Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

I should point out, the total Impedance is changed, not just the Inductance.

I should explain for those that are not so experienced with Coils and Transformers. For those more experienced than myself, please correct me if you see errors.

In a conventional Transformer, as the Load is increased on the output, the Input sees a lower total Impedance. Remember Impedance is a combination of Reactance and Resistance, both are measured in Ohms.

The Higher the Impedance in Value, the less Current can flow in the Primary Coil, also the less the Impedance the more Current can flow.

As a transformer moves toward saturation, the higher the Magnetic Field is, the less Inductance the Coils have, the coils just become a resistive element with next to no Inductance, which means all the Reactance will be lost. At this point the Impedance is just the DC Resistance of the Coil. This is the reason we see Transformer Burn Outs because they are melted to the point where Short Circuits occur and complete meltdown occurs.

Thus, it is best to avoid Saturation in Transformers, in most all cases. Saturable reactors are an example where it depends on Saturation to bring about some cool effects, like controlling large signals with small ones.

What I am trying to say, is as the Output Load is increased, The more Current drawn on the Output, the more current is drawn on the Input, in a Conventional Transformer, and the more Current in the Turns means a higher Magnetic Field, the Higher the Magnetic Field get's the Closer to Saturation the Transformer becomes.

With what we have shown, this is the opposite. The more Current drawn on the Output, the Less Load the Input sees!!! The Less the Input Current required and the Lower the Magnetic Field needed to do the same work.

The Reactance is Higher because the Inductance is Higher, and the Input drops as a result. Here we see a higher total Impedance because of this, the Magnetic Fields are lower in value.

You can think of Reactance as the AC Resistance and the Resistance as the DC Resistance, as if you were to put DC across the Coil. This is just I²R Losses of the Coil as Heat.

The AC Resistance is the Resistance to the Change, through Self Induction, of the Coil. Again, this is Electromagnetic Induction, but between the Turns of the Coil.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[tinman]

Hey Brad - Are you sure? With any increase in Magnetic Field, there should always be a reduction in Inductance... How could simply Loading a Coil increase its inductance? Nothing else has changed, Core Permeability, Turns, Area...

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Yes,im sure.
You are reducing eddy current losses-an impedance,when loading the secondary.
That loss is now being used to create a greater magnetic field ,which in turn increases the backEMF,and so you get a higher inductance value.


Brad.

[EMJunkie]

Yes,im sure.
You are reducing eddy current losses-an impedance,when loading the secondary.
That loss is now being used to create a greater magnetic field ,which in turn increases the backEMF,and so you get a higher inductance value.


Brad.

Hi Brad, I am afraid I am going to have to disagree with some of what you say there.

You are reducing eddy current losses-an impedance,when loading the secondary.

This is correct, this is the basic end result.

That loss is now being used to create a greater magnetic field ,which in turn increases the backEMF,and so you get a higher inductance value.

We can use a very much smaller Magnetic Field, but get the same result. Why is there a smaller Magnetic Field, simply because the Input drops right down, less current through N Turns equates to less Magnetic Field.

BUT we get more Output!!!

There is a catch here however, the Magnetic Field is changing in time, and as we know a Changing Magnetic Field in the presence of a properly arranged Inductor Induces an EMF via Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction.

This means as we draw Current on the Output, the Input drops in Current, less Magnetic Field on the Input, but the Output arrangement is compensating and the magnetic Field Is also compensated for. So the TOTAL Magnetic Flux in the core has a steady average over time.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[tinman]

author=EMJunkie link=topic=15395.msg496607#msg496607 date=1480458271]

We can use a very much smaller Magnetic Field, but get the same result. Why is there a smaller Magnetic Field, simply because the Input drops right down, less current through N Turns equates to less Magnetic Field.

That is because eddy currents do not produce a CEMF,where as the loaded secondary will.

BUT we get more Output!!!

Of course you do.
In stead of the primaries magnetic field producing heat by way of eddy current production,it is now coupling to a secondary ,that is now producing a magnetic field that apposes that which created it-CEMF.

There is a catch here however, the Magnetic Field is changing in time, and as we know a Changing Magnetic Field in the presence of a properly arranged Inductor Induces an EMF via Faradays Law of Electromagnetic Induction.

Current through the primary induces a magnetic field that changes in time,and a magnetic field that changes in time produces a current through the secondary.

This means as we draw Current on the Output, the Input drops in Current, less Magnetic Field on the Input,

Not normally.
When a current is drawn from the secondary,the impedance on the primary would drop,due to a reduction in inductance value. This causes a higher current to flow through the primary when a load is placed on the secondary.

In this case though,the load on the primary before there is a load placed on the secondary,is the production of eddy currents within the core. This load(eddy currents) is lifted from the primary,when a load is attached to the secondary.

[EMJunkie]

Without looking it up, and if memory serves, Eddy Currents are only a problem in Conductive Core Materials, use a Ferrite and the Eddy Current problem is no longer a problem in the Core.

I guess the "Eddy Current" phenomena is an easy one to solve. So if its not Eddy Currents, what else is the possible cause for what we are seeing?

I mean we cant give "Eddy Currents" the credit for what we are dealing with here.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org


P.S: I am really sorry, reading back, the use of: "less Magnetic Field on the Input" was really bad! I should have said instead: "the Input Coil has less Magnetising Turns" because the Turns N has less Current I through them.

P.P.S: See YouTube for the experiments with Levitating Coils over Conductive Plate due to Eddy Currents/Lenz's Law: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTewAjhGsY