Didn't ask you to, nor did I suggest you tread on rose peddles! 


I can read Brad, I know who said what and when.  My comment was general, if I were referring to you I would have mentioned your name in the post.  However, in light of being accused of something I didn't do, I recommend that if the shoe fits wear it.  You didn't find your name in my comment, you therefore assumed that I was referring to you, ego....your mistake.   


It would be awesome to see all this going somewhere....as it stands, I have yet to see anything that hasn't been demonstrated countless times already.  Where is the real?  There is no research taking place here, by the book or otherwise.  All that's going on here is position defense, and it matters little to me how you react to this, I stated this before elsewhere, you were a guy that had an eye for certain things, and that guy I have not seen in quite some time.  Each time I think its time to show you shit that I have shared with a few of your peers, you show me that it would be a complete waste of time, unfortunate, but it is what it is. 


No matter how the magnets are oriented, circuit geometry demands that CEMF limits current.  Current is, but should/must not be limited in this manner.  You really want to see your magnets do work, rework the circuit, allow for a path from the magnet into the coil and back (this opens the door to 180° shifts, but not like how its being discussed, and when that which is being discussed is applicable, how this understanding is applied is questioned).  As long as your current is being limited by CEMF, the magnets will not work with you, nor you with the magnets.  When increasing CEMF is of such a direction so as to augment the applied EMF,and thereby, increase consumption, (not covered in the texts books I have read) can one begin to contemplate how the magnets under this new set of circumstances can perform real work in broad sense of the term.  The general rule should be that a magnet cannot work for you if its working against you.


How we choose to view coils sets the stage for everything that follows that decision.  Part of what I see are flux gates,  our collective lack of understanding keep us from using them in a manner which results in the force we call attraction from manifesting between inducer and induced inside generators.  Repulsion is a no brainier, for that all you have to do is what you are told, the law takes care of the rest.  There is way more going on than these various debates will allow the free thinker to ascertain let alone believe.





Regards

Cheers Erfinder

I am always looking/researching,and experimenting with the unknown--of course you know this.

But ATM,i need to take action against that poor excuse for a human being.
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another,nor should members here be exposed to the profanities used by said member.. This is the very heart of these types of forum's-where those that know could be asked for help by those that are still learning the ways of !!known! science.

I will keep on doing what i am doing,despite having to deal with this fraud.

Meters can't give us any insight into those areas we have yet to consider.  Perhaps more time and energy would be better invested in contemplating the ifs, rather than defending a point which, were it self evident, requires no defense.

I totally agree with this Erfinder,but the point i am going to make here,is that we should not stand for--oh that is wrong,but i will not provide any proof to the contrary. To many times we have seen self acclaimed ex-spurts(such as before mentioned) reel out all sorts of rubbish to try and misdirect others from knowing the truth. The !no resonance! in and around the ICE rubbish had to be stopped,and i did that. Now said negative claimant is out to do what he can to once again misdirect and encourage others to avoid helping a fellow member on this FE research forum.
Im sorry,but that stops right here in this thread,and said idiot is now in the spotlight--the very same place he put EMJ in some time back--and continues to gloat about it.
Well now it's his turn--now we get to judge him as he judged EMJ.


Brad

TinMan
Quote
There should never come a time where a member of this forum should recommend that one experimenter should not help another
End Quote

Miles Loves to talk Karma and shame yet has no issue making these DEMANDS. [Sans ..Queer Karma]

calling you Lazy is also  weird and confrontational ??

 author=poynt99 link=topic=8341.msg480910#msg480910 date=1460809484]

The scope capture and schematic would be 100% correct if it was denoted with either dot convention on the transformer, OR stated that CH2 is inverted. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?

I nor PW and TK any any difficulty using the associated scope shot to answer the question asked. The scope shot presented was correct in that it provided the needed information to answer the question. The question was presented to minnie,in order to determine if he had the smarts to make judgement on me,and my induction skills. CH2 was inverted for this very reason--so once again,the scope shot is correct for the question asked.

How is it that I am adding confusion? Tell us then,

Because the question was aimed to determine whether minnie had the skill set to pass judgement on mine. It was not suppose to show a correct or incorrect polarity of channel inversion. It was set like that as a test,and a question was provided in regards to that test.

if someone built your circuit and placed the probes precisely as you have, and did not invert their scope channel nor flip the transformer leads, would they produce the same wave form as you showed?

No they would not. But  if the same question i asked was associated with there wave form,then the very same answer would be correct.

Will they not be confused when they see the secondary voltage leading the primary
 current?

Not if they know what they are looking at,which was the very reason i asked minnie the question--to find out if he had the skill set/the right to say i needed to learn basic induction.

This is exactly what i mean by !!adding confusion!! to add something that is not related to the question asked in regards to the scope shot.


Brad

Good, thank you for acknowledging that.

For future reference, I strongly encourage you to note scope channel inversions or coil lead flips on your diagrams and/or descriptions, regardless of the purpose of the post.

As you will see(in most cases),i do exactly that. But if i had done that in this case,then the question is already half answered for the person asked.

Anyway,have you had any more thought toward the effect being seen in my little experiment?.

I in no way can see the change in impedance being the cause for the drop in current(power-as voltage to primary is fixed)to the primary coil. I have used what i know to determine this,and so that is why i asked you the question regarding-what can change the impedance of a transformer,as there may be something i have over looked,or do not know about.
I do not count a CEMF from the secondary reducing primary current as an impedance change,as in most cases,an increase in secondary current would result in an increase in primary current.

Due to the fact that we have a decrease in primary current as we get an increase in secondary current,then a change in transformer impedance would mean some sort of positive outcome impedance increase on the primary,where it has the opposite effect we would think it should have.--what ever that means?,and hence my request for some information.


Brad

Anyway,have you had any more thought toward the effect being seen in my little experiment?.

I would be seeing what polarity emf is induced in both the secondary and primary from the magnet motion alone (you've probably already done that). I'd also be attempting to determine all the phasing and timing, as MH suggested, in order to try and piece together what is happening throughout the process.

Do you think the same effect would be present if your air transformer was just a simple 1:1 ratio? Have you tried it?

In the mean time,do you know of any other way that the impedance could be changed,where it would not work against current understandings.?.


Brad

I don't, no.

How about my 1:1 transformer question?

Well, going from 0.18% efficiency to 5.01% efficiency is progress no doubt.  Doctor Strangelove would be impressed.