Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Pirate88179]

MH:

I really like your balloon example.  It makes perfect sense to me.  If you handed me a balloon and I did not know what it was, I might think...hey this is an energy source.  Of course I would have no idea that you took energy to inflate it...so...it is more like an energy storage device, ie, battery.

So, I could make a youtube video claiming that I could run my home off of 10,000 inflated balloons for free, and I might be correct....except...I did not allow for the energy required (with losses) to inflate them in the first place.  This simple example of yours probably explains over half of the so called "Free Energy" videos on youtube.

See?  I am learning something here.

Bill

[Pirate88179]

Imagine you are looking at the inflated balloon with the coil inside the balloon.  You know that the inflated balloon stores a certain number of joules.  Do you see any movement when you look at the balloon?  Or do you just notice that fact that the air inside the balloon is under tension like a compressed spring?  It's a simple analogy with limitations - who cares - the point being that a balloon stores energy without "movement."

It's simply ridiculous to look at arrows on a drawing of magnetic field lines and assume that there "must be movement."  It's ridiculous.  And to bring it full circle, don't be surprised if that misconception (you are not the only one that states this) comes from people looking at pictures in books but not reading the text in the books so they can understand what the diagrams are trying to represent.

In my opinion many people around here often fail to realize that the magnetic field is a manifestation of energy.  It takes energy to make a magnetic field and likewise energy is given up when a magnetic field goes away.   When you think like that, when you really think about it and apply it to transformers, as an example, you should come to the realization that all "special" or "unusual" or "crazy" transformer configurations that supposedly contain some "secret sauce" are bullshit.  (I am pretty sure you realize this, the comments are directed at all).  There is just no hope in hell that any unusual transformer configuration will do anything beyond input, store, and output energy, period.  It will all be straight and normal and anyone that claims that they have a "special secret sauce" transformer configuration can be refuted on the bench by making some straightforward measurements.  TK may be in a position to challenge all kinds of "secret sauce" with his new DSO, we shall see.

MileHigh

But, if you tie the wire going to the coil in a square knot, as we all know, this triples the energy into the coil, and therefore, the energy leaving the coil.

I can only imagine what a slip knot might do?

Just kidding.  But, this is yet another example of electronics quakary.

Bill

[Magluvin]

There was a talk about this a while back, in another thread I believe.


From that discussion, it seems to me, it is like this.....

Parts of the discussion were about the possibility of electrons being the source of magnetic fields. Each electron has its own mag field around it like rings around saturn.

Magnetic domains I suspect are the atoms in a magnet that have been aligned so that their fields add up to create 1 larger field which can be detected outside the magnet, rather than the atoms being aligned randomly and relatively no field outside the magnet itself before it became magnetized. So randomly set, most all the N and S poles, in reference to lets say field direction are canceled out mostly.

Lets say we have a length of wire and in that wire each atom has electrons in orbit around them. More than likely the atoms/domains in the wire are all in random orientation, so no field detected around the wire. 

So when we apply a dc current to that wire, electrons are broken away from their bonds with their atoms/domains and move through the wire from neg to pos of the charge applied to the wire. As a result, we have a magnetic field of particular orientation around the wire. When the current is discontinued by removing the charge at the ends of the wire, the field is no longer produced.  Now if we reverse the charge applied to the wire, current(electron flow) occurs in the opposite direction, and also a mag field is produced of an opposite polarity around the wire than it was with the original current polarity.

To me, it seems as though the more electrons that are free from bond and flowing through the wire, the stronger the mag field gets, means that the electrons that are free from bond and flow from neg to pos all seem to have the same magnetic orientation. What that seems to indicate is that the electrons must have a neg and positive side to them. Say for example, saturn is an electron and the rings are the magnetic field, then the top of saturn is say pos and the bottom is neg. 

The reason I say this is, there must be this sort of situation due to the fact that if we reverse the current in the wire, we also reverse the polarity of the mag field around the wire. 

So in the wire, we envision all the electrons as little saturns. Fields around the equator with say electrical pos on top and neg at the bottom.

Now we apply a charge to the wire, pos at one end and neg at the other. When the charge causes an electron to break from its bond, the pos(top) of the electron wants to align with the negatively charged end of the wire and the neg(bottom) of the electron wants to be in the direction of the positively charged end of the wire thereby its field(rings) are set to be around the wire, not just any random setting.  And if we reverse the current, the electron aligns itself with the charges applied to the wire and the mag field around the wire is in an opposite orientation around the wire than it was with current flow in the other direction..

So I dont believe that electrons are negatively charged particles themselves. I think they are polarized particles that align themselves, when free, to the electrical charges around them.   So when a mag field induces a current in a wire, it is because the field causes the electrons field(rings) to become aligned or say in sync with the inducing field causing the orientation of the electrons to be pos toward one end of the wire and neg toward the other end of the wire. And if we have a load on the wire ends, then the electrons move postive(top of saturn) forward through the wire.

Typically the load is not affected by the inducing mag field, just the wire or coil, and the load is just neutral or a passive pathway.  So when the mag field induces the wire and the electrons field rings become aligned or in sync, the tops(+) and bottoms(-) of the electrons also align in similar orientation as to cause a + charge at one end of the wire and - at the other thus producing current through the load.

Back then it just occurred to me that this makes some sense.  It is not the movement of the electrons in a particular direction that causes a likewise field orientation around the wire as a whole, it is the orientation of the electrons fields being aligned by electrical charge across the wire ends.   Pos at one end of the wire aligns the electron to align and set a field around the wire in one particular orientation, and switching the wires electrical polarity input produces a mag field in the opposite orientation.   

So there must be a pos(top) and a neg(bottom) with a field around the equator of the electron(saturn).  It must be so in order that the mag field coincides with a particular charge applied.

As for actual electrical fields or what magnetic fields actually are, well thats Gods little secret.

Mags

[tinman]

Brad:

That's another classic mistake.  The arrows just show direction.  Can't an arrow just mean direction?  There is no flow.  It makes me think of a related story.  There is a crazy "white paper" floating around about some unusual transformer configuration (no surprise there) where the whole basis of the paper is about cutting magnetic flux lines.  The paper appears to discuss magnetic flux lines like they are tangible like you can count them or something.  There are no literal "lines" of magnetic flux.  It's so ridiculous you almost feel like you want to slap the guy that wrote the paper.

The old "you can't explain" argument gets very tiresome after a while.  It's asked in an accusatory tone by people that "can't explain" either.  What does pure water taste like?  Likewise, why do people obsess over the magnetic field, what about the electric field?  Note we can't literally explain both to the satisfaction of many but we can measure both with a great deal of accuracy.

It's useful to think of the magnetic field building up around a coil as a manifestation of energy.   It takes electrical energy to create the magnetic field.  You can measure it in joules per cubic centimetre if you want to - a volume energy density.  You pump electrical energy into a coil and you get a physical magnetic field around the coil.  The more energy you pump in the bigger the field gets.  It takes work to make it.  A simple analogy would be like blowing up a balloon.  The balloon represents "pressure stressed air space" just like the two fields represent magnetically or electrically stressed space.  There is real measurable mechanical force between the plates of a charged capacitor.

So, you imagine that when you energize a regular cylindrical coil it's like a balloon has been blown up with the coil in the center.  You have pressure-stressed air space representing the magnetically stressed space.

MileHigh

Well while you guys may be happy being able to measure something,you still dont know what it is you are measuring. You are also happy to say that the arrows depict direction-->direction of what?.

I think what has happened here is,well we can measure it,we know what it dose,and how it's made-->so that will do.
Like i said-it's funny when you think about it.
We can measure it-but we dont know what were measuring.
We know the effects it has-but we dont know what is causing those effects.
We can make it-but we dont know what were making.

This sounds like jumping into a swiming hole head first without knowing how deep the water is.
Only when we know what the magnetic force is,will we then be able to make it do work.To say that no configuration of transformer could be built to make the magnetic field do wrok,is a blind leap of faith,as you do not understand what you are dealing with when it comes to magnetic fields. All you have so far is all you know,and that is very little when it comes to the magnetic field.
The BIG understanding is yet to come.

[Red_Sunset]

MileHigh & Tinman,

Excellent analogy of comparison, the magnetic field to a inflated balloon, at least with respect to certain common properties it exhibits.  Their is no known "secret sauce" in that configuration,  that is MileHigh statement.  He might be right, we can include  TK  & MarkE in this viewpoint, true until proven wrong. The passage of time has proven them more right than wrong.   Their is a general desire to discover this "secret sauce" that will solve all energy problems, all indicators show that there is general desire to expand the energy boundaries.  As Tinman outlines, the knowledge of today is not necessary the end of the story. 

Exactly what this story is , time will tell what it is.  From my viewpoint, you are all correct.
The real issue in this forum is that "a theory", "an hypotheses" is too often presented as FACT.

Typical reasons:
The investment of work done over several years, the desire of achieving OU,  the potential project that is coming short by a small margin of the desired OU mark, is too often presented as overunity.   A failed OU project can be willed into the overunity domain by making some sloppy measurements,  These are the reasons and techniques too often used on the Overunity forums that confuse informations presented

A good position to take is to treat the "OU forums" and "internet in general" as a BIG INFORMATION FLEA MARKET.  There is a lot of rubbish out there, although in between their are some PRECIOUS GEMS.  Use good judgements to assess and analyze informations that come your way (always cross check).  Don't not be too gullible but neither too dismissive. 

Therefore MH, TK, MarkE correctness is one matched to the standard but unbeknown, the standard may be in motion too.(expanding would be the better term)
As tinman said :  The BIG understanding is yet to come.

Greetings, Red_Sunset