Well I have made thousands of postings filled with good solid information and in the earlier days I helped people understand their circuits all the time.

Indeed you have.
And whether you choose to believe it or not,i am truly grateful for this.

My biggest peeve MH,is you jumping on everything i say,and then try to prove me wrong on it--along with all the un-needed name calling and vulgarity. I will give back what i think i am given unfairly,but i will not go as far as you have. Feel free to call me names,but remember there are youngsters reading these forums.


Brad

Johan, your peers should be embarrassed and frankly horrified by your behaviour and you should be flagged for that.

Mine SORRY, really, when I did in some way that did hurt you, again SORRY!

But when you talk so about Karma, we all would / did think you understand that part!?

Try, to stand between you're both polarities, and look queer, not for me, for you, ALL, only real loving menthe.

My biggest peeve MH,is you jumping on everything i say,and then try to prove me wrong on it--along with all the un-needed name calling and vulgarity. I will give back what i think i am given unfairly,but i will not go as far as you have. Feel free to call me names,but remember there are youngsters reading these forums.

Brad

You know that I read your postings where you tried to answer the questions.  So why did you accuse me of not reading them?

Je suis Charlie.

Meaning this?

The questions were answered correctly.  It's not my fault that you can't understand or are ignorant of how a simple academic question is typically posed and expected to be answered.  Or you do understand and you are just making a fool of yourself.  Either option is not good for you, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is the first one.

Cite your own postings.  We both know I read your postings and you came up short and couldn't answer the questions.  And it looks like you embellished the stuff about elasticity and massaged it into something more correct and along the lines of what I wrote.  I seriously doubt that you sounded that coherent in your original posting.  I am not 100% sure but that's what it feels like to me.  I dare you to prove me wrong in both cases.

Unfortunately for you MH,most everyone here is saying the same thing--your answers were not accurate,nor correct.
That may be hard for you to take,but it is the truth.
You simply do not get to change things around to suit your need to be correct.


Brad.

MH
You keep quoting Karma
and yet your motives for this entire Wineglass fiasco are quite obvious ,and have zero to do with teaching or doing the right thing
and everything to do with "look at me"  and Bow to my superiority ...

as Johan has stated "Your Karma is queer" and just as revolting ...[the Guy in the Pic]
a fraud and a PHONY !!

when you pretend to know something and place yourself in authority [what you seem to live for]
and you tell a man he's stupid and ignorant because he does not understand ,which is EXACTLY
what you did here to Brad ...
and you have no idea what you are talking about ...which is EXACTLY what happened here.

you shovel heaps of Karma

and YOU NO LONGER CAN BE TRUSTED AS AN AUTHORITY !!

and you can take THAT to the bank !!

end of story !!

QUEER KARMA indeed !
and here is one of YOUR favorite quotes

"bow your head in Shame "









But we Must Forgive and move on.....
eventually..

@tinman

So what if you take two identical cores, does not matter the type and wind one coil with 30 feet and another coil with 60 feet (or whatever ratio) of the same wire. Could be one layer versus two layers. Will the peak resonance be the same given they are both the same wire? If they both resonate at the same frequency or very close it will mean one thing and if they are totally different it will mean another thing. The thing is you will learn more about resonance with comparatives. Like the guy playing the wine glass music. More notes. The more the better. By working with only one coil you cannot fully appreciate its reaction since there is no other controlled comparison. It just becomes a unique fact with little relation or correlation to other totally different coils and their particular resonance points.

You already know very well that in a single primary and secondary set-up pulsing the primary to the secondary resonance ups the volts but drops the amps. I explained before that this is because of the atomic nature of copper and their random placement in the wire matrix means some atoms respond to certain frequencies better then others. This is a physical atomic constraint since not all copper atoms are made equal in the functional sense because of simple fabrication.

We also know that on a core with one primary and one secondary of 100 turns versus a same core with same primary and two secondaries of 50 turns each in parallel, what happens to the secondary output. The volts drops by half and the amps will double. So the question is will resonance change that  half/doubling effect? What can be done to increase the amps at resonance while still maintaining a good level of voltage?

So here is an alternative I could think of quickly more specifically via my SC model is if it is possible to build a coil as follows;

1) Rod core
2) 1 primary wound 3-6 turns only. P is the pulsed side and C is the always connected side.
3) X number of secondaries all cut to the same length, each one wound with only one turn in contact with the core located at the center of each length of wire, before each end comes together in parallel to thus increase each individual weak amps to a higher amps value while still the the volts the same level.
4) An additional secondary could be wound over the primary as power recapture.

As in the diagram below. Please excuse the drawing came out a bit blurry. Don't know why. With this simple type of set-up you can try maybe only 5 secondaries in parallel then drive the primary with the FG and check secondary output, then add more secondaries one by one and check again as the number increases to see how the effect would influence and increase in amps while still maintaining the same voltage level. That is the key most are looking for. Right?

As well, we already know that any resonance will only happen at higher frequencies so at those frequencies it does not matter if a coil is wound across the totality of the core or just one turn should not make that much of a difference since the output amperage is already very low on each secondary. The idea is to catch the resonance in the secondary and remove it away from any other potentially adverse conditions (like being wound as a single multi-layer secondary coil).

There is another avenue that I have never seen anywhere and that is the use of a combination of a half core half air-core methods where the initial pulsing happens on a core primary and quick coupling to a secondary that feeds an air core primary/multi-secondary. This would enable the power to be extracted from the core environment to be used in a air-core environment that would feed back to the core primary while not having to deal with all the traditional set-backs of a fully occupied core. I need to think about that more but just wanted to mention the angle. Just more ideas for an idea starved OU community.

wattsup

Unfortunately for you MH,most everyone here is saying the same thing--your answers were not accurate,nor correct.
That may be hard for you to take,but it is the truth.
You simply do not get to change things around to suit your need to be correct.

Brad.

It's embarrassing how ridiculous and awful your behaviour is.  The answers are correct.  The answers are perfectly accurate.  About half a dozen times I stated the answers had to be short simple answers in four sentences or less.  What can't you understand about that?

If you actually new what is required in order for there to be an impedance change,then you would not have made that silly statement above.

I would suggest you do a brush up course on impedance before you go down this road with me.
Take a good look (a good look MH) at the scope shots below,and then have a google on what is needed in order for an impedance change to occur.
Here is a good starting point--oh and look,it has phase shift in there as well.
Quote:  Impedance extends the concept of resistance to AC circuits, and possesses both magnitude and phase, unlike resistance.

More embarrassing stuff.  Yes phase, but not necessarily phase.  Take little tiny baby steps Brad and you will get there.

I told you if you wanted to be serious you would do a full power audit for both cases to understand what was going on but I assume that you didn't.