Need some outside the box thinking here..
Besides the basic answer of flux density - what is different between a transformer with a iron core and a transformer with a copper core?
Hi DS
The iron core utilises the magnetic field itself which in the case of an RF coil would drop the frequency. When copper core or more usually aluminium is inserted it utilises the magnetic charge reacting as to produce an opposing magnetic force and this has the effect of increasing frequency. if you put a block of iron on an electromagnet fed with AC it sticks to it with force if on the other hand you place a block of aluminium in particular (weight) it floats above it. The same effect as in the cores.
There are shaded pole electromagnets that can pick up copper too. Almost iron-ic lol.
Steve
Darkspeed:
Copper is a non-magnetic material, I am pretty sure. So they don't make transformers with copper cores.
MileHigh
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.12, 01:52:31
Darkspeed:
Copper is a non-magnetic material, I am pretty sure. So they don't make transformers with copper cores.
MileHigh
Copper core transformers are made and sold:
http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/transformer-copper-core.html
They appear to have specialized applications. I'd say non-sparking environments like mines and offshore drilling platforms. Seems reasonable to me.
--Lee
Well it's certainly a mystery to me, I looked up the relative permeability of copper and it's 0.999994. For air it's 1.00000037. That implies an "air core" transformer would work slightly better than a copper core transformer.
the_big_m_in_ok:
No offense but I would classify your link as a "junk" link. I am not saying that copper core transformers don't exist but that link is not a good link.
MileHigh
Careful folks ;)
When I buy a new carburetor for my truck I return the 'core' (the old carburetor) for a credit.
As applied to transformers, cores are items which can be rebuilt -or- used as re-cycle material.
There are transformers and other inductors with aluminum, copper, silicon-bronze and brass cores. I doubt you will find them on the web, except for the small RF types.
The purpose of these metals as 'transformer cores' is to control, cause, or adjust inductance. This doesn't mean a copper core may not have another reason.
MH is right. Such metals as the core of an inductor DO make it worse than an air-core. Sometimes that is needed.
Hey,
I need to turn in the my A/C compressor core today when I buy the new one. Its not copper. Its aluminum and steel.
So the copper core must be an adjustable core, if it is for control. I don't think I have ever seen a copper core transformer. I would suppose it would be for RF applications and not voltage stepping.
I think the link is for scrap metal.
If you bring donuts to my house (or pigs in a blanket) I will eat them!!
Time to make coffee. I am going so slow time has sped up tremendously!!!
8)
Quote from: darkspeed on 2010.05.11, 23:06:41
Need some outside the box thinking here..
Besides the basic answer of flux density - what is different between a transformer with a iron core and a transformer with a copper core?
Like MH said, permeability of copper is about 0.999994, and silicon steel is around 8,500, grain oreinted silicon steel is 30,000, ferrite is 1000.
Copper is diamagnetic, so it slightly repells a magnetic field. All of the electrons are "paired" with no net magnetic moment per atom.
Side note: Disruptive discharge induced magnetisation of a magnetic material was discovered by Joseph Henry in 1842.
From page 19 of "The Free energy Secrets of Cold Electricty by Peter Lindemann":
QuoteIn these several new observations, the phenomenon was violating electrostatic charge
principles experimentally established by Faraday. Projected electrostatic charges
normally spread out over the surface of a metallic shield; they do no penetrate metal.
This effect had certain very non-electrical characteristics. Tesla was truly mystified by
this strange new phenomenon, and searched the literature for references to its
characteristics. No such reference was found, except in the surreptitious observations of two
experimenters. In one case, Joseph Henry observed the magnetization of steel needles by
a heavy spark discharge. The extraordinary feature of this observation (1842) lay in the
fact that the Leyden jar, whose spark apparently produced the magnetizations, stood
on the upper floor of an otherwise electrically impervious building. Brick walls, thick oak
doors, heavy stone and iron flooring, tin ceilings. Moreover, the steel needles were
housed in a vault in the cellar. How did the spark affect such a change through such a
natural barrier? Dr. Henry believed that the spark had released special "light-like rays", and
these were the penetrating agencies responsible for the magnetizations.
Grumpy,
So needles 2 floors away were magnetized by a spark? That's kind of hard to believe.
8)
Quote from: Grumpy on 2010.05.12, 12:39:37
Copper is diamagnetic, so it slightly repells a magnetic field. All of the electrons are "paired" with no net magnetic moment per atom.
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that electron precession in one results in a current and in the other results in magnetization. ;)
http://www.google.com/books?id=Q_oLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA51&dq=francis+nipher+magnetic+storms&ei=o97qS4KyEqHwkwTQosGqCA&cd=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
see page 52
Francis Nipher discovered that when either terminal of an influence machine (electrostatic) was connected to a magnet, the strength was increased and attributed this to increased permeability of the air around the magnet.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.12, 02:33:24
the_big_m_in_ok:
No offense but I would classify your link as a "junk" link. I am not saying that copper core transformers don't exist but that link is not a good link.
MileHigh
Well, you said in the post I quoted from that you didn't think copper core tramsformers weren't being built. I gave a link to a site which listed some transformers made with copper cores. That was my point.
I tried the site again from the original post and it ran as usual. Please keep in mind that some people's computers will not bring up some sites even if the address is spelled correctly and others can invoke the site normally. I've seen it happen in front of me. Was that what you meant? You can't access the site? You weren't specific as to the exact problem.
--Lee
I was just wondering if you can achieve some sort of conservation of domain ( magnetic ) in an iron core
http://www.leedskalnin.com/LeedskalninsPerpetualMotionHolder.html
can the same be true for a conservation of charge in a copper core
Why does the copper spend its energy as heat and transmission when there is no apparent loss in the magnetic system
What is the speed of the flux in the magnetic system? <C? Where is the blotch wall? Is it moving at <C?
Quote from: darkspeed on 2010.05.12, 19:06:04
I was just wondering if you can achieve some sort of conservation of domain ( magnetic ) in an iron core
http://www.leedskalnin.com/LeedskalninsPerpetualMotionHolder.html
can the same be true for a conservation of charge in a copper core
Why does the copper spend its energy as heat and transmission when there is no apparent loss in the magnetic system
What is the speed of the flux in the magnetic system? <C? Where is the blotch wall? Is it moving at <C?
In the first statement are you referring to "remanence"?
It is my understanding that copper can be charged, but it looses this charge gradually after the inducing force is removed. Electrets conserve their charge.
There are losses in magnetic systems: eddie current, hysteresis losses, etc.
The speed of the magnetic flux depends on the properties of the medium. Isn't flux a scalar? It could change faster than the change can propagate.
Lee,
When I click the link it brings up a bunch of scrap metal sites. These are not copper core transformers. The one link on the top of the page says they sell a copper core transformer. The rest of the links in the list are scrap metal places. A "core" is referring to, as wavewatcher already said, is the old used part. It can be a transformer, carb, power steering pump etc etc. They make transformers with a laminated steel core with aluminum windings, and if you are scrapping it, you would call it an aluminum transformer core. Even though it has a steel core.
So your link had a link to one copper core trans for sale, the rest are "junk" yards and scrap yards. I think junk was a pun.
8)
Grumpy and All:
What about this statement attributed to Francis Nipher:
Quotethe 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
Quote from: Ken on 2010.05.12, 20:21:51
...So your link had a link to one copper core trans for sale, the rest are "junk" yards and scrap yards. I think junk was a pun.
Okay, I looked at the site more carefully and you're probably right.
However, there's a Swedish company that sells various transformers and one class of these transformers deals with 'audio copper and amorphous strip laminated cores.
http://www.lundahl.se/tubes.html
I do agree, the last sentence address to me by MileHigh may have been a joke.
--Lee
Actually it wasn't a joke! Just the use of the generic term!
coper core transformers exist.
I have seen them in person.
Three interlocked rings of copper like a magnetic transformer but this one was resonant.
Quote from: darkspeed on 2010.05.12, 22:39:50
coper core transformers exist.
I have seen them in person.
Three interlocked rings of copper like a magnetic transformer but this one was resonant.
You are correct if you are referring to the Westinghouse polyphase, interlocked toroid transformer. I built a transformer from the patent. It worked quite well.
However, the core and the coils were wound together (not as simply as some might think). What most would call a transformer core wasn't at the 'core' of the device. It was very efficient and could produce the effect of two rotating magnetic fields, on different vectors, but the same center.
And then there is beer. 8)
Before you go too deep into the beer you may wish to look at the single-phase, simpler version.
US Patent #4595843
-AND-
If you like to have a challenge.... Try this one US Patent#4639610
...."the effect of two rotating magnetic fields, on different vectors, but the same center." Not actual rotating magnetic fields :)
No takers on my pop quiz so far! lol
How about this fact that I stumbled upon:
QuoteFor 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
Pop quiz?
You do know there is a slight difference between air and vacuum?
Let me guess the universe is expanding? or is .00000037 the bong smoke content of the lab? ;D
Heh...
My bong smoke detector only measures whole number values.
Now i am prepared to believe your answers ;D
You know you're right when you can no longer focus on the decimal point :D
The first patent: US Patent #4595843
QuoteA 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
QuoteA 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
WaveWatcher:
QuoteYou 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
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.
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)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.12, 22:16:40
Grumpy and All:
What about this statement attributed to Francis Nipher:
Quotethe 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.)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.13, 03:08:39
No takers on my pop quiz so far! lol
How about this fact that I stumbled upon:
Quote
QuoteFor 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
Grumpy:
I think you hit the head on the nail. Let me just go over the quiz questions:
Question 2:
QuoteFor 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:
Quotethe 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:
QuotePermeability 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:
QuoteMathematically, 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
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 01:56:18
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)
Quote from: MileHigh on 2010.05.14, 01:56:18
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.
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.
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.