Wattsup:



MileHigh

With respect to your moaning and groaning about conventional EE and your "spintronics magic" - deliver some goods.  Do something practical that shows all of this talk has some merit.

Oh no--no way wattsup--no moaning and groaning on this thread please

You have a point about the back and forth arguing in the thread.  That's life and it happens sometimes.  Believe me, sometimes you almost want to pull your hair out when you see two sides of an argument on this forum.

Here is a dose of reality for you:  You are the other person along with EMJ that couldn't answer a very simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single component.  EMJ has been "doing something" on his bench for about 10 years and I assume that it's roughly the same ballpark for you.  So you have been winding coils, experimenting with coils, talking about coils, watching other people doing experiments with coils, and proposing alternative theories about coils for years and years - and yet you were completely lost just like EMJ and couldn't answer a simple question about a circuit that consisted of a power supply and one single coil.
So I think it's justified to say that and give you some perspective and frankly put you in your place.  The world of EE and the science and physics behind it consists of something like five lifetimes worth of knowledge when you look at the entire body of knowledge.  No single person can know it all.  And here you are a bench tinkerer that has some radical unproven theories that you have been reading somewhere in cyberspace and you probably still don't understand how an inductor truly works, just like EMJunkie doesn't understand how an inductor truly works.
So complain if you want to, but also know that from a different perspective you are a "lost soul."  A "lost soul" just like the lay people that think that Solar Roadways are awesome and expect to see that "technology" deployed on highways.  If you want to show something that backs up your theories that truly is unique and brings value to the table, that would be great.  But don't be surprised if when you do show something that it will feel like a carpet being pulled from up under your feet when some knowledgeable people tell you what is _really_ happening in what you demonstrate, and not what you think is happening.

OK book guru--it's your turn now.
Time for you to answer a question,using your wonderful books

So many times you have asked others to answer your questions,so now it's your turn Mr wine glass.

I proved you wrong in regards to external resonant systems around ICEs that improve efficiency's.
I proved you wrong in regards to internal resonant systems within ICEs.
I proved you wrong about the simple J/FET--oh wait,sorry,i got that worng-->you proved your self wrong on that one
So now lets see how your books go explaining my latest little gadget.
You posted your reply regarding my video,but my response,along with the scope shot's showed once again that you got it all wrong--post 1807--which i see you are yet to make a counter reply on.

We have eliminated from post 1738
1-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."
As we know by watching the video,and looking at the two scope shots below,i made no mistake,and we are indeed reducing the P/in.
2-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.
Actually,i did know better,and as the voltage was set,and there was no phase shift between voltage and current in the primary,then current was all we had to view to know that the P/in was either increasing or decreasing
3-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.
Yes he did,it just wasnt on the video--things we do outside of video's,so what we say in the video's is correct
4- 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.
How do you know that the voltage and currents phase shifted,when you just stated above that i did not check the phase between the input voltage and the input current--what are you talking about here MH?. Anyway,it is clear that the real power power consumption went down--as can be seen in the scope shots below.
5-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,
Already done--scope shots below.

Now,lets see your books and laws work that one out MH--and remember,this is a very simple setup that anyone can make,and verify my results-i think Mags already has--not sure on that though.

Your so happy to sit there and criticize my work--point out faults that don't exist ,dismiss PMs being able to do any work--then lets see your books explain the result's.

The P/in for each test-without and with the oscillating magnet are there in the scope shot's. Voltage and current is in phase--easy to calculate P/in.
P/out from the secondary is there in the video for both cases--so work it out MH-give ya books a good work over,and see what you come up with.
The change in inductance test was done in the video,and clearly shows that with the large laminated block increasing the inductance by a huge factor,still did not come close to the results of the oscillating magnet. So we can rule out any inductance increase. Then along with that fact,and there being no phase shift between voltage and current,or no change in frequency,and also the frequency being very low,and resistance staying the same,would take care of any sort of change in impedance or reactance.
So what else do your books have MH?


Brad

Brad:

It's just the same old communication and language skills problem that you have.  You make a 14-minute clip and you never once mention anything about measuring the voltage phase on the coil.  It's a bloody coil and people are always concerned about the power factor when you are driving a coil.  It's a front and center issue, and you can't be bothered to mention a single thing about it, it's ridiculous.  GOOD PRACTICES in a lab Brad, GOOD PRACTICES.  I thought that you slipped and forgot about it.

I saw the load resistor and only gave it a second thought.  That was a mistake because you only have to put a small load on a transformer secondary for the primary voltage and current to go in phase.  I realized that with 20-20 hindsight after seeing the scope captures that you posted.  Again, that was information that you should have put in your clip.  So what are you going to do now, wank over that?   Are you going to say it 20 times?  Go get yourself a big box of Kleenex.  You provided incomplete information and with more information I got a clearer picture and realize after the fact that it makes sense that the voltage and current would be in phase for both without the vibrating post and with the vibrating post.  So get you hot little hand ready.

Now, do you want to do a "real" experiment?  Do you have a photocell?  Just set up a photocell and light source and scope it along with your voltage trace and find out what the phase is like for the vibrating post below the resonant frequency, at the resonant frequency, and above the resonant frequency.  Then just make a simple test on the EMF generation in the coil for when post approaches the coil and when it recedes away from the coil.  Since the current decreases at the resonant frequency, my updated theory is that the vibrating post is just adding to the inductance of the coil.  In effect, the vibrating post is a mechanical extension of the electrical coil and acts like a mechanical inductor that adds to the electrical inductor.  A scope and a photocell and some tests will tell you exactly what is going on.

If I recall for the load resistor the voltage changes in both amplitude and phase from no vibrating post to with a vibrating post.  When you do your investigations you will need to explain this also.

You know exactly what the input power is in both cases, it's a no-brainer.  So you can go ahead and do a full power audit in both cases and see exactly where the power is flowing and account for all of it.  Right now it's looking like the vibrating post is dissipating relatively little power, it's just a mechanical reactor.  Previously, I thought the vibrating post was dissipating much more power.

So the proof is in the pudding for the measurements and the correct interpretation of the measurements.  You seem to be suggesting that "something unusual" might be happening.  I am not 100% sure if you are saying that, but I have seen you state the same thing before for similar cases to this.  You would be a fool if you actually believed that, this is just a simple test where everything is doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing, no more, no less.

So if you make your measurements and account for where all of the input power is going in both cases, and if you can demonstrate that the vibrating post is acting like an inductive mechanical reactor that is adding to the inductance of the coil, and you can account for the changes for the load resistor, then you would be in pretty good shape.  You should be able to make a very good inference for how much mechanical power is being dissipated in your bench also.

Then, if all goes well, you should WRITE IT UP.  I know that's a shocker for you.  You can accumulate all of your power measurements and make some timing diagrams and then post it.  That would be a successful experiment.  You demo two setups, without the vibrating post, and with the vibrating post, and then post your results and offer your conclusions.

Now that would be a very very pleasant shock for one and all, and many would learn a lot from your TRUE experiment.  You should push yourself and effectively communicate your findings for this experiment and sum everything up in a nice tidy posting with ALL of the relevant information and your conclusions.

MileHigh

Tinman ,You say "As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->"

The field is in constant motion, so how can there be no changing in time? I agree with everything else you said but, I think the part about zero EMF , the cross-over of the rule about current direction in a conductor, depending on magnetic polarity, Is instantaneous, It doesn't so much go to zero ,it just flips polarity, and works in the opposite, If max + is 12V ,It switches to max -12v and as the magnets leaves the -12v goes back up to zero.

Tinman ,You say "As we approach the coil of wire with the PM(PM field rising in the coil of wire),the EMF across that coil will increase in one polarity. As the PM reaches the middle of the coil,there is no longer an increase in magnetic field strength(magnetic field no longer changing in time),and at this point,the EMF across the coil will be 0volts. As the PM leaves that coil,an EMF of the opposite polarity will form across that coil,as the magnetic field is once again changing in time.--->"

The field is in constant motion, so how can there be no changing in time? I agree with everything else you said but, I think the part about zero EMF , the cross-over of the rule about current direction in a conductor, depending on magnetic polarity, Is instantaneous, It doesn't so much go to zero ,it just flips polarity, and works in the opposite, If max + is 12V ,It switches to max -12v and as the magnets leaves the -12v goes back up to zero.

At the very point in change of polarity for the EMF,is the very point in time the magnetic flux has reached it's maximum value,and the very point in time the magnetic field is not changing in time.
At theses very points in time,the EMF(voltage) value will be 0,as no matter how short the time period,there must come a point of a 0 EMF(volt) value during that change in polarity.
When we use the speed of light as a reference,this 0 EMF value can be quite long in that frame of reference--like with low speed generators.

As a magnet approaches the coil,you will get a rise in EMF,and this EMF across that coil will peak before the magnet reaches the center of the coils core. When the magnet is directly at the center of the core(as in my previous diagram-below) the EMF across the coil will be 0,as the magnetic flux through the core is at it's maximum. As the magnet leaves the core,an EMF will once again start to develop across the coil,but with the opposite polarity. The maximum amplitude of this EMF will be produce some degree's after TDC,not at TDC,as at TDC the EMF is 0.


Brad

unfortunately for you MH,that diagram you modified to show the wave form is incorrect.

You really do not know that much about induction--do you.

Brad

You've gone full bonkers and you are still wanking away.

The past several pages have been quite revealing
psychologically as the "struggle for dominance" has
become increasingly transparent.  It seems that Miles
has acquired a small following of "groupies" to augment
his efforts.  This is not too surprising as Miles is an
accomplished wordsmith with considerable persuasive
skill.

The "opposition" though is holding up well and making
a good accounting of its prowess as the struggle evolves.

It looks as though the tailspin leading to the crash of the
weaker arguments is taking shape.  Will there be a recovery?

Carry on gentlemen - this may be a new record for length of
discourse.  And, it is entertaining too!

When in a panic, just say "Aardvark."

There you go Brad.  I made it very clear to you that posting the proper rotor/magnet/timing diagram was not for me at all.  Yet you played the "spoon feeding" card against me which is nothing more than a distraction to try to take attention away from your poor presentation and communication skills.

The proper diagram is for someone like Shylo, because he would be easily confused by your two incorrect diagrams.  I uploaded the correct diagram and now you can explain it to him.

Dear minnie.
As you think i need some lessons in basic laws of induction,do you agree with MHs modification of my diagram,or do you believe my diagram is correct?.

Time for you to answer minnie--no chicken shitting this time.


Brad

Wine Glass Questions - Answered

How does a wine glass resonate, what is the mechanism?

The wine glass resonates by cycling energy back and forth between two forms, kinetic energy and potential energy.  The instant when the glass is not deformed, the glass is moving at a maximum velocity and all of the energy is stored as kinetic energy in the form of a moving mass.  The instant when the glass is at its maximum deformation, the glass has stopped moving and all of the energy is stored as potential energy in the form of a compressed spring.  In between these two states, the energy is stored as combination of kinetic energy and potential energy.

How is the resonant frequency of a wine glass determined?

The resonant frequency of a wine glass is determined by a combination of the effective moving mass of the glass and the effective stiffness of the glass interacting with each other.  The higher the effective moving mass of the glass, the lower the resonant frequency.  The higher the effective stiffness the glass, the higher the resonant frequency.

Lol.