Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

author=EMJunkie link=topic=15395.msg480507#msg480507 date=1460530559]





Actually i do Chris,as it was me that asked the question(that was aimed toward minnie ,after his comment toward me). My answer was /is the same as TK's,and i stand by it.

TKs given answer is correct.

I doubt that very much Chris.

It dose that exactly when there is no current flowing through the secondary coil.

And the inverse is true,where it predicts changing magnetic fields giving rise to an EMF across an inductor.


Brad

Brad, youre welcome to your opinion.

It doesnt make it any more correct than PW or TK - and if you keep on track, without being steered, then you will see this soon.

The Fundamental Electromagnetic Waves, are a Requirement for Faradays Law to exist, not the other way around.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

I mean, as an example - Just for giggles...

Read 1 Milion Papers on the Electromagnetic Spectrum.

How many times is Faraday's Law mentioned?

Yes, thats right - None!!!

Why?

Because the Fundamental, the very most basic requirement for existance, is where the race starts. This cant be changed, not by mere mortal men!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Brad, you have crossed wires:

Actually i do Chris,as it was me that asked the question(that was aimed toward minnie ,after his comment toward me). My answer was /is the same as TK's,and i stand by it.

This debate on Faraday's Law, is not about your question, it never was! This assumption has come from, Readers of the Forum, not reading properly.

TKs given answer is correct.

This debate on Faraday's Law, entirely stemms from TK's Answer and nothing else! Where I have proven to anyone reading, that TK and anyone that supports his statement, is wrong.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Lets look at your question though: NONE have looked at this properly!!!

   1: You measure Current on the Input Stage.
   2: You measure Voltage on the Output Stage in a "No Load" Condition.

First, there is an assumption here, made by all, that the Input Current is in Phase with the Magnetising Force (ϕ) or Flux. However, under a "No Load" condition, this is ok to assume most of the time.

Right from the start, by comparing Input Current and Output Voltage, and then bringing Faraday's Law into the equation, was incorrect in its own right : Comparing Apples and Oranges!!!

FYI: One can use Faraday's Law to Calculate the EMF, then one can use Ohms Law to Calculate Current by the equation: I = V / R : Again, Apples and Oranges!!! This does not work in this situation simply because there are two different Circuits!!!

PW mostly now, TK and Tinman, you are wong on so many levels. Very clearly, if you look at the above Phasor Diagrams I posted, you will see, what you have said is totally wrong! So many assumptions made, and not a single shread of proof to support your wild assumptions!!!

   First: Faradays Law does not PREDICT Current!!!
   Second: Faradays Law does not PREDICT Flux (ϕ)!!!
   Third: Faradays Law does not PREDICT Phase Relationships between Voltage and Current!!!

   Fact: Faradays Law does PREDICT EMF and the Sign of it, Anti-Phase, or 180 Degrees to the Source.

The Fundamental Laws of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and System Design Determines the Flux (ϕ), Ohms Law Determines Current as long as the Voltage and Resistance is in the same Circuit.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[minnie]

  It comes as quite a shock to me to find that the old Koala's wrong,
  but come to think of it he must be a tad behind the times.
          John.