BEMF current reversal.

[RAMSET]

Allen you burn thru people ....trying to find support for your vendetta against
a man who only tried to help you [one of many ]

most have not got a clue what you are actually talking about
perhaps you can teach here and leave out the finger pointing

if your argument has merit ...
it needs no screaming yelling or funny movies

it should be able to withstand investigation.
I would imagine a build to prove your....Whatsit

just one mans opinion

[bistander]

Bull

@bistander,

The reluctance changes with the level of magnetic force. The magnetic force level acts like Ohmic resistance in the "Resistance Formula". The higher the Ohms the higher the resistance in the circuit, and equally, the greater the magnetic force in the inductor, the greater the Reluctance! Got it?

Pure BS. You can show no supporting theory or derivation, or find anyone in the world agreeing with you. Could it be you're wrong?

[Allen Burgess]

Negative current and Henries.

Tinselkoala maintains that "Negative Current" is imaginary, even though we measure it with our amp meters. It comes as no surprise to anyone when we see him try and pull the same stunt and invalidate a "Negative Henry" reading on our inductance meters as again imaginary.

[Allen Burgess]

Lenz's Law:

When a magnet approaches a coil, a current runs in one direction and the ammeter registers a plus indicating a positive current. When the magnet's pulled away from the coil, the current runs in the opposite direction and the ammeter registers a negative indicating a reverse or negative current.

[Allen Burgess]

Negative Henry.

Quote from Tinselkoala:

"A negative correlation has nothing to do with "negative Henry" nor does it imply that one or the other of the correlated variables is "negative". By posting what you have posted you reveal that you do not understand correlation or inverse relationships".

Tinselkoala can not find a correlation between the "Inverse Henry" term of magnetic reluctance, and the minus sign that appears before the number on the inductance meter when set to read in Henries. He always couples his misstatements with some kind of personal insult. (He's revealing his stupidity again) to help make his malarkey stick.

[Allen Burgess]

This goes miles off-topic. You claim reluctance of an air core coil changes with the level of induction. Look back at your graphic which I have reposted several times. See his formula for calculating reluctance. Either your coil would need to change shape or the permeability of space changes. Neither are likely. Believe what you want. I'm through.

bi

@bistander,

The reluctance changes with the level of magnetic force. The magnetic force level acts like Ohmic resistance in the "Resistance Formula". The higher the Ohms the higher the resistance in the circuit, and equally, the greater the magnetic force in the inductor, the greater the Reluctance! Got it?

[bistander]

What?

@bistander,

Thanks for raising this issue:

"Air and vacuum have high reluctance, while easily magnetized materials such as soft iron have low reluctance. The concentration of flux in low-reluctance materials forms strong temporary poles and causes mechanical forces that tend to move the materials towards regions of higher flux so it is always an attractive force (pull)".

Your formula introduces "The relative magnetic permeability of the core material" The formula I posted is for an "Air Core" inductor. Magnetic flux takes the path of least resistance. The low reluctance core acts as a pathway for the flux. You're right that the inclusion of the ferrite core increases inductance, but the low reluctance of the ferrite core presents an avenue for the flux to travel through, so any increased resistance from charge is canceled. My analysis works with an air core "Windings Charge" only.

My analysis works with an air core "Windings Charge" only.

This goes miles off-topic. You claim reluctance of an air core coil changes with the level of induction. Look back at your graphic which I have reposted several times. See his formula for calculating reluctance. Either your coil would need to change shape or the permeability of space changes. Neither are likely. Believe what you want. I'm through.

bi

[Allen Burgess]

These two statements are incorrect.

It is ambiguous as to exactly what you mean by magnetic field strength (is it intensity or density?), but decreasing the reluctance in a magnetic circuit increases the flux for a given mmf, which is opposite to the impression given by your two statements. Insert an iron core into a coil and you will increase the magnetic field for a given current. This will lower the reluctance. That lower reluctance will increase the coil's inductance which will increase its reactance and it will resist changing current more than the air core coil (higher reluctance).

Inductance in Terms of Magnetic Reluctance and Magnetic Permeance

See equation [4-32]. Inductance = turns squared / reluctance. Also note that since turns is deminsionless, inductance and reluctance have inverse units.

So as reluctance decreases, inductance increases which increases reactance and impedance which resist changing current.

@bistander,

Thanks for raising this issue:

"Air and vacuum have high reluctance, while easily magnetized materials such as soft iron have low reluctance. The concentration of flux in low-reluctance materials forms strong temporary poles and causes mechanical forces that tend to move the materials towards regions of higher flux so it is always an attractive force (pull)".

Your formula introduces "The relative magnetic permeability of the core material" The formula I posted is for an "Air Core" inductor. Magnetic flux takes the path of least resistance. The low reluctance core acts as a pathway for the flux. You're right that the inclusion of the ferrite core increases inductance, but the low reluctance of the ferrite core presents an avenue for the flux to travel through, so any increased resistance from charge is canceled. My analysis works with an air core "Windings Charge" only.

[bistander]

Reluctance

... After a magnetic field develops in the inductor, we calculate the resistance to the fluctuating current as Reluctance, and the Reluctance is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength of the Inductor.
...
The higher the magnetic field strength in the Inductor, the higher the Reluctance.

..

These two statements are incorrect.

It is ambiguous as to exactly what you mean by magnetic field strength (is it intensity or density?), but decreasing the reluctance in a magnetic circuit increases the flux for a given mmf, which is opposite to the impression given by your two statements. Insert an iron core into a coil and you will increase the magnetic field for a given current. This will lower the reluctance. That lower reluctance will increase the coil's inductance which will increase its reactance and it will resist changing current more than the air core coil (higher reluctance).

Inductance in Terms of Magnetic Reluctance and Magnetic Permeance

See equation [4-32]. Inductance = turns squared / reluctance. Also note that since turns is deminsionless, inductance and reluctance have inverse units.

So as reluctance decreases, inductance increases which increases reactance and impedance which resist changing current.

[Allen Burgess]

Reluctance and reactance.

Still don't know the difference between reluctance and reactance, do you?

@bistander,

Reactance is the resistance in the inductor to current that increases as frequency increases. After a magnetic field develops in the inductor, we calculate the resistance to the fluctuating current as Reluctance, and the Reluctance is directly proportional to the magnetic field strength of the Inductor.

The higher the frequency of the input the higher the Reactance of the Inductor. Got it? The higher the magnetic field strength in the Inductor, the higher the Reluctance.

Why not take some time to think these things over for yourself if you're new to them?

[bistander]

One of those re...ance words

@bistander,

If you can't recognize the "Inductance Meter" reading of Henries with a minus sign before it as the very same "Inverse Henry" you're trying to teach me about, all hope is lost. You go on teaching that the "Inverse Henry" is something else, but just exactly what you can't figure out!

Reluctance has the same relationship to number of "Inverse Henries" as resistance has to number of Ohms.

The stronger the magnetic field in an Inductor, the harder it is for a fluctuating current to pass; Hence the higher the reluctance. The coil would act as a conductor for a straight D.C. current.

Still don't know the difference between reluctance and reactance, do you?

[Allen Burgess]

That is contrary to what the university fellow stated in that slide which you posted earlier today.



This is similar (analogous) to the resistance of a piece of carbon in an electric circuit. The ohmic value (resistance) of the resistor (piece of carbon) depends on the material characteristics (resistivity), size, and temperature, not the current.

@bistander,

If you can't recognize the "Inductance Meter" reading of Henries with a minus sign before it as the very same "Inverse Henry" you're trying to teach me about, all hope is lost. You go on teaching that the "Inverse Henry" is something else, but just exactly what you can't figure out!

Reluctance has the same relationship to number of "Inverse Henries" as resistance has to number of Ohms.

The stronger the magnetic field in an Inductor, the harder it is for a fluctuating current to pass; Hence the higher the reluctance. The coil would act as a conductor for a straight D.C. current.

[bistander]

Magnet meter?

@bistander,

What you and Tinselkoala don't seem to understand is that when your Inductance meter reads -1 Henry, that's an inverse Henry! It's no longer measuring inductance but has changed to a magnet meter reading field strength in Tesla/Gauss.

Magnet meter? I did a quick search. Google didn't show any such thing, but there was an app for your smart phone.

Where in the world did you learn that your inductance meter turns into a magnet meter?

[bistander]

...

Magnetic reluctance is directly proportional to the maqnetic field strength in the inductor. This is measured in inverse Henries as Teslas or x 10000 as units of Gauss.

...

Reluctance rises in direct proportion to the magnetic field of the inductor. Just like Resistance does when Ohmic resistance is added to the circuit..

Magnetic reluctance is directly proportional to the maqnetic field strength in the inductor.

That is contrary to what the university fellow stated in that slide which you posted earlier today.



This is similar (analogous) to the resistance of a piece of carbon in an electric circuit. The ohmic value (resistance) of the resistor (piece of carbon) depends on the material characteristics (resistivity), size, and temperature, not the current.

[Allen Burgess]

Negative Henries.

@bistander,

What you and Tinselkoala don't seem to understand is that when your Inductance meter reads -1 Henry, that's an inverse Henry! It's no longer measuring inductance but has changed to a magnet meter reading field strength in Tesla/Gauss.