PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-11-27, 04:43:15
News: Registration with the OUR forum is by admin approval.

Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: The interesting case of mechanical induction modulation.  (Read 2662 times)
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
So I have been running some FEMM simulations and noticed an interesting effect which others have talked about in the past, see: http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/html/orboeffecten.htm
But that's all I will say about that source as to avoid having to name that cursed company  C.C.

Now where this came from is knowing that Magnetic flux is always conserved and you can say that inductance*current (L*I) is always constant for non time varying magnetic system. This can be seen as equivalent to momentum, m*v in classical mechanics which is also always conserved unless a force acts on the system to change it. We can see this by simply removing the core from a powered solenoid, the current shoots up as it will want to maintain the flux it had with the core inside. Consequently the energy of the system also rises as L*I must remain constant, since the energy of the solenoid is defined by L*I²/2, the current rising will have a quadratic relation on the energy. The obvious source of this energy gain is your muscles that jerked the core out of the solenoid, as you would notice the core would very much not like to leave the center of the solenoid.

Now that is the basic theory aside. Obviously this is nothing new. Has been discussed in the past under different names such as "parametric transformers", "parametric resonance" and so on. This research has died down since the 70's but someone in academia quite recently reignited intrest in this field:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andres-Revilla-Aguilar

Now this brings me to the FEMM simulation. Basically it's a toroid coil next to a magnet and in between moves a piece of iron to shield the PM field. When the shield reaches TDC the toroid is powered on, in this state the toroid has maximal inductance, now as the shield moves away and the toroid is exposed to the magnetic field, it will lose quite a bit of this inductance due to core saturation thus making the current rise to keep the flux constant inside the coil. This consequently will increase the magnetic energy, quadratically, of the coil.

Attached you also see a torque table that shows the torque difference for the shield moving to and away from the coil/magnet. What surprised me was the small difference in torque you get on the shield when the toroid being switched on and off. This may be significant as the inductance can reduce by as much as 10 folds due to the saturation of the PM field and thus end up with two orders of magnitude more energy for a very small mechanical penalty. FEMM sadly does not support such dynamic inductance calculation but this can be confirmed quite easily with a capable LCR meter. On the other hand FEMM is quite accurate at force calculations which make these results look promosing.

Sim specs:
Core: BH-curve modeled after metglass cores (attached), OD=40mm, ID=20mm
Coil: 10A, 10turns
Magnet: N55 neodymium magnet
Shield: pure iron with linear permeability
I used lua scripting in FEMM to perform the stepwise simulation.

TLDR: L*I is always constant, when you lower L, I has to rise proportionately, thus the total magnetic energy will rise quadratically due to L*I²/2. Parametric transformers have been under active research recently. FEMM simulation shows that little mechanical energy is expended for potentially large induction changes of a toroidal coil.

EDIT: Might not be obvious but there is an mp4 video showing the simulation between the attachments.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Here's a small addition, nothing new but interesting to share. Inductance measured with and without magnets. The simple magnet arrangement changes inductance by a factor of 4, magnetic energy wise that would be an increase of a factor of 16. Yet the torque only changes a tiny fraction according to FEMM.
« Last Edit: 2022-04-20, 18:11:17 by broli »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Hi Broli,

You said
Quote
FEMM sadly does not support such dynamic inductance calculation but this can be confirmed quite easily with a capable LCR meter. On the other hand FEMM is quite accurate at force calculations which make these results look promosing.

An LCR meter won't give correct answers for saturated cores hence any results there must be used with caution.  FEMM can support dynamic inductance features by using the flux linkage available in the Circuit feature.  Thus you can step through a current rise recording flux linkage at each step.  You can then chart this in a spreadsheet and view its non-linearity.  You can also integrate this Flux v. Current quite accurately using Simpson's rule and that will give you the co-energy.  Subtract that from the rectangle formed by Ipeak*FLUXpeak and that gives you the energy needed to charge the inductor or the energy regained on discharge.

For your experiment you could create the chart as shown in the image below where the Flux v. Current follows a CW loop.  The area within that loop is the energy gained from the shield movement.  I have just done FEMM runs with something similar to your set up and the result is that the energy gained is very small (it would be quite significant if the shielding action could run at high frequency, like 10's of KHz).  I get a few hundred microJoules.  The torques are quite significant like several Nm and looking at the expected few hundred microJoules energy lost in the in-out movement it is down in the noise.  So it is not conclusive as to whether an OU gain is possible.  I have done similar things in the past moving the magnet towards the toroid and that has never shown OU.

Smudge
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2982


Buy me a beer
Smudge

I posted this on another thread but nobody replied but had 84 downloads!

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4103.0;attach=44052;image

This on its own is no great thing, but if the aluminum was a flat ring then it would be like a shorted turn. Then another identical coil magnet setup is placed 180º on the ring and each MOSFET is sequentially pulsed in a special way. Wound around the aluminum are coils, the aluminum has a high current circulating through it and sets up a magnetic field that is passing through the coils.

The rest I will leave up to you :)

Regards

Mike


---------------------------
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

As a general rule, the most successful person in life is the person that has the best information.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
Hi Broli,

You said
An LCR meter won't give correct answers for saturated cores hence any results there must be used with caution. 

Smudge

I think a DC inductance meter would actually be more accurate, as it calculates rise time opposed to phase angles in the one I have.


Hi Broli,

You said
An LCR meter won't give correct answers for saturated cores hence any results there must be used with caution.  FEMM can support dynamic inductance features by using the flux linkage available in the Circuit feature.  Thus you can step through a current rise recording flux linkage at each step.  You can then chart this in a spreadsheet and view its non-linearity.  You can also integrate this Flux v. Current quite accurately using Simpson's rule and that will give you the co-energy.  Subtract that from the rectangle formed by Ipeak*FLUXpeak and that gives you the energy needed to charge the inductor or the energy regained on discharge.

For your experiment you could create the chart as shown in the image below where the Flux v. Current follows a CW loop.  The area within that loop is the energy gained from the shield movement.  I have just done FEMM runs with something similar to your set up and the result is that the energy gained is very small (it would be quite significant if the shielding action could run at high frequency, like 10's of KHz).  I get a few hundred microJoules.  The torques are quite significant like several Nm and looking at the expected few hundred microJoules energy lost in the in-out movement it is down in the noise.  So it is not conclusive as to whether an OU gain is possible.  I have done similar things in the past moving the magnet towards the toroid and that has never shown OU.

Smudge


I will try to do this when I have the time time but the efficiency will also greatly depend on the initial induction your start with. If it's in the mH's range then even if the inductance changed by a factor of 10 this would be merely  noise compared to the mechanical energy. For instance 1A at 10mH is equivalent to 5mJ, if it went to 1mH due to core saturation then you end up with 100mJ, even if it's a 10x increase in energy it is easily lost in the multiple of Joules of energy you are dealing with mechanically. The higher the initial inductance range the better and obviously the lower you can get by saturating the core the better.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...
Now that is the basic theory aside. Obviously this is nothing new. Has been discussed in the past under different names such as "parametric transformers", "parametric resonance" and so on. This research has died down since the 70's but someone in academia quite recently reignited intrest in this field:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andres-Revilla-Aguilar
...

Very interesting paper. I just wonder what exactly they mean when they say:

"In the mathematical deal case of λ0 = 0 (x0 = 0), the synchronous variations of L2(t)(KK′(t)) will not yield parametric oscillations. In actuality, thermal noise is enough to start the build-up of oscillations, growing on every cycle with no bound. This behaviour is similar to a positive feedback loop condition on an amplifier, and the phenomena is sometimes referred as parametric amplification. In the actual case of a physical PT, the oscillations will only grow until a certain stable limit."

For parametric amplification, the pump frequency must be synchronized to the signal to be amplified (usually double). Noise cannot provide a regular enough signal to modulate the parameter in sync with the signal to be amplified, so how can the oscillations grow?


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
Smudge

I posted this on another thread but nobody replied but had 84 downloads!

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4103.0;attach=44052;image

This on its own is no great thing, but if the aluminum was a flat ring then it would be like a shorted turn. Then another identical coil magnet setup is placed 180º on the ring and each MOSFET is sequentially pulsed in a special way. Wound around the aluminum are coils, the aluminum has a high current circulating through it and sets up a magnetic field that is passing through the coils.

The rest I will leave up to you :)

Regards

Mike

Wrong thread for this topic but a quick FEMM simulation shows that the effect of the magnet is minimal as it only affects a small area at one end, so I don't see what you are getting at.  It certainly does not have an effect at the other end where the aluminum plate is attached.  A non Halbach magnet will have a greater effect.

Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
@Smudge here's something wrong that I discovered about FEMM, apparently it does not consider the amount of turns of a coil when calculating the flux linkage. So if you make use of turns (as I did) you have to multiply this with the flux linkage to get the final correct induction. I was getting abnormal low inductance ranges for the specs I was using and that explained it. Will continue with trying to get the inductance differences of the above simulation.

   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Broli
Simulations are problematic because there are in fact multiple forms of induction...

1)Magnetic field induction, a magnet field source induces an opposite field in a ferromagnetic material. ie. the N pole of a magnet induces a S pole in a piece of iron near to it. (S)magnet(N)>>>0<<<(S)iron(N)

2)Electric field induction, an electric field source induces an opposite field polarity in any material near to it.
(+)source(-)>>>0<<<(+)induced(-). I will exclude the double/boundary layer effect for simplicity.

3)Electromagnetism(EM) relates to both #1 and #2. An electric field can be produced/induced which then produces an electron current in a conductor. The electron current then produces a magnetic field which induces a secondary electric field which then produces a secondary magnetic field which opposes the first, ie Lenz Law.
(+)electric(-)>>>(S)magnetic(N)>>>0<<<(S)magnetic(N)<<<(+)electric(-).

These laws of induction are know, very specific and never in question to my knowledge...

4)Electromagnetic field induction due to the displacement of a magnetic field. Here we need to be very specific in describing the process as it relates to #1, #2 and #3. We are speaking about a large number of charged particles having a high surface charge and velocity literally moving/displacing an existing magnetic field. For example, a solar storm moving/displacing the magnetic field surrounding the Earth. In fact I have done many experiments on this phenomena and the same laws apply in a common circuit. As the laws apply in one instance they can also apply in a similar instance. This relates to an almost unknown field of study relating to radiant energy/matter. That is a charged particles radiating/moving from a source outward hence the term "radiant".

5)This next kind of induction is where things get very much ambiguous because the terminology and effects becomes blurred. Here were speaking of the state of matter as it applies to the forces already present within the space it occupies. The UFO stuff, how can a mass accelerate to obscene velocities without an equivalent energy input?. If anyone understands anything about science there is only one way to do this and it relates to inertia. However, what is inertia?, apparently nobody has any idea. Thus it seems like one hell of a place to start, doesn't it?...

6)obviously there's more which we have yet to figure out. Hence the fun and there's always something new to learn. How many way's are there to induce an action in something at a distance. This spooky action at a distance we have yet to fully understand?... I have no idea.

Regards
AC







---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
@Allcanadian, I'm very aware of the different induction forms in EM theory. You might also remember my Weber thread where induction was explored on a very basic level from Webers EM point of view. Additionally I don't see things as N and S poles as you describe, this description is too limited. I tend to imagine magnetic dipoles as tiny electric circuits rather than "magnetic poles", the former should rather be used in textbooks instead as so many students get initially confused by this imaginary poles stuff but only later when they truly dive into EM they understand that poles are but a figment of the imagination.

That aside, there is a reason why a toroid is used. Any type of current formed in the coil should have no effect on a circuit (or magnet) outside of it, this is a mathematical fact (in a perfect toroid that is). Hence if an external magnet can change the field inside of the toroid (due to ferromagnetic saturation) the reaction of the coil (current spike) will have no effect on the magnet. The magnetic field will want to remain constant at all times even if it has to spike the current, so what is always conserved is magnetic momentum (I*L) not so much magnetic energy (I*L²/2).

This is very similar to yanking a core out of a solenoid. As you pull the core out, magnetic momentum wants to remain conserved so the current increases. If the coil was a perfect conductor, after pulling out the core the coil will have exactly the same magnetic flux going through it as before but now generated by its own field as its current has increased significantly. But what didn't remain the same is the magnetic energy. Obviously here you payed the energy price by mechanical input as the core resisted this change quite a bit.

Since you brought up inertia. Imagine you could arbitrary change the mass of an object and still conserve mechanical momentum M*V. That means V would need to change as to keep MV constant. but since energy is  MV²/2 so if you drop the mass 2 times the velocity needs to rise 2 times to keep M*V conserved and thus the energy will increase 4 times.

Ferromagnetism is this weird quirk in Electromagnetism where you have a very non-linear behavior opposed to everything else in EM that maybe can be used in an advantageous way. 

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...
Since you brought up inertia. Imagine you could arbitrary change the mass of an object and still conserve mechanical momentum M*V. That means V would need to change as to keep MV constant. but since energy is  MV²/2 so if you drop the mass 2 times the velocity needs to rise 2 times to keep M*V conserved and thus the energy will increase 4 times.

That's right. The question is how much energy it will cost to change the mass. Murphy is still lurking in the shadows...  :)
If we look at the paper you quoted above, they have a mechanical equivalent of their electronic setup, with springs. In the mechanical equivalent, there are 2 springs on the y-axis, to modulate the spring constant of a virtual spring that would be on the x-axis. The spring constant is the modulated parameter, equivalent to an inductance in their electrical circuit.
Tensioning the springs on the y-axis does not produce any force on the x-axis. So we are only modulating a parameter. But if we look more closely, this is only true if no force is exerted on x. A force on x causes a displacement, the springs are no longer orthogonal, and therefore will exert a restoring force on the x axis, depending on their angle, a force which will have to produce work and we will have to pay for this energy.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
That's right. The question is how much energy it will cost to change the mass. Murphy is still lurking in the shadows...  :)
If we look at the paper you quoted above, they have a mechanical equivalent of their electronic setup, with springs. In the mechanical equivalent, there are 2 springs on the y-axis, to modulate the spring constant of a virtual spring that would be on the x-axis. The spring constant is the modulated parameter, equivalent to an inductance in their electrical circuit.
Tensioning the springs on the y-axis does not produce any force on the x-axis. So we are only modulating a parameter. But if we look more closely, this is only true if no force is exerted on x. A force on x causes a displacement, the springs are no longer orthogonal, and therefore will exert a restoring force on the x axis, depending on their angle, a force which will have to produce work and we will have to pay for this energy.

I actually don't agree with that analogy though! They have their L and C reversed in the differential equation. The spring constant should be the capacitance and L should be the mass. By modulating L you are modulating M (mass) and not K (the spring constant). Modulating spring constant is equivalent to opening the plates between a capacitor which is not what I'm after here. But it does increase capacitive energy which is also payed by mechanical energy input as the plates strongly attract each other. But again that's not what  I'm after.

So essentially if you use the correct mechanical analogy, you pull on the mass attached to the spring and let go. When the mass hits the point of highest velocity you perform the "magic" of reducing its mass which increases the velocity proportionally, this in turn increases the kinetic energy quadratically due to mv² and thus the mass ends up storing more potential energy in the spring, if you repeat this every cycle you get parametric resonance. See attached for the "correct" equivalent mechanical analogy.
« Last Edit: 2022-04-23, 10:46:56 by broli »
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
On the subject of inertia our teaching is all wrong.  Since Newton inertia is described as an internal property of matter to resist change of motion.  This is nonsense, there is ample evidence that inertia is an external force.  We are familiar with a liquid (or indeed a gas) having viscosity that is a property that impedes motion of a body through it.  Similarly space is a gas that impedes motion, but the rules are different from viscosity.  Perhaps we should teach space as being a substance like a gas that has a property called inertivity.  We know the rules, space imparts a force on a mass that is proportional to its acceleration.  I say a gas because we know that it is full of particles, not mass particles but photons or sub-photons whizzing about at light velocity.  So this inertivity comes from interaction between the mass and the space gas particles.  To me that makes sense.
Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
On the subject of inertia our teaching is all wrong.  Since Newton inertia is described as an internal property of matter to resist change of motion.  This is nonsense, there is ample evidence that inertia is an external force.  We are familiar with a liquid (or indeed a gas) having viscosity that is a property that impedes motion of a body through it.  Similarly space is a gas that impedes motion, but the rules are different from viscosity.  Perhaps we should teach space as being a substance like a gas that has a property called inertivity.  We know the rules, space imparts a force on a mass that is proportional to its acceleration.  I say a gas because we know that it is full of particles, not mass particles but photons or sub-photons whizzing about at light velocity.  So this inertivity comes from interaction between the mass and the space gas particles.  To me that makes sense.
Smudge

Hey Smudge thanks I respect your views a lot but I would like to keep the topic of this thread as practical as possible without going astray with what's wrong with classical EM or mechanical laws too much.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
On the subject of inertia our teaching is all wrong.  Since Newton inertia is described as an internal property of matter to resist change of motion.  This is nonsense, there is ample evidence that inertia is an external force.  We are familiar with a liquid (or indeed a gas) having viscosity that is a property that impedes motion of a body through it...
Smudge

There is no consensus on the nature of inertia. Maybe it is an external force, maybe not. There have been suggestions, for example, that its nature is entirely electromagnetic because of the charges of matter reacting to their own field when accelerated, thus linking inertia to the vector potential:
A Martins - The Connection Between Inertial Forces and the Vector Potential  (pdf)



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...
So essentially if you use the correct mechanical analogy, you pull on the mass attached to the spring and let go. When the mass hits the point of highest velocity you perform the "magic" of reducing its mass which increases the velocity proportionally, this in turn increases the kinetic energy quadratically due to mv² and thus the mass ends up storing more potential energy in the spring, if you repeat this every cycle you get parametric resonance. See attached for the "correct" equivalent mechanical analogy.

I can see the principle of your idea. My point is just to always ask the question of energy cost to change the parameter. You know that for the spacing of the capacitor plates, the electrical gain is exactly that of the mechanical work to move them apart. So are there other systems with parameters that could be changed subtly and at low cost, to get significant effects on the system, that's the whole question.

According to academic science, this is not possible for a closed system, since it conserves its energy. Or one would have to use LENRs or Maxwell demons to change the parameters rather than using their energy directly.

Otherwise one needs an open system. If we take into account quantum effects, we can say that everything is open, and therefore it would become possible. From there to say how, there is still a big step to take.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
As a side tangent and sanity check I removed the core and used an air core for the toroid. This should have no force effect or flux linkage due to an external magnetic field and indeed it does not. The dense flux on one side of the toroid going through a "couple" of turns is compensated by the weaker flux on the other side going through many more turns, thus zero total flux.

Additionally irregardless of the current, the force on the magnet is the same (should be zero but depends on how many elements you use in FEMM, the size of this toroid is 200mm so any magnetic forces should be giant too). This means that induction due to the magnetic field acting upon the coil is not why the current rises and its current spike is not why the magnet feels a force, it's all due to the (non linear behaviour of the) core.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I can see the principle of your idea. My point is just to always ask the question of energy cost to change the parameter. You know that for the spacing of the capacitor plates, the electrical gain is exactly that of the mechanical work to move them apart. So are there other systems with parameters that could be changed subtly and at low cost, to get significant effects on the system, that's the whole question.

According to academic science, this is not possible for a closed system, since it conserves its energy. Or one would have to use LENRs or Maxwell demons to change the parameters rather than using their energy directly.

Otherwise one needs an open system. If we take into account quantum effects, we can say that everything is open, and therefore it would become possible. From there to say how, there is still a big step to take.

I agree but these "what if"'s is what intrigue me the most. To test and double test every "truth" out there as a single counter example is enough to disprove everything. As Einstein himself said "No amount of experiment can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong". This is the basis of science, to challenge everything, even ones own thoughts.

I am not sure if energy IS conserved when opening up capacitor plates? Has this ever been meticulously tested? The chance that it is is probably 99.99999% but that's why science exists, to explore that 0.000001% off chance. Well I would rather say that is part of human curiosity and what brought forth science as whole.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2735
Moved my response to smudge to new inertia thread...




---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Professor
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1940
@Smudge here's something wrong that I discovered about FEMM, apparently it does not consider the amount of turns of a coil when calculating the flux linkage. So if you make use of turns (as I did) you have to multiply this with the flux linkage to get the final correct induction. I was getting abnormal low inductance ranges for the specs I was using and that explained it. Will continue with trying to get the inductance differences of the above simulation.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, FEMM has always dealt with flux linkage correctly.  I have just done a simple solenoid and used the FEMM Circuit facility where I put a conducting sheath either side of the core.  One side is Circuit 1 and set to 1 turn.  The other side is Circuit 1 and set to -1 turn.  Then with Circuit 1 set to 1 amp I get 1.1908E-8 Weber flux linkage so for 1 turn that is the actual flux.  Next I reset the conductor sheath to 10 turns and -10 turns, still at 1 amp.  The flux linkage is now 1.1908E-6.  That is the correct value as the flux is now 10 times greater and the flux linkage is 100 times greater.
Smudge
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, FEMM has always dealt with flux linkage correctly.  I have just done a simple solenoid and used the FEMM Circuit facility where I put a conducting sheath either side of the core.  One side is Circuit 1 and set to 1 turn.  The other side is Circuit 1 and set to -1 turn.  Then with Circuit 1 set to 1 amp I get 1.1908E-8 Weber flux linkage so for 1 turn that is the actual flux.  Next I reset the conductor sheath to 10 turns and -10 turns, still at 1 amp.  The flux linkage is now 1.1908E-6.  That is the correct value as the flux is now 10 times greater and the flux linkage is 100 times greater.
Smudge

@Smudge, you are correct that is my bad for reading the results wrong.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I want to back track a bit and go back to Jnaudin's experiment here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/steorn/indexen.htm

How is it that the inductance could change 5 fold but there is no response on the current in the coil? In this experiments case the magnet is attracted to the core and at TDC the coil is switched on, in this state the core would have a low inductance due to the PM's field partially saturating it. As the magnet moves away the inductance rises but this should also cause the current to drop yet there is no reaction seen on the current traces. Furthermore the rise and and fall times of the pulse seem to be equal this also makes no sense if the coil has a larger inductance after the PM has moved away. The fall time should be significantly larger than the rise time.

FEMM also does not support these results.

   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
...
How is it that the inductance could change 5 fold but there is no response on the current in the coil?
...

I think the answer is in the formula below the picture on Naudin's site: E = d(Li)/dt

The pulse current supplied by the generator increases in the coil and is stored there. If L tends to vary because of the movement of the magnet, the current stored in the coil adjusts to oppose the flux variation proportional to d(Li)/dt.
It will therefore cooperate with the external current in order to keep Li constant. Without flux variation, B remains constant, and so do i and L (because depending on B). "i" can be kept constant because it is not only the product of the pulse generator, but also the product of the coil itself becoming a generator.
The bearing is maintained as long as the current stored in the coil can prevent the flux variation.

The same applies to a variation of L as when we open an inductive circuit where a current was flowing, the coil behaves as a generator tending to maintain the current in the circuit.



---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 329
I think the answer is in the formula below the picture on Naudin's site: E = d(Li)/dt

The pulse current supplied by the generator increases in the coil and is stored there. If L tends to vary because of the movement of the magnet, the current stored in the coil adjusts to oppose the flux variation proportional to d(Li)/dt.
It will therefore cooperate with the external current in order to keep Li constant. Without flux variation, B remains constant, and so do i and L (because depending on B). "i" can be kept constant because it is not only the product of the pulse generator, but also the product of the coil itself becoming a generator.
The bearing is maintained as long as the current stored in the coil can prevent the flux variation.

The same applies to a variation of L as when we open an inductive circuit where a current was flowing, the coil behaves as a generator tending to maintain the current in the circuit.

Well you described exactly what should have happened but doesn't. This "the current stored in the coil adjusts to oppose the flux variation proportional to d(Li)/dt." is not happening. The current measured (I assume across a series shunt with the coils) going through the coil should have dropped to compensate for the increased inductance. Afterwards the power supply would indeed compensate and increase the current back to its previous value.

Additionally the fall time should have also increased due to the larger inductance and again this is not seen in the data.
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2072
Well you described exactly what should have happened but doesn't. This "the current stored in the coil adjusts to oppose the flux variation proportional to d(Li)/dt." is not happening. The current measured (I assume across a series shunt with the coils) going through the coil should have dropped to compensate for the increased inductance.
...

Not at all: the slightest infinitesimal variation of the flux is immediately compensated. There is no reason for the flux to decrease as long as the coil can maintain it by its current.
Current and flux are two aspects of the same reality. L remains constant in spite of the movement of the magnets, because the action of the current maintains the same field B and therefore the same inductance L and therefore the same current.
Probably the magnet also participate in the current since its flux cuts the circuit, which does not change the principle.

We have the same effect with superconductors: the levitation is maintained because the slightest variation of flux is compensated.


---------------------------
"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"
   
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-11-27, 04:43:15