Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

  The reluctance of the core material doesn't change.  What happens is that another induced impedance gets put in series with that reluctance.  That impedance acts a bit like a magnetic inductor, but whereas an inductor responds to the first differential of current (in this case flux) through it, this impedance reacts to the second differential.  For sine waves the impedance becomes a negative value of reluctance.  That helps us solve the magnetic circuit.  But you should be aware that the induced negative reluctance supplying an mmf that aids the flux flow is actually current in the coil, that current  coming from the capacitor across the coil.  In the electrical world we have secondary current flowing both through the load and through the shunt capacitance, the latter being phase shifted compared to the former.  It is that phase shifted capacitor current that appears as an mmf in the magnetic circuit in such a way that it appears to come from a negative value of reluctance.

You don't need to solve the magnetic circuit to realize that the inner secondary, being shunted by an internal capacitance, forms a resonant circuit with some Q value and that this Q has the ability to multiply the secondary voltage above what it would be if the capacitor were not there.  we could say that whereas it should be (say) half the primary by normal flux apportionment the effective Q is 4, thus multiplying the voltage by 4.

Smudge

You haven't quite grasped the situation.

Maybe you have missed something here Smudge-read on.

At the frequency chosen by Tinman where the secondary voltage is twice the primary,

The  inner secondary is always twice that of the primary voltage-->even at 20 HTz.
It remains twice that of the primary until around 200KHz-where it starts to rise even higher. This maybe when the effect you are speaking of starts to take place?. Remember,these are open voltage numbers,so no current is flowing through the inner secondary. Also remember that when the inner secondary is used as the primary,and dose have a current flowing through it,the opposite is seen at the outer secondary,where the voltage amplitude is 1/2 that of the now inner primary. How would this effect you speak of account for that,when the small capacitance would have no effect on the driven inner primary?.

What would be good to see is if you can replicate this effect using a standard transformer with the right valued cap as you stated. Are you able to get the secondaries voltage to rise in some sort of tank circuit,but have the primaries voltage remain the same?.

[Vortex1]

My take is that the resonant voltage rise due to self resonance (distributed capacitance and inductance) of the unloaded secondary creates an apparent voltage gain, even in a 1:1 transformer, but only if the coupling is less than 100%.

The important thing is that an unloaded voltage gain is not the same as a power gain.

An ordinary transformer with !:2 ratio will exhibit a voltage gain but not a power gain.

In other words, the apparent voltage gain can occur in a 1:1 transformer where there is resonant voltage rise in the secondary. The primary is loaded and kept constant by the function generator's output amplifier, so the reflected rise will not be seen in the primary. Due to less than 100% coupling factor,  the secondary is decoupled enough to be allowed rise in voltage.

When properly loaded, the apparent voltage gain of the secondary should  diminish.

However if this rise occurs over the entire pass band, when loaded, not just at a few specific frequencies, we must look for a different effect.

[TinselKoala]

Tinman, you really can't make up your own definitions for terms that are widely used in science and engineering to design stuff that actually works, like your computer and your oscilloscope and CRT monitors and radio transmitters and speaker systems and so forth.

Magnetic flux has a well defined physical and mathematical meaning that is used in calculations by engineers and designers to describe, predict and control the behaviour of the systems they design. You have been given one of many thousands of checkable outside references for the definition of magnetic flux, all of which agree. Your usage of the term is apparently talking about something different... so you should make up a different name for whatever it is you are talking about, otherwise people will continue to say that you don't understand what you are talking about. You can't suddenly start calling a kangaroo a "cat", because people will start to look at you funny if you do, even though _you_ may know what you mean.

Magnetic field lines "don't exist", for some values of "exist", but they are a convenient metaphor, also with a well defined meaning, used in the same way for description, prediction and control of the behaviour of magnetism in all its manifestations. You can think of the "reality" of magnetic field lines as being similar to elevation contours on a topographic map, or isobars on a weather map. Of course when you are out climbing a mountain, you don't see elevation contour lines on the dirt and rocks beneath your feet, because they "don't really exist". But if you want to know how steep a slope is before you actually get there, you can look on your topo map and see that when the elevation lines are drawn closely together, you have a steep slope, and by the actual closeness of the lines you can tell actually how steep the slope really is, and more importantly you can _calculate_ things like which direction and how fast water will run off the slope. Magnetic field lines are a similar kind of "non existent" thing. Again, if you want to deny their reality completely or call them something else, you are swimming against a powerful stream of knowledge and engineering skill. Again, designers use the concept and the measurement of field lines to design stuff that actually works as designed. This is a very powerful argument that says that some people, at least, know what they are talking about.

[tinman]

Tinman, you really can't make up your own definitions for terms that are widely used in science and engineering to design stuff that actually works, like your computer and your oscilloscope and CRT monitors and radio transmitters and speaker systems and so forth.

You have been given one of many thousands of checkable outside references for the definition of magnetic flux, all of which agree. Your usage of the term is apparently talking about something different... so you should make up a different name for whatever it is you are talking about, otherwise people will continue to say that you don't understand what you are talking about. You can't suddenly start calling a kangaroo a "cat", because people will start to look at you funny if you do, even though _you_ may know what you mean.

Magnetic field lines "don't exist", for some values of "exist", but they are a convenient metaphor, also with a well defined meaning, used in the same way for description, prediction and control of the behaviour of magnetism in all its manifestations. You can think of the "reality" of magnetic field lines as being similar to elevation contours on a topographic map, or isobars on a weather map. Of course when you are out climbing a mountain, you don't see elevation contour lines on the dirt and rocks beneath your feet, because they "don't really exist". But if you want to know how steep a slope is before you actually get there, you can look on your topo map and see that when the elevation lines are drawn closely together, you have a steep slope, and by the actual closeness of the lines you can tell actually how steep the slope really is, and more importantly you can _calculate_ things like which direction and how fast water will run off the slope. Magnetic field lines are a similar kind of "non existent" thing. Again, if you want to deny their reality completely or call them something else, you are swimming against a powerful stream of knowledge and engineering skill. Again, designers use the concept and the measurement of field lines to design stuff that actually works as designed. This is a very powerful argument that says that some people, at least, know what they are talking about.

The thing is TK,that these definitive terms often come from one person,and they turn into nothing but a rolling snowball. I know exactly how our family car works-i know how,when and why, and the results from that knowledge. My wife knows that it just work's,without the how, when, and why-but it works just as good,and in the same manner for both of us.

The difference between what MH said and used as a measuring tool for flux,and your elevation contours  is this--> Your elevation contours are based around known and already existent land form's,where as the flux is being calculated from something that dose not exist at all(magnetic field lines). So this is like trying to draw up a map with your elevation contours without a land mass to work with-so you just make one up so your map looks good. So that is the flaw with your elevation contours argument-those elevation contours drawn on maps are derived from land forms that actually physically exist,where as the magnetic field lines do not.

Magnetic flux has a well defined physical and mathematical meaning that is used in calculations by engineers and designers to describe, predict and control the behaviour of the systems they design.

Once again,this dose not mean that they know what it is they are dealing with-->which they do not.
Being able to measure,calculate effect,and know the outcome dose not mean they know what it is. It means through trial and error they have been able to design devices that work with this unknown-that unknown is the magnetic force. It is all well and good to just except things as others see it,but this acceptance has come without an explanation.

Yes-they can design all these fancy things that work with magnetic fields,and can calculate,design and build devices that work very well. But my wife can get in her vehicle,turn the key,and the motor starts. She knows if she puts it in drive,the car will go forward when the brake is released and the accelerator depressed. She knows if she turns the steering wheel to the left,the car will turn left. She know how to make that vehicle do what ever she want's,but she still has no idea why or how it dose what it dose-it just dose.

Once upon a time there was DC current,it's all we knew,and it did what we wanted it to do. Then came along Tesla,and the world became a much better place.

My biggest beef is this,and we see it all the time. Since i have been on this forum,MH and many others(including myself) insist that there is no such thing as magnetic field lines. Then that very same person dismisses my thoughts base on measurements that use the very thing he dismisses as being rubbish-magnetic field lines.

Quote: Magnetic flux (most often denoted as Φm), is the number of magnetic field lines (also called "magnetic flux density") passing through a closed surface (such as a conducting coil)
So i ask-how is magnetic flux explained by magnetic field lines that dont exist?.
It is no wonder we still have no idea what the magnetic force actually is,when one thing(flux) is trying to be explained by something else that just is not there= Field lines)

[tinman]

Here is the video on the frequency sweeps.
I split the sweeps up into various ranges,so as i wasnt chasing the time base all over the place.
Hope it was done right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmmk80yysNY