I would like to share my findings, this information is very worthwhile but my video explaining what I learned over the winter runs for 30 minutes. It answers many questions and opens the door to new possibilities .I explain how this system can be self sustained, some details on the background of my existing inventions and experiments. Since people are interested, this is a big message and could change the way we all live our regular lives and help the planet
https://youtu.be/6TvkTgjHn2M
Overall, the key aspect of the method, is the use of the back EMF feedback loop to amplify and accumulate energy over time, resulting in a significant increase in power output compared to a simple inductor.
Sorry, but I can't understand or follow that video. You start right off drawing something. Is it supposed to depict what's shown in my attachment? Second attachment is the page from where it was found, which is a university lesson. I think science/engineering has a thorough understanding of this without secrets.
bi
back EMF voltage can be lower than the pulse voltage, the key aspect to consider here is the feedback loop in the system. The back EMF spike is not simply a passive result of the collapsing magnetic field of the coil, but rather it is utilized as a trigger for the next pulse of energy to be released from the power source. The feedback loop of two coils allows for the amplification and accumulation of the back EMF spikes over time, which can result in a significant increase in power output.
Overall, the key aspect of my topic is the use of the back EMF feedback loop to amplify and accumulate energy over time, resulting in a significant increase in power output compared to a simple inductor.
I think you make up a definition of "back emf" and talk a bunch of gibberish without a clue. Good luck. I'm outta here.
bi
Quote from: bistander on March 19, 2023, 09:42:12 PM
I think you make up a definition of "back emf" and talk a bunch of gibberish without a clue. Good luck. I'm outta here.
bi
Thank you for taking the time to read about my methods. I appreciate your feedback, but I would appreciate it even more if you could provide more specific details and evidence to support your claim that my definition of 'back emf' is incorrect and that my explanations are gibberish. I am open to constructive criticism and would like to have a productive discussion to improve my understanding and work
Looking forward to see where you're taking this Joel. It's very intriguing.
Keep up the good work!
D2
Here you go. And the attachment to my prior post defines it well. It sure does not sound like what you go on about. Do you have a well written definition, description and analysis of your theory?
bi
{edit}
I read this: https://overunity.com/19420/self-powered-back-emf-generator/msg575259/#msg575259
So my issue is one of your use of terminology, like "back EMF". There are other examples. I see where this has been mentioned by other members to you. I don't discourage you, just don't see secrets of or generation of "back EMF" in what you describe. You should call it something else in my opinion. Carry on and good luck.
(Perhaps name it after yourself)
The focus of my topic is how to take advantage of back emf and use it as a feedback loop with the help of a dual coil system. I explain this kind of feedback loop. This is the mechanism I talk about when refer to "secret" If you would have watched the video as you would understand why I call it as such, I could have used any other word to describe "rare" as I have not found ample info regarding this kind of a loop with back emf systems. Most people stick with external triggers that are only one shot events. My methods offer alternative, Is self sustainable and does not "warp" the terminally or working principles of back emf whatsoever. The science and physics that I use are sound and well founded. Part of science is being able to take some existing ideas and well founded concepts and make them work together to produce different and beneficial effects.
Many thanks to Joellagace for sharing his experience of charging batteries with capacitor discharge.
I probably know what the problem is in the video.
Inductance, not a brief 'trigger', can produce a relatively high back EMF.
As described in Bistander's profile.
The BEMF generated when the transistor is opened is determined by the last stored energy in the inductor.
The energy in the inductor is obtained by integrating the inductor current during the transistor's on-turn-on.
A short 'trigger' can only produce a shorter BEMF.
These are energy issues, not just voltage issues.
Energy is the product of three parameters: voltage, current, and time.
And the current in the inductor varies over time (the simplest DC system).
Experiments with two coils will show the actual effect.
Thank you
Quote from: panyuming on March 20, 2023, 05:27:05 AM
Many thanks to Joellagace for sharing his experience of charging batteries with capacitor discharge.
I probably know what the problem is in the video.
Inductance, not a brief 'trigger', can produce a relatively high back EMF.
As described in Bistander's profile.
The BEMF generated when the transistor is opened is determined by the last stored energy in the inductor.
The energy in the inductor is obtained by integrating the inductor current during the transistor's on-turn-on.
A short 'trigger' can only produce a shorter BEMF.
These are energy issues, not just voltage issues.
Energy is the product of three parameters: voltage, current, and time.
And the current in the inductor varies over time (the simplest DC system).
Experiments with two coils will show the actual effect.
Thank you
Thank you panyuming. That's the problem. The terminology is being used incorrectly such that it appears to make no sense at all. It's like saying to make a salad using voltage. WTH?
Quote from: joellagace on March 20, 2023, 03:39:51 AM"warp" the terminally or working principles of back emf whatsoever
What does this mean. Show the "well founded principle".
So please, go do whatever. I'll just standby and not interfere.
bi
Quote from: bistander on March 20, 2023, 05:54:02 AM
Thank you panyuming. That's the problem. The terminology is being used incorrectly such that it appears to make no sense at all. It's like saying to make a salad using voltage. WTH?
Thank you. I understand that there may be confusion regarding the terminology I am using, and I would like to clarify any misunderstandings. Could you please explain specifically which part of my explanation regarding the back emf trigger you believe to be incorrect, and how it may be misused in my situation? due to a lack of understanding? I appreciate your input and want to make sure I am conveying my device principles accurately."
Quote from: panyuming on March 20, 2023, 05:27:05 AM
Many thanks to Joellagace for sharing his experience of charging batteries with capacitor discharge.
I probably know what the problem is in the video.
Inductance, not a brief 'trigger', can produce a relatively high back EMF.
As described in Bistander's profile.
The BEMF generated when the transistor is opened is determined by the last stored energy in the inductor.
The energy in the inductor is obtained by integrating the inductor current during the transistor's on-turn-on.
A short 'trigger' can only produce a shorter BEMF.
These are energy issues, not just voltage issues.
Energy is the product of three parameters: voltage, current, and time.
And the current in the inductor varies over time (the simplest DC system).
Experiments with two coils will show the actual effect.
Thank you
I understand the concerns you have raised regarding inductance and back EMF. However, please keep in mind that my invention is designed to utilize the back EMF feedback loop in a unique and efficient way, which is based on extensively tested and verified science. The trigger I mentioned is not the voltage output, but rather a momentary signal that starts the feedback loop, which is then self-sustaining.
I appreciate your insights on energy parameters and how they relate to inductors. Thanks!
Quote from: joellagace on March 20, 2023, 08:10:50 AM
which is based on extensively tested and verified science.
Very good!
I just know some general knowledge that may not apply to OU technology.
Looking forward to your success and sharing.
Thanks again!
Tinman's The rotary transformer V3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmJr4_gHygo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmJr4_gHygo)
I am sorry but I can't make sense out of something which makes no sense.
bi
It's like asking you to make sense out of this post:
https://overunity.com/19405/magnetic-flux-motor-just-patented-that-creates-its-own-electricity/msg574797/#msg574797
reply #28
.
Alan
Glad you understand this enuff to assume and write things about presenter ?
7 years now ?
Please teach ...
or show us _your_ replication !
Too much pointing at others ....not enuff teaching/sharing!
Exactly what are you waiting for ?
Here it's an open source forum.
Schematics etc etc ?
Many open source builders here .
Please share !
Thanks
Chet
EDIT for comment on removal of " your personal surveillance info above"
And now modified you tube link you posted ?
Here opinions from core members and reasons they
Moved on !
https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/public-answer-to-chris/ (https://www.beyondunity.org/thread/public-answer-to-chris/)
Perhaps best to show your own work ?
Enuff hauntings ...and assumptions about others ...
PLEASE share something ( anything) that can survive scrutiny and show a true gain mechanism...
Yes obviously you must have replicated video and have something which works to share ?
Please do share ..
Here we are part of open source community
Which greatly needs solutions !
ur right. my comment was just to inform regarding that vid I recently found.
Help me out here.
In my very limited understanding of the back EMF avenue to OU, do I understand correctly that in a perfectly efficient system with fully recovered back EMF, we'd have a COP = 2 system?
Now what efficiency might be realistically achieve in high power density solid state applications, around 95%?
Then would recovering about 15% of the available back EMF not already suffice to get a self runner with a few percent of net out, a never depleting battery that does real work, a few % of circuit flow?
Thinking in terms of equipment I read a lot about, electric cars. A Tesla car, especially the big ones, seem able to maintain about a 100 kW output (1 C discharge) for longer periods of time, at say 85-90% efficiency with battery is pre-charged.
If just a but of it's back EMF were to be recovered, this car would become a multiple kW OU station, right? Not enough to drive, but enough to provide the grid more than it would be pulling from the grid, over a typical annual usage.
I want OU to work, but if back EMF were a viable field, would we not have easily replicable setups with predictable net output by now? If someone could recover as much as 50% of the back EMF without hamper the regular output, that would turn a boring BEV into a huge power station and a total gold mine. Seems to me, if viable, a back EMF runner would be easier to build than a magnet more.
I think Joel's point (forgive me for putting words in your mouth Joel) is that we've only been able to tap 5% of the available back EMF and this proposed new way forward might unleash 10 times more (or more) by 'filling in the gaps' if you were.
I'm interested to see how far this can be taken. It doesn't seem to have been tried before in this way and bravo to Joel for having the imagination to see this possible route.
D2
What i'm getting at is the acknowledgement that we only get typically less back and in most cases much less back if we were to only try and use the back emf spike to power a load. I don't utilize the back emf in this traditional sense. It is true my system uses back emf, but it is not the sole function at play and used in a traditonal way as we are used to experimenting with. What makes this work is the back emf spike is only used to maintain feedback between two coils, It's used as a trigger only to cause a secondary feedback system. its this increase in feedback we tap into. So even a "small" trigger is all that is needed to keep the feedback action going between two tuned inductance coils.
Quote from: Cloxxki on March 20, 2023, 09:53:40 PM
Help me out here.
In my very limited understanding of the back EMF avenue to OU, do I understand correctly that in a perfectly efficient system with fully recovered back EMF, we'd have a COP = 2 system?
Now what efficiency might be realistically achieve in high power density solid state applications, around 95%?
Then would recovering about 15% of the available back EMF not already suffice to get a self runner with a few percent of net out, a never depleting battery that does real work, a few % of circuit flow?
I want OU to work, but if back EMF were a viable field, would we not have easily replicable setups with predictable net output by now? If someone could recover as much as 50% of the back EMF without hamper the regular output, that would turn a boring BEV into a huge power station and a total gold mine. Seems to me, if viable, a back EMF runner would be easier to build than a magnet more.
Flame me if you will, but my understanding is a bit different than most. What Joel is referring to "Back EMF" I think is inductive kickback from the collapsing field. I think Back-EMF is something totally different.
Kickback- I blow up a balloon then pop it. The air I put into the balloon comes out in a bug rush..
Back-EMF - Picture an empty balloon inside a filled balloon. I blow up the inner balloon and it displaces the air in the outer balloon forcing the outer balloon to expand also. The outer balloon starts impeding you from blowing up the inner balloon. Using the same blowing force, you can now get less air into the inner balloon with each breath. Relate this to a coil.. Quicker you pulse it, more impedance does not let your current in.
Kickback occurs from a field collapsing. Back EMF occurs when the field grows. And Kickback is much easier to harvest. But I argue that I can indeed collect Back-EMF also.
Regarding COP 2 from Back EMF. The way pressure / power works, I'm pretty sure the the problem comes when trying to use the incoming power. When we take from the incoming, we get equally less displacement from Back-EMF as we took from the input. But I continue to experiment to see if there is a way.
I do get debated on my views and told I am wrong. So take it as you will. I trust my own compass more than the provided map.
floodrod
QuoteFlame me if you will, but my understanding is a bit different than most. What Joel is referring to "Back EMF" I think is inductive kickback from the collapsing field. I think Back-EMF is something totally different.
You are correct and Bemf is the same as a Cemf which is different from a kickback or inductive discharge, the terms can get confusing.
Bemf/Cemf relates to the "self-inductance" of a conductor. Simply put the current rise produces an expanding magnetic field which cuts the same conductor(s) inducing a voltage opposite to the applied voltage. Just think "self-inductance" and it makes more sense, to induce itself. In effect, the self-inductance or induced voltage always opposes the applied voltage limiting the current flow. It applies to motor/generator/transformers and it doesn't matter whether the magnetic field is expanding or contracting.
An inductive discharge/kickback is different in a number of ways. First, it normally only applies to a contracting magnetic field and more important there is no self-inductance involved in the process. Self-inductance is produced while the magnetic field is expanding but not so much while it's contracting. As well, an inductive discharge/kickback normally occurs only when a circuit is broken/opened or severely restricted in some way.
Think about that for a moment, so we increased the current, expanding the magnetic field and as it expanded it cuts the same conductors inducing a voltage in the opposite direction. So why wouldn't the same magnetic field self-induce an opposite voltage in the conductor when the field collapsed?. It's a tricky question...
The answer is that when the magnetic field is expanding it expands outward from the conductor which is the "source" of the applied current and magnetic field. However once the magnetic field is fully established it has "no source" because the circuit is opened and the field exists in a separate space outside of the conductor(s). When the now independent magnetic field does collapse inward the induced voltage is in the same direction as the former applied voltage not opposite to it like a Bemf/Cemf.
In effect, the Bemf/Cemf relates to the source voltage/current still in the circuit being self-induced. Where an inductive discharge/kickback has the voltage/current source removed thus there is no source to induce and no self-induction. In effect the collapsing magnetic field is now independent of the old source and a new source in itself.
AC
This is an interesting topic, I am also looking to use the inductive kickback in my generator project. Right now acquiring the parts, one by one...
I've been looking for days on a way to calculate that. Yes, there is a confusion between "back EMF" and "inductive kickback".
And I've seen an alternate formula to calculate back EMF voltage : https://spinningnumbers.org/a/inductor-kickback.html
Over there, it's not the time constant that matters, but an extra parameter, the actual speed of the switch.
I'll have to experiment with both as I will be designing the inductor for my generator.
I have no clue about inductor kickback power. As we use the law of induction, this is just about volts. I have no clue about the amperage output.
Hence my goal, is to add inductive kickback voltage to an amperage that is being induced inside the coil.
I have no idea if it will work. This is an eclectic, occult theory that I picked off from Dr Peter Lindemann and it seems within my skill to actually test.
But I have never felt in my life so threatened by these accursed globalists. I was forced to exit my comfort zone and get into all of this electricity and overunity, because it seems to have become a matter of life and death,
and furthermore, a matter of heaven and hell.
I don't know if what I'm doing will work. I just hope to get the two induction phenomena to fuse together into delivering both voltage and amps. That would take a heavy burden off my shoulders and I could get to the next steps in
my off grid living project.
let me explain.
In a typical electrical system, when a current flows through a coil, it generates a magnetic field around it. When the current is turned off, the magnetic field collapses, which generates a voltage spike known as a back electromotive force (EMF) in the opposite direction of the original current. This voltage spike is often seen as a nuisance and is usually suppressed using diodes or other techniques.
However, in this system, we are using this back EMF spike to our advantage by redirecting it back into the system to provide additional power. The back EMF spike is essentially a burst of electrical energy that can be captured and redirected to charge the capacitor, which is then used to trigger the induction coils again. This feedback loop allows for a continuous flow of energy, amplifying the original energy input.
When the back EMF spike is redirected back into the system, it is essentially converting energy that would have been lost as heat or other forms of energy into a usable form. This allows you to take advantage of the higher amplified amplitude energy that would otherwise be wasted. By using this feedback loop, you are essentially increasing the efficiency of the system and allowing it to output more power than what was originally put in.
It's important to note that this doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics, as the system is not creating energy out of nothing. Instead, it is redirecting and amplifying the energy that is already present in the system.
As long as you do not, even seemingly, violate the laws of thermodynamics, you cannot get to overunity. You just marginally improve the efficiency towards 100%.
Overunity can come only when something actually violates the laws of thermodynamics, by extracting excess energy from somewhere else (aka aether).
Of course, extracting energy from an untapped, or an unrecognized energy source by the official paradigm is akin to violating the laws of thermodynamics, even if overall may not be so.
The philosophy of this matters less. It is important to get access to OU and start using it to ensure that our freedoms won't go down the toilet. And we'd better get there sooner rather than later.
I do not look to become a recognized inventor or enlighten the masses. I realized in many years on Facebook that people cannot be enlightened regardless of the how reasonable and detailed are the explanations. I only look to get the hell out of globalist society asap, in a matter that preserves the semblance of civilization, so that I avoid the shock of getting out completely unprepared.
Am I looking to break the laws of physics ? Yes, I'm hoping for a miracle that would make it all possible, cause exiting society while having a relatively secure place to live, packed with electricity, engine power, lights, heating, fridge, grill, water, computer and in the vicinity of food would make survival a breeze compared to leaving with a backpack and no skills, and I know that will be the last resort for many of those who today just dream at a political solution.
Back EMF is definitely one of overunity methods.
It's important to note that the concept of overunity in the sense of breaking the laws of thermodynamics is not what I am claiming. I understand and respect the laws of physics and I am not attempting to violate them.
What I am saying is that by utilizing the back EMF feedback loop and converting energy that would normally be lost as heat and other forms into usable energy, we can get more output electricity than is needed to keep the loop going. This is not a violation of the laws of physics, but rather a more efficient utilization of the energy already present in the system.
While I am not claiming to have achieved overunity in the sense of breaking the laws of thermodynamics, we are able to extract more existing energy from the system using these various methods with just a small voltage trigger to maintain the feedback loop. This allows for a sustainable and efficient use of energy, which is beneficial for both the environment and for practical applications.
This month 'they're' saying we got it wrong about the early universe... thanks to the Webb telescope being able to see further... This forum is about being able to see further, is it not?
D2
In the day that I studied electrical engineering the whole purpose of back emf was to oppose the applied emf thus reducing what would otherwise be huge power requirements.
I don't think this concept has changed
Quote from: fxeconomist on March 21, 2023, 07:50:06 PM
having a relatively secure place to live, packed with electricity, engine power, lights, heating, fridge, grill, water, computer and in the vicinity of food would make survival a breeze compared to leaving with a backpack and no skills, and I know that will be the last resort for many of those who today just dream at a political solution.
fxeconomist
QuoteAs long as you do not, even seemingly, violate the laws of thermodynamics, you cannot get to overunity. You just marginally improve the efficiency towards 100%.
I always found this kind of talk really strange...
Suppose we produce an electric field which moves an electron through a vacuum tube, how does this relate to thermodynamics?.
In fact it has nothing to do with "heat" as a measure of molecular oscillations. Thus it has nothing to do with "thermodynamics" relating to the movement and conversion of heat.
"THERMODYNAMICS"--Physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy.
So let's get our facts straight and what were talking about is "ELECTRODYNAMICS"
1)The study of moving electric charges and their interaction with magnetic and electric fields.
2)The phenomena associated with moving electric charges, and their interaction with electric and magnetic fields; the study of these phenomena.
I find the notion of thermodynamics completely absurd and it's like implying all the phenomena in the universe must relate to the laws we see in this piece of crap 100 year old steam engine leaking oil all over the place. It's misguided and to be honest kind of embarrassing that so many people still think on such a primitive and superficial level.
Of course, we know where this nonsense came from and it relates to primitive man's obsession with burning stuff. Primitive people always equate energy with heat/burning stuff where advanced people equate energy with the Primary Fields(Electric, Magnetic, Gravic) and particle theory.
So there is no need to worry about how something as primitive as thermodynamics applies to free energy devices because for the most part it doesn't apply. "Heat" is the lowest form of energy and what happens when people don't understand energy or know what there doing. For example, any fool can make a circuit produce heat but only an expert with advanced knowledge and understanding can make a circuit which doesn't produce any heat. Which may be why all the amateurs claim all there circuits and components get hot.
Here's a clue, 99% of the universe is a perfect vacuum at 2.73 Kelvin or -270.42 Celsius. Thus a complete lack of resistance and heat is the normal state of the universe and energy.
AC
Quote from: onepower on March 22, 2023, 12:26:23 PM
I find the notion of thermodynamics completely absurd and it's like implying all the phenomena in the universe must relate to the laws we see in this piece of crap 100 year old steam engine leaking oil all over the place. It's misguided and to be honest kind of embarrassing that so many people still think on such a primitive and superficial level.
Oh, it's not me, it's Joe. I don't care too much about 100 year old crap. The experimental generator I wanna build is to rather test a more eclectic theory - the aether.
I want to see if I can actually add voltage to an amp source, akin to what Lindemann was saying - electricity as an unnatural combination of the warmth aether with the light aether.
Hope to move forward in April.
It is not accurate imo to say that the study of electric fields and their interaction with charged particles has nothing to do with thermodynamics. In fact, thermodynamics is a branch of physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy, including electrical energy. The movement of charged particles in response to electric fields can generate heat, and the conversion of electrical energy to heat is an important topic in thermodynamics.
And I also think that it is not accurate to describe thermodynamics as a "piece of crap 100 year old steam engine leaking oil all over the place." While thermodynamics has been around for over a century, it is still a relevant and important field of study in modern science and engineering. It has applications in a wide range of fields, from materials science to environmental science.
and, the idea that "heat" is the lowest form of energy and that only amateurs produce circuits that generate heat is also incorrect. Heat is a form of energy that is produced whenever energy is transferred from one system to another. It is a fundamental part of many natural processes and has important practical applications, such as in power generation and HVAC systems. Additionally, generating heat is often an unavoidable consequence of energy conversion processes, and minimizing heat generation is a challenge that requires advanced knowledge and understanding.
Quote from: fxeconomist on March 22, 2023, 01:03:36 PM
Oh, it's not me, it's Joe. I don't care too much about 100 year old crap. The experimental generator I wanna build is to rather test a more eclectic theory - the aether.
I want to see if I can actually add voltage to an amp source, akin to what Lindemann was saying - electricity as an unnatural combination of the warmth aether with the light aether.
Hope to move forward in April.
https://sound-au.com/articles/buck-xfmr.htm
Quote from: bistander on March 19, 2023, 08:56:40 PM
Sorry, but I can't understand or follow that video. You start right off drawing something. Is it supposed to depict what's shown in my attachment? Second attachment is the page from where it was found, which is a university lesson. I think science/engineering has a thorough understanding of this without secrets.
bi
How to get the reversed potential to decay linearly during a timeconstant higher than the initial timeconstant, getting a higher volt-sec out than in? ::)
The back emf is just a small part of a larger system that incorporates multiple energy conversions and manipulations. We're not just relying on the back emf to generate more electricity than we put in. Instead, we're taking advantage of various energy systems that are normally lost as heat or other forms of energy, and converting them into usable electrical energy.
In this system, the back emf serves as a trigger to keep the feedback loop going between the two coils, but it's the combination of various systems and methods working together that allows us to extract more energy than we put in. This is not a violation of the laws of physics, but rather a process of converting and manipulating existing energy in a more efficient manner.
I'm not attracted to transformers.
Yes, transformer design is elegant. Doesn't make too much noise, doesn't need to change mechanical parts and so on.
But I think manipulating the back EMF in transformers is a challenge. I have taken a look at more efficient designs like opposing bucking coils and Thane Heins' bi-toroid transformer,
and those who built such devices didn't get to overunity, just made them very efficient. (Perhaps Bearden's MEG might be...)
The magic bad thing that happens is that the back EMF arising in the secondary as it is on load - perhaps better call it counter EMF to disambiguate from inductor back EMF - this counter EMF
is influencing the primary and increasing the power draw, without any wire connection.
This made me abandon transformer-like ideas, because you can't control something that happens wirelessly, and instead I open my eyes on the homopolar generator, which deals with the
back EMF in a crude manner - being statorless, the back EMF of the generator cannot oppose the rotation!
What else have I learned from overunity solutions I've been researching ? Inductor kickback. And what does the homopolar generator lacks ? Voltage. Exactly what the inductor kickback provides...
Quote from: joellagace on March 22, 2023, 01:05:28 PM
It is not accurate imo to say that the study of electric fields and their interaction with charged particles has nothing to do with thermodynamics. In fact, thermodynamics is a branch of physics that deals with the relationships and conversions between heat and other forms of energy, including electrical energy. The movement of charged particles in response to electric fields can generate heat, and the conversion of electrical energy to heat is an important topic in thermodynamics.
And I also think that it is not accurate to describe thermodynamics as a "piece of crap 100 year old steam engine leaking oil all over the place." While thermodynamics has been around for over a century, it is still a relevant and important field of study in modern science and engineering. It has applications in a wide range of fields, from materials science to environmental science.
and, the idea that "heat" is the lowest form of energy and that only amateurs produce circuits that generate heat is also incorrect. Heat is a form of energy that is produced whenever energy is transferred from one system to another. It is a fundamental part of many natural processes and has important practical applications, such as in power generation and HVAC systems. Additionally, generating heat is often an unavoidable consequence of energy conversion processes, and minimizing heat generation is a challenge that requires advanced knowledge and understanding.
i believe the criteria was "in a vacuum"
meaning there is nothing with the particle, for which heat to be converted from motion (i.e. friction, etc.)
that makes the experiment a purely electromagnetic interaction and will hold irrespective of temperature, within the limitations of the system.
While I agree that in a vacuum and with no particles present, the interaction between electric fields and charged particles would not involve any thermodynamic processes, in my specific application, the presence of certain factors such as resistance and feedback loops between coils can impact the behavior of the system. Therefore, while the general statement may be correct, it is not entirely applicable to my specific application.
smoky2
Quotei believe the criteria was "in a vacuum"
meaning there is nothing with the particle, for which heat to be converted from motion (i.e. friction, etc.)
that makes the experiment a purely electromagnetic interaction and will hold irrespective of temperature, within the limitations of the system.
Indeed, superconductors do not generate heat either and repel all magnetic fields regardless of there polarity.
https://theconversation.com/how-do-superconductors-work-a-physicist-explains-what-it-means-to-have-resistance-free-electricity-202308
AC
Quoteauthor=joellagace link=topic=19421.msg575455#msg575455 date=1679437897
QuoteWhen the current is turned off, the magnetic field collapses, which generates a voltage spike known as a back electromotive force
No. Back EMF is produced when the current starts to flow through the inductor. It is the self induced current produced while the magnetic field is building in the coil.
Quotein the opposite direction of the original current
No again.
When the current flowing into the inductor is cut off, the magnetic field around the inductor will collapse around the coil, and produce a current flow in the same direction to the original current flow. This is inductive kickback or flyback, not Back EMF.
The current will continue to flow in the same direction. Only the voltage is inverted across the coil.
QuoteBy using this feedback loop, you are essentially increasing the efficiency of the system and allowing it to output more power than what was originally put in.
Would love to see this--with accurate measurements.
QuoteIt's important to note that this doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics
Right after-->
Quoteallowing it to output more power than what was originally put in
LOL I hit a nerve again! :o
Quote from: tinman on August 22, 2023, 09:49:21 AM
When the current flowing into the inductor is cut off, the magnetic field around the inductor will collapse around the coil, and produce a current flow in the same direction to the original current flow.
So, let me see if I understood the difference straight.
Say we have a circuit. To the left, power source. The center has an up/down alligned inductor. The right side has the load.
Inductor responds with a kickback that is in the same direction. If current say, flows up (+) to down (-) in an inductor, kickback current will come out from the down side, continuing the initial direction, thru the load, to return to the up side.
Now we replace the inductor with a capacitor.
Capacitor discharge responds with current in the opposite direction. If current flew up (+) to down (-), capacitor discharge would flow backwards, from the up side continuing that way towards the down thru the load.
Am I right ?
Describe it in schematic to allow all understand
Quote from: fxeconomist on August 22, 2023, 11:31:30 AM
So, let me see if I understood the difference straight.
Say we have a circuit. To the left, power source. The center has an up/down alligned inductor. The right side has the load.
Inductor responds with a kickback that is in the same direction. If current say, flows up (+) to down (-) in an inductor, kickback current will come out from the down side, continuing the initial direction, thru the load, to return to the up side.
Am I right ?
That is correct, the current will continue to flow in the same direction through the inductor, but the voltage across the inductor inverts during the kickback cycle.
Quote from: fxeconomist on August 22, 2023, 11:31:30 AM
So, let me see if I understood the difference straight.
Say we have a circuit. To the left, power source. The center has an up/down alligned inductor. The right side has the load.
Inductor responds with a kickback that is in the same direction. If current say, flows up (+) to down (-) in an inductor, kickback current will come out from the down side, continuing the initial direction, thru the load, to return to the up side.
Now we replace the inductor with a capacitor.
Capacitor discharge responds with current in the opposite direction. If current flew up (+) to down (-), capacitor discharge would flow backwards, from the up side continuing that way towards the down thru the load.
Am I right ?
We could think of it this way...
When the inductor is charging the battery pushes electrons through the inductor like so...
Battery(-)>>>electrons>>>(-)inductor(+)>>>(+)battery
The electron current through the inductor produces an expanding magnetic field which because of it's direction opposes the electron current. We call this effect "self-induction", because the expanding magnetic field is inducing the conductor which produced it. Think of the battery as an electron pump and the inductor like an electron turbine. The (-) is pressure and (+) the suction.
Then when we remove the battery or open the circuit the following happens...
electrons>>>(+)inductor(-)>>>
So why did the electrical polarity across the inductor change?, it's because the collapsing magnetic field has caused the inductor to act like an electron pump moving electrons. How do we know the inductor is now an electron pump?. Because the (-) pressure and the (+) suction have reversed. On charge it was >>>(-)inductor(+)>>> like an electron turbine and on discharge it was like an electron pump>>>(+)inductor(-)>>>.
Or maybe
On charge (-)push>>>inductor>>>pull(+)
On discharge (+)pull>>>inductor>>>push(-)
On charge, pressure>>>inductor>>>suction
On discharge, suction>>>inductor>>>pressure
When we think of the free electrons like an electric fluid in the conductor which can increase or decrease in density it makes more sense. The electron density (-)high or (+)low acts just like pressure and suction in a mechanical system. This is why electrons and "Electron Flow Notation" are important to better understand how electrical systems work.
https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conventional-versus-electron-flow/
AC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_analogy
ChatGPT can help...
QuoteIn a conductor, when a voltage difference (potential difference) is applied across its ends, it creates an electric field that exerts a force on the charge carriers. Electrons are negatively charged, so they move in the direction opposite to the conventional current flow. This movement of electrons constitutes the flow of electric current.
So, to clarify, positive charges do not actually flow in the way conventional current is described in most conductors. Instead, it's the movement of electrons (negatively charged) that creates the flow of electric current. The conventional current notation, which assumes the flow of positive charges, is a historical convention that simplifies the description of circuit behavior while not reflecting the actual movement of particles in the circuit.
The (+) charges are the Protons in the atoms, are the atoms flowing in a circuit?, well no that's absurd. Only the (-) free electrons can flow in a circuit. In my opinion this absurd notion of (+) charges flowing in a circuit is the main reason why most cannot understand electricity or free energy.
Only the free electron density and flow correspond to a hydraulic analogy. It also describes a Back Emf/inductive discharge perfectly.
The (-) is pressure or high density of electrons and (+) the suction or low density of electrons. Pressure flows from high to low.
On charge, pressure>>>inductor>>>suction
On discharge, suction>>>inductor>>>pressure
Or
On charge (-)push>>>inductor>>>pull(+)
On discharge (+)pull>>>inductor>>>push(-)
from Chat GPT...
Question: Does the negative terminal have a high electron density and the positive terminal low?
Answer:
QuoteYes, you're correct. In a typical setup, the negative terminal of a voltage source (like a battery or power supply) tends to have a higher electron density compared to the positive terminal.
Electrons are negatively charged particles, and they naturally repel each other due to their like charges. When a voltage source is connected to a conductor (such as a wire), the negative terminal provides a surplus of electrons. This surplus of electrons creates an excess negative charge at the terminal, resulting in higher electron density.
Conversely, the positive terminal of the voltage source is relatively deficient in electrons, resulting in a relative lack of electron density.
When a circuit is closed (a complete loop is formed), electrons will flow from the negative terminal of the voltage source through the circuit to the positive terminal. This flow of electrons constitutes electric current, and it's this movement of electrons that powers electrical devices and performs useful work in the circuit.
This is super important and when I made the switch to electron flow notation a couple decades ago everything just made sense. As Tesla implied, we can use simple mechanical analogies which actually work to describe electrical phenomena. Here's a clue, in Clemente Figuera's last patent he labelled the (-) terminal as the source or origin. Why only the (-) terminal?, because only the free electron density and flow can determine where the energy is within the system and where it's going.
AC
The idea of positive ion flow is not that hard to understand. I am old enough that i learned electron flow at an early age. About 60 years ago. To understand positive ion flow just arrange a row of marbles across a Chinese checker board with a gap in the marbles. The marbles represent the electrons. The gap represents a positive ion. Now take the marble that is to the left of the gap. Move it to the right into the gap. Now where did the hole go? As you move each marble from the left of the gap into the gap the "electrons" are moving left to right but the holes are moving right to left. In reality only the " electrons" are moving but it appears the positive " ions" are also moving. The whole idea of positive ions should be restricted to chemistry and ignored in electronics. The positive ion theory only confuses those new to electronics.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Quote from: citfta on August 23, 2023, 05:14:03 AM
The idea of positive ion flow is not that hard to understand. I am old enough that i learned electron flow at an early age. About 60 years ago. To understand positive ion flow just arrange a row of marbles across a Chinese checker board with a gap in the marbles. The marbles represent the electrons. The gap represents a positive ion. Now take the marble that is to the left of the gap. Move it to the right into the gap. Now where did the hole go? As you move each marble from the left of the gap into the gap the "electrons" are moving left to right but the holes are moving right to left. In reality only the " electrons" are moving but it appears the positive " ions" are also moving. The whole idea of positive ions should be restricted to chemistry and ignored in electronics. The positive ion theory only confuses those new to electronics.
Respectfully,
Carroll
Everything about electron flow confuses me. Especially after looking at experiments when using an electron beam dismisses the theory of flow and explains the mechanism as spin. Which intuitively makes more sense to me. Regarding the subject of this topic I'm building Transverse Flux Generators/Motors to explore the negation of lenz in this arrangement.
Quote from: Jimboot on August 23, 2023, 07:37:31 AM
Everything about electron flow confuses me. Especially after looking at experiments when using an electron beam dismisses the theory of flow and explains the mechanism as spin. Which intuitively makes more sense to me. Regarding the subject of this topic I'm building Transverse Flux Generators/Motors to explore the negation of lenz in this arrangement.
I wonder if an EMF would be produced in the coil if you drilled a hole in the center of the core pieces, and passed the wire through the holes, instead of having the coil sitting in the C part of the core pieces.
Never came across these Transverse Flux Generators/Motors before. should be interesting to see the outcome.
Citfa
QuoteThe idea of positive ion flow is not that hard to understand. I am old enough that i learned electron flow at an early age.
I was also taught conventional flow notation(charge/hole theory) in Engineering but found the concept backwards so I transitioned to electron flow notation. I understand both forms of notation however my point was that conventional (+) flow is not technically correct.
For example, an electron flow/hydraulic analogy describes a back emf perfectly.
On charge (-)push>>>inductor>>>pull(+)
On discharge (+)pull>>>inductor>>>push(-)
It works because the charge density corresponds to pressure and the difference in pressure drives the flow of charges from high to low.
Now let's try it with conventional (+) notation.
On charge pull(+)>>>inductor>>>push(-)
On discharge push(-)>>>inductor>>>pull(+)
It doesn't work because it would falsely presume that the positive (+) charges are moving when in fact they cannot.
Since the (+) charges cannot move it's like saying a hydraulic ram works by removing the oil (-) on the low
side of the piston and sucking in air(+) on the high side. It's not technically correct and it never will be.
People can believe whatever they want however if it has no basis in reality then it's not going to work in reality. It's that simple...
AC
Jimboot
QuoteEverything about electron flow confuses me. Especially after looking at experiments when using an electron beam dismisses the theory of flow and explains the mechanism as spin. Which intuitively makes more sense to me.
This is because most people don't understand energy or electrodynamics.
Think of it this way, if we connect a wire across a battery the electrons do not trickle through it like a stream. Think of a slice or thin cross section of the wire containing millions of electrons drifting forward from the (-) towards the (+) terminal. In effect, each slice is like a thin charged capacitor plate full of millions of electrons inching forward. Each thin slice has an electric field which acts on the slice next to it like millions of thin charged capacitor plates. This is why the electron flow can be very slow but the electric field and energy travel very fast.
Suppose I charge a 12" sphere to tens of thousands of volts and start moving it towards you. The sphere only needs to move a small amount but you feel the effects all over your body. Your not feeling the sphere your feeling the force of the much larger electric field radiating from the sphere all over. It doesn't matter if the sphere spins or not because the electric field does not spin with it anymore than light spins with a light bulb. Now line up a thousand charged spheres and move the first one closer to the rest. The first sphere can move slowly but the electric field displacement moves down the line of spheres near the speed of light. This is basically how electron flow in a conductor works.
Psychology also comes into play and people get confused when many effects occur all at once. The mind always looks for the easy answer, the silver bullet but has trouble comprehending a barrage of bullets. So you say flow is problematic but spin makes more sense, why not both?. Why not flow/displacement, scattering/oscillations as well as spin and EM waves in between the moving electrons(-) also interacting with the stationary protons(+)?. Theoretically all these effects should come into play and all describe what happens in a conductor which carries an electron current.
AC
MAYBE OUT OF CONTEXT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKQRqPlFMII
Following this thread with interest, Joel. What you're proposing makes a lot of sense to me.
Bob
I built up an amplinyne as I miss understood what it was supposed to do. If you follow the mill vids on its use, it was the "regulator" for aiming the big guns on a ship. When set up correctly, it would be driven by a large motor from the ships power and depending on the controllers output, it would run the direction and asmuth motors either forward or reverse to align with the settings on the control deck. I did this with a pair of 1hp 48v scooter motors thinking it would output more than in. Not the case at all.
thay
Quote from: Thaelin on August 25, 2023, 03:54:35 AM
I built up an amplinyne as I miss understood what it was supposed to do. If you follow the mill vids on its use, it was the "regulator" for aiming the big guns on a ship. When set up correctly, it would be driven by a large motor from the ships power and depending on the controllers output, it would run the direction and asmuth motors either forward or reverse to align with the settings on the control deck. I did this with a pair of 1hp 48v scooter motors thinking it would output more than in. Not the case at all.
thay
Hi thay,
Your experience with the amplidyne is pretty typical for those that don't have any formal education in electronics. Unfortunately there are a tremendous amount of YouTube videos where people make a lot of claims because they don't properly understand the terminology used in electronics. For instance I have seen several videos where someone claims that since vacuum tubes can amplify signals then we should be able to make an OU device using them. What they don't understand is that amplifying a signal is NOT the same as amplifying power. I want to add that NONE of us was born knowing these things. We all had to learn them. But watching YouTube videos is not a good way to learn because so many of them were made by people that didn't understand what they were doing.
There are so many online free electronics courses that someone can take and really learn basic electronics that it is a shame so many people want to take short cuts and try to learn by watching bad videos. I have used this analogy before, but how can you possibly hope to explore unknown areas if you haven't taken the time to learn what has already been explored? Almost every week I see on this forum and others where someone is claiming they think they have found something new. When the reality is they are seeing what has been observed many times before. I encourage everyone to do their own experiments and learn because hands on experience is the best teacher. But take the time to learn what are normal circuit functions before claiming you have found something new.
Respectfully,
Carroll
THEN THERE WAS THIS GUY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwedoZZHadY