I understand all that, this i know (thank you by the way)  but i am still a little confused after all the post as the correct Figueras operation.
with the negative flux (north) running to the (south) positive the poles will clash in the middle especially at position #5 so this leads me to believe that what Hanon is saying is true that the like poles are moving side to side with varying intensities.

Interesting paper Cohen wrote,I like it.
In his words dont confuse flux cutting with flux linking but account for both if need be.
Since both exist in the design at hand your maths just turned into a 6 advil computation. Maybe 8.
  Marvin Cobbs device has some pretty interesting tid bits too. Namely how to eliminate the use of resistance windings without eliminating the resistance. Not to be confused with the resistance controller.
Mariswammi or what ever his name is didnt understand what I was saying in response to his question about the resister voltage/amperage. The 12 v 1amp is continuous while the greater amperage from the controller is fluctuated between coils independent of the 12v 1 amp. The established flux at a lower power level through the resister prevents all the coils from becoming one big single magnet from flux linking them all together when they are placed N()N. If everything becomes flux linked together in the same direction it is no more then a typical transformer.
I will have to refer to the old and remind you of the the two Trains. Each traveling at 50 mph on the same track toward each other. The damage is not equal to 50 mph it's equal to 100 mph. The flux cutting is not equal to the current going into each magnet its double provided you can keep them from becoming both in the same direction. The total amount of flux is never "on" in both at the same time but the force between them is always constant in pressure and opposite frame at the same time . For the price of one fully saturated magnet you can have two or at least the effect of two on the space between them.Long as you can keep them separate you only need enough flux to equal one fully on in total which gets shifted back and forth between 2 in time.So sometimes there will be little in one and lots in the other but if you maintain a little in each separate from the controller it will be easier to figure out how much you need and adjust it accordingly to maintain the separation under the load conditions your looking to get out. Cutting generates while linking transforms.

Strangely i under stood that. after 1 year of pounding my head with a electronic, electric, magnetic hammer i think my 50 year old brain is waking up.
Thank you Doug, Hanon, Dieter, Wonju, Woopy, (TESLA)(HYIQ)(ASPDEN)(SWEET) and all others (to many to list) that have contributed to this post directly or indirectly.

Marathonman,


I think the whole thing depends a lot on the waveform used in the primaries. IF  you let the current decrease to zero between pulses, then that coils' field will collapse, causing a back EMF of high voltage that will ADD to the active pulse. you will get a stereo flyback, one side delayed by a halfwave, mixed to mono, sotosay. The output may be pretty efficient.


Now, when you don't let the current decrease to zero during pulses, then this is an entirely diffrent situation. The active primary will have the choise of flowing trough the secondary, which is not very attractive since there may be a load that acts as a reduction of permeability, or it may flow trough the other secondary, that flows in the same direction, acting as a negative resistance in terms of magnetical resistance. So it will take this way, skipping the secondary, but inducing a current to the power supply in the (almost) passive primary, which is not what we want.


So, little diffrences, like whether there is a socket flow in the passive primary or not, can make a huge diffrence.


One thing to try is however, to use diodes between supply and primaries, so the back EMF is really forced to flow trough the secondary.


I apologize for chanching my mind so often about how this is supposed to work, but obviously it isn't as simple as I thought it is, couple of weeks ago.


Regards

Hi Dieter,

Could you provide any sketch to complement your explanation? You are talking about two different secundaries.

A question for everyone:

1- If you get an induced current by flux linking two coils then it will appear the Lenz effect to oppose the primary field.

2- If you get an induced current by flux cutting the wires ,by motion, it will appear the Lorentz force to oppose the movement.

What do you think that happens when you get induction by flux cutting the wires into a motionless device? Will the Lorentz force appear into a motionless device ? If there is no movement then I think that there won´t be chance to suffer any force which blocks the movement of the fields (1908 device)

Regards