"Cold current" may be caused by novel magnetic subatomic interaction

[Bob Smith]

By keeping the impedance of the back-spike larger (i.e. voltage higher and its current lower) than in the initial pulse, copper's reaction to the voltage back-spike can provide the same polarity of magnetic field as current going forwards. ... So where does the energy come from to restore the potential energy lost via alignment of the paratoroidic (magnetic) moments? Certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation get absorbed by the (PARAtoroidic) arrangements of magnetic moments in the copper atoms, in effect, restoring their potential energy. When some of the moments fall out of alignment, others will follow suit.

@Kmarinas86
Would this "keeping of the impedance of the back-spike larger" be made possible with

- a secondary consisting of a series-wound bifilar coil, where mutually cancelling magnetic fields would be accompanied by higher voltage
- a shorted coil of high inductance?

Bob
or

[Bob Smith]

By keeping the impedance of the back-spike larger (i.e. voltage higher and its current lower) than in the initial pulse, copper's reaction to the voltage back-spike can provide the same polarity of magnetic field as current going forwards. ... So where does the energy come from to restore the potential energy lost via alignment of the paratoroidic (magnetic) moments? Certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation get absorbed by the (PARAtoroidic) arrangements of magnetic moments in the copper atoms, in effect, restoring their potential energy. When some of the moments fall out of alignment, others will follow suit.

One way to do this would be to send a pulse backwards through a step-down transformer.
Bob

[kmarinas86]

@Kmarinas86
Would this "keeping of the impedance of the back-spike larger" be made possible with

- a secondary consisting of a series-wound bifilar coil, where mutually cancelling magnetic fields would be accompanied by higher voltage
- a shorted coil of high inductance?

Bob
or

Both.

Example:

Current flowing in opposite directions through bifilar windings creates a cancelling magnetic field outside the winding, but between the windings, which consist of very narrow spaces, the magnetic fields will actually add, not subtract.

The opposite is true when you pass current in through bifilar windings in the same direction. The field adds outside the windings, but between them they subtract.

So imagine if you had two pairs of bifilar, for a total of four conductors. Let's say you hook three of the conductors in series with each other in a closed loop. Then you have one remaining conductor, and you feed power to it.

Let's say you open the switch. When that field collapses, it induces an EMF into the three conductors in series, and it tries to replicate the magnetic flux that is being lost by the fourth conductor. It will try to generate the same amp turns as before. Then lets say you feed that current backwards into the fourth conductor. The current in the fourth conductor will now be traveling in the opposite direction that it was earlier.

Note that two windings (conductors) will add to each other's external field, while the other two windings (conductors) will cancel each others external field. The converse is true for their internal fields. The result is that we now have a magnetic field both between and outside the windings, whereas before it was only outside.

Now let's say you disconnect the three conductors from the fourth and you maintain both as closed loops. Now hook up the battery to the fourth winding again as before and repeat the process. Every time you open the circuit (pulse DC), you discharge this magnetic flux to the other windings, you can feed back some of that power to the batteries.

Note that the fourth conductor will have one-third the resistance of the first three conductors in series, but it will have less than one third the inductance (in fact, about one-ninth of it). As this means that it's L/R constant is (1/9)/(1/3) = 1/3 as much, it takes 1/3rd the time for the current in the fourth winding to reach its maximum current. As the maximum current in the fourth winding is 3 times more for the same voltage than with the three conductors in question, its current rises 9 times faster, with 1/3 as many turns. So it generates amp-turns 3 times faster.

Again, once you break the circuit, it doesn't take long for these amp turns to discharge into the three series windings. The current in the three series windings is not drawn from the battery, and yet it is still capable of doing work just as it would if it were drawn from the battery.

Now here is the very interesting part. Let's say you have a motor and you want to reverse this field every half rotation in order to power a large bar magnet during both halves of a rotation. This time you do something different. You now want to feed back all the magnetic flux that you induced into the three windings into fourth conductor and then cut off all current flow in those three conductors. You can hook up a capacitor across the three conductors to insure that most of the magnetic flux gets there. At this point immense current should be flowing through the fourth winding if you close it quickly enough after briefly hooking it to the first three windings. Then you want to hook up the battery to this already existing current. The difference is this time you have much more initial current at the beginning in the second half-cycle than you had in the previous. Each time you do repeat this process, you will be able to increase the initial current of each half-cycle to a magnitude greater, and greater. Before you know it you are switching currents at slew rates (A/s) greater that what the inductive time constant L/R predicts is possible. This corresponds to greater reactive power that what should theoretically happen.

Inductive reactive power feeds stored energy in the magnetic field. That energy does work on a magnet which then rotates to induce back-emf. However, consider the back-emf that is induced the three windings does not act against the battery, as it is simply a closed circuit of three wires in series which stores some magnetic with every pulse of the fourth conductor. So you have a magnetic field than when acted against does not limit the power delivered by the batteries (except for the emf it induces in the fourth winding). When you hook up these three wires in series with the fourth conductor, hooking it up backwards, the back-emf that you induced adds power to the fourth winding in the same direction that the battery does during that half-cycle. You want to discharge energy in these three windings into the fourth winding several times per half cycle. You want to completely do so at the end of each cycle, but in the reverse direction, to start the next half cycle, beginning with from the int( I' dt ) achieved from the previous cycle, instead of starting from I=0 again like you would if you simply used ordinary brush switching.

You want to be sure that you energize the fourth conductor enough prior to the moment where the magnet induces back-emf the greatest, to ensure that more amp turns get generated in the fourth conductor first before enough emf is induced in the three conductor winding group to exceed this.  So when you open the circuit between pulses in a given half-cycle, the back-emf of the collapsing field of the fourth winding, which first generated the current in the three series windings opposes (negates to some degree) the back-emf of the rotating magnet which responds to the magnetic field. If you switch off the fourth conductor, you force this current to "teleport" to the three series conductors (due to the tendency to preserve magnetic fields / magnetic flux / amp turns) despite the back-emf of the collapsing coil and the rotating magnet being opposites (rivals) of each other. So current is maintained better during switching, while at the same time we are able to reverse it quicker than normal. If you imagine flow of power as a vector, you could say that instead of alternating the magnitude and direction of a current sinusodially over the cycles, we are only alternating the direction, while the magnitude builds up with each cycle. Most importantly, much of the reversal of the current is done via magnetic induction into the other conductor and back in the opposite direction instead of directly reversing the applied electric field to the same conductor as typical of AC power. So it is a very different process! Therefore, in a sense the inductive reactance increases because of greater resistance to changes in the current (the magnitude component), as when if you increase current at a constant rate, the stored energy goes by the square of time, and thus if you induce (the catalytic input) power at a constant rate, then instead, the current should increase with the square root of time (or number of half-cycles / half-rotations passed).

Of course, one would have to generalize inductive reactance for arbitrary waveforms due to imperfection of the "sinusoid" due to pulsing, geometry, current reversals, etc..

[Bob Smith]

Kmarinas86,
Thanks for the detailed response.  If I understand correctly, you have a closed loop series-wound trifilar coil alongside a shorted single strand coil.
You DC pulse the shorted single coil, inducing bemf into the trifi, and send the mag flux from the trifi back to the single stranded coil.

If you do this pulsing in rapid succession, say with a jfet, are you not going to get a flux buildup in the single coil resulting in a standing wave? 

Let's say you have a motor and you want to reverse this field every half rotation in order to power a large bar magnet during both halves of a rotation. This time you do something different. You now want to feed back all the magnetic flux that you induced into the three windings into fourth conductor and then cut off all current flow in those three conductors. YouYou can hook up a capacitor across the three conductors to insure that most of the magnetic flux gets there. At this point immense current should be flowing through the fourth winding if you close it quickly enough after briefly hooking it to the first three windings.

Okay, you've placed a cap in parallel with the trifilar coil. But now it seems you've changed the coil arrangement. In the first instance, the shorted single stranded coil and the closed loop trifi were separate and "communicating" by induction.  Now you're allowing the single coil to briefly make contact with the trifi to capture the trifi's bemf?  Or are we still operating on induction?

Then you want to hook up the battery to this already existing current. The difference is this time you have much more initial current at the beginning in the second half-cycle than you had in the previous. Each time you do repeat this process, you will be able to increase the initial current of each half-cycle to a magnitude greater, and greater. Before you know it you are switching currents at slew rates (A/s) greater that what the inductive time constant L/R predicts is possible. This corresponds to greater reactive power that what should theoretically happen.

I understand this. How do you prevent too much power from getting back to the battery?  Would you use a zener diode?

Inductive reactive power feeds stored energy in the magnetic field. That energy does work on a magnet which then rotates to induce back-emf. However, consider the back-emf that is induced the three windings does not act against the battery, as it is simply a closed circuit of three wires in series which stores some magnetic with every pulse of the fourth conductor. So you have a magnetic field than when acted against does not limit the power delivered by the batteries (except for the emf it induces in the fourth winding). When you hook up these three wires in series with the fourth conductor, hooking it up backwards, the back-emf that you induced adds power to the fourth winding in the same direction that the battery does during that half-cycle. You want to discharge energy in these three windings into the fourth winding several times per half cycle. You want to completely do so at the end of each cycle, but in the reverse direction, to start the next half cycle, beginning with from the int( I' dt ) achieved from the previous cycle, instead of starting from I=0 again like you would if you simply used ordinary brush switching.

You want to be sure that you energize the fourth conductor enough prior to the moment where the magnet induces back-emf the greatest, to ensure that more amp turns get generated in the fourth conductor first before enough emf is induced in the three conductor winding group to exceed this.  So when you open the circuit between pulses in a given half-cycle, the back-emf of the collapsing field of the fourth winding, which first generated the current in the three series windings opposes (negates to some degree) the back-emf of the rotating magnet which responds to the magnetic field. If you switch off the fourth conductor, you force this current to "teleport" to the three series conductors (due to the tendency to preserve magnetic fields / magnetic flux / amp turns) despite the back-emf of the collapsing coil and the rotating magnet being opposites (rivals) of each other. So current is maintained better during switching, while at the same time we are able to reverse it quicker than normal. If you imagine flow of power as a vector, you could say that instead of alternating the magnitude and direction of a current sinusodially over the cycles, we are only alternating the direction, while the magnitude builds up with each cycle. Most importantly, much of the reversal of the current is done via magnetic induction into the other conductor and back in the opposite direction instead of directly reversing the applied electric field to the same conductor as typical of AC power. So it is a very different process! Therefore, in a sense the inductive reactance increases because of greater resistance to changes in the current (the magnitude component), as when if you increase current at a constant rate, the stored energy goes by the square of time, and thus if you induce (the catalytic input) power at a constant rate, then instead, the current should increase with the square root of time (or number of half-cycles / half-rotations passed).

Now here's where I'm not completely clear.  You are hypothetically using this coil config to power a motor with reactive power buildup in the single stranded coil?

I've seen a lot of toroids in computer power supplies that have three or four sets of windings. You'd think that you could hook three windings up in series as closed loop (with your parallel cap), and keep the fourth free as a shorted single-strand. You'd also have the toroid to store some of your flux.

Am I understanding you correctly?  It's a very interesting proposition, and seems logical.
Bob

[Bob Smith]

Kmarinas86,
What if you were to put your shorted primary on the armature of a motor (as the primary winding). Would you be able to wind a series-wound bifilar secondary over top of it to pick up the cemf?  And if so, would you be able to harness its voltage?
Bob