Inductive Kickback

[sm0ky2]

Or you could skip this information
Refuse to look at it on a scope and watch a Visualization of
the effect you spend pages talking about


ignore my input.
It's just one scenario you may happen upon
as you play in the dark making random coils feeding
other random coils and theorizing what happens to the energy.


there's a whole set of less effective inductor to inductor feedback
scenarios on either side of these nodes that will give you a cascade
of "textbook" values you can talk about for days on end.


you can scope them and calculate the inefficiency of the design.
watch how one coil stores one amount of energy and the other stores another
and talk more about why.


and one day everyone can know what they already know.
and your view of the energy can remain as it were before we started.


And we can go in circles and do it again on the other 3 threads.
And go hmm.... the energy goes in, now what happens?
I'm surprised no ones mentioned nickel-cobalt-iron wire


don't leave it to me to store it somewhere else in a qualitative manner
for it to be measured, scoped, and trace the losses through known scientific
values of inductance, impedance, reluctance, and permeance
as we watch it cycle back and forth on our scopes.
after all, if we had the data of the collapsing magnetic field
what would we have left to talk about?




Please, continue with your lecture Dr, erfinder.
I will try to pay attention as you teach us about the magnetism in the inductive "kickback"
and how to quantify it.

[forest]

You all seem to consider there is overunity in inductive kickback and some weird coil setup.Why?

[tinman]

Something I had thought of trying in the past...

If we have an inductor and we energize it then take away the input, the output of the coil doesnt really do much if the load is another inductor as the receiving inductor would impede the output dump of the first coil. But, if the receiving coil were bifi, its capacitance would accept the field collapse currents from the first coil. I wonder....

Mags

Ok Mags

The circuit below.

The current through L2 will be the same as the current through L1 !so they say!
The current through L1,the LED,and L2,must be the same as provided by the source !so they say!
L2 has 1/2 as many turns as L1,and so we have a 2:1-(L2 to L1) transformer,and so the voltage across L1 is twice that of the voltage across L2 !so they say!
And the current through L1 is 1/2 that of the current through L2  !so they say!

Think about it 

[Belfior]

You all seem to consider there is overunity in inductive kickback and some weird coil setup.Why?

I think it is a good place to start. If there is going to be be any OU found it is going to be a simple solution. It is so simple, that it is easy to hide.

It is going to be something you don't think of looking into. That is why people find it by accident. Good information can be found on text books, that are paid by energy companies and taught to engineers. Then PhDs and engineers become the next set of priests and they will defend this textbook to death, because they have a piece of paper on the wall saying "you are now a PhD, because you read and believe in this book".

So you can start by opening a textbook and find every sentence that goes like "Thou shall not put DC into a trafo" and experiment with it. Or "operational amplifier must always return to unity, even if you feed it back to itself". So when they say "no" or "you cannot" you experiment with it. Is there s special case that you CAN do it?

What are the things you ALWAYS do without even thinking? You start experimenting with a circuit with 2 poles. Is that the reason for failure? Do you need 2 poles?

Egyptians moved rocks that we cannot move in 2018, and they did not have transistors. Makes me think the answer is a simple one and the reason we don't get it is our training

[tinman]

 author=Belfior link=topic=16203.msg517466#msg517466 date=1519827274]

I think it is a good place to start. If there is going to be be any OU found it is going to be a simple solution. It is so simple, that it is easy to hide.

It is going to be something you don't think of looking into.

Indeed.