Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

  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.

Thank You John, you have read and cross checked the facts obviously!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[picowatt]

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.

This is all very true.  Just as the reference you yourself provided also states (caption to Fig. 10.14) and under the test conditions Tinman provided, it is quite reasonable to assume that the magnitude of the magnetic flux is very closely represented by the primary current trace.

Therefore, as per Faraday, we would expect the secondary voltage minimum amplitude to occur when the rate of change of the magnetic flux is also at a minimum (as represented by the primary current).

You want to keep quote mining one line from TK's post and claim it is wrong in isolation (which is very bad form by the way), but in his post, TK went on to explain just how he used Faraday's Law and even provided a graphic to further depict how he used it.

i will try to explain it to you one more time:

Given Tinman's test conditions, the primary current closely represents the magnetic flux.  Using Faraday's law, it is quite reasonable to predict that the induced voltage (secondary voltage) will be at a minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (primary current) is also at a minimum.  TK explained this and also graphically indicated the time alignment of those two minimums in his annotated scope capture.

As this is the only point I have been trying to make you understand, I must assume you do not even agree with the references that you yourself provided.

One of your references, the Figure 10.14 caption, clearly states, to paraphrase, that the primary current is an excellent proxy for the magnetic flux.

Another of your references, from your post 1562 in the JT 101 thread, states:

Faraday's Law of Induction: the instantaneous emf induced in a circuit is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit

Those two references fully support, agree with, and provide further clarification of TK's answer.

Are you also claiming that even your own references are in error?

PW

[EMJunkie]

PW - You are still talking Apples and Oranges!

   Flux (ϕ) is a quantity, that must be measured and known well before Faraday's Law can be used. Thus part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and also System Design.

It is very easy to calculate this: Flux (ϕ) = BA cos(θ)

Where:
       B is the Magnetic Field in Tesla (SI Units)
       A is the total Cross Sectional Area in Meters Squared.
       θ (Theta) is the angle to the Flux (ϕ) to the Plane

This is a Magnetic Spectrum/System defined quantity which must be known well before getting to Faraday's Law, once known then Faraday's Law can then Predict the EMF, which is Anti-Phase, or 180 degrees from the Source.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

PW - Does what you say hold in the below image and if not why?


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[picowatt]

PW - You are still talking Apples and Oranges!

   Flux (ϕ) is a quantity, that must be measured and known well before Faraday's Law can be used. Thus part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum and also System Design.

Are you disagreeing with the Figure 10.14 caption you posted?

Are you saying that with the secondary open circuit, the primary current as measured in by Tinman did not accurately represent the magnetic flux?

You seem to be disagreeing with even your own references.

I suspect you are just being contrary...

PW