THIS IS HUGE, MUST READ!! All methods to reduce eddy currents useless! -*

[Koen1]

Sorry, I must be overlooking something,
but where exactly is this "free lunch"?
I see a description of a 'normal' transformer?

[Janus20]

Sorry, I must be overlooking something,
but where exactly is this "free lunch"?
I see a description of a 'normal' transformer?

You are missing everything. Look again at red coil input = 11.5 Watts and green output of 117 Watts.
Free lunch ratio of impedance/resistance. You disappoint me greatly. You do not put in time, thought and effort.

[Koen1]

No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that

"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"

and

"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.


Oh, and by the way, I did read all the theory on http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk/
and although it seems very interesting, I do not see any actual proof in the form
of actual physical tests...
There are quite some vague statements on that page as well;
for example, let us take the statement

THE SINGLE AND MOST VITAL DEFINITION IS ?..
- Centrifugal force ? an INCREASING radial value of CIRCULAR MOTION.
- Centripetal force ? a DECREASING value of CENTRIFUGAL FORCE.

and compare it to a more commonly accepted definition of centrifugal force:

centrifugal force, noun, (physics): The apparent force that seems to
draw a rotating body away from the centre of rotation; it is equal and opposite
to the centripetal force and is a consequence of the body's inertia.

It is slightly different, in that according to Cresswells definition centrifugal force
seems to be taken as merely a value indicating rotation, while in the other
it is clearly a force resulting from this rotation. Slight difference, but a difference.
Another example is the "non-newtonian lenz condition" Cresswell presents.
What exactly does he mean with that picture 3B? that is not explained anywhere...
Up to a point he seems to have intereting ideas, but I find his explanation and
supporting argumentation severely lacking.
Perhaps you can fill me in?

[Janus20]

No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that

"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"

and

"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.

I did not mean to be insulting.

The questions have never been asked because transformers and motors etc make fast money for the purveyers of these things.

Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

PHYSICISTS ARE A SUPPORATING ABCESS ON THE ARSE OF THE WORLD TAXPAYER.

Know this and change your life.

[M@rcel]

No, I did not miss that part.

I am just wondering where this "revelation" came from all of a sudden, that

"Less than 3% of an industrial transformer primary ampere turns are effective
in producing core flux"

and

"to prevent super-saturation of the iron frame
an aluminium "air gap" is introduced. This puts back in the essential 97% of the
ampere turns.

First of all, I assume "ampere turns" are meant to describe the primary windings,
although obviously in a transformer the amperage is just as important as the voltage,
so why call them "amperage turns"?
Second, if it is indeed true that less than 3% of all primary windings are usefull,
then why do none of the electrodynamics books say so? That fundamental a fact
should be stated and should also have been known since the first coil transformers
were studied... I don't see it in the books... Are you claiming they intentionally omitted it?
Third, why would one want to prevent saturation of a frame? If one would want to avoid
magnetic flux saturation of a frame, one could use a nonmagnetic material for the frame,
could one not? Unless of course one is using parts of the frame as a core... But then still,
why would one have a supersaturated core, would that not be inefficient, and would an
added air gap not only serve to reduce flux density..? How exactly would obstructing
the flux path increase output? That does not seem to make much sense...

I have been asking for explanations since this thread was launched, and have
clearly said I think I must be missing something.
Instead of just saying "yes, you missed something", perhaps you could explain
what it is that I missed, what exactly is so huge about this, and why such a
huge flaw in transfomer theory and practise has gone unnoticed for so long?
thanks.

I did not mean to be insulting.

The questions have never been asked because transformers and motors etc make fast money for the purveyers of these things.

Questions demand answers and this takes time (money) and the "laws of physics" say "questions" are TREASON.

PHYSICISTS ARE A SUPPORATING ABCESS ON THE ARSE OF THE WORLD TAXPAYER.

Know this and change your life.

yes maybe, but what about koen1's questions and remarks?