Hi All,
I throught it would be a great test to show some basic back EMF test on this pulse motor. This is free extra energy while you add input energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnHNdMzW2I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BnHNdMzW2I)
Tom
Nice setup you have ! :) I think the solution is to run motor from the capacitor ^-^ :o
Hello all,
If you think Back EMF is not something special, look what happens when you use a transformer and DC pulse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5CLgjmd4c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty5CLgjmd4c)
Tom
Are you saying then that these tests prove you have overunity?
Are you saying then that these tests prove you have overunity?
I never heard him that he said that.
However Tom is showing one way valve like circuit that can be taken further to increase this out put.
This was Richards secret when he first demonstrated the original circuit that he came up with. Which was very similar to Toms circuit.
See where Richard is today: http://www.magnacoaster.com/magna/Products/products.html (http://www.magnacoaster.com/magna/Products/products.html)
Not in so many words, but....
"free extra energy" does conjure up the notion of having accomplished something extraordinary, wouldn't you agree?
Do tell, where IS Richard?
First one should know the difference between back EMF and inductive kickback(flyback).
Back EMF is so Bendini,and misguided information.
Many people just think they know the answers!
Inductive components like motor winding resist sudden changes in current. That's because the magnetic field caused by the current needs time to build up or decrease. That means that when current is flowing and this is suddenly cut off, the winding will try to maintain that current, and becomes a power source generating a voltage to be able to do so. It gets its power from the built up magnetic field.
Since the winding is now a power source instead of a consumer the voltage is reversed for the same current flow direction. That also explains how the voltage on a coil can become higher than the power supply: instead of subtracting the voltage over it you add it to the power supply. That's why you need a flyback diode on for instance a relay coil: the diode will allow the back emf to flow back to the power supply without damaging the switching transistor.
When a current flows through a conductor it generates a magnetic field around the conductor. with that being said in a solenoid the exact process take place, The magnetic fields around each turn on the coil link with the rest of the other fields on other turns to form complete loops around on the out side and the inner core of the coil. These line of flux will determine the polarity and strength of the solenoid. No matter how tight are the turns there will be flux lines that will always remain around each turn, these smaller flux lines will induce a current in the coil when there is an applied voltage(these currents that are induced are known as Eddy currents). But when these currents are induced they will be in a opposite direction with the applied current and since it is in a counter direction therefore it is known as the back EMF.
Counter-electromotive force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The counter-electromotive force also known as back electromotive force (abbreviated counter EMF, or CEMF)[1] is the voltage, or electromotive force, that pushes against the current which induces it. CEMF is the voltage drop in an alternating current (AC) circuit caused by magnetic induction (see Faraday's law of induction, electromagnetic induction, Lenz's Law). For example, the voltage drop across an inductor is due to the induced magnetic field inside the coil, and is equal to the current divided by the impedance of the inductor.[1][2] The voltage's polarity is at every moment the reverse of the input voltage.[1][3]
The term Back electromotive force, or just Back-EMF, is most commonly used to refer to the voltage that occurs in electric motors where there is relative motion between the armature of the motor and the magnetic field from the motor's field magnets, or windings. From Faraday's law, the voltage is proportional to the magnetic field, length of wire in the armature, and the speed of the motor. This effect is not due to the motor's inductance and is a completely separate effect.
In a motor using a rotating armature in the presence of a magnetic flux, the conductors cut the magnetic field lines as they rotate. This produces a voltage in the coil; the motor is acting like a generator (Faraday's law of induction.) at the same time it is a motor. This voltage opposes the original applied voltage; therefore, it is called "back-electromotive force" (by Lenz's law). With a lower overall voltage across the armature, the current flowing into the motor is reduced.[4] One practical application is to use this phenomenon to indirectly measure motor speed and position since the Back-EMF is proportional to the armature rotational speed.[5]
In motor control and robotics, the term "Back-EMF" often refers most specifically to actually using the voltage generated by a spinning motor to infer the speed of the motor's rotation for use in better controlling the motor in specific ways.[6]
To observe the effect of Back-EMF of a motor, one can perform this simple exercise. With an incandescent light on, cause a large motor such as a drill press, saw, air conditional compressor, or vacuum cleaner to start. The light may dim briefly as the motor starts. When the armature is not turning (called locked rotor) there is no Back-EMF and the motor's current draw is quite high. If the motor's starting current is high enough it will pull the line voltage down enough to notice the dimming of the light
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfvfkXhHw04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfvfkXhHw04)
I don't need to add any more, this says it all!
Tom O0
I cannot see the difference between the above cct and:
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter6.pdf
Automotive relay battery charger. Page 28
Tom and everyone,
Perhaps a simple way to distinguish between bemf and inductive kickback (IK) is to ask yourself, "does the effect take place simultaneously, or in sequence?"
bemf is a simultaneous phenomenon, whereas the IK effect takes place in a certain sequence of events. In a motor, the instant you apply power there is very little if any bemf generated, so the input current is high, but once the motor is running at speed, the applied emf, and bemf are in opposition simultaneously. When you are switching inductors, there is a definite sequence of events; i.e. you energize a coil, then remove the applied emf, then the coil tries to continue the current flow and as such reverses its output voltage, most often in a short high voltage spike. But that is determined by the load seen by the IK spike. THAT is IK.
So generally speaking, if you are switching/pulsing inductors, you are generating/collecting IK. If you are powering motors, the bemf effect is taking place, limiting the current into the motor. Without bemf, motors would draw huge amounts of current all the time.
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.08.16, 14:36:44
Hope that clears things up a bit.
Good working description .99
Thank you.
In one of Jim Murray's videos he mentioned something about EMF and voltage not being the same thing though many people use the terms interchangeably. Any chance you have another description that defines these differences too?
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.08.16, 15:31:00
Good working description .99
Thank you.
In one of Jim Murray's videos he mentioned something about EMF and voltage not being the same thing though many people use the terms interchangeably. Any chance you have another description that defines these differences too?
Dear Matt.
Some 30 + years ago I was taught that EMF, Electromotive Force
WAS Voltage ! Perhaps there is some newer info ? I am looking forward to poynt99's reply !! :)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.08.16, 15:49:51
Dear Matt.
Some 30 + years ago I was taught that EMF, Electromotive Force WAS Voltage ! Perhaps there is some newer info ? I am looking forward to poynt99's reply !! :)
Cheers Grum.
This is also a sticking point for me (as many know ;) ).
An emf (note: no caps) is not voltage. It is the source of generated potential difference. Unfortunately, emf is measured in Volts. This confuses everything but doesn't usually matter. For most purposes, 'volts' is used to specify a value for emf or the potential difference created by emf.
Example: the chemical reaction in a battery creates emf - emf creates the potential difference across the battery terminals and that potential difference (measured in 'volts') is the cause of current flow in a closed circuit, not the battery emf. At least, not directly.
The emf in induction is different but still is the source for potential difference (voltage).
WW,
Did you mean to say that it is the source of induced potential difference, vs. generated potential difference?
Is a battery not a source of emf?
I like to think of emf as any voltage source, whether it be applied from a battery, FG, or induced via Faraday's law.
The Modern Dictionary of Electronics (7th Ed.) says this:
Quoteelectromotive force -Abbreviated emf. 1. The
force that causes electricity to flow when there is a
difference of potential between two points. The unit of
measurement is the volt. 2. Electrical pressure at the
source. Not to be confused with potential difference,
which is the voltage developed across a resistance or
impedance due to current flowing through it. Both are
measured in volts. 3. Electric pressure that causes a
current to flow in a circuit; it is the energy put into
the circuit by the source per unit electric charge that it
supplies to the circuit. The unit of emf is the volt, being
the electromotive force required to cause a current of 1
ampere to flow in a resistance of 1 ohm. 4. The difference
of electrical potential found across the terminals of a
source of electrical energy; more precisely, the limit of
the potential difference across the terminals of a source
as the current between the terminals approaches zero.
Quote from: poynt99 on 2014.08.16, 21:47:19
WW,
Did you mean to say that it is the source of induced potential difference, vs. generated potential difference?
Is a battery not a source of emf?
I like to think of emf as any voltage source, whether it be applied from a battery, FG, or induced via Faraday's law.
My usage of 'potential difference' was not proper much like the usage of 'voltage' when actually speaking of emf. My understanding of no such thing as polarity existing with only differences of potential between points having any useful value...
The simplest explanation of the difference between voltage and emf should be:
'Voltage' is a unit of measure not what is being measured...
-comparison... 'Amperage' is the unit of measure for current but amperage is not current.
Voltage is the unit of measure for either emf (at or near open circuit value) or the difference of potential between two points in a closed current loop (ex: voltage drop across a current carrying circuit component).
I think it becomes sticky when using the term 'emf' where no voltage value can be measured or calculated.
Yes, a charged battery contains emf.
An FG? Probably not unless the output uses induction ( transformer), strictly speaking.
A generator - as in > gasoline powered generator ? Yes. That falls under induction.
There should be no problem understanding folks when they speak of 'amps' or 'volts'. I think we all know what they mean.
Quote from: WaveWatcher on 2014.08.17, 02:56:23
My usage of 'potential difference' was not proper much like the usage of 'voltage' when actually speaking of emf. My understanding of no such thing as polarity existing with only differences of potential between points having any useful value...
The simplest explanation of the difference between voltage and emf should be:
'Voltage' is a unit of measure not what is being measured...
-comparison... 'Amperage' is the unit of measure for current but amperage is not current.
Voltage is the unit of measure for either emf (at or near open circuit value) or the difference of potential between two points in a closed current loop (ex: voltage drop across a current carrying circuit component).
I think it becomes sticky when using the term 'emf' where no voltage value can be measured or calculated.
Yes, a charged battery contains emf.
An FG? Probably not unless the output uses induction ( transformer), strictly speaking.
A generator - as in > gasoline powered generator ? Yes. That falls under induction.
There should be no problem understanding folks when they speak of 'amps' or 'volts'. I think we all know what they mean.
Yes,it would sound strange saying-i have 9 volts of EMF,and 10 amps of current flowing through the circuit. 9 volts @ 10 amp's sounds more like the norm,and completely understandable.
Okay guys,
I'm rather embarrassed by this, but I have to show you all. I put something in my tea the other day that brought out my ___________ side. Then I went into the garage and built a gizmo I cannot explain.
If anyone would prefer I don't highjack Tommey's thread, we can take this elsewhere.
The reason I'm posting this here is because it somehow involves electromotive and magnetomotive force. There is certainly something to learn here.
The picture is a large 1000 watt AC power toroid transformer with the factory secondaries removed and replaced by a piece of elastic tubing filled with high electrolyte NaOH water. There are three turns of tubing on the water coil secondary. When I use a piece of copper wire wrapped three turns, I get approximately 2.6 volts RMS. The amperage is off the chart. It will immediately smoke any small gauge wire that it short circuited. But the water sits there completely lifeless and no power draw is measured passing through this device. Maybe it's the resistance in the water. Maybe the voltage is too low, I don't know yet, because I don't know what I was thinking when I built it.
I've been trying to follow Ken Wheeler's work and make connections between what he demonstrates and things I am familiar with. The first thing I would really like to understand is a basic transformer, especially how the turns ratio works and why if you don't have enough turns on the primary, you saturate the core. I can follow the guidelines sure, what I really want is a strong understanding of what is actually happening. This just seems so fundamental that without fully understanding it, further progress is hopeless.
Tinman, when we lay out a power calculation we could just write -
Input power = emf-12 volts x current-2 amperes DC = 24 Watts
or for AC
Input power = emf-12 volts RMS x current-2 amperes RMS AC @ 0 degrees = 24 Watts.
We already do all this except we just don't write the "emf" part, a lot of the time we don't write the "current" word either.
Matt, the core of a transformer needs a certain amount of turns so as not to saturate the core because of the inductance not being enough to create a good magnetizing effect and when the current is too high the core saturates.
Here is a good reference on transformers it explains almost all the magnetic "terms" and such. And shows a formula for calculating the required primary turns. The calculation isn't that hard and we can do an example calculation based from his formula for different cores and frequencies and applied emf. :)
The primary need to create enough back emf to restrict the current flow at idle and enough turns so as not to saturate the core.
Transformers Part 1. It's a good read and explains back emf as well.
http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
Coil discharge isn't back emf, I've been saying that for a long time as well and almost gave up trying to get people to see it.
Others or whoever,
ie. When the coil discharges and causes current through a wire and a load then the discharge current faces back emf on the wire, and if the wire was a coil it would face a lot more, so if the coil discharge was Back emf then there would be Back emf opposing back emf, and that's just a tad silly.
As Poynt99 said the back emf happens at the same time as the applied emf caused current happens, the coil discharge is after and is a simple discharge of stored energy as current due to an emf produced by the coils magnetic field. The emf produced at the coil is Forward emf. As I see it.
..
Actually if the coil discharge is directed back to the supply positive rail then it does kinds constitute a "Counter emf", if it opposes the input Forward emf. But as soon as we use it for a load then it remains Forward emf. Same as if we go forwards in a crowd with the crowd then take a fork and turn around and go back the other way against the crowd then we become in opposition to the flow of the crowd (current) rather than add to it.
Although the general meaning of "Back emf" I think is the emf created by the flow of current through a wire in the same time frame as the applied emf, whereas a "Counter emf" can be any opposing emf from any source of emf. ie if I connect to charge a 12 volt battery from a 24 volt battery through a resistor then the 12 volt battery comprises a "12 volt counter emf". There must be a distinction as they are two different situations, even though the resulting effect is similar.
Cheers
Quote from: Farmhand on 2014.08.17, 07:00:06
Here is a good reference on transformers it explains almost all the magnetic "terms" and such. And shows a formula for calculating the required primary turns. The calculation isn't that hard and we can do an example calculation based from his formula for different cores and frequencies and applied emf. :)
Transformers Part 1. It's a good read and explains back emf as well.
http://sound.westhost.com/xfmr.htm
Been there, done that. I can make a transformer almost with my eyes closed.
What I want to know is why it works the way it does. How does electricity and magnetism work-with and react-to the core and the wires? What's the mechanics involved? Somebody show me induction at a sub-atomic level. I know I can trade voltage for current and vice versa; I can and have done this many times. I just want to see deeper into the puzzle. If we can agree there is an Ether that makes this all possible, how does it do what we see it doing all the time?
Some things are beyond the realms of human understanding, where do we draw the line ? How far back do we go ? All the way to the creation of creation.
It all depends on what you want to do, the document has more parts. Almost everything thought to be known about stuff we cannot see is theoretical. What is thought to be right and correct today by the brightest minds in the world turns out to be not so right and correct later on.
If the Aether is just a medium then it's not much different from dirt or air on another level, it can be used to make up other things and used to make power and harness energy but it's not all beer and skittles.
If the Aether is a medium like ie, air then if it has currents or fluctuations (kinetic energy) or potential differences then that is how to tap it.
To be short no one can accurately explain what cannot be seen (in some way) for what it is actually like with microscopes, even the images we see from space are colored in from the source digital information.
..
Matt Said:
QuoteWhat I want to know is why it works the way it does. How does electricity and magnetism work-with and react-to the core and the wires? What's the mechanics involved? Somebody show me induction at a sub-atomic level. I know I can trade voltage for current and vice versa; I can and have done this many times. I just want to see deeper into the puzzle. If we can agree there is an Ether that makes this all possible, how does it do what we see it doing all the time?
I agree Matt, transformer practical design and application has been well explored and the formula are used every day by engineers and others often without a fundamental understanding of what is actually happening at the physical subatomic level.
We derive models, and while they work extremely well, they find us wanting to know more at the fundamental level.
The classical transformer model uses an impossible "theoretical" transformer at its heart. This "perfect" transformer has the magical property of transforming voltage according to the turns ratio and transforming current according to the reciprocal of the turns ratio, all without any magnetic field at all. Around this imaginary beast we then add other components to take account of the real need for a magnetic field, any field leakage that might exist, hysteresis loss in the core, resistive losses in the windings and so on. IMO this approach completely hides what actually goes on inside the real transformer, and when you delve into unusual uses such as adding a permanent magnet you are completely lost. It is instructive to use a different model that looks at the transformer from the magnetic domain perspective, and solves in that domain. The attached paper deals with this approach. Enjoy.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.08.17, 06:32:48
The picture is a large 1000 watt AC power toroid transformer with the factory secondaries removed and replaced by a piece of elastic tubing filled with high electrolyte NaOH water. There are three turns of tubing on the water coil secondary. When I use a piece of copper wire wrapped three turns, I get approximately 2.6 volts RMS. The amperage is off the chart. It will immediately smoke any small gauge wire that it short circuited. But the water sits there completely lifeless and no power draw is measured passing through this device. Maybe it's the resistance in the water. Maybe the voltage is too low, I don't know yet, because I don't know what I was thinking when I built it.
You may need to apply a small DC current to that liquid secondary winding before it will act like a secondary. The reason may be because conductive water isn't conductive until an electric field is applied. It isn't a winding, yet. At least, that is how it works in many inductive heat treating systems.
For your inspection ... here is Chris Carson amplifying the question you seem to ponder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw)
.. I too see this function through the action of the Aether .. just off the cuff depending how you see the answer to this this question .. is cos θ 90 deg 0 or infinitesimal ? I may be able to throw a bit of maths at it that might stick together ... even if gaffer tape is needed ;D
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.08.17, 21:20:05
For your inspection ... here is Chris Carson amplifying the question you seem to ponder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw)
.. I too see this function through the action of the Aether .. just off the cuff depending how you see the answer to this this question .. is cos θ 90 deg 0 or infinitesimal ? I may be able to throw a bit of maths at it that might stick together ... even if gaffer tape is needed ;D
Yes Duncan, that highlights the problem I am having to a T.
If the concepts and terminology we use cannot explain this common phenomena that we see every day, then they both must be not only incomplete, but quite possibly completely incorrect. I think Ken defines this fallacy as attribute reification. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
I'm simply not good with that. I've always been one to use the correct tools for the job at hand and the tools in my toolbox suck. I need something better.
What Smudge has offered is helpful yes. Thank you Smudge.
Better still is a geometrical, mechanical explanation. Something that defines exactly what electricity is, its shape, how it moves, what its motivation (for lack of a better word) is. Same for magnetism (which Ken has done a pretty good job with so far). Then we put it together and apply it as these "objects" negotiate various components, such as a transformer, a diode, a resistor, a piece of wire, etc. All visual, mechanical. We can calculate the numbers later based on the geometry. I know if we could do this a small piece at a time, it would all make sense, it would fit exactly with real-world devices and would be easy to create new devices.
Quote from: W.B. SmithWe find ourselves in this Universe, and we are aware of it. We strive to understand it, and to do so we use all means at our disposal. We observe and speculate; we look and sometimes we find; we ask many questions and get many answers. If the questions are proper we get proper answers, but if they are not proper questions we get indefinite answers or no answers at all.
Sometimes we cannot distinguish between cause and effect or the phenomenon and the effect of the phenomenon. Sometimes we mistake the shadow for the substance and pass by the reality while we pursue the image.
Often we are so enamoured of our own brilliance that we cannot see the little glints of Truth that line our way. Many shining nuggets of Truth lie buried at our feet and if we are not too proud to dig we will find them.
There are certain fundamental Truths in this Universe and if we are prepared to accept them we can use them as tools for its better Understanding.
No principal can be described or satisfactorily defined except in terms of concepts which are more basic, until one basic concept is reached which in itself cannot be defined at all, but which will define all other concepts.
The Universe contains no anomalies, and the appearance of an anomaly is warning that our understanding is inadequate.
Mathematics must be the servant of Understanding and not its master. Equations, by their very nature, cannot discover; they can only yield relationships derived from the initial statements and which were inherently in them when they were stated.
Truth is not hidden; it is available to all and is the same for all. Apparent differences must be due to inadequate understanding.
There are at least a couple of different theories about how the toroidal transformer works, one has been discussed at OU.com which is in a document linked there, it would take me time to find it. But it's all just peoples opinions, almost everything not a "law" is. So the things Cris Carson and Eric wondered about toroidal transformers is not so mysterious, the information to study the different theories is there but people are ignorant of it, (ignorant is not a derogatory term). Search some terms like toroidal transformer flux model theory and such things.
Matt you asked why transformers saturate if there is not enough turns, the document I linked explains that at least, you're welcome. Sheez Louise. DO some experiments with toroidal transformers and other transformers, air core transformers ect. along the way something will click that cannot be explained easily, displacement current, mutual induction.
Field propagation in a toriod causes flux "lines" to cut across the center of the toroid and this way the conductors are cut by flux "lines" as in a conventional transformer is one theory on that.
..
Some folks, I know can read maths as easily as I might read a cartoon alas not me ! However I strongly suspect EPD would be writing in your bailiwick if your lucky enough to be one of them , with stuff such as this
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20by%20Eric%20Dollard.pdf (http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Eric_Dollard_Document_Collection/Symbolic%20Representation%20of%20the%20Generalized%20Electric%20Wave%20by%20Eric%20Dollard.pdf)
As you see we gallop quickly into an area where our limited vector based maths is useless and imaginary numbers such as J operator ect is not sufficient unto the job , I think Tom Bearden words it well in this clip on John Hutchinson " we don't have the dimentions in present day standard maths"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04a3WtgBY1Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04a3WtgBY1Y)
we no longer have the dimensions to chase the fox to its den with maths .... That is really why I asked the silly question regarding Cos phi .... to which I could add .... Is what is not a Sin wave a Co sine wave? That is, is it effectively an infinite amount of the infinitely small? (if you see what I mean) which is very different from Zero ... you see I have a picture of this which I could try to explain , and yes it does lead straight-way to back emf but before any of us leave known maths (including me) Its good to know why and where we have taken the plunge and in my case with what level of ignorance O0