Overunity.com Archives

It's so simple. There's nothing magical about it. There's no 'zero point energy from the vacuum' that you tap into. That's some
'woo woo' explanation.

Let me explain:

Faraday's Law states:
"The magnitude of the induced EMF in a conductor is directly proportional the rate of change of magnetic flux through the conductor."

Read this over and over and over until it hits you. The 'conductor' is a simple wire or a coil of wire. EMF is basically current.


The main process of how we get electricity into our homes is using generators. A generator, to put it basically, is magnetic flux lines
moving across coils. The magnet moves and coils are stationary, or visa versa; the coils move and the magnets are stationary. Either way the common process is magnetic flux lines cutting through coils, thus induction of current. The electrons in the copper wire of the coil are moved, excited, whatever you want to call it, and produce current.

Now, you can say the same for an electromagnet. By inducing a current into an electromagnet (a coil wound around an iron core), you produce a magnetic field similar to a permanent magnet. That magnetic field has flux lines just like a permanent magnet. The full size of the magnetic field does not appear instantly as you apply current to the coil. Picture blowing up a balloon. The edge of the balloon represents one of the flux lines. As you blow up the balloon, the edge of the ballo0n moves outward from within. Thus, the same way you put current into a coil, the flux lines created when the current produces an electromagnet expand outward and you have moving flux lines. Remember, the key to getting electricity is flux lines cutting through coil.  If you understand how Alternating Current through a transformer works, you will easier understand this.

Now, one step further. If you apply and remove current to the electromagnet at high speed using pulsed DC current oscillation, guess what you get? Read Faraday's Law above, again.  A high "rate of change of magnetic flux through the conductor."

"The magnitude of the induced EMF in a conductor is directly proportional the rate of change of magnetic flux through the conductor."

In other words, the faster you move those flux lines through coils, the higher the magnitude of induced Electromotive Force you get!

If you look at some of these Joule Thief circuits, you can get oscillations of 20,000 Hertz using a transistor and partnered coils. By pulsing DC current to one of the coils, you get a transformer like action with the other coil, inducing higher voltages and possibly higher amperage depending on how the coils are wound in relation to one another. At that frequency (20,000 Hz), imagine the speed of flux lines expanding and collapsing when you apply and remove current to the 'electromagnet'. Do you get the picture?

Finally, compare the frequency you get from your grid electricity: 50 or 60 Hertz. The flux lines of the generator magnet from your electric company are moving from North pole to South Pole and back is 60 times per second.

20,000 Hertz is 333 times greater than 60 Hertz. Think about it.

You still didn't explained it ;-) In simple terms : energy comes from magnetic field, the frequency is only a way to tap more or tap faster.


Why it isn't easy ? Because of the reaction ;-)

It's like taking water with a sieve...

Quote from: pfrattali on May 22, 2017, 07:26:40 PM
That's some 'woo woo' explanation.

I agree but your analysis is not much better.

Quote from: pfrattali on May 22, 2017, 07:26:40 PM
EMF is basically current.

No, EMF is basically voltage

Quote from: pfrattali on May 22, 2017, 07:26:40 PM
In other words, the faster you move those flux lines through coils, the higher the magnitude of induced Electromotive Force you get!

Yes, but higher EMF does not necessarily constitute higher energy.

Quote from: pfrattali on May 22, 2017, 07:26:40 PM
The flux lines of the generator magnet from your electric company are moving from North pole to South Pole and back is 60 times per second.  20,000 Hertz is 333 times greater than 60 Hertz. Think about it.

So the induced EMF will be 333 times higher ...but how does that lead to overunity?
Voltage is not energy!

THE WOO WOO BIT IS THE STUFF THAT MOVES DOWN THE POWER LINE IS
WOO WOO IN ITSELF. SO A SO CALL GENERATOR IS NOT A GENERATOR ,
BECAUSE ENERGY CAN NOT BE GENERATED. SO THE WOO WOO MACHINE
IS AN ETHER PUMP.

The Inventor Explains It ~
Trying to avoid technical terms, difficult business for an engineer, Mr Perrigo explained his invention this way:
"The device is a generator as truly as the power-driven rotary generator in any power plant. Those generators don't actually 'make' electricity. They condense it from the air. So does the Perrigo. But it does it through the system of wiring, rather than revolutions through a magnetic field. I get my starting point from the air by breaking up the ether waves. The coils on the lead plates do that. I know why they do. It's the way they are connected, one from the other. That's my secret.
"They do break up the ether waves, gathering electricity and conducting it into the big coil underneath. That's the generator. Its size and the way it is wired determines the voltage, the horsepower. Outgoing wires from this coil take the 'juice' where you want it and it is there when you want it."


H.Perrigo

@Forest

H. Perrigo device is truly fascinating.  All those little coils (10 X 10 Grid = 100 coils) acting as a very high Freq "resonate network".
Thought?

Quote from: forest on June 19, 2017, 01:45:18 AM
The Inventor Explains It ~
Trying to avoid technical terms, difficult business for an engineer, Mr Perrigo explained his invention this way:
"The device is a generator as truly as the power-driven rotary generator in any power plant. Those generators don't actually 'make' electricity. They condense it from the air. So does the Perrigo. But it does it through the system of wiring, rather than revolutions through a magnetic field. I get my starting point from the air by breaking up the ether waves. The coils on the lead plates do that. I know why they do. It's the way they are connected, one from the other. That's my secret.
"They do break up the ether waves, gathering electricity and conducting it into the big coil underneath. That's the generator. Its size and the way it is wired determines the voltage, the horsepower. Outgoing wires from this coil take the 'juice' where you want it and it is there when you want it."


H.Perrigo

Tito/Forest/Leonlogb (whatever name youre using today)

If youre going to try share something at least get your facts and history correct.  The only thing worse than an outright lie is bad science.  It helps nobody.

Perrigo was a known FRAUD.  Over a period of 15 years he took $40,000 US from investors and anyone that would part with money.  Engineers inspected his car and found a massive battery under the seat.  There were multiple failed demonstrations and whenever he was pushed for more info he would fake illness.

http://www.rexresearch.com/perrigo/perrig.htm

I think Perrigo device is the same as Hubbard,Hendershot,Amman with slight modifications. All in the sam period of time. Somebody may be involved in spreading this info during those days...  ::)

Quote from: verpies on June 18, 2017, 07:14:23 PM
I agree but your analysis is not much better.
No, EMF is basically voltage
Yes, but higher EMF does not necessarily constitute higher energy.
So the induced EMF will be 333 times higher ...but how does that lead to overunity?
Voltage is not energy!

You're right. My bad.  EMF is current.

All I'm saying though, is that the high frequency switching (on and off) in the tank circuit of the joule thief is enough to get more output energy than the energy put in.  The key is movement of flux lines across coils.  That's where I believe the real current is. The faster you move the flux lines, the more the rate of charge is flowing.

Current has a time factor so 20k cycles makes a lot of flux changes but
the  current has a time consideration.

I always liked Don Smith's "watt second" for a current measurement.
But somehow he advocated that the extra power came from the high cycles.
I never got that.

So using 1 watt to power a 60 cycle oscillator we do not get
60 watts out - we get  1 watt but only for 1/60 second but for 60 cycles.


Norman



Norman

Quote from: pfrattali on June 19, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
...the high frequency switching (on and off) in the tank circuit of the joule thief is enough to get more output energy than the energy put in.

The Joule Thief is essentially a boost converter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boost_converter).
It steps up voltage at the cost of current.
It does not step up energy regardless of the switching frequency.

Quote from: pfrattali on June 19, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
The key is movement of flux lines across coils.  That's where I believe the real current is.

The "movement of flux lines across coils" is commonly denoted as ΔΦ (a change of flux penetrating a coil).  The speed of that change (or "rate of change") is commonly denoted as dΦ/dt.

The voltage induced across an open coil depends on dΦ/dt but the current induced in a closed ideal coil does not depend on dΦ/dt.

Quote from: pfrattali on June 19, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
The faster you move the flux lines, the more the rate of charge is flowing.

"Rate of charge" is not a valid phrase for communication.  Did you mean the "charge's rate of change" or "charge per time"?
If yes, then Coulombs per Second are simply Amperes - a measure of electric current.

In any case, the current induced in a closed ideal coil does not depend on dΦ/dt, it depends only on ΔΦ.

Quote from: norman6538 on June 19, 2017, 09:55:02 AM
Current has a time factor so 20k cycles makes a lot of flux changes but
the  current has a time consideration.

I always liked Don Smith's "watt second" for a current measurement.
But somehow he advocated that the extra power came from the high cycles.
I never got that.

So using 1 watt to power a 60 cycle oscillator we do not get
60 watts out - we get  1 watt but only for 1/60 second but for 60 cycles.





Norman



Norman

This is what I'm trying to get across.
The high cycles means that the movement of flux lines (expanding and collapsing) is faster.

Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?
If I were to spin a generator twice as fast, wouldn't I get twice the current?

you are close but sill far far from overunity
ok, fine here it is
verpies is 100% correct - it's the amount of flux what matters
or rather how to move it without paying like having a free lunch  :P
or rather which flux
or both
it depends
in one case frequency is important like Don Smith said
in other case flux is more important like Figuera said
:P

I'm starting to talk like Tito did, but I'm not Tito
you will know the answer
it's easy
WHICH
or HOW

Quote from: pfrattali on June 19, 2017, 02:12:27 PM
Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?

You do not - you only get more voltage (emf) if the coil is not ideal and not perfectly closed.
...and if the coil is ideal and closed, then voltage cannot be even measured across it.

Quote from: norman6538 on June 19, 2017, 09:55:02 AM
I always liked Don Smith's "watt second" for a current measurement.

But "Watt Second" is a Joule - a measure of energy (not current).

Hi all, Hi pfrattali, have you built something that hints at this or could you share what specific devices that were actually built, that you feel are exhibiting this idea, thanks.
I ask, because I'm working on improving the efficiency of a boost circuit i have, joule thief style, i have so far been able to equal and slightly exceed the efficiency of a 600 watt boost converter i bought from bang good.
I'm wondering if using an air coil might give higher efficiency, as it would certainly fit the criteria of higher frequency.
https://www.banggood.com/DC-DC-600W-10-60V-to-12-80V-Boost-Converter-Step-up-Module-Power-Supply-p-1041640.html?rmmds=buy (https://www.banggood.com/DC-DC-600W-10-60V-to-12-80V-Boost-Converter-Step-up-Module-Power-Supply-p-1041640.html?rmmds=buy)
It says up to 95% efficiency.
peace love light

Quote from: verpies on June 19, 2017, 04:43:00 PM
But "Watt Second" is a Joule - a measure of energy (not current).

How do you define current if you don't consider it energy?  Isn't 'horsepower' considered energy?

Let me ask you something. Do you consider the Kapanadze circuit a scam?

"How do you define current if you don't consider it energy?  Isn't 'horsepower' considered energy?" all units have been defined.
Wikipedia gives excellent definitions. Learn them, but don't try to change them.

Quote from: pfrattali on June 20, 2017, 08:52:39 AM
How do you define current if you don't consider it energy?

Electric current is the amount of charge moving per unit of time, e.g. 1 Ampere = 1 Coulomb per 1 Second.

Quote from: pfrattali on June 20, 2017, 08:52:39 AM
Isn't 'horsepower' considered energy?

No, it is power.  In SI units 1 metric Horsepower is equal to 735.5 Watts. 1 Watt is equal to 1 Joule per 1 Second.
The Joule is the SI unit of energy and work.

Quote from: pfrattali on June 20, 2017, 08:52:39 AM
Let me ask you something. Do you consider the Kapanadze circuit a scam?

I don't know - his presentations do not provide sufficient measurement data to make that determination.
I am a physicist - not a psychologist.

Quote from: verpies on June 19, 2017, 04:40:40 PM
You do not - you only get more voltage (emf) if the coil is not ideal and not perfectly closed.
...and if the coil is ideal and closed, then voltage cannot be even measured across it.

I have to disagree with your first  statement verpies,and question the second.

Question-Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?

QuoteYou do not - you only get more voltage (emf) if the coil is not ideal and not perfectly closed.

As you have stated in your answer-if the coil is not ideal,and not perfectly closed,must mean that there is a load across that coil(not perfectly closed=partially closed) that has a resistance value to it,along with the resistance of the !non ideal! coil it self.
In order to increase the voltage across any resistance(the non ideal coil,and the resistance between the !not perfectly closed!coil ends),the current must also increase.

So,the answer to pfrattali's question is yes,the faster a magnet is passed across a coil or inductor,that is non ideal,and not !perfectly! closed,the higher the value of current that is produced.

Second-and if the coil is ideal and closed, then voltage cannot be even measured across it

Dose this mean a voltage(potential difference) dose not exist. Being ideal,and without resistance,would seem to indicate that a voltage(potential difference) dose not/could not exist.

As a potential difference must exist in order for current to flow,dose this mean that the existing current within an ideal coil has no flow?

Lets look at the picture below,where we have an ideal coil shorted(looped).
If we pass a magnet across that coil,will a current then !flow! within that coil?,and will the coil it self then produce a magnetic field like that of a PM ?
If it dose have a current flowing through it,explain how it dose this without a potential difference that is needed in order to have a flow of current.


Brad

Quote from: tinman on June 26, 2017, 08:05:30 AM
I have to disagree with your first statement verpies,

I am surprised because you seemed to have argued the opposite in this thread (http://overunity.com/16589/mhs-ideal-coil-and-voltage-question/msg484259/#msg484259).

I already had debates on this BASIC subject and I am tired of repeating them.
e.g. I already had this debate with the most difficult opponent (MarkE) here (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg401342/#msg401342) and I eventually won it here (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg402626/#msg402626) (including experimental confirmation).
Please read these links and reply to me if you still want to continue the debate about this subject in this thread.

Quote from: tinman on June 26, 2017, 08:05:30 AM
...and question the second.

QuoteQuestion-Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?

My answer is still "no". The induced current depends on ΔΦ (a change of flux penetrating a coil) not on the speed of that change (or "rate of change") as denoted by dΦ/dt.

Quote from: tinman on June 26, 2017, 08:05:30 AM
As you have stated in your answer

Quoteif the coil is not ideal,and not perfectly closed

,must mean that there is a load across that coil(not perfectly closed=partially closed) that has a resistance value to it,along with the resistance of the !non ideal! coil it self.

Yes

Quote from: tinman on June 26, 2017, 08:05:30 AM
In order to increase the voltage across any resistance (the non ideal coil,and the resistance between the !not perfectly closed!coil ends),the current must also increase.

Ah!, but you are forgetting that any induced current, that is allowed to flow by this resistance/conductance, opposes the change of the magnetic flux penetrating that coil. This opposition tends to maintain the total flux level and in the extreme case (the ideal shorted coil) that maintenance is absolute and the level of flux penetrating the coil remains constant. See this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvShY8YAis4).

If it wasn't so, then you could increase the current circulating in an ideal coil ad infinitum, by repeatedly quickly removing a magnet from it and slowly inserting it back...as illustrated by this absurd machine (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg401605/#msg401605).

All off these paradoxes arise in people's minds because they insist on analyzing coils with voltage, despite coils being current devices and current sources.
The proper approach to analysis is to start with ideal components first and add the imperfections later.

The concept of current caused by voltage (Ohm's law i=V/R) is not always useful and blindly following it can lead you down the garden path.  Analysis of currents induced in inductors, subjected to changing external flux, is a perfect example of this.  More about that is written here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3146.msg51581#msg51581).

Have to say Verpies, I disagreed with you as well, at first.

Basically, you're saying that, for a given coil and magnet, there's going to be a max current that cannot increase based on the rate of change. Only the EMF increases because it's related to current over resistance in a given time.

Like you said, using ohms law is like putting the cart before the horse, and it leads to confusion.

Quote from: verpies on June 26, 2017, 11:32:11 AM
I am surprised because you seemed to have argued the opposite in this thread (http://overunity.com/16589/mhs-ideal-coil-and-voltage-question/msg484259/#msg484259).

I already had debates on this BASIC subject and I am tired of repeating them.
e.g. I already had this debate with the most difficult opponent (MarkE) here (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg401342/#msg401342) and I eventually won it here (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg402626/#msg402626) (including experimental confirmation).
Please read these links and reply to me if you still want to continue the debate about this subject in this thread.

My answer is still "no". The induced current depends on ΔΦ (a change of flux penetrating a coil) not on the speed of that change (or "rate of change") as denoted by dΦ/dt.
,must mean that there is a load across that coil(not perfectly closed=partially closed) that has a resistance value to it,along with the resistance of the !non ideal! coil it self.

Yes
Ah!, but you are forgetting that any induced current, that is allowed to flow by this resistance/conductance, opposes the change of the magnetic flux penetrating that coil. This opposition tends to maintain the total flux level and in the extreme case (the ideal shorted coil) that maintenance is absolute and the level of flux penetrating the coil remains constant. See this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvShY8YAis4).

If it wasn't so, then you could increase the current circulating in an ideal coil ad infinitum, by repeatedly quickly removing a magnet from it and slowly inserting it back...as illustrated by this absurd machine (http://overunity.com/14443/quantum-energy-generator-qeg-open-sourced-by-hopegirl/msg401605/#msg401605).

All off these paradoxes arise in people's minds because they insist on analyzing coils with voltage, despite coils being current devices and current sources.
The proper approach to analysis is to start with ideal components first and add the imperfections later.

The concept of current caused by voltage (Ohm's law i=V/R) is not always useful and blindly following it can lead you down the garden path.  Analysis of currents induced in inductors, subjected to changing external flux, is a perfect example of this.  More about that is written here (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3146.msg51581#msg51581).

The links you provided,are in regards to withdrawing a magnet from a super conductive ring,and not passing a magnet across a non ideal coil,with a non ideal load attached to it-as per the original question -Quote: Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?

The answer to this question is -yes,you do get more current flowing from the coil,through the load,if a magnet is moved passed the coil faster. The faster the rate of change of the magnetic field,the more current is produced from that coil. This test can be carried out with a single turn coil,and results confirmed.

In regards to SC coils,then my answer remains as it was back in the MHs ideal coil thread,and i see also backed up by MarkE-where was he when i needed him?. I see that you also agree with this-i believe?,in that,when a voltage is dropped across an ideal coil,the BEMF will be equal and opposite to the applied EMF?-the action will have an equal and opposite reaction.

An ideal voltage source has no internal resistance,and the ideal coil also has no resistance,and so,when the ideal voltage source is dropped across the ideal coil,there is no resistance within the loop. There is also the fact that the ideal coil produces an ideal BEMF,and there for,the ideal voltage source was just dropped across an ideal short.
Any change that the ideal voltage source tried to make to the ideal coil,was met with an equal and opposite change.

So my answer remains the same--an extreme current void of voltage,as the loop(ideal voltage source,and ideal coil)has no resistance,and a voltage cannot be measured at any point in an ideal loop.

If we have an ideal coil that is shorted(it's two ends joined together),and you withdrew a PM from it's center,is there any two points within that coil that you could measure a voltage?--but yet we know a current would be flowing.

In your SC ring example,where you withdraw the magnet from the center of the ring,would indicate to me that the SC ring is not SC,or the magnet is weak in strength. If it were in fact SC,then you would not be able to remove the magnet from the ring,as every action would be met with an equal and opposite reaction,where in, any attempt to withdraw the magnet,would see the magnetic field produced by the SC ring push back just as hard as you are pulling on the magnet. Only when the total strength of the two magnetic fields combined is exceeded,would you be able to pull the magnet from the SC ring--we are assuming a very strong PM here.

But in regards to a real coil,then i stand by what i say,and the faster the rate of change of the magnetic field,the greater the value of current flowing from that coil,to the load.

It is also true that the greater the flux depth,or field strength through that coil,while the rate of change remains constant,the greater the current flow through the coil to the load also.


Brad

I am going to attempt to clarify some of the confusion about coils and generating current.  I may only make more confusion, but I hope not.  I am pretty sure almost all of you have used or maybe even worked on gasoline or petrol powered portable generators.  If you have been paying attention you will have noted that the engine runs at a fixed speed to produce the voltage required.  The governor of the engine controls the speed.  If you put more load on the generator the governor opens the throttle to keep the speed up to maintain the required voltage.  From this action we can deduce the following:

Voltage is a function of the speed of the magnets passing the coil.  Current is determined by the load and the ability of the driving force to maintain the speed of the magnets passing the coil or coils.  For a fixed speed the voltage will remain the same within reason of course unless we create a very low resistance or a short.  Current will of course increase with an increase in speed but only because the increased speed increased the voltage.

Quote from: citfta on June 27, 2017, 12:17:05 PM
I am going to attempt to clarify some of the confusion about coils and generating current.  I may only make more confusion, but I hope not.  I am pretty sure almost all of you have used or maybe even worked on gasoline or petrol powered portable generators.  If you have been paying attention you will have noted that the engine runs at a fixed speed to produce the voltage required.  The governor of the engine controls the speed.  If you put more load on the generator the governor opens the throttle to keep the speed up to maintain the required voltage.  From this action we can deduce the following:

Voltage is a function of the speed of the magnets passing the coil.  Current is determined by the load and the ability of the driving force to maintain the speed of the magnets passing the coil or coils.  For a fixed speed the voltage will remain the same within reason of course unless we create a very low resistance or a short.  Current will of course increase with an increase in speed but only because the increased speed increased the voltage.

I dont like the idea of using ideal components to prove things. I find them mostly to be problematic and people like to make special rules for each component, bla bla.

But as for the speed of a magnet across a coil and the voltage out varying with the speed, well it does.  But is it the speed itself or is it the speed of the field change over time?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyU0H_kJLxQ&t=313s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyU0H_kJLxQ&t=313s)

The field density around the magnet does not increase or decrease with just moving the magnet. it is the time it takes for the field change from no field, to max field, back to no field that determines the voltage potential out of the coil.  But that is not to say that field cutting the conductor is not the lever that moves the electrons. I havnt seen a plausible explanation otherwise, yet. Im a field cutter believer kinda guy. ;D

I visualize electrons of an open coil in say an ac gen to be compressed from one end of the winding to the other as the rotating magnet field affects the coil. 

Like if I have a neon transformer with its high number of turns secondary, in order for there to be even a beginning of a spark across the output, there needs to be a very high neg charge on one lead and a very hi pos charge on the other lead. That means there is a crap load of electrons cramped into one end of the secondary and a large depletion of electrons at the other end of the winding before the spark can make the jump.  Just a little ramble on that.

Now, a generator is different than a transformer when it comes to mutual induction. The generators turning fields are not cutting the windings at the same speed at different rpms. But say we have a toroid with the primary on the left and the sec on the right 1 to 1 ratio. If we apply input of 10vac to the primary, what would the sec output be if the ac were 20khz and then 30khz?  The same? 10vac?  If the gen is running at 1000rpm, what is the output at 800rpm in comparison?

The transformer primary field jumps across the core like light speed no matter the freq of the change, quite different than the fields being 'dragged' through output windings of a gen at different rpms.

So we have to look at them differently I think.

lol. If we pulsed the field coil of a car alternator instead of regulating it with dc, would there be output without the rotor turning? And would there be any difference in that output if we do turn the alternator while pulsing the fields coil?

Mags

Quote from: webby1 on June 27, 2017, 11:02:10 AM
I guess my view is messed up :)

1V through 1 Ohm is 1 Amp
1V @ 1A for 1 second is 1 Coulomb = 1J
10V @ 0.1A for 1.0 second is 1 Coulomb = 1J
10V @ 1.0A for 0.1 second is 1 Coulomb = 1J but in 0.1 seconds,, so then there needs to be 10 cycles to get to 1 second so you would have 10J per second.
1V @ 10A for 1 second is 10 Coulombs = 10J

Analogy,

A water pump that displaces 1 gallon per cycle.

Cycle it 1 time per minute = 1GPM
Cycle it 10 times per minute = 10GPM but each cycle of the pump still only displaces 1 gallon.

1 gallon of flux change displaces 1 gallon of charge.

To me current is quantity of charge.

That is different,as each cycle has a limit,where as a magnet passing an inductor dose not,where in that limit can be increased with the rate of change of the magnetic field.

Your analogy would be like having a current limiter on the output of the coil.

There is a very easy DUT that can show an increase in current flow and volume with an increase in the rate of change of the magnetic field.
This is using only a single pass across the coil,where only the speed at which the magnet passes the coil shows an increase in both current value and volume.

I am half way through building the DUT,and will post my result's here when im done,by way of a video-along with the DUT schematic.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on June 28, 2017, 08:08:40 AM
Remember the change in time when you do that.

Ask yourself is it more "stuff" or is it the same "stuff" in less time making it look like more????

V*I*time in seconds.

It is more !stuff!.

We can change your pump setup to understand what happens when you increase the speed at which the magnet passes the coil,in order for it to produce more current,and deliver a greater volume of !stuff!

Lets say we have a paddle wheel type pump,and this wheel has just 1 scoop around it's circumference.

For 1 cycle-->
Let's say the scoop(bowl shaped scoop) is made from stretchy rubber.
Let's say that at 1 RPM,the scoop passes through the water,and at this speed the scoop  hold's 100ml of water,which it dumps into a trough at the top of the cycle.

Now for the next cycle,we increase the speed at which the scoop passes through the water,and dump's the water into the trough at the top of the cycle.
The speed is now 1 rev per 30 second's,but we maintain the one single cycle.
Your scoop is made from stretchy rubber,and because it now moves through the water faster,the volume of the scoop increases--due to it being stretchy.
The scoop stretches as it passes through the water,and now holds 150ml,which it dumps into the trough at the top of the cycle.

Each is one single cycle,but the cycle that has that greater rate of change through the water,is the one that delivers the greater volume of water to the trough.


Brad

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
The links you provided,are in regards to withdrawing a magnet from a super conductive ring,and not passing a magnet across

It really does not matter how the external flux change is generated.  It does not matter if the magnet is being inserted into that ring or withdrawn from it or passed through it.  It does not matter if the magnet is moving parallely the ring's axis or perpendicularly to it (as when a magnet is "passing across"). 

Analyzing a half of the motion, as in just withdrawing instead inserting and withdrawing (passing through) does not change anything conceptually - it just changes the initial conditions of the analysis.

BTW: It also does not matter if the external flux change is generated by another coil (as in a transformer).  All that matters is that some external flux is pushed into the coil somehow.

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
a non ideal coil,with a non ideal load attached to it-as per the original question -Quote: Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster?

The video by the same author shows what happens when that ring is not superconductive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUaqXk6axOo

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
The answer to this question is -yes,you do get more current flowing from the coil,through the load,if a magnet is moved passed the coil faster. The faster the rate of change of the magnetic field,the more current is produced from that coil. This test can be carried out with a single turn coil,and results confirmed.

Faraday's law of induction states that only a voltage across an open coil increases as dPhi/dt increases.
Any current that flows as a result of that voltage will oppose the change in flux that causes that voltage according to the Lenz Law. 
According only to Ohm's Law the induced current can grow without limit but when you add in the Lenz Law that limit becomes i=Phi/L.  That limit cannot be exceeded no matter how fast you move the magnet (no matter the dPhi/dt).

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
An ideal voltage source has no internal resistance,and the ideal coil also has no resistance,

But the coil stores and discharges energy as a current source - not a voltage source.
Capacitors store and discharge energy as a voltage source - not inductors.

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
In your SC ring example,where you withdraw the magnet from the center of the ring,would indicate to me that the SC ring is not SC,or the magnet is weak in strength. If it were in fact SC,then you would not be able to remove the magnet from the ring,as every action would be met with an equal and opposite reaction,where in, any attempt to withdraw the magnet,would see the magnetic field produced by the SC ring push back just as hard as you are pulling on the magnet.

You are wrong about this.  You seem to be conflating a change in magnetic flux with mechanical force while it is the gradient of the magnetic flux density that determines the force.
Notice that in the video linked below, the magnet is much smaller than the superconductive loop and that allow the flux lines to deform.  Also notice that the number of these flux lines penetrating the loop is ALWAYS THE SAME regardless of the position of the magnet.  These lines do get closer together (denser) at some times but their number stays the same.  It is the gradient in density of these lines that determines the mechanical force acting on the magnet - not the amount of lines.  Such is the difference between magnetic flux density and magnetic flux.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14

Quote from: tinman on June 27, 2017, 08:40:54 AM
Only when the total strength of the two magnetic fields combined is exceeded,would you be able to pull the magnet from the SC ring--we are assuming a very strong PM here.

No, you will be able to pull out (or insert) a magnet without any problems and without demagnetizing the magnet.  The lines of flux will bend and remain to maintain the total amount of lines constant, just like in that simulation..  That simulation by prof.Belcher is very accurate and the loop modeled in it is perfectly superconductive.

The only difference is whether the superconductive loop is "frozen" with the magnet inside it or without it.  These are called "initial conditions" when the loops becomes superconductive.

With non-superconductive coils everything works the same way except that the current is slowly dissipated in the resistance just like in an RL circuit.  In such situation it only matters whether the change in magnetic flux is able to generate the current much faster then the resistance can dissipate it as heat - think of a inflating balloon with a hole in it.

Quote from: NoBull on June 28, 2017, 09:27:56 AM
It really does not matter how the external flux change is generated.  It does not matter if the magnet is being inserted into that ring or withdrawn from it or passed through it.  It does not matter if the magnet is moving parallely the ring's axis or perpendicularly to it (as when a magnet is "passing across"). 

Analyzing a half of the motion, as in just withdrawing instead inserting and withdrawing (passing through) does not change anything conceptually - it just changes the initial conditions of the analysis.

BTW: It also does not matter if the external flux change is generated by another coil (as in a transformer).  All that matters is that some external flux is pushed into the coil somehow.

The video by the same author shows what happens when that ring is not superconductive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUaqXk6axOo

Faraday's law of induction states that only a voltage across an open coil increases as dPhi/dt increases.
Any current that flows as a result of that voltage will oppose the change in flux that causes that voltage according to the Lenz Law. 
According only to Ohm's Law the induced current can grow without limit but when you add in the Lenz Law that limit becomes i=Phi/L.  That limit cannot be exceeded no matter how fast you move the magnet (no matter the dPhi/dt).

But the coil stores and discharges energy as a current source - not a voltage source.
Capacitors store and discharge energy as a voltage source - not inductors.

You are wrong about this.  You seem to be conflating a change in magnetic flux with mechanical force while it is the gradient of the magnetic flux density that determines the force.
Notice that in the video linked below, the magnet is much smaller than the superconductive loop and that allow the flux lines to deform.  Also notice that the number of these flux lines penetrating the loop is ALWAYS THE SAME regardless of the position of the magnet.  These lines do get closer together (denser) at some times but their number stays the same.  It is the gradient in density of these lines that determines the mechanical force acting on the magnet - not the amount of lines.  Such is the difference between magnetic flux density and magnetic flux.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL4pfisCX14

No, you will be able to pull out (or insert) a magnet without any problems and without demagnetizing the magnet.  The lines of flux will bend and remain to maintain the total amount of lines constant, just like in that simulation..  That simulation by prof.Belcher is very accurate and the loop modeled in it is perfectly superconductive.

The only difference is whether the superconductive loop is "frozen" with the magnet inside it or without it.  These are called "initial conditions" when the loops becomes superconductive.

With non-superconductive coils everything works the same way except that the current is slowly dissipated in the resistance just like in an RL circuit.  In such case it is only a matter whether the change in magnetic flux is able to generate the current faster then the resistance can dissipate it as heat.

First off,the original question-->Do you not get more current if you move a magnet across a coil faster? We are assuming a load is placed across the coil/inductor.

My answer to this is yes,and verpies answer to this is no.

Second--there are no magnetic !lines! of flux,the field is like a fluid--no lines of flux,but one smooth field.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on June 28, 2017, 09:45:04 AM
The quantity of charge that is displaced external to the coil, dumped in the trough, is Amps*time in seconds,, 1 Amp for 1 second is the quantity of 1 Coulomb,, 6.242*10^18 electrons,, so for a fixed external resistance that quantity will stay the same per cycle.

I would tend to think that the stretchy bucket is like using a changing external resistance.

If we have a voltage potential of say 5 volt's,a current limit of say 10mA,and a cap of say 10000uF--what is the only way the cap could be charged to 4 volts quicker?.


Brad

"IMHO Energy does nothing,, power makes things move,, that is energy used over some time period,, but I could be wrong."
We are ultimately only interested in WORK;, which is not conservative.
WORK is done whenever ENERGY moves; potential ENERGY does not do WORK.

Quote from: memoryman on June 28, 2017, 12:39:06 PM
"IMHO Energy does nothing,, power makes things move,, that is energy used over some time period,, but I could be wrong."
We are ultimately only interested in WORK;, which is not conservative.
WORK is done whenever ENERGY moves; potential ENERGY does not do WORK.

Well if you dont have any potential energy, then how will you do work? If you did not eat for 20 days, then you were required to replace the roof of a house, would the roof get done?
If so, then how?
If not then why?

Mags

WORK is the result of kinetic energy, so to have WORK done, the potential has to change to kinetic.

Quote from: tinman on June 28, 2017, 09:36:51 AM


Second--there are no magnetic !lines! of flux,the field is like a fluid--no lines of flux,but one smooth field.


Brad

But how do we know this for sure? Any evidence?

There is no finite definition of what makes up a magnetic field.

I find that lines of force are a very logical explanation and seem to work well with understanding the field in practice. How does claiming it is a fluid help our understanding of how we use it?
How does claiming it as a fluid help our understanding of the difference between N and S polar identities and how they interact with other magnetic fields?

How do we know if the fluid idea that replaces the field lines theory isnt just made up so that we may never fully understand magnetic fields for what they really are?

There must be a mechanism that is the producer of the N and S polarities. Like gravity. If we look at a pool of water and we try to push a sealed bottle of air into the water, the water pushes back.  If we fill the bottle with water and have it submerged in the pool, then we pull it out of the water, it seems like the air is pushing it down.  The difference is that the pool is actually pushing back the air bottle, but it is gravity that is making it seem like the air is pushing down on the water bottle. In the end, it is gravity that is the single cause for each event.

So there must be some polarizing force. Just because we cant see lines of force, it isnt evidence that they do not exist. Can you see the fluid? ;)

Mags

Quote from: memoryman on June 28, 2017, 01:31:39 PM
WORK is the result of kinetic energy, so to have WORK done, the potential has to change to kinetic.

Work to me is getting something done that has an intended purpose. Its not like we see a tornado tearing up the land and say, man, look at all the work being done! ;D

If we have a huge boulder on the edge of a cliff and we only need to remove a grain of sand to allow it to fall off the cliff, we have released potential energy. And if that boulder lands on another cliff below and is again teetering on edge, and we give it a little help off the cliff again, we have again released potential energy. In a way it is a controlled release like a clock mech.

If this boulder dropping is the desired effect, then carrying that boulder back up to the top cliff would entail actual work to get the desired effect. And if pushing the boulder off the cliff in the end does something of value, so called work, its not like it takes the amount of work to get it to the top AND the work being done as the boulder falls, all added up as the work required to get the job done. The work is in the lifting of the rock to store the potential to get the job done. After we do the work to get the rock up there, we dont have to release that potential. Thus the work is only to get the desired effect of getting the rock up there, for what ever reason.

The difference between power and energy is, if there is no energy, there can be no power. Energy is the potential source and power is the measured usage of that energy.

Mags

WORK is a definition in physics; nature doesn't know or care whether you consider it useful. 'Useful' is an interpretation of 'what is'.
Energy is a scalar quantity; power is a vector quantity.
POWER is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted.

We are 'working' on that.

Quote from: webby1 on June 28, 2017, 02:29:03 PM
Back to this one :)

You need a simple device,, IMHO,,  A 0uf to 10000uf variable capacitor.  Set the cap to 0uf, connect the source and restrain the self acting tendency of the cap so that it presents a resistance equal to the  mA that you wish to allow to transfer.

Of course you will need to stop the transfer short and then allow the cap to "snap" the rest of the way so that you are ONLY at 4V.

What are you talking about here?  What is the self acting tendency of a cap and how do you restrain it to represent a resistance equal to the ma that you wish to allow to transfer?  None of that makes any sense to me.  And how does a cap "snap" the rest of the way to what?  Again, I don't understand what you are talking about.  I have worked in electronics for over 50 years and I have never heard of those terms used when talking about a capacitor.  Do you have some kind of reference for what you are talking about?

Thanks for the explanation.  I understand now what you meant.  I think what you are describing would more accurately be called an electrostatic motor rather than a capacitor.

Quote from: citfta on June 28, 2017, 03:23:42 PM
What are you talking about here?  What is the self acting tendency of a cap and how do you restrain it to represent a resistance equal to the ma that you wish to allow to transfer?  None of that makes any sense to me.  And how does a cap "snap" the rest of the way to what?  Again, I don't understand what you are talking about.  I have worked in electronics for over 50 years and I have never heard of those terms used when talking about a capacitor.  Do you have some kind of reference for what you are talking about?

I have to agree with you citfta,as i also have no idea what Webby is talking about ?.

I thought my question was simple  ???
The answer being-the only way to charge the cap to 4 volt's faster,is to increase the current flowing into it.

Brad

Here is a thought experiment i posted on OUR


We have a coil with a FWBR attached to it's output leads,so as to rectify to DC.
We then have a cap across the FWBR output,so as to collect the energy produced by the coil.
Lets say that the cap is 100uF.

Test one
We now disconnect one end of the coil from the FWBR,so as we can do an open voltage test.
We move the magnet passed the coil as a set speed,and obtain an open voltage across the coil of say 5 volt's.
We now hook the coil back up to the FWBR,and move the magnet across that coil at the same speed as the open voltage test,and we end up with-say 3 volts across the 100uF cap. So our coil voltage has been limited to 3 volt's-plus the V drop across the FWBR.

Now we replace the 100 uF cap with a 200uF cap.
Now,we know that is we pass the magnet across the coil at the same speed as test one,we will not get 3 volt's across the cap.
BUT-if we pass the magnet across the coil faster,will we be able to get 3 volt's across the 200uF cap ?


Brad

Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2017, 01:36:33 PM

QuoteI find that lines of force are a very logical explanation and seem to work well with understanding the field in practice.

Like contour line's on a map,that show elevations --but we know that there really are no such line's on the land mass it self.

QuoteThere must be a mechanism that is the producer of the N and S polarities.

Once again,N and S are only a means to indicate direction of flow,much like the suction and delivery sides of a water pump.

QuoteCan you see the fluid? ;)

Do not confuse fluid with liquid  ;)

QuoteThere is no finite definition of what makes up a magnetic field.

Well no,there is not.
I have my own theory,which i have shared here on a number of occasions now,where i believe the magnetic field produced by a PM say,is a field of positive and negative charge's-where what you call north maybe a positive charge,and what you call south maybe a negative charge.
Two positive charges(N&N) will appose each other,two negative charges(S&S) will appose each other,but a positive and negative charge(N&S) will attract each other.

An increasing negative charge(S) through a coil will cause an EMF of one polarity across that coil,and an increasing positive charge(N) will cause an EMF of the opposite polarity across that coil-and the opposite polarity for a decrease of each charge.

QuoteHow do we know if the fluid idea that replaces the field lines theory isnt just made up so that we may never fully understand magnetic fields for what they really are?

Who has shown any signs of there being !field line's! ,that is not flawed ?.

QuoteJust because we cant see lines of force, it isnt evidence that they do not exist.

The scientific method is-we must prove something exist's,not that it must exist because we cant see it,or cant prove it.
We cant see oxygen,but we can prove it exist's.

Quote from: tinman on June 28, 2017, 07:40:56 PM


Do not confuse fluid with liquid  ;)


I have my own theory,which i have shared here on a number of occasions now,where i believe the magnetic field produced by a PM say,is a field of positive and negative charge's-where what you call north maybe a positive charge,and what you call south maybe a negative charge.

Hey Brad

I had some of these conversations back nearly 10 yrs ago at another site that was mostly made to study the Whipmag motor. At least that is mostly what was discussed. I see it more fluid and more like air as the field is compressible, most liquids are not. And Air is more considered a fluid than a liquid. I see it like bubbles that only really interact with other bubbles. Some bubbles attract and others repel.

An interesting discussion we had was the possibility of the spinning stator magnets sort of communicating with each other through the bubbles of the rotor magnets. There were 2 diametric mags on bearings that were in sync with the spinning rotor and one stator of the same flicked in reverse after the rotor was spun up and it would actually lock in sync, in reverse with the rotor. It was just a hunch as we were trying all our best to figure the thing out and get one working. But I can imaging that 3 stators possibly being slightly altered in their synced rotor motion by way of the chain of magnets around the rotor. I really enjoyed those days.


Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on June 28, 2017, 11:24:06 PM
Hey Brad

I had some of these conversations back nearly 10 yrs ago at another site that was mostly made to study the Whipmag motor. At least that is mostly what was discussed. I see it more fluid and more like air as the field is compressible, most liquids are not. And Air is more considered a fluid than a liquid. I see it like bubbles that only really interact with other bubbles. Some bubbles attract and others repel.

An interesting discussion we had was the possibility of the spinning stator magnets sort of communicating with each other through the bubbles of the rotor magnets. There were 2 diametric mags on bearings that were in sync with the spinning rotor and one stator of the same flicked in reverse after the rotor was spun up and it would actually lock in sync, in reverse with the rotor. It was just a hunch as we were trying all our best to figure the thing out and get one working. But I can imaging that 3 stators possibly being slightly altered in their synced rotor motion by way of the chain of magnets around the rotor. I really enjoyed those days.


Mags

Hi Mag's

I dont know much about the Whipmag motor-never followed it,and so,i have very little input i could give on it.

I would like to stick to the discussion about moving a magnet passed a coil faster,in order to gain more current,as i have found a couple of hole's in both verpies and eventually MarkE's conclusion.
There is also obviously a flaw in the test carried out,where a magnet was withdrawn from a super conductive ring at different speed's,and yet made no difference to the current flowing within that SC ring-that makes no sense at all,as the time constant would make no difference to the outcome,other than a quicker withdraw speed should result in a higher current flow within that SC ring.\

We are also discussing it here,and i am hoping verpies will join us there-along with others well versed in the subject at hand.

http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3485.msg63100;topicseen#msg63100

I think MarkE should have stuck to his gun's,but i feel that he got confused when he tried to add in the shorter time value,as that makes no difference to the outcome regarding the withdrawing of a PM from a SC ring.


Brad

 author=verpies link=topic=17297.msg507674#msg507674 date=1498491131]

QuotePlease read these links and reply to me if you still want to continue the debate about this subject in this thread.

I am replying,and wish to continue the debate.

QuoteMy answer is still "no". The induced current depends on ΔΦ (a change of flux penetrating a coil) not on the speed of that change (or "rate of change") as denoted by dΦ/dt.

I believe the above is incorrect.


Brad

Going back to the initial subject of this post:


https://sites.google.com/site/teslanichelson/


https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21ACMuj1L6gcNOvio&cid=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6&id=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6%21182&parId=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6%21115&o=OneUp


Please read it all and delve into areas that you might not be familiar with. Then come back and try to discuss this.

Where do ghosts come from? Where do pink flying unicorns come from?

My point is this: It seems rather silly to be asking "Where the OVERUNITY using INDUCTION COILS comes from (eg Joule Thief)" when there is no solid evidence for any OVERUNITY using induction coils in the first place, especially not from Joule Thiefs.

@TK I have evidence, just not solid.  ;D

Quote from: webby1 on June 29, 2017, 10:25:43 AM
Brad,

I think that in your test you should use a lower capacitance for the faster pass of the magnet.

I think that you should use all 3 values for both the slower speed pass and the higher speed pass.

More data points are a good thing :)

No,because we want to keep the coil peak voltage the same,which will leave only an increased value of current that is the cause of the larger cap having the same EMF value across it.


Brad

The parameters of my test to be carried out

Test will be carried out in two parts
Part one
1-A magnet will be pasted across an inductor at a set constant speed
2-The distance between the magnet and inductor will remain unchanged in both parts of the test.
3-The inductor will retain the same peak value voltage across it for both parts of the test.
4-The capacitor will be charged in the first half of the cycle,and discharged(shorted)in the second half of the cycle,so as each cycle starts with a discharged cap.
5-The capacitor value for the first half of the test will be 220uF
6- 5 captured cycles will be recorded,and averaged out--the recording will be the voltage potential across the 220uF cap. From this we can calculate the average energy received from the coil for each single pass.

Part two
1-This part of the test is much the same as part one,but where we change the 220uF cap out for a 470uF cap.
2-The speed at which the magnet passes the inductor will be increased until such time as the peak voltage across that inductor is equal to that of what it was in part one of the test. This way we know that an increased voltage potential(EMF)across the inductor is not responsible for !a yet to be determined! outcome of the test.
3-Once again,5 captured cycles will be recorded ,and averaged out,so as we can calculate the energy received from the coil for each cycle.

From this test,where we have kept the EMF value across the inductor the same throughout each of the two test's,we can then arrive at 1 of two conclusions

Conclusions

1-If in each of the two test's,the value of the stored energy in the two cap's calculates out to be the same,then we can conclude that passing a magnet over a coil faster,dose not increase total current value delivered from that inductor.

2-If we end up with more stored energy in the 470uF cap,where we moved the magnet across the inductor faster,then we can conclude that you do get a higher total current value if you move a magnet across an inductor faster.

If anyone can see a flaw in these test parameters,please feel free to point them out.


Brad

Tinman I love your test. You are my kind of experimenter....  - simple and clear...

Norman

Quote from: webby1 on June 29, 2017, 10:21:56 PM
If you are going to move the magnet faster I will still suggest you try it with a smaller cap,,

A smaller capacitance at a higher voltage might surprise you with more energy stored, most likely not,, but I thought I would mention it.

Of course the test could fall on its face with a cap that is to large to start with,, I was surprised at how small the single pass cap needs to be with some of the testbeds I have played with.

If then moving the magnet faster and filling a smaller cap up to a higher voltage has more energy stored within the cap,, then what?
I figure you will get there anyway,, seems like the logical thing to do as well.

I wonder if there is a "virtual" resistance value for a cap to a voltage\amperage\Coulombs kind of thing.

Once again Webby,the larger cap is to keep the voltage across the coil at the same value we had in the first part of the test.

If the voltage potential remains the same,what would be needed in order to fill a larger cap,in a shorter time period of time,to a voltage of what the smaller cap had?.

The answer is simple.


Brad

If we make the magnet pass really slow, its like a tornado with 10mph winds

Mags

I had an interesting comment in an email today-name withheld.

Quote: Then the answer is no, you don't get more instantaneous current flow from the coil the faster the magnet passes the coil.

Below are a couple of scope shot's
I placed a 100 ohm resistor across the coil i have been using in my test's,and the scope across the coil/resistor parallel circuit.

The first scope shot is of the magnet passing the coil at the slow speed.
The second scope shot is with the magnet passing the coil at very close to twice the speed.

You might like to note the rms value of the current in both scope shot's,where that rms value is calculated over 16 cycles in each.


Brad

.

Could someone help me clarify this?

We know that a generator's internal resistance reduces power transferred to a load, but doesn't the inductive reactance of the generating coil also play a part in the total impedance?

Is it fair to assume that as frequency increases, so does the total impedance?

Quote from: antijon on June 30, 2017, 11:02:44 AM
Could someone help me clarify this?

We know that a generator's internal resistance reduces power transferred to a load, but doesn't the inductive reactance of the generating coil also play a part in the total impedance?

Is it fair to assume that as frequency increases, so does the total impedance?

Is impedance the same in these two cases?
Are you sending current through a coil,that produces a magnetic field-or are you  sending a magnetic field through the coil,that induces a current ?.

Brad

Ok,the video on my low speed test.

Will be building the test bed for the mid to high speed test tomorrow,as that gets a little more tricky to short the coil each cycle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xANse1LZi74


Brad

Quote from: tinman on June 30, 2017, 11:30:55 AM
Is impedance the same in these two cases?
Are you sending current through a coil,that produces a magnetic field-or are you  sending a magnetic field through the coil,that induces a current ?.

Brad

I really don't know. I'm assuming that the reactance is a part of the circuit because internal resistance is viewed as being in series with the load. I know that if you're load is only resistive, it won't change the power factor of the generator, so I'm not saying that the inductance causes a lag in current. I'm saying that as frequency increases, leakage flux of the generator coil will cause a decrease in EMF.

I'm going out on a limb here, but when you load a generator the output drops. This drop is proportional to the current and the leakage flux of the coil. A typical generator ramps up the motor to maintain 60hz, but it also has to increase the exciter current to maintain output voltage.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you tried to turn a 60hz generator faster, while keeping the exciter current and the load the same, you would actually see a drop in output voltage and current.

Quote from: antijon on June 30, 2017, 02:17:05 PM
I really don't know. I'm assuming that the reactance is a part of the circuit because internal resistance is viewed as being in series with the load. I know that if you're load is only resistive, it won't change the power factor of the generator, so I'm not saying that the inductance causes a lag in current. I'm saying that as frequency increases, leakage flux of the generator coil will cause a decrease in EMF.

I'm going out on a limb here, but when you load a generator the output drops. This drop is proportional to the current and the leakage flux of the coil. A typical generator ramps up the motor to maintain 60hz, but it also has to increase the exciter current to maintain output voltage.

I guess what I'm saying is, if you tried to turn a 60hz generator faster, while keeping the exciter current and the load the same, you would actually see a drop in output voltage and current.

Hi antijon,

The parts of your post I highlighted in red are incorrect.  I believe you may be confusing auto alternators which vary in speed all the time to portable generators which usually run at a fixed speed controlled by the governor.  I am pretty sure I already posted about that is this thread but maybe you missed that post.

A portable generator only has to increase the fuel to the engine to maintain the same speed that it needed to keep the voltage at 120 vac or so and the frequency at 60 hz.  It does not need any increase in exciter current.  In fact there is no way for the exciter current to be increased as it is usually supplied by the residual magnetism in the armature and the windings of the armature.  Of course since an auto alternator is constantly changing speed it has to have a system in place to maintain the output voltage under those changing conditions.  So it does adjust the exciter current to do this. 

You are also incorrect about the voltage and current dropping if you increase the speed of a 60 hz generator.  If you increase the speed of a normal 60 hz generator and the load is not reactive then both the current and the voltage WILL increase.  Voltage is determined by the speed of the magnetic field passing the generating coils.  Current is determined by the load and the available torque to maintain the speed.  As the current increases the torque must increase to handle the extra load placed on the generating power source.  Of course you can overload the generator which will cause a drop in voltage as the current goes up.

I am not sure where you got the idea that increasing frequency causes an increase in flux leakage.  Can you give some source for where you saw that so I can check out that idea?

Respectfully,
Carroll

Below are a couple of scope shot's,along with test circuit.

The first scope shot shows results of slow pass of magnet over the coil.
The second scope shot shows a faster pass of the magnet over the coil.

Brad

Hey Carroll,

I can assure you I'm not referring to an automotive alternator, even though it is practically the same, except being 3 phase.

All types of generators have some type of exciter controller. Low exciter current results in low output voltage, and high for high. You may be referring to a brushless type, but that has a way of automatically increasing exciter current, depending on load.

You're probably right that I'm wrong about the decrease in EMF with frequency. I've read about synchronous impedance, armature reaction, and armature leakage flux. I know that losses increase with current, which will limit the output, but I can't find anything about frequency. I'm guessing that's because no one has ever tried turning a 60hz generator at 50,000 rpm. Lol

.

 I'm just not understanding why you are looking at the speed of a magnet running across a coil and why it has anything to do with a joule thief.. Am I missing something here?
The joule thief uses a bifilar winding right? Well as close as it comes to a bifilar winding.
From my last post I specifically referred you to the bifilar coil to get back on subject. As the subject of this referred to the joule thief.
It seems that every time someone asks this question someone distracts the conversation away from the subject and presents an experiment that is not on subject.


On subject:
" Measurements (Nichelson, 1991) of the same size single and double wound coils, both with
approximately the same inductance have shown that, at resonance, both the voltage response and
voltage gain to be several orders of magnitude greater for the double wound design ."


"Tesla's new "generator" can be explained solely on the basis of its electrical activity. A bifilar
coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil. When operated at resonance, the
distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter force normal to coils,
inductive reactance. It does not allow what Tesla described (Tesla, 1894) as the formation of "false
currents."

In the case of the joule thief this technique can squeeze all of the available charge out of a battery because it doesn't resist like normal solenoid coils do. The reactive resistance eats up charge in normal solenoid coils. This makes the source work harder to furnish charge to drive the system. This can drain the source faster. The bifilar method negates the reactive portion and allows the source to furnish all of it's charge which it converted into near perfect potential<-little loss, to the load or converter<(transformer) into a load. What you want to do is raise the voltage as high as it will go so that loss is kept to a minimum getting to the load, then transform it as it does work in the load. Such a case would be a motor, where Tesla called it a rotating transformer.
But I don't think this technique has anything to do with overunity persay. It has more to do with getting energy to the load to which it can convert to energy into a more working form.

The Overunity would be a way to use a gain mechanism to furnish more energy to the system via that mechanism. Lets say increasing the magnetic gain in a system via a medium that can increase the magnetic density at will. Like plasma for instance. We know plasma has a density and there are different forms of plasma called modes. Cold or dark plasma being not intensified and hot or active plasma being intensified. This is controlled by the electric field. Higher potential field equals hot plasma. Lower electric field means cold or dark plasma. Plasma is highly reactive to magnetic fields. Meaning the space is higher density for the magnetic field to pass or be conducted.

Lets look at Thane Hines experiment with a high voltage coil inside of a low voltage coil. It seemed to amplify the output of the low voltage coil, why? The only difference I could find was that the high voltage coil attracted more free plasma to it and it amplified the magnetic field in the low voltage coil thus increasing the output. It makes sense because when we make strong magnets we us a high voltage capacitor dump to form the plasma streams inside of the magnetic material. This field does not have to be maintained for any amount of time beyond the Curie temperature of the magnetic material. Once it is locked in the plasma flows in a never ending loop and if we scoop off some of the plasma it creates a vacuum that is filled back again by the free plasma in the environment dictated by the material itself.

 author=jbignes5 link=topic=17297.msg507871#msg507871 date=1499018913]

QuoteI'm just not understanding why you are looking at the speed of a magnet running across a coil and why it has anything to do with a joule thief.. Am I missing something here?

Yes,you are missing something.

QuoteThe joule thief uses a bifilar winding right? Well as close as it comes to a bifilar winding.
From my last post I specifically referred you to the bifilar coil to get back on subject. As the subject of this referred to the joule thief.

The JT dose not use a bifilar winding,such as Tesla intended a bifilar wound coil to work.

QuoteIt seems that every time someone asks this question someone distracts the conversation away from the subject and presents an experiment that is not on subject.

The thread topic is-

QuoteWhere the OVERUNITY using INDUCTION COILS comes from

An example was the JT-but it was just an example.
If passing a magnet passed an inductor,creating a current flow,isnt !INDUCTION!,then i have no idea what is.

QuoteOn subject:
" Measurements (Nichelson, 1991) of the same size single and double wound coils, both with
approximately the same inductance have shown that, at resonance, both the voltage response and
voltage gain to be several orders of magnitude greater for the double wound design ."

Could you post a link to these test's that were carried out please.

Quote"Tesla's new "generator" can be explained solely on the basis of its electrical activity. A bifilar
coil is capable of holding more charge than a single wound coil.

Yes,because it has a greater capacitance value.

QuoteWhen operated at resonance, the
distributed capacitance of the bifilar coil is able to overcome the counter force normal to coils,
inductive reactance. It does not allow what Tesla described (Tesla, 1894) as the formation of "false
currents."

An illusion due to the increased capacitance.
When charging an inductor,voltage leads current,and when charging  a capacitor, current leads voltage.
The !counter force! (CEMF) still exist's.

QuoteIn the case of the joule thief this technique can squeeze all of the available charge out of a battery because it doesn't resist like normal solenoid coils do.

You do know how a JT work's-dont you ?
It has nothing to do with this bifilar coil stuff,as the coil design on a JT is not of a bifilar type as mentioned by Tesla.

QuoteThe reactive resistance eats up charge in normal solenoid coils.

Impedance due to inductive reactance ?

QuoteThe bifilar method negates the reactive portion and allows the source to furnish all of it's charge which it converted into near perfect potential<-little loss, to the load or converter<(transformer) into a load.

No it dose not. The included capacitance in a bifilar coil is so small,it makes very little difference.
The only thing an increased winding capacitance dose,is lower the resonant frequency of the inductor.
Further more,the JT has a primary winding,and a trigger winding,and dose not incorporate any traits of a bifilar wound coil.

QuoteLets look at Thane Hines experiment with a high voltage coil inside of a low voltage coil. It seemed to amplify the output of the low voltage coil, why?

No gains were ever had in TH's transformers.

QuoteThe only difference I could find was that the high voltage coil attracted more free plasma to it and it amplified the magnetic field in the low voltage coil thus increasing the output. It makes sense because when we make strong magnets we us a high voltage capacitor dump to form the plasma streams inside of the magnetic material. This field does not have to be maintained for any amount of time beyond the Curie temperature of the magnetic material. Once it is locked in the plasma flows in a never ending loop and if we scoop off some of the plasma it creates a vacuum that is filled back again by the free plasma in the environment dictated by the material itself.

Are you saying the magnetic field around a PM,is plasma ?


Brad

"Yes,you are missing something."

No I am not missing anything, the Title is pretty specific:
"Where the OVERUNITY using INDUCTION COILS comes from (eg Joule Thief)"
The example given is the style of a joule thief and not magnets passing a coil.


"The JT dose not use a bifilar winding,such as Tesla intended a bifilar wound coil to work."
The Joule thief uses interposing winding as does the bifilar winding. It uses the same sympathetic generation scheme. Yes, it wasn't a Tesla intended but it is still the same none the less.


"An example was the JT-but it was just an example.If passing a magnet passed a conductor,creating a current flow,isnt !INDUCTION!,then i have no idea what is."

As usual you cut the last bit off of the title which clearly states an example of Joule thief.
Also there is a big difference between magnetic induction and electric induction.


"Could you post a link to these test's that were carried out please."

I posted enough information for you to investigate it. Don't read or follow links?

"An illusion due to the increased capacitance. When charging an conductor,voltage leads current,and when charging  a capacitor, current leads voltage.The !counter force! (CEMF) still exist's."

This is the problem. You say it is an illusion but yet it negates this counter force for real. That means it gets rid of it and it is not an illusion. What is an illusion is talking like that, in double speak.
Because the coil has capacitance built in it negates the counter force. End of story.

"No it dose not. The included capacitance in a bifilar coil is so small,it makes very little difference.The only thing an increased winding capacitance dose,is lower the resonant frequency of the inductor.Further more,the JT has a primary winding,and a trigger winding,and dose not incorporate any traits of a bifilar wound coil."


First you say it has capacitance then you say here that it is so little. More double speak.


This is what it has. The capacitance is a real time capacitance meaning it lasts as long as there is a voltage potential in the coil. This mirrors the capacitance in a capacitor. This is done by laying two conductors side by side or two channels that can do two things. One: induce a voltage into the second conductor of opposite polarity and create a capacitance between those two conductors much like is done in a traditional capacitor as high as the wires insulation can stand.


"No gains were ever had in TH's transformers."

No gains that you or anyone else will admit to. That doesn't make it any less true.

"Are you saying the magnetic field around a PM,is plasma ?"


Yup! A cold plasma that can be revealed by an intense voltage field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-lKgcQJvg


Now a few things to remind you of here. The air is being pumped out. A straight vacuum. Now no vacuum is perfect but yet plasma is still "created", your word not mine. See plasma is the medium. For the most part it is in a state we like to call as dark mode. This makes it invisible because there is no real energy in it. But it is capable of conducting voltages and form around magnetic fields. In the example video I have shown they are merely intensifying the plasma already around the magnets. This shows the structure of the plasma and the density of that plasma that is locked into the magnets material, this is done upon creation of the magnet.

Lets look at the process here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noGGcyPHtdI

This is a two step process. First pass is high current low voltage. The second process is high voltage lower current. The second process is the key since the first process only weakly magnetizes the material.

This second process loads the material with more plasma from free space, or all around the magnet. Coincidentally this is why we can use coils to create a magnetic field as well. They are just locking the plasma into the material in a HIGHER DENSITY and why the second pass is very important to strengthen the field.

I would also like to clarify something here:

"Measurements (Nichelson, 1991) of the same size single and double wound coils, both with
approximately the same inductance have shown that, at resonance, both the voltage response and
voltage gain to be several orders of magnitude greater for the double wound design."

AT "RESONANCE" is a very important key.
Do you see how they are talking about "VOLTAGE" only here. That is another key aspect that people would rather not concentrate on.

W=V*I  Raise either V or I and there is an increase in W     Hmmm..

To reduce the resistance of the wire itself, even Tesla was trying to negate that as well:

https://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/patents/us-patent-685012-means-increasing-intensity-electrical-oscillations

Pay attention to the reason why he wanted to do this. To harness the free oscillations that a free oscillating capacitor discharge emits. Getting rid of the cemf is only part of the process. Reducing the wires resistance is another.

Read it multiple times to get the gist of this.

Think about this now. If you can harness a freely oscillating capacitor through a coil that has negated cemf and lowered resistance then would the secondary reduce the oscillation?
This is the reason Tesla devised the disruptive discharge circuit. It negates the feedback to the capacitor via a magnetic pathway across the spark gap. This separates the capacitor from the emitter coil and allows the circuit to continue oscillating away. The bifilar method is another way to get rid of the return feedback in the transformer. When the secondary responds the bifilar is going through the second pass through the coil and negates the response from the secondary. All with one blast from a cap.
Think about the interference cancellation effect. With noise all you need to do is provide an opposite wave and the noise will be cancelled. Same thing here but with electrical impulses.

"Active noise control (ANC), also known as noise cancellation, or active noise reduction (ANR), is a method for reducing unwanted sound by the addition of a second sound specifically designed to cancel the first."
"The patent described how to cancel sinusoidal tones in ducts by phase-advancing the wave and cancelling arbitrary sounds in the region around a loudspeaker by inverting the polarity."

This can be done actively on low frequency emissions or passively on higher frequency emissions.

Reference patent here:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2043416

Quote from: webby1 on July 03, 2017, 12:35:14 PM
Funny how the second process pumps a lot of current through those magnetizing coils to magnetize the magnet,, or am I seeing the current wrong,, it was on the video.

Out-gassing is also fun to watch under the influence of highish voltage and a PM field,, high voltage is a relative thing,, to some of us it is like 5KV and others it is 1MV,,

There are several types of magnets being made here.
The tube magnets or circular magnets are made from the inside out. They use a lower magnetic field and are usually of less strength. 3 volts at 6 amps.
I guess the plates could be magnetic. They just pass 27 amps at 300V to load the plasma in the already slightly magnetized alloy. There is a big difference between the two types. This draws in Plasma from around the material and loads it in between the already established weak magnetization of the material during the Curie temp transition. The first process sets the alignment roughly and the second attempt loads the alignment with plasma. If you focus on the horseshoe magnet you will see this process. Every magnet has to be preset in the heating to cooling phase to get a strong magnet after the second treatment.


Yeah Tesla when talking about low voltage was in the range of 1MV and bellow. Weird huh...

Quote from: webby1 on July 03, 2017, 01:29:43 PM
It is that very large coil under the plates,, the one with about 11 ohms resistance and most likely a lot of large diameter wire,, that is what magnetizes the horseshoe magnet,, another place to see the process is for making speakers,, they magnetize the magnet after the speaker is assembled.

I get picked on a little bit when I say high voltage,, when in actuality the few volts I am talking about doesn't even register for some :)  I kind of say high and low in reference to what I am playing with forgetting that there is a huge difference between high voltage and low voltage.

Yeah you can do it another way by putting the coil around the horseshoe itself but since this method is easier for mass production they chose to load the magnets with plates magnetized with either polarity.

Besides the magnet, what do you think about the other information I presented?

Quote from: webby1 on July 03, 2017, 03:55:07 PM
It was interesting,, a new view on stuff and I like new views.

Which current is the fake current?

The counter forces in a normal coil. Cemf in other words. It's a counter force to applied emf. When the opposing winds are used it shorts out the cemf and uses it to load the coil with additional voltage in the capacitance. But this cap is not the standard capacitor and can not hold the voltage for very long. Only as long as there is an emf going. I suspect it also tightens up the winds as well like in normal capacitors. So care should be used in securing the winds so that it will not ruin the insulation on the chosen wire, if you use a solid core copper magnet wire. A solid electrical wire should be used because this kind of coil is specific to the impulse currents Tesla was interested in. Oil being an excellent insulator could be used but Since Tesla was interested in cooling this kind of coil down to reduce the resistance so that nothing was impeding the emf at all.


When I was talking about noise cancellation I was talking in reference to the beck emf we usually see after pinging a solenoid. If you use a bifilar serial wound emitter primary then a solenoid could be used as a secondary with little effect to the primary emf. This is because of the doubling of the coils. As the second wind of the bifilar is getting the emf it kinda negates the bemf from the secondary. Well that is my thinking and what we usually see in the Gene Gene application. It doesn't have to be a flat pancake at all. It could be wound on a iron core or any Ferris material. The core is to remove as much magnetism from the transformation. With the secondary being the current generator based on mass of the secondary.


The one problem with impulse power is that it is so sudden. The gauge of the primary must be taken into account because if you drop to far in gauge the impulses tend to swell the metal so much that atoms break apart from each other. But that is if you use extreme voltages like 1 million volts, which Tesla was more then comfortable using..


Remember the taping of the kid on a swing saying well impulses would be a tap. Time it right and you could get this thing up to extreme voltages. Resonance also works in hitting an object. Match the resonant condition of anything metal and blammo, bad things happen. This is where Tesla was experimenting with resonance and buildings and wires. He wanted to know how this could effect matter around the tapper. His whole line of experiments moved from one thing to the next trying to unlock the secrets of resonant rise and the effects on matter around that rise. This included transformers as well which includes coils.

Been following the latest conversation....

Was just on YT for a bit and seen this vid once again, I think its was presented a while back here at OU, but I feel the need to put it up again.

What would be interesting is to try this config to see what happens to the input and also loading. He never got into that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7QiI8p1gi4

Mags

 author=jbignes5 link=topic=17297.msg507883#msg507883 date=1499093377]

QuoteNo I am not missing anything, the Title is pretty specific:
"Where the OVERUNITY using INDUCTION COILS comes from (eg Joule Thief)"
The example given is the style of a joule thief and not magnets passing a coil.

Then why are you bringing up bifilar coils,when the JT has nothing to do with bifilar coils.

Quote"The JT dose not use a bifilar winding,such as Tesla intended a bifilar wound coil to work."
The Joule thief uses interposing winding as does the bifilar winding. It uses the same sympathetic generation scheme. Yes, it wasn't a Tesla intended but it is still the same none the less.

It's not the same at all.
Please show where Tesla used one of his windings in his bifilar coil,to switch on a circuit component.

QuoteAs usual you cut the last bit off of the title which clearly states an example of Joule thief.
Also there is a big difference between magnetic induction and electric induction.

Please show induction where there is one without the other.
There is no such thing as electric induction,or magnetic induction-->it is electromagnetic induction.

QuoteI posted enough information for you to investigate it. Don't read or follow links?

I see only links relating to Tesla,making magnet's,and magnetic fields effecting plasma--none of which are relevant to the JT.

Perhaps you had better go back to the start of the thread,and see how passing a magnet passed a coil at different speed's actually came about,and how that test !IS! relevant to this topic.

QuoteThis is the problem. You say it is an illusion but yet it negates this counter force for real.

No it dose not.

QuoteThat means it gets rid of it and it is not an illusion.

Do you know what would happen if the CEMF(your counter force) was removed ?

QuoteBecause the coil has capacitance built in it negates the counter force. End of story.

Once again-no it dose not.
It only reduces the resonant frequency of the inductor--and has nothing to do with a JT.

QuoteFirst you say it has capacitance then you say here that it is so little. More double speak.

It's not !double speak! at all--and that's double talk BTW.
A bifilar coil such as Tesla's design,dose have a capacitance value between the two coil's-->but it is !SMALL! in value--pF only,depending on the size of the coil.

QuoteThis is what it has. The capacitance is a real time capacitance meaning it lasts as long as there is a voltage potential in the coil. This mirrors the capacitance in a capacitor. This is done by laying two conductors side by side or two channels that can do two things. One: induce a voltage into the second conductor of opposite polarity and create a capacitance between those two conductors much like is done in a traditional capacitor as high as the wires insulation can stand.

Your getting yourself all confused.
I thought you were talking about Tesla's bifilar coil,where both coil's are connected in series,and both have the same polarity.
When you have two seperate coil's wound on an inductor,and induce one with a current,then the coupling between the two is electromagnetic mostly,with only less than 1% (at best) being capacitive coupling

QuoteNo gains that you or anyone else will admit to. That doesn't make it any less true.

It makes it very true,until such time as it can be shown that THs transformers had an efficiency of COP 1+--and TH has never shown a transformer with an efficiency of + 100%--thats a fact.

"Are you saying the magnetic field around a PM,is plasma ?"

QuoteYup! A cold plasma that can be revealed by an intense voltage field.

How is showing a plasma produced by an electric field,any type of proof that the magnetic field around a PM is plasma?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B-lKgcQJvg

Title--Plasma in Magnetic Field

OK,now i see where you are confused.

The video shows how plasma reacts in a magnetic field.
It is not showing that a magnetic field is plasma.

QuoteNow a few things to remind you of here. The air is being pumped out. A straight vacuum. Now no vacuum is perfect but yet plasma is still "created", your word not mine. See plasma is the medium. For the most part it is in a state we like to call as dark mode. This makes it invisible because there is no real energy in it. But it is capable of conducting voltages and form around magnetic fields. In the example video I have shown they are merely intensifying the plasma already around the magnets. This shows the structure of the plasma and the density of that plasma that is locked into the magnets material, this is done upon creation of the magnet.

You do know that plasma is an ionized gas consisting of positive ions and free electrons.
Now how do you think electrons may act around a PM ?
Quote:  ionized gas, a gas into which sufficient energy is provided to free electrons from atoms.

Quote"Measurements (Nichelson, 1991) of the same size single and double wound coils, both with
approximately the same inductance have shown that, at resonance, both the voltage response and
voltage gain to be several orders of magnitude greater for the double wound design."

As i have asked once already--please post reference to these test's,but in stead,you tell me to look at the links you provided,which were on Tesla,and how magnets are made.

QuoteAT "RESONANCE" is a very important key.
.

First off,the joule thief dose not operate at resonance,and as you wish to stay on topic,how or what dose resonance have to do with a joule thief?

QuoteDo you see how they are talking about "VOLTAGE" only here. That is another key aspect that people would rather not concentrate on

A joule thief dose not operate on voltage alone-nor dose anything else.
So more irrelevant !double speak!

QuoteW=V*I  Raise either V or I and there is an increase in W     Hmmm..

W?-->watt's?
I see you need I in there,so what happened to voltage only?.--How many watts from V only?.

QuoteTo reduce the resistance of the wire itself, even Tesla was trying to negate that as well:

1-larger gauge wire
2-use hollow copper tube for high power/high frequency devices.
3- use silver wire
4-invent super conductive wire.

QuotePay attention to the reason why he wanted to do this. To harness the free oscillations that a free oscillating capacitor discharge emits. Getting rid of the cemf is only part of the process. Reducing the wires resistance is another.

Pay close attention
1-A capacitor dose not oscillate,unless in an LC circuit.
2- If you have an inductor that you send current through,then you also have CEMF--regardless of the winding capacitance.

QuoteRead it multiple times to get the gist of this.

Please show an inductor/coil,that has a voltage dropped across it,void of CEMF

QuoteThink about this now. If you can harness a freely oscillating capacitor through a coil that has negated cemf and lowered resistance then would the secondary reduce the oscillation?

Dont need to think about it,as the answer is straight forward.
A coil cannot and dose not negate CEMF-regardless of winding capacitance.

QuoteThis is the reason Tesla devised the disruptive discharge circuit. It negates the feedback to the capacitor via a magnetic pathway across the spark gap. This separates the capacitor from the emitter coil and allows the circuit to continue oscillating away

.

Perhaps first learn and understand how the Tesla coil work's,then get back to us. ;)

QuoteThe bifilar method is another way to get rid of the return feedback in the transformer.

No it's not.

QuoteWhen the secondary responds the bifilar is going through the second pass through the coil and negates the response from the secondary. All with one blast from a cap.

The Tesla bifilar coil has no secondary.

Removed all the !double speak! about noise cancellation,as it is irrelevant to the topics subject.


Brad

jbignes5,

You should pay attention to Brad.  He is correct in all that he has posted in reply to your post.  You are very confused about the bifilar coils and what they can and can't do.  There is a thread here where they were very thoroughly investigated to see what if any special qualities they might have.

The only special quality the bifilar has is the extra capacitance between the turns of the coil.  And this is only if you connect it up as a series connected bifilar coil.  Otherwise the capacitance is the same as if it were a normal coil.  Connect the two windings in parallel and the extra capacitance is gone because the higher voltage between turns is gone.  And as Brad has said the extra capacitance is very small.

And Brad is also correct that the only effect the extra capacitance has is to lower the normal resonant frequency of the coil.  It DOES NOT do away with the CEMF.  I can't imagine where you got that idea.  There is so much false information being put on YouTube that you really shouldn't be using YouTube as a source of information.  Go back to some good electronics books such as the American Radio Relay League Radio Operators handbook.  Or ARRL handbook for short.  You can get a cheap copy on Ebay.  Then you can learn about how electrical circuits really work.  Or start studying a good online electronics course.

Brad and I both are actively seeking evidence of overunity.  I believe OU is possible and I think Brad does also.  But if it exists it won't be found by following the false information being promoted by so many on YouTube.  You can do the experiments for yourself to see that a lot of what is posted is simply not true.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote from: citfta on July 04, 2017, 06:36:41 AM
jbignes5,

You should pay attention to Brad.  He is correct in all that he has posted in reply to your post.  You are very confused about the bifilar coils and what they can and can't do.  There is a thread here where they were very thoroughly investigated to see what if any special qualities they might have.

I feel like this investigation was fairly short lived considering the encouragement from a certain few individuals regarding this concept.  I'm still working on this as I don't think this investigation of bifilar coils has been fully vetted.

To people interest in  Nichelson documents refered by jbignes5 the links :

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6!186&authkey=!ADHPMrYv4jfiYgE&ithint=file%2cpdf

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6!182&authkey=!ACMuj1L6gcNOvio&ithint=file%2cpdf

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E5A6FA1D7F4103D6!180&authkey=!AK1NOVOgDBhgoaU&ithint=file%2cpdf

I have to agree with Jbignes regarding bifilar coils. "Decreasing the resonant frequency" is the same as saying - reducing the inductive reactance, which is also the same as saying - reducing the counter emf. I think this is evident in Tesla's patent. He designed this specifically as an electromagnet operated by AC current. If a high power electromagnet is needed, it suffers from high reactance which reduces the magnetic force. Increasing the capacitance, or lowering the resonant frequency, increases the power transferred to the magnetic field.

I really don't understand the argument about the JT though. I'm pretty sure the OP just included it in the title because he thinks increasing frequency gives OU.

Quote from: web000x on July 04, 2017, 08:16:50 AM

I feel like this investigation was fairly short lived considering the encouragement from a certain few individuals regarding this concept.  I'm still working on this as I don't think this investigation of bifilar coils has been fully vetted.

As you know,it was looked into deeper at OUR.

I spent weeks and dollars on this,and the only difference i found,was a reduction in resonant frequency of the BPC.

The added capacitance also reduced the time the current flow through the coil hit it's peak,but we are talking only uS here,when the two coils are driven at the same frequency.

Both the BPC and single wound PC both have CEMF--that is just something you cannot get rid of in an inductor--and why would you want to?.

Without CEMF,the current would rise to it's maximum value instantly.
This means you have no control over when and where on the current curve you can switch off the current flow.
Imagine how much excess heat would be created by the inductor.
Imagine no CEMF in your electric drill motor,where the drill would draw maximum current(stall current),even if you were not drilling anything.

How about a generator with no CEMF  :D
No CEMF= no output from the generator.

jbignes5 said my experiments had nothing to do with this topic-passing a magnet passed a coil.

Well if he had of been paying attention,then he would see what it has to do with CEMF--the very thing he is trying to eliminate.

How many times now have we seen the self acclaimed Tesla ex/spurts come in here,and try and tell us all how it's done,and what needs to happen?.
Then  the good old !resonant joule thief! pop's up,and off the Tesla fans go.

So,we either carry out the experiments our selves,and get the correct answer's,or we listen to lost of !double speak!  ::)


Brad

Quote from: tinman on July 04, 2017, 09:41:06 AM
As you know,it was looked into deeper at OUR.

I spent weeks and dollars on this,and the only difference i found,was a reduction in resonant frequency of the BPC.

The added capacitance also reduced the time the current flow through the coil hit it's peak,but we are talking only uS here,when the two coils are driven at the same frequency.


Brad

Most of you that were working on the bifilar pancake coil, from what I can tell, didn't get into the side of investigation dealing with excitation via mutual induction.  This is where I am working.  TK did get into this but I'm not sure how far he took it.


@Milehigh,
This is in response to your PM.  I never said anything about a series configured bifilar coil.  Those are your words.  As was before, as is right now, I will continue to investigate this despite your discouragement.


Dave

 author=antijon link=topic=17297.msg507911#msg507911 date=1499175665]

QuoteI really don't understand the argument about the JT though. I'm pretty sure the OP just included it in the title because he thinks increasing frequency gives OU.

So if were talking about the JT,what has bifilar coils and Tesla got to do with it?

QuoteIf a high power electromagnet is needed, it suffers from high reactance which reduces the magnetic force.

No it dose not.

QuoteDecreasing the resonant frequency" is the same as saying - reducing the inductive reactance,which is also the same as saying - reducing the counter emf

There are a number of things that can cause a reduction in resonant frequency-higher winding capacitance for instance  ::)
And what happens when you reduce the counter EMF ?

QuoteIncreasing the capacitance, or lowering the resonant frequency, increases the power transferred to the magnetic field.

No it doesn't.
It increases the displacement current between windings,and this creates more waste heat.

QuoteI have to agree with Jbignes regarding bifilar coils.

You are welcome to believe who ever you choose.


Brad

 :o Brad what are you talking about?

Of course a large electromagnet has high inductive reactance! A transformer with no load on the secondary is an electromagnet, and how strong do you think it's magnetic field is? It's not strong at all, because the field is equal to the power consumed by the coil, minus it's internal resistance.

I don't know if you're arguing for the sake of it or if you're being serious.

Quote from: antijon on July 04, 2017, 12:21:03 PM
:o Brad what are you talking about?

QuoteOf course a large electromagnet has high inductive reactance!

That depends on the electromagnets design,which would depend on it's inductance value.
We can design an electromagnet with a very strong magnetic field,but with low inductance value,or one with a strong magnetic field,but with a high inductance value.

QuoteA transformer with no load on the secondary is an electromagnet,

No it's not.
Get your self a transformer,power it up with the secondary either open or loaded,and see how much iron or steel you can pick up with it.
There is a big difference between an electromagnet and a transformer.
An electromagnet has an open magnetic path,where a transformer has a closed magnetic path.

Quoteand how strong do you think it's magnetic field is? It's not strong at all, because the field is equal to the power consumed by the coil, minus it's internal resistance.

Once again,that all comes down to the design of the electromagnet,and the field strength is not only due to the amount of current flowing through it.

The Tesla BPC is one of the worst electromagnet designs out there.
A single wound coil around a core is far more efficient as an electromagnet.

QuoteI don't know if you're arguing for the sake of it or if you're being serious.

Im being dead serious.
You build your best Tesla BPC electromagnet,and i'll build a normal single wound electromagnet.
We will then both drive those electromagnets with an AC,and see who can lift the most weight with the least amount of power.

So lets both put our money where our mouth is-so to speak.


Brad

So that's what you're talking about. I never mentioned anything about a pancake coil, and Tesla's bifilar patent only uses that image to give a proper understanding of his winding method.

QuoteI would here state that by the term coils I desire to include generally helices, solenoids, or, in fact, any conductor the different parts of which by the requirements of its application or use are brought into such relations with each other as to materially increase the self-induction.

His patent specifically refers to solenoids and mentions nothing about pancake coils, so I don't understand why people use those... except for tesla coils.

Please show me what you mean by a strong electromagnet with low self inductance. But if you're talking about a high winding resistance then please don't. Resistance in series with a coil also reduces it's reactance. And if you're talking about building a coil tuned to a particular frequency, that's cheating.

And there are solenoid transformers that don't have a closed path, but that's beside the point. The point is that you said bifilar windings and capacitance doesn't reduce inductive reactance, and if you truly believe that, then just tell yourself you won because I don't know what else to say.

Quote from: web000x on July 04, 2017, 10:00:28 AM




@Milehigh,
This is in response to your PM.  I never said anything about a series configured bifilar coil.  Those are your words.  As was before, as is right now, I will continue to investigate this despite your discouragement.


Dave

Thanks for responding to him in public. I just went through a week or so of his crap in pm. Your post is in agreement of my arguments against him. We had about a 7 member audience which he pm chained earlier, so this round I included Stefan. One of my complaints was that he discourages people here from doing things that we are suppose to be doing here.. He denied it, but here we go again. More evidence.  ;D

If it continues I suggest that anyone that gets these pms from him report them to Stefan.  ;)   He is on moderation for his garbage and he thinks he has a right to continue his deeds in pm attacks. We dont need his negative bias here any longer.  Something wrong with that guy.

Mags

Quote from: antijon on July 04, 2017, 08:41:52 PM
So that's what you're talking about. I never mentioned anything about a pancake coil, and Tesla's bifilar patent only uses that image to give a proper understanding of his winding method.

His patent specifically refers to solenoids and mentions nothing about pancake coils, so I don't understand why people use those... except for tesla coils.

Please show me what you mean by a strong electromagnet with low self inductance. But if you're talking about a high winding resistance then please don't. Resistance in series with a coil also reduces it's reactance. And if you're talking about building a coil tuned to a particular frequency, that's cheating.

And there are solenoid transformers that don't have a closed path, but that's beside the point. The point is that you said bifilar windings and capacitance doesn't reduce inductive reactance, and if you truly believe that, then just tell yourself you won because I don't know what else to say.

First off,i never said an increase in winding capacitance dose not reduce CEMF.
I said that no mater how much you try and increase winding capacitance,an inductor will always have CEMF-so lets get that righht,and dont start saying i said things i never said.

Second-my challenge stands-build any type of bifilar transformer or electromagnet you like,and i will beat it in every way.

Brad

Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2017, 09:56:08 PM
Thanks for responding to him in public. I just went through a week or so of his crap in pm. Your post is in agreement of my arguments against him. We had about a 7 member audience which he pm chained earlier, so this round I included Stefan. One of my complaints was that he discourages people here from doing things that we are suppose to be doing here.. He denied it, but here we go again. More evidence.  ;D

If it continues I suggest that anyone that gets these pms from him report them to Stefan.  ;)   He is on moderation for his garbage and he thinks he has a right to continue his deeds in pm attacks. We dont need his negative bias here any longer.  Something wrong with that guy.

Mags

Yeah, I was about to respond to him on his last PM but realized that I was wasting my time as there is always a rebuttal to any response that was preceded by the attack.  I just like to suggest my direction and hope I can disappear back to the lab with maybe some curious exchange in between with fellow members of the forum. But I have on multiple occasions felt assaulted for my curiosity into the direction of bifilar coils by Milehigh. 


My official testimony.


Dave

Quote from: web000x on July 04, 2017, 10:48:59 PM

Yeah, I was about to respond to him on his last PM but realized that I was wasting my time as there is always a rebuttal to any response that was preceded by the attack.  I just like to suggest my direction and hope I can disappear back to the lab with maybe some curious exchange in between with fellow members of the forum. But I have on multiple occasions felt assaulted for my curiosity into the direction of bifilar coils by Milehigh. 


My official testimony.


Dave

"But I have on multiple occasions felt assaulted for my curiosity into the direction of bifilar coils by Milehigh. 


My official testimony."

lol. Isnt it funny?  Of all the things that are fake and useless, he seems to pound on any mention of bifi coils with the most intent of discouragement.   ??? ::) ;)

Keep looking and keep experimenting.  ;)

Mags

Quote from: Magluvin on July 04, 2017, 11:36:36 PM
"But I have on multiple occasions felt assaulted for my curiosity into the direction of bifilar coils by Milehigh. 


My official testimony."

lol. Isnt it funny?  Of all the things that are fake and useless, he seems to pound on any mention of bifi coils with the most intent of discouragement.   ??? ::) ;)

Keep looking and keep experimenting.  ;)

Mags

Good advice Mags.


Brad

Brad, I have no clue about bifi coils, but thanks for inviting me to make one. It'll have to wait a few months though, I'm still living in a van down by the river. But if I made one it would just be tuned with a cap to 60hz.

But getting back on topic, has anyone tuned a transformer with a cap in series and checked the output? Didn't webby mention something about resonance?

Look up ferroresonant transformers.  The ferroresonant transformer is probably older than you are.

Thanks Carroll. Probably I'm only 34. Lol

They are older than me also.  And I am slightly more than double your age.  They are an interesting device though.  And were still being used up until the switching power supplies came into common usage.  The interesting thing about them is the output voltage stayed the same over a wide range of loads and a wide range of input voltages.  A lot of the ones I saw used in industry had an output voltage of 120 volts.  But the input could be anywhere from 90 volts to 135 volts or so and the output stayed the same as long as you didn't overload the output.

About that Carroll, I've read that they work by saturating the core near the secondary, thanks to the capacitor loaded winding. In a normal transformer, when we talk about saturation it's due to the primary, correct?

Sorry for the absence. I needed some time for local projects. Got a lot done so I feel better.




So for the arguments that a JT isn't a bifilar coil. Mheh.. Look at the the opposing winds. Just because it is connected differently doesn't mean that it won't have the same interposing wind rules that apply. An EMF moving in such a coil of one half of the winding will indeed reduce the cemf, in fact it should even increase in voltage because of the opposite polarity being shunted in between the primary winding. The core is to purge the magnetic field from the process which enhances the magnification. At least until saturation of the core then a leak happens.


I'm working on a very special coil setup that uses iron gardening wire with a bifilar primary and over wrapped solenoid secondaries. Two halves of the toroid iron wire circle will be used. A single channel, so two bifilar coils in series for the emitter coils wrapped on the iron wire toroid. This should allow disruptive discharges from a cap to an antenna as a virtual ground. The larger the antenna the more it can handle voltage before it breaks down the air around it and suck in free plasma from all around the antenna. The plasma should move to the antenna because the voltage acts like a vacuum to it. This should allow me to magnify the bifilar emf blasts as it (plasma) back feeds to the bifilar emitters. The secondaries should translate the emf blasts into AC which can be diode rectified into DC for storage and reuse.


Once the primary tank is filled it should run very happy till it wears out.


The secondaries I believe need to be of heavy solid copper wire and the secondaries will get very hot because of the emf blasts they are receiving. Later on cooling should be applied to the secondaries to keep them in operating condition. If large enough copper water pipe can be used and water pumped through the pipes to cool them.


My initial tests will be done as I build a grow light Led system. That will be my first test and will most likely have a battery involved to get the process started and keep the battery charged as it runs. Unfortunately you need a kick off run initially to get the process started. After the first run it should back flow into the battery and charge it up. I might need some circuitry to handle the charge back and cut off the power to the battery when it is charged enough. I should be able to use a current sensing resistor and sub circuit to handle that.


The small unit is already built and I should be starting my trials on the device. Digital meter and scope waiting to have some fun. As long as I start out slowly I should be alright. Give it slight power in the beginning and try to ramp up the power storage as I develop some graphene batteries I watched being built. This will make an excellent battery charger for those kinds of batteries since they are most capacitor like.


Also I am gonna be trying a few other things out with this setup including an interior rotor with self terminated coils and the effects of that related to Tesla's other machine I am going to be making.


I used some networking wire that is solid core but seems to be made of tin but coated with copper as the bifilar emitters. The one problem there is that it is fairly light gauge. I'll show pictures later.


If you look at a JT circuit there is indeed an interposing winding. That is just about the length of similarities to the bifilar wind or simply method. This interposing winding style separates the primary coil from itself and that kinda gets rid of most of the cemf. In fact I am thinking that this system could get gains via that fact, seeing that the negative is interposed to the positive wiring of the primary coil. Kind of like a speed boost only. So the current stays the same but the intensity or voltage level rise from the speed boost through the coil. With self inductance being somewhat removed from a coil where is this coil gaining the voltage then? The only other value you can change is the voltage really and that should equate to speed of the charges moving through the coil.


Tesla's other device uses the same premise. It's a motor generator with gen exciter built in. A magneto. All of that is turned via the motor or prime mover. The generator section has the same setup I am about to start testing with the Led driver. The emitter coils are bifilar going to an antenna. It is being fed impulses from a capacitor disruptive discharge circuit. That circuit is fed via the magneto exciter. The emitters are discharged into a heavy copper coil in the rotor which should generate huge currents in those coils. This will be split between the prime mover and load circuits and the rest if any is used to charge a battery or bank of batteries.


This device was patented by Tesla and only shown in vague details. The other patents Tesla released were used in that device. This is why we never really found any thing special about the older device. Every aspect was looked into by Tesla and I will be showing each patent and where it applies in the new device. This includes a magnetic Prime mover controller (motor controller), disruptive discharge circuits and many many other devices used to enhance the devices output. He was very smart about what he did. He put it all out there in the public's eye and no one really caught on until now.


For the meantime I will be experimenting withe this new disruptive discharge transformer setup. This is the heart of the generator portion of the device I mentioned above. Every aspect of the devices patent has been shown in greater detail in a bunch of individual patents with the devices patent being a way to put them all together.


Not all patents by Tesla were used. only a select group of them. I will try to post them all for everyone to see.

A JT coil need not be "interposed". It is effectively one continuous winding in the same direction, with a "tap" at some place along the winding. This can be a center tap or it can be closer to one end or the other. The winding can be on a toroidal core, a solenoidal core, or no core at all. Even a "tesla bifilar pancake" winding can be used, with the center tap being the series connection between the inner end of one winding and the outer end of the other winding. Solenoidal or toroidal JT coils can be overwrapped, interposed, or can be in two separate sections on a rod or toroid core.

Note where the "dots" are on the JT diagram. This dot indicates the "start" of a winding. The JT schematic typically draws the coil as a transformer, but if you consider the dots, you will see that it is actually one continuous winding all in the same direction, effectively "center tapped" or tapped closer to one end, to give a turns ratio other than 1:1 between the two sections.

Everyone who has built JTs knows that if it does not oscillate at first, you simply reverse the connections of one of the "windings", (actually one of the sections). This results in the total coil being connected just as I said: as one continuous winding in the same direction with a tap somewhere along the length. Once this fact is realized, JT builders will never again have to "guess" how the windings are to be connected for proper operation the first time, every time.

Quote from: jbignes5 on July 11, 2017, 03:53:19 PM




Sorry for the absence. I needed some time for local projects. Got a lot done so I feel better.




So for the arguments that a JT isn't a bifilar coil. Mheh.. Look at the the opposing winds. Just because it is connected differently doesn't mean that it won't have the same interposing wind rules that apply. An EMF moving in such a coil of one half of the winding will indeed reduce the cemf, in fact it should even increase in voltage because of the opposite polarity being shunted in between the primary winding. The core is to purge the magnetic field from the process which enhances the magnification. At least until saturation of the core then a leak happens.


I'm working on a very special coil setup that uses iron gardening wire with a bifilar primary and over wrapped solenoid secondaries. Two halves of the toroid iron wire circle will be used. A single channel, so two bifilar coils in series for the emitter coils wrapped on the iron wire toroid. This should allow disruptive discharges from a cap to an antenna as a virtual ground. The larger the antenna the more it can handle voltage before it breaks down the air around it and suck in free plasma from all around the antenna. The plasma should move to the antenna because the voltage acts like a vacuum to it. This should allow me to magnify the bifilar emf blasts as it (plasma) back feeds to the bifilar emitters. The secondaries should translate the emf blasts into AC which can be diode rectified into DC for storage and reuse.


Once the primary tank is filled it should run very happy till it wears out.


The secondaries I believe need to be of heavy solid copper wire and the secondaries will get very hot because of the emf blasts they are receiving. Later on cooling should be applied to the secondaries to keep them in operating condition. If large enough copper water pipe can be used and water pumped through the pipes to cool them.


My initial tests will be done as I build a grow light Led system. That will be my first test and will most likely have a battery involved to get the process started and keep the battery charged as it runs. Unfortunately you need a kick off run initially to get the process started. After the first run it should back flow into the battery and charge it up. I might need some circuitry to handle the charge back and cut off the power to the battery when it is charged enough. I should be able to use a current sensing resistor and sub circuit to handle that.


The small unit is already built and I should be starting my trials on the device. Digital meter and scope waiting to have some fun. As long as I start out slowly I should be alright. Give it slight power in the beginning and try to ramp up the power storage as I develop some graphene batteries I watched being built. This will make an excellent battery charger for those kinds of batteries since they are most capacitor like.


Also I am gonna be trying a few other things out with this setup including an interior rotor with self terminated coils and the effects of that related to Tesla's other machine I am going to be making.


I used some networking wire that is solid core but seems to be made of tin but coated with copper as the bifilar emitters. The one problem there is that it is fairly light gauge. I'll show pictures later.


If you look at a JT circuit there is indeed an interposing winding. That is just about the length of similarities to the bifilar wind or simply method. This interposing winding style separates the primary coil from itself and that kinda gets rid of most of the cemf. In fact I am thinking that this system could get gains via that fact, seeing that the negative is interposed to the positive wiring of the primary coil. Kind of like a speed boost only. So the current stays the same but the intensity or voltage level rise from the speed boost through the coil. With self inductance being somewhat removed from a coil where is this coil gaining the voltage then? The only other value you can change is the voltage really and that should equate to speed of the charges moving through the coil.


Tesla's other device uses the same premise. It's a motor generator with gen exciter built in. A magneto. All of that is turned via the motor or prime mover. The generator section has the same setup I am about to start testing with the Led driver. The emitter coils are bifilar going to an antenna. It is being fed impulses from a capacitor disruptive discharge circuit. That circuit is fed via the magneto exciter. The emitters are discharged into a heavy copper coil in the rotor which should generate huge currents in those coils. This will be split between the prime mover and load circuits and the rest if any is used to charge a battery or bank of batteries.


This device was patented by Tesla and only shown in vague details. The other patents Tesla released were used in that device. This is why we never really found any thing special about the older device. Every aspect was looked into by Tesla and I will be showing each patent and where it applies in the new device. This includes a magnetic Prime mover controller (motor controller), disruptive discharge circuits and many many other devices used to enhance the devices output. He was very smart about what he did. He put it all out there in the public's eye and no one really caught on until now.


For the meantime I will be experimenting withe this new disruptive discharge transformer setup. This is the heart of the generator portion of the device I mentioned above. Every aspect of the devices patent has been shown in greater detail in a bunch of individual patents with the devices patent being a way to put them all together.


Not all patents by Tesla were used. only a select group of them. I will try to post them all for everyone to see.

It is clear that you dont understand how a JT works.

The CEMF will not be reduced due to the winding configuration of  the two windings in a JT.

The only reason most JTs are wound like that,is for simplicity-nothing more.


Brad

A little story : 
a.
the Aquino battery company got 190 Mio.US$ investment for the
exploration from a "saltwater battery".
The company became bankrupt,their total productive assets now
in sold for 2,8 Mio. US$. ( Mr. Bill Gates lost some soft earned money :'( sad,really sad)

b.
anybody here knows about William Putt and his patented ergo publicated work (?) :
double windings !
Why,the improvements now based by which experiments and results ?

c.
there was built a capacitive windings motor with a 40 KW power output,these has been coupled to a 40 KW(nominal) generator.
The investors wished to become the functionality of this
arrangement tested :
in a professional (animal food)mill this motor-generator should drive one of this mill devices, equipped with a nominal 20 KW
electric motor.
the 125000 Euro investment experiment failed,
the capacitors became destroyed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
So dear readers, a knowledge about each camper and traveller worldwide can tell and explain to you :
the inductive load needs for the start phase an heavy energetic input,the 5x,10x and by toroidal transformers up to
the 60x value from the nominal worth !

If someone shows to you that with a 3KW generator he/she/it can drive a 3 KW motor nonstop then there is a fake included !
a soft starter/inrush current limiter arrangement gives maximal a 60% inrush decrease !

Quote from: lancaIV on July 12, 2017, 04:02:36 PM
A little story : 
a.
the Aquino battery company got 190 Mio.US$ investment for the
exploration from a "saltwater battery".
The company became bankrupt,their total productive assets now
in sold for 2,8 Mio. US$. ( Mr. Bill Gates lost some soft earned money :'( sad,really sad)

b.
anybody here knows about William Putt and his patented ergo publicated work (?) :
double windings !
Why,the improvements now based by which experiments and results ?

c.
there was built a capacitive windings motor with a 40 KW power output,these has been coupled to a 40 KW(nominal) generator.
The investors wished to become the functionality of this
arrangement tested :
in a professional (animal food)mill this motor-generator should drive one of this mill devices, equipped with a nominal 20 KW
electric motor.
the 125000 Euro investment experiment failed,
the capacitors became destroyed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
So dear readers, a knowledge about each camper and traveller worldwide can tell and explain to you :
the inductive load needs for the start phase an heavy energetic input,the 5x,10x and by toroidal transformers up to
the 60x value from the nominal worth !

If someone shows to you that with a 3KW generator he/she/it can drive a 3 KW motor nonstop then there is a fake included !
a soft starter/inrush current limiter arrangement gives maximal a 60% inrush decrease !

I really do not think many here can grasp the fact that the winding/self capacitance is that small that it makes near to no difference in the devices operation.
Nor dose it seem to compute that the lower the CEMF,the higher the current rise over a given time.
This of course means more waste heat.

Like i said,if you lower the CEMF of an electric motor by say just 10%,you now have a motor that consumes more power,produces more waste heat--and it's not even doing any work yet.
You now place a load on that motor,the CEMF drops even further,the current rises even higher,and the waste heat increases even further.

So you are going backwards in trying to reduce the CEMF--you need to increase it for more efficiency--not reduce it.


Brad

You are absolutely correct Brad.  I went to the first energy conference that was put on by Rick Frederick and Aaron and that group.  When Peter Lindemann gave a lecture about how we had to reduce the CEMF on a motor I shook my head in wonder.  I never went back to another one of their so-called conferences.

If you want to see the same effect as removing the CEMF of a motor all you have to do is remove the governor on a small engine and hold the throttle wide open.  You get the same effect.  The destruction of the engine.

On a large DC motor with excited field windings you can remove the power to the fields and you have eliminated the CEMF.  You have also now got a motor with no torque and very high armature current.  If you can get it to turn it will accelerate until it flies apart.  I really wonder where the idea of eliminating the CEMF came from other than what I heard Lindemann say.  I guess that is where it started.

Carroll

 author=webby1 link=topic=17297.msg508264#msg508264 date=1499980845]

QuoteIf the used potential is only voltage then it is an electrostatic motor

First up,an electrostatic motor runs on both current and voltage-power
Second-there is no such thing as an electro!static! motor,as the charges are now moving,and so, no longer static.

Quoteif it comes from amps then it is a "conventional" motor

.

No
In order for current to flow,there must be a potential difference-->voltage drop between two points-unless you are talking about a super conductive ring or coil
So once again,both voltage and current are needed.

QuoteHow much torque does 10A make?

A question that makes no sense,and cannot be answered.

QuoteWhy do we need to keep increasing the voltage to maintain 10A as the RPM goes up?

Because of the CEMF/BEMF
Your motor is also a generator,that generates power that apposes that which creates it-->this is what reduces the current flow into the motor,as the motor gets up to running speed. If there was no CEMF/BEMF,then the current flow into the motor would be at the maximum value that the winding resistance allows,and/or what the power supply could deliver.

Clarification on opposition.
When we say !apposes!,that means that the motor is generating it's own power of the same potential as that which is supplied to it. This causes an !opposition! to current flow from the power supply,due to the voltage potential between the supply voltage and self induced voltage across the windings to decrease.
So,lets say you have a winding resistance in your motor of 1 ohm,and you drop 10 volts across that 1 ohm resistance. At the instance you do this(before the motor starts to spin),the current flowing through those windings will be 10 amps. As the motor starts to speed up,it generates a voltage across those windings that is of the same potential as the supply voltage. Now lets say your motor has reached it's half way point in it's maximum RPM,and it's self induced voltage across the windings is say 5 volt's. So the potential difference between the supply voltage and self induced voltage is now only 5 volt's. 5 Volts across 1 ohm is 5 amps.
Now your motor is running at it's maximum rpm,and the self induced voltage across the windings is say 8.5 volt's,and so the potential difference between the supply voltage and self induced voltage is only 1.5 volts. 1.5 volts across 1 ohm is only 1.5 amps.

So,startup power was 100 watts
Mid way to max RPM,it was 50 watts
And at max RPM it is only 15 watts
These are only examples,and the motor is unloaded.
But do you see why the CEMF/BEMF needs to be as high as we can make it,and why it should not be removed as being suggested in this thread by some.


So,the faster the motor spins,the more CEMF/BEMF it produces.

Quotemeaning that there is now a constant torque being made at whatever RPM.

Meaning you now have a big resistive heater.

QuoteWhat if that was from say 10V @ 10A being supplied, what happens when the RPS * torque exceeds 100J?

J? __> Joules?
Power is measured in watts,not joules.
So that is 10V @ 10A=100 watts
With ideal components,an electric motor would consume no power,but in reality,we have no !ideal! components,and so the maximum output power delivered by the motor would be 95% of the input power-at best.This would be a top end motor.

QuoteThere is induction in said motor as well as self induction in said motor,, what do you think needs to be controlled and what impact could that have on the mechanical work done by a motor with these things under control.

I dont think !controlled! is the right word to use.
The more CEMF/BEMF an electric motor produces,the more efficient it is.
As i stated above,an electric motor made from !ideal! components,would consume no power,as the CEMF/BEMF would be equal to the supplied EMF,due to there being no losses-such as winding resistance,bearing resistance,core losses-ETC.


Brad

QuoteThe more CEMF/BEMF an electric motor produces,the more efficient it is.

This isn't exactly true Brad. High cemf limits the power of the motor. An easy way to see that is by comparing an open load motor to a full load motor.
Open load= lowest power= highest efficiency
Full load= highest power= lowest efficiency
There's no point in discussing the open load motor because it's not producing any power. An open load motor is like an open transformer, it's only using enough power to maintain its magnetic field.

I understand your line of thinking, but instead of decreasing power transferred to increase efficiency, why not use 100% power in and get more out.

 author=webby1 link=topic=17297.msg508288#msg508288 date=1500125887]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_motor

QuoteAs far as most of the rest of your response,, I might suggest that you actually read what you wrote,, several times,, while thinking them over.

My response is correct.

QuoteDid I say zero volts by the way?? didn't think so,,

Quote: If the used potential is only voltage then it is an electrostatic motor, if it comes from amps then it is a "conventional" motor.

So,you quoted voltage only for an electrostatic motor,and amps for a conventional motor.

Your next comment was-Quote: How much torque does 10A make?

Some one dose need to re-read there statements several time's,but it is not me.

QuoteJust as a starting point,, you can find many companies that make these non static static motors,,, it is after all only a label.

It is also not as you stated,where you said electrostatic motors use only voltage.

Quotebut it does not take very much thought to think that if the input voltage did not need to rise with RPM then the motor would spin up to an infinite RPM at the same torque,, not that you have covered that with your response which is what I asked about.

You asked a question-Quote:Why do we need to keep increasing the voltage to maintain 10A as the RPM goes up?
And i answered that question correctly.

QuoteAn efficient motor is one that can make the most mechanical work out for the same electrical in,,,

This we know


Brad

Quote from: antijon on July 15, 2017, 10:51:28 AM
This isn't exactly true Brad.  An easy way to see that is by comparing an open load motor to a full load motor.
Open load= lowest power= highest efficiency
Full load= highest power= lowest efficiency
There's no point in discussing the open load motor because it's not producing any power. An open load motor is like an open transformer, it's only using enough power to maintain its magnetic field.

I understand your line of thinking, but instead of decreasing power transferred to increase efficiency, why not use 100% power in and get more out.

antijon

Do you know why the power consumption increases when the motor has a mechanical load placed on it?

QuoteHigh cemf limits the power of the motor.

No it dose not.
The higher the CEMF,the more efficient the motor is.
Answer the question above,and you will then see why.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on July 13, 2017, 05:20:45 PM

How much torque does 10A make?

That question really doesn't make any sense.  It's like asking how much pressure does a gallon of water have?

Quote from: webby1 on July 13, 2017, 05:20:45 PM
Why do we need to keep increasing the voltage to maintain 10A as the RPM goes up?  <== meaning that there is now a constant torque being made at whatever RPM.

You don't normally increase voltage.  You set the voltage and when the motor reaches the speed it needs to create enough CEMF to balance the load and applied voltage then the motor settles at that speed.  Torque is not constant at a given speed.  Torque is constant at a given speed and given current.   A motor at 1800 rpm may be developing very little torque if it is not loaded.  If it is loaded then the current will go up to match the torque to the load and to keep the motor at a speed that will balance the CEMF to the applied voltage and load.

Quote from: webby1 on July 13, 2017, 05:20:45 PM
What if that was from say 10V @ 10A being supplied, what happens when the RPS * torque exceeds 100J?

There is induction in said motor as well as self induction in said motor,, what do you think needs to be controlled and what impact could that have on the mechanical work done by a motor with these things under control.

I don't understand what you mean by either of these statements.  What does RPS mean?  And in the second statement there is nothing that needs to be controlled.  The balance between load and current and voltage is all done in the design of the motor and is self-regulating.  I am of course talking about a normal household type induction motor.  When you get into industry then there are all kinds of motors with all kinds of control circuits for doing many different things such as constant precise speed control or constant torque control and many other applications.

http://www.google.ch/patents/US3992132

the electromagnets with capacitive windings ?

Brad, I know why power increases when a motor is loaded. I also know that efficiency doesn't mean anything with motors under a few horsepower, I think they're all above 85% at least.

You're confusing two very different types of efficiency.

Efficiency 1: high impedance (cemf) results in little power being transferred to a load.
Efficiency 2: the ratio of power supplied and power being consumed by the load.

If you never run a motor at its full load, then I can see why you think cemf equates to efficiency. But in real motors with real loads, if you try to replace a motor with anything under the original motor FLA, it's not going to work.

For instance, two motors with matching RPM and HP:
1075 RPM .5 HP 6 amp FLA
1075 RPM .5 HP 9 amp FLA

The first motor pulls less amps so it seems to be more efficient, but if I'm replacing a motor that pulled 9 amps then I need to go back with 9 amps. I learned from experience. The 6 amp motor actually pulled 10 amps before it overheated.

So I'll say again, the current or power consumed by the motor is directly related to the power transferred to the load.

Quote from: webby1 on July 15, 2017, 12:14:26 PM
Revolutions Per Second.


The desired event is to convert electrical potential into mechanical work, it is unfortunate that with the present methods of using the magnetic field interaction there is an opposing voltage created.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampere


There does seem to be a force to amps defined so there is an answer,,  :)

As i said before--the voltage is not apposing.
The BEMF produced in the self induction of the motor, is off the same polarity as that delivered to the motor.


Brad

Quote from: antijon on July 15, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
Brad, I know why power increases when a motor is loaded. I also know that efficiency doesn't mean anything with motors under a few horsepower, I think they're all above 85% at least.

You're confusing two very different types of efficiency.

Efficiency 1: high impedance (cemf) results in little power being transferred to a load.
Efficiency 2: the ratio of power supplied and power being consumed by the load.

If you never run a motor at its full load, then I can see why you think cemf equates to efficiency. But in real motors with real loads, if you try to replace a motor with anything under the original motor FLA, it's not going to work.

For instance, two motors with matching RPM and HP:
1075 RPM .5 HP 6 amp FLA
1075 RPM .5 HP 9 amp FLA

The first motor pulls less amps so it seems to be more efficient, but if I'm replacing a motor that pulled 9 amps then I need to go back with 9 amps. I learned from experience. The 6 amp motor actually pulled 10 amps before it overheated.

So I'll say again, the current or power consumed by the motor is directly related to the power transferred to the load.

Regardless of the size of the motor,or the load placed on it,an efficient motor has a higher BEMF under any load conditions--it is the quantity of BEMF that makes the motor more efficient.

I asked you if you know why a motor draws more current under load,and you answered -yes,i know why. But it would seem that you dont,or you would know that it is only the value of the BEMF that determines how much current the motor draws-whether it is under load or not.

So,why dose a motor draw more current under load?-->because the value of the BEMF drops.
As this BEMF value drop's,the potential difference between the supply voltage and self induced voltage become's greater,and so it is like i explained in post 120.

Quotehigh impedance (cemf) results in little power being transferred to a load.

High impedance means that the BEMF/CEMF value is very close to the supply EMF value,and so,very little current flow's.

As i said,an efficient motor maintains the highest value BEMF under any load conditions,and here is what i mean-so as it is clear.

We have an electric motor-lets say a brushed DC motor.
Lets say that unloaded,this motor draws 1 amp at 10 volt's.
We know that when we place a load on this motor,the current draw will go up,and the only !only! reason it go's up,is because the BEMF value go's down(impedance decreases)-->this is why i asked you if you knew why the current draw go's up on a motor when you place a load on it.

Now,what if we could maintain the BEMF(impedance) value as we place a load on that motor?--what would happen to the current draw of that motor?--Thats right,the current would not rise,as the impedance value would remain the same.

So,do you now understand as to why a high BEMF value is important to efficiency?.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on July 15, 2017, 06:53:26 PM
85% for a small motor :)

More in the range of 50-75%,, some really small little ones as low as 35%

Ideal calculations would be energy in per second to torque out per second, torque in N-m =2piJ per rotation per N-m, 1J per second is 1W
torque=(I*V*60)/(rpm*2pi) for 100% efficiency. or
torque=J/(rps*2pi)

I have used a confusing phrase for some,, voltage drives current,, and as such an opposing voltage will act as a resistance to current flow depending on how much of the source voltage the opposing voltage is,, kind of simple really.
Inside every motor is a generator,, you have a magnetic flux that is changing relative to a coil that is observing it,, and it is this very generator that stops the motor from drawing the same amps and spinning up with the same torque to oblivion, as the speed of the generator increases the voltage it produces goes up and when it reaches the source voltage no current can flow.

If then the CEMF from the induction process inherent inside almost every motor were enhanced,, would that make it a better motor or a better generator?  How about if it were reduced?
Is the same torque at a higher RPM more or less power than at a lower RPM?

I think you can also see that the IR^2 losses might not be such a big thing.

Here is a simple answer for you.
Get your self a unipolar/homopolar motor,that produces no BEMF,and see how much torque you get in relation to the power you supply to it.

You now have your motor that has no BEMF, will spin up to self destruction speed,and draw a sh-t load of current ;)
You will also find it has very little torque-->you have a rotating heater.


Brad

Some people just don't seem to be paying any attention.  So here is how to make you very own motor with no BEMF or CEMF, whatever you want to call it.  Take apart anything you want that has a universal motor in it.  The kind with field coils and brushes.  Now disconnect the field coils and apply whatever value of DC you want to the brushes.  I would suggest you start out with only 12 volts or so.  Now keep increasing the voltage as much as you want.  You will never get any torque from that motor.  The reason is because the same thing that creates the BEMF is the magnetic field of the field coils which are also the reason you get torque.  The same interaction that gives torque also gives you the BEMF.

In large industrial machines a lot of the time they use large DC motors.  These motors have the field coils powered separately from the armature.  Because of the BEMF generated these motors will of course reach a set speed with the field coils fully energized.  Now if there is a reason to want the motor to run at a higher speed than the bases speed then the current going to the field coils is reduced.  This in turns means less BEMF and the motor will speed up until the BEMF again balances out between the load and the applied armature voltage.  But you can only do this if the motor is not heavily loaded.  Otherwise the motor will lose speed because of the lower torque.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor)
.....

Torque-speed characteristics

Series wound electric motors respond to increased load by slowing down; the current increases and the torque rises in proportion to the square of the current since the same current flows in both the armature and the field windings. If the motor is stalled, the current is limited only by the total resistance of the windings and the torque can be very high, and there is a danger of the windings becoming overheated.
The counter-EMF aids the armature resistance to limit the current through the armature. When power is first applied to a motor, the armature does not rotate. At that instant, the counter-EMF is zero and the only factor limiting the armature current is the armature resistance.
Usually the armature resistance of a motor is low; therefore the current through the armature would be very large when the power is applied. Therefore the need can arise for an additional resistance in series with the armature to limit the current until the motor rotation can build up the counter-EMF. As the motor rotation builds up, the resistance is gradually cut out.
The speed-torque characteristic is an almost perfectly straight line between the stall torque and the no-load speed. This suits large inertial loads as the speed will drop until the motor slowly starts to rotate and these motors have a very high stalling torque.^{[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-6)}

As the speed increases, the inductance of the rotor means that the ideal commutating point changes. Small motors typically have fixed commutation. While some larger universal motors have rotatable commutation, this is rare. Instead larger universal motors often have compensation windings in series with the motor, or sometimes inductively coupled, and placed at ninety electrical degrees to the main field axis. These reduce the reactance of the armature, and improve the commutation.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-tm-5)}

One useful property of having the field windings in series with the armature winding is that as the speed increases the counter EMF naturally reduces the voltage across, and current through the field windings, giving field weakening at high speeds. This means that the motor has no theoretical maximum speed for any particular applied voltage.

Universal motors can be and are generally run at high speeds, 4000-16000 rpm, and can go over 20,000 rpm.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-tm-5)} By way of contrast, AC synchronous and squirrel cage induction motors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor) cannot turn a shaft faster than allowed by the power line frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency). In countries with 60 Hz(cycle/Sec) AC supply, this speed is limited to 3600 RPM.^{[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-7)}

Motor damage may occur from over-speeding (running at a rotational speed in excess of design limits) if the unit is operated with no significant mechanical load. On larger motors, sudden loss of load is to be avoided, and the possibility of such an occurrence is incorporated into the motor's protection and control schemes. In some smaller applications, a fan blade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_%28mechanical%29) attached to the shaft often acts as an artificial load to limit the motor speed to a safe level, as well as a means to circulate cooling airflow over the armature and field windings. If there were no mechanical limits placed on a universal motor it could theoretically speed out of control in the same way any series-wound DC motor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_DC_electric_motor#Motor_design_variations) can.^{[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-Delmar1001-2)}

Quoteauthor=lancaIV link=topic=17297.msg508313#msg508313 date=1500206758]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor)
.....

Torque-speed characteristics

Series wound electric motors respond to increased load by slowing down; the current increases and the torque rises in proportion to the square of the current since the same current flows in both the armature and the field windings. If the motor is stalled, the current is limited only by the total resistance of the windings and the torque can be very high, and there is a danger of the windings becoming overheated.
The counter-EMF aids the armature resistance to limit the current through the armature.

When power is first applied to a motor, the armature does not rotate. At that instant, the counter-EMF is zero and the only factor limiting the armature current is the armature resistance.

Usually the armature resistance of a motor is low; therefore the current through the armature would be very large when the power is applied. Therefore the need can arise for an additional resistance in series with the armature to limit the current until the motor rotation can build up the counter-EMF. As the motor rotation builds up, the resistance is gradually cut out.
The speed-torque characteristic is an almost perfectly straight line between the stall torque and the no-load speed. This suits large inertial loads as the speed will drop until the motor slowly starts to rotate and these motors have a very high stalling torque.^{[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-6)}

As the speed increases, the inductance of the rotor means that the ideal commutating point changes. Small motors typically have fixed commutation. While some larger universal motors have rotatable commutation, this is rare. Instead larger universal motors often have compensation windings in series with the motor, or sometimes inductively coupled, and placed at ninety electrical degrees to the main field axis. These reduce the reactance of the armature, and improve the commutation.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-tm-5)}

One useful property of having the field windings in series with the armature winding is that as the speed increases the counter EMF naturally reduces the voltage across, and current through the field windings, giving field weakening at high speeds. This means that the motor has no theoretical maximum speed for any particular applied voltage.

Universal motors can be and are generally run at high speeds, 4000-16000 rpm, and can go over 20,000 rpm.^{[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-tm-5)} By way of contrast, AC synchronous and squirrel cage induction motors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor) cannot turn a shaft faster than allowed by the power line frequency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency). In countries with 60 Hz(cycle/Sec) AC supply, this speed is limited to 3600 RPM.^{[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-7)}

Motor damage may occur from over-speeding (running at a rotational speed in excess of design limits) if the unit is operated with no significant mechanical load. On larger motors, sudden loss of load is to be avoided, and the possibility of such an occurrence is incorporated into the motor's protection and control schemes. In some smaller applications, a fan blade (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_%28mechanical%29) attached to the shaft often acts as an artificial load to limit the motor speed to a safe level, as well as a means to circulate cooling airflow over the armature and field windings. If there were no mechanical limits placed on a universal motor it could theoretically speed out of control in the same way any series-wound DC motor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_DC_electric_motor#Motor_design_variations) can.^{[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_motor#cite_note-Delmar1001-2)}

And there you go.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
And you seem to think that that is a good thing,,,

Just because we use things in a certain way does not mean that we must,,

So indeed,, there ya go.

WHY??????



The self induced moment is from the inrush of current flow,, the magnetic induced part is the change in flux density the coil sees from the magnetic field,,,,,

Now think this one over,,  change the way you are looking at it,, so if you want it to speed up and maintain its full torque potential you would need to have the full amps passing,, not a reduced quantity of charge,, you and tinman keep on talking about reducing current flow to limit speed, ask yourself why, not how it happens but why would you want to limit the current flow and the torque just to control the speed.

I do not say any such thing.

This is not rocket science,and it seem's that no mater how simply i try to explain myself,your just not getting it.

I have said time and time again-->the more BEMF that can be retained under any mechanical load placed on the motor,the more efficient that motor is.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that the more current you pump into a motor,the more torque that motor will deliver,and you assume the best way to do this,is to remove as much of the BEMF as you can,when in actual fact,the more BEMF the motor can produce,the more torque it will have,while drawing less current from the power supply--so you have things ass about Webby.

QuoteAND if you actually read what was written you would see that if there was no BEMF\CEMF then the motor would run with a constant torque, with a constant amp draw and spin up to oblivion.

Thats not what was said at all.
Quote: If there were no mechanical limits placed on a universal motor it could theoretically speed out of control in the same way.

If there was no BEMF,then the motor would constantly draw the maximum current value allowed by the winding resistance only.
So now,get your self a universal motor,lock the shaft so as it cannot rotate,plug it in,and see how long it last's--this is your motor with no BEMF--a big resistive heater that wouldnt last 1 minute before it smoked up.

QuoteWhy would you want to take that approach to reducing\controlling the BEMF\CEMF,, excuse my blunt response but that method is just stupid,, and I am surprised that Brad is not jumping on you a little on this setup,, he knows a little about how it responds.

Yes,that is a little out of the ball park,and not all correct.
But what it will show you,is what happens to the current draw when you remove the self induced EMF(BEMF).

So let me ask you these two questions Webby--and think about them carefully.
we have a motor that is being supplied 10 volts,and has a winding resistance of 1 ohm
1-What would the current draw be from the power supply, if that motor produced the same amount of BEMF as the applied EMF ?
2- What would be the value of the current flowing through the windings?


Brad
2-

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
And you seem to think that that is a good thing,,,

Just because we use things in a certain way does not mean that we must,, AND if you actually read what was written you would see that if there was no BEMF\CEMF then the motor would run with a constant torque, with a constant amp draw and spin up to oblivion.

Your answer is incorrect.  If there is no BEMF,  THERE IS NO TORQUE!

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 09:16:25 AM
Why would you want to take that approach to reducing\controlling the BEMF\CEMF,, excuse my blunt response but that method is just stupid,, and I am surprised that Brad is not jumping on you a little on this setup,, he knows a little about how it responds.

Well, you got one thing right.  To do that would be stupid.  It was an example to try and get you to understand the relationship between torque and BEMF.  But obviously it failed.  Why would Brad disagree with that?  That is the way motors actually work.  I am sorry you seem to be having such a hard time grasping the concept between torque and BEMF.  But you simply cannot have one without the other.  And I don't understand why you want to have a motor that is simply going to produce a lot of heat and no torque as Brad has already explained to you several times.

AC 60 Hz : 3600 RPM
AC 50 Hz : 3000 RPM

DC ????? : 3000-3600 RPM
pulsed DC

universal answer ?

how is a variable speed motor commanded ?

http://www.geminielectricmotor.com/About%20the%20Gemini%20Technology.htm

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 02:52:48 PM
wrong, and I am trying to get you all to understand that in simple terms.
I did not say that Brad would be in disagreement,, I thought he has tried playing with a universal motor,, perhaps maybe even trying to augment the stator winding with a PM and a few other things.

I am not saying that you do not have one without the other,, I am pointing out what the limiting factor is that needs to be controlled in order to get the motor to produce the same torque at a higher RPM.

So tell me how much torque at the shaft you can have from a motor that is almost stalled compared to the torque from the same motor that is almost at its RPM limit,, where is all the BEMF in the almost stalled motor?

You certainly seem to be confused about how motors operate.  First you are wrong about motors not having the same torque at higher rpm.  As soon as you load the motor the current will increase to provide the torque and return the motor to the speed that produces the BEMF to again balance the applied voltage and torque requirements.  As you load the motor higher the current will again increase to give the torque necessary to keep the speed up.  As has been explained a couple of times already the BEMF acts like a governor to maintain the motor at a given speed based on the design of the motor and the applied voltage.

You are correct that in an almost stalled motor the BEMF is almost none existent.  BUT the agent which causes the BEMF is certainly there and that is the opposing magnetic field either from permanent magnets or energized coils.  If you remove the opposing magnetic field then you will have no torque.  So the same force that gives you the torque is also responsible for giving you the BEMF.

Let me propose another experiment for you.  Get a universal motor and disconnect the field coils from the armature.  Connect a variable power supply to the field coils.  Then connect another variable power supply to the armature brushes.  Now you can see for yourself the effect of varying the field coil current which will affect the torque and BEMF.  If you really want to learn you could also rig a simple prony brake to measure the torque.

Webby, I am perfectly willing to try and help you learn about motors.  But don't keep telling me I am wrong in what I post.  I made my living for over 40 years working on industrial machinery.  I have worked on hundreds of motors and motor controllers.  I have been factory trained on several of them.  If you don't agree with the way motors are being controlled then come up with a better way and you will never have to work again.  Today's motor controllers are very sophisticated devices used in industry for special purposes.  But the normal everyday motor still works on the very same principles I have been trying to get you to understand.

So, once again, the agent or force that gives a motor its torque is the same agent or force that causes BEMF.

Carroll

Webby,

Do you know what causes a motor to burn up?  You can burn up a perfectly good motor by overloading it.  How does that happen?  As I explained in the previous post a motor will draw more and more current to meet the torque requirement caused by the load on the motor.  If you overload the motor the motor will draw more current than the wiring of the motor was designed to handle.  Without some form of current protection such as a breaker or fuse the motor will overheat the wiring until the insulation of the wiring breaks down and then the motor shorts out and catches fire.

Another thing you seem confused about is when does a motor have the most torque.  Most AC induction motors actually have more torque when they are up to speed.  That is because the armature rotating at high speed has more current induced into it to create the opposing magnetic field.

DC motors on the other hand, because they have separate field coils that are fully energized from the beginning have starting torque equal to the running torque.  It is kind of amazing to see a large DC motor barely turning and yet moving a massive load.

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 10:44:20 AM
is it me that is not getting what is being said??You keep saying that the weaker the motor the more efficient it is,, you keep heading into the electrostatic motor,, which if you wish to go there I can follow but I do not have a working testbed for that.


I am not assuming the best way is to remove the BEMF,, but rather control it, to USE it,, this is not rocket science after all


or
If the same motor were running at 10,000 RPM making 10N-m of torque or if it were running at 1,000 RPM making 10N-m of torque, which one is making more mechanical power,, it is that simple.


Now ask yourself, what is it that limits the RPM?,,  whatever it is that limits the RPM is what needs to be controlled and used to assist the motor in achieving a higher RPM with the same torque,, it is that simple.


Ask yourself a simple question,,  What is it that is wanted from a motor?
Ask yourself a simple question,,  What is the motor doing?

QuoteIf the same motor had a draw of 1A or 10A,, which one would produce more shaft torque Brad,, it is that simple.

Well,it would seem that it is not that simple,as you are once again missing the point,and that point is-why do you want to decrease the BEMF ?
Some here think that by decreasing the BEMF,you make the motor more efficient-which,as i have stated right through this thread-you do not.

To answer your question-torque is not power.
The motor that is drawing only 1 amp,will do more useful mechanical work for a given electrical input value than that of the same motor drawing 10 amp's--it's that simple.
Reason being,the motor drawing 10 amp's will be dissipating a larger percentage of the input power as heat to that of the motor that is drawing only 1 amp.

So,the motor drawing only 1 amp converts more of the electrical input energy into mechanical energy than that of the motor drawing 10 amp's.

So,there is your answer--higher the BEMF,the more efficiently the motor converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.


Brad

Quote from: webby1 on July 16, 2017, 08:08:36 PM
I see that the point and methodology I am trying to get across is not making the trip,, so be it.

I  understand the working principles and am even comfortable with a lot of the math that goes along with it,, I am not confused nor am I missing it.

BEMF is the built in *limiter* for RPM,,

Edited before posting,, since it does not matter, apparently, anyway.

Well-what is your point Webby?
Why would you want to eliminate BEMF?


Brad

"using inductive coils":

a. as part from a transformer,
    no mechanical ccw or cw movement

b. as motor and/or generator/alternator part
    with DC motor mechanical orientation flexibility
    or AC -direction fixed- limitation


up to 90% electric motor consume savings praised !
but only for the no-load condition !

http://www.inpama.com/index.php?content=invention&id=1073