You just said it, half of the flux... so why the 8 vs 49 mA discrepancy with 20% voltage gain? Like 1+1=7? O-k...


Speaking of pulses, input and output have the same pulses, so the relation persists. And: the multimeter has an internal capacitor, otherwise the values would jump around.


At this point I leave it up to you to check it out, I will not go trough a trial of theoretical naysaying defense. Take it or leave it, AS IS. 


I'd rarther talk about the mechanisms, bejond institutional dogmata. 


Eg. the recursion of excessive selfinduction, is it reversing polarity with every iteration? If so, does it "eat up" the back magnetomotive force?


Is the bmmf of the output coil choosing the path trough the shortened, rather than trough the primary? The primary will be in opposing polarity to that bmmf, But what is the shortened doing? Shouldn't it have a bmmf like the output? Or does the mentioned recursion compensate it, making it the easier path?


And how does the back emf affect the whole thing? These are my thougts.

I stand corrected HANON but the outcome is still the same. the Secondary core is switching  polarity at intensities at 50 % level from N/S to S/N. it does not ever see zero. this will act as a battery as described by Figueras to be paralleled or series to attain desired current and voltage. Yes/no

Hello Hanon!

Well I think you remember Woopy's replication, here he showed the signals from the comutator:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/12439-re-inventing-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-2.html#post213544

I think the two signals are the same as the output from my circuit (except the ripples) so we should be good, what do you think?

Dann

Madddann,

The sketch that you provided in post 1072 achieve a 180º unphase between the two signals.

Here we need a system which will provide 90º unphased signals, as the attached imagen shows:

EDIT: As your schematic shows always a positive signal maybe it is possible to be valid. While one intensity is increasing the other intensity is decreasing.OK.  90º unphase was defined for a rectified AC which is not the case for this circuit. I will think it again.

You just said it, half of the flux... so why the 8 vs 49 mA discrepancy with 20% voltage gain? Like 1+1=7? O-k...

Because magnetic flux is not electric current.  The relationship between them is square.
You are assuming a linear relationship between flux variations and current and then you are disproving that assumption (in English that debating technique even has a name: a "Straw Man").

Speaking of pulses, input and output have the same pulses, so the relation persists. And: the multimeter has an internal capacitor, otherwise the values would jump around.
At this point I leave it up to you to check it out, I will not go trough a trial of theoretical naysaying defense. Take it or leave it, AS IS. 

I am not going to leave you misleading other people, that average Volts * average Amps = average Watts, for non-DC waveforms.
Apparently you are very ignorant of power measuring principles.
If you want to play hard ball with me, you need to understand first, that I am not defending myself as you had implied above - I am attacking your power measuring ignorance.

Your claim that input and output are pulsed only proves that you don't have pure DC waveforms there.  It does not mean, that you cannot multiply average Volts by average Amps displayed by your averaging multimeter (with an averaging capacitor inside) to obtain average Watts.
The same voltage waveforms at the input and the output do not change anything.

For non-DC input waveforms you must multiply instantaneous voltage by instantaneous current and average these products to obtain average input power.  You can do the same for output power or you can use a shortcut and connect a sole non-inductive incandescent light bulb to the output and measure its brightness with a PV cell in a dark box (Grumage deftly calls it a "Wattbox").

There are other shortcuts you can use if your waveforms are periodic and of simple shapes, but not without knowing the phase relationship between the input voltage and input current waveforms (as well as the phase shift between the output voltage and output current waveforms).

I'd rather talk about the mechanisms, beyond institutional dogmata. 

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Electric power measurement principles are as I described them not because of some authority, but they are that way because it is mathematically and experimentally demonstrateable that:
AVERAGE(V) * AVERAGE(I) <> AVERAGE(V*I)
Do you want me to show proof of the above inequality to you?

As far as mechanisms, I already wrote that a shorted winding excludes magnetic flux variations inside that winding. 
Magnetically this is almost the same as breaking off that leg of the core which has the shorted winding over it... and throwing it in the trash.
The lower the resistance of the shorted winding the more complete the flux variation exclusion.

In fact any resistive load placed across any secondary winding will cause partial expulsion of magnetic flux variations from under that winding.  If the flux cannot find an easy path (low reluctance) to close the flux loop then it will close through air.
This is illustrated by the diagram below.

Dogma is a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

I was brought up to believe every sunday we drank the blood of Jesus and ate his flesh. That's also dogma. Science is often proven wrong. I think that was the point Dieter was making. Dogma = closed mind.

I was brought up to believe every sunday we drank the blood of Jesus and ate his flesh. That's also dogma. Science is often proven wrong. I think that was the point Dieter was making. Dogma = closed mind.

"Closed mind" is a different concept, albeit related.
If that is what he meant than he should choose his words more carefully. 

If your interpretation is correct than it becomes apparent that he did not read any of my more unconventional posts, yet is quick to judge me as "close minded" just because I quoted some well known power measuring principles.
Just because there is a lot of authoritarian dogma taught in physics departments does not mean that all of it is wrong.  Electric engineering, power measuring principles, Ohm's law, etc.. are on of the areas where the mainstream has it correct ...and it can be verified experimentally any time.

Science is often proven wrong

Then let him prove my science wrong with the scientific method - not with name calling.
Dieter better focus on criticizing my ideas and logic, rather than my state of mind.

Maybe you have to multiply your calculation by sqrt(2)/2 = 0.707 to convert maximun voltage and current to rms values ,

That would work for full sinewaves only...and average power could be calculated out of these two RMS values only if the phase relationship was known between the sine voltage and the sine current.  This is one of the shortcuts that I had mentioned previously.
For calculating the power of arbitrary waveforms, only multiplication of instantaneous voltage and current works reliably - not average voltage, nor average current multiplication.

P.S.
The RMS calculation is a form of a geometric average.