Belfior: Regarding D. M. Cook, yes, maybe he used a big honking battery to provide a very large
current pulse to some kind of large coil arrangement, and used that to send pieces of metal
through the roof of a building. Back in the mid to later 1800's, that might well seem like a very mysterious
effect, and might lead Cook into thinking that it could be used to make a large metal capsule fly.

Regarding Cook's free energy 'Electromagnetic Battery', Cook seemed to be convinced that it would
continue to conduct a significant current after being given an initial start pulse to get the action started.
He mentioned using iron bars or magnets up to 3 inches in diameter and 2 to 6 feet long for the iron cores.
The only thing I can think of that might be doing something unusual in that simple arrangement is maybe if soft iron
is used in iron bars of that size and with coils with many turns, maybe something to do with the magnetic domains
flipping back and forth in the soft iron bars helps to self-sustain the pulsing action, but it seems to be quite a long shot
at best. Cook's free energy invention never seems to have gone anywhere beyond his own experiments and
patent however.


Hoppy:
Yeah, I found that the video quality is too poor to try to analyze too closely for things like that.

RE  Gorchilin claims...here is a quick paper from Smudge on the Theoretical aspects of the claim ,not to say that in  Practice actual events...are to be ruled out ?
apparently the math for the theory part has huge issues .
respectfully
Chet K...ps still sorting vendors for Cook materials

and also Melnlnchenko investigation is in progress[for some reason link not transferring yet ?

sorry to interject ,but I was taught some time ago ,if you want to cause a brawl among men....
start talking about politics religion or sports....the fights will shortly follow.
perhaps we have enuff conflict for a while ?
not just one mans opinion......

In many cases on this forum, you need to read between the lines. Also you need to understand, that when people are arguing about stupid shit, they are not using their time trying to find free energy.

Then you just start giving points to people based on their posts. Started an argument -> one point. Started waving his hands, shouting and posting youtube videos, when somebody made an interesting question -> one point and so on and so on.

Then you watch this forum for a year and look at the stats.

True, L depends on t, but it is not necessary to differentiate it
Otherwise, this leads to an error that occurred at ramset.

True, L depends on t, but it is not necessary to differentiate it
Otherwise, this leads to an error that occurred at ramset.

Induced voltage is proportional to rate-of-change of flux, and since flux=L*I/N it is proportional to the rate-of-change of the product L*I.  Normally L is a constant so U=-L*dI/dt is correct (the manner in which Gorchelin sums the voltages that negative sign disappears).  But when L is not constant then U=-d(L*I)/dt is the correct version to use.  Gorchelin is in error.  If you believe otherwise please explain why.
Smudge

You don't agree, Brad, but that's the way it is. The induced emf in a circuit crossed by a magnetic flux is obtained either by integrating E along the circuit or by the magnetic flux through its surface, it's a consequence of Stokes' theorem, it's a mathematical identity.
Emf = -dΦ/dt (Faraday's Law) = ∮E.dl  (E electric field = -∂A/∂t, dl a circuit element where current is induced).

If L changes, the circuit of the inductance changes, therefore ∮E.dl changes too, proof that dΦ/dt is also changing.

The formula U=-d(L*I)/dt given by Smudge is correct. See equation 8.69 here

You don't agree, Brad, but that's the way it is. The induced emf in a circuit crossed by a magnetic flux is obtained either by integrating E along the circuit or by the magnetic flux through its surface, it's a consequence of Stokes' theorem, it's a mathematical identity.
Emf = -dΦ/dt (Faraday's Law) = ∮E.dl  (E electric field = -∂A/∂t, dl a circuit element where current is induced).

If L changes, the circuit of the inductance changes, therefore ∮E.dl changes too, proof that dΦ/dt is also changing.

The formula U=-d(L*I)/dt given by Smudge is correct. See equation 8.69 here

The part i do not agree with is-Induced voltage is proportional to rate-of-change of flux,

Voltage across a coil is induced by the electric field,there need be no magnetic flux at all if the coil is open. A magnetic field only exist if a current flows through the conductor,but an EFM can exist across a coil without the flow of current,hence-no magnetic field.

So induced voltage is a result of the changing electric field,not the changing magnetic field.


Brad

bRAD IS DEAD RIGHT!  if I pulse a coil before the magnetic vortex starts explain that, or if I use a caducous wound coil the magnetics is canceled out! or if I block the magnetic field with dielectric charge Leny boys low no longer applies. Your talking conventional theory, that no longer applies here.  Ilke it or not!