Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

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

Hey Mags,

Just so you know, a directed question has not been clear. Some confusion over the Flux Lakage, loosley Coupled transformers and Electromagnetic Induction...

This video is also worth watching: Faraday's Law

If you choose to believe in the Magnetic A Vector Potential, and you listen to the words said by Prof Lewin: "The magnetic Flux is only inside the solenoid", because it is well known that a Large Solenoid has no Magnetic Field outside of it, then you can see that no Magnetic Flux Cutts the Secondary Coil.

After all, like I said, the whole idea of a core, is to keep the Magnetic Flux completely contained inside the core!

For me, the Magnetic A Vector Potential is logical! It makes this whole mess tidy and sensible but yes, it may not be correct, it may be something entirely different. Some of the best minds we have ever had work on this problem have not given us any better... The Magnetic A Vector Potential is an Electric Field, its the same thing.

Some of the most efficent transformers have the Secondary wound over the primary, where no Flux Cutting can occur, why do you think these make some of the most efficent transformers?


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[Magluvin]

Hey Mags,

Just so you know, a directed question has not been clear. Some confusion over the Flux Lakage, loosley Coupled transformers and Electromagnetic Induction...

This video is also worth watching: Faraday's Law

If you choose to believe in the Magnetic A Vector Potential, and you listen to the words said by Prof Lewin: "The magnetic Flux is only inside the solenoid", because it is well known that a Large Solenoid has no Magnetic Field outside of it, then you can see that no Magnetic Flux Cutts the Secondary Coil.

After all, like I said, the whole idea of a core, is to keep the Magnetic Flux completely contained inside the core!

For me, the Magnetic A Vector Potential is logical! It makes this whole mess tidy and sensible but yes, it may not be correct, it may be something entirely different. Some of the best minds we have ever had work on this problem have not given us any better... The Magnetic A Vector Potential is an Electric Field, its the same thing.

Some of the most efficent transformers have the Secondary wound over the primary, where no Flux Cutting can occur, why do you think these make some of the most efficent transformers?


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

What I have read on overlapping the primary and secondary as you pointed to, that winding the primary over the the sec is best. I have to look that up for the reasoning. It was a while ago. But if I had to have a low memory whack at it....

Lets use a rod core to simplify. Wind the secondary first, then the primary layer on the secondary.

Being the field of the primary is attracted to the core, the primaries flux has to 'cut' the secondary on its way to the core. And if ones that still cant see that the primary flux in this situation cuts the secondary, then Im flabbergasted.    Like in your pic above, if the outer winding is the primary, the secondary spaces the primary away from the core under the secondary. Are we saying that the primary flux is still only in the core and does not cut the secondary? If so, you need to show me how that can be. The primary windings 'are' the origin of the flux. How could it be that the primary produced flux just simply appears in the core at a distance? Do you get my drift??

I cannot just accept all of Lewins views, as Poynt has pointed out, Lewin is wrong in at least one of his vids. I do watch them though, with an open mind. Just with much caution as to accept it all for sure, as there may be some other things that dont jive either.


See, Im looking for these problematic issues in many areas of these things. I have ideas that there are things that may be written in the books that are 'created' to cover the real things, as maybe the real things can help us get to our destination in this ou world of ours. There is nothing wrong with questioning things beyond what we are 'told'. And that is what Im doing I believe with substantial arguments. On this subject, just as in the cap to cap argument, Im not just laying it all out in one post. Im presenting it in steps of understanding the basics first, then go on to the final nails in the coffin.     Its just the way I see fit, as if it is in small portions, there are usually arguments against what Im laying out, and I like to get those nailed down along the way. I did this in the cap to cap argument. My 'claim' was in total, that it is not the resistance that we lost 50% of the energy doing the cap to cap. And I proved my argument by way of the simple argument of electron count of the caps.

If we could count the electrons taken from the pos plate, and count the electrons pumped into the neg plate, we can determine the exact voltage in that cap for a given exact cap value, every time. In the real world cap to cap, the resistance will not change that electron count distributed from the full cap to the empty cap, resistance, heat, or ideal with no resistance, no heat, the count will remain the same. So in the ideal cap to cap, where did we lose 50% if it wasnt the resistance???    

All that time I tried to get that message across, it took many pages till finally Poynt came to agree with me. But as to where the 50% was lost is till out there to be figured out, and it may change where the laws of conservation of energy guide lines sit. Thats sorta big, isnt it??


Think. If the 50% is not lost through resistance, did we get the heat for free in some way?

So here with the flux only in the core deal, maybe what is written isnt correct, yet people accept it as a waste of time to look and think into it further than that. Im not that kind of people.

More to come

Mags

[EMJunkie]

What I have read on overlapping the primary and secondary as you pointed to, that winding the primary over the the sec is best. I have to look that up for the reasoning. It was a while ago. But if I had to have a low memory whack at it....

Lets use a rod core to simplify. Wind the secondary first, then the primary layer on the secondary.

Being the field of the primary is attracted to the core, the primaries flux has to 'cut' the secondary on its way to the core. And if ones that still cant see that the primary flux in this situation cuts the secondary, then Im flabbergasted.    Like in your pic above, if the outer winding is the primary, the secondary spaces the primary away from the core under the secondary. Are we saying that the primary flux is still only in the core and does not cut the secondary? If so, you need to show me how that can be. The primary windings 'are' the origin of the flux. How could it be that the primary produced flux just simply appears in the core at a distance? Do you get my drift??

I cannot just accept all of Lewins views, as Poynt has pointed out, Lewin is wrong in at least one of his vids. I do watch them though, with an open mind. Just with much caution as to accept it all for sure, as there may be some other things that dont jive either.


See, Im looking for these problematic issues in many areas of these things. I have ideas that there are things that may be written in the books that are 'created' to cover the real things, as maybe the real things can help us get to our destination in this ou world of ours. There is nothing wrong with questioning things beyond what we are 'told'. And that is what Im doing I believe with substantial arguments. On this subject, just as in the cap to cap argument, Im not just laying it all out in one post. Im presenting it in steps of understanding the basics first, then go on to the final nails in the coffin.     Its just the way I see fit, as if it is in small portions, there are usually arguments against what Im laying out, and I like to get those nailed down along the way. I did this in the cap to cap argument. My 'claim' was in total, that it is not the resistance that we lost 50% of the energy doing the cap to cap. And I proved my argument by way of the simple argument of electron count of the caps.

If we could count the electrons taken from the pos plate, and count the electrons pumped into the neg plate, we can determine the exact voltage in that cap for a given exact cap value, every time. In the real world cap to cap, the resistance will not change that electron count distributed from the full cap to the empty cap, resistance, heat, or ideal with no resistance, no heat, the count will remain the same. So in the ideal cap to cap, where did we lose 50% if it wasnt the resistance???    

All that time I tried to get that message across, it took many pages till finally Poynt came to agree with me. But as to where the 50% was lost is till out there to be figured out, and it may change where the laws of conservation of energy guide lines sit. Thats sorta big, isnt it??


Think. If the 50% is not lost through resistance, did we get the heat for free in some way?

So here with the flux only in the core deal, maybe what is written isnt correct, yet people accept it as a waste of time to look and think into it further than that. Im not that kind of people.

More to come

Mags

Mags, in all my years, I have never ever seen: "that winding the primary over the the sec is best"...

I have torndown many hundreds of Transformers, studied them for many years and never heard of this. Please if you can find an example of this please let me know! I have always known it to be Primary first, then Secondaries on top.

Of course I agree with what youre saying, but what we have is the best weve got and I personally have not found fault with it yet. If you prove any of what we have wrong also let me know.

When I first started in this field, I tried to look for a "New Science" not knowing nearly enough of the "Old Science" and what I found is that everything I was doing could already be explained by "Old Science". I guess to get a "New Science", one must know the old one first so as ones feet are not running ones body around in circles.

Good luck in your search!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[Magluvin]

Mags, in all my years, I have never ever seen: "that winding the primary over the the sec is best"...

I have torndown many hundreds of Transformers, studied them for many years and never heard of this. Please if you can find an example of this please let me know! I have always known it to be Primary first, then Secondaries on top.

Of course I agree with what youre saying, but what we have is the best weve got and I personally have not found fault with it yet. If you prove any of what we have wrong also let me know.

When I first started in this field, I tried to look for a "New Science" not knowing nearly enough of the "Old Science" and what I found is that everything I was doing could already be explained by "Old Science". I guess to get a "New Science", one must know the old one first so as ones feet are not running ones body around in circles.

Good luck in your search!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Hey Chris

Im not coming down on you here in the least. Just letting you know. Lets just have fun with it and see where it goes. And if we can, instead of putting up hours of vids to explain what you know on what you believe, just put it out there as you understand it. Im putting all this together in my head and just by using very basic knowledge of the magnetic fields produced or received by coils, and cores, with a lot of thought put logically. Very simple. See, from what I know, or say believe I know to give benefit of doubt, is to say that it is flux cutting of the windings that produce induction of currents in those windings. And if Im correct on that, and correct on the flux loops of the primary winding traverse the core hole to engage the core in full loop, in which those hole crossing fields cut the secondary to induce the secondary, then the E filed 'theory' of induction is possibly not true.  I fail to see you guys explain in clear detail that there is absolutely no flux cutting of the secondary from the primary in order to induce the secondary, and it is induced by the E field. If you believe that, then tell me from your stand point of understanding, as it should be as simple to describe as my flux cutting explanation. Explain how the field in the core just appears in the core from a distance of the winding producing that field. When we put current through a length of wire, is there not a magnetic field around the wire? And if we bring a core just near the wire, does all of the wires field completely just jump over to the core, fully departed from the wire? If the core were brought in closer to actually make contact with the wire, would the field then be completely departed from the wire? Even if the origin of the field is the wire??  If that were the case, then when we disconnect the current from the wire, there would be no field collapse on the wire to produce the field collapse output of the wire as the field is no longer linked to the wire in any way, as the field is in the core, and just collapses in the core without affecting the wire. This all seems a bit nutty.

Its weird for me. Ive known of flux cutting for years. Faraday. And as the years go along, the story from others, more and more tend to reject flux cutting as an actual fact.

Im concocting some ideas to do animations in 3D to help explain these things I present better.

Ill try to find that info.  I believe it was said in 2 different places. One in a book on switching power supplies, in which describes more ideas and interesting details on transformers than Ive seen in some books written only about transformers. Ill look through my books to see where that was exactly. And the the other I believe was on why it is better to have the primary of a Telsa coil setup as we see them, on the out side of the tall secondary..    Even inside a car ignition coil, the primary is wound a top of the inner secondary with a core in the secondary. Every one of them.

Gota get my new found sleep (if you read my other thread on electromagnetic hypersensitivity, you will understand)

Mags

[EMJunkie]

Hi Mags,

Yes of course, a Tesla Coil and variants of, I consider a slight exception in the case we started talking about. The Transformer Cut-Away I posted shows the Primary on the inside, Secondary on the outside.

Surely the fact that the transformer as I have shown is enough to show that its not Flux Cutting that is at work?

Electromagnetic Induction comes in two flavors:

   Flux Cutting: EMF = Bvl (Faraday Homopolar Generator)
   Flux Linking: EMF = dPhi/dt (Transformer Induction)

George I Cohn shows several experiments that show the difference and he calculates the end results. In some cases the total Induction can include both, Flux Cutting and also Flux Linking.

However, it is well known that there is No Magnetic Field Detectable on a properly wound Toroidal Transformer Core, all the Flux is inside the core. A quality Gauss Meter can prove this very easily. Yet, Induction still occurs. This is via Flux Linking. Which is part of Maxwell's Equations, derrived from Faradays work.

If you really want to prove this, I recommend a Gaussmeter Model GM2, a Nice wind on a Toroid, properly, the complete length of the toroid, with a Secondary on top. If you can find a Toroid with a split, then you can measure the field inside the core after splitting it.

Try to disprove what we have been told, no point not winding it properly, this proves nothing.

What you will see:
   Flux will just about entirely be contained inside the core. Such a small amount outside the core that it is virtually Zero!
   Maximum eff is achieved with tightly closed Core.
   Gap the Core, eff dropps right off and much more Flux Leakage is introduced.
   Windings may even get hotter as Gap increased depending on load.

Yes, basically all the "Not Desired" stuff that makes Transformer Design a bit of an Art! I cant recomend highly enough to do this experiment, it is really worth your while to put this one to bed at least for a little while.

This means that the Core can not be Saturated, if it is, Flux Leakage will go up dramatically so you will need to watch your Input Current on the Scope! Of course Saturation is something that is "Not Desired" in Transformer theory. Lets try to prove Flux Cutting in a Transformer built to proper Transformer Spec, then we have a result.

In saying this, stay sharp, be open minded, close no doors, others will open...

P.S: A Friend of mine has one of these meters, they are the best!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org