Xee Man,

Sorry that the chronology of this response is a little out of whack.
I have been trying to address, understand and respond to every sentence of each comment.

                               Yes... Yes Yes    Yes           Yes.

A solenoid with a ferromagnetic core is in fact an electromagnet ( or at least can be called that ).                                                                                                                                                                                       

Yes, Yes...  I think you understand where the extra energy comes from.

Coil + Core... where the core always had energy.. nill when not organized... large when organized.

Now to produce electron movement in a second coil wrapped around the first... the field needs to change.
This is where a pulsed or AC current applied to the first coil comes in.

As I have mentioned, a resonant frequency of the atom dipoles could be a wise choice since motion is accumulative in this situation.

                                     None-the-less, I am happy that you can see what I am talking about.

I admit that I don't quite understand your comment about using a permanent magnet.
Wait, I get it.

You just stated the reason a permanent magnet is used in a loudspeaker !
It would be ridiculous to consume the energy of 2 pure coils to run the thing when you can use Mother Nature to help you out.

The permanent magnet in a speaker would consume an ENORMOUS amount of energy if it were just a coil.
And the coil that moves the whole thing is really a coil assisted by ferro core...so a pure coil here would also consume more energy than if it were just a coil.

This technically makes a Loud Speaker an overunity device since WAY more energy is required to run the thing without the magnet and the ferro core.

Just had an idea... I have a project for the naysayers.

    1. Calculate the energy needed to produce a magnetic field in a pure coil comparable with the magnet in any speaker you pick.
    2. Calculate the energy needed to produce a magnetic field in a pure coil comparable to the electromagnet in said speaker for any signal.
    3. Calculate how much energy is actually needed to just power the electromagnet of said signal ( the operandi mode of a typical loud speaker) to produce   
        same volume or decibel level as 2.
    4. Add 1 and 2 then compare that sum to 3.
    5. Explain why these are different.... if your calculations do not reveal an the equilibrium situation.

Just remember... to conserve energy in the classical agendized way... 3 CANNOT be less than the Sum of 1 and 2.
       They have to be equal or energy needs to appear to be lost for classical conservation of energy to make sense.

Well, perhaps you can see that this obviously is not the case.

The amount of energy it takes to run a loudspeaker is 1 + 2. Period. End of Story.
You need a strong changing magnetic field to to make the cone vibrate, there is 'no free lunch' as you like to say.
Since 3 is less than then a sum of 1 + 2 you better be damned sure the energy is coming from somewhere, and it does.

However, I am getting weary of saying where it comes from... so I will not repeat... it's late.

Optimism never hurts.
   
                                The Observer

Hey Xee,

I investigated the question having to do with the amount of force and time it takes for the dipoles to spin.

Turns out there is a characteristic number called COERCIVE FORCE that applies to ferro materials.
This is exactly what you were wondering  about... as was I.

My Physics Book had a pretty good chapter on this.

                      I have to get to work... so I will elaborate on this later.

But in a few words,

There is a huge range of this 'stickyness' of dipoles depending on the material. (Corecive Force)
Some stick alot... and some spin about as freely as you want.
A hysteresis diagram can show the entire loop which makes it obvious what is going on.

Something like soft iron doesn't need much to saturate, other materials need more (like magnets)...and some (like metallic glass) Way way less !!!

Also as you know. ferro materials have the domains where every dipole  is lined up, which is not explained by Newtonian Physics.
This can only be explained using Quantum Physics apparently.

Well, gotta get going.

Be well,
           The Observer

Hello Charlie,

       I appreciate your interest in Magnetic Permeability and your invention, what-ever it may be.

Alright, I looked long and hard at the reason you say my machine, as I have described it, would not work.

     (In short, a transformer possessing a ferromagnetic core that uses resonant frequencies to achieve more energy out than energy in
      using the total organizable electric current of ferromagnetic atoms that results in a switchable and magnified magnetic field
      and the properties of forced resonance which results in increasing the magnitude of motion of the ferromagnetic atoms.)

I do have a hard time with the CANCEL out thing.
I am very suspicious that a transformer takes more energy out of a primary whether a load is on it or not.

  I had to learn more about transformers... and a few things just don't make sense.

                               http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer

1.  Since the efficiency of a transformer is hard to calculate... ? ? (VI = P in vs. VI = P out) THEY instead refer to the
     hysterisis loop of the core & loss in copper windings to get an effieciency #.   Which happens to be around 99 %.
     A pretty damn impressive # in and of itself.

     But it is Very, Very Misleading...
              That is, one would assume the efficiency has to to with the ratio of power in vs. power out..
                This is the very thing we, at overunity.com, are concerned about by definition.
                   Yet THEY quote the efficiency of the device that I claim ADDS ENERGY to the situation + the resistance of copper windings (give me a break).
                       That device being the ferromagnetic material used in the core.
                            Hmm, Hmm, Hmm.

              Why in God's name would they do this?

     Perhaps, just perhaps... the energy required to run a transformer is equal to what 2 coils would be?
     Adding a piece of metal to the equation cannot add energy under conservation laws.
        and.. YET IT DOES.     Conundrum.

I conjecture this is one of the reasons a misleading number is quoted...that conservation laws would then be violated .(whoo whoo and flashing lights)

Another reason has to with frequency which I will get to later. (perhaps in another comment, as I need to investigate this phenomenon a bit more)
        Suffice it to say that Voltage increases in the secondary as Frequency increases in the primary.

2. Then is mentioned (in the wiki article on transformers) that V in = V out... I in = I out... therefore P in = P out. Where IN is the primary and OUT is the     
    secondary.  V is Voltage, I is Current and P is Power.     P=IV    or     PIV as I like to say.

    Not only that, but a resistance R on the secondary side will produce a resistance R*(ratio of windings) on primary side (and vise versa, reciprocate ratio.)

     Fine, if these are the "rules" lets break it down for a "transformer" with equal windings on the primary and secondary.
          This means that R is going to be the same on both sides. That's what THEY say..

But first this...

I remember a question on a physics test in College.  I was one of the only ones in class to get it right.  It's a simple question.

                        What household appliance has greater resistance, an electric stove or digital alarm clock?

                                                  Answer...  Digital Alarm Clock

The reason is  V=IR.  The current needed to power a clock is way less than needed to power the stove.
Therefore, according to ohms law, the resistance of the clock is way more than the resistance of the stove.

       This is not an intuitive answer because resistance implies energy used.
       Resistance takes energy (swimming against the current)... going with the flow does not (swimming with the current).

Anyways as R goes up, I goes down in a circuit for any given Voltage.   V = I *R
  To be more clear... the higher the resistance... the less the current.

      As that dude Archer would say... Do we agree with this?   lol
         Yes or No.

Now Power... what needs to to be compared, is P = I * V     PIV      as aformentioned.

So now we would agree... that when voltage is constant.. more Current equals more Power...less Current equals less Power?
     Yes or No ?

Finally, there is the aforementioned coils (of exact equal dimensions)  sitting next to each other.
          The secondary is not  hooked up to anything.. this means 0 electrons are flowing which means the I = 0..
           The primary is hooked up to ... lets say   110 AC Volt at a frequency of 60 Hz.
         
          Because  P (primary) = P (secondary)   this means that    VI (primary) = VI ( secondary)

Do we agree ...Yes or No?

    If you have agreed to this, you have also agreed that NO POWER is being consumed in the primary of a transformer
            when the secondary is not hooked up to anything  !

    That is, P of the Secondary has to be 0 since no electrons are flowing, therefore P of the Primary must be 0.
                                         P=IV   No electrons moving, no power.

    In other words, THE LAW that states all must be equal and no energy extra energy can come from unrecognized sources,
                                                      then postulates that NO CURRENT will flow in the primary.

I DISAGREE.

Ever heard of a wall vampire? 
It's the black square transformer used to transfer 120 V AC to smaller DC voltages which are used by cell phones and a jillion other things.

According to LAW, these devices should use NO POWER when not hooked up...  YET THEY DO.

   There are People Laws now about building a circuit in transformers to detect if the secondary is loaded, so that current is only used when it is hooked up 
   to something. Apparently, MANY watts of power are wasted each year due to the fact that Transformers DO NOT consume less power when the secondary is
   not loaded or bear a very high resistance.
 
This is a direct contradiction to P(of primary) equals P(of secondary).

I say, simply...that the secondary of a transformer is a reciever.  No different than a radio reciever.
There is simply no way for a radio transmitter to have any idea how many radios are tuning in (interestingly enough... with resonant tuned circuits).

The truth is, the primary of a transformer always consumes the same power no matter what is hooked up to the secondary.

I realize this statement flies in the face of many people, laws and agendas...
                                                                                                             however I am an Observer not influenced by others, always thinking for myself.

So, perhaps I have overlooked something, but I have not accepted what someone else said on the surface.
                                                       For that I am satisfied.

Please think about this and the loudspeaker example mentioned previously.
Ferromagnetic materials (including magnets) have energy that can be tapped into, and are everyday.
It just isn't recognized as such.

May you perceive that which is true,
                                                    The Observer

Hey Charlie,

Actually I owe you an apology in that, I may have insinuated that you said my idea (or something like it could not work).
   Indeed you said 'work easily'.  Thank You.
     I think you can see what I am talking about... and greatly appreciate your input.
       I am surprised  more haven't jumped in on this.         

It is nice to get feedback, because that causes new questions that need to be correctly answered.
   Something I apparently find... fun.

Now you said,          '"It works just like mechanical gears."

As in     Pin = Pout   and I and V match up when all is said in done to make       P=IV  (primary)   =    P=IV  (secondary).

I know, this is what is accepted.
  In fact my College Physics book says that everything I say that I am wrong.
   Well, not quite, there are holes in their assertion, but anyways...
     That is, they say .....Pin always ='s Pout,
        where I am saying,   "I'm not so sure about that !"

Here is what I say.
   
       You (not you Charlie, the misinformed) are comparing apples to oranges.

Gears are a Newtonian device ... a transformer is a Quantum Mechanical device.
  The rules are so different that old Lorentz's head would spin just looking at all the free lunches.
   
It is very useful, in understanding quantum physics to observe a stone that is thrown in a pond.

  There is plenty I know I'm not seeing, but this is what I do see.

    1) The wave created by the stone goes out in all directions.

    2) The wave created by the stone has a constant speed.

    3) The wave created by the stone makes a leaf on the water bounce up and down when it passes by.

    4) The wave created by the stone can make many leaves bounce up and down.

    5) Because of the finite and constant speed of the wave in water, when the wave passes a fixed object (say a stick in the mud),
        The resultant wave from this interference can never interfere with any other portion of the original wave.

     6) Oh, wait a minute... here comes a water bug, Let's call the bug Charlie.
         Charlie's top speed seems to be the same as the wave of water's speed.

     7) Charlie must have seen something, because he suddenly scurried across the water !
         Charlie's movement created a wave.  And Charlie was always the the for front of the wave produced.

     8) When Charlie stopped, so did the creation of the wave produced by Charlie's movement.

     9) A new bug with same top speed arrives on the scene wearing sunglasses and a straw cowboy hat, named Chuck.

    10) Charlie suddenly decides to scamper over to the shore that is a long ways away. (Chuck looks a little strange)
          This produces a wave.

     11) Chuck who was standing near by (look'in cool), finds out that Charlie left when he felt that wave. (these bugs are blind)
           The wake of Charlie's wave let Chuck know that something happened.

      12) After Chuck recieves this information, Chuck decides that Charlie must be Stopped ! from reaching the shore.
           Chuck likes Charlie and just wants a hug.

           Alternately, Chuck is so cool, he doesn't even flinch at this new information, and just rides the wave like the leaves.

       13) Chuck chases... "Must stop Charlie, Charlie cannot get to shore. Must conserve energy."

       14) Do I have to tell you who loses the race?

When something else moves... it is a result of a previous action.
   Sure it has an action (movement), but there is no equal and opposite reaction.
      What happened, happened. 
         An equal and opposite reaction would have to reach beyond the bounds of time and space to achieve this.
            Because of the nature of the medium in which it exists,
               Nothing can really catch up with anything else.

As far a transformer goes, I hope you can see the analogy.
That is, what is forced in first coil, is just absorbed by the other.
The best way for the coil to conserve energy is to just bounce like a leaf in the pond, that's it.

I am pretty sure, but don't quote me yet.
    That the back emf has to with the energy of all the dipoles turning back to their original position from the ferromagnetic material of the core.
       This energy of course doesn't have to be a bad thing.
         In fact, is probably an important factor in finding resonance in a the circuit I am talking about.

Thanks for reading.
There will probably be more as my exploration continues.
Any comments, thoughts, or even a thought experiment that continues the one I started with the pond, would be much appreciated.

      And with that, I wave goodbye,    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
                                                               The Observer
                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello Fritz,

Thanks for your input.

I guess I have a hard time with the word compensated.

I really, really believe that the electrons in the secondary move only as a result of the wave or waves that pass by.
I don't believe they have any momentum, that allows them to create their own magnetic wave in the coil.
When the wave stops, so do the electrons in the secondary.
The wave is what makes them move, the absence of a wave means the absence of movement in the secondary.

Perhaps down line in closed circuit secondary, away from the primary's magnetic field, a new wave can be produced.
   But, I really don't see how a  new wave is created at the secondary to counter act the primary.
      ESPECIALLY when nothing is connected to the secondary.
         How could No Electrons Moving create a field to get back at the primary?

What is being said...(not me) is that...

A current will not run through the primary when there is nothing loaded on the secondary.
Yes, I know they say there will be a little leak do to imperfections.

     Gee Wizz... what would happen if I put in a Thirdary, Fourthary, or even  10aries in the vicinity of the primary.

I guess they would all be communicating with each other to make sure Laws that have to do with Conservation of Energy are being upheld.
   This means that a radio transmitter emits no power if no-one is tuned in.
      This means that the radio transmitter could also determine how many are tuned in (with resonant circuits) at any given moment, since
        it's power would be in direct relation to the power being used by the coils in the radios.

          This is Bull Hockey. (that is a bull on ice doesn't stand up very well does he?)

Here is a real question.

     What really happens when I short circuit the secondary of a transformer?

         Let's say the secondary's circuit is made of some really hearty material that won't melt. (like the electric stove)

  Will this blow the AC Circuit breaker in the house or melt the primary ?


I realize there is a lot of theory here, and not much for experiments.
 I have taken apart a couple transformers (not an easy task), but I guess I would need to make my own from parts
  and acquire a VARIAC (I think) to produce a variety of voltages as well as frequencies.

Well, this is not over for me.
  Any input is greatly appreciated.

Have a Glorious Day !
                                The Observer

     
   
     

Hello Charlie,

Thanks for your input.

I will consider your response at work today.

Be Well,
            The Observer

If I understood you, you are saying that back-EMF's mechanical equivalent is inertia?  I have to think about this some. 

Your not explaining what back EMF is, just how it works.  I know how it works and yes it is simple.  Very simple, when there is a change in magnetic field through a coil, the coil sets up a voltage.  The polarity of the voltage is such that if current is allowed to flow through a load, the flowing current creates a magnetic field that opposes the initial change. 

This change is geometrically dependent (unlike inertia which is independent - the mass of a weight will fight movement no matter which direction the change comes from).  Back-EMF only fights change that is perpendicular to the cross-sectional area of the coil. 

Back EMF is similar to inertia (or mass we should say since inertia is a mass phenomenon of rotating objects).  Like the mass of a physical object, it does fight change.

I know how the back-EMF(back-Torque - which I equate to the same thing) works but I want to know why.  I feel it is a balancing force, not necessarily a loss.  I THINK its purpose is to balance the energy in the system.  If you can unbalance it, then you might be able to collect or create energy.  It would be the same if you could manipulate the inertia of a rotating object.  Make it such that the force applying the rotation was not effected by the inertia of the object but the inertia of the object was present.  Thus, the mass would gain a momentum but the inertia would not fight the driving force.

The only difference is that I don't see a way of doing this with a physical object, but with a magnet and coil it might be a possibility.