PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-02-19, 17:08:44
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: TPU and Iron wire Theories  (Read 59299 times)

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
False, and I prove it.
If this would the case, then the core would be saturated/desaturated at the rate of the controlled signal, because this one would be preponderant. But this is not the case, the output signal remains linear.
The core is saturated at the rate of the control signal PLUS the controlled signal. The controlled signal looses the ability to create denser flux due to the lower inductance of the already saturated core. This is why rectifiers are required to enable the massive gain ratios possible.
Quote
The image of the transistor is misleading. In a transistor, the question is only about currents. In coils, there are currents and magnetic flux, and the intensity of a flux depends on the current, but not only on the current.
Yes, the flux density is the result of ampere turns but also limited by the maximum point of saturation.
Quote
I suggest that you study further the magnetic amplifier to get the understanding that
  • only the controlling flux is a flux strong enough to saturate or desaturate the core in order to set the inductance value, and
  • the weakest current can generate the strongest flux, question of number of ampere/turns which is much higher for the controlling circuit than the controlled circuit.

The last list item is not completely correct.
The controlling flux density need not be as much as or larger than that of the controlled signal. It only needs to be enough to saturate the core. It merely prevents the controlled signal from producing the flux density it would have should the core not be saturated.

I don't feel the need to study them further. I design and work with them every day.

Quote
The interest of a magnetic amplifier is only to control an inductance with an electric power weaker than the controlled electric power passing through the inductance, not to control a strong flux with a weak flux (not possible until now at my knowledge).

Here is the point where you will  not be able to understand these devices correctly. There are no separate fluxes. The fluxes you seem to speak of are only points of density variation in the all encompassing magnetic ambient. Just as all matter has a magnetic component all space has a magnetic component. You cannot control one flux with another because they are not separate. However, you may pin the spins in all possible magnetic domains so they will not react to another current until that other current reverses and overrides the control signal.
This is where rectifiers and small weak magnets attached to the core aid in improving gain of the mag-amp.

Quote
I must confess that I also misinterpreted the magnetic amplifier in the past, in the same way as yours, and I revised my understanding when I recently realized that a weak flux controlling a strong flux leads straightforwardly to a non-conservation of energy that is not observed in a magnetic amplifier.

You continue to misinterpret them and with either actual function conservation of energy holds.


---------------------------
"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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@Wavewatcher
Quote
Here is the point where you will  not be able to understand these devices correctly. There are no separate fluxes. The fluxes you seem to speak of are only points of density variation in the all encompassing magnetic ambient. Just as all matter has a magnetic component all space has a magnetic component. You cannot control one flux with another because they are not separate. However, you may pin the spins in all possible magnetic domains so they will not react to another current until that other current reverses and overrides the control signal.
This is where rectifiers and small weak magnets attached to the core aid in improving gain of the mag-amp.

I would agree, the notion of fields and lines of force invented by Faraday and fluxes, lines of fluxes and poles has hindered progress in this field of technology. I refuse to deal with such nonsense and have reverted to gradients of force which does away with most all the imaginary notations however I still use field density as a point of reference. I find most people look at this from the wrong perspective such as the notion that there is different kinds of magnetism or different kinds of magnetism streaming from each imaginary pole. If fact I cannot see how any progress could be made treating imaginary notations as tangible things.
I think you are one of the few people I have seen who can see past the BS so many have been led to believe ;).

I did a thought experiment a long time ago which definitely helps, what if there was no such thing as "magnetism"?. What if the term magnetism and all the imaginary terminology that goes with it was never invented. What would we think of it?, how would we describe it in reality with no preconceived notions or bias?. I have found it is much easier to understand something once we have removed all forms of bias relating to others opinions and concentrate on what we believe and it makes a hell of a lot more sense as well.

AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Group: Guest
The core is saturated at the rate of the control signal PLUS the controlled signal.
...

This is true but it's a lie by omission.
The controlled flux is negligible in comparison with the control flux, otherwise the core would be saturated and desaturated at each period of the controlled signal.
And this is obviously not the case!   C.C

If we compare our variable inductance with a variable capacitor, which can also be used as variable impedance, the control flux plays the same role as a voltage fixing the polarisation point of the varicap. Although the capacitance of the varicap depends on the control voltage+the controlled AC voltage, of course the voltage control is much higher than the weak AC signal and the AC signal sees only an (almost) constant capacitance determined by the polarisation voltage.

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
My use of the word 'PLUS' was a mistake. I assumed you would understand that as algebraic summation, since we are speaking of magnetic fields.

If you consider that a lie then that is fine, Ex. I expected such from you at some point regardless of the direction of conversation.

I state the facts as I know them to be true. If I am wrong that does not make me a liar.

My suggestions for you:

Look at the function recently seen as 'new' by so many where magnetic attraction and repulsion were 'turned-off & on' by applying and removing the coil current on a ferrous core. Steorn and JLN were two of those fools. When you find it, compare the force used to saturate the core with the attractive force between the core and magnet when the core isn't saturated by the coil current.

Don't waste your time and money designing or building mag-amps. Stick with theory. Let others design and build them.


---------------------------
"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
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
What do you guys think about this diagram I drew up?  A possible TPU  ?


Coils are in close proximity and we get feedback through induction directly.  In addition, we also receive electromagnetic fields with the loops, so this is extra energy that funnels into our circuit, and if its the correct frequency dictated by the feedback loop it will build up.

Of course, the mag-amp is powered by a frequency source of 35 kHz, or any other frequency.  But think about this, if we can recycle the frequency back to the LO port (where we inject the 35 kHz freq.)  we will not need a power source once the device is started.

Something worth trying I think.

EM

[edit:   I need to think more about the details, the control circuit does not see the 35 kHz, since its single balanced but the input signal does modulate the 35 kHz and appears on the output, so how can we balance the output as well so we don't see the 35 khz?   A double balanced mixer I guess, that's the answer.


 
« Last Edit: 2013-01-08, 03:47:42 by EMdevices »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Question for EM and anyone else who has the answer:

Explain emf and why it causes electrons to move.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1146
I think this is a trap, but what the heck  ;D

the EMF is created by a changing magnetic field (or flux through a coil), and it is an electric field really because it moves the electrons which only respond to electric fields, ( unless they move through a magnetic field and experience a Lorentz force  q(vxB), so is that also called an EMF?  where is my EM theory book  >:(,

If I remember correctly it is named an EMF and not an electric field because it is not conservative.  But hey, it moves charged particles so it's an electric field right?

EM


PS,  when moving through a uniform magnetic field, we can't say the electron observes a changing magnetic field or flux from its moving frame of reference, because the field is uniform and constant with distance, but yet the moving electron experiences a side force , the Lorentz force, just like in the old CRT tubes.   As a result, some people envision induction, in a loop of wire, as the magnetic lines of force MOVING through and cutting the loop of wire, and now we have that relative motion again between the free electrons in the metal and the magnetic lines of force, therefore the side force appears and moves the electrons.     [now ww is going to object to saying "magnetic lines of force", there is no such thing!    here we go again  lol  ;D

ok its time for bed
   
Group: Guest
My use of the word 'PLUS' was a mistake. I assumed you would understand that as algebraic summation, since we are speaking of magnetic fields.

"Plus" was not a mistake. Different superposing flux simply add. Magnitudes of superposing fields add. It's really an algebraic summation, considering the important point to take also into account: the change of the permeability of the core due to saturation along the field lines. I wonder why you think that I could think differently. I guess that you misinterpret the consequences of this well known fact.

Quote
...
I state the facts as I know them to be true. If I am wrong that does not make me a liar.

In logic, facts are considered always true by definition, otherwise they are not facts. Therefore the question is: "what are the facts".
So I suppose that you meant: "I state the things that I interpret as being facts."

In the present case, do you agree that the inductance value is mainly fixed by the control flux and not by the controlled flux? If "no", then you are denying the facts (there is no saturation switching on and off at the rate of the controlled flux).

I consider that to refuse obvious objections, to ignore key points, and to not challenge his beliefs in order to take pleasure with them is a form of lie.

Quote
My suggestions for you:

Look at the function recently seen as 'new' by so many where magnetic attraction and repulsion were 'turned-off & on' by applying and removing the coil current on a ferrous core. Steorn and JLN were two of those fools. When you find it, compare the force used to saturate the core with the attractive force between the core and magnet when the core isn't saturated by the coil current.

Don't waste your time and money designing or building mag-amps. Stick with theory. Let others design and build them.

I wonder why you refer to Steorn. There was a mistake in the measurement protocol, then transformed into a scam.
I led myself experiments with saturated ferrite toroids. The saturation is of course only along the field lines that saturate the ferrite: this point alone is enough to understand  all their blunders.
I have explained and I can explain again all observations and facts relative to the experiments from Steorn and Naudin, and why and how they are in total agreement with the ordinary laws of physics. That is why the fact is that nothing new came from Steorn nor JLN in matter of free energy. But if I should have to explain their process again, I will do it only for open minds.

   
Group: Guest
I think this is a trap, but what the heck  ;D

the EMF is created by a changing magnetic field (or flux through a coil), and it is an electric field really because it moves the electrons which only respond to electric fields, ( unless they move through a magnetic field and experience a Lorentz force  q(vxB), so is that also called an EMF?  where is my EM theory book  >:(,

If I remember correctly it is named an EMF and not an electric field because it is not conservative.  But hey, it moves charged particles so it's an electric field right?

It's really an electric field E, exerting the classical Coulomb force F=q*E upon the charges. It's often named differently because the "usual" electric field (for example from batteries) derives from a potential but not the EMF.

Quote
PS,  when moving through a uniform magnetic field, we can't say the electron observes a changing magnetic field or flux from its moving frame of reference, because the field is uniform and constant with distance, but yet the moving electron experiences a side force , the Lorentz force, just like in the old CRT tubes.   As a result, some people envision induction, in a loop of wire, as the magnetic lines of force MOVING through and cutting the loop of wire, and now we have that relative motion again between the free electrons in the metal and the magnetic lines of force, therefore the side force appears and moves the electrons.     [now ww is going to object to saying "magnetic lines of force", there is no such thing!    here we go again  lol  ;D

ok its time for bed

The magnetic lines of force, which are the equipotentials of the field, can be viewed as expanding and contracting in circles around each segment of conductor carrying a varying current. So we can say that they cut the loop of wire. I don't like this view because not physical. The best physical view comes paradoxically from relativity. The magnetic and electric fields are the same and one reality. We see one or the other depending on our motion relative to the electrons, and the electrons also. For an observer at rest, an electron moving in a magnetic field sees a real electric field, E=vxB, and so it experiences the classical force F=q*E.

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
In the present case, do you agree that the inductance value is mainly fixed by the control flux and not by the controlled flux? If "no", then you are denying the facts (there is no saturation switching on and off at the rate of the controlled flux).
At the level of that question I would agree. Inductance value is relative to the control or the controlled. Once the core is saturated it does not appear or react to the controlled signal. Therefore, the controlled signal sees less inductance. Since the control signal is DC and maintained less energy is required to maintain saturation. Since the controlled signal is AC and the saturated core is not visible (to a great extent) to the controlled signal, the controlled signal must put forth a great deal more energy to change the state of core saturation.

Are you thinking that one magnetic field can cancel another out? Of course, you are. You are still stuck on the idea that adding two opposing magnetic fields will annihilate both. Only the area between them will see a net of zero. Both will remain as they are attached to each other, always.

Quote
I wonder why you refer to Steorn.

I referred to them because they, and many others, were surprised by the mentioned function. You and I were not. The mention was a method of identifying the function.


---------------------------
"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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
So:

In the case of a battery, the difference in potential imparts a force, moving the charges.

In the case of a changing magnetic field, the Lorentz force moves the charges.


What other forces can we use to move the charges in a conductor?

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
gravity induced current in an acyclic generator


This is an unverified theoretical generator that Willie Johnson proposed during a conversation about his Gyroscopic Force Theory.  It is a challenge just to build it since it has to maintian this orientation as it spins.
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
You all may recall that the early TPU's stopped working when they were flipped over.  I propose that gravity was the vertical force on the collector.
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
Like gravity and magnetic force, I tend to think that the Lorentz force is also a pseudo force.

What creates the effect of induction has always and only been precession. The same should also be the only thing needed to create charge. Everything is spin and precession  :)

I don't see a magnet on that graphic. Surprising  ;) They always stick a magnet or magnetic field somewhere on the contraption, even when it isn't required. I think the device would work as the precession should eliminate the need for an external magnetic field.

I read the first of his papers in the 70's. It is time to see how he has progressed.
<by 'his' I meant the source of the original concept - just found a recent submission http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
Believe it or not, the precessing disk and the spiral are effectively the same.>

Thanks for the reminder!



---------------------------
"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
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
Now we're talkin'!

Induce precession of the electrons and induce a current.

So, how do these devices, assuming some of them work, induce precession of electrons without physical motion between their parts?
   
Group: Guest
Like gravity and magnetic force, I tend to think that the Lorentz force is also a pseudo force.
...

A pseudo-force is a force that is viewed only in a non-inertial reference frame and for that reason. The Lorentz force is viewed also in intertial frames so it is not a pseudo-force but a real force, the Coulomb force coming from the electric field E=vxB.

   
Group: Guest
So:

In the case of a battery, the difference in potential imparts a force, moving the charges.
In the case of a changing magnetic field, the Lorentz force moves the charges.

It's the same force. It's the electric force F=q*E.
Only the process to create the field and also the field topology are different, not its nature.

Quote
What other forces can we use to move the charges in a conductor?

None except mechanical forces. A current being charges passing per unit of time, moving a charged conductor creates a current. For example a rotating charged ring would create a magnetic field in the same way as a 1 turn coil, but weak in practice (if we build a ring of 1nF capacitance, charge it at 1KV and rotate it at 2000 turns/mn we get a current I=C*U*2000/60=33µA.

   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
A pseudo-force is a force that is viewed only in a non-inertial reference frame and for that reason. The Lorentz force is viewed also in intertial frames so it is not a pseudo-force but a real force, the Coulomb force coming from the electric field E=vxB.



Ex,

"A pseudo-force is a force that is viewed only in a non-inertial reference frame" when that non-inertial reference frame is itself under acceleration "and for that reason".

If you think of these things in terms of spin and precession there is a bit more clarity. The electric charge is itself a spin. Moving electric charge is spin and precession. From the moving reference frame of the charge Lorentz force is a pseudo force. From the non-moving reference frame of the charge the Lorentz force doesn't exist.  :D

Maybe induction of motion, including attraction and repulsion, are the result of spacetime deformities   ^-^

Bunk! All of it can be prepended with 'pseudo'. There is no non-inertial frame of reference.



---------------------------
"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
Ex,

"A pseudo-force is a force that is viewed only in a non-inertial reference frame" when that non-inertial reference frame is itself under acceleration "and for that reason".

"when that non-inertial reference frame is itself under acceleration" is a pleomasm. A non-inertial reference frame is always under acceleration, by definition.

Quote
If you think of these things in terms of spin and precession there is a bit more clarity. The electric charge is itself a spin. Moving electric charge is spin and precession. From the moving reference frame of the charge Lorentz force is a pseudo force. From the non-moving reference frame of the charge the Lorentz force doesn't exist.  :D

Maybe induction of motion, including attraction and repulsion, are the result of spacetime deformities   ^-^

Bunk! All of it can be prepended with 'pseudo'. There is no non-inertial frame of reference.

 ;D
You are confusing spin and rotation and even if it was a rotation, which an electron is not, you would have to choose the origin of your referential frame: to place it anywhere but not at the center which is inertial, is misleading and useless as you can't treat an electron as a solid in revolution. It's the same childish mistake as to say that the earth is not in inertial motion around the sun because it rotates about itself!
You should learn the bases of what you are talking about. "From the moving reference frame of the charge Lorentz force is a pseudo force" is a total nonsense.

   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@Wavewatcher
Quote
I read the first of his papers in the 70's. It is time to see how he has progressed.
<by 'his' I meant the source of the original concept - just found a recent submission http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0012/0012009.pdf
Believe it or not, the precessing disk and the spiral are effectively the same.>

Thanks for the link, invalidation of Faraday's Induction Law ... now you have my attention, lol.
I ran some experiments on the Homopolar generator many years ago and I may have to pull it out of hibernation.

AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 993
@Grumpy
Quote
You all may recall that the early TPU's stopped working when they were flipped over.  I propose that gravity was the vertical force on the collector.

You may be correct, I always found it odd that in the early 1900's there was a great deal of theorizing and experiments concerning the three primary forces and then the questions seemed to stop. Mainstream science knew how these forces acted in most every case and so the question of what they were fundamentally seemed to disappear into the background noise.

I remember this used to irritate many people to no end because no matter where I go, no matter who I talk with I always have a trump card up my sleeve. I simply say -- you think your smart, you think you understand, then tell me what the three primary fields are in reality ... not how they act but what they are fundamentally?. In every case I always get complete silence because I think they know I will tear their credibility limb from limb if they try to peddle their BS with me, I can see right through it and will not accept it. The fact is they/we do not know, they do not even know where to begin thus all of us are on equal ground in this respect, it's a show stopper,lol.

I have found that fundamentally we cannot build on a foundation which does not exist and until we understand the fundamental cause of the three primary fields it will always be in question. One cannot say this is a unyeilding physical law beyond reproach then in the next breath say however I have no understanding of the most fundamental basis of this law. It simply lacks credibility and seems to be that dark little secret hidden in the closet that nobody likes to talk about. As such I think we cannot discount anything and must go back to the beginning to understand where we may have missed something based on what we already know.

AC


---------------------------
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt.

There is infinitely more that we do not know, than we know.
   
Group: Guest

The mentionned paper mixes truth and ignorance in a very confused manner. For instance page 11 the author wonders why the torque doesn't increase with the number of turns of the spiral. Why? The torque depending on the Lorentz force is proportional to the vector product VxB. The electrons moving not radially because they are forced to move along the wire and the wire has an angle with a radius, the vector product is diminished by a factor equal to the sine of the angle, the limit tending to zero when the number of turns tends to infinity because the electrons must go almost tangentially instead of radially.
This guy is not credible and so confused that I agree with the AJP decision to not publish.

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3041
tExB=qr
He sumarizes the key points of this paper in his response to AJP's decison not to publish the paper. (located at the end of the pdf)
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
"when that non-inertial reference frame is itself under acceleration" is a pleomasm. A non-inertial reference frame is always under acceleration, by definition.

I expected you to catch and jump on that  ;D

Quote
You are confusing spin and rotation and even if it was a rotation, which an electron is not, you would have to choose the origin of your referential frame: to place it anywhere but not at the center which is inertial, is misleading and useless as you can't treat an electron as a solid in revolution. It's the same childish mistake as to say that the earth is not in inertial motion around the sun because it rotates about itself!
You should learn the bases of what you are talking about. "From the moving reference frame of the charge Lorentz force is a pseudo force" is a total nonsense.

Ex,

Do you ever have fun?

If having fun with a subject requires that I speak childishly then so be it. As far as the Lorentz force being universal - what is 'universal' nowadays? Is string theory (one of the many or all) correct? If so, what is the definition of universal?

Anal retentiveness can be fatal. Take care. ;)


---------------------------
"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: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
The mentionned paper mixes truth and ignorance in a very confused manner. For instance page 11 the author wonders why the torque doesn't increase with the number of turns of the spiral. Why? The torque depending on the Lorentz force is proportional to the vector product VxB. The electrons moving not radially because they are forced to move along the wire and the wire has an angle with a radius, the vector product is diminished by a factor equal to the sine of the angle, the limit tending to zero when the number of turns tends to infinity because the electrons must go almost tangentially instead of radially.
This guy is not credible and so confused that I agree with the AJP decision to not publish.



His work always seems to be poorly written but his experiments prove his main points.


---------------------------
"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
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-02-19, 17:08:44