Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[Magluvin]

Ok, a short post before I go home from my shop to finish...

The reason Im posting this stuff is I have a feeling that the explanation of the E field is what induces the sec from the primary, instead of flux from the primary cutting the sec, is very much possibly wrong. I have had the discussion on ideal cap to cap, losing 50% by doing so, and mostly proved my argument there. So I dont want to get into a discussion of ideal cores here, as there is no such thing as an ideal core to prove anything with this. Yet I believe that flux would traverse the hole of the core even then.

I believe that the expanding field of the primary, on a closed loop core, traverses across the hole of the core in order to 'cut' the secondary in order to induce it.

As shown in my depictions, we should understand that the expanding fields of the primary should cross over that center air to get to the right where the sec should be. Will get deeper on that hopefully later today. But 'I fail to see' that the same would not happen if the core was closed, and that the fields just happen in the core, without any flux cutting of the sec in order to induce it. So far nobody has given me a solid explanation or even a solid testing platform to prove such. So far Ive been basically told that this is the way it is without any full and simply understandable reasoning that it is the E field that induces the sec without the flux cutting the sec at all.  I tried to get Chris to explain it, but he didnt really. I wish someone would.

I was planning on some testing of this a while back, and have the apparatus to do so, just havnt gotten to it yet. I wound a coil on one side of a closed core and have linear hall sensors to test the hole of the closed core to see if flux traverses over the hole to complete the flux loop in the core. It may be nill in testing as the flux in the hole will not be concentrated as it would be in the core itself, as the expanding field is traversing small doses of flux across the hole in time. 

My earlier argument of this should be able to be proven with a wire through the core, where expanding flux traversing the hole of the core and the wire gets induced from the primary by flux cutting, but if we put that same wire close to just the outside of the core, it doesnt.  The E field argument says that if the wire goes through the hole of the core, then the remainder of that wire has to be in a loop, as in connected to a load or even a meter, and that loop is necessary in order for the E field to be captured by that single wire, even if the rest of that wire loop outside of the core hole is very large and far away from the core.  I dont buy it.  Will explain further later.

I only brought it up here as it was brought up here as shown in my first reply on this on the previous page. Hopefully we can figure it out.

Like the cap to cap deal.  It was said in much earlier arguments that if the cap to cap is not ideal, that 10v in a 10uf cap, directly discharged into another cap, that we end up with 5v in each cap while losing 50% of the total energy in the 10v cap we started with. It was said that we lost the 50% in heat because of resistance. It was also said that if the caps were ideal, and we did the cap to cap again, that we would end with 7.07v in each cap. Well I won that argument, as if we did an electron count, the 7.07v in each could not happen. So if we end with 5v each in the ideal world, where did we lose the 50% without resistance or heat loss? It is strange that the loss can be calculated in the resistance loss to be the 50%. But ideal caps will still have 5v each. Where did the 50% go if no resistance and no heat to account for that loss???

So I am sticking to my guns on this one also.  I will not be just told it is so on the E field induction without a clear cut explanation, as I, or anyone should want to fully understand it before ultimate acceptance of such. Just like the cap to cap, dont just accept the 'answer' without an absolute and very clear explanation of such, of which it still hasnt been fully explained as to where the 50% loss happened if there were no resistance in the ideal world.

Mags

PS   Read the pdf till you understand it well. If you believe it is just junk science, as Chris has put it, then I have to believe you never really read it to a point of understanding it at all.

[forest]

Mags


I attached modified picture ,sorry about quality :-(. In case 2 there is an additional part of flux with very tiny gap between this part and the closed  core. If flux has to pass through the air area inside core then it must meet this part and I believe it will close itself over it and no or just a tiny flux reaches the secondary coil. However if flux always take the easiest part then it flow almost entirely inside core and the additional part has no or little effect on the secondary output.


I believe that the flux is passing entirely on the core and the effect on secondary is just simply by the varying permeability of core (or just magnetization of core)
To test it you can just create a simple tiny transformer on a ferrite rod inside a tube then attach DC to the primary and observe if the movement of core inside tube will generate output in secondary. I saw a variation of this kind with a closed magnetic path broken like in Ed Leedscalnin PMH.


I think you can use case 2 to create simple ou device (cop probably below 10)

[Magluvin]

Hey Forest. Been a while. How have you been?

The reason I have posted on this hear was something Chris had posted. He was saying basically that when a magnet moves through space, then the E field is present. I believe that is what he meant.  So that being said, if the magnet is stationary, no E field. If moving, then we have E field.


So. Lets say we have a coil in a pulse motor setup as a stator(stationary) and a magnet on the wheel. When it is not running, there is no E field. But when the magnet moves with the rotor, the E field is now there and induces the coil.  Well what if we reversed it. Put the coil on the wheel and the magnet as a stator. Where is that E field now? Does the moving coil on the rotor(no stator magnets) have an E field???  What is inducing the coil now?


If we look at the first coil on the rod core on the left side of the pic, when we apply current to the coil, the fields of the windings that are on the inner radius of the coil naturally will be collected by the core, and the fields on the outside of the coil expand outwards. Then when we drop the current in the coil, the field collapses and cuts the windings, inducing current in the windings. Simple enough? Dont agree?  Show me the reason.


The second example in the pic with the C core, as the field expands, the upper and lower parts of the core tend to draw most of the external field to the right. Say the top part of the C core is N and the bottom S. The fields want to take the easy path of the core, and then the shorter path from top to bottom of those upper and lower legs of the core. Unless ther is something out there at the open ends of the core to attract the fields, most of it will take the short path between the upper and lower leg, not just out at the far right end of the upper and lower legs. And certainly not just expanding out from the ends, as in the field only expands into the air from the far right ends of the core, even if it were an ideal core. Any portion of the C core that is not within the coil will allow the field to exit the core leg to the other core leg, mostly taking the shortest path between the legs.

In the past discussions on this, TK even agreed that as the field expands, the field will maintain its polar loop, as in, the loop is never broken, no matter how far out the field is able to expand. It can be distorted. It can be bent to take certain paths, but it is never broken. Of which is concurred in the pdf I had provided.  In the pdf, it explains very clearly that the field loop cannot just simply appear in the core and is not 'just' existing in the core, if the origin of the field is from the windings on the outside of the core, thus the fields developed by the windings are surely attracted to the core, but we have to look at it from the winding perspective. That is why the pdf simplifies the idea using 1 turn winding for easier understanding.

More later. Gota git back to work.

One more thing.  I get the possible reasoning of the claim of the E field being the inducer when using a closed core. It may be just hard to detect the field propagating the core through the hole in loosely distributed dose trains of field moving across the hole of the core. Working on it. It is not just density of the field that induces a wire more. A weak field at much higher speeds cutting the conductor can be just as good as a denser field at much slower speeds of cutting, something maybe we forget at times. Think of how fast the field would be crossing that hole as the field expands across the hole as described in the pdf. I think of it more as a snap at very high speeds.

But I dont see anyone explaining it beyond just saying it is a fact that they believe the E field way without full open proof of that so called fact. So I tend to think and look into it further than just simple claims, claims without a full understandable explanation or even a clear demonstration of such.

Mags

[EMJunkie]

Hi folks, i am also thankful for all your work and your sharing emjunkie.
And i also hope humanity can transcend this oppression and suppression of advances toward self empowerment.
As nice as it sounds to teach a man to fish, facts are, they've been hijacking our fishing poles and preventing the masses from getting them and knowing fishing poles even exist.
Thank god, good ideas can't be suppressed for ever.
peace love light

Hi Skywatcher123 - Thanks!

We think very much alike, this is how I feel also!!! We need nothing but our minds and the will, the rest will follow.

This is just the start, this device I have shown, shows the basic ideas, how adding Permanent Magnets can add energy to a system. It also shows that Magnetic Flux can be very efficently shifted, for very little power, in the case I show: 0.053325 Watts Peak which is a massive reduction from my early work.

The first magnetometer was invented by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1833.

This is, the Flux Gate Magnetometer, this is a very old device 183 years old. Its had its name changed and been patented as many marvelous miricle devices but at the end of the day, its the same device.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Ok, a short post before I go home from my shop to finish...

The reason Im posting this stuff is I have a feeling that the explanation of the E field is what induces the sec from the primary, instead of flux from the primary cutting the sec, is very much possibly wrong. I have had the discussion on ideal cap to cap, losing 50% by doing so, and mostly proved my argument there. So I dont want to get into a discussion of ideal cores here, as there is no such thing as an ideal core to prove anything with this. Yet I believe that flux would traverse the hole of the core even then.

I believe that the expanding field of the primary, on a closed loop core, traverses across the hole of the core in order to 'cut' the secondary in order to induce it.

As shown in my depictions, we should understand that the expanding fields of the primary should cross over that center air to get to the right where the sec should be. Will get deeper on that hopefully later today. But 'I fail to see' that the same would not happen if the core was closed, and that the fields just happen in the core, without any flux cutting of the sec in order to induce it. So far nobody has given me a solid explanation or even a solid testing platform to prove such. So far Ive been basically told that this is the way it is without any full and simply understandable reasoning that it is the E field that induces the sec without the flux cutting the sec at all.  I tried to get Chris to explain it, but he didnt really. I wish someone would.

I was planning on some testing of this a while back, and have the apparatus to do so, just havnt gotten to it yet. I wound a coil on one side of a closed core and have linear hall sensors to test the hole of the closed core to see if flux traverses over the hole to complete the flux loop in the core. It may be nill in testing as the flux in the hole will not be concentrated as it would be in the core itself, as the expanding field is traversing small doses of flux across the hole in time. 

My earlier argument of this should be able to be proven with a wire through the core, where expanding flux traversing the hole of the core and the wire gets induced from the primary by flux cutting, but if we put that same wire close to just the outside of the core, it doesnt.  The E field argument says that if the wire goes through the hole of the core, then the remainder of that wire has to be in a loop, as in connected to a load or even a meter, and that loop is necessary in order for the E field to be captured by that single wire, even if the rest of that wire loop outside of the core hole is very large and far away from the core.  I dont buy it.  Will explain further later.

I only brought it up here as it was brought up here as shown in my first reply on this on the previous page. Hopefully we can figure it out.

Like the cap to cap deal.  It was said in much earlier arguments that if the cap to cap is not ideal, that 10v in a 10uf cap, directly discharged into another cap, that we end up with 5v in each cap while losing 50% of the total energy in the 10v cap we started with. It was said that we lost the 50% in heat because of resistance. It was also said that if the caps were ideal, and we did the cap to cap again, that we would end with 7.07v in each cap. Well I won that argument, as if we did an electron count, the 7.07v in each could not happen. So if we end with 5v each in the ideal world, where did we lose the 50% without resistance or heat loss? It is strange that the loss can be calculated in the resistance loss to be the 50%. But ideal caps will still have 5v each. Where did the 50% go if no resistance and no heat to account for that loss???

So I am sticking to my guns on this one also.  I will not be just told it is so on the E field induction without a clear cut explanation, as I, or anyone should want to fully understand it before ultimate acceptance of such. Just like the cap to cap, dont just accept the 'answer' without an absolute and very clear explanation of such, of which it still hasnt been fully explained as to where the 50% loss happened if there were no resistance in the ideal world.

Mags

PS   Read the pdf till you understand it well. If you believe it is just junk science, as Chris has put it, then I have to believe you never really read it to a point of understanding it at all.

Hey Mags - Good, I like to see a stuborn attitude when exploring the fields we do!

I didnt say it was junk science!

You should study Feynmann and Cohn - These guys show experiments with results.

V2 Ch15 Vector Potential.mp3
V2 Ch16 Induced Currents.mp3
V2 Ch17 Laws of Induction.mp3
V2 Ch34 The Magnetism Of Matter.mp3
V2 Ch36 Ferromagnetism.mp3
Vol2_Ch_15_Vector_Potential.pdf
Vol2_Ch_16_Induced_Currents.pdf
Vol2_Ch_17_Laws_of_Induction.pdf

George I. Cohn - Electromagnetic Induction


Your answers lay in your experiments.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org