TRANSFORMER

Instead of wasting time on bit-by-bit specifics in Q & A sessions, why not take up the suggestion early this thread? Which is to get down and study and get a thorough grounding in the well established theoretical basics.
That way, questions that now seem important will likely become self-evidently irrelevant.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Looks like the current through load 2 is a superposition of the DC current of battery C, combined with the emf from the secondary of T1. The secondary of T2 is "non inductive", no net current due to whatever emf is applied to its primary.

The T2 secondary could be replaced by a direct short to facilitate the analysis.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did it about your suggestions. And I was little bit curious. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think he's trying to improve the link between his natural language and English. So asking questions is a good way to help with phrasing. I think he's in the early stages towards achieving this goal and I think it's the reason exchemist might think a sockpuppet was lurking. I'm pretty sure he's not looking for a over unity soapbox. A couple comments seemed like that might be but I think he's struggling.with the phrasing. I'm pretty sure he understands the importance of conservation laws for understanding what's actually happening. I struggle with phrasing and I'm only familiar with English. Semi familiar.

 

Many important knowledge that I knew from you. exchemist, brucep, danshawen, Q-reeus you are really knowledgeable parson. Actually I make and made trap(of science and technology) to know about the nature of law of conservation that is (1) May be it can violet the law of conservation.(2) It can violet something to obey the law of conservation. But (2) is happening. I knew from other thread that you can remember is sometimes electrons do not gain potential energy to obey the law of conservation. So it seems that it violets something to obey it. There are many technology based on many theories. So it is the process that's obey those laws. I thought that some activity violets something to obey the law can be use for some technology. May be its about different. Thanks

 

A reasonable hypothesis - except his post #25 comes across as an every which way undecipherable whatever statement.

Time to make a confession. Some years back, for some reason now forgotten, came across the following section of a free-to-read-online textbook:
http://www.vias.org/matsch_capmag/matsch_caps_magnetics_chap3_11.html
I consider myself pretty sharp and in certain areas able to see conceptual issues and possibilities few others would. What jumped out in reading the above linked was to me the obvious implication of possible non-reciprocal mutual inductance. If the reader can't spot why and why it should matter I'm not about to elaborate. Think about it.
That the author was a well respected academic with many years of practical experience lent credibility to what otherwise would probably have been dismissed immediately.

Seemed to me though if anything the very opposite should apply - stronger net flux linkage with coil situated away from gap. Intrigued, I ordered a cheap 2nd-hand copy of a later and more comprehensive textbook by same (co) author, hoping for further details. Alas, just the same section there with no further elaboration. Still, this needed experimental confirmation. Didn't take long to order in a specialist multi-meter having inductance measurement. Also already had everything needed to rig up a gapped 'iron-core' loop magnetic circuit. And for good measure, a gapped straight 'iron-core' bar.

First tested for inductance of a coil placed at various locations around the gapped loop circuit. Sure enough, inductance readings were consistently higher with coil away from gap - hence, net flux linkage was greater then. Just as I had thought, and opposite of what author had asserted. But - realized the true acid test was to measure actual mutual linkage between two coils located at arbitrary positions around the magnetic loop. When this was done, the results always came back the same - m1m2 = m2m1 - i.e. reciprocal mutual linkage. Won't go into specifics of parameter ranges, but suffice to say the matter was settled to my satisfaction. Ditto for tests on gapped bar.

Somehow the inductance meter was being fooled and had I not taken the next step in testing, might well have rushed to file a worthless patent application.
The above is NOT an invitation for 'but what if...' follow-on Q & A's. Rather meant to point out how easy it can be to come to wrong conclusions and how careful one sometimes needs to be in evaluating a matter.

 

Interesting tests. Thanks for writing down the details. Ditto on your reasoning.

 

Lots of folks try to create experiments to violate conservation laws. Free energy is the goal. The folks that claim they're successful are always wrong and generally don't understand what they're trying to model to start with.

 

yes, And the input DC(frequency) voltage to primary section was wrong of my model. It will be AC voltage to the primary. So it seemed that the secondary circuit is in a trap to flow current through this circuit same as the batteries circuit and I had a concentration to the secondary coil(non inductive) of the T2 transformer. Thanks.