Reactive Current - Parallel RCL

[nix85]

But i somehow imagined various combinations in the primary producing the same flux do not respect the turns ratio, but they do.

I put that wrong, i did not imagine turns ratio is not respected, it obviously is, i imagined the fact that turns ratio is respected even when change of flux is the same violated the Faraday's law.

[nix85]

To recap on the subject, for "normal" (non flyback) transformer, i'd summarize it like this to cover all the angles.

When transformer is unloaded (secondary open) only magnetizing current flows through the primary which is tiny compared to load current and is always (almost) 90° outta phase with the driving voltage, almost but not 90° due to various losses, namely, eddy currents, hysteresis, magnetostriction and copper losses (P = I²R). Average flux in the core is maximum in no-load state and slightly smaller in the full-load state.

When secondary is loaded, counterflux developed by the secondary demagnetizes the core and this makes the voltage across the primary to drop since this voltage is directly proportional to rate of change of flux, we all know Faraday's (or should i say Henry's) law V=--N*dΦ/dt.

Voltage across an inductor can also be expressed as V = L(di/dt)

And current through an inductor I = (V-E)/Z where V is voltage of the source driving the primary and E is voltage drop across primary's inductance. Clearly, when secondary demagnetizes the core and flux through the primary drops, so does it's inductive reactance Z and voltage across it E, V remaining the same means current must rise and so it does trying to bring the flux back to the original value but it never fully manages to do so, so, as said before, max load flux is slightly less than no load flux.

To the circuit driving the primary, it appears as if a resistor appears in parallel with the inductance of the primary, bigger the load smaller the resistor appears, obviously.

As said above magnetizing current is always almost 90° out of phase with the driving voltage while the load current is always in-phase. At least when the load is purely resistive.

If load is inductive then picture is not so clear, but extending what happens with the resistive load, we can assume this inductive load will also appear as an inductor and resistor in parallel and larger the work done larger the virtual resistor in parallel will appear again bringing IV in phase.

I guess we can extend the last paragraph to capacitive loads too, of course, electric field just like magnetic field can also be used to do work and as you all probably know there are various electrostatic motors, some newer ones of significant power (some even speculate about replacing magnetic ones).

As for flyback, the only difference is, as said before in the thread, induction in the secondary happens with a delay (due to internal diodes blocking the current in one direction) when the primary flux collapses. Ignition coil uses the same principle, store, collapse, get 10x (or more) voltage in the primary and x turns ratio in the secondary.

Talking of ignition coil, the reason for cap across the switch (be it mechanical relay or a MOSFET) is to limit the peak voltage, cap appearing as a short for an instant and lower the resistance in the circuit of the collapsing flux, lower will be the peak, obviously, higher the resistance higher the peak and faster will it burn out.

[alan]

What happens when you place an Avramenko plug into the voltage line of the wall outlet and put between the 2 diodes a regular 110/220V step-down transformer? 
And what would happen when the transformer is customized so the primary or secondary has the length of 1/4 wavelength of 50/60Hz?

[alan]

How bout you read before posting. For russian expedition the quote i posted clearly says second expedition showed it's probably natural/volcanic and i wrote 'probably false alarm'..

Other reports like Azores pyramid remain undebunked and need further investigation. Sadly, these things end up suppressed.

Pepedeluxe attachment is not bs, i clearly wrote i am sharing it cause it contains a summary of how young Frederick Spencer Oliver came to ghost write this occult classic of unmeasurable value.

"Russian  propaganda" 

Speaking of science, you claimed (quoting official narrative), there is no power amplification in parallel RLC yet i have shown number of examples where we see clear power amplification in parallel RLC.

105W in 2.34kW reactive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVgp-gOBqsg

200W in 3.5kw reactive

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfOKPIi6CM

Etc

Just some thoughts.
In parallel an RLC has max current through each component at resonant frequency, and the current magnitudes exceed the input  current (infinite if it was possible), but the vector sum does equal input current. The current is still higher than the input current and is being converted to a magnetic field which depends on a changing current only (L=N.dϕ/di, Ldi/N=dϕ), this field can do work freely according to work of a potential field (a permanent magnet can attract iron freely) before being converted back to current according to conservation of energy. So there are 2 types of energy, field energy that  isn't consumed (gravitational) and conservative energy (one form to another, current>flux>current).
I was wondering if such an inductor could freely drive an iron piston by repetitive attraction only.

[nix85]

You already asked the first question in another thread,
you can try it and see the result.

I shared this in Don Smith thread (not my vid)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy1_J7ZjP7M

As for reactive current...

"but the vector sum does equal input current"

Reactive current exceeds the input current by Q factor,
it does not equal the input current by any means, input current
merely compensates for copper losses and even that can be
avoided in certain configurations (drawing everything
from ground).

Here is a good video about it (conventional)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVOibkXeZs8

Reactive power can do 'free' work in special configurations
if load is far removed from the input, but in ordinary
configurations loading the resonant tank will instantly kill
the resonance and bring voltage and current in phase and
make the circuit draw more active power like in ZVS heater
for example.

I seen various ways of varying effectiveness.
Some pump up 5-6kw of reactive power in the middle
part of the circuit to take 1/3 of it as real output with
200w in the input and this of course requires huge
transformers, very bulky, and i seen it done far
more efficiently with small transformers where
input is down to 8W and all is taken from earth.
So it depends.