BEMF current reversal.

[Allen Burgess]

Let's see some scope shots and meter readings to prove that theory. A video demonstrating this idea would be even better. Making up stuff is good for fairy tales but in the real world most of us want to see some proven facts demonstrated, not fantasy ideas.

Look at the stinking rubbish this fraud cooked up to condem the simple facts presented above!

[Allen Burgess]

Dieter

@Citfa,

Why not jump Dieter's bones over at Overunity where you act like a moderator?

"I think there is only a magnetic field and an electric field, but no electromagnetic field. There is electromagnetic interaction tho. The creation of a magnetic field around a conductor is a sideeffect that by its own is for free, but when this field induces current flow externally (be it eddy currents, a coil, any ring...), this current flow causes the secondary magnetic fields, basicly following Lenzes law and counterinducing an opposite current flow, partially neutralizing the primary field.


Eddy currents, being 1turn shortened coils, will basicly generate heat waste, as in induction cooking plates.


But iron, even tho passive, truely holds the key to various OU concepts, as it is a temporary magnet or magnetic vector deformer.


I myself use Iron to actually violate the law of conservation of energy. But you cannot simply plug a cord to it, it takes a bit more.


See my latest pdf in the files download section if you're interested in how I do that".

[Doug1]

Allen

""I think there is only a magnetic field and an electric field, but no electromagnetic field. There is electromagnetic interaction tho. The creation of a magnetic field around a conductor is a sideeffect that by its own is for free, but when this field induces current flow externally (be it eddy currents, a coil, any ring...), this current flow causes the secondary magnetic fields, basicly following Lenzes law and counterinducing an opposite current flow, partially neutralizing the primary field."

I think you could have worded this better. Just saying.

[Allen Burgess]

Allen

""I think there is only a magnetic field and an electric field, but no electromagnetic field. There is electromagnetic interaction tho. The creation of a magnetic field around a conductor is a sideeffect that by its own is for free, but when this field induces current flow externally (be it eddy currents, a coil, any ring...), this current flow causes the secondary magnetic fields, basicly following Lenzes law and counterinducing an opposite current flow, partially neutralizing the primary field."

I think you could have worded this better. Just saying.

@Doug1,

That's a quote from a comment made by member Dieter at the Overunity site. I agree with you that it could been wored better, but on forgiving Dieter, it's only fair to point out that English is just his second language.

[Allen Burgess]

Pulsed "Negative D.C. Current".

I've finally arrived at a description of 'Flyback Current Reversal" that everyone should agree on.

Thanks to Lawrence Tseung for his advice:

A Reed switch pulse motor would first close the contacts and pulse the coil with "Positive D.C. Current". Next, the Reed contacts would open, interrupting the current and causing the magnetic field to collapse. A "Negative D.C. Pulse" would then exit the coil in the same direction the "Positive Current" traveled. Connecting a reverse biased LED between the two coil electrodes would illuminate the LED flickeringly.

Tinselkoala's " Coil Current Direction when Power is Interrupted (2)" video contains the following "Slight of Hand" remark from TK in the video comment section:


"The fact that the Blue LED flashes, indicates that the current continues in the same direction through the coil as was flowing when powered. The fact that the Green LED does _not_ flash indicates that there is no reversed current hiding in there somewhere".

Naturally, everyone can see how the truth has once again been sneakily distorted by TK.

[Allen Burgess]

Back from the crusades.

I got moderated again on OU site, this time from that "Cribaby" Samthankoala.

[Allen Burgess]

Here he is again restating the preposterous claim that Inverse is not Negative:

Quote from: TinselKoala on April 19, 2017, 06:11:56 PM

Nelson, I'm glad we agree on this basic algebra.

And now we are beginning to see where synchro has gone off the rails. He clearly doesn't get that the Inverse is not the Negative. X-1 is equal to 1/X, not some negative value. And the H (scalar unit of induction) of the Henry is not the same as the H (vector quantity)of the magnetizing field strength. He apparently has confused these two very different things in his mind, because of the use of the same letter for both. But the H of the field strength is a letter chosen at random by Lord Kelvin in 1850, and has nothing to do with the assignment of the name Henry and the letter H as abbreviation for the unit of inductance.

For Synchro: When letters are Bolded like that it is not done for emphasis. It is a common way to indicate that the quantity referred to is a _vector_ not a scalar. But I don't expect you to understand the difference, since the math is obviously over your head. You should however be capable of clearly understanding that the "H" of inductance is not the same thing as the "H" of magnetic field strength. Or am I giving you too much credit?




@Tinselkoala,

"A negative correlation means that there is an inverse relationship between two variables".


A quote from TK:


"has nothing to do with the assignment of the name Henry and the letter H as abbreviation for the unit of inductance"/


Definition from "Magnetic Reluctance":


"It's an SI derived unit it's the henry (the same as the unit of inductance), although the two concepts are distinct)".

I told him the negative Henry was a measure of a magnetic field, now he's trying to teach me my lesson back.

[Allen Burgess]

Fake Deaf Sign Interrpreter.

Tinselkoala, the real Thamsanka:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6r7cM3vHRg&t=28s

[Allen Burgess]

Energy in an Inductor

"When power flows into an inductor, energy is stored in its magnetic field. When the current flowing through the inductor is increasing and di/dt becomes greater than zero, the instantaneous power in the circuit must also be greater than zero, ( P > 0 ) ie, positive which means that energy is being stored in the inductor.

Likewinse, if the current through the inductor is decreasing and di/dt is less than zero then the instantaneous power must also be less than zero, ( P < 0 ) ie, negative which means that the inductor is returning energy back into the circuit. Then by integrating the equation for power above, the total magnetic energy which is always positive, being stored in the inductor is therefore given as":

Energy stored by an Inductor:

[Allen Burgess]

A Pint is a pound the World around.

No it isn't! Some impudent smug snorts. No two things can be the same. We're constantly bombarded by such preposterous inanities.

A pint is equal to a pound in weight. 1 Coulomb is equal to 1 Gauss of magnetic force.

Negative values such as Henries of inductance or current in Ampere's have negative values on our measuring instruments we're forced to assign values to.

A negative Henry is a measure of magnetic force. Negative current is measured as equal to positive current simply moving backwards. These are positive values expressed in the negative range; Not imaginary terms.

[Allen Burgess]

from: synchro1 on Today at 11:05:28 AM

@Tinselkoala,

"A negative correlation means that there is an inverse relationship between two variables".

K is the letter from Kelvin.

Its SI derived unit is the henry (the same as the unit of inductance, although the two concepts are distinct).

I told you the negative Henry was a measure of a magnetic field, now you're trying to teach me my lesson back.




Once again.... the INVERSE Henry 1/H, or H-1, is a measure of magnetic reluctance. It is not a "negative Henry". It is not the same thing as H, even with a negative sign, which is a vector quantity representing the strength of the magnetizing field. The letter H for this field strength was chosen by Lord Kelvin in 1850, probably at random, along with his choice of B. This is not the same thing as the Henry, the unit of inductance. Inductance is NOT THE SAME as field strength, they have different units and one is not the negative or even the inverse of the other. You can see for yourself that Amperes/Meter, the units of the H field, do not appear anywhere in your listing of units for the Henry, not even negative OR inverse.

A negative correlation has nothing to do with "negative Henry" nor does it imply that one or the other of the correlated variables is "negative". By posting what you have posted you reveal that you do not understand correlation or inverse relationships.




Quote

In 1850, Lord Kelvin, then known as William Thomson, distinguished between two magnetic fields now denoted H and B. The former applied to Poisson's model and the latter to Ampère's model and induction.[9] Further, he derived how H and B relate to each other.
The reason H and B are used for the two magnetic fields has been a source of some debate among science historians. Most agree that Kelvin avoided M to prevent confusion with the SI fundamental unit of length, the Metre, abbreviated "m". Others believe the choices were purely random.[10][11]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field#B_and_H


Note the graphic below. Nowhere is a "negative number" used or implied. Negative correlation means as one variable increases the other decreases, and positive correlation means as one variable increases, the other does as well, and when one variable decreases the other variable decreases too. It has nothing to do with negative values of the variables. The _slope_ of the regression line is either positive (positive correlation) or negative (negative correlation).

You really must stop posting your basic math errors and misconceptions.

Here's the comment of mine he's referring to as basic math errors and misconceptions:

"Ørsted discovered the connection between magnetism and electric current when a magnetic field produced by a current-carrying copper bar deflected a magnetised needle during a lecture demonstration". "In the CGS system, the unit of the H-field is the oersted and the unit of the B‑field is the gauss. In the SI system, the unit ampere per meter (A/m), which is equivalent to newton/weber, is used for the H‑field and the unit of tesla is used for the B‑field". "H is measured in units of amperes per meter (symbol: A⋅m−1 or A/m) in the SI. B is measured in teslas (symbol: T)". This is what you need to understand: The H field is an electrical equivalent and the B field a magnetic one.

[Allen Burgess]

Slip knot loop hole.

TK lynches himself again by yet another one of his notorious "Slip knot Loopholes".

Tinselkoala , Milehigh , Citfa and a pack of running Jackals over on the OU site conspiratorially and pathologically conceal the value of two gain factors: The "Negative Henry" and "Negative Current". They are miscreants and should be punished for their deceptions.

[Allen Burgess]

Lenz's Law.

Lenz's Law

"When a bar magnet is pushed into a coil connected to an ammeter the meter deflects. Pulled out of the coil the meter deflects in the opposite direction".

Good video on "Magnetic Reluctance":

https://www.coursera.org/learn/elect...netic-circuits

[Allen Burgess]

&quot;Magnetic Reluctance Formula&quot;.

We see the "Negative Henry" value on the bottom left, and the customary resistance formula on the right. The "Reluctance" is directly proportional the intensity of the magnetic field on the left, just like the "Resistance" in the formula on the right is directly proportional to the Ohmic resistance.

Everyone knows that the presence of a magnetic field in an inductor opposes change to an electrical current. These formulas are very simple to understand once the "Cuttlefish" ink's washed away.


One "Negative Henry" equals one "Tesla" of magnetic force.

[bistander]

Inverse vs negative

We see the "Negative Henry" value on the bottom left, and the customary resistance formula on the right. The "Reluctance" is directly proportional the intensity of the magnetic field on the left, just like the "Resistance" in the formula on the right is directly proportional to the Ohmic resistance.

Everyone knows that the presence of a magnetic field in an inductor opposes change to an electrical current. These formulas are very simple to understand once the "Cuttlefish" ink's washed away.


One "Negative Henry" equals one "Tesla" of magnetic force.

That is not "Negative Henry". It is inverse henry.

That is a fundamental difference.

Also, you continue to confuse the variables (symbols representing the physical quantities) with the units (used to define the measurement system).