Transformers and flux

[shylo]

4 in hand

Hi all,interesting thread ,what happens if you take 4 wires of equal length and wind them into a coil ,so you have 4 starts and 4 ends. But only put current through 1 start and its' end.
Does this induce current in the other 3?
Don't use any kind of core what so ever.
I've read that causing electrons to flow in a conductor, creates an opposite flow, which in turn opposes the induced flow.
I'm not sure if this is true, I think it is if you use some form of core that accepts lines of magnetic flux,but if air is your core....then what?
Also there has to be some kind of time delay, before the rise of the opposite reaction, short the leads before it can occur..no?
These are the best kinds of threads
shylo

[Duncan]

I beg to differ ..

Mutual flux paths and turns ratio .. iron loss and eddy currents yeah sure its the fodder we've all been taught and in most instances it holds together--- Its glib and it rolls off of the tongue
As Chris Carson says Loud and clear and demonstrates in this video " everybody thinks they know how a transformer works" but it wont stand up in all cases ! so please stop quoting it, Its wrong if your going to quote a law and assume its proved it must stand up in all conditions not just when its convenient to parrot learnt theory that has been corrupted. mostly its the same rubbish quoted by dupes who blindly follow the official line made up of intentionaly miss leading mush. or as CC says "cue ball theory"
Part 4 of 6: Eric Dollard & Chris Carson Tesla Longitudinal Wave Energy SBARC Ham Radio - YouTube
Part 5 of 6: Eric Dollard & Chris Carson Tesla Longitudinal Wave Energy SBARC Ham Radio - YouTube
Incidentally I strongly recommend anyone at all interested in alternative energy watch this series of videos very closely several times … listen to what is being said also note carefully what is tacit !
I hope you start to realise what a debt we owe to guys like CC (RIP) and EPD I have no doubt that giants like EPD are far more constrained in what they can say now than when this was made ! So listen very carefully to what these guys are saying as “loud and clear” as they could.
I know times are bloody rough right now but if you have a little spare give some to Eric as you start to realise what a treasure he has been , I have linked to a post on EPDs thread here http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post204149
It not only covers the start of corrected electromagnetic theory but also contains a link to donate.
for those who are not mathematical wizards and I've spent a lot of time scratching my head when EPD starts to rev up through the maths (and still do) .. consider this simplified explanation by Tom Bearden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rghTkRMU0
Sooo given that you have Just seen a 150 year old theory exploded and demonstrated wrong by EPD and CC and Its well known that the theory was intentionally corrupted why do you guys keep quoting this bolix?
It may seem a little caustic but the sooner you stop congratulating yourselves and each other on absorbing manufactured sanitized dogma and start to accept that its demonstrably wrong (as shown above) .. the better

[quantumuppercut]

I remember reading about transformers somewhere and they said the reason why the primary current increases when the secondary is loaded or shorted is because the primary or any coil for that matter creates flux when a current goes through it. This flux inducts a current or potential that tries to travel back down the wire in the opposite direction causing a head on collision with the primary current or a bucking effect or impedance. The presence of a secondary gives this current a path to travel through so that it no longer impedes the primary current. That sort of makes sense to me. Then they went on to say when the secondary is fully loaded or shorted the current is nearly as much as that of the primary. Therefore the flux of the secondary is nearly as much as that of the primary, which nearly cancels the flux out completely leaving a net flux closer to zero. Other people hold that that flux remains nearly at the original level. I dont know what to believe, but I am interested in both points of view and how they come to their conclusions. A fascinated novice.
Regards wil

This is exactly what I thought two nights ago when finding an alternative view to Lenz. It's an interesting view that flux remains at the original level vs flux cancel out. One could lead to extra energy while the other is not. Maybe flux remains original is correct, it would fits experimental observation in this circuit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhHhV4qutyA

[lotec]

doesnt appear to cancel

Thanks for taking the time to post the link quantumuppercut.
An interesting looking experiment. I'll ponder that. It will probably take a while for me to fully get what I just saw. At first glance, it looks like the secondary is being inducted by the primary and the led is acting as a half wave rectifier allowing the output to flow in one direction. And yes when the secondary flows in the opposite direction it doesn't seem to cancel primary flux causing more current draw. I hope I saw that rightly. I wonder how reciprocal that inductive coupling is? I have to admit that I kinda hoped it would but it doesn't appear to in that circuit. I'm a couple of hours away from an experiment Ive been trying to set up for some time.(borrowed seconds from here and there.) The results of which will be a learning experience for me.
Maybe one way it inducts off the rising side, then spun around inducts of the collapsing side.
Thanks again
wil

[lotec]

At second glance it seems to me that when the coils are in the same direction, the current flowing through the secondary's led has been inducted off the primary's collapsing flux. This could be taking away from the primary's led which may be powered from the same source(like Bedini chargers). When the secondary is spun around it's led allows current inducted from the primary's rising flux to flow. Interesting how it doesn't increase the primary current draw.

[quantumuppercut]

hi Lotec,

I have to say we have identical thought. You can also follow this thread to see more experimental observation in addition to your own.

Joule Ringer V4 and practical applications