Wow, look at this so cool:  Just like sitting in class with a virtual blackboard.

https://www.khanacademy.org/math/differential-calculus/taking-derivatives/derivatives-of-common-functions/v/derivatives-of-sin-x-cos-x-tan-x-e-x-and-ln-x

'e' is just so damn cool!  (And you see it in action on your scope display about 75% of the time when you are playing with your circuits.)

Twas spelt like this when I went to school !! 

"Coulomb's law, or Coulomb's inverse-square law"

Typo?

Cheers Grum.

Heir Heir - Nice Catch Grum!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Is part of the answer in the parts underlined in red....emphasis on "part"?

The proper relations need to be made, and there are parts missing.......my opinion...

Wanted to add one thing.....


Consumption decrease is the indication that the circuit is governed by the negative effects associated with opposition to change in flux and or current.  This is not something I look for, as it limits system effectiveness.  It seems like a good thing, consumption dropping and the output going up, however, in reality (as I interpret it), the input is working against the self induced (standard), and the boost in the output of the secondary, could be summed up to there being at least two augmenting induced currents operating in the secondary.



Regards

Erfinder is completely correct again. Also stating that this is "Part" of whats going on is a clever way to say, Brad, you have Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction occuring from two different Sources and both have their own Phase difference!

As a comparision, an LC Tank circuit when in resonance, is 180 degrees out of phase from Voltage to Current! In other words, a Highly Reactive Circuit.

Is this starting to make more sense yet?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

And still silence from those that should not!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Sometimes we get great choral arrangements from the Choir of One Hand Clapping.

Brad and TK are still 100% correct in what they are telling you about a setup with a transformer input being driven by a sine wave and the output being unloaded and you are just measuring the unloaded EMF output on the secondary coil.  Copy and paste as much as you may, but your problem is that you actually have to understand what you are pasting and when, where, and how to apply it.

As I alluded to before, the "phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift.  It's just an abstraction we use to make it easier to describe sinusoidal-type waveforms you see on your scope display.  It's just like using the terms "North" and "South" for describing magnetic fields when in reality neither "North" or "South" even exist.

Now, moving on to Brad's latest clip, now things start to change and you observe different types of phase shifts depending on what is going on.

Unfortunately, Brad makes a huge mistake in that clip.  At 14:43 in the clip he says, "We've decreased our power input to the primary, we've increased the power output from our secondary."

He actually never even measured the power input to the primary.  All that he did was monitor the current flow through the primary.  That's a fail that he should never have done, he should have known better.  He did not measure the input voltage to the primary and more importantly, he did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current on the primary so that he could properly measure the input power.  It's pretty clear that when he went from just driving the single load resistor to driving the load resistor and the vibrating metal post and associated magnet, that the phase shift between the voltage and the current decreased considerably, and the real power power consumption went up.

Behind that is another issue that I have mentioned to Brad repeatedly but I don't think it has ever stuck and registered with him.  By adding the vibrating metal post and associated magnet to the system, the electro-mechanical impedance of the system went down, and the corresponding power consumption of the system went up.

So, if you were a "true experimenter" and really wanted to know what is happening, you would redo the experiment with your secondary scope channel across the input coil to measure the voltage and phase, and with a decent multimeter across the load resistor to measure the voltage.   That would put you in a decent position to make your measurements, and occasionally you could put the secondary channel of the scope across the load resistor to make spot checks on the phase there also.  Then you would record the waveforms and phases and power flows for every component in the system for the case without the metal post and with the metal post.  You would do a power audit in both cases and account for all of the power flow in both cases.  The most interesting measurement that could be made, directly or possibly indirectly, would be how much mechanical vibrational power is flowing into Brad's bench.  He mentions this in his clip.  It's safe to consider the power flow into the bench as being a "perfect impedance match" or a "power sink" with no vibrational power returning back into the vibrating post.  However, don't hold your breath.

MileHigh

And still silence from those that should not!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Let's recap...

Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.

One capture shows a 90 degree phase difference between primary CURRENT and the open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.

The second capture shows a difference of 180 degrees between primary CURRENT and open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.

Tinman asks "which capture is correct?"

TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct, as determined by his empirical study (replication) and by his very lucid argument invoking Faraday by stating that the primary current is a fairly accurate proxy for the magnetic flux and that when the rate of change of that flux is at its minimum so will the secondary voltage be at its minimum.

Tinman also states that his empirical study demonstrated that the 90 degree phase shift was indeed correct  and, as well, also invokes Faraday in further support of his empirical results.

EMJ apparently disagrees with TK and Tinman and claims that the capture showing the 180 degree phase shift is correct, making one wonder if EMJ actually understands the question as presented.  It seems more likely he is arguing about the primary VOLTAGE instead of primary CURRENT, but perhaps not...

In EMJ's post 1585, he presents an ideal transformer graphic supposedly in support of his 180 degree phase shift assertion regarding Tinman's question that only further causes one to wonder if he actually understood Tinman's question, his schematic, his scope captures, or none at all.  The ideal transformer graphic presented appears to be discussing primary voltage (not current) and does not indicate an open secondary.

EMJ in his post #1562 appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman via presentation of a graphic clearly stating that Faraday does indeed state that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux.  Which, reasonably, also indicates that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the time rate of change is also at its minimum (as both TK and Tinman reasoned in further support of their empirical data).

EMJ again appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman by presenting the copy/paste of a textbook page several times now similar to his post #1658.  In that copy pasta is a "Figure 10.14".  The caption to that figure clearly states that the open circuit primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees and that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux which, therefore, also lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees.  This clearly supports TK's original response to Tinman's question. 

So, at this point I have no idea what it is EMJ is arguing for or against.

EMJ seems to argue that the empirical data both TK and Tinman presented is incorrect and that instead, the open circuit secondary voltage should differ from the primary current by 180 degrees.  But EMJ also presents data clearly stating that the correct answer is 90 degrees.

EMJ also apparently disagrees with both TK and Tinman's assertion that, from Faraday, it can be deduced that the secondary voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (as indicated by the primary current) is also at is minimum.  But again, EMJ posts material also agreeing with TK and Tinman's assertion that Faraday does indeed indicate the induced voltage is proportional to magnetic flux and that the primary current is indeed a fairly accurate proxy representative of magnetic flux.

Perhaps someone else can sort this out...

PW

Let's recap...

Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.

One capture shows a 90 degree phase difference between primary CURRENT and the open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.

The second capture shows a difference of 180 degrees between primary CURRENT and open circuit secondary VOLTAGE.

Tinman asks "which capture is correct?"

TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct, as determined by his empirical study (replication) and by his very lucid argument invoking Faraday by stating that the primary current is a fairly accurate proxy for the magnetic flux and that when the rate of change of that flux is at its minimum so will the secondary voltage be at its minimum.

Tinman also states that his empirical study demonstrated that the 90 degree phase shift was indeed correct  and, as well, also invokes Faraday in further support of his empirical results.

EMJ apparently disagrees with TK and Tinman and claims that the capture showing the 180 degree phase shift is correct, making one wonder if EMJ actually understands the question as presented.  It seems more likely he is arguing about the primary VOLTAGE instead of primary CURRENT, but perhaps not...

In EMJ's post 1585, he presents an ideal transformer graphic supposedly in support of his 180 degree phase shift assertion regarding Tinman's question that only further causes one to wonder if he actually understood Tinman's question, his schematic, his scope captures, or none at all.  The ideal transformer graphic presented appears to be discussing primary voltage (not current) and does not indicate an open secondary.

EMJ in his post #1562 appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman via presentation of a graphic clearly stating that Faraday does indeed state that the induced voltage is directly proportional to the time rate of change of the magnetic flux.  Which, reasonably, also indicates that the induced voltage will be at its minimum when the time rate of change is also at its minimum (as both TK and Tinman reasoned in further support of their empirical data).

EMJ again appears to argue in support of both TK and Tinman by presenting the copy/paste of a textbook page several times now similar to his post #1658.  In that copy pasta is a "Figure 10.14".  The caption to that figure clearly states that the open circuit primary current lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees and that the primary current is mainly responsible for the magnetic flux which, therefore, also lags the primary voltage by 90 degrees.  This clearly supports TK's original response to Tinman's question. 

So, at this point I have no idea what it is EMJ is arguing for or against.

EMJ seems to argue that the empirical data both TK and Tinman presented is incorrect and that instead, the open circuit secondary voltage should differ from the primary current by 180 degrees.  But EMJ also presents data clearly stating that the correct answer is 90 degrees.

EMJ also apparently disagrees with both TK and Tinman's assertion that, from Faraday, it can be deduced that the secondary voltage will be at its minimum when the rate of change of the magnetic flux (as indicated by the primary current) is also at is minimum.  But again, EMJ posts material also agreeing with TK and Tinman's assertion that Faraday does indeed indicate the induced voltage is proportional to magnetic flux and that the primary current is indeed a fairly accurate proxy representative of magnetic flux.

Perhaps someone else can sort this out...

PW

PW - Clearly you have entirely missed the very specific point of the current debate as you completely circumvented it. Why?

You claim I have bought into question, Brads Circuit, scope shots of it, and the replications of it, when this is entirely fase! Why?

True or False: Faraday's Law Electromagnetic Induction does not and never will predict Circuit Reactance

Please just answer the question! Can you manage something like this:

False

PW

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

Here is a video showing the effects of an oscillating magnetic field against transformer action.
How dose the oscillating magnet allow so much more power dissipation,while reducing the power to the source that drives the oscillating system.

Comments and thoughts welcome from all.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlb79xSh93w

Brad

 

One thing. Not sure.  Does it matter if the secondary is wound first under the primary or as you have it. Just wondering if the effects would be any different.

Mags