Hello Charlie,
I appreciate your interest in Magnetic Permeability and your invention, what-ever it may be.
Alright, I looked long and hard at the reason you say my machine, as I have described it, would not work.
(In short, a transformer possessing a ferromagnetic core that uses resonant frequencies to achieve more energy out than energy in
using the total organizable electric current of ferromagnetic atoms that results in a switchable and magnified magnetic field
and the properties of forced resonance which results in increasing the magnitude of motion of the ferromagnetic atoms.)
I do have a hard time with the CANCEL out thing.
I am very suspicious that a transformer takes more energy out of a primary whether a load is on it or not.
I had to learn more about transformers... and a few things just don't make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer1. Since the efficiency of a transformer is hard to calculate... ? ? (VI = P in vs. VI = P out) THEY instead refer to the
hysterisis loop of the core & loss in copper windings to get an effieciency #. Which happens to be around 99 %.
A pretty damn impressive # in and of itself.
But it is Very, Very Misleading...
That is, one would assume the efficiency has to to with the ratio of power in vs. power out..
This is the very thing we, at overunity.com, are concerned about by definition.
Yet THEY quote the efficiency of the device that I claim ADDS ENERGY to the situation + the resistance of copper windings (give me a break).
That device being the ferromagnetic material used in the core.
Hmm, Hmm, Hmm.
Why in God's name would they do this?
Perhaps, just perhaps... the energy required to run a transformer is equal to what 2 coils would be?
Adding a piece of metal to the equation cannot add energy under conservation laws.
and.. YET IT DOES. Conundrum.
I conjecture this is one of the reasons a misleading number is quoted...that conservation laws would then be violated .(whoo whoo and flashing lights)
Another reason has to with frequency which I will get to later. (perhaps in another comment, as I need to investigate this phenomenon a bit more)
Suffice it to say that Voltage increases in the secondary as Frequency increases in the primary.
2. Then is mentioned (in the wiki article on transformers) that V in = V out... I in = I out... therefore P in = P out. Where IN is the primary and OUT is the
secondary. V is Voltage, I is Current and P is Power. P=IV or PIV as I like to say.
Not only that, but a resistance R on the secondary side will produce a resistance R*(ratio of windings) on primary side (and vise versa, reciprocate ratio.)
Fine, if these are the "rules" lets break it down for a "transformer" with equal windings on the primary and secondary.
This means that R is going to be the same on both sides. That's what THEY say..
But first this...
I remember a question on a physics test in College. I was one of the only ones in class to get it right. It's a simple question.
What household appliance has greater resistance, an electric stove or digital alarm clock?
Answer... Digital Alarm Clock
The reason is V=IR. The current needed to power a clock is way less than needed to power the stove.
Therefore, according to ohms law, the resistance of the clock is way more than the resistance of the stove.
This is not an intuitive answer because resistance implies energy used.
Resistance takes energy (swimming against the current)... going with the flow does not (swimming with the current).
Anyways as R goes up, I goes down in a circuit for any given Voltage. V = I *R
To be more clear... the higher the resistance... the less the current.
As that dude Archer would say... Do we agree with this? lol
Yes or No.
Now Power... what needs to to be compared, is P = I * V PIV as aformentioned.
So now we would agree... that when voltage is constant.. more Current equals more Power...less Current equals less Power?
Yes or No ?
Finally, there is the aforementioned coils (of exact equal dimensions) sitting next to each other.
The secondary is not hooked up to anything.. this means 0 electrons are flowing which means the I = 0..
The primary is hooked up to ... lets say 110 AC Volt at a frequency of 60 Hz.
Because P (primary) = P (secondary) this means that VI (primary) = VI ( secondary)
Do we agree ...Yes or No?
If you have agreed to this, you have also agreed that NO POWER is being consumed in the primary of a transformer
when the secondary is not hooked up to anything !
That is, P of the Secondary has to be 0 since no electrons are flowing, therefore P of the Primary must be 0.
P=IV No electrons moving, no power.
In other words, THE LAW that states all must be equal and no energy extra energy can come from unrecognized sources,
then postulates that NO CURRENT will flow in the primary.
I DISAGREE.
Ever heard of a wall vampire?
It's the black square transformer used to transfer 120 V AC to smaller DC voltages which are used by cell phones and a jillion other things.
According to LAW, these devices should use NO POWER when not hooked up... YET THEY DO.
There are People Laws now about building a circuit in transformers to detect if the secondary is loaded, so that current is only used when it is hooked up
to something. Apparently, MANY watts of power are wasted each year due to the fact that Transformers DO NOT consume less power when the secondary is
not loaded or bear a very high resistance.
This is a direct contradiction to P(of primary) equals P(of secondary).
I say, simply...that the secondary of a transformer is a reciever. No different than a radio reciever.
There is simply no way for a radio transmitter to have any idea how many radios are tuning in (interestingly enough... with resonant tuned circuits).
The truth is, the primary of a transformer always consumes the same power no matter what is hooked up to the secondary.
I realize this statement flies in the face of many people, laws and agendas...
however I am an Observer not influenced by others, always thinking for myself.
So, perhaps I have overlooked something, but I have not accepted what someone else said on the surface.
For that I am satisfied.
Please think about this and the loudspeaker example mentioned previously.
Ferromagnetic materials (including magnets) have energy that can be tapped into, and are everyday.
It just isn't recognized as such.
May you perceive that which is true,
The Observer