Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83885
  • *Latest: geovat

  • *Total Posts: 522966
  • *Total Topics: 15572
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 9

Author Topic: AC voltage from single magnetic pole  (Read 7864 times)

Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« on: October 05, 2020, 04:16:36 AM »
This is strange and possibly the reason i got so little voltage from my all N rotor magnets and aircore toroid stator.

We all know when magnet approaches a normal coil you get voltage in one direction, 0 in the middle and opposite voltage as it crosses the other side of the coil.

All sweet. But look at this. I suggest you watch the whole vid but first 4 and half min are more important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmENeg5YSCw

When he sweeped that coil exposing just one side to field, he got AC voltage, first small negative voltage from side N flux, then higher positive voltage as coil passed the center of the magnet and then suprisingly JUST AS HIGH or even higher negative voltage as coil crosses from strong central S flux to weak side N flux...

If you look at 3:23 he does it again, it really produces equal voltage in both directions using just one side of the coil and sweep in just one direction. Slow it down to 0.25x and you will see clearly a full AC spike from one sweep to the left.

But when he crosses the magnet across the coil horizontally using both sides of the coil, in usual manner, the second spike is lower.

What troubles me is does this mean we cannot use only N poles to induce DC voltage over aircore toroid?

Has anyone tried this? If not, i'd appreciate if you do, i tore my toroid apart so can't do it at the moment.

It is crucial that we know this. Does single pole really produce equal voltage in both directions due to sudden change of flux from dense central flux to much weaker opposite side flux.

When i gave it bit more thought it can't be any other way, significant change of flux must produce voltage, it's just that induction is usually not done this way so we tend to forget that just cause you are using one pole does not mean you will get DC.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2020, 12:17:10 PM »
When i gave it bit more thought it can't be any other way, significant change of flux must produce voltage, it's just that induction is usually not done this way so we tend to forget that just cause you are using one pole does not mean you will get DC.
You are confusing induced voltage with induced current.
Also, you are conflating the behavior of an unloaded (or open) coils with loaded (or shorted coils).

Finally, you are not accounting for the return flux of the permanent magnet.


To stir you mind, I will write that when an ideal coil is shorted and the return flux of the permanent magnet is kept away in such manner that it does not enter that coil as it is moved, then the current induced in that coil is unipolar. You may call it pulsating DC.
This video illustrates this unipolarity of the induced current.


However, when the coil is open, while all other things are kept the same, then no current flows in the coil but the voltage induced across its terminals is bipolar according to the Lenz law.
Namely, one polarity of voltage when the amount of flux encompassed by the coil increases and the opposite polarity of voltage when that flux decreases.

All of this has already been discussed in this thread started by TinMan.

Offline shylo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 540
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2020, 04:58:38 PM »
Hi Verpies
In your unipolarity video, can we not collect twice? Positive one way ,negative the other?
I can't access the Tinman thread ,you need to be a member of OUR
I use half bridges on each coil leg to feed the caps, but loading the caps in a split manner eliminates lenz drag.
Split the caps  between the half bridges.
Thanks artv.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2020, 04:58:38 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2020, 06:31:41 PM »
You are confusing induced voltage with induced current.

No, i'm not, i am talking about voltage here, current is irrelevant here.

As for current, it will be in-phase with voltage unless we go into very high inductance coils and high frequencies (ala Hanes). For normal alternators reactance will be minimal. This is denoted as power factor and is usually above 0.9 for most alternators meaning 10% or less power is consumed by inductive reactance.

Quote
Also, you are conflating the behavior of an unloaded (or open) coils with loaded (or shorted coils).

I am not conflating anything, i am talking about induced voltage in unloaded coil but there is no significant difference for loaded coil within usual parameters.

Quote
Finally, you are not accounting for the return flux of the permanent magnet.

Not true, i mentioned return flux or side flux multiple times.

Quote
To stir you mind, I will write that when an ideal coil is shorted and the return flux of the permanent magnet is kept away in such manner that it does not enter that coil as it is moved, then the current induced in that coil is unipolar. You may call it pulsating DC.
This video illustrates this unipolarity of the induced current.

Not true, with or without return flux, as coil passes the edge of a magnet and enters a zone where thick flux is absent opposite voltage will be induced according to dB/dT.

Quote
However, when the coil is open, while all other things are kept the same, then no current flows in the coil but the voltage induced across its terminals is bipolar according to the Lenz law.

No current in open circuit, who would say. With current or without, induced voltage polarity is the same.

Read my post again, watch the video again, there is a difference when he sweeps that coil with one side across the magnet vertically and when he sweeps magnet across both sides of the coil horizontally. Both produce AC voltage but in second one second spike is lower.

Quote
Namely, one polarity of voltage when the amount of flux encompassed by the coil increases and the opposite polarity of voltage when that flux decreases.

All of this has already been discussed in this thread started by TinMan.

AC voltage is produced in both scenarios, shorted or not, with side flux or not.

Take a single wire to keep it simple, sweep it across a magnet, as it enters the field you get voltage in one direction and as it leaves in opposite. Short the wire and you will get same voltage with insginificant difference of coil's backEMF when it's shorted.

I suggest you study lenz, here are few videos to start.

https://youtu.be/bkSsgTQOXVI < first part of this vid is misleading, if flux in same direction increases or decreases over both sides of the coil at the same time no voltage will be induced as shown in next vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NDztGfWpe4

Few general rules to keep in mind..

First pic below, as north pole of a magnet sweeps across the wire, electrons will first go up and as magnet leaves the wire they will go down.

Two left hand rules..

If wire is placed perpendicular to a N-S field and electrons in the wire are going to the right, wire will experience a downward force.

If electrons coil into the screen in up part of the coil as shown north pole will be on the right.


Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2020, 08:53:46 PM »
...current is irrelevant here.
Current is very relevant for coils. It is a major phenomenon of inductive energy storage and without it a coil does not store energy nor oppose external flux not attracts not repels anything.  In other words, a coil without current  is a Nothing Burger.
Also, current is directly proportional to the magnetic flux generated by the coil* since the inductance of a coil is the ratio of its flux to the current flowing through it, in mathspeak: L=Φ/i   or  i=Φ/L.


* or an external flux attempting to change the total flux penetrating a closed coil

Not true, with or without return flux...
Let's talk about it


I am not conflating anything
But you are.
Take a look at the piece of our discussion below.  I wrote about current but you countered with an argument about voltage.


Quote from: verpies
To stir you mind, I will write that when an ideal coil is shorted and the return flux of the permanent magnet is kept away in such manner that it does not enter that coil as it is moved, then the current induced in that coil is unipolar. You may call it pulsating DC. This video illustrates this unipolarity of the induced current.
...as coil passes the edge of a magnet and enters a zone where thick flux is absent opposite voltage will be induced according to dB/dT.

Note, that in that exchange above you made a tacit assumption, that the direction of the voltage induced in an open coil unequivocally determines the direction of the current induced in that coil when it is shorted.

Also, you made a mistake writing that the voltage induced across an open coil depends on dB/dt.
This is wrong because the induced voltage across an open coil does not depend on the rate of change of magnetic flux density at all.  It depends only on the rate of change of magnetic flux, in mathspeak: dΦ/dt.

As for current, it will be in-phase with voltage...
Here you probably assumed that it works the same way as with a resistor when the direction of voltage applied to a resistor unequivocally determines the direction of current flowing through that resistor.
However that voltage vs. current relationship is not true for an inductor.

i am talking about induced voltage in unloaded coil but there is no significant difference for loaded coil within usual parameters.
I beg to differ.
Also, the direction of the induced voltage in an open ideal coil does not determine the direction of the induced current in that coil when it is shorted.  This is not a resistor!
That's why analyzing coils only with induced voltage leads you down the garden path.
Last, but not least it is impossible to even measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

This is denoted as power factor and is usually above 0.9 for most alternators meaning 10% or less power is consumed by inductive reactance.
First of all now you are conflating power with energy. Power is the rate of change of energy so it cannot be consumed by definition.
Energy cannot be consumed either but it can be converted to other forms of energy.

However, my most important objection to the quote above is that inductive reactance does not consume energy permanently, because pure inductive reactance stores the energy as magnetic flux and then converts all of it back to electric current.
Notice that this cannot even be properly analysed with pure induced voltage without the consideration of the current flowing in the inductor.

Not true, i mentioned return flux or side flux multiple times.
OK, I grant you that you did but you do not seem to consider it in your analysis of an open coil being waved in front of a naked permanent magnet.

With current or without, induced voltage polarity is the same.
This statement is not even wrong until you notice that it is impossible to measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

...watch the video again, there is a difference when he sweeps that coil with one side across the magnet vertically and when he sweeps magnet across both sides of the coil horizontally. Both produce AC voltage but in second one second spike is lower.
I do not see anything unusual in this video but I see a lot of misunderstanding what is happening and the constant assumption that the direction of the induced voltage somehow unequivocally determines the direction of the induced current like in a resistor according to Ohm's law.
Did you watch the video that I have linked from prof. Belcher and noticed that the direction of the induced current does not change?

AC voltage is produced in both scenarios, shorted or not, with side flux or not.
Of course, the total flux* penetrating the coil varies up and down and that induces voltage across an open coil in both direction.  There is nothing unusual about it according to Faraday's law.
Notice, that the video shows only an open coil being measured so you remark "shorted or not" is Ad Hoc.


* that also includes return flux.

Take a single wire to keep it simple, sweep it across a magnet, as it enters the field
Notice that as it is being swept across a naked magnet the first thing it encounters is the return flux.


you get voltage in one direction and as it leaves in opposite.
Yes, that's the Faraday's law, but it has nothing to do with magnetic flux density dB/dt.
Also, with small coil and large magnet you get two double voltage pulses because it:
1) starts encompassing the return flux.
2) stops encompassing the return flux.
3) starts encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.
4) stops encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.

Short the wire and you will get same voltage
First of all, it is impossible to measure the voltage across an ideal wire.
Also, an ideal short forms an ideal 1-turn loop/coil with the ideal wire.


The direction of the induced current flowing in that loop/coil will be the same in cases 1 & 2 and the same but opposite in cases 3 & 4.  The direction of the current in cases 2 & 4 will be opposite, because the direction of the magnet's return flux is opposite to its surface flux.
The magnitude and direction of the induced current will generate magnetic flux that will oppose any attempt to change the total flux encompassed by this shorted coil. In consequence the total flux encompassed by the coil will remain constant.
Notice that the direction of the current induced in a shorted coil DOES NOT follow the direction of the voltage induced in the same coil when it is open.  You do not appear to know that and that is why I wrote that you are conflating the behavior of an unloaded (or open) coils with loaded (or shorted coils).

I suggest you study lenz, here are few videos to start.
Don't assume that this a new topic for me. I have been through it many times on this and other fora.

Notice, that the Lenz's law is a qualitative law that specifies the direction of induced current, but states nothing about its magnitude.
Also, sometimes it is said that the Lenz's law is manifested as the minus sign in the Faraday's law ε= - dΦ/dt.
That minus sign refers to your voltage induced across an open coil by a changing flux. Note the concept of this voltage fails the Ohm's law in a shorted ideal coil (just look at the magnitude of the result!) and that is one of the many reasons why it is better to analyze coils in the current domain than voltage domain....and the capacitors - just the opposite.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2020, 08:53:46 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2020, 09:10:11 PM »
...

Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2020, 10:48:52 PM »
Current is very relevant for coils. It is a major phenomenon of inductive energy storage and without it a coil does not store energy nor oppose external flux not attracts not repels anything.  In other words, a coil without current  is a Nothing Burger.
Also, current is directly proportional to the magnetic flux generated by the coil* since the inductance of a coil is the ratio of its flux to the current flowing through it, in mathspeak: L=Φ/i   or  i=Φ/L.

* or an external flux attempting to change the total flux penetrating a closed coil
Let's talk about it

And sky is blue.... Yes, current is needed to produce all the fancy magnetic effects and there was zero need to waste server space with that.

Once again current will bi in phase with voltage for all normal conditions and therefore is irrelevant in the context. Unless we are talking very high inductance and/or frequency, extreme cases.

Quote
But you are.
Take a look at the piece of our discussion below.  I wrote about current but you countered with an argument about voltage.

You are conflating by replying about current when my post was about voltage.

Quote
Note, that in that exchange above you made a tacit assumption, that the direction of the voltage induced in an open coil unequivocally determines the direction of the current induced in that coil when it is shorted.

It does, except if we are talking backEMF in DC motor that only lowers the input current and thus self regulates motor speed. In other words, current never flows in direction of that backEMF, it only reduces input voltage and current.

Quote
Also, you made a mistake writing that the voltage induced across an open coil depends on dB/dt.

This is wrong because the induced voltage across an open coil does not depend on the rate of change of magnetic flux density at all.

Facepalm..

Quote
It depends only on the rate of change of magnetic flux, in mathspeak: dΦ/dt.

dB/dT is perfectly valid expression of Farraday's law.

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-derive-the-Maxwell-Faraday-equation-from-Faradays-law

Quote
Here you probably assumed that it works the same way as with a resistor when the direction of voltage applied to a resistor unequivocally determines the direction of current flowing through that resistor.
However that voltage vs. current relationship is not true for an inductor.

I did not assume anything. The root of your confusion is in your "professor's" animation.

I gave you one example where induced voltage does not produce current in same direction, but this is an exception to the rule.

Quote
I beg to differ.
Also, the direction of the induced voltage in an open ideal coil does not determine the direction of the induced current in that coil when it is shorted.  This is not a resistor!

Another facepalm..

Quote
That's why analyzing coils only with induced voltage leads you down the garden path.

And another..

Quote
Last, but not least it is impossible to even measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

Impossible you say.. Have you ever seen a distribution of voltage across a loop of wire. Did it not cross your mind that opposite sides of the loop will have 1/2 of induced voltage between them. Never crossed your mind did it.

Quote
First of all now you are conflating power with energy. Power is the rate of change of energy so it cannot be consumed by definition.

Again you cling to semantics trying to sound smart but you turn out just the opposite. Here, learn something, quoting from the thread i posted here the other day...

https://overunity.com/18592/few-general-formulas/

Force = Mass * acceleration
Work = Change in Energy
Work = force * distance moved unit: newton meter or joule or Work = Mass * Gravity * Height
Power = work / time = force * displacement / time = force * velocity
Power (hp,watt) = work(ENERGY)/time aka time rate of energy transfer
Energy = Power x Time

Quote
Energy cannot be consumed either but it can be converted to other forms of energy.

We got a genius here! :)

Quote
However, my most important objection to the quote above is that inductive reactance does not consume energy permanently, because pure inductive reactance stores the energy as magnetic flux and then converts all of it back to electric current.
Notice that this cannot even be properly analysed with pure induced voltage without the consideration of the current flowing in thee inductor.

Reactive power consumes energy through copper losses P = I²R. Eh

Quote
OK, I grant you that you did but you do not seem to consider it in your consideration of an open coil being waved in front of a naked permanent magnet.

You have no idea what you're saying, do you.

Quote
This statement is not even wrong until you notice that it is impossible to measure the induced voltage in an ideal shorted coil.

Already addressed that nonsense. We are not talking superconductors here, voltage will be distributed evenly across the coil and opposite sides will have 1/2 of the induced voltage between them.

Quote
I do not see anything unusual in this video but I see a lot of misunderstanding what is happening and the constant assumption that the direction of the induced voltage somehow unequivocally determines the direction of the induced current like in a resistor according to Ohm's law.

There sure is a LOT of misunderstanding at your side.

Quote
Did you watch the video that I have linked from prof. Belcher and noticed that the direction of the induced current does not change?

So that is the root of your confusion. Here is another video of your "professor" doing real test showing just the opposite (normal) effect.

Description of the video

"As a permanent magnet is moved back and forth in the vacinity of a coil of conducting wire, a current is induced in the coil (as measured by the ammeter in the video)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y5qejN9FpI

Quote
Of course, the total flux* penetrating the coil varies up and down and that induces voltage across an open coil in both direction.  There is nothing unusual about it according to Faraday's law.
Notice, that the video shows only an open coil being measured so you remark "shorted or not" is Ad Hoc.
* that also includes return flux.

Another facepalm..

Quote
Notice that as it is being swept across an naked magnet the first thing it encounters is the return flux.

Now you're repeating what i said in the first post.

Quote
Yes, that's the Faraday's law, but it has nothing to do with magnetic flux density dB/dt.

No comment..

Quote
Also, with small coil and large magnet you get two double voltage pulses because it:
1) starts encompassing the return flux.
2) stops encompassing the return flux.
3) starts encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.
4) starts encompassing the flux at the magnet's surface.
First of all, it is impossible to measure the voltage across an ideal wire.
Also, an ideal short forms an ideal 1-turn loop/coil with the ideal wire.

More nonsense. Optimal magnet width is horizontal thickness of the one side of the coil and optimal magnet height is height of the coil's hole.

Quote
The direction of the induced current flowing in that loop/coil will be the same in cases 1 & 2 and the same but opposite in cases 3 & 4.  The direction of the current in cases 2 & 4 will be opposite.

Presumably you wanted to write 4) stops.. There is no "stops" phase, flux coil sees changes suddenly from N on approach to S in the middle and then N again. And you are wrong with those conclusions. I summed it nicely in the first post, again...

First small negative voltage from side N flux, then higher positive voltage as coil passed the center of the magnet and then another high negative voltage as coil crosses from strong central S flux to weak side N flux.

Quote
The magnitude and direction of the induced current will generate magnetic flux that will oppose any changes to the total flux encompassed by this shorted coil. In consequence the total flux encompassed by the coil will remain constant.
Notice that the direction of the current induced in a shorted coil DOES NOT follow the direction of the voltage induced in the same coil when it is open.  You do not appear to know that and that is why I wrote that you are conflating the behavior of an unloaded (or open) coils with loaded (or shorted coils).

It seems your confusion has roots in that animation, do yourself a favor and forget it, start with single wire in a magnetic field, then proceed to coils etc. Little by little you will understand.

Quote
Don't assume that this a new topic for me. I have been through it many times on this and other fora.

You're funny, i'll give you that. :)

Quote
Notice, that the Lenz's law is a qualitative law that specifies the direction of induced current, but states nothing about its magnitude.

Sure, cause it is an extension of Faradday's law which already specifies magnitude.

Quote
Also, sometimes it is said that the Lenz's law is manifested as the minus sign in the Faraday's law ε= - dΦ/dt.

Lose the "sometimes".

Quote
That minus sign refers to your voltage induced across an open coil by a changing flux. Note the concept of this voltage fails the Ohm's law in a shorted ideal coil and that is one of the many reasons why it is better to analyze coils in the current domain than voltage domain....and the capacitors - just the opposite.

Like i said, a funny guy. :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2020, 10:48:52 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2020, 11:13:10 PM »
But i'm thankful you reminded me of coil shorting 'cause i was about to post this old post from Stephan..

https://overunity.com/9720/fuelless-car-prototype-by-ismael-motor/

Hi All,
I got these supportive emails from Konehead ( Doug Konzen),
who is also working on overunity pulsemotors:

Douglas L. Konzen
 an harti
   
   
hi Stefan
 
here is Ismael Aviso's electic car - it runs on "nothing at all" (it loops) and uses a battery only as buffer
 
plus the car runs on a standard forklift motor ...I dont know if you know about it yet - here is the peswiki article whch has condensed all the public information on it fairly good:
 
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Ismael_Aviso_Self-Charging_Electric_Car
 
 he uses highvoltage resonating and "shorting" coils in the MEG and gets exponential power increase, maybe its similar to Tesla's electric car...but that antenna isnt really the way it works so much - the antenna is sort of a power-booster to it.
 
He did some tests of 600 reps of starting and stopping this car, and the battery doesnt go down and those forklift motors are amp-hogs.......its very amazing Ismaels MEG.....

Just tought I would give you heads-up on it...Ismael is good friend of mine we went to Sweden two summers ago to build electric car for SAAB but nothing happened they were going broke and what he does is very hard to believe to be true too...anyways you could put generator in place of car too, and have free energy home gensets easy enough.

Hopefully he will start producing some MEGs for public soon just thought I would let you know.

Basically how it works is he SHORTS coils at sinewave peaks, the coils collapse and rebound with huge voltage increase -then he shorts the peaks of the oscillations created and then you get the exponential power increase (nutshell description)...so instead of oscillations "fading out" the oscillations expand to huge increases in power - its non-reflective type of power increase too - rosens ramp the primary up in extra draw...
 
ciao Konehead (Doug Konzen)

Hi Stefan
 
you can post it on OU.com no problem
 
I know Ismael really well and he has told me how it works on telephone when he gives me his updates and progress...so
I know mabye 90% in general terms, and mabye 60% in "technical terms"

Ismael is a genius - he is microwave engineer and set up all the cell phone system in Saudi Arabia where he went to school.
He can write with his right hand , or his left hand, it doesnt matter so he is one of those guys with two brains going at once...
 
He uses some "inventions" of mine from my old konehead motors which I am proud of that he is using  - these are "pickup winds" which are simply secondary winds wrapped around, behind, and inside, of the primary winds. (his "core" is actual an inner secondary coil! plus more windings behind and around the "primary" to pickup all the normally-wasted ambient magnetic flux)
 
Also Ismael has the "repelling force" technology, which I have witnessed in Sweden of demos for  SAAB execs - this alone is really super amazing -  he can shoot a 1 kilo object in air (a coil) 30 ft in under a second and he dows it with a 9V battery and he can do it 16 times over and over and the battery will only drop around .3 V.....when I saw this, I wanted to throw all my stuff away....he has been doing the repelling force for awhile - he has some you tube videos showing it. Basically it is a coil vs coil
 N agains N and pulse is super high frequency resonating pulse of 7500VDC discharge....dont know how he does it really but doesnt use invertor and is cascading DC and pickup winds "recycle" power back to where it came from plus he does coil-shorting in it too "somehow"
 
So think about  doing this repelling force with no moving parts - just slam a coil against another coil with that much force, and which  requires hardly any power to do - (it is all very much resonating power too, in the repelling force - iron just nearby will throw the resonance off!!)
 
He made some attempts at motors powered by it, but things kept flying apart from so much power - he started concentrating on the MEG last year, with no moving parts, and it has made the "mechanically rotating" repelling force obsolete sort ot....
 
 other things he does is that he uses bifilar winds like that famous Tesla patent and he takes out all the hundreds/thousands of harmonics produced from them - he says that most people dont realize what bifilars do - because the increased power is usually cancelled out but Ismale gathers it all up somehow....actually he went to "septfilar" winds lately - 6 wires instead of just two, and now he got much more power that way.
 
He told me if you realy understand the HUBBARD coils, that is sort of what he is doing in his MEG.
 
Ther real heart of system, is the "shorting of the coils" at their sinewave peaks - this is also one of my inventions/discoveries I did a few years ago - you can amplify the voltage in a regular generator coil around 20times more voltage doing this - it is REALLY SIMPLE - just use a switch  (must be very low resistance like high-amperage mosfet or a few mosfets in paralell) and simply "touch" the coil leads together with this switch for say 2ms or so - and put FWBR AC legs across the coil and ZING  - a cap on the DC side of bridge goes up in voltage X 20 just like that...."amps" remain the same.....the coil collapses, and "rebounds" with a vengeance is how I describe how it works...
 
Ismael took this a few steps further - and he shorts the coils 5 times during sinewave peak period - it is very interesting looking at scope at a shorted coil - it is like a Tesla spark gap as it creates oscillations/ringing and what Ismael does is short the PEAKS OF THE OSCILLATIONS CREATED with very quick and accurate switching....this is heart of his MEG system as far as I understand it, and where he gets all his power from the "ambient" you could say....so he gets X100 increase in power doing this from his initial primary-feed....
 
the gain is in VOLTAGE - and you cant put any resistance on the cap as itr fills - and also like mentioned the switching must be very low resistance....Ismale uses some IGBTs  in the MEG - it is high voltage, high frequency....
 
it must have a "2-stage output" circuit, where the cap fills from shorting, then cap hits load while cap is disconnected from "source"...pretty simple also....
 
I will answer your quesitons below:

 
>
> Could I post this in my overunity.com forum ?
DK:
sure no problem
 
> Or could you post it ?
DK:
you can  do it...
 
DK:

 Have you tested it yourself ?
I helped Ismael do demos of his repelling-force power in Sweden two summers ago, so have witnessed it and have general knowledge how it works (the replling force tech) and it is very real and very amazing jsut that...
 
As for the MEG, I havent built one - it is way too complicated it needs special microproccesors for IBGT filtering and EMP cancellations in order to do the very fast frequencies the MEG works on - he hired team of top notch computer chip guys to do his special microproccesors - but I have tested the "shorting-the-coils tech" alot, and I know how good that works plus know that pikcup winds around primaries gathers all the "ambient" flux that is normally wasted....so those two things, and also backemf/recoil collection circuits too I know and have tested all that but I cant do the 7500VDC cap discharge in his repelling force tech (I assume alot this is his "primary" in his MEG too)
and I cant do the resonating-high frequency pulse to his repeliing force tech either.
 
that anntenae on his car I dont really think does all that much - it will do somethign, but the real power is in the resonance, the shorting coils exponenetila-power increase via 5 times at peak coil-shorting, the pickup winds, and all the HUBBARD coil-like tech in his MEG.

>
> Are you convinced that it works this way ?
DK:
yes - I've seen the repelling force, and have been following his MEG progress for the past year and it works just like described - in fact better than you think, since it is so amazing, nobody believes it! I asked him what is the "ratio" of power increase, if you have like 100W system, and you put the MEG "onto" it, just so I could tell people, and he said it is 1000 times more power - and I said come on Ismael you have to tell something to people they will believe!! So just for fun I say it is 100times increase in power - but it is really way more than that....the doing the math on his older repelling force tech - it comes to about 1200HP blasts  from a 9V battery 16 times....which is ridiculous nobody believes it...Hector thought there was rocket fuel in the videos and it was fake!

 
> The videos are pretty amazing...
DK:
Yes - the battery is a BUFFER actually in way to connect high voltage power to lower voltage -
he uses no invertor but something else is going on  - so the battery is-not the "power source" but you got to give something people understand so the battery is in there...you can imagine how much power it takes to run a forklift motor - and battery goes up while he is running it....
they did 600reps  of starting car form stop battery stayed at 13V
His MEG when it puts out power has already gathered-up all the backemf and plasma then will destroy brushes  in the switching - so he runs that forklift motor on very high voltage and very low amps which is also amazing thing too....he has  recent video of this - looking at the brushes in his forklift motor and there si no plasma at all >

> So how does he extract the power from the shorted coils ?
DK:
Like described above - at least that is how I do it - he does something very similar but needs very low resistance switch, and no resistance in the caps and must have a two-stage circuit...his MEG is very complicated to me cant really say exacty what he does in extraction of the coil-shorting he does at high voltage and high frequencies but it works I can talk about this stuff forever he has told me lots about it.

 
> Does he use some kind of transformer hooked up to it ?
DK:
No - no invertor and doesnt step-down the voltage to the motor either - it is very "clean" power hitting the forklift motor as described.


> So does this violate Lentz law ?
DK:
Yes in that the extra-power gained in the "coil shorting" 5 times at sinewave peak is "non-reflective" to the primary.
I use the coil-shorting tech in my latest Muller-type generators, and with two stage output and "AC series cap" in circuit (like Tesla does with his "resonator caps" in his spark gap stuff) I can get power output form my aircored generator coils, (induced by neodymium magnets in rotor like Muller) to be "non-reflective" to the motor input.....which is "lenz-buster"

Ismael told me that the 5 times at peaks coil shorting does not affect the primary to any extra draw too, and he uses the "AC series caps too, which worked like "high bypass filters" really, in that the 'lug" is blocked" but the high end stuff goes through and fills caps up with no-reflection...I could go into more details on this but this is good enough for now....

 
> BTW, what happened to your own pulse motors ?

 
DK:
I started doing Muller motors with very strong neodymiums, and  started doing lots of AC rotovertors...best thing that happened with the old konehead pulse motors, is that Ismael took it and expanded it into what he has now...Ismael was one of the first people to replicate one of my konehad motors long ago and got it to work great (overunity) - then he incorporated the shorting coils into them too - ( I just did this with generator coils in Muller generators)  then he got the repelling force tech going (with pickup winds which were from konehee motors) and then went onto the MEG>
> Any progress ?
DK:
Doing some good motor-generators right now seem to be 8 times overunity sold a unit to someone in florida but my stuff is like toys compared to Ismaels tech....>
 

> Many thanks again and keep up the great work.

 
DK:
 
you too overunity.com is great thing going on!
I am going to replicate Anton HHO tech soon - my friend has reactors, I modified motor already...
 
Here is cirucit I use for coil-shorting....what Ismael does is "somewhat" similar to it...note the AC cap in series off the FWBR...this is what make it "non reflective" to motor draw:

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/upright-alternator-circuits
 
Here is my site-lots of rotovertors and muller-type generators on their axles

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/
 
Robert Myrland in Norway has some LOOPING "rotovertor-Mullers" he uses hiperco cores with needle-point design - he is doing some small scale produciton right now like 2 or 3 a month - i might help him make some in may....
 
Here is the thing I made this summer for cusotomero - an "uperight motor-generator" that uses coil shorting in the generator coils - runs on 5W and puts out about 40W (that is nothing compared to Ismaels stuff!)

http://sites.google.com/site/alternativeworldenergy/upright-alternator
 
ciao!
Konehead

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2020, 01:29:46 AM »
And sky is blue...
Facepalm..
Another facepalm..
And another..
Again you cling to semantics
We got a genius here! :)
You have no idea what you're saying, do you.
Already addressed that nonsense.
Another facepalm..
No comment..
More nonsense.
You're funny, i'll give you that. :)
Like i said, a funny guy. :)
This does not constitute a scientific discussion.

Once again current will bi in phase with voltage for all normal conditions and therefore is irrelevant in the context. Unless we are talking very high inductance and/or frequency, extreme cases.
I was talking about ideal coils to keep the discussion focused. Real coils have resistance, which make their analysis more complicated and their behavior somewhere between the ideal shorted coil and open coil.

You are conflating by replying about current when my post was about voltage.
That's my point.  I am pointing out that your analysis of inductors in the voltage domain does not yield valid results. if it did, the induced current in a shorted ideal coil subjected to any changing flux would become infinite and the direction of the induced current would always follow the direction of the induced voltage...but it doesn't.

It does, except if we are talking backEMF in DC motor that only lowers the input current and thus self regulates motor speed. In other words, current never flows in direction of that backEMF, it only reduces input voltage and current.
The direction of the induced current in a shorted coil also does not follow the direction of the induced voltage in the same coil which is open.  It does not have to be a part of a DC motor. This applies to any shorted ideal coil that is subjected to varying external flux.

dB/dT is perfectly valid expression of Farraday's law.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-derive-the-Maxwell-Faraday-equation-from-Faradays-law
Not as the standalone dB/dt expression.


The contour integral converts the rate of change of magnetic flux density dB/dt into the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt.
The same goes for the inverse of the curl operator in the differential form.

I did not assume anything. The root of your confusion is in your "professor's" animation.
Are you claiming that this animation is incorrect for an ideal shorted coil ?

I gave you one example where induced voltage does not produce current in same direction, but this is an exception to the rule.
One exception is enough to invalidate the entire claim as a universal proposition.

Impossible you say.. Have you ever seen a distribution of voltage across a loop of wire.
Not across an ideal wire.  Only across a long resistor such as a copper wire.


Did it not cross your mind that opposite sides of the loop will have 1/2 of induced voltage between them. Never crossed your mind did it.
I thought that when I was 13 years old.
A loop does not have an end so it cannot have opposite sides by definition.
An ideal coil does not have a resistance which would allow for a voltage drop to be measured.

Again you cling to semantics trying to sound smart but you turn out just the opposite. Here, learn something, quoting from the thread i posted here the other day...
Semantics are important. It allows for precise communication. Using bad terminology only confuses the conversation and makes the speaker look careless and ignorant.

Force = Mass * acceleration
Work = Change in Energy
Work = force * distance moved unit: newton meter or joule or Work = Mass * Gravity * Height
Power = work / time = force * displacement / time = force * velocity
Power (hp,watt) = work(ENERGY)/time aka time rate of energy transfer
Energy = Power x Time
Your equation for power is correct but you still used it interchangeably with energy in your statement.

Reactive power consumes energy through copper losses P = I²R. Eh
You were discussing inductive reactance (an imaginary component of impedance) and copper losses are caused by the resistance (the real component of impedance).
It would be more correct to write that reactive current converts electric energy into heat energy in resistive circuits.  But not in ideal systems.


This is where being imprecise with semantics leads you to apply phenomena from gray-area systems which mix the imaginary and real components of impedance, to purely reactive systems.


We are not talking superconductors here,
But I am.
Everytime I used the phrase "ideal coil" I really meant it.
Ideal coils do not exhibit any resistance. Of course coils can be made or mixed with resistive materials but then they are not ideal anymore and when we discuss theory we must define the behavior of the ideal systems first before we introduce imperfections into them....such as resistance.


voltage will be distributed evenly across the coil and opposite sides will have 1/2 of the induced voltage between them.
This cannot be true because an ideal shorted coil does not have "opposite sides" and it does not have resistance which can exhibit a voltage drop, which can then be measured.

So that is the root of your confusion. Here is another video of your "professor" doing real test showing just the opposite (normal) effect.
Description of the video
"As a permanent magnet is moved back and forth in the vacinity of a coil of conducting wire, a current is induced in the coil (as measured by the ammeter in the video)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y5qejN9FpI
That video correctly shows the current decaying in the resistance of the coil...but that coil is not ideal.  Its resistance constantly converts the induced current into heat, dissipating it.
That is the behavior of resistance not an ideal shorted coil.
The previous video, which I have posted shows an ideal shorted coil without its "contamination" by resistive phenomena.

More nonsense. Optimal magnet width is horizontal thickness of the one side of the coil and optimal magnet height is height of the coil's hole.
I was not discussion optimal coil dimensions. I merely wrote that a coil which is much smaller than a magnet will first encompass the return flux and next it will encompass the surface flux.  The two stages can be further subdivided into the increase and then decrease of that flux penetrating the coil.  That makes 4 substages with 4 different rates of change of flux through the coil.

Presumably you wanted to write 4) stops..
Maybe you read it before I did my proofreading and correcting after copy/pasting these lines.


There is no "stops" phase, flux coil sees changes suddenly from N on approach to S in the middle and then N again.
Sudden changes in magnetic flux direction are very unlikely.  I claim that these changes in encompassed flux are gradual and they pass through zero as the coil is moved like on your video at 5:20.


And you are wrong with those conclusions. I summed it nicely in the first post, again...
Prove me wrong

First small negative voltage from side N flux, then higher positive voltage as coil passed the center of the magnet and then another high negative voltage as coil crosses from strong central S flux to weak side N flux.
The animation below shows the flux that is encompassed by a small open coil (red, edge on view) as it moves from left to right.

https://i.imgur.com/6gBXOit.gif

First it enters the magnet's return flux (the flux is pointing down). This return flux encompassed by the coil first increases and then increases. Eventually the coil will enter a space where the return and surface flux are equal, so the net flux encompassed by this coil will become zero. After that more and more surface flux (pointing up this time) will be encompassed by the coil and it will eventually will reach a maximum. After that, the surface flux penetrating the coil's surface will decrease until it the collective flux reaches zero as more and more return flux attempts to penetrate the coil in the opposite direction.


The voltage induced in the open coil will be proportional to the rate of change of the flux penetrating the coil.
The current induced in a shorted ideal coil will be proportional to the flux attempting to penetrate the coil, but the net flux will remain constant.  Because the return flux and surface flux have opposite directions the induced current will also have opposite directions in these regions.
Also, the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil WILL NOT depend on the speed of the coil's motion ...but the voltage induced in an open coil - will depend in the speed.  That's more disparity between the induced voltage and current for you.

It seems your confusion has roots in that animation, do yourself a favor and forget it,
I am not confused. That animation is correct.
It is you who is confused by the mixture of inductive and resistive phenomena

start with single wire in a magnetic field, then proceed to coils etc. Little by little you will understand.
...and my advice to you is to start analyzing purely inductive phenomena and then little by little you will understand them correctly.
After you do, you can start introducing the resistive phenomena and the association between them which is expressed by the RL time constant.

Sure, cause it is an extension of Faradday's law which already specifies magnitude.
The Lenz law is a qualitative law that does not specify the magnitude of the induced current.
The Faraday's law is a quantitative law but it does not specify the magnitude of the induced current in shorted ideal coils. It specifies only the induced voltage (ε= - dΦ/dt) across open coils and incompletely shorted coils (i.e. resistive coils).

There sure is a LOT of misunderstanding at your side.
Please enumerate my misunderstandings of physics in a scientific manner, without using derision and Ad Hominem remarks.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2020, 04:08:49 AM by verpies »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2020, 01:29:46 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2020, 02:07:36 PM »
This does not constitute a scientific discussion.

When someone writes nonsense there is nothing else to say.

Quote
I was talking about ideal coils to keep the discussion focused. Real coils have resistance, which make their analysis more complicated and their behavior somewhere between the ideal shorted coil and open coil.

Talking about ideal coils does not "keep discussion focused", we are talking real coils.

The only difference in ideal coil, that is, ideal inductor is that current will lag voltage by 90°.

This does not mean current will be DC.

I talked about delayed lenz and Hanes in another thread but again this does not mean current is DC, it's AC, just delayed.

Quote
That's my point.  I am pointing out that your analysis of inductors in the voltage domain does not yield valid results. if it did, the induced current in a shorted ideal coil subjected to any changing flux would become infinite and the direction of the induced current would always follow the direction of the induced voltage...but it doesn't.

You are wrong. Like i said, your confusion is rooted in that misleading animation. Again, the only difference in ideal inductor is that voltage will lead by 90° degrees just like current will for purely capacitive circuit.

Quote
The direction of the induced current in a shorted coil also does not follow the direction of the induced voltage in the same coil which is open.  It does not have to be a part of a DC motor. This applies to any shorted ideal coil that is subjected to varying external flux.

Again, wrong.

Quote

Not as the standalone dB/dt expression.

The contour integral converts the rate of change of magnetic flux density dB/dt into the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt. The same goes for the inverse of the curl operator in the differential form.

Φ is integral of B over an area but dB/dT is commonly used as Faraday's law.

Two ways Faraday's law is used.

A) Induction by flux cutting the induced wire: this induction is done in current generators and the flux lines must cut the wire. It requires relative movement (at speed v) between the field and the wire

                 E = B · v · Length

B)Induction by flux linking two coils: this induction is done in transformers. The flux lines do not need to cut the wire. It is just need a variable magnetic field

                E = -N · S · dB/dt

More > https://overunity.com/14711/is-faradays-induction-law-correct/

Quote
Are you claiming that this animation is incorrect for an ideal shorted coil ?

I'm saying it's irrelevant for the present discussion.

Quote
One exception is enough to invalidate the entire claim as a universal proposition.

That is even not an exception cause there is already a greater voltage in the wire which does not allow backEMF to produce it's own current. This does not show that current in a coil does not follow direction of voltage.

Quote
Not across an ideal wire.  Only across a long resistor such as a copper wire.

We are talking real not ideal.

Quote
I thought that when I was 13 years old.

Then you were smarter back then.

Quote
A loop does not have an end so it cannot have opposite sides by definition.

Yes it does, any point has an opposite point.

Quote
An ideal coil does not have a resistance which would allow for a voltage drop to be measured.

Again, we are not talking superconductors.

Quote
Semantics are important. It allows for precise communication. Using bad terminology only confuses the conversation and makes the speaker look careless and ignorant.

Very ironic from someone making so many mistakes who makes himself look exactly that, careless and ignorant.

What i said is not bad terminology...

Quote
Your equation for power is correct but you still used it interchangeably with energy in your statement.

..it is actually perfectly correct, "more power" means more energy per unit of time, which is exactly what is being conveyed. That expression is used all over the engineering world.

Quote
You were discussing inductive reactance (an imaginary component of impedance) and copper losses are caused by the resistance (the real component of impedance).
It would be more correct to write that reactive current converts electric energy into heat energy in resistive circuits.  But not in ideal systems.

You were trying to imply i don't know the difference between reactive and real power, when i actually understand it better than you do.

You made the mistake cause in your rush to find a mistake in what i said you assumed i mixed reactive and real power while actually all i meant was that reactive power consumes copper losses.

You are obsessed with ideal inductor but have not even mentioned the key point, 90° phase shift of voltage and current, i had to do it for you.

Quote
This is where being imprecise with semantics leads you to apply phenomena from gray-area systems which mix the imaginary and real components of impedance, to purely reactive systems.

It's not being imprecise, it's only that you misinterpret things or use extreme cases like superconductors.

Quote
But I am.
Everytime I used the phrase "ideal coil" I really meant it.
Ideal coils do not exhibit any resistance. Of course coils can be made or mixed with resistive materials but then they are not ideal anymore and when we discuss theory we must define the behavior of the ideal systems first before we introduce imperfections into them....such as resistance.

Again, this is not a thread about superconductors, if you want to discuss them open a thread of your own.

Quote
This cannot be true because an ideal shorted coil does not have "opposite sides" and it does not have resistance which can exhibit a voltage drop, which can then be measured.

Every point on a normal coil has it's opposite point and pressure between the two is 1/2 the overall pressure/voltage. Again the superconductors..eh.

Quote
That video correctly shows the current decaying in the resistance of the coil...but that coil is not ideal.  Its resistance constantly converts the induced current into heat, dissipating it.
That is the behavior of resistance not an ideal shorted coil.
The previous video, which I have posted shows an ideal shorted coil without its "contamination" by resistive phenomena.

Again, we are not talking ideal coils.

Quote
I was not discussion optimal coil dimensions. I merely wrote that a coil which is much smaller than a magnet will first encompass the return flux and next it will encompass the surface flux.  The two stages can be further subdivided into the increase and then decrease of that flux penetrating the coil.  That makes 4 substages with 4 different rates of change of flux through the coil.

I summed up clearly what happens in my first post.

Quote
Sudden changes in magnetic flux direction are very unlikely.  I claim that these changes in encompassed flux are gradual and they pass through zero as the coil is moved like on your video at 5:20.

Change of direction of flux is sudden, see the beginning of the video.

Quote
Prove me wrong

Oscilloscope in the video proves you wrong. There are no "stops", as voltage from side flux ends immediately the voltage from main central flux begins.

Quote
The animation below shows the flux that is encompassed by a small open coil (red, edge on view) as it moves from left to right.

https://i.imgur.com/6gBXOit.gif

First it enters the magnet's return flux (the flux is pointing down). This return flux encompassed by the coil first increases and then increases. Eventually the coil will enter a space where the return and surface flux are equal, so the net flux encompassed by this coil will become zero. After that more and more surface flux (pointing up this time) will be encompassed by the coil and it will eventually will reach a maximum. After that, the surface flux penetrating the coil's surface will decrease until it the collective flux reaches zero as more and more return flux attempts to penetrate the coil in the opposite direction.

You just repeated what i said in unnecessarily complicated manner altho what happens is very simple and clear. Oscilloscope shows exactly what happens. No need to repeat it.

Quote
The voltage induced in the open coil will be proportional to the rate of change of the flux penetrating the coil.

Duh

Quote
The current induced in a shorted ideal coil will be proportional to the flux attempting to penetrate the coil, but the net flux will remain constant.  Because the return flux and surface flux have opposite directions the induced current will also have opposite directions in these regions.
Also, the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil WILL NOT depend on the speed of the coil's motion ...but the voltage induced in an open coil - will depend in the speed.  That's more disparity between the induced voltage and current for you.

Have you ever performed tests on superconducting coil? You haven't have you. So do not pollute this thread with your mislead "theories".

Quote
I am not confused. That animation is correct.
It is you who is confused by the mixture of inductive and resistive phenomena

You can't tell if animation is correct cause you never seen a superconducting coil, let alone performed tests on it.

It's you who is confused about inductive and resistive phenomena in general and in combination.

Quote
...and my advice to you is to start analyzing purely inductive phenomena and then little by little you will understand them correctly.
After you do, you can start introducing the resistive phenomena and the association between them which is expressed by the RL time constant.

Ironically, i understand them better than you do. You didn't even know about voltage leading current by 90° in ideal inductor, the key point. Talking about ideal inductor without mentioning this is ridiculous.

Like i said, start with single wire in a magnetic field, see how Lorentz force, that is, Laplace force acts on it, then proceed to coils, see how voltage is induced in various configurations, learn about voltage-current phase shift in reactive circuits, then you can proceed to LC(R) tanks, in series and parallel, band pass and band stop filters etc. Here are few basic formulas to get you started..

XL= 2πfL
XC= -1/2πfC
Z = sqrt(R² + (Xc - Xl)²)
F = 1/6.28(LC)
F = 1/2π√LC
τ = L/R inductor time constant, after ~5τ (transient time) current reaches 99.5%
τ = RC for RC circuit, after 5RC cap is 99.5% charged
energy stored in an inductor E = LI²/2
energy stored in an cap E = 1/2 QV and E = CV²/2
true power P=VIcosφ

Quote
The Lenz law is a qualitative law that does not specify the magnitude of the induced current.
The Faraday's law is a quantitative law but it does not specify the magnitude of the induced current in shorted ideal coils. It specifies only the induced voltage (ε= - dΦ/dt) across open coils and incompletely shorted coils (i.e. resistive coils).

And sky is blue.

Quote
Please enumerate my misunderstandings of physics in a scientific manner, without using derision and Ad Hominem remarks.

I just did.
« Last Edit: October 06, 2020, 06:11:23 PM by nix85 »

Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2020, 02:39:54 PM »
Just to add, you don't need a superconductor to have near perfect inductor, transformer can be plugged into wall 24/7 yet it uses very little real power cause voltage and current are almost 90° out of phase.

When you put load on the secondary, to the primary it's core starts to look more lossy and voltage and current come more into phase, bigger load you connect.

Does this mean current in the primary does not follow voltage, it doesn't, it follows it perfectly, just with a delay.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2020, 02:39:54 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2020, 06:52:37 PM »
Voltage always comes first
Verpies taught this many times over last decade


There are pages of similar discussions where members argued
Against Verpies about this here and elsewhere!

However I do believe he also mentioned another
Exception or stipulation?

——///—-///—-//////——//—

I propose a solution here !


A gentleman’s contest!!


A steel cage match ...two men enter
One man leaves!!


However IMO everyone wins



Stefan has a steel cage match venue somewhere ?(I always had to clean it up and roll
It back into storage room !


He may have sold it for scrap ?
Will look ?


Anyhoo
An impartial judge ? Maybe like that Dave guy from EeForum?
Or?” Suggestions “?


And one stipulation from my view ...would be real time
Not overnight “mail in ““copypasteathon”


Could sell tickets for charity?



Offline nix85

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2020, 04:51:10 PM »
I have no doubt Verpies is knowledgeable and good man. Aside the ego flaming, i think the biggest issue is he focused too much on that animation and ideal coil instead of real ones.

Offline ramset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #13 on: October 07, 2020, 06:43:04 PM »
Well
I have corresponded with Verpies
And he will absolutely engage in teal time
Discussion


However with one addendum


That there be technical panel to oversee efforts ( unbiased to anything
But standard EE or physics ( actually hard to write physics since I know
Verpies has issues at some levels with “ physics “and perhaps both fields?


However IMO the goal should be to debate a claim of some heretofore overlooked
Or misinterpreted /miss understood “anonomolous behavior”






And for clarity Verpies is an open source builder
IMO the goal here should be empirical evidence which manifests
In a build to prove same claim


With 100% transparent scrutiny!!( no restrictions)
Scientific method of brutal honesty and integrity!!






Judges will be sought if agreed


However a 100% scientific experiment would be simpler?
Verpies has very limited time !
Keeps very busy in his life as well his service to open source community.
Short and simple would be best!


Respectfully


Chet K
« Last Edit: October 07, 2020, 09:12:34 PM by ramset »

Offline verpies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3464
Re: AC voltage from single magnetic pole
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2020, 08:39:39 PM »
When someone writes nonsense there is nothing else to say.
That is just an empty assertion without supporting arguments. It appears nonsense to you because you not understand my arguments.
Anyway, it does not justify your unscientific remarks.

Talking about ideal coils does not "keep discussion focused"
Yes it does, because it decomposes a complex phenomenon into its basics constituent phenomena. 
In this discussion the inductive phenomenon is one phenomenon and the resistive on is another.  You conflate them and analyze them collectively and them just call them "coil",
Talking about basic constituents of a phenomenon in separation is simpler that talking about them collectively.

That is why chemistry breaks down matter to its more basic components and interactions.
An automotive mechanic does not diagnose/repair the entire car but its individual components.
An electronic engineer does not design the entire circuit but builds it up from individual components.
By the same token, a physicist decomposes complex phenomena into a complex arrangement of simple phenomena, so the constituents are easier to understand and calculate.

If I was to argue with you about all the phenomena* occurring in a "real coil" collectively, then the discussion would become so complex that it would quickly lose focus.
- resistance of a real coil.
- inter-turn capacitance of a real coil
- the displacement current through the above inter-turn capacitance
- the magnetic flux generated by the capacitance above.
- near fields generated by of a real coil
- far fields generated by a real coil
- radiation resistance of a real coil
- change of coil's geometry in inductance due to the Laplace force
- the skin effect in the winding of a real coil
- the proximity effect in the winding of a real coil
- the circumferential vs. axial current of real solenoidal coils.
- the myriad of ferromagnetic, ferrimagnetic and nuclear effects occurring in a real coil with a core, that I will not list here now.

Thus, I am not apologizing for simplifying things and talking about the constituent phenomena depicted in the video that started this discussion, separately.

I will continue to decompose the phenomena manifested in the video which you linked in your 1st post, into their constituent phenomena, which are.
1) The pure inductance of an ideal coil
2) The resistance of the real coil
3) The magnetic flux generated by that large permanent magnet (especially its geometry).

P.S.
I don't think it is necessary to get into the BH curve of the permanent magnet (external flux source) in order to analyze the induction phenomenon occurring in a coil that is swept across this magnet's pole.
IMO we can disregard the real ferromagnetic phenomena occurring in the magnet and just treat it as an ideal magnetic flux source for the sake of keeping this discussion focused.
If you disagree to that simplification, then object.

The only difference in ideal coil, that is, ideal inductor is that current will lag voltage by 90°.
Are you referring to the induced voltage depicted in the video from your 1st post, or to some other current and voltage from another experiment?

Anyway, I claim that the current can lag applied voltage also in non-ideal inductors (i.e. in inductors accompanied by discrete or distributed resistances, which form a basic RL circuit such as this one).
Because of that, I cannot agree with your statement above, especially with the word "only".

This does not mean current will be DC.
I talked about delayed lenz and Hanes in another thread but again this does not mean current is DC, it's AC, just delayed.
Let's enumerate situations when the induced current is unipolar and when it is bipolar. Your statement above claims that it is always bipolar.

I claim that the induced current in an ideal shorted coil being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will be:
1) unipolar when that coil enters only a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
2) unipolar when that coil enters only a region where the return-flux at the pole dominates.
3) bipolar when that coil enters both regions enumerated above.

Additionally, I claim that the induced voltage across an open coil being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will be:
4) Always bipolar, regardless whether the coil enters a region where the return flux dominates or not.

Finally, I claim that the induced current in closed RL circuit (such as a resistive coil) being swept across the pole of a permanent magnet (see the motion that I am referring to here), will:
5) approach unipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is large compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
6) bipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is small or equal compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the surface-flux at the pole dominates.
7) approach unipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is large compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the return-flux dominates.
8 ) bipolar when the L/R constant of that circuit is small or equal compared to the period of the motion and the coil enters a region where the return-flux dominates.
9) bipolar when that coil enters both the return-flux AND the surface-flux at the pole regardless of the L/R constant of that RL circuit.

Do you agree with all of the statements above. If "no" then please write me the numbers of the ones you disagree with.


You are wrong. Like i said, your confusion is rooted in that misleading animation.
I claim that this animation from prof. Belcher is correct for a shorted ideal coil and that it supports my claims.
What are your reasons for stating that this animation is wrong ?

Φ is integral of B over an area but dB/dT is commonly used as Faraday's law.
...
Two ways Faraday's law is used...
And I can invent many more expressions which reduce to magnetic flux, such as:

md^2/it^2 = Φ
RQ = Φ
vt = Φ
Li = Φ
Bd^2 = Φ
e/i = Φ
fd/i = Φ

where:
m = mass
d = distance
i = electric current
t = time
R = electric resistance
Q = charge
v = electric potential (voltage)
L = inductance
B = magnetic flux density
e = energy
f = force

I can put any of these relationships inside the Farady's law and then use them to derive the fundamental relationship between rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) and the induced voltage.
But as long as they reduce to the rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) in the end, means that Faraday's this law depends fundamentally on roc of flux and not on roc of flux density, or any of the other intermediate unreduced expressions listed above.

Practically, this means that according to this law, a voltage induced across an open coil is dependent only only on the rate of change of flux (dΦ/dt) through that coil and not on the distribution of the flux density (B) inside that coil.


I will also go even further and add, that the magnitude of the current induced in an ideal shorted coil subjected to varying external flux, DOES NOT depend on the rate of change of flux dΦ/dt. 
I claim that it only depends on the difference between the staring and ending magnitude of the external flux or ΔΦ.

Yes, I claim that in this scenario it does not matter how quickly the external flux changes and that the magnitude of the induced current (and magnitude of energy associated with this current) will be the same regardless of the speed of the motion between the coil and magnet.

Quote from: verpies
Are you claiming that this animation is incorrect for an ideal shorted coil ?
I'm saying it's irrelevant for the present discussion.
That's dodging a question - not answering it.

The present discussion is concerned with the voltage and current induced in a coil as it is subjected to varying external flux from a permanent magnet.
The animation depicts that.

Again, we are not talking superconductors.
...
You are obsessed with ideal inductor
...
We are talking real not ideal.
You cannot escape the consideration of idealized components because the scientific manner of performing a detailed analysis of a complex system is to decompose its complex behavior into a complex arrangement of simple behaviors.
I will discuss with you the resistive component of a real coil once we come to a consensus about the behavior of the purely inductive coil.

Yes it does, any point has an opposite point.
That geometrical opposition with respect to to a 3rd point - not an opposite point in an electric circuit such as a shorted ideal coil which does not even have a reference point.

more power" means more energy per unit of time,
I agree with that. Formally power it is the rate of change of energy. That "change" can refer the transfer of energy or to its conversion (e.g. into heat).

..it is actually perfectly correct,
Not in this context because you wrote that:
...power is consumed
And when the definition of power is substituted into that statement then you get a nonsensical one statement like:
"rate of change of energy is consumed"

What i said is not bad terminology...
That expression is used all over the engineering world.
Yes it is bad. You used a colloquialism which conflated power and energy....and then you tried to excuse it with Argumentum ad Numerum.

Very ironic from someone making so many mistakes who makes himself look exactly that, careless and ignorant.
So be precise with your terminology and don't conflate power and energy in your statements anymore, even of most of the lay people do it routinely.

You were trying to imply i don't know the difference between reactive and real power, when i actually understand it better than you do.
No, I was pointing out that the energy of imaginary (reactive) current is dissipated (converted to heat) by the real component of impedance (resistance).

...power is consumed by inductive reactance.
Even if I correct your first mistake by substituting "energy" for "power" and write:
"...energy is consumed by inductive reactance".

That statement is still wrong because Inductive Reactance is the imaginary component of impedance and as such it cannot "consume" the energy associated with the reactive current.
To consume/dissipate that energy as heat a real resistance is required.
Only then the equation for the dissipated power Pdissipated=Ri^2 applies. 
The same equation with the inductive reactance (XL) substituted for the real resistance (R) is false, in mathspeak: Pdissipated<>Xi^2.

...all i meant was that reactive power consumes copper losses.
You are using imprecise terminology again.
First of all the phrase "power consumes" is wrong, because power cannot consume anything.
Also, in this context to "consume" means to "dissipate as heat" or to "convert to heat" since energy cannot be destroyed.
The phenomenon responsible for the conversion of electric energy in this case is the resistance of the copper (the real component of impedance) according to Pdissipated=Ri^2.
So your statement should be corrected as follows:
"...all I meant was that the resistance of the copper dissipates/consumes/converts the energy associated with the reactive current".

you have not even mentioned the key point, 90° phase shift of voltage and current, i had to do it for you.
I did not mention a whole lot of things, which I know, but what of it?
Also, why do you think that the 90° phase shift of voltage and current is a key point in the experiment depicted in that video in your original post, that deserved to be mentioned ?

Again, we are not talking ideal coils.
...
Again, this is not a thread about superconductors, if you want to discuss them open a thread of your own.
...
Every point on a normal coil has it's opposite point and pressure between the two is 1/2 the overall pressure/voltage. Again the superconductors..eh.
...
It's not being imprecise, it's only that you misinterpret things or use extreme cases like superconductors.
You are reacting to it as if I was changing the subject but the decomposition of complex phenomena into a complex arrangement of simple phenomena is a basic tool of science.
I am not opposed to adding the behavior and properties of resistance to ideal coils to later obtain the behavior and properties of real coils. But first we need to discuss these phenomena individually, because if we don't agree about the basic phenomena, how can we agree about their combination ?

Change of direction of flux is sudden, see the beginning of the video.
"Sudden" is a very relative concept.  All I claim is that the function of flux's direction vs. position is continuous and passes through zero.

Oscilloscope in the video proves you wrong. There are no "stops", as voltage from side flux ends immediately the voltage from main central flux begins.
...
Oscilloscope shows exactly what happens. No need to repeat it.
No, they don't prove me wrong. The picture displayed by the scope simply does not show everything as it depends on the setting of its time base.
Noting happens "immediately" and the direction of the flux, which is integrated by the coil's contour. Flux cannot reverse instantaneously nor without crossing the zero magnitude.

You just repeated what i said in unnecessarily complicated manner altho what happens is very simple and clear.
Simple? I think Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger need you for their studies.

Have you ever performed tests on superconducting coil?
Yes

So do not pollute this thread with your mislead "theories".
Would you like to be left alone in blissful ignorance ?

It's you who is confused about inductive and resistive phenomena in general and in combination.
Since you acknowledge at all, that there is a "combination" of phenomena at play in the experiment performed in the video linked in your original post, so why do thou protest so much at my attempts to discuss these component phenomena individually with you?

Ironically, i understand them better than you do.
The jury is still out, but they are watching...

learn about voltage-current phase shift in reactive circuits
Talking about ideal inductor without mentioning this is ridiculous.
...
You didn't even know about voltage leading current by 90° in ideal inductor, the key point.
Do you mean the voltage induced in that experiment referred to in your original post, where a coil is swept in front of a magnet's pole and of which you have posted this scopeshot ?

Also, asserting the knowledge of my knowledge is a pretty arrogant statement without telepathy. You would not write that if you read my other posts on this forum on the subject.

Like i said, start with single wire in a magnetic field, see how Lorentz force, that is, Laplace force acts on it,
I agree with the existence Laplace force but the force exerted on a current carrying wire (such as a coil) when immersed in magnetic flux is a new subject.
I though we ware limiting our conversation only to the induced voltage and current in coils.

I don't think we need to discus this because we both agree about the existence, magnitude and direction of the force exerted on a current carrying wire

And sky is blue.
Only half of the time ...at most

 

OneLink