Odd, I just gave my affirmation to Erfinder that I would listen, learn and do the experiments he speaks of. So I come back here after reading some Tesla lectures he recommended and in less than 24 hours I see post 325, in my own thread no less. Bad form verpies. Please try to use some restraint. Maybe I'm the only one that cares what Erfinder has to express. Be that the case, you are more than welcome to read our dialog, just disconnect your TX signal and all will be good. Preferably, I'd rather see you contribute. Here's a statement that would be perfect for you to take a closer look at:
I personally find this a very interesting statement. I've been working on a device that I named the Lenz Locker Transformer, the objective is to add an alternate flux path for the Lenz flux to take instead of reaching the primary. I've been testing this device with sharp impulses to get an idea of its inner workings. One of the things I did that completely surprised me was to wind a pickup coil on this alternate flux path; my expectation is that I would not see any impulse make it's way to this path without a connected circuit on the secondary. What I discovered was completely opposite. I actually saw more signal on this pickup coil with the secondary open than I did with it closed. Which brings me back to Erfinder's statement. In my test setup, I cannot see any other way this could happen unless what he says is correct. It also invalidates my understanding that you can only induce a voltage, where current must come from a closed-loop resistance via Ohm's Law.
I appreciate your willingness to partake in this bitter drink I'm offering. What I want is in the literature, albeit, it takes some reading and twisting of this and that to get to it. What I want is in the lessons shared by some of the alternative energy gurus of today and yesterday, here again, reading and twisting of this and that is a prerequisite. As there are no straight questions, there can be no straight answers.
I am not making claims, I am calling it as it is presented to me. I cannot say that I am neutral, my ideas are biased, and for this reason, I share impressions gained through experience on and off the bench. I am not interested in facts because as far as I am concerned, there are none. To sight an example, "the" mother of all examples, before Einstein the existence of the aether was fact (to the then top of the pecking order), after Einstein arrived on the scene, academia "proved" that the aether didn't exist (if nothing else, history is a record of hostile takeovers). Now many years after his death, its existence is questioned yet again? None of the supporters of the status quo (operating on this and similar platforms) question the motives and or integrity of those who double think in high places. No request for undisputed proof is asked of them. Its the pecking order in operation. Those who ask the lawless ones for proof are qualified to do so, but they aren't qualified to question academia. I feel sorry for them, in their own right they are brilliant, what they refuse to see is that they are using their intelligence to perpetuate ignorance, and the the idea and practice of slavery.
The statement regarding longitudinal operating magnetism isn't something that I made up. Its not something I am going to prove to anyone, all the proof anyone needs is found right in that coil of wire, all that's required to see it is the willingness to see something you didn't see before. The burden of proof is therefore on the individual willing to accept that he/she may have overlooked something fundamental. Between the turns of a coil the magnetic field is in opposition to itself. Its as if you have two magnets with like poles facing, and then compressed. ###### a name which has been all but banned from being mentioned on this platform, showed you this configuration in his super pole magnet configuration. A standard generator is screaming this principle at you, the approaching magnet induces a potential into a coil, the current operating in that coil sets up a magnetic field which opposes the approaching magnet. Most frown at this, spitting and pouting like spoiled children, pointing their little finger at the man whom they say wronged them. These poor souls are completely missing the point, they are oblivious of the fact that this situation is a replication of the events taking place between the turns of the coil itself. It is clear (to me anyway....) that in the coil there is no phase misalignment, the relations between turns and layers prohibit this. There is a phase misalignment between the inducing and the induced, between the last turn or turns (layered coil) in the series and the like approaching or receding rotor magnet. In present day systems the point of maximum induced potential, the point of maximum change in flux, is located just outside, on either side, of the point of maximum flux density. This offset must be corrected, so as to bring maximum induced potential, or the point of maximum change in flux/current, into coincidence with the point of maximum flux density, the reason for this is obvious when your perspective is from that of the coil, specifically between its turns.
Regarding transformers. I use them in my circuits, I call them reactors.