Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[MileHigh]

Brad:

OK -so when we bring a permanent magnet toward a piece of iron,and the magnetic domains within the iron start to align so as the iron is attracted to the permanent magnet-what did the work that aligned the magnetic domains within the iron,so as it is attracted to the permanent magnet?.

There are two separate processes taking place that are happening at the same time.  First, when the iron is attached to the magnet, it's at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  It's just like being at the bottom of a gravitational potential energy well.  When you are at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well, you are at the lowest potential energy state.  When your hand pulls the iron away from the magnet, now the iron is "charged" with potential energy that your hand put into it.  It's almost like a charged capacitor.  It's potential energy due to your position.

Secondly, a small amount of energy is required to line up the magnetic domains in the iron bar, and as the iron bar approaches the magnet there is a small force to overcome because of Lenz's Law.  A small amount of mechanical work is required to line up the magnetic domains.  That work is drawn from the magnetic potential energy that is in the piece of iron.

When you bring the iron back to the magnet some of the potential energy is used to align the magnetic domains in the iron itself.

So, you are looking at a completely different set of energy dynamics here.  It all very similar to gravitational potential energy in a ball being a function of its height, i.e.; its position.

Somebody had to supply the energy to get the iron into a certain position.  That somebody is your hand.  Ultimately, your hand provided the energy to line up the magnetic domains and the magnet itself looks like a spring.  It's as dead as a proverbial door nail.  Just like a spring can store energy by virtue of its position but it is as dead as a door nail.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I believe that everyone has a right to there own view,but i do object to others trying to change mine.

Your "own personal version" of what magnetic flux is was completely wrong.  If you say something that is wrong, then you are going to be told that.  Let's be realistic here.  Sometimes you do an experiment and you make series of misunderstandings or mistakes.  People like Poynt, PW, and ION correct these things one by one and then you arrive at the end of the experiment with a satisfactory conclusion.  There is nothing wrong with making mistakes, it's all part of the learning process.  So your opinion of what your experiment is telling you has been changed many times.  Like I already said, if you choose to ignore what others tell you that's your prerogative.  Buy if you turn out to be dead wrong, and what you were told was right, then say it.

Im guessing that you believe that reactive power on a primary winding of a transformer can not be converted to real power through the secondary

See, here we are in slightly whackadoo territory.  What do you mean by, "reactive power on a primary winding of a transformer?"  The primary of a transformer is the power input from an external driving source.  So a primary of a transformer does not have "power."  You have to reread your stuff before you post it.

Nonetheless, I think I know what you mean.  If the power factor on the input of a transformer is zero, then no power can flow out of the secondary into a load.  The moment the secondary starts to output power into a load, the power factor on the transformer input has to be above zero.

So the answer to you question is no, a purely reactive load as viewed by the source driving the transformer primary cannot ever result in real power flowing into a load on the secondary.

The whole notion of converting "reactive power" into "real power" is pure nonsense.  It's just a myth on the free energy forums due to a lack of understanding of what "reactive power" really means.

MileHigh

[Drak]

The whole notion of converting "reactive power" into "real power" is pure nonsense.  It's just a myth on the free energy forums due to a lack of understanding of what "reactive power" really means.

Is this an opinion or a fact? Just because it has never been done before (publicly) does not mean it can't be done. I wish there was a thread devoted just to this. I would love to see debates on this from people who believe it to be possible and and those that don't. I'm new to all the phase shift and reactive/active/apparent power, so it would be an entertaining read.

[SoManyWires]

Brad:

There are two separate processes taking place that are happening at the same time.  First, when the iron is attached to the magnet, it's at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well.  It's just like being at the bottom of a gravitational potential energy well.  When you are at the bottom of a magnetic potential energy well, you are at the lowest potential energy state.  When your hand pulls the iron away from the magnet, now the iron is "charged" with potential energy that your hand put into it.  It's almost like a charged capacitor.  It's potential energy due to your position.

Secondly, a small amount of energy is required to line up the magnetic domains in the iron bar, and as the iron bar approaches the magnet there is a small force to overcome because of Lenz's Law.  A small amount of mechanical work is required to line up the magnetic domains.  That work is drawn from the magnetic potential energy that is in the piece of iron.

When you bring the iron back to the magnet some of the potential energy is used to align the magnetic domains in the iron itself.

So, you are looking at a completely different set of energy dynamics here.  It all very similar to gravitational potential energy in a ball being a function of its height, i.e.; its position.

Somebody had to supply the energy to get the iron into a certain position.  That somebody is your hand.  Ultimately, your hand provided the energy to line up the magnetic domains and the magnet itself looks like a spring.  It's as dead as a proverbial door nail.  Just like a spring can store energy by virtue of its position but it is as dead as a door nail.

MileHigh

what if the magnet did not contact the iron? such as was shown by someone i think is named bikelight on here.
the same principle test was duplicated by another person named bill in the same topic thread shortly after.

the magnet was observed to move towards the greater surface area of the iron plate being that the plate had a non parallel angle of incidence,
and then could continue past that to repeat the action when coming into proximity of a 2nd plate, showing capability to remain in motion.

this has also been noticed when working without iron, and using only magnets, it is possible to bypass one stator magnet array and be able to continue
forward to repeat in similar manner to how the iron and magnet version performed.

geometry can be a wildcard.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

You still have no explanation  as to why the inner secondary(which is a 1:1 turn ratio to the primary)has double the open voltage to that of the primary. Your opposite spin theory dose not hold up when we are measuring open voltages,and no current flowing through the secondary. The rate of change in magnetic flux density is not the same between the inner core and outer core. As the inner core is far more permeable than the outer core,the flux density rises at a far greater rate than that of the less permeable outer core.

I don't have an explanation.  I don't know what you mean by "opposite spin theory."  If you are referring to when you drive the inner secondary and then you get flux in opposite directions in the two cores, then that's what happens.

Was I correct when I said that I thought I saw you wrap tape around the inner core before you wound the inner secondary?  Did you then apply another layer of tape before you molded the outer core?  Those air gaps may play an equal or even greater role in determining which core gets more flux when you drive the inner secondary.

It's not the rate of change of magnetic flux density, it's the rate of change of total magnetic flux that determines the EMF that will be induced in a coil.

There is so much more to come yet MH. Now we start to try and prove this negative resistance-and we have some very bright minds working on this

But this is like a second and independent experiment, right?  Like we already agreed, at 5 MHz, it's actually a different circuit.  I don't know why you choose to call it "negative resistance" when it's arguable that you are looking at two separate branches in a circuit, and therefore multiplying the current sense and the voltage sense together is not really a valid multiplication.  It is not really giving you a measurement of power flow back into the function generator.

PW mentioned that measuring the voltage drop on the function generator output (unloaded vs. loaded) would be an interesting measurement.  I think that it may also be a valid measurement at 5 MHz in this case.   So, look at what is a distinct possibility:  You allegedly measure a "negative resistance" with power allegedly flowing back into the function generator.  However, when the function generator is connected to the circuit you see a voltage drop on the output, which is telling you that power is flowing out of the function generator and into the circuit under test.

MileHigh