Wrong, because it is incompatible with a theory that has been proven beyond doubt, whereas this paper by Flickinger has to do it. And this paper won't do it, it's such a nonsense.
I'm sorry but your first sentence makes no sense to me. I would have to ask though "incompatible with what theory?". If the paper is such nonsense, then how do you explain the attached simple bench test which you've seen a similar version before but gave no response? Here we have a 24 turn flat 50uH air coil that is connected to a fixed 11.47mH coil that is the constant current source that is biased at 100.6ma. Certainly not an ideal current source but sufficient to make the point. Now, a flat ferrite PM with the N pole facing the coil is passed over 1/2 of the 24T flat coil which produces the current wave form seen in CH4(grn) of the scope pix. The current peaks at 141.8ma at 17.49ms. Several thing to note that are not apparent. First, the polarity of the bias current from Lcc [the 11.47mH inductor] creates an electromagnetic field in L1[50uH air coil] that attracts the PM to L1 as the PM approaches L1. As the current in L1 and Lcc increase, this attraction increases. Then at the very peak current of 100.6 141.8ma, we disconnect Lcc from L1 and discharge Lcc into a DC source back to the starting 100.6ma level and we recover this energy which is (.1418^2-.1006^2)*11.47e-3/2 = 57uJ. At the same time, L1 is opened and the energy is dissipated in the current shuttling between L1's inductance and self capacitance. IOW, it quickly "rings" down. This action produces another attraction to the PM only this time it is as the PM leaves L1. The two attractions nearly cancel each other resulting in a very low net drag on the PM. The energy stored in L1 as a result of the bias current is .1006^2*50e-6/2 = 253nJ which is thrown away and neglected. IMO, I see a net gain of ~57uJ from a current sourced load! What do you see? One could also "cancel" Lenz's law by supplying the secondary with a voltage equal to that of the primary! I am always ready to explain things, but there are limits to the waste of time.
I'm certainly sorry to be a waste of your time but let me make a comment on your bold statement above. If you would allow yourself a little bit of time 'outside the box', you would see the importance of this statement! For example, have you considered the ramifications of such a setup if there was a bias current present with the proper polarities? As for relativity, I didn't learn it at school, but by myself, in the 2000's, and it took me 10 years before it was more or less clear. Anyone can do it, but it's more work than repeating the fable of Lenz's law being broken. 
Good for you! Are you still sure about the "fable"? Regards, Pm
« Last Edit: 2022-09-26, 22:26:08 by partzman »
|
Author
Topic: Holcomb and other FE technology debate (Read 49830 times)
