It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can This Configuration Generate a Current from a Constant Magnetic Flux?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
When a magnetic field by the use of a bar magnet or similar type magnets are in a stationary state, that is, when they are not in motion, no electrical current or voltage will be produced. Once the flux moves through the coil induction will take place. This is basic understanding of the relationship of magnetic fields in the presence of conductors in a circuit.

The widening or narrowing of any coil will mean nothing in the flux field not in motion. In a flux field motion the part of the coil at the widest will receive less flux and therefore will produce less current in a circuit.

The closest approach that I know of is found in experiments by Nikola Tesla using bifilar coils.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
another interesting fact is that if you have a magnet with a wire running vertically past it, and spin the magnet on it's axis, the magnetic field does not spin, there is no flux change and no induced current. However, if you spin the wire around the stationary magnet, there is a change in flux, and a current is induced!



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by underdogradio
 


This all stems from attempts to describe what will be happening with a narrowed section introduced in an otherwise uniform cross-section magnetic circuit. The electrical analogy came in as a way of explaining how that higher impedance (in magnetic terms) section affects the overall flux flowing in the circuit IE total flux flow will be reduced and flux density increased in the narrow section (assuming characteristic permeability is identical IE same material, small CSA) .

We've probably digressed too far from the original idea in efforts to explain what's actually going on and why there'll be no generation happening when it's stabilised

The OP's best course of action (if still unconvinced) is to assemble that simple test rig I posted earlier and do some practical tests.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 


Yeah, I read most of the posts. I don’t think he has the materials for a test and that’s why he came here to ask. I tend to build first then ask ‘why doesn’t it work?’ I hope he gets chance to build it and lets us know what the results are. Who knows, it might be bigger than e-Cat cold fusion.



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Studenofhistory
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that if you combine two wires(in parallel), each of which is carrying 10 amps and 10 volts (100 watts each), the combined output will be 400 watts? Really? If that's the case, then the Earth's energy problems are solved! We just have to generate a small amount of electricty in two or more circuits, connected in parallel, and keep combining them to get this wonderful exponential gain out of nowhere!

What I think happens in the above example is that you get a combined flow of 10 amps with 20 volts = 200 watts and since the amps haven't changed, there is not effect from the formula you posted.
If you combine circuits in parallel the voltage stays the same, and if you combine them in series then the voltage adds. So when you say combine them in parallel, you're completely wrong about the voltage doubling.


Originally posted by underdogradio
Studenofhistory:
What you really get with a parallel circuit is a combined flow of 20 amps with 10 volts = 200 watts.
Not always, it depends on the resistance. The formula once again is P=I*I*R.

Take an example of an amplifier powering four 8 ohm speakers, Front L&R and rear L&R. Let's say that it's capable of sending 100 watts to each speaker. So while the speakers are separate, the total power output of the amplifier is 400 watts.

If you solve for the current you get current equals the square root of 100 watts of power divided by resistance of 8 ohms which is 3.5355 amps

Now when you combine the circuits in parallel, you have to decide what the load will be. Let's take 2 speakers out of the equation. combine the front and rear right output to one right speaker and the front and rear left output to one left speaker.

Now do the math. you have 3.5355 amps in the front right channel output added to the 3.5355 amps in the rear right channel output, for a total of 7.07 amps. Now calculate the power going to one right speaker using P=I*I*R

P=7.07 * 7.07 * 8 = 400 Watts

You have another 400 watts going to the left speaker, so now you're getting 800 watts from an amplifier that was previously giving you only 400 watts.

So indeed in this example combining the 100 watt output of the right front channel with the 100 watt output of the right rear channel does indeed result in 400 watts output to a single right speaker. The key here is the resistance is still 8 ohms because you combined the two currents into a single speaker.

That effect is mentioned here though for some reason they attribute it to "top amplifiers" I suspect because you can't really trust the specifications of cheap amplifiers.

www.caraudiohelp.com...


the top amplifiers will actually quadruple the power of a single channel (i.e. two 50 watt channels would combine to become one 200 watt channel).
So yes, you really can combine two 50 watt channels and get one 200 watt channel, I'm not making this up, and no it's not free energy.
edit on 4-11-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Nov, 4 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for the input. But in his second paragraph my understanding is, he was trying to simplify the original parallel circuit but got the values for voltage and current switched.

It looks like he is not intending the resistance to change so I can see why he is confused over the quadrupled wattage. We won’t really know until he checks back in.

I was sticking my nose in there in hopes he could get past it and build the unit. I would really like to see the results.



posted on Nov, 5 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
There will be an irregularity in the magnetic field at the transition from wider to narrower core sections but it will be static so there won't be any induction going on unless the magnetic flux is actively modulated or the coil is moved. That negates the proposal of any 'free' energy recovery because to get any energy output requires energy input. The effect could possibly be maximized if the coil was designed specifically to suit the width of the 'irregularity' and a small airgap in the core within the coil's span might work better than a simple narrowing as it would increase the cross-sectional area of flux 'fringing'.

In any case, something has to move to produce any output.



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by underdogradio
 


I accept your explanation. The point I was apparently incorrectly trying to make is that two electric circuits connected in parallel, does NOT realize a magical exponential gain in power(watts) but you DO get a magical exponential gain in the strength of magnetic flux when you combine two magnets in parallel. Therefore principles of electric circuits do not necessarily apply equally well to magnetic circuits.


edit on 7-11-2011 by Studenofhistory because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by underdogradio
 


You're right, I don't have the materials or the necessary expertise for a test and I am hoping that someone else will try it.

As for arbitrageur's amplifiers example, I can't find the flaw in the logic however as he admits, there is no free energy. Maybe the flaw in his logic is that he's talking about power used and I"m talking about power generated. If both amplifiers are using 800 watts, then 800 watts has to be flowing into the circuit from the power source. The Force Square Law, that says that total magnetic flux strength is the square of the sum of the individual flux strengths of the magnets connected in parallel, is what excites me and makes me wonder how we can exploit this free magnetic power.

here's another idea that does have an actual real increase in total flux, not just an increase in flux density.
Two magnets connected in parallel. At the junction where both fluxes combine, if you have a copper wire wrapped around the core that is carrying the flux from one magnet and the same wire then also wraps around the core that is carrying the combined magnetic flux, then one loop will be in contact with a higher total flux strength than the other loop. Does this generate the same conditions on a permanent basis that are generated for a tiny fraction of a second when total flux strength is changed by an input coil with fluctuating power flowing thru it?

I'm convinced that this configuration will create a permanent imbalance in the output coil that maybe will be balanced by an continuous induced current.
edit on 7-11-2011 by Studenofhistory because: spelling mistake



posted on Nov, 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by CrastneyJPR
another interesting fact is that if you have a magnet with a wire running vertically past it, and spin the magnet on it's axis, the magnetic field does not spin, there is no flux change and no induced current. However, if you spin the wire around the stationary magnet, there is a change in flux, and a current is induced!


Yup. That freaks me out.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join