Self-induction

[Mario]

Hey Mario.

Strange you make the comment re: square magnets.

This is magnacoasters comment to Igor (mopozco) re Igor's shot at magnacoaster --

"maybe what you can do is setup to show no movment ? also the iron core will shatter that is why we do not use it ! also the transistor you used will cause you problems when it shorts out it will burn up battery as well. the 2 coils are not needed in the right setup and if you get it right you need to use square magnets as rounds have less power."

Cheers, Garry

Hi Garry,

I have no idea if magnacoaster is using the same principles…
IF they really have something I think it's more to do with bloch wall manipulation.
From what I know and experiments the kromrey effect can't be made solid state.

regards,
Mario

[Allcanadian]

@garrypm

you need to use square magnets as rounds have less power

Draw a 1" circle then add four corners to the circle to make a 1" square. The corners you added represent extra magnetic material hence a stronger field, more power.

AC

[Allcanadian]

@Mario

So maybe the kromrey effect is basically the same process, but now we charge the coil with a passing magnet:

the magnet approaches the core and charges it. If the load resistance is low enough the magnetic charge in the core can not collapse as fast as the speed of the leaving magnet would like.
Meaning the current flowing through the load at magnet approach cannot change direction fast enough and keeps flowing in that direction for a while pushing the magnet away.

I would agree and generally speaking a magnet approaching an open circuit coil will magnetize the core which represents a changing magnetic field. However the moment we close the circuit the coil will oppose any changes in current which relates to a changing magnetic field. That is the coil current will tend to hold the field and prevent it from changing a la Lenz law.

In fact this is the premise of the induction motor whereby the stator coils induce a current in the single turn rotor bars which hold the rotor field while the stator field changes. The changing stator fields act on the rotor fields which are delayed producing a force, one field acting on another.

It is really no different that levitating a copper plate with an AC coil. The AC coil will produce an eddy current in the copper plate which produces a magnetic field of it's own and if the AC coil field is changing faster than eddy current field then a force is produced which levitates the plate.

Now it would seem obvious that if for some reason the induced field which is normally delayed changed faster that the inducing field coil which induced it then the inducing coil is now a generator. This is the premise of an AC induction generator and the induced field changes faster because the rotor is driven by an external source. Now the trick, a generator action is dictated by an induced field changing faster than the field which induced it however it does not matter "why" the induced field changes only that it does. Figure out a way to modify the rate of change of the induced field without work and your problems are over.

AC

[erfinder]

@Mario


Figure out a way to modify the rate of change of the induced field without work and your problems are over.

AC

"without work" I really hope you follow this up with a suggestion or two.


Regards

[Allcanadian]

@Erfinder

"without work" I really hope you follow this up with a suggestion or two.

Therein lies the problem I think ... where to start. I think most all of our problems are not technical problems but an inability to effectively solve any problem. Thus I found merit in developing techniques to understand the nature of problem solving and how it should be approached.

Figure out a way to modify the rate of change of the induced field without work and your problems are over.

Consider the problem again without the clutter, Modify...Rate of change...Inducing field/Induced field. An Inducing field (Action)creates an Induced field(Reaction) which in turn effects the Inducing field(another Reaction). Where is the missing Action?, the induced field is an action in itself.
Action>>>Reaction
Reaction<<<Action
Apparently simultaneous events we know cannot be simultaneous because time moves forward. At which point intelligent design comes into play, intelligence is understanding the true nature of the problem and being able to introduce a measure of control over the situation. Now if an Action produces an equal Reaction and the Reaction translates back to the source Action then Action>>>0<<<Action are equal and opposite. This is the true nature of the problem however nobody thought to consider what might happen if the energy induced (the initial Reaction) was transformed in some way so the secondary Action back to the initial source was opposite but not equal. Well I shouldn't say nobody considered it because Tesla did and documented it in his lecture "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy".

Modify means to Change and in this case Change means the Transformation of Energy.

AC

[Hrothgar]

Canadian how dare you use that word!

Work, I did it now I have to re do it, I just made the bulk of my first prototype this week now I have to do a tear down because my coil has a short. 80 feet of aluminum flashing and 15lb. of Fe3O4 set in a PVC housing and secured with paraffin. It's going to get dirty.

[erfinder]

@Erfinder


Therein lies the problem I think ... where to start. I think most all of our problems are not technical problems but an inability to effectively solve any problem. Thus I found merit in developing techniques to understand the nature of problem solving and how it should be approached.



Consider the problem again without the clutter, Modify...Rate of change...Inducing field/Induced field. An Inducing field (Action)creates an Induced field(Reaction) which in turn effects the Inducing field(another Reaction). Where is the missing Action?, the induced field is an action in itself.
Action>>>Reaction
Reaction<<<Action
Apparently simultaneous events we know cannot be simultaneous because time moves forward. At which point intelligent design comes into play, intelligence is understanding the true nature of the problem and being able to introduce a measure of control over the situation. Now if an Action produces an equal Reaction and the Reaction translates back to the source Action then Action>>>0<<<Action are equal and opposite. This is the true nature of the problem however nobody thought to consider what might happen if the energy induced (the initial Reaction) was transformed in some way so the secondary Action back to the initial source was opposite but not equal. Well I shouldn't say nobody considered it because Tesla did and documented it in his lecture "The Problem of Increasing Human Energy".

Modify means to Change and in this case Change means the Transformation of Energy.

AC

Hello AC,

I agree, and when you consider what I have stated in its entirety, looking past my imperfect articulation of the idea, you will see your idea being reflected back at you.


Regards

[Allcanadian]

Hello Erfinder

I agree, and when you consider what I have stated in its entirety, looking past my imperfect articulation of the idea, you will see your idea being reflected back at you.

It does sound familiar, lol, I tend to get a little distracted with the terminology. I understand it well enough but think on a different level. When a term is used I visualize the process in my mind and consider how it relates to Primary Physics then start connecting the dots with everything I have ever read. In which case I tend to get confused and off topic, such is life.

What I may have stumbled onto here is a reverse Mag Amp mechanism.

That is an interesting thought, a reverse mag amp. A mag amp uses a secondary field source to saturate a core or region changing the Inductance. Which is just a fancy way of saying self-inductance or Cemf which relates to the field rate of change. So a reverse mag-amp would be a reduction in field density or are you speaking of modulating field density with a secondary field?.

AC

[Beamgate]

The prior art, as recommended by N. Tesla, was to add capacity to neutralize the effects of self-induction, the addition of capacity enabled a current and potential of a "specific" frequency to move through the coil with no other opposition other than that of ohmic resistance.

Was'nt he (Tesla) referring to 'resonance' with that observation?

[erfinder]

Was'nt he (Tesla) referring to 'resonance' with that observation?

Hello Beamgte,

We call this association "resonance". I have read a few articles and patents, those few documents that I have researched where he specifically references this relationship, I dont find him referring to the condition as being resonant. The term resonant is used in those text, however, its not directed at this relationship between the capacity, self-induction and frequency, its directed at something else.....go figure?


Regards

[barbosi]

The term resonant [..snip..] its directed at something else.....go figure?

That's a fracking "detail" !!!

Thanks.

[erfinder]

That's a fracking "detail" !!!

Thanks.

Whats up man? Someone else asked me what I thought Tesla was saying about resonance before. I posted a link to a patent where he (Tesla) said all I needed to read. I can only offer an opinion, I don't think Tesla was referring to resonance, but who am I......


Regards

[erfinder]

Hello Erfinder


It does sound familiar, lol, I tend to get a little distracted with the terminology. I understand it well enough but think on a different level. When a term is used I visualize the process in my mind and consider how it relates to Primary Physics then start connecting the dots with everything I have ever read. In which case I tend to get confused and off topic, such is life.




That is an interesting thought, a reverse mag amp. A mag amp uses a secondary field source to saturate a core or region changing the Inductance. Which is just a fancy way of saying self-inductance or Cemf which relates to the field rate of change. So a reverse mag-amp would be a reduction in field density or are you speaking of modulating field density with a secondary field?.

AC

Hi AC,

You dont make it easy for me.
Regards

[GSM]

Hi erfinder,

Your video shows ~200W PSU consumption to light a 100W lamp.
Where is the other 100W dissipated ?

Cheers ............... Graham.

[barbosi]

I think Erfinder said something about your inquiry in the first 50 seconds of the clip: he is demonstrating a method, not being concerned about efficiency at this point.
BTW what is the efficiency of a transformer?