author=MileHigh link=topic=8341.msg480177#msg480177 date=1460330737]


MileHigh

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.

Phase shift
1-a change in the phase of a waveform.
2- any change that occurs in the phase of one quantity, or in the phase difference between two or more quantities
3- to shift sine and cosine curves either left or right. This is known as phase shift.
What dose in and out of phase mean?
1-being or happening in (or out of) synchrony or harmony.
2-having or in the same (or different) phase or stage of variation.
It would appear MH that you got it wrong again.
If current rises and fall in a primary coil at the same time it rises and fall in the secondary coil,then there current relationship is in phase. If the primaries current rises and falls before the secondaries current,then there current relationship is out of phase.
Why do you keep posting these falsehoods ?.

It's just like using the terms "North" and "South" for describing magnetic fields when in reality neither "North" or "South" even exist.

Well you should give each end of a magnet a name MH,that denotes exactly what each end of a magnet is. First describe as to why 1 end of 1 magnet will attract to 1 end of another magnet,but will repel the opposite end of that other magnet. If it is a flow of something,then what is that flow?
If there is now flow of anything,then what is it that surrounds a PM that is able to provide a force that is equal and opposite to that of which your hands are supplying when trying to push two apposing fields together?.

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.

Hang on a minute
Quote:-->phase shift" is not even real - there is no phase shift
Well this is a mystery .We are looking for things that don't exist

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.

Oop's MH--you not listening to the video's again? 4:48--voltage set to RMS value by FG voltage limiting function

That's a fail that he should never have done, he should have known better.

Fail actually on your behalf--again MH.
See scope shots below.
Scope shot 1-->no oscillating magnet.
Scope shot two-->with oscillating magnet.

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.

Doh--there is that !!phase!! that dose not exist-apparently 
By the way-i did check it,it was one of the first thing's i did when i started of on these experiment's.
But just so as you are happy,i put the small DUT back together to get you your scope shots--see below,as stated above.

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.

Wrong again MH
But your getting good at this lol.--->see scope shots below.

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.

Oh dear--wrong again-->see scope shots bellow.

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.

Looks like i am a true experimenter ,as i did all this long ago.
I have told MH many time's before,that you do not see all that i have done in previous experiments. To fit everything i have done into one video--well you guys would be needing many beer's and bags of popcorn.

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.

Oh-there is those non existent phases again
See scope shots below.

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.

Perhaps i could borrow that earth quake monitor from you,from the moon landing thread MH?.

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

Indeed MH-indeed

Brad

Do you agree that Faradays Law is entirely dependant on the accurate measurement of the Angle of, and Quantity of B?

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

PW, lost for words? Or just lost?

I have already answered all your questions in Image form previously.

Would you be so courteous?

   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

Tinman posts a schematic and two scope captures.
TK responds that the capture showing the 90 degree phase difference is correct

I will clear this bit up.
I posted only one schematic with one scope shot,and asked minnie if the wave form was correct for the schematic.(he did not answer of course),but TK did,and said it was correct.
The second wave form was added only after EMJ said it should be 180* out of phase-not 90* as the first scope shot showed,and only after TK had already answered the question,and performed his experiments--so i added the wave form with the magnetic oscillator in play with the supplied schematic to give a wave form that represented what EMJ said it should be.. As seen in my video,both wave forms came from the same electrical circuit,but the one that shows the secondaries EMF 180* out from the primaries current,is with the magnetic oscillator in play--the mechanical side of the device is now in play. But a note on that. The secondaries EMF is not 180* out of phase with the primaries current,it is actually in phase now,as the external magnetic field(the PM) rises before current starts to flow through the primary coil-->this is the odd thing i am asking others to consider,as it is the primary coils current/magnetic field that is the source that oscillates the PM and stand.

Anyway-just wanted to clear up the fact that the question was asked and answered before the second scope shot was in play. MH added to the confusion by insisting that the second scope shot was of importance--some sort of loaded question-,but as it was not anything to do with the original question,it was of no importance at all.


Brad

I will clear this bit up.
I posted only one schematic with one scope shot,and asked minnie if the wave form was correct for the schematic.(he did not answer of course),but TK did,and said it was correct.
The second wave form was added only after EMJ said it should be 180* out of phase-not 90* as the first scope shot showed,and only after TK had already answered the question,and performed his experiments--so i added the wave form with the magnetic oscillator in play with the supplied schematic to give a wave form that represented what EMJ said it should be.. As seen in my video,both wave forms came from the same electrical circuit,but the one that shows the secondaries EMF 180* out from the primaries current,is with the magnetic oscillator in play--the mechanical side of the device is now in play. But a note on that. The secondaries EMF is not 180* out of phase with the primaries current,it is actually in phase now,as the external magnetic field(the PM) rises before current starts to flow through the primary coil-->this is the odd thing i am asking others to consider,as it is the primary coils current/magnetic field that is the source that oscillates the PM and stand.

Anyway-just wanted to clear up the fact that the question was asked and answered before the second scope shot was in play. MH added to the confusion by insisting that the second scope shot was of importance--some sort of loaded question-,but as it was not anything to do with the original question,it was of no importance at all.


Brad

Brad, this is not true:

I then posted the Image:

I guess, no one reads my posts properly, this is where assumed falsitys are interpreted?

Too Long?

Too much information?

It must have been ONLY TK that read my posts properly as then he posted the equation for Faradays Law... Isnt that sad, the only person to read my posts properly, is the one that I have chosen to correct and prompt for a Correction.


   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org