Author Topic: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors. (Read 182126 times)

Grumage · « **Reply #330 on:** January 03, 2016, 09:06:14 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 06:21:04 PM

Interesting, I've never seen such a demo. So if you can find yours I would like to see it.

The other interesting thing is to use a body of water to demonstrate this, since to move an object over water you usually needs more force then to move the same object using wheels and bearings on a flat surface.

Luc

ADDED
Just saw your post and mags demo. It would be more convincing to see it move over a large distance like a pool.

Dear Luc.

Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk

Cheers Grum.

poynt99 · « **Reply #331 on:** January 03, 2016, 09:13:02 PM »

Quote from: tinman on January 03, 2016, 04:28:05 PM

Well Poynt-like i have been told many times before-->having confidence that something can be done is not the scientific method. It is odd that you would have to fine tune your setup to try and achieve the same results,when i can just throw together any bits and pieces,and achieve the results.

It is also odd that all those that seem to think there is nothing out of the ordinary happening here,are also the very same people that cannot show the same effect using other means.
If it is so straight forward and ordinary,then why is it so hard to show the same results i show?.

I would like to see the same results achieved without the use of PM's. I mean if PM's do no useful work,then the results should be achievable without the use of PM's.

Brad.

I gave you one method to achieve the same effect without using magnets. If you are interested in seeing it done without them, why don't you build it?

Magluvin · « **Reply #332 on:** January 03, 2016, 10:52:12 PM »

Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 09:06:14 PM

Dear Luc.

Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk

Cheers Grum.

Looks more close to a compass moving when the movement is slowed down by the water tension. Have you tried it on edge on your table? It is hard sometimes to keep the magnet from falling over when the poles are 90 deg of earth field.

Seems strong enough that if you make a large square coil and spin it, like on axis of a window motor coil, that it will generate electricity, using the earth field.

Mags

gotoluc · « **Reply #333 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:24:08 PM »

Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 09:06:14 PM

Dear Luc.

Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk

Cheers Grum.

Are you sure your plate of water was leveled correctly?... just kidding

Thanks for making the test and taking the time to upload the video demo.

Needs to be studied a little more I think

Luc

MileHigh · « **Reply #334 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:26:23 PM »

Brad:

Quote

Like i said MH,i have been experimenting with pulse motors,magnets and rotors for many years-as have many others. I have known for a long time how to produce the W wave,and that part in itself has no real magic to it. But what you dont see,or have failed to see is the fact that that wave,and how it was produced leads to the wave form i showed a few post back. Im not sure what you mean by DC offset on the scope shot,but nothing was altered on the scope-if that is what you mean. You say that that wave form is impossible to produce due to the laws of induction,and im saying that it is not impossible at all. All you need is a long coil,and a double pole rotor with the correctly timed magnets and fields.

I am assuming the "W" wave and the allegation of a coil waveform were the voltage is always above zero volts are two separate things under discussion. For me the "W" wave means nothing. The "always above zero volts" waveform is impossible. If you want to draw a diagram of the setup and/or demo something then I would be able to comment more.

The reason there is nothing remarkable about the setup with the lossy coil is because the pulsing coil combined with the rotor in effect looks like an electrical circuit. In other words, you have a pulse motor which is a combination of an electrical circuit and a mechanical circuit and electrical circuits are analogs for mechanical circuits and mechanical circuits are analogs for electrical circuits. So, a pulse motor is an electro-mechanical circuit which just looks like an electrical circuit. If you were on the bench playing with a purely electrical circuit and changed a component value and saw the power-in change and the power-out change you would not think anything of it. So why think something unusual or remarkable is happening or that the magnets are doing something special when you add the rotor?

If you do undertake to test a more efficient coil that would be great. Like I already stated I think your rotor also leaves a lot to be desired. If I can offer a suggestion it would be to use a two-pole or four-pole rotor with the same pole facing outwards for all magnets. That will give you a cleaner and more controlled test environment for your coil.

With the typical kinds of bench experiments that you and your peers do with pulse motors and coils and transformers, it's basically impossible for you to do anything that "conventional science can't explain" or to "observe an exception to a so-called law." There is always an explanation, but sometimes that explanation is not that obvious and it takes some brainstorming to figure it out.

MileHigh

tinman · « **Reply #335 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:28:41 PM »

Quote from: poynt99 on January 03, 2016, 09:13:02 PM

I gave you one method to achieve the same effect without using magnets. If you are interested in seeing it done without them, why don't you build it?

Because as i said,your test/experiment did not show the same effect. Your experiment showed how to reduce both the P/in and P/out at the same time,and so the results you obtained were not the same as mine,and did not show an increase in efficiency. So it is clear that cause and effect are not the same between the two DUTs.

Brad

gotoluc · « **Reply #336 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:31:43 PM »

Thanks for the long but interesting post wattsup

Very well written I must say and very interesting information. Makes one think.
However, as interesting as it is you're not going to get people attention until you build a device that will prove your suggestions.
Have you done this yet?

I build things to demonstrate what I'm suggesting and still don't get much feedback from people.
That's just the way things are.

Thanks for sharing

Luc

tinman · « **Reply #337 on:** January 03, 2016, 11:38:34 PM »

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 11:26:23 PM

Brad:

I am assuming the "W" wave and the allegation of a coil waveform were the voltage is always above zero volts are two separate things under discussion. For me the "W" wave means nothing. The "always above zero volts" waveform is impossible. If you want to draw a diagram of the setup and/or demo something then I would be able to comment more.

The reason there is nothing remarkable about the setup with the lossy coil is because the pulsing coil combined with the rotor in effect looks like an electrical circuit. In other words, you have a pulse motor which is a combination of an electrical circuit and a mechanical circuit and electrical circuits are analogs for mechanical circuits and mechanical circuits are analogs for electrical circuits. So, a pulse motor is an electro-mechanical circuit which just looks like an electrical circuit. If you were on the bench playing with a purely electrical circuit and changed a component value and saw the power-in change and the power-out change you would not think anything of it. So why think something unusual or remarkable is happening or that the magnets are doing something special when you add the rotor?

If you do undertake to test a more efficient coil that would be great. Like I already stated I think your rotor also leaves a lot to be desired. If I can offer a suggestion it would be to use a two-pole or four-pole rotor with the same pole facing outwards for all magnets. That will give you a cleaner and more controlled test environment for your coil.

With the typical kinds of bench experiments that you and your peers do with pulse motors and coils and transformers, it's basically impossible for you to do anything that "conventional science can't explain" or to "observe an exception to a so-called law." There is always an explanation, but sometimes that explanation is not that obvious and it takes some brainstorming to figure it out.

MileHigh

Here is the problem MH. If i go to a two pole rotor with the same field pointing out,then i would have to get the rotor spinning at twice the speed,and then try and get it to sync--and it is hard enough as it is now. If i go to a 4 pole rotor with all the same field out,then we !may! loose some of the force placed upon the rotor when the coil fires,as with the alternating fields,we know that the coil will be pushing on one magnet,and pulling on the next. But i will give it a try anyway,and make a 4 pole rotor--maybe a bit smaller in diameter to make it easier to sync.

Brad

Bob Smith · « **Reply #338 on:** January 04, 2016, 04:00:02 AM »

Wattsup,
I'd like to echo Luc's note of appreciation for your post. I watched your Half Coil #3 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELto2eCr0PY with great interest. I assume that Lenz' law is producing the half coil effect you register, and that it is arising in the coil as a response (to the charge) from the dielectric/aether. I believe this situates me among those who would consider coils to be open systems, and that OU is in fact a result of open system factors whose wide pervasiveness classical EM theory doesn't seem ready to acknowledge. Polemics aside, I find your video and post helpful for my own experimenting. Looking forward to the next one.
Bob

MileHigh · « **Reply #339 on:** January 04, 2016, 09:28:41 AM »

Quote from: gotoluc on January 04, 2016, 03:16:01 AM

Quite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.

His large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.
So all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that

You were wrong about a magnet not being able to increase a cored coils inductance and your wrong about these tests not being the same.
What are the chances, since I got the exact core that were recommended for the Orbo build and don't you think JLN did the same?

Here you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance:
and you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.
The one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.

What are you doing here??? are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?

May this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.

So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?

Luc

Well, that is one nasty piece of work. In fact it's so nasty that I am going to reply here where you can't exercise your thought control.

I agree that what you said on a technical level has merit. Your tone will be addressed later. I never said that you were wrong and I acknowledged that you were measuring what appeared to be an increased inductance. Nor do I claim to be an expert in magnetics.

I spent a half hour doing some research and found a paper which is attached to this posting.

From the paper:

Quote

Abstract
The resistive and reactive components of magneto-impedance (MI) for Finemet/Copper/Finemet sandwiched
structures based on
stress-annealed
nanocrystalline Fe
75
Si
15
B
6
Cu
1
Nb
3
ribbons as functions of different fields
(longitudinal and perpendicular) and frequencies have been measured and analyzed. Maximum magneto-
resistance and magneto-inductance ratios of 700% and 450% have been obtained in 30-600 kHz frequency range
respectively. These large magneto-resistance and magneto-i
nductive ratios are a direct consequence of the large
effective relative permeability due to the closed magnetic flux path in the trilayer structure. The influence of
perpendicular bias fields (H
per
) in the Longitudinal Magneto-impedance (LMI) configuration greatly improves
the MI ratios and sensitivities. The maximum MI ratio for th
e resistive part increases to as large as 2500% for
H
per
~ 1 Oe. The sensitivity of the magneto-resistance incr
eases from 48%/Oe to 288%/Oe at 600 kHz frequency
with the application of H per
~ 30 Oe. Such high increase in MI ratios and sensitivities with perpendicular bias
fields are due to the formation the favourable (transverse) domain structures.

The paper is very technical and I managed to gleam that indeed a magnetic field can increase the inductance of a toroidal coil with a Finemet core just like you said.

I note how you acknowledge that this effect does not take place for regular ferrite materials and in that case the influence if a magnetic field reduces the effective inductance, which is something that I also said.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #340 on:** January 04, 2016, 09:52:16 AM »

Luc:

This is from the first posting in your thread: "If you wish to post in this topic please keep it on topic and constructive as I reserve the right to edit or delete any post that are not so."

You are not living up to your own credo, shame on you.

Quote

Quite the contrary, my test is very comparable to JLN. We are just using different sizes of magnets, mounted on different surfaces and placing them in different locations.

Yes I substantially agree. I was ignorant of the fact that apparently transverse magnetic fields passing through the Finemet tape material can increase the inductance.

Quote

His large magnet will make his wheel vibrate which makes the sound you think is motor action. Mine is at most 10% of the size of his, so obviously won't be affected as much and it is also being held by a small steel lamination dampened by my fingers. You're also not comparing how much power he is putting in his coil compared to mine.

I don't think it is motor action, I know it is motor action. The power to make the magnet vibrate clearly comes from the pulsing toroid.

The key thing is this: Often two or three effects can be happening at the same time, and in a purely linear system they will all just add together. Armed with the new knowledge that I know have, I would state that two effects are happening at the same time, 1) increased inductance from the effect of the external magnetic field, and 2) apparent increased inductance from the motor action. My gut feel is that the second effect is stronger than the first effect. In the case of your experiment, my gut feel is that the first effect is stronger than any possible second effect.

Quote

So all this is giving you a false impression that these test are not the same. Seeing a schematic will also not conclude anything. Both are coils being turned on and off.
How different and complicated is that

My impression has been modified, but if I assume for the sake of argument that the motoring effect in the JLN clip predominates and the motoring effect in your test is negligible or nil, then the two tests are still fundamentally not the same.

I will just repeat to you that whenever you demonstrate a circuit you should spend the few minutes to draw a sketch of the circuit and show where your measuring points are. This is a common courtesy that all experimenters should do for each other. I noticed that you were a bit embarrassed when working with Verpies because you had no schematic to show.

Quote

Here you are arrogantly making a mockery of JLN test based on your ignorance that a magnet cannot increase inductance

Yes, I scolded JLN because his point does not make any sense like I already stated. Running a test and them making a point that does not make sense is a fail and he should have known better. Nor was he aware of the motoring action.

Quote

and you come up with your own BS motoring hypothesis.

The motoring is 100% correct and you have been doing energy research for something like six years and you should realize this yourself. There has to be a power source to make the magnet vibrate - it's a motor. Whoops you are getting nasty and breaking your own credo.

MileHigh

MileHigh · « **Reply #341 on:** January 04, 2016, 10:01:12 AM »

Luc:

Quote

The one who is off the clouds is you! and you could of saved your face a little but you've openly admitted (above) that you've already seen my video back in 2011 and failed to remember what should of been obvious at the time.

Now you are scolding me for not remembering seeing a clip made by you in 2011 and now it is 2016? You are being rude and breaking your own credo.

Quote

What are you doing here??? are you not at least capable of learning something form someone who is supposed to know less than you?

I just demonstrated that I am perfectly capable of learning something. What's your problem?

Quote

May this be a lesson to you and all your followers that you don't have all the correct answers based on what you have learned from the past. There are new products like Finemet that you obviously know nothing about.
So it's fine if you don't want to do experiments but don't think you know all the answers as things are changing fast and in time you'll be an old school dinosaur.

So better stop your BS now before you really sink your ship... or should I say shit?

Luc

Wow, you just had a "release," does it feel good? You broke your own credo again.

So why don't you go back and edit your posting and censor yourself to bring it in line with what you want to see in your own thread?

MileHigh

wattsup · « **Reply #342 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:22:44 PM »

Quote from: Grumage on January 03, 2016, 09:06:14 PM

Dear Luc.

Not quite a pond but at least there's no breeze to upset things !!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YCAFvvbxuk

Cheers Grum.

@Grumage

I left this comment on your video.

@Grum C Think of the attraction as not coming from your polar horizon. Think that the magnet wants to point straight 3000 miles under your feet to the polar positions of the Earths core, not the Earth surface, that's a fallacy. You would see this if the magnet was in a gyro mechanism. I think I can see your boat tipping deeper in the water at the blue mark. That's why it wants to veer off the plate to find a better straight angle down, which it can only find at the equator or the poles to be still.
Search this video on youtube Understanding Magnetism Science Documentary Full Length Documentaries Look At 6:40. wattsup?
Added the video link here but could not in youtube comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6-Tx6j5nf0

Quote from: MileHigh on January 03, 2016, 08:00:42 PM

Wattsup:
I made a few short comments a week or so ago about your proposition.
I am attaching a drawing showing two auto-transformers for you to contemplate. I am assuming that you would agree that a coil in an auto-transformer setup is almost acting like a potentiometer in the sense that it acts like an AC voltage divider? MileHigh

@MH

Hmmmmm. That simply confirms HCS. Variac is the same. You will need to think very deeply about this one. It's not easy to mind play but you will soon realize that alternating current cannot exist with a ground if electrons move in the wires, you would have a short circuit at every half cycle. We don't need to get to technical to understand the logic. It still took me a good five years to figure it out. But it is very possible with Spin Conveyance since for SC, there are no electrons, conveyance is by the stationary copper nuclei that work like gyro magnets. Just look at the best images of Atoms and you will see some perfect, some not perfect, some squeezed together. Resonance happens when you get to a frequency that permits the most number of copper atoms to gyro at once but that does not mean you get amperage. So simple. Since the atom nuclei is the one doing the work, its too and fro spin can accommodate a change of "direction" without changing the ground. But as in DC, AC primaries still suffer from HCS. Ahha.

I will put more soon. But please if you have better proof of AC under electron flow, let me know and we can look at it together. I have to say that I have learned a lot since the old days and a lot of it was with you guys @MH, @poynt99, @verpies and many others, it was your solid EE base that saved me tons of work to substantiate constructs but guys, I really think SC will explain every single effect on our benches and most importantly provide a visual basis that all experimenters can share when explaining effects.

Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 11:31:43 PM

However, as interesting as it is you're not going to get people attention until you build a device that will prove your suggestions. Have you done this yet?
I build things to demonstrate what I'm suggesting and still don't get much feedback from people.
That's just the way things are.
Thanks for sharing. Luc

@gotoluc

I know a picture (1000 words) a video (priceless) but only once you first figure out how to go about explaining something that is by its nature very difficult to explain. So I am searching for ways to show.

I watch ever single one of your videos as I do with other @members and am always appreciative of your content and approach. I probably have a good 20 posts in your subdirectory on my computer (many subs for many @members) that was never posted simply because at those times I was thinking "These guys are not ready yet for this", and this was my mistake since no one will ever be ready, but still I did not want to go and steer your efforts away from where they were going even if I thought at times they were going nowhere special. This is my mistake. I will try and work against my inner over-analysis. I am always looking for ways to push the limit, to go a little further off the beaten path so guys can have more angles of observation, not just the standard book of EE formulas that have been used and reused so many times we are losing count.

Example: There could be a whole new science revolving around rebiasing transformers. If the fixed atoms in the cores and the copper wire are randomly arranged, this would explain all the losses we experience in our coils since an impulse is the same as a magnet passage that can only act on a certain amount of those atoms that are favorably positioned. It would then be logical to presume that if more atoms were sharing the same alignment, once you find the resonance frequency for those atoms, either the voltage output or amperage should increase. The rebias has to be done with a pulse that will be multiple times stronger then the working pulses so the new rebiasing holds a new but more widely shared latent position.

So take any transformer with a primary and secondary. Find the resonance where the highest voltage is seen on the secondary. Try and measure the amps as well. Write those down. Now find yourself at least a 2 foot length of heavy copper wire. Wind the first foot around the coil leaving 2" at the start end free and the 1 foot length also free from the other side. Put the 1 foot length to a car battery negative. Spike the other end to the positive terminal 3 or 4 times giving it good zaps. Redo your test and see if you now have a new resonance frequency (if old frequency is not resonant any more) and measure output.

The zapping can be done by winding the "Zapper Wire (ZW)" around the coil or the ZW can be configured into a pancake type coil and held only one one side of the coil and zapped (like on the end of a coil that has a passing magnet) then on another side of the coil and zapped, etc. There has to be a method to realign those coupling atoms in a same "direction", were more will respond to a given frequency. This is a whole new avenue and would require one whole department to study the effects but for the OUer, it is one more method to add to our arsenal of effects. But it has to be better understood and to do that it takes time and a real effort and methodical record keeping.

@Bob Smith

Thanks, I will have more soon. hehehe

wattsup

MileHigh · « **Reply #343 on:** January 04, 2016, 03:52:31 PM »

Webby:

Heat, understanding heat, knowing where it's going, knowing how and where and when it's being produced are critical things to consider when you are trying to understand the energy dynamics of any device. I have pushed the issue a bit but I don't think it's getting much traction and it seems to be fading out of the discussion. When engineers design cell phones and tablets they agonize over heat issues.

Without being conscious of heat, you can observe many things that look like they are contrary to what "should" happen. You have to keep your eye on the heat.

Typically, heat is the end of the line. You drop a book on the floor and you just produced an explosion of heat. All the walls, the floor, and the ceiling in the room get a fresh coat of heat.

When you are doing cardio exercise, you can say your heart is doing three things, 1) powering your muscles, 2) keeping you alive, and 3) working to expel excess heat. I am usually quite conscious of how much of my cardio energy is working to expel excess heat when I exercise.

MileHigh

woopy · « **Reply #344 on:** January 04, 2016, 11:14:43 PM »

Quote from: gotoluc on January 03, 2016, 05:54:26 PM

Interesting, I never thought a physical magnet could have interaction with the earths magnetic field to do work.
Have you built such a device and seen it work?

Thanks for sharing

Luc

Hi Luc Tinman Mag and Grum

Here my experiment

https://youtu.be/qNA37WSB8Nk

Youp veird

Hope this helps

Laurent

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors. (Read 182126 times)

Grumage

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

poynt99

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

Magluvin

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

gotoluc

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

MileHigh

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

tinman

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

gotoluc

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

tinman

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

Bob Smith

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

MileHigh

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

MileHigh

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

MileHigh

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

wattsup

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

MileHigh

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

woopy

Re: Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.