Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[MileHigh]

Brad:

I posted a quick video showing how having a rotor with alternating magnetic field passing a pulsed inductor can improve the efficiency of that inductor as far as the inductive kickback output go's. ---> That is what i stated,and that is what i meant.

Fair enough.  However, there is a very decent chance that simply reducing the drive voltage for the coil without the rotor will give you the same or better results.

If you want to split hairs, "improving the efficiency of the inductor" is a poor choice of words.  You are improving the efficiency of the system.  Just like PW pointed out how better switching or layout can improve the efficiency of the system, or no rotor and a lower drive voltage may improve the efficiency of the system.  What you are really trying to do is reduce the waste heat in the system, not "improve the efficiency of the inductor."

Regardless of how or why the external magnetic field dose it--it dose it,and if the external alternating magnetic field is changing the operating parameters of that inductor ,so as the efficiency (electrical) is increased,then those magnets are doing useful work.

No, just like changing the bearing for a Cadillac bearing and getting a more efficient system will not be doing useful work.  Reducing the waste heat is absolutely not equivalent to doing useful work.  The magnets are not doing useful work.

This statement is absolutely wrong MH-->a quick circuit analysis along with the scope shots below should tell you that the magnets !are! generating power to the charge battery,and thus the magnets are causing the coil to generate.

Whatever power the magnets may be generating was received from the electrical energy that was pumped into the coil, which made the rotor spin faster, and then a fraction of a second later the rotor slowed down when power was put into the charging battery.  This is the point that PW made.  The rotor could indeed be acting like a small impedance matching improvement allowing more of the power pumped into the coil to make it to the charging battery.  This is done in a roundabout way via the speeding up and slowing down of the spinning rotor.  The magnets are not "generating power," they, along with the mechanical energy in the spinning rotor, are just acting like a link in a chain to get power pumped into the charging battery.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Brad:

f you did that,then the P/in would rise,and the small battery would be discharged,where as the magnets are not discharged. You should also know that the spinning magnets are creating a current flow in the coil that is in the same direction as that that is supplied by the source battery-->the collector diode makes sure of this.

No, if you had an imaginary counter-EMF battery inside the coil then it would be in the opposite direction as the drive battery and it would get charged during the ON cycle and the input power would decrease.

Anyway, I hope that you can appreciate my points.

MileHigh

[tinman]

Brad:

No, if you had an imaginary counter-EMF battery inside the coil then it would be in the opposite direction as the drive battery and it would get charged during the ON cycle and the input power would decrease.

Anyway, I hope that you can appreciate my points.

MileHigh

MH
If we place this imaginary counter EMF battery inside the coil,this is what would happen/
1-the P/in would decrease.
2-the battery would be charged.
3-the P/out would be decreased by slightly more than the P/in.
4- It can be clearly seen that with the rotor in place and spinning,creating our external alternating magnetic fields,there is no loss in P/out,and a clear drop in P/in.

This imaginary battery that creates the CEMF would make the coil no more efficient--and that is fact,as it just so happens that i have the very coil where we can place this imaginary counter EMF battery right in the middle of the winding's.

Here is what you are saying MH.
The magnets are inducing a CEMF in the coil,and this is what is reducing the P/in.
The P/in is supplying the electromagnetic energy that turns the rotor,that induces this CEMF in the coil. All this is happening while the P/out remains the same.
So the P/in is spinning the rotor.
The rotor induces a CEMF in the coil.
This CEMF is what reduces the P/in
All while the P/out remains the same

Do you not see what you are saying here MH?.

So no MH,your CEMF conclusion dose not hold water,and dose not increase the efficiency of the coil as per your CEMF battery experiment go's.


Brad

[MileHigh]

Brad:

If we place this imaginary counter EMF battery inside the coil,this is what would happen/
1-the P/in would decrease.
2-the battery would be charged.
3-the P/out would be decreased by slightly more than the P/in.
4- It can be clearly seen that with the rotor in place and spinning,creating our external alternating magnetic fields,there is no loss in P/out,and a clear drop in P/in.

Let's assume that the passing rotor magnets induce counter-EMF in the coil and that it exists as some kind of waveform.  You can open-circuit your coil and spin the rotor and see what it looks like.  When I suggest a counter-EMF "battery" in the coil it's just to average out the counter-EMF waveform and turn it into an average DC voltage, that's all.  It's not even a battery that gets charged, it's just an imaginary device that outputs a DC voltage to emulate the average counter-EMF waveform from the coil.  That will make the average current draw of the coil decrease and chances are you will still have the same amount of power in the back spike.

The next step is to say, "Hey, who needs a DC counter-EMF voltage source inside the coil, I will simply reduce the supply voltage for the coil and I will get the same result."

That's the point, that all of this investigation into the "beneficial effects of a spinning rotor in front of a coil" can be approximately replicated by having no rotor and simply reducing the drive voltage to the coil.  If you can reduce the drive voltage and have no rotor and get the same back spike power as the case where you have the regular drive voltage and a rotor then you can say mission accomplished.

This is just reasonable speculation:  lower drive voltage with no rotor is equivalent to regular drive voltage with a rotor.

Unfortunately, your signals are buried in the "noise" of all of the power lost to heat and it's not necessarily easy to confirm this.  Or perhaps a quick test will confirm this, I don't know.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Here is what you are saying MH.
The magnets are inducing a CEMF in the coil,and this is what is reducing the P/in.
The P/in is supplying the electromagnetic energy that turns the rotor,that induces this CEMF in the coil. All this is happening while the P/out remains the same.
So the P/in is spinning the rotor.
The rotor induces a CEMF in the coil.
This CEMF is what reduces the P/in
All while the P/out remains the same

Do you not see what you are saying here MH?.

So no MH,your CEMF conclusion dose not hold water,and dose not increase the efficiency of the coil as per your CEMF battery experiment go's.

You have the understanding correct, but I don't know why you are concluding my final conclusion doesn't hold water.  I rewrote it in the previous posting just in case it made thing a bit clearer.  I am not telling you I "know" this, I am just telling you what I think I am seeing.

Here is the rationale:  With the normal voltage and no rotor you have excessive resistive losses.  With normal voltage and the spinning rotor the counter-EMF reduces your resistive losses and you still get a decent back spike.  So if you reduce the voltage with no rotor you might reduce your resistive losses and still get a decent back spike.

It's sort of six of one and half a dozen of the other.  You are trying a new approach for reducing your resistive losses and still managing to get a decent back spike.

If this was true, then it makes the spinning rotor redundant.  It's all about making the right design choices to get the job done.  The fist solution you come across is not necessarily the best solution.

Look, let's think outside the box for a second.  The higher the voltage of the charging battery, the faster the back spike discharges, and the less energy is lost in the coil from resistive losses during the back spike discharge phase.  Would something similar happen on the energizing side?   Think about it.  If you have a higher voltage to energize the coil, the coil reaches it's "discharge current level" faster.  To me that sounds like it's more efficient right there.   It's something for you to think about.

As you can see, there is more than one way to skin a cat when your goal is the best possible power-out to power-in ratio you can get for the coil, and a rotor may or may not play a part in achieving that goal.  I am just brainstorming with you.

MileHigh