FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
New Inductance
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 7 [97 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:13 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 08:47:03 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com>
Gave us:

Quote:
Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long.

The transformer examples I gave operate at 150kHz and use ferrite
cores. Doesn't matter though. A shorted turn still renders the entire
transformer useless, and yes, it does use power.
Back to top
Jeff179
science forum addict


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:18 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:
Hello,

Ok measure the magnectic field due to beam of electrons.

Ok measure force on a electrostatically charged object close to an
electrically neutral wire carrying one amp dc.

And compare with the predictions of your theory.

Oh and send me some magnetic field in an envelope, please use a stamp.

What is the mass of a magnetic field?

Did you know that the mass of a photon is hf/c^2 you can measure it by using
a mirror system with some trapped photons inside and measure the increase as
you add photons, use a gravity pico gram balance.

Magnitic field! Bah science fiction! Farady did not know special relativity
or quantum mechanics - bless his soul!
Oh by the way a shorted turn takes no power unless its resistance is
substantially more than zero. As in a wave guide it is a reflector.

I think we all know that high frequency transformers are more efficient and
smaller the low frequency ones. The greatest loss in a transformer is the
iron core which I maintain is unesseccary as the high permeabilty is only
needed betwen the windings and the photons are carried by spin-spin
interactions.

Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long. A shorted screen
between layers of windings would make the transformer non functional.

Quit arguing and go about and build a simple one and do some simple
measurements.

I assume we are talking about this?

<URL:
http://www.chrisspages.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NewElectricity/Transformer/transformer.htm
/>

Have you done this yourself? It seems like a fairly simple design to
test, at least it could be built in a couple of days...

That would either lay this to rest, or move this discussion on.

Jeff


Quote:

Oh by the way: How many half brains make one?

Chris.


Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:36 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Try nearly zero.

If you look at the corrrect page you see the derivation. The velocity is not
required to calculate its effect. It is a well known result taught at my
uni.

And the quantum mechanics comes from standard results origiating in
microwave physics but it applies at all frequencies the frequency of the
qaunta is the driving freqency a well knowen result.


"Sue..." <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1153006256.362767.291240@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

The Real Chris wrote:
Hi Sue,

Have a look at my web page on http://www.newelectricity.co.uk and there
is
those formulas there.

So what velocity do I put in the formula?

Sue...
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:43 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Yes no problem at all. I did not have the copper pot round it though. It was
a while ago so I might have a go and make another. What is special about it
any way? It pretty damm obvious to me!

I might find the iron filings and potting compound difficult now I'm
retired.

Chris.

"Jeff" <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote in message
news:jTNug.1093$157.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:
The Real Chris wrote:
Hello,

Ok measure the magnectic field due to beam of electrons.

Ok measure force on a electrostatically charged object close to an
electrically neutral wire carrying one amp dc.

And compare with the predictions of your theory.

Oh and send me some magnetic field in an envelope, please use a stamp.

What is the mass of a magnetic field?

Did you know that the mass of a photon is hf/c^2 you can measure it by
using a mirror system with some trapped photons inside and measure the
increase as you add photons, use a gravity pico gram balance.

Magnitic field! Bah science fiction! Farady did not know special
relativity or quantum mechanics - bless his soul!
Oh by the way a shorted turn takes no power unless its resistance is
substantially more than zero. As in a wave guide it is a reflector.

I think we all know that high frequency transformers are more efficient
and smaller the low frequency ones. The greatest loss in a transformer is
the iron core which I maintain is unesseccary as the high permeabilty is
only needed betwen the windings and the photons are carried by spin-spin
interactions.

Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long. A shorted
screen between layers of windings would make the transformer non
functional.

Quit arguing and go about and build a simple one and do some simple
measurements.

I assume we are talking about this?

URL:
http://www.chrisspages.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NewElectricity/Transformer/transformer.htm
/

Have you done this yourself? It seems like a fairly simple design to
test, at least it could be built in a couple of days...

That would either lay this to rest, or move this discussion on.

Jeff



Oh by the way: How many half brains make one?

Chris.

Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:30 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On 17 Jul 2006 07:36:36 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca>
Gave us:

Quote:
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making s**t up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

He lacks some *very* basic electrical theory understanding to make
statements like that.
Back to top
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153146996.298346.270480@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
Mr. Kelly, I've been doing electrical engineering
since the 60's, what I'm curious about is the
*fundamental* physical science. It may surprise
you but the answers to the question of relating
mechanical energy conversion to electrical
energy, such as in a generator, are an important
issue in the General Theory of Relativity.
A similiar problem exists in a simple transformer,
that is, is it quantized or a continuum field effect?
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153026113.273939.244240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1152999190.140186.287000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
...
Sounds good to me, I think a transformer
is basically a "quantum mechanical" device,
if it's examined in detail. I think your ideas
are very reasonable and advanced.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given
voltage
and
number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux density.
Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca

Your moving *power* from the primary to
the secondary coil, power is quantized.
For simple electrical applications you
don't need to know or understand that.

Don, you seem knowledgeable enough
to even model a 40 watt light bulb to see
what I'm getting at. Keep the rate of photons
emitted constant, but double their frequency,
then your output power would be 80 watts.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

1)What photons? Their presence in transformer action, "virtual" or not,
is a
conjecture which requires a leap of faith without justification. Does
that
mean that increasing the temperature of the transformer increases the
power
transfer due to increased photon emission? [no]. Can one make a
transformer
such that any possible photon path between windings is blocked but the
transformer still works? [yes]
2)Note that doubling the supply frequency does not increase the power
transfer in a transformer. The effect of frequency on any given
transformer
is well known and covered in many texts.
3) As I said before, from Faraday, you can come up with (as does any
basic
text on Electromagnetic machines) a relationship between voltage,
magnetic
flux, frequency and turns. No photons needed. Note that the relationship
does NOT involve power or need to invoke (incorrectly) quantum
mechanics.
4) Considering the characteristics of the magnetic core, then it is also
easy to show that there is an ampere turn balance. Taking this into
account with (3), you end up with a power transfer relationship which ,
lo
and behold, incidentally agrees with conservation of energy. Do these
non-quantum approaches work? [extremely well].
Are they simpler to use? [very much so].

Quantum mechanics is all very well but there are areas, and this is one,
where this tool is not appropriate.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer




At the "microscopic" level, quantum mechanics is applicable. However its
usefulness at the macroscopic level is very questionable. I would suggest
that there is a point where continuum mechanics are needed to handle the
problem in that one is dealing with extremely many particles at different
energy levels and cannot distinguish between them but where the overall
behaviour can be well represented by continuum mechanics. Is the magnetic
field any more imaginary than a virtual photon? I have doubts. How much
have you done using circuit theory? Why would you use it instead of EM
theory? Why isn't EM theory used in the design and analysis of
electromechanical machines?- it can be done and I did use it successfully
for analysis/testing of a special motor in my PhD thesis work at U of
Illinois. The answer to the questions is that there is, generally, no
need to do so- the first order approximations of a quasi static situation
work extremely well at the frequencies involved and dimensions well below
1/4 wavelength. I have been involved professionally in Electrical
Engineering since the 50's. Admittedly that has produced some biases- among
which, looking for a complex explanation where a simple one suffices, is not
necessarily productive. Note that one thing that I presented to Chris was an
alternative but classical approach dealing with the interaction between
moving charges, leading to the Lorentz force equation (ignoring the
electrostatic term for convenience). This he has completely ignored. If he
had given it the consideration that I gave his earlier statements (or rather
those of his former prof -which make sense but provide nothing new) and
shown error- then I would not be so dismissive. Also part of the
dismissiveness is the statements he made about a photon shield around the
windings of a transformer- it turns out that apparently he may not have used
a closed shield or shorted turn-that makes quite a difference -but also has
no data indicating that there is any of the assumed reduction in losses.
Sorry, one can only suspend disbelief for so long.

I also note that General Relativity as expressed by Einstein, has no
relationship to quantum mechanics (which he didn't believe in) and quantum
mechanics is hopeless when trying to look at large scale phenoma in
galaxies. In fact there likely is some unified theory (note "theory) which
explains it all. String theory seems to be the "in" thing.
Chris's contribution is that he has jogged some discussion and thought- no
more.

You are more of a gentleman than I am.

Dr. Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
Back to top
Jeff179
science forum addict


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 59

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:01 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:
Yes no problem at all. I did not have the copper pot round it though. It was
a while ago so I might have a go and make another. What is special about it
any way? It pretty damm obvious to me!

Well, there's been quite a bit said about that copper mesh shield! Any
time you can cook up a little easy empirical proof for a theory seems
like a good enough reason for an experiment. It's not obvious to me,
but it sure is interesting.

Jeff


Quote:

I might find the iron filings and potting compound difficult now I'm
retired.

Chris.

"Jeff" <dont_bug_me@all.uk> wrote in message
news:jTNug.1093$157.17@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...

The Real Chris wrote:

Hello,

Ok measure the magnectic field due to beam of electrons.

Ok measure force on a electrostatically charged object close to an
electrically neutral wire carrying one amp dc.

And compare with the predictions of your theory.

Oh and send me some magnetic field in an envelope, please use a stamp.

What is the mass of a magnetic field?

Did you know that the mass of a photon is hf/c^2 you can measure it by
using a mirror system with some trapped photons inside and measure the
increase as you add photons, use a gravity pico gram balance.

Magnitic field! Bah science fiction! Farady did not know special
relativity or quantum mechanics - bless his soul!
Oh by the way a shorted turn takes no power unless its resistance is
substantially more than zero. As in a wave guide it is a reflector.

I think we all know that high frequency transformers are more efficient
and smaller the low frequency ones. The greatest loss in a transformer is
the iron core which I maintain is unesseccary as the high permeabilty is
only needed betwen the windings and the photons are carried by spin-spin
interactions.

Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long. A shorted
screen between layers of windings would make the transformer non
functional.

Quit arguing and go about and build a simple one and do some simple
measurements.

I assume we are talking about this?

URL:
http://www.chrisspages.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/NewElectricity/Transformer/transformer.htm
/

Have you done this yourself? It seems like a fairly simple design to
test, at least it could be built in a couple of days...

That would either lay this to rest, or move this discussion on.

Jeff



Oh by the way: How many half brains make one?

Chris.



Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:30 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Phat Bytestard wrote:
Quote:

On 17 Jul 2006 07:36:36 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca
Gave us:

So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making s**t up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

When I used to work for Boeing, these were the guys we'd send out to
fetch a bucket of prop wash.


--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Error reading FAT record: Try the SKINNY one? (Y/N)
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:35 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

Yes no problem at all. I did not have the copper pot round it though. It was
a while ago so I might have a go and make another. What is special about it
any way? It pretty damm obvious to me!

I might find the iron filings and potting compound difficult now I'm
retired.

We were thinking of a different sort of 'getting potted'.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:21 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:30:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> Gave us:

Quote:
Phat Bytestard wrote:

On 17 Jul 2006 07:36:36 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca
Gave us:

So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making s**t up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

When I used to work for Boeing, these were the guys we'd send out to
fetch a bucket of prop wash.

I was only fooled once. A co-worker gave me a small screw with
buggered up threads on it, and told me to go ask the supervisor to
"cram" it, stating that he had a screw crammer that would straighten
out the threads. Turns out such tools do exist, but the boss, and the
boys had a different agenda with me.

They got REAL mad when I drew Secretariat in the pool. I friggin
won too, and they ripped me off for the loot. Me, a kid, didn't even
know I got screwed. They gave me $20, and it was supposed to be like
$80 or more (a lot back then).

So much for my story of humility. Boss still liked me though.

Polishing huge stainless steel plates to a grade 6 surface quality
for use by Proctor and Gamble, and the food industry to make food
processing tanks out of. Sheets... bars... you name it.

I learned a lot about the world learning about surface quality and
the like. I think it would a lot of guys good to learn such things on
the way up.

Why does english work in billiards? What? Not an instantaneous clack
and rebound when the balls hit? No? Really?

The phrase for today is:

Modulus of Elasticity

Not to mention:

Coefficient of Friction

Stainless steel is some neat stuff!

Jus' grindin' out the pits...
Back to top
Ken S. Tucker
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 1230

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 6:08 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Don Kelly wrote:
Quote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153146996.298346.270480@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Kelly, I've been doing electrical engineering
since the 60's, what I'm curious about is the
*fundamental* physical science. It may surprise
you but the answers to the question of relating
mechanical energy conversion to electrical
energy, such as in a generator, are an important
issue in the General Theory of Relativity.
A similiar problem exists in a simple transformer,
that is, is it quantized or a continuum field effect?
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153026113.273939.244240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1152999190.140186.287000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
...
Sounds good to me, I think a transformer
is basically a "quantum mechanical" device,
if it's examined in detail. I think your ideas
are very reasonable and advanced.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given
voltage
and
number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux density.
Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca

Your moving *power* from the primary to
the secondary coil, power is quantized.
For simple electrical applications you
don't need to know or understand that.

Don, you seem knowledgeable enough
to even model a 40 watt light bulb to see
what I'm getting at. Keep the rate of photons
emitted constant, but double their frequency,
then your output power would be 80 watts.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

1)What photons? Their presence in transformer action, "virtual" or not,
is a
conjecture which requires a leap of faith without justification. Does
that
mean that increasing the temperature of the transformer increases the
power
transfer due to increased photon emission? [no]. Can one make a
transformer
such that any possible photon path between windings is blocked but the
transformer still works? [yes]
2)Note that doubling the supply frequency does not increase the power
transfer in a transformer. The effect of frequency on any given
transformer
is well known and covered in many texts.
3) As I said before, from Faraday, you can come up with (as does any
basic
text on Electromagnetic machines) a relationship between voltage,
magnetic
flux, frequency and turns. No photons needed. Note that the relationship
does NOT involve power or need to invoke (incorrectly) quantum
mechanics.
4) Considering the characteristics of the magnetic core, then it is also
easy to show that there is an ampere turn balance. Taking this into
account with (3), you end up with a power transfer relationship which ,
lo
and behold, incidentally agrees with conservation of energy. Do these
non-quantum approaches work? [extremely well].
Are they simpler to use? [very much so].

Quantum mechanics is all very well but there are areas, and this is one,
where this tool is not appropriate.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

I'm uncertain if your questions are rhetorical,
in your post below, if so perhaps place them as ?!
OTOH repost your questions in a fashion that
is clearly non-rhetorical.

Quote:
At the "microscopic" level, quantum mechanics is applicable. However its
usefulness at the macroscopic level is very questionable. I would suggest
that there is a point where continuum mechanics are needed to handle the
problem in that one is dealing with extremely many particles at different
energy levels and cannot distinguish between them but where the overall
behaviour can be well represented by continuum mechanics. Is the magnetic
field any more imaginary than a virtual photon? I have doubts. How much
have you done using circuit theory? Why would you use it instead of EM
theory? Why isn't EM theory used in the design and analysis of
electromechanical machines?- it can be done and I did use it successfully
for analysis/testing of a special motor in my PhD thesis work at U of
Illinois. The answer to the questions is that there is, generally, no
need to do so- the first order approximations of a quasi static situation
work extremely well at the frequencies involved and dimensions well below
1/4 wavelength. I have been involved professionally in Electrical
Engineering since the 50's. Admittedly that has produced some biases- among
which, looking for a complex explanation where a simple one suffices, is not
necessarily productive. Note that one thing that I presented to Chris was an
alternative but classical approach dealing with the interaction between
moving charges, leading to the Lorentz force equation (ignoring the
electrostatic term for convenience). This he has completely ignored.

I think it's an issue, not the poster I'm focused on.

Quote:
If he
had given it the consideration that I gave his earlier statements (or rather
those of his former prof -which make sense but provide nothing new) and
shown error- then I would not be so dismissive. Also part of the
dismissiveness is the statements he made about a photon shield around the
windings of a transformer- it turns out that apparently he may not have used
a closed shield or shorted turn-that makes quite a difference -but also has
no data indicating that there is any of the assumed reduction in losses.
Sorry, one can only suspend disbelief for so long.

I also note that General Relativity as expressed by Einstein, has no
relationship to quantum mechanics (which he didn't believe in) and quantum
mechanics is hopeless when trying to look at large scale phenoma in
galaxies. In fact there likely is some unified theory (note "theory) which
explains it all. String theory seems to be the "in" thing.
Chris's contribution is that he has jogged some discussion and thought- no
more.
You are more of a gentleman than I am.

Maybe, GR assumes a continuum to interconvert
Mechanical and Electrical energy given by that
looks like the covariant derivatives,

T;w= 0 = M;w + E;w

where M;w = - E;w and T;w=0 is conservation.

I'm wondering if M;w =0 but not constant.
Regards
Ken
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings. This is
similar. The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux path.

Chris.
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BC5718.D08DA0CC@hovnanian.com...
Quote:
The Real Chris wrote:

Yes no problem at all. I did not have the copper pot round it though. It
was
a while ago so I might have a go and make another. What is special about
it
any way? It pretty damm obvious to me!

I might find the iron filings and potting compound difficult now I'm
retired.

We were thinking of a different sort of 'getting potted'.

;-)

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Three Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You can't win.
2) You can't break even.
3) You can't quit the game.
Back to top
Ross Mac
science forum beginner


Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:03 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

"Roy L. Fuchs" <roylfuchs@urfargingicehole.org> wrote in message
news:b1qib2pscj1fbjvok60pdhk459jehevtvr@4ax.com...
Quote:
On 15 Jul 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "my mother"
l3jklr94jt594j@comicmail.co.uk> Gave us:


Roy L. Fuchs wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:38:42 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

Another basic algorithm is the idea that a series of loops is like one
loop
multiplied. Well if you do the same thing for six turns then the
compass
measurement is the same near the wire than at the centre.

Ever heard of a transformer, idiot?

I have made them that transform 3 turn primaries into 4000 turn
secondaries, and the math all works.

transformin dc!? fool


Actually, it is quite possible, and is the very basis for how a car
ignition coil works.

A standing DC field is placed on the "transformer" and upon release
of the DC current, the field snaps back down and the collapse yields a
stepped up voltage at the secondary.

Got clue?

At that point it isn't DC anymore since it is duty cycled......That would be
a square wave would it not?....
Back to top
daestrom
science forum addict


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 12:27 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:jtnob25bdgd0h1mf4u0b5qr10c94u4v91p@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:30:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
paul@hovnanian.com> Gave us:

Phat Bytestard wrote:

On 17 Jul 2006 07:36:36 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca
Gave us:

So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making s**t up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

When I used to work for Boeing, these were the guys we'd send out to
fetch a bucket of prop wash.

I was only fooled once. A co-worker gave me a small screw with
buggered up threads on it, and told me to go ask the supervisor to
"cram" it, stating that he had a screw crammer that would straighten
out the threads. Turns out such tools do exist, but the boss, and the
boys had a different agenda with me.


As sailors in the Navy, we used all sorts of tricks like that on the newbie.

Some of the more famous...
1) Fetch me some relative bearing grease
2) I need ten feet of water line.
3) We drew straws and you have the mail bouy watch.

daestrom
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:24 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings. This is
similar. The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux path.


What are the iron filings for?


--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 4 of 7 [97 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:32 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Inductance of a Straight Wire - Follow-up abukosky@muthco.com Electromagnetics 1 Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:37 pm
No new posts Is the "self-inductance of straight wire" an ill-defined ... Jean-Rene David Electromagnetics 22 Mon May 08, 2006 4:17 pm
No new posts Negative Inductance jclause Physics 3 Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:35 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Research 6 Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:11 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Physics 5 Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0931s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0588s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]