)
It is quite acceptable to disagree and remove yourself from the discussion if no common ground can be found.

Consider the origin of the word "Gentlemen" when you are lifting your swords here.

Regards, Red_Sunset

[EMJunkie]

You keep repeating this false claim of net zero flux in the transformer even after the truth has been explained to you.  In an idealized, forward connected transformer, secondary current generates additional flux that is identically canceled by equal and oppositely oriented additional flux in the primary over and above the primary magnetization flux.  The primary magnetization flux depends on the integral of 1/L_PRIMARY*Edt .  It is independent of the secondary current, secondary flux, and coupling factor.

I really am wasting my time.....

Yet more Convoluted Confusion to put on people! Well done MarkE!!!

Simplified:

Net Magnetic Vector Field = 1 + -1 = 0

Where 1  and -1 are the Field Vectors Respectively at time t.

Additional, my Pinkie!!! There is nothing additional about LENZ's LAW!!!

[Red_Sunset]

I really am wasting my time.....
Yet more Convoluted Confusion to put on people! Well done MarkE!!!
Simplified:
Net Magnetic Vector Field = 1 + -1 = 0
Where 1  and -1 are the Field Vectors Respectively at time t.
Additional, my Pinkie!!! There is nothing additional about LENZ's LAW!!! 

You keep repeating this false claim of net zero flux in the transformer even after the truth has been explained to you.  In an idealized, forward connected transformer, secondary current generates additional flux that is identically canceled by equal and oppositely oriented additional flux in the primary over and above the primary magnetization flux.  The primary magnetization flux depends on the integral of 1/L_PRIMARY*Edt .  It is independent of the secondary current, secondary flux, and coupling factor.

MarkE,  allow me using your responses below

*I really am wasting my time.....:               That is what you think, think again !
*SIMPLFIED:                                               In an idealized, forward connected transformer,
*Net Magnetic Vector Field = 1 + -1 = 0  :  Secondary current generates additional flux that is identically canceled by equal and oppositely oriented additional flux in the primary
*Additional, my Pinkie!!! There is nothing additional about LENZ's LAW!!! :           see the statement above, it is all about Lenz

Red_Sunset

[forest]

Don Smith : "generators don't make electricity"[/size]Harry Perrigo : ""The device is a generator as truly as the power-driven rotary generator in any power plant. Those generators don't actually 'make' electricity. They condense it from the air.""In 1919 Hubbard represented the apparatus as being capable of extracting electrical energy directly from the air"Hendershot : "His earlier invention was called a "motor" by the newspapers, but it was actually a generator which was powered by the magnetic field of the earth. His later models created enough electricity to simultaneously light a 120 volt light bulb and a table model radio."

[EMJunkie]

MarkE,  allow me using your responses below

*I really am wasting my time.....:               That is what you think, think again !
*SIMPLFIED:                                               In an idealized, forward connected transformer,
*Net Magnetic Vector Field = 1 + -1 = 0  :  Secondary current generates additional flux that is identically canceled by equal and oppositely oriented additional flux in the primary
*Additional, my Pinkie!!! There is nothing additional about LENZ's LAW!!! :           see the statement above, it is all about Lenz

Red_Sunset

Red_Sunset - It sounds like your Business is riding on me giving you answers - The Sun has set and its too late for that here...

Really, you're arguing for and against, its pointless.

My point is MarkE is deliberately trying to confuse the masses here. I know exactly what he meant, I know exactly what he was trying to do.

I had an old Boss, real good bloke he was, he used to say to me: "If its confusing or over complicated, then one does not understand it"

Why would one want to deliberately over complicate such a simple topic? Ask yourself that!

Now go and tell your share holders, sorry, here is your money back