Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[TinselKoala]

Hi Brad

I am sure that you are already on it because this experiment is so simple and you are probably in possession of a ring magnet and some of your wife sewing thin cotton thread.

And no i have not invented the first all magnet motor, i simply replicated Mag and Grum experiment, and by doing this i stumble upon this issue, And it is why i share it with all of you.

So i expect from you that you will try it in the south hemisphere and report the direction of spinning.

Thank's

Laurent

I can't believe this is actually mystifying people. Have you tried the simple control experiment of using an inert weight instead of a magnet? 

Somebody on YT claimed he had discovered "perpetual motion" because he did this with a magnet, almost a year ago. He even offered lots of money for a disproof of his claim. So I investigated it and proved him wrong, proved that it was the twist of the thread unwinding that caused the rotation. Of course there was never any money-- I told him to give the money to his local no-kill animal shelter or spay-neuter program, but I doubt if he ever actually did.

The great scientist Robert Murray-Smith also thought this was "magnet perpetual motion".

Here are my videos covering the issue:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehva-GfWdXA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfuRyLxRPDI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTY_wLKK_Ak
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofF3zHo_okM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Qz6FIGlsQ

Read the Descriptions and comments.... I see now that someone called "Mongrel Shark" supposedly got the 1000 dollars... for _MY_ work disproving this silly claim!

[MileHigh]

The great scientist Robert Murray-Smith also thought this was "magnet perpetual motion".

Well I get a kick out of that considering that he has banned me from commenting on his YouTube channel for pointing out his outrageous and totally unacceptable complete failure to measure the energy density in his B-type EESD.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

>>> That's about all that I can think of and I intentionally ignored discussing the back spike.

And that is where you fail. The vital information to understanding what is happening,is right there in the back spike.  And you say we need to look further than just two step's,while you have totally ignored the very thing that is showing you that the induced reverse voltage across the coil from the moving magnet is not what is reducing the I/in-P/in. This !is! the case with Poynt's sim(that was suppose to simulate the results of my DUT,but did not),but not the case with my DUT.

I suppose that I could have discussed the back spike but I was running out of gas.

I would not call the back spike vital information.  Rather, I would call it supplemental information.  The back spike is the energy discharge from the coil.  Most of the dynamics happen during the time that the coil is being energized.  The final amount of current flow at the end of the energizing cycle determines the amount of energy in the back spike.  So if you examine the ramping up of the current flow through the coil during the energizing cycle, then the back spike information is inherent in that.  Presumably you know what the final current flow is before the MOSFET switches off by looking at the CVR trace.  So you know how much energy is in the back spike just by looking at the CVR waveform.

Now of course, with a spinning rotor and a changing magnetic field there may be some dynamics that affect the amount of energy in the back spike.  That's were you need a timing diagram.

When the coil discharges and you get the back spike, that of course is the magnetic field collapsing.  Is that giving the rotor a final small push, or is it giving the rotor a final small pull?  Is the back spike adding energy to the spinning rotor or taking energy out of the spinning rotor?  I suppose you don't really know because you don't have a real timing diagram.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

You blindly stick to what the books tell you,and everything must obey the !known! laws-->which are based only around current observations-->thats right MH-observations,and observations are not laws. With people like you trying to sway others that see different,is it any wonder that any new observations have never been see.

Your mistake, and other experimenter's mistake, is to not have the humility to put what you are doing in the context of a bigger overall picture.  You experiment with coils, capacitors, MOSFETs and transistors and make very very basic circuits and motors.  Meanwhile there is a multi-billion dollar motor industry, and a multi-billion dollar magnetics industry out there that is leveraging off of 100+ years of accumulated knowledge.  You simply can't possibly see "something new" considering the materials you are working with and the types of experiments you are doing.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but whenever you think that you are "outside of the box" and the "dinosaurs" won't understand it, think again.  I have been looking at this stuff for about seven years and have looked at countless "new discovery" clips and I have never seen anything that phased me.  And I am just an ordinary guy, not an expert.

You tell us that !we! need to look at more than two thing;s,and yet here you admit to leaving out the one thing that provides all the answers--the inductive kickback current.

I think I addressed that one quite well in my previous posting.  And to split hairs, it's the initial inductive kickback current and the inductive kickback energy.  As you continue to explore and have fun with this stuff, you have to start adopting the proper concepts and use the commonly accepted language. I don't go to the grocery store and ask for a stone bag of potatoes.

You insist that we cant just cherry pick one thing ,and blindly assume that it applies to all cases--and yet here you are saying,or trying to preach that everything must abide by these know laws--everything.

A very simple experiment like what you are doing here, and all of your previous experiments, abide by the known laws.  So do EMJunkie's, and you note that he is transfixed into thinking that he has some secret sauce himself.  I wish that "magic" could happen so easily but it doesn't.

I don't mean to drone on about this, but I did a few thousand hours on the bench and I learned all about this stuff and I am just giving you the straight goods as I see them.  You may have noticed that Poynt, PW, and Verpies have been contributing and they are not phased either.  It takes something really big to raise eyebrows because some people take a conservative approach by virtue of their knowledge, experience, and personality.

I can tell you what almost seems like magic but it isn't magic.  In 1984 a typical hard drive for a personal computer was 10 megabytes.  In 2016 you can get a hard drive that is eight terrabytes.   That's 800,000 times larger.

In 1984 if you told me that you could get an eight terrabyte drive I would have told you impossible but if you could do it you would definitely be "out of the box" and in "uncharted territory that scientists and engineers can't understand."

But now we are in 2016 and I know better at there is nothing special about an eight terrabyte hard drive.  It's not impossible and it's not "out of the box."

In your case, the type of work you are doing with coils and stuff is like something from the turn of the last century, say 1910.  But it's 2016 and there is nothing exciting about 1910 technology.   To put it in context, I never heard Tesla's name mentioned once when I was in school, not once.  And the reason for that is Tesla's pioneering research is five human generations away from us, and who knows, something like 20 technological generations away from where we are right now.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

Still trying to go the distance on this one.   You have a potential "showdown" with Poynt which will get me off the hook!  lol

So now all you have to do,is work out as to why or how we can have a reduction of current flowing into the coil,and yet have an increase of current flowing out of the coil--how is it that my results are opposite to that of what Poynt showed?. How can you decrease the current flowing into an inductor,and yet increase the current flowing out of the inductor during the kickback.

Yeah, but an average reduction of current flowing into the coil does not determine the final current before the MOSFET switches off.  It all depends on the shape of the current ramp-up curve.

I won't really address the above except to state your terminology still sucks.  If you are going to have a face-off with Poynt then please work on brushing up your terminology because I think your understanding is way ahead of your use of the terminology.  If you enter the competition then your measurements and the words you use to describe your measurements will be critical.

The only way to increase the current flowing out of the inductor(when the inductors wire and turn ratio remain the same),is to increase the magnitude of the magnetic field that is built up around the inductor. Now,how can that magnetic field be increased if we have just decreased the I/in-P/in of that inductor MH?. Well the answer is simple--the inductance of that inductor had to have increased. You wrote this your self MH--Quote: It looks like when the coil first energizes it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core which is in the opposite direction that the coil wants to fire. And this is exactly what happens with my DUT,and is exactly what i have been saying,and trying to tell you on two different thread for the past 3 weeks.

I am starting to run out of gas so my comments will be brief.

What you wrote above is a bit of a mash-up, I am not really sure what you are trying to convey.  If you want to convince me of what your device is really doing you will make a timing diagram and put your claims in the timing diagram itself.  i.e.; when we look at what you quoted from me, "it has to do the work to "clear out" the biasing of the core" and say that you are making that claim, back it up with a timing diagram.  If there was one, I could click on it right now and see what you are claiming.

Let's assume that you are getting greater effective inductance because the rotor magnet has pre-biased the coil's core.  That's all fine and dandy.  But it doesn't mean that there is not a "negative EMF" from the moving rotor magnet either.  It's easily possible that both things are happening.  That's why a timing diagram would be so helpful - it could be seen right there on paper instead of you just saying it's what you said.  I am not going to read through all your posts like a Biblical scholar to find that grain of information that you are talking about.  Plus I am very wary of your bait and switch.  A picture is worth 1000 words and it's just a mouse-click away.

And this is exactly what happens with my DUT,and is exactly what i have been saying,and trying to tell you on two different thread for the past 3 weeks.

If you want to back that up with quotes that would be great.

MileHigh