Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 14th, 2018, 05:06 PM

Itzon:

An inductor is very difficult for many people to understand.  Hence it is not surprising that you call them falsehoods.  If you want no resistance you can look at a superconducting inductor.  Not exactly something  that you can play with on the bench, but you can discuss wire with zero resistance in terms of an inductor.

It is not hard to understand at all.  Inductors operate in an open system, there is ALWAYS resistance/impedanece, no if ands or buts.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 14th, 2018, 05:06 PM

As far as an inductor not being a source of voltage goes, of course any device that outputs electrical power outputs a combination of voltage and current, that is a given.  But this is all about a deeper understanding of how an inductor works.  Is it a device that outputs voltage or is it a device that will produce a variable voltage as a response to external conditions?  It is a subtle difference that can be understood.  For example, if you short it it outputs no voltage at all.  When it comes to outputting infinite voltage, that is theoretical.  But here is the key thing:  The inductor has the capability to output infinite voltage but in the real world it's impossible to have a load condition that results in an infinite voltage being output.  However, you can have a load condition that gives you very very high voltages.

Again, it does not have the capacity to output infinite voltage because there is ALWAYS a load of resistance/impedance from either the coil itself or the surrounding medium that we are all subject to.

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 14th, 2018, 05:06 PM

All of this makes sense if you can adopt and embrace the flywheel analogy and think various examples through to a successful conclusion.  It allows you to avoid the math, which I assume many will appreciate.

SS

Exactly!  A flywheel is a perfect example.  It can not achieve infinite speed or no resistance to spinning for obvious reasons.
The theorys that are taught start from zero resistance to flow, but that is not reproducable in the real world and yet it is always a given in formulas and simulations.  It is in no way correct.  I understand that a theory has to start somewhere, but starting from zero leads to not real world senarios.

Itzon:

The concept of "ideal" components is very useful because real components work starting from the root framework of the ideal component.  i.e.; a real capacitor's behaviour is based on an ideal capacitor.

Quote

Exactly!  A flywheel is a perfect example.  It can not achieve infinite speed or no resistance to spinning for obvious reasons.

Exactly, but if I were to say to you what would happen if a spinning flywheel was hypothetically going to stop spinning instantly, in literally zero seconds - chances are you would be able to formulate an answer and start thinking about things like F=Ma and stuff like that.  You would be thinking about an ideal flywheel as you thought about your answer.

SS

Well...  I'm going to have to go back and re evaluate my answers for my own qustion.

Also I may have miss lead some thoughts here. 

The corect statement is that yes.  The current is going back and forth in the wire as a potental deffrence measured at the ends of the wire.   

Think of it like this. 

If you have a fly wheel and you spun it up.  Then you tried to stoped it at the speed of light (feild collapse of an open ended coil) then it will rip its self apart trying to keep its momentum. (Or transfer the energy in to somthing else..  In our case its voltage)   

This is what is happening. 

So my orgnial  thought is corect.  Depending on when you short the coil the current will be in the wrong direction...  This is good for what I was thinking.

What I claimed to see on my scope was not what I thought it was.  Spend time doing more testing on this one subject.  And I was wrong.  I'll go back and clean those wrong thoughts  later.  I'll also post some. Photos of what I'm saying. 

Another analogy. 

Take a water pipe made of rubber.  Now get some fast water moving (magnetic feild) .  now close both ends at the same time.  (Open ended  coil) One end tries to fill up with more water from the momentum.  While the other end tries to pull a vacuum...  Becuse both ends are closed. You could mesure this at the peak and see a huge difference in potental.  (Voltage for us)

Then it will go back and forth till its settled... (At its SRF)


Now if we wanted a (short)  you could look at it like conecting the pipe in a loop.  The water will keep going in the same direction till friction slowed it down.

So back to the thinking board and this is good becuse this is what I orgnialy thought.  So that's good. 

Will get there

Basicaly if we charge the coil.  Then we open the ends.  Then we short it.  The point where you short it is verry Important  Becuse the potential difference when shorted playes a major roll in the outcome...

This I have seen alot on the scope.  The hard part is telling what the induction dose to it all.  And this is one part that is verry Important. 

Sorry for the confusion.  Back to what I was thinking.  Lol it was corect. 

~Russ

Russ,

Water flowing in a pipe is also an excellent analogy for an inductor.  Think of a big hose curled up into a big coil.  You might have a ton of water circulating in the hose at high speed and that represents a lot of momentum.  And you are right, blocking the hose is like putting a resistor across the two terminals of an inductor and connecting the hose back onto itself with no blockage is like shorting the two terminals of an inductor.

Quote

If you have a fly wheel and you spun it up.  Then you tried to stoped it at the speed of light (feild collapse of an open ended coil) then it will rip its self apart trying to keep its momentum. (Or transfer the energy in to somthing else..  In our case its voltage)

Since we are dealing with flow rate and pressure, when you stop the flow very suddenly you get a super-high spike of pressure in the hose.  For the flywheel, putting the brakes on very hard on a flywheel spinning at high speed will give you a short spike of super-high torque from the flywheel.  During the spike of torque the RPM of the flywheel will be dropping very very quickly.

Quote

Basicaly if we charge the coil.  Then we open the ends.  Then we short it.  The point where you short it is verry Important  Becuse the potential difference when shorted playes a major roll in the outcome...

You are almost there:   You charge the coil and get some current flowing through it.  Then when you open the ends the "blocked" coil generates a super-high voltage and turns the air into a resistor.  The current drops sharply during the resistor burn.  Then when you go to short again, it's not the potential difference in the coil that plays a major role in the outcome, it's remaining current flow in the coil when the short starts that determines the outcome.

Watch, it's easier to see with a flywheel.  You apply torque to a flywheel and it spins up.  Then you apply a strong partial brake to the flywheel and the flywheel kicks out a huge spike of torque and spins down quickly.  Then you release the breaks and the flywheel resumes spinning at a new lower speed.  Note there is no more torque to measure from the flywheel when you release the brakes, the only thing that counts is the speed of the flywheel.

SS

SS

Quote

You are almost there:   You charge the coil and get some current flowing through it.  Then when you open the ends the "blocked" coil generates a super-high voltage and turns the air into a resistor.  The current drops sharply during the resistor burn.  Then when you go to short again, it's not the potential difference in the coil that plays a major role in the outcome, it's remaining current flow in the coil when the short starts that determines the outcome.

The problem I see is that you seem to be thinking on the same level as Tesla's teacher supposedly did. The teacher supposedly told Tesla that an AC current could never transfer energy or perform work because it was obvious the two components of the AC current (negative and positive) must cancel or always sum to zero. In the teachers mind it seemed like common sense and to him it was obvious... it was also completely false in reality as we all know.

When we open the coil circuit which was carrying a current the collapsing magnetic field induces a current acting in the same direction as the applied current which produces a high voltage in the now open circuit following the left hand rule for electron flow. The high voltage causes an arc at the switch and the arc is not a resistor it is in fact a superconductor which is why an avalanche mode current discharge occurs. If it was just a simple resistor as you suggest the current flow would be linear which it is not thus your assumption is completely false.

We also know the arc discharge produces a high energy RF burst within the circuit because one part of the circuit which is the arc is now a superconductor producing oscillations and the rest of the coil circuit is not. Thus we come full circle back to the absurd notion that the circuit is just a simple flywheel. Which begs the question.... if it is just a simple flywheel then how do you explain the superconducting RF burst in the arc discharge?. In your simple flywheel analogy the flywheel must have had part of it become a superconducting fluid sending ripples of force throughout the rest of the flywheel if we are to hold to reality and not speculation.

You seemed to have just skipped over all the most relevant facts which actually matter in this case in regards to the electromagnetic phenomena involved. So no my friend this is not just a simple coil-switch-resistor circuit as you suggest and I would suggest reading a little of Steinmetz work on transient phenomena to get up to speed.

Quote

Russ:

The reasion I say that current keeps goong in the same direction is that I have seen this time and time again on my scope shots.  I'll post some.

Here is where there is a good chance of misperception from my questions on theory by thought experiment.

I look for unresolved possible questions in the experiments made in videos and on paper.

(quick from memory)
Last month I looked at a 1961 video by MIT and from my understanding they showed that current can flow in both directions.
My intuition says if this is true our devices are generally based on the model of current flowing in one direction through devices
and this is true for semiconductor devices and most appliances by design.
(so the above is a hypothesis where tests have to be designed to confirm)

If true that current can flow both ways the next hypothesis is to determine if we are measuring all of the current in a circuit
where the configuration would allow this. Russ I recall touched on one device that can measure the current both ways
but there is only one manufacturer and the meter costs upward of $5000 well out of reach for the limited resources.

Other researches have suggested when we work with unconventional systems there may be cycling and range of detection
limitations.

I am not suggesting the above is true (it is hypothesis) but are some of the next steps to test and validate in terms of explanation of
puzzling  results.

Note: the JWN report from the standards on input and output focused entirely on current direction in terms of one way like our usual
devices are engineered.

So those are some of the questions and limitations that I need to look at.

In a water pipe two pipes facing each other with flow will move opposite to the direction of greatest applied force.
There is where the comparison stops the wire is a different matter and medium.

Is current pulled in the direction of magnetic flux strength or is magnetic flux pulled in the direction of current or both?

What are we seeing on our meters and scopes?   
   

.
 

A non technical thought.  Russ's water hammer analogy seems fitting to me...sort of.  I see it as an over abundance of electrons that all have momentum.  When the coil is opened, the train wreck happens and creates a difference of potential throughout the coil or possibly at the complete opposite of the coil in relation to the mass of electrons flowing and that would show as a huge voltage spike or atoms positively charged at one end...if my understanding is correct.  This voltage spike would create its own magnetic field, briefly at least.  So you may have two separate magnetic fields forming when you open the coil.

Rember what I thought here. 

https://youtu.be/FG9FLQHhY-A

The water hammer is the best way to think about it.  And with rubber hose as well.  Not a rigid pipe. 


SS if you want to use a fly wheel.  You must also include a spring on that fly wheel.  For if you open a coil its rings.  There for passing back and forth that energy. 

But if you watch my video I talk about how this works.  Aparently I also needed to refresh my own mined now that I see it proper again lol. 
~Russ

What I don't cover in that video is what happens in the rubber pipe if we slam it to a stop.  As I described in my post above.  http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3128.msg48424#msg48424

Guess I should make a video on that... 

OK i went back and edited my original post so lets start again here: http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=3128.msg48424#msg48424

so like i said. the current in this case is like water in a rubber pipe. one end has a vac and one end has more pressure. and depending on when you short this coil the result is different when measuring current flowing in the shorted coil. 

now we really need to think more on the lines of whats mechanically happening with gyro particles and there spin and there deflections, but for this right now will stick with water hammer type effects.   

dont forget, this effect is amplified VIA induction, and magnetism. if it was a straight wire the effects would not be the same. at least not in this amplitude. so as i described in my video i posted. the induction is very important.

in fact, when you have a charged coil and you pull both ends off the source... you can generate that "vacuum" in one side and "pressure" on the other side. a potential deference. when measured across the coil ends.

see the purple trace. This is the effect measured at the ends of the coil.



so let me ask you this, if you then reconnect the supply while the void is there... can you draw more water in the pipe faster then if it was not under a vacuum?

aka, we should be able to pull more "power" in to the coil at a faster rate than we could at any other time... ( more then what the battery can supply normally? also more than what the induction will allow)

let me show you, here in this shot we see that there is about >1ma of current going in to the coil. (blue trace) ( ignore the green here, the settings are off for proper measurements)


so that's the max we can get to go because the resistance and because the supply.


so you would ask your self, can we get more current to go though that coil from the battery?

well...  yes we can. how? using that void...

here in this shot we can see that the "vacuum" is generated and because of the high difference in potential there is an arc.
this arc is a negative resistance so it acts like a short once its formed and allows max current to flow through the gap.
so when the battery is connected to this via the spark the current surges. way more than it could normally.



Now you can see it happens over and over and over for as long as the potential difference is high enough to jump the gap. Think of this like your breaks slipping then grabbing then slipping then grabbing. "jumping" ( the blue trace is not quite fast enough to see this. but the green current resistor on the coil is faster with more details) and the battery also dips a lot showing power being drawn.

here is the same from further away:


the battery is also dipping very far so it is real power going in to the coil.

this is very interesting because it showed that there is a "vacuum" there and its slowing a lot more power to be drawn in to the system that otherwise could be because of the induction effect and the resistance drop dot apply the same here.

so the next question is to ask. can we to this in reverse? can we extract power this way?

to answer that we need to also look at what happens when we short the coil when ts ringing. if it s ringing "up" dose current flow one way, and of going "down" is it the other way? this would indicate that the current is going back and forth. (well it would at lest show that the difference in potential will flow in the either one direction o the other once connected " shorted" )

In the fallowing the green is measuring current in the "loop" of the coil. so when we short it we can see the direction of current flow.

so here we short the coil when the potential is going "up" ( green spike going down)


so here we short the coil when the potential is going "down"  ( green spike going up)


here you can see that i short it a lot faster and you can see that discharge curve. some going in one direction, and others going in the revere! ( see the top small zoomed part of the image)




now the question is, is this current flowing because of the potential difference or because of the current flow? I would suggest that the potential difference IS "pressure" from the current trying to go in that direction. so the magnetic field has no where to go and nothing stopping it. so it is "ringing"back and forth. current and voltage. It even seems to be to the ends of the wire.

so what that said. can we extract power faster than the time charge/discharge time constant using this spark discharge method? id say yes.

also, now add in what happens when you have induction from the magnet while all theses things are going on... you can " push" this charge around as Hastings was saying.

more to do...

~Russ

what I'm trying to say is that if the induction currents I talked about in video 10 are not able to be extracted because the induction / resistance effects. Then they are extractible using this method of spark discharge ( negative resistance) . Because these scope shots show the fact that power can go in faster then "normal" knowing the charge time constant...

~Russ

Quote from ~Russ on February 15th, 2018, 10:31 AM

now we really need to think more on the lines of whats mechanically happening with gyro particles and there spin and there deflections, but ...

Fair enough.  The "math guys" out there then will appreciate this and grasp its importance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Del

Particularly the curl, which is your current:

Ah ha ...  so the resistance is not always a linear triangular proportional constant in a dynamic system.

Much like a siphoning hose but there is added gravity with that idea. (inertial disequilibrium)

The bulge (as compared to rubber garden hoses) is the magnetic field sphere shaping interaction at the gap.

That is If the malfunction at the junction is the graphical arc representation.

My question that I have not really thought much or was possibly over looked is:

Does the volt drop always equal the amp gain in a superconductor?

Does the volt drop fractional proportion always equal the amp gain proportion in a loss or resistive conductor? 

Onepower,

Quote

When we open the coil circuit which was carrying a current the collapsing magnetic field induces a current acting in the same direction as the applied current which produces a high voltage in the now open circuit following the left hand rule for electron flow. The high voltage causes an arc at the switch and the arc is not a resistor it is in fact a superconductor which is why an avalanche mode current discharge occurs. If it was just a simple resistor as you suggest the current flow would be linear which it is not thus your assumption is completely false.

We also know the arc discharge produces a high energy RF burst within the circuit because one part of the circuit which is the arc is now a superconductor producing oscillations and the rest of the coil circuit is not. Thus we come full circle back to the absurd notion that the circuit is just a simple flywheel. Which begs the question.... if it is just a simple flywheel then how do you explain the superconducting RF burst in the arc discharge?. In your simple flywheel analogy the flywheel must have had part of it become a superconducting fluid sending ripples of force throughout the rest of the flywheel if we are to hold to reality and not speculation.

The key thing here is that the basis of analyzing and trying to figure out what is going on is that the focus is on looking at the setup in terms of energy.  And when you do that often you can think in terms of a "black box" for various aspects of the system.

Let me give you a mechanical "black box" example.  There is a physical metal box with an input rotary shaft on one side and an output rotary shaft on the other side.  When you turn the input shaft you feel a lot of friction and thus you get less power on the output shaft that turns at the same rate.  So that metal box is a mechanical resistor and when you run your machine you lose power and the box gets very hot.

So one day you open the box and you find out that it's a 1:1 gearbox and the bearings are shot.  However, you might open up that box and find that it's fluid coupling like in a car transmission and the oil is way too thick and contaminated with crap causing extra friction.  So you have two different things inside the box that do the same thing.  Different guts but they do exactly the same thing - cause resistance.

The arcing through the air is exactly the same thing, just think in terms of energy.  For starters, you are aware that a plasma spark when the air breaks down is hot and it gives off light.  Clearly it is dissipating energy.

Now, here comes the black box:  You don't even care about how the arcing works.  You know that there is a measurable current flowing through the arc.  And you know that there is a measurable voltage drop as you cross the arc.  Current flow x voltage drop in this case equals a resistor and equals a dissipation of power and a loss of energy over a certain span of time.  You don't care if the value of the resistor changes with time or is non-linear.  i.e.; you lost a chunk of energy during the plasma burn:  for all practical intents and purposes it's a resistor.

There is no "superconductor" mechanism associated with a plasma burn in the air.  The voltage drop says it all, there is no voltage drop across a superconductor.

The same thing applies with the RF burst which is minuscule.  The fact that it is there does not alter the energy analysis at all.   You know during the plasma burn that the coil lost a huge chunk of it's stored energy.  You can close your eyes and say "it's a resistor" if you want to.  If you want to split hairs you can say that during the plasma burn 99.9999% of the energy losses were due to the heat and light created by the plasma spark, and 0.0001% of the energy losses were due to an RF emission.  The classic test is to put a de-tuned transistor radio next to the setup and hear a "tick" when the plasma discharge takes place.

Finally, there may be some secondary oscillations, like say some ringing in the wires, and you can just about forget about them and incorporate them into your overall energy losses.

Trust me, it is very helpful to do an energy-centric analysis and ignore the actual mechanisms sometimes.  That way you focus on the results and it can bring a lot of clarity and simplification and new understanding.

Quote

I would suggest reading a little of Steinmetz work on transient phenomena to get up to speed.

I looked him up and he developed the system that resulted in the 45-degreee phase shift test that Russ used to measure the inductance.  I believe that was his biggest contribution and it was indeed a massive contribution that helps us tremendously.

SS

Quote from ~Russ on February 15th, 2018, 10:31 AM

so let me ask you this, if you then reconnect the supply while the void is there... can you draw more water in the pipe faster then if it was not under a vacuum?

Why draw current from the battery when you've got a 'vacuum'? Why not from ground? The voltage is below ground, correct? Drawing current from the battery only wastes the energy stored in the battery, whereas we can draw current from ground because of that 'vacuum', then push it into the battery at a later time when we've got 'pressure' in the coil above the battery voltage.

Russ,

Quote

The water hammer is the best way to think about it.  And with rubber hose as well.  Not a rigid pipe.

The water hammer effect is essentially the same thing as a discharging inductor.  When it comes to modelling something, you can always go into finer levels of detail.  But you do that at risk of confusion sometimes.

You hear a big bang with the water hammer effect.  That is all of the energy associated with the momentum of the moving water being dissipated and ultimately becoming heat.  But what would be good to do is clarify the variables.  The water flow is equivalent to the current flow.  The water pressure at the stopping-side of the valve is the voltage.  The total moving mass of the water is the inductance.  So, the valve closes and the water flow stops and there is a massive spike in water pressure by the valve and the big bang is the energy being ultimately converted into heat.  It's essentially exactly the same as an inductor.

Quote

SS if you want to use a fly wheel.  You must also include a spring on that fly wheel.  For if you open a coil its rings.  There for passing back and forth that energy.

What do you think the spring is?  Think about it.   What happens if a spinning flywheel is connected to a fixed torsion spring?

SS

Russ,

Quote

what I'm trying to say is that if the induction currents I talked about in video 10 are not able to be extracted because the induction / resistance effects. Then they are extractible using this method of spark discharge ( negative resistance) . Because these scope shots show the fact that power can go in faster then "normal" knowing the charge time constant...

You need to grasp the real significance of the spark discharge.  It represents energy loss.  It's the end of the line for the battery energy and it is walking out of the system as heat.  Now of course heat can be considered a legitimate output of the system if you want to, but normally it is considered to be lost energy.

And the spark discharge might have a differential negative current vs. voltage slope sometimes when you look at the I vs. V plot, but that is a differential negative resistance and in terms of looking at any I-V point on the graph, it's a positive resistance that represents the loss of energy - electrical energy being converted into heat energy.

SS

Still no takers about this graph about pulse motor operation?

I'm guessing it's due to the Hall Effect. Specifically, the magnet induces a Hall Resistance (anisotropic magnetoresistance, the anisotropy being dependent upon direction of current flow and its angle to the magnetic field) in the wire, slowing current flow (and reducing output torque of the motor).

Quote

SS

i.e.; you lost a chunk of energy during the plasma burn:  for all practical intents and purposes it's a resistor.

There is no "superconductor" mechanism associated with a plasma burn in the air.  The voltage drop says it all, there is no voltage drop across a

Depending on the time phase. My thinking is:  It is a resistor as it jumps the gap and is superconducting in the arc.

The most common fallacy is that one truth disqualifies another truth.



 

Cycle,

Quote

I'm guessing it's due to the Hall Effect. Specifically, the magnet induces a Hall Resistance (anisotropic magnetoresistance, the anisotropy being dependent upon direction of current flow and its angle to the magnetic field) in the wire, slowing current flow (and reducing output torque of the motor).

Not correct but at least a bit warm.  Also note there is no motor with torque here.  This is just a bare-bones setup where you pulse a coil and it pushes a neo magnet across the table.

I am a bit disappointed that you are the only taker so far because this relates directly to the Newman motor.  Such is life and you go with the flow.

SS

Teaser.

Quote

SS

When I say "pushing on a rotor magnet" I am assuming that you understand what I mean.  I mean that the push from the magnetic field of the LC resonator makes the rotor magnet move.

Quote

SS

Not correct but at least a bit warm.  Also note there is no motor with torque here.

I guess I am confused. Isn't the motive force from the coil as per the first explanation on the axis of rotation of the magnets?

Quote from SqueezingSparks on February 12th, 2018, 10:21 AM

Russ,

In your lecture series #6 you say there is no OU.  Your language above "but the magnet flux influence on the coil might disrupt it in such a way that it is not helpful. we can also set it up to be helpful" is fuzzy and we need clarity.

When I say "pushing on a rotor magnet" I am assuming that you understand what I mean.  I mean that the push from the magnetic field of the LC resonator makes the rotor magnet move.  Imagine for the sake of argument that the LC resonator just pushes on the rotor magnet once in a single direction and it moves to a new location.  Then imagine at the new location that the rotor magnet is now too far away from the LC resonator to move any more, the static friction in the bearing prevents it from moving.

So, it took energy to make the rotor magnet move just once, right?  And you say that there is no OU.  So would the fact that the rotor magnet moved just once drain energy from the LC resonator?

SS

Pulse/resonate the coil at SRF of 110Hz and make the magnet move, without additional input.

Talisman,

Quote

I guess I am confused. Isn't the motive force from the coil as per the first explanation on the axis of rotation of the magnets?

Here is the setup for the question about the current vs. time graph with and without the neo magnet:  (there is no pulse motor with magnets on a rotor, just a coil and a magnet on a desk)

Take a simple fist-sized air-core pulse motor coil:   <12-volt power supply +ve> --> <coil> -->  <transistor switch>  -->  <Ground>

The transistor is switched on with a one-shot 0.1 second pulse.  The coil has a reverse-biased diode across it to discharge the coil after the pulse.

Test A:  Pulse the coil.
Test B:  Put a 1" neo magnet an inch away from the coil and pulse the coil.  Observe the magnet get kicked away from the coil by about six to ten inches.

So, there is your absolute barest bones test that emulates the essence of what we were just talking about.  So the question is can you explain the energy dynamics for the two tests and can you explain the differences (if any) between the two tests?

So, part of the answer is that when you do Test B with the added neo magnet, the current draw of the coil goes DOWN.

So why is that?  What's going on?  What about the other questions?   Anybody willing to take a stab so we learn about how a pulse motor works?

SS