Transformer Induction

Author Topic: Transformer Induction (Read 26493 times)

Verpies	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #75 on: 2025-09-17, 20:58:40 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-17, 16:56:48 It's obvious the model is nothing like the actual circuit. It is very similar. Just because it does not mirror the actual circuit 100% does not mean it is "nothing like".

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #76 on: 2025-09-18, 09:13:06 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-17, 15:49:00

Yes, that is correct.

Sorry for the confusion. The "primary current stored in R1" should have read "primary current stored in Ref1". IOW, the previously measured primary current with the resonant L1/C1 in place and operating.

I will have to re-run the test and actually measure the current through R1. It will be considerably less than the resonant current of 1.519A without the resistor in the circuit but it will have some value that will produce an energy level that is not accounted for normally. The 960.2ma current measurement on CH4(grn) in the second scope pix is an rms measurement of the increase and collapse of the primary current. In the 3rd pix, the 953.3ma is again an rms measurement of the increase and collapse of the primary current with L1/C1 and R1 removed from the core.

You can get a good estimate from the measured AC voltage across the LC circuit and knowledge of the inductor value and frequency since i=V/wL. Without the R the unloaded Q is showing 40V pk to pk which with 90uH and 15.46KHz gives 1.62A rms against your measured 1.52A rms. Taking that 1.52 value as correct, with the 1 ohm resistor the voltage drops to 15V pk to pk which yields a current of 0.57A rms. That is 324mW dissipating in the R.

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #77 on: 2025-09-18, 09:24:39 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-17, 16:56:48

I suspect the circuit anomaly could be due to what I call a lack of follow through.
.............
It's not rocket science, buy a $2 linear hall effect sensor, attach it to your DSO, energize the core coil and map the direction and magnitude of the actual magnetic field on a big piece of paper with a picture of the coil and core.

You are misjudging the knowledge of the people here, we know about flux leakage and we have means for getting that data. The clever thing is explaining how that leakage produces the anomaly, would you like to tackle that problem for us?

partzman

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #78 on: 2025-09-18, 15:34:28 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-17, 16:56:48

I suspect the circuit anomaly could be due to what I call a lack of follow through.

For example, many suppose all of the magnetic field is contained within the core based on hearsay. That is, the textbooks show a closed field confirmed by many simulations. Of course this is complete nonsense and in the real world, measured with real hall effect sensors and arrays, some of the field around the coil always curls back on itself outside the coil and core.

Based on real world experience here is the first thing I see when looking at the circuit partzman posted.

1)The core coil is near a corner which increases magnetic field leakage. In effect it partially closes the field path.
2)The core coil is next to a nub extending from the middle of the inner core increasing magnetic field leakage. In effect it partially closes the field path
3)The inner coil L1 is literally on the nub extending from the middle of the inner core where I would expect leakage.
4)The inner coil L1 is aligned with the nub, near the core coil end where leakage should be the greatest.

Whenever we do experiments we should always test every premise. So if we suppose all the magnetic field stays within the core we should test it. This is literally the first test which should have been done once the coil was wound on the core because all the other premises are dependent on it.

I can also say with near absolute certainty the core field model Verpies posted is incorrect. Verpies coil is in the middle of the core, covering most of the leg, not in the corner like the actual circuit. There is no nub in the middle of the leg extending inward at the end on the core coil. It's obvious the model is nothing like the actual circuit.

It's not rocket science, buy a $2 linear hall effect sensor, attach it to your DSO, energize the core coil and map the direction and magnitude of the actual magnetic field on a big piece of paper with a picture of the coil and core.

AC

I am well aware of the so called leakage flux or H-Field which is negligible in an unloaded core which is what we have with the resonant L1/C1 in the core window. However, what we do have is an interaction between the H-Field of L1 during resonance with the host core. This interaction is complex due to positioning, coil aspect ratio, coupling factor, and lead lengths and positions of L1. Everything in the core window charge separates!

Pm

Allcanadian

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #79 on: 2025-09-18, 18:39:46 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3064

partzman

Quote

I am well aware of the so called leakage flux or H-Field which is negligible in an unloaded core which is what we have with the resonant L1/C1 in the core window.

The field leakage is not negligible and the moment the core coil is energized near the corner leakage occurs. I know this from mapping the fields in many core geometries under different conditions. This is why we need to do real tests to determine what is fact and what is not so much. It's similar to the hearsay that a current follows the shortest path between two points. In fact, proven by experiment, it never follows a straight line if not constrained by the conductor. Which begs the question how 99% of people could get something so simple so wrong?. We know why... they didn't check their premise.

Quote

However, what we do have is an interaction between the H-Field of L1 during resonance with the host core.

I agree, because L1 is literally right next to the core coil confined in the corner. I would expect a great deal of interaction considering the proximity of the circuit elements. However if you had a circular core larger in diameter and the elements not so close to one another much less interaction would occur. Of course, I would expect you already did simple comparative tests like this. I like to use an iron wire core which is easy to bend into different geometries when field mapping.

Quote

This interaction is complex due to positioning, coil aspect ratio, coupling factor, and lead lengths and positions of L1. Everything in the core window charge separates!

I would agree the interaction is very complex considering the proximity of the core and circuit elements. More so when the field leakage can move both through and/or sweep across part of the L1 coil. It relates to my prior post on the possible number of combinations in a small number of variables. Four variables each having 1000 possible values has 1 quadrillion possible combinations.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Allcanadian

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #80 on: 2025-09-18, 18:52:03 »

Hero Member

Posts: 3064

FYI ,an AI confirmed my suspicions...

Question, if a coil is wound in the corner of a square transformer core how much can the magnetic field leakage increase as a percentage?.

Minimal effect (<~5%) when the corner is gently rounded, most turns sit on the straight legs, and the core is large/high-µ.

Typical effect (≈5–25%) for a coil that places a significant fraction of its turns in a sharp corner on a normal laminated or ferrite square core.

Large effect (≈25–100% or more) if many turns are forced around a tight sharp corner, the corner has a small radius, or the core is small/low-µ — in extreme cases leakage can become comparable to or exceed the original leakage.

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

partzman	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #81 on: 2025-09-18, 22:05:44 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2232	AC, Most all my experiments in charge separation have involved the use of toroid cores! No corners! Same results! My results show that there is not so much an effect on L1 from the host core, but rather from L1 to the host core. Pm

chief kolbacict

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #82 on: 2025-09-19, 08:17:53 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 393

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-18, 18:52:03

Minimal effect (<~5%) when the corner is gently rounded, most turns sit on the straight legs, and the core is large/high-µ.

Typical effect (≈5–25%) for a coil that places a significant fraction of its turns in a sharp corner on a normal laminated or ferrite square core.

Large effect (≈25–100% or more) if many turns are forced around a tight sharp corner, the corner has a small radius, or the core is small/low-µ — in extreme cases leakage can become comparable to or exceed the original leakage.

Why does a sharp corner gives us more leakage inductance ? It looks like a magnetic flux has inertia. similar centrifugal force.

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #83 on: 2025-09-19, 08:30:27 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-18, 18:52:03

FYI ,an AI confirmed my suspicions...

Question, if a coil is wound in the corner of a square transformer core how much can the magnetic field leakage increase as a percentage?.

Wrong question, you have not asked what percentage of the core flux leaks out which is what we need to work with. AI has given you a percentage increase from some dubious typical leakage figure. It is clear that AI has done that from its final statement

Quote

in extreme cases leakage can become comparable to or exceed the original leakage.

And the original leakage is what?
Maximum leakage occurs when you have a small primary coil opposite to a small secondary coil where you find the leakage is greatly affected by the load current in the secondary, AI doesn't mention that.

Verpies	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #84 on: 2025-09-19, 10:10:12 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: Smudge on 2025-09-19, 08:30:27 Maximum leakage occurs when you have a small primary coil opposite to a small secondary coil where you find the leakage is greatly affected by the load current in the secondary,... ...and greatly affected by any air gaps in the core ...especially on the secondary side.

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #85 on: 2025-09-19, 10:29:44 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-18, 22:05:44

My results show that there is not so much an effect on L1 from the host core, but rather from L1 to the host core.

And your measurement of the resonant LC current through L tells you what the waveform of the flux in the core from that LC current will be, for comparison with the primary flux from the primary current. Multiplying the induced sinusoidal voltage into the primary coil with the triangular current yields an energy exchange over a full cycle, but we don't have enough data to establish what the two polarities are, whether this yields energy gain or energy loss. This can be established by more experiments and perhaps the most useful could be to drive the primary with sinusoidal AC and not pulse, have your 1 ohm load there to give measured power out for comparison with measured power in.

chief kolbacict	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #86 on: 2025-09-20, 11:57:22 »
Sr. Member Posts: 393	If we will be use such a core, I don’t know what it’s called ? And place your capacitor inside the core, on top of the winding. This can be done even by using a thin insulator and winding the capacitor in many layers. FER039_1.JPG (2.63 kB, 100x93 - viewed 424 times.)

Verpies	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #87 on: 2025-09-20, 15:57:50 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: chief kolbacict on 2025-09-20, 11:57:22 If we will be use such a core, I don’t know what it’s called ? Pot core

partzman

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #88 on: 2025-09-23, 21:13:14 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

I have stated earlier on this thread that an inductor (cored or not) when placed in the center hole of a toroid did not charge separate properly. IOW, the measured voltage across said inductor did not reach the primary V/turn potential. This is not correct! My most recent testing shows an inductor will reach the expected V/turn of the primary.

I used this faulty logic to rationalize that this potential difference between and L and C therefore allowed a resonance condition to exist in the center hole. This is not the case!

L/C resonance can only exist in the center hole if L is affected by the host core. Not in the manner that AC described but rather whether the core has reached even a small level of saturation.

These are the results of my current tests but more work is needed to exactly define the conditions.

Pm

Verpies	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #89 on: 2025-09-23, 22:32:00 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-23, 21:13:14 My most recent testing shows an inductor will reach the expected V/turn of the primary. Measured like this ? Transformer Induction Layout Schematic.png (17.79 kB, 1145x553 - viewed 381 times.)

partzman	Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #90 on: 2025-09-24, 14:59:09 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2232	Quote from: verpies on 2025-09-23, 22:32:00 Measured like this ? No! With the probe ground lead inside the E-Field area, it will charge separate and the resultant reading at the scope will be zero volts. The probe ground lies outside the core. With this arrangement, the resultant voltage will be the V/turn of the primary.

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #91 on: 2025-09-24, 16:07:37 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-23, 21:13:14

L/C resonance can only exist in the center hole if L is affected by the host core.

In your post #53 you showed some measurements for the set up in your image repeated here below. Clearly this LC was in resonance since your hall probe CH4(grn) was showing over 1 amp AC current. IMO the drive for this was not the volts for a single turn, that would imply the drive current coming through your CH3(pnk) scope probe impedance (like 10pF and 10 megohms?). IMO it was the capacitor C1 acting as an antenna to the E field there. If you disconnected CH3 I say you would still see that current, maybe you could do that to check it out. If you still get that resonance it is possible that capacitance from the wire where the hall probe is clamped, through the hall probe and then via the scope ground which passes outside the core and brings in the volts per turn could be the driver, but I suspect not. Is there any data for that leakage capacitance?

Smudge

Transformer Induction

ICR Layout Schematic (1).png (18.39 kB, 1253x553 - viewed 353 times.)

partzman

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #92 on: 2025-09-24, 21:55:17 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Smudge on 2025-09-24, 16:07:37

In your post #53 you showed some measurements for the set up in your image repeated here below. Clearly this LC was in resonance since your hall probe CH4(grn) was showing over 1 amp AC current. IMO the drive for this was not the volts for a single turn, that would imply the drive current coming through your CH3(pnk) scope probe impedance (like 10pF and 10 megohms?). IMO it was the capacitor C1 acting as an antenna to the E field there. If you disconnected CH3 I say you would still see that current, maybe you could do that to check it out.

You are correct in that the V/turn is not creating the resonance between L1 and C1 that is, if the primary is operating on the linear portion of the BH curve. If this is the case, there will be little to no resonance between L1 and C1.

In post #53 however, there is a great deal of saturation in the primary and we therefore have a large amount of flux outside the boundaries of the core. This flux is the primary driving source for L1 that creates the resonant condition. There is also a reciprocal condition in that L1 supplies an amount of H-Field back to the host core and the effects depend on the phasing and position of L1. Very interactive!

Yes, when C3 is disconnected, the resonant current current is still there.

Quote

If you still get that resonance it is possible that capacitance from the wire where the hall probe is clamped, through the hall probe and then via the scope ground which passes outside the core and brings in the volts per turn could be the driver, but I suspect not. Is there any data for that leakage capacitance?

Smudge

The current probe is a Tek TCP0020 and I could find no capacitance data for it. However, with the current probe removed and CH3 disconnected, the resonance condition still exists as can be seen by CH3 being placed close to the circuit.

If C1 is biased by an external voltage source and L1 is switched to ground during the time that voltage across C1 is increased by the V/turn of the primary, we will have resonance even with a linear primary as discussed previously.

Pm

Smudge

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #93 on: 2025-09-25, 09:58:02 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-24, 21:55:17

In post #53 however, there is a great deal of saturation in the primary and we therefore have a large amount of flux outside the boundaries of the core. This flux is the primary driving source for L1 that creates the resonant condition. There is also a reciprocal condition in that L1 supplies an amount of H-Field back to the host core and the effects depend on the phasing and position of L1. Very interactive!

OK. Just to recap in case readers are lost, in post #47 you showed the waveforms and in post #53 you showed the circuit. You now have an explanation for how the LC circuit gets driven which makes more sense than my drivel. However in post#47 you said the resonance was not seen by the primary. Is there some form of non-reciprocity here that could be used to advantage?

Smudge

partzman

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #94 on: 2025-09-25, 15:12:20 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Smudge on 2025-09-25, 09:58:02

OK. Just to recap in case readers are lost, in post #47 you showed the waveforms and in post #53 you showed the circuit. You now have an explanation for how the LC circuit gets driven which makes more sense than my drivel. However in post#47 you said the resonance was not seen by the primary. Is there some form of non-reciprocity here that could be used to advantage?

Smudge

Yes, there does appear to be conditions that indicate non-reciprocity. This being the orientation of L1 to the host core. See below for example.

In the attachments below, "Pri Curr1" shows two different primary currents stored in Ref1 and Ref2 that were the result of different physical placements of L1 relative to the host core with the circuit in resonance. In both cases, the axis of L1 is horizontal and L1's ferrite core is touching the host core. The maximum trace is one position and the minimum trace is with L1 rotated 180 degrees. Obviously we have a primary current increase from one position to the other that is apparently determined by the flux directions in L1 and the host core.

"Pri Curr2" now shows the primary current in CH4(grn) (that is superimposed over Ref2) that was measured with the resonance circuit removed from the host core. It appears this particular orientation of L1 does not affect the primary current. I know there is missing data here so I'll run a more complete demo of this if there is interest.

Pm

Transformer Induction

Pri Curr1.png (31.24 kB, 800x480 - viewed 306 times.)

Transformer Induction

Pri Curr2.png (34.54 kB, 800x480 - viewed 300 times.)

PhysicsProf

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #95 on: 2025-09-25, 19:16:46 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 3230

""Pri Curr2" now shows the primary current in CH4(grn) (that is superimposed over Ref2) that was measured with the resonance circuit removed from the host core. It appears this particular orientation of L1 does not affect the primary current. I know there is missing data here so I'll run a more complete demo of this if there is interest.

Pm""

I'm interested, although not following everything you're doing...
Question: is there any way for you to develop what you're doing into a SELF-RUNNER? even at very low power...

partzman

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #96 on: 2025-09-25, 20:16:44 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: PhysicsProf on 2025-09-25, 19:16:46

""Pri Curr2" now shows the primary current in CH4(grn) (that is superimposed over Ref2) that was measured with the resonance circuit removed from the host core. It appears this particular orientation of L1 does not affect the primary current. I know there is missing data here so I'll run a more complete demo of this if there is interest.

Pm""

I'm interested, although not following everything you're doing...
Question: is there any way for you to develop what you're doing into a SELF-RUNNER? even at very low power...

Well, that is the goal but nothing to report at the moment!

Pm

F6FLT

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #97 on: 2025-09-26, 17:34:35 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

Quote from: partzman on 2025-09-25, 15:12:20

... It appears this particular orientation of L1 does not affect the primary current.
...

This situation is not unusual. Since the secondary circuit is coupled to the primary circuit, the load and losses are distributed across both circuits and may vary in each circuit depending on the mutual coupling, while the sum remains unchanged, as does the energy supplied by the primary circuit.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

web000x

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #98 on: 2025-09-26, 23:53:31 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 441

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-09-26, 17:34:35

This situation is not unusual. Since the secondary circuit is coupled to the primary circuit, the load and losses are distributed across both circuits and may vary in each circuit depending on the mutual coupling, while the sum remains unchanged, as does the energy supplied by the primary circuit.

It seems quite significant to me that the primary current would remain the same with the resonant circuit removed and also with the resonant circuit inserted in the core in a particular orientation, assuming the resonant circuit is excited by this orientation.

JimBoot

Re: Transformer Induction « Reply #99 on: 2025-10-06, 03:47:17 »

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member

Posts: 1946

Jon I got Grok to check out the paper that Hakasys posted in the chat and how it related to your setup. I'm not smart enough to know if it's slop or not but it's how I'm following along.

"This recent paper seems highly relevant to the ongoing discussion here on E-field charge separation, displacement currents, and the apparent lack of energy draw from the primary in open-circuit scenarios. It's titled "Nonlocal or Possibly Superluminal Maxwell Displacement Current Observed in the Near-field of a Spherical Capacitor" by Markoulakis, Walker, and Antonidakis, published in IRECAP Vol. 14, Issue 4 (2024, revised Feb 2025). Full text available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4790873 or DOI: 10.15866/irecap.v14i4.24903.
In summary, the authors conducted experiments with a large spherical air-dielectric capacitor (1.5m poles separated by 1.5m) pulsed at high voltage. They claim to observe the displacement current (Maxwell's μ₀ε₀∂E/∂t term) behaving nonlocally in the near-field—meaning instantaneous action-at-a-distance between the poles, with no measurable propagation delay (implying possibly superluminal speed, >>c). Delays were only from conduction currents in wires/electrodes, not the displacement itself. They argue this confirms Maxwell's original prediction for near-fields, where polarization of space (aether-like) allows instant effects without violating relativity for far-fields. Confidence level: 80% from stats on 100+ runs.
How does this tie into our thread?
Quoting partzman's OP:

IMO, charge separation occurs in the secondary via the E-Field generated in the primary. This secondary emf then is capable of producing usable power when loaded.
So, what theory supports this action? IMO it is the power flow or Poynting vector designated as S=EXH... The core window area appears to act as a waveguide for the E and H Fields as the primary E-Field appears to be within this core area.

And Smudge's Reply #1:

My next image is a huge parallel plate capacitor almost filling the space within the toroidal core. The significant feature of this is the capacitor gets charged without any external current to it... Of course the displacment of electric charge within the dielectric is a form of current flow, so the primary does see that, the energy gained in the capacitor comes from the 3V input.

The paper's nonlocal displacement could explain why charge separation/polarization happens "instantly" in the core window without apparent propagation time or energy reflection back to the primary (no Lenz if non-flux-enclosing, as discussed). It aligns with partzman's aether claims in Reply #25:

In all my experimentation with this type of charge separation, at no time have I ever seen energy taken from the primary for charge separation in any open circuited object. IMO, the energy required for this charge increase comes from the aether...

If displacement is nonlocal/instant in near-fields, it might act like an "aether polarization" that transfers info/energy without finite speed, explaining the no-draw observation. This also resonates with Allcanadian's cap paradox in #26 (redistribution as cause) and verpies/F6FLT's hysteresis emphasis (#20, #22, #28)—the paper notes bound charges in dielectrics enable this without free electron flow.
More directly, in partzman's LC resonance test (#50-53 quotes):

ICR1 shows the differential at the charge separation switching to be 6.15v. Note this is larger than the 4V/T of the primary... This LC resonance is not seen by the primary... So, I leave you with the question, what is supplying the energy to this resonance circuit?

(Smudge reply): It is from the 40V supply that is seeing current impulses that integrate to a non-zero value...

If the displacement current driving the LC is nonlocal, it could sustain the resonance instantly via E-field polarization, without the primary "seeing" it as a load—matching the paper's instant signaling between capacitor poles. No finite delay means no phased opposition, potentially amplifying effects like the >4V/T voltage.
Also echoes Centraflow's bifilar coil-caps (#4-6) and Hakasays' electret ideas (#7,10,12)—nonlocal effects might enhance curl fields or remnant polarization in ferroelectrics.
Worth testing? Maybe replicate their setup on a smaller scale in the toroid hole—pulse one "pole" (e.g., a plate), probe the other for zero-delay response. Could explain why vertical plates gave COP<1 but disc/LC shows promise."