Back-EMF Manifesto - A Key, hidden in plain Sight.

[dieter]

Glad you agree with me in that point, Magluvin.[/size]


It's a thought, a logical conclusion. There is no "circuit".


Ok, so let's say there is a reverse current flow.
It recharges the battery or helps the supply caps, right?


Now, isn't it simply logical, that when you put a low resistance in that back path, more energy will get trough and back to the supply battery than over a high resistance? Is 1+1=2? I really tried to explain this core feature, It is the exact opposite of conventional energy consumption theory.


@tinman, check your backend, your overunity coil (wich I never termed) may be deep in there - so much about zynicism.


Again Magluvin, I probably would do this:


Use a Mosfet or NPN Transistor such as a Darlington TIP122 to open and close the Exit of the coil. So you could use some Signal Generator with squarewave, frequency and PWM to search for sweetspots. From Emitter to Collector goes a high power, fast Schottky Diode. Transistors break trough reversly at -12vdc, actually a zener effect, or may get fried, so this flyback diode allows reverse current, while the transistor inhibits forward when base=0vdc. Darlingtons give you a steep on and off curve, the tip122 amplifies current from the base by 1000x, so no problems to fully open that one with a few mA signals. Although, not a high frequency transistor, may work up to 1000hz.
So this is what's at the "Back End" of the coil, the side towards ground.
At the front end of the coil are similar Schottky diodes, an Avrabmenko Plug ( or however that is spelled), which redirects reverse current to a separate path. So one Diode for the juice from the supply to the coil, and the other one from the same coil front end to the experimental load and the to the supply.


Certainly, you need powerfull pulses and a huge coil to drive a significat load.


This is just one possible approach. But the Theorem stands by its own, simply because it's logical.

[tinman]

 author=Magluvin link=topic=17611.msg517033#msg517033 date=1519341893]

I get what you are trying to convey with that statement. What you are trying to say is that a changing magnetic field on a wire produces voltage in the wire and not causing moving currents in the wire of which could influence the voltages that we can read across that wire. E fields, right?

No,not saying that at all.

Im saying it is the electric field that induces an EMF across a wire--not the magnetic field.

The magnetic field is a bi-product of current flowing through a conductor--no current--no magnetic field-->but still an EMF 

For one, I dont believe that the magnetic field is only contained in the core of a toroid transformer/inductor.  My view of it is that the mag fields of the windings engage the core cutting across the hole in the middle of the core, thus cutting any other windings that also go through that hole..  And my view is that most all of the interactions between the windings happen in the hole of the toroid core. Ive said it before many times as to what i think on this stuff and nobody has presented any evidence to get me to think otherwise other than 'conjecture'. So maybe you have some proofs that can 'prove' me wrong as you are that one stating that the field only exists in the core.

It is my belief that the B field is confined to the core.
A secondary winding,where the windings pass through the middle of the toroid core-well away from the core it self,will have an induced EMF from the electric field-not the magnetic field.
When a load is placed across this secondary winding,a current starts to flow through this winding,and only then is a magnetic field produced around that secondary winding.

Can i prove this-->sure can.

Fore many years now,all seem to believe that the magnetic field is a must have,in order to produce current flow.
I say the magnetic field is a Bi-product of current flow,and an impedance on our electrical systems.

It is my belief that if we could remove this magnetic waste,then we would open up a whole new can of worm's-so to speak.

But problem is,we have had this drummed into us for the past 200 years,and we know no other way-->why,because we have not been looking--everyone is happy with the way thing are--how they have been told it is.


Brad

[Magluvin]

Have to get to work. Ill reply to this one later today. Its not a short reply.

Mags

[dieter]

The magnetic field is a bi-product of current flowing through a conductor--no current--no magnetic field-->but still an EMF  [/size]

I have a slightly diffrent understanding of this particular issue:


Once the current is actually flowing trough the inductor, the magnetic field is only trapped, but it us it's built up while the current started trying to flow, due to the voltage, but actually flew "into" the magnetic field, and not over the dc-resistance of the coil to ground. Current is converted to a magnetic field. The magnetic field holds a certain amount of energy this way. No surprise that when this field vanishes due to Pulse end, this change of magnetic field strength induces current in the very same coil, although in reverse direction.
This corresponds to the fact, that voltage is immediately there trough the entire coil, but current flow starts at zero and, depending on inductance and impedance, takes some time to rise up to what flows under a dc condition. For instance, if you have a transformer, the primary is at 220vac hot wire, but not connected to the neutral line (turned of by a switch, while hot wire and neutral by mistake swapped, so there is no current flow in the primary, you still can measure the Voltage at the secondary.


So I'd say the magnetic field is not a Biproduct of current flow per se, it is more like a mandatory depot that the current must only initially provide, in order to flow at all. This Depot however is not neccessarily lost - normally it just flows back to the supply. The voltage of the reverse current depends on the coil architecture, not the supply, as does the duration of this back "pulse".

[dieter]

And about the use of the term "Back-EMF", the reverse current of a collapsing field, as well as the inductive impact of a secondary field like in a motor (Lenz Drag etc.) it's both the same thing, only the cause is a diffrent one. Back- electromotive  force simply means, a force that drives the current in the opposite direction, not neccessarily against a forward current.