PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2018-09-20, 01:35:35
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: copper vs iron core  (Read 31629 times)

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1855
Heh...

My bong smoke detector only measures whole number values.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest

Now i am prepared to believe your answers  ;D

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1855
You know you're right when you can no longer focus on the decimal point  :D


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
The first patent: US Patent #4595843

Quote
A transformer utilizing a rotating flux for saturating the entire core. The transformer uses a core configured such that a vector sum of the induction produced by two windings in the core rotates through 360°. This is accomplished by arranging the component induction vectors to be perpendicular and the source voltages associated with each of the component induction vectors to be 90° out of phase. If the inductions are of equal magnitude and the vector sum is sufficient to saturate the core, rotation of the vector sum saturates the entire core and the transformer experiences a very low or nearly negligible hysteresis losses. Various topological configurations for the core, including a toroid, are described. The transformer windings can be arranged for single, two-phase, three-phase, or multi-phase operation.

I only read the abstract I did not read the patent.  From what I can gather it's an interesting idea.  I am not convinced that there are no losses in rotating the flux and keeping the core saturated like the patent states.  You are still pushing magnetic domains around and some energy must have to be expended to do this.  As the molecules that have a magnetic moment flip and bounce around they will transfer some mechanical energy into the molecular lattice of the core material heating it up.  Plus you are by definition expending excess electrical energy in the coils to maintain saturation and that has to be factored in also.  Then there is extra complexity and more wire to drive the two coils 90 degrees out of phase.

For the second patent:  United States Patent 4639610

Quote
A rotating flux transformer having at least two magnetic cores, each in the form of a torus, with each magnetic core having poloidal and toroidal windings. The need for breaking the torus and bringing out leads from the poloidal winding is eliminated by passing each torus through the core window of the remaining torus, or tori. Each poloidal winding is shorted, with the toroidal winding, or windings, of the other magnetic core or cores, inducing an excitation voltage into each shorted poloidal winding which is 90° out of phase with the voltage applied to the toroidal winding on the same magnetic core.

I can't make head or tail from the abstract.  But if you look at the diagram it is two toroidal donuts that are locked together like links on a chain.  Each toroid has one or more coils wrapped around it.

Again, I haven't read the patent, but I don't think there is a real need to for this one.  It's really just a "far out" version of a transformer, but is for all practical intents and purposes it is no different from any other transformer.  It would be very expensive to manufacture also so it is a curiosity.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
WaveWatcher:

Quote
You do know there is a slight difference between air and vacuum?

I sure do!

I don't think the bong smoke comes into play though unless it is magnetic.   :D

MileHigh

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1855
That was my answer to your pop quiz. Relative to a vacuum air has a slightly higher permeability. One of the reasons is it can hold an electrostatic charge (my belief only).

I don't need to factor bong smoke anymore. There was a time.... Maybe that Is why I pursue such endeavors  ;)

As for the odd-ball transformers...
The ones I built produced unexpected and very interesting results. At the time I was looking for a good example of very high efficiency perpendicular induction and 'rotation'. The three-phase model provided both.
I found the patent to be a very accurate description.


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Guest
Bong?

Come on, that's so 80's. haha  How about a vaporizer? If you need plans on how to build one let me know. ::)

I don't drink very often, I was suggesting beer for everyone else.  ;D

And as far as there being a difference between air and a vacuum.

I doubt they sell "vacuum Jordan" shoes. See what your bong smoke is doing to the forum!!!!!!!, :)

 8)



   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2938
tExB=qr
Grumpy and All:

What about this statement attributed to Francis Nipher:
Quote
the strength was increased and attributed this to increased permeability of the air around the magnet

Anyone care to comment?  (By the way, I wanted to read the referenced passage, and I saw the pages at work.  For some reason at home I can't open the book.)

I have a comment about Peter Lindemanm.  As far as I am concerned he doesn't really know much about electronics or electromagnetism at all.  I would take anything he says with a grain of salt.

MileHigh

Permeability and permitivity of air vary with pressure.  These properties probably also change when the medium is polarized, but I have not been able to confirm this.  Tesla did some experiments where he measured the change in capacitance with altitude while at Colorado Springs.  I'd like to know if permeability of vacuum also increases when an electrostatic field is applied to a magnet.  If the increase in permeabilty is large enough, it may be possible to utilize this effect to achieve gain since you are just applying a potential.

So, pulsing hv in a static magnetic field increases the permeabilty of the magnetic field, making the magnetic field stronger, or larger than expected.  I'll look into this some more to try to determine how an electrostatic field compliments a magnetic field.  By the way, "spherics" was one of the few people that I have encountered that was familiar with the Roentgen, Rowland, and Wilson Effects as well as the work of Francis Nipher.

(Lindemann is just a messenger, not a source.)


No takers on my pop quiz so far!  lol

How about this fact that I stumbled upon: 
Quote
Quote
For air it's 1.00000037

What's going on there?  Why is the relative permeability of air that value?  What is that saying to you?

End of the pop quiz part II!

MileHigh

air is slightly magnetic (vacuum and hydrogen are 1.000000)

Air permeability also varies with humidity and temperature - water is slightly diamagnetic
   
Group: Guest
Grumpy:

I think you hit the head on the nail.  Let me just go over the quiz questions:

Question 2:
Quote
For air it's 1.00000037

What's going on there?  Why is the relative permeability of air that value?  What is that saying to you?

So there is something in the air that has a very very slight magnetic dipole that will align itself in a magnetic field.  The most important point being that the effect is microscopic and you can ignore it.  It could be water molecules like you said or some other air molecule, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, whatever.  Knowing precisely what it is is not important for this discussion.

Question 1:
Quote
the strength was increased and attributed this to increased permeability of the air around the magnet

This came from a book written in 1912.  Now that we know about air's relative permeability, the statement above is bogus.  It's impossible for the air to "increase in permeability," it's pure nonsense.  It's electromagnetic mysticism.

When I first read that a flag went up right away.  So I suppose I am suggesting that you don't take in information without considering its validity yourselves first.  If something sounds strange, doesn't feel right, why not discuss it?!

Just a comment or two about some other points:

Quote
Permeability and permitivity of air vary with pressure.  These properties probably also change when the medium is polarized, but I have not been able to confirm this.  Tesla did some experiments where he measured the change in capacitance with altitude while at Colorado Springs.  I'd like to know if permeability of vacuum also increases when an electrostatic field is applied to a magnet.  If the increase in permeabilty is large enough, it may be possible to utilize this effect to achieve gain since you are just applying a potential.

I suggest that you review this stuff.  By definition, the permeability of a vacuum cannot change.  For capacitance changing with altitude, it's a strange statement that doesn't really make sense.  Understanding these two properties is probably an interesting Wiki read.

A great thing to look up that is directly related to this is the "impedance of free space" which is about 377 ohms.

I am just pasting this because the first search result does not give you too much info:

Quote
Mathematically, the Z o of free space (a.k.a. the impedance of free space) is equal to the square root of the ratio of the permeability of free space (µ o ) in henrys per meter ( H/m  ) to the permittivity of free space (  o  ) in farads per meter ( F/m  ):

A final comment from the peanut gallery is if you do some reading you will find out that the impedance of free space determines the speed of light, "c."

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest


A final comment from the peanut gallery is if you do some reading you will find out that the impedance of free space determines the speed of light, "c."

MileHigh

Very interesting. I think I shall do some reading on that.
Thanks for sharing

 8)
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2938
tExB=qr
Grumpy:

I think you hit the head on the nail.  Let me just go over the quiz questions:

...


Thanks for the reply.  Moving past this now.  I don't think it really matters, but it is accepted that the properties of space change near large gravitational bodies.  Other froces may also change the properties of space.  All my talk of permeability and permittivity was fishing for understanding of how something works.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 260
Hi,
As 377 ohms is known and the folded dipole has an impedance of 400 ohms  or so is it a much better radiator than a standard one? If we find there is an improvement on ERP would this improve the OU factors we are all trying to achieve? The calculations for resonance if we used 377 ohms for each counterpart would this be the most efficient?
Thoughts.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 530
Sorry to interject in this thread but I thought you may want to see this.
http://gzjydz.en.alibaba.com/product/280650901-209715093/Toroidal_transformer_cu_core.html

For me copper core provides responses at much higher frequencies then you could get with an iron core.


---------------------------
   
Pages: 1 [2]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2018-09-20, 01:35:35