Quote from: EMJunkie on August 11, 2016, 02:25:32 AM

Quote from: allcanadian on August 10, 2016, 09:05:59 PM

Maybe a story might help, a long time ago in a land far away a man named Earnshaw developed a theorem. Earnshaw's theorem and he stated that "a collection of point charges cannot be maintained in a stable stationary equilibrium configuration solely by the electrostatic interaction of the charges". He also believed this applied to magnetic fields and everyone agreed one cannot balance or levitate one magnet on another. Then one day a clever inventor stumbled onto the fact that if the levitating magnet was spun like a top that in fact it could levitate in a stable manner. Some people believed Earnshaws theorem was an irrefutable law which had now been broken while some experts proclaimed the law was not broken. It was not broken because an extra force was present, the centrifugal force of the spinning top was present balancing the magnet and Earnshaws supposed law does not actually include extra forces only free floating charges and magnets. Thus a theorem or law may seem to always apply but only so long as the conditions applicable to the law do not change in any way.

This is very similar to the story of Lenz Law which states that "the current induced in a circuit due to a change or a motion in a magnetic field is so directed as to oppose the change in flux and to exert a mechanical force opposing the motion". Think about that... what does the Law actually say?. A changing magnetic field will induce a current in a circuit creating a second magnetic field which will oppose the first magnetic field change. It does not actually mention the source of the inducing magnetic field being opposed only the magnetic field itself being opposed. Thus a magnetic field source could create a rapidly changing magnetic field impulse then turn off before the field has had time to induce a current in the external circuit and the field source cannot be effected and Lenz Law has not been violated yet the external circuit would be induced by the field change after the source has turned off. Anything less would imply the field change has induced the target before it has actually reached the target which is absurd.

This is the problem with believing things which are not true and reading things into something which was never there nor implied to be there. Lenz said only the "inducing field" is opposed by the induced field no more no less.

AC, this is a very clever post.

Any and every Induced EMF, no matter how many times an Induced EMF occurs, in a single System, has an Effect of the Source, does it not?

But, if the Source is no longer a part of the System, switched out, then the Source is no longer affected, as you say.

How long can a Magnetic Field be kept High after Switch out of the Source?

In a super conductor, indefinitely, for ever in our terms, no Source, but Magnetic Field stays High... Electron’s keep going and going and going…

So the Source can change. Not necessarily the Polarity, depending on point of View, but the Location in the system can very easily be changed. This can be done many ways. A common way is to short one coil… This I know you are very well aware of.

One point of view does not make for any proof, how you term:

Quote from: allcanadian on August 10, 2016, 09:05:59 PM

He also believed this applied to magnetic fields and everyone agreed one cannot balance or levitate one magnet on another. Then one day a clever inventor stumbled onto the fact that if the levitating magnet was spun like a top that in fact it could levitate in a stable manner.

A Postulate, everyone agrees, with no proof…  Although most experiments might hold, who’s to say one wont. After all, Charges are already in constant motion, all having their own Centrifugal forces… Thus making it true that a simple Magnet, will Violate Earnshaw's theorem before this experiment was even proposed - Surely we agree on this point?

There in lays the very basis of how we currently understand the Magnetic Field.

I was surprised to read this post.

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

To iterate a little further, Electromagnetic Induction is a dependency process, for example:

   1: If there is No Voltage, there can be No Current.
   2: If there is No Current, there can be No Magnetic Field.
   3: If there is No Magnetic Field there can be No Electromagnetic Induction.

So, for Electromagnetic Induction to occur, there must be a Source of Magnetic Field, somewhere!!! Time rate of change is a requirement for the Voltage (EMF) Generation, NOT the Current, as mentioned above, the Current is dependent on the Voltage (along with Resistance)!!! It’s true, that any Coil that has a Voltage across it (Active Element due to Induction) will be able to supply a Current, regulated by Ohms Law, which will change in Time!!! This is equivalent to a Magnetic Field Changing in Time!!!

Thus any and All Magnetic Fields Changing in Time can be a Source of Electromagnetic Induction!!!

If this Source is equal in Magnitude in comparison to the originating Source, then there will be a net zero effect, or no Tertiary EMF can be "Generated". Thus timing of the Coil Interactions is critical. Capacitance can be employed to do this, or switching if you have the means. Coils can be arranged to also offset this timing.

I hope those that do not already know this will see the importance here!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

http://overunity.com/12794/re-inventing-the-wheel-part1-clemente_figuera-the-infinite-energy-machine/msg489659/#msg489659


Suppose two primaries coils and two secondaries coils in the middle of the primaries.

If the primaries are in attraction mode the only field transversing both secondaries is:
N ---------------> S. As per Lenz, the induced field of each secondary will be <-------- in one secondary and  <-------- in the other secondary. Both opposing to the primary field. How the hell are you going to buck both secondaries? Impossible. No way

If the primaries are in repulsion their fields will be N -------> <--------- N  . In this case one secondary will oppose to its closer primary field: <--------  and the other secondary will oppose to the primary field of the other primary coil:  -------->. There you have two bucking secondary coils. Perfect bucking output coils. In this case you may use pulsed DC. You just need to collide two fields in the center point, right in the point between both secondaries coild, no need for movement of the fields in this design based in flux linking.

Summary :

Attraction  N ------------------------>  S
                       <--------    <---------

Repulsion  N ----------> <-----------  S
                       <---------    --------->

See this sketch of Daniel Dingel device. The second sketch is drawn by me

The inducted voltage in coil B must be larger than that of coil C, otherwise the transformer will require more input power than the output power.

I attach a new sketch to clarify what I meant. It is not related with the delayed Lenz effect,although that could be another good subject to study and justify many things

If two inducers are placed in repulsion and two induced coils in between, then each induced coil is just transversed by one inducer field, the one from the nearest inducer. That's the key. Both inducer fields collide in the center in a point between both induced coils and are expelled from the core. Therefore each induced coil is under the action of one inducer field. The two induced fields, which oppose to each inducer field, will be bucking each other  <------------   ------------->  . With vectors :   B1induced + B2induced = 0 . I have not tested it, but theoretically it is a perfect bucking system.


Repulsion  N ----------> <-----------  N    (inducer coils)
                       <---------    --------->         (induced coils)

.

This little contribution is meant to supplement the excellent work presented by Chris Sykes, focusing on his theme of  ‘Partnered Output Coils” except that I am also offering the idea that Partnered Battery Sources together with Partnered Output Coils is feasible as well. This is because such a symmetric and balanced type of circuit design opens up more possibilities for mutual or reciprocal feedback and regeneration of batteries, as well as balanced lead-out of output energies!

 Here below, I will freely offer several suggested designs, some of which I have partially but not exhaustively tested, which could be combined in with some of Chris’s circuit designs. Meanwhile, since I last contributed here in May 2015, much progress has been made, and I have continued to build and test some of my own Quadrature rotating devices, with or without the addition of these driving/feedback circuits.

Positive and/or Constructive comments are welcome, but I do not visit the forum every day. Enjoy! ~

This device right here, is a thing we call a Transforming Generator, and ah, this Is on the DVD that I gave, ah, ah, gave to various people to, ah, review, and what this does, is actually allows you to separate, for the first time, in a device that’s, ah, repeatable and measureable, the difference between a EMF and a Voltage.

And the problem is, anytime you have a winding, you wind up with two types of Induction in that winding, you have ldi/dt, which everybody is familiar with, that’s the rate of change Current times the Inductance, but you also wind up with idl/dt, which is essentially the miracle worker of these machines, and that’s the Current times the rate of change of the inductance, and the reason that’s so interesting, is if you do a dimensional analysis of the terms involved, it comes out to be Negative Resistance.

And so that completes the four quadrant, um, Vector Diagram involving Watts, Vars, negative Vars, and negative Watts. And now the whole picture comes together in a very succinct manner.

https://youtu.be/armx9kJ8BU0?t=44m6s

Hi Chris, Guys,

I have a question for you. I watched some Russian video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInN3jk1Hy0 ) and it inspired me to replicate the setup.
  I have made one as seen on the picture below. The picture is self explaining.
You only do not see a 1 Ohm resistor I used on the AC source to read the input current. 
2 partnered coils on the ferrite torroid core,  (CW & CCW).

I know kirchhoff law is used mainly for DC circuits. How is it with the AC circuit as on my picture below??

Cheers,