Note; the following was sent yesterday as a fwd from my yahoo mailing. However
it did not appear to be sent as of today, so now I am resending it.
Apr 27 at 2:46 PM I found this on one of my quora replies from the end of 2018,
before I had discovered that the reciprocal relationship does not hold. It
concerns the measurements between the large 860 ohm coil and the smaller 126
ohm one. Further notes are in brackets[].
The results of tests involving inductive only transfer of energy showed that
the large coil, having 6.8 times more resistance then the smaller one, and also
having a comparatively large magnetic field in oscillation compared to the
reaction coil; this method of transmission was far more effective then its
counterpart action for sending of amperages between the components as an air
core transfer of reactive energy. A 60 hz AC 100 volt input from lg. coil
having 6 ma on sending current produced 2 ma on smaller receiving coil. This is
~ a 3/1 loss. In contrast the reverse sending showed a 25volt input near 30 ma
causing 0.5 ma reaction from the large coil. This more like a 60/1 loss, so
those quantities do not seem reciprocal to each other. In this case practically
no mutual induction is measured between the components. However when each
component is resonated by cancelling reactances in series, the reverse scenario
takes place where now the energy transfer from the small coil to the larger one
is 30% more efficient in that a GAIN in energy oscillations from that being
sent in and to what is received is recorded. In contrast when the reverse
sending of energy is made the loss of relative amperage from sending and
receiving coils again occurs, but it occurs as a reciprocal relationship to the
original observed gain in energy transfer.
[Actually there was a 89% gain in energy oscillations in going from the small
to large coil and conversely a 76.2% loss for the oscillations in going from
the large to small coil; and furthermore this does not show a reciprocal
factor. We must not confuse apples and oranges here as THREE different
variances are being discussed here. In the comparisons of energy oscillations
we are deducing the ratio between the change in L to that of the change of I^2.
There is secondarily the measurement of the change of I itself between the
sender and receiver which should obey the resistive change on L components. The
variances found here are theorized to be due to time distortions within the
systems. However a third variance is also present as the true power transfer
which involves I^2R comparisons between the sending and recieving coils..The
above stated (inductive) amperage conversions do not take into account the
varying resistances of the receiving inductors compared to the sending ones. In
terms of the true power transfer expressed by I^2R measurements it can be shown
that the 76.2% loss case is actually more efficient then the 89% gain case.
For the 89% energy oscillation gain case we
havehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/46127172765/in/dateposted-public/True
power input = (.104 A)^2*126 = 1.36 wattsTrue Power output = (.0315 A)^2 *860 =
.853 wattsefficiency as .853/1.36 =62.7%For the 76.2% loss
casehttps://www.flickr.com/photos/harvich/40076241583/in/dateposted-public/True
power input = (.014 A)^2*860 = .1685 wattsTrue power output = (.032 A)^2* 126 =
.129 wattsefficiency as .129/.168 = 76.5 %
As can be seen the true power ratios are entirely different from the energy
ratios which are also different from the variance of I by time distortion where
here the 89% increase in energy oscillation by having a vibration imparted to a
coil having a Q of 5pi does not increase its amperage by 89% but rather 102%.
Conversely then for the 76.2 % decrease in using the large coil to vibrate a
small coil having a Q of 2pi this decreases its amperage by 66% from what would
be delivered by the linear IR inverse proportionality. The hidden understanding
of using the pi ratio to describe the q factors is that it tells the percentage
of energy being released as resistive losses. Thus for the first case example
only 1/5th of its energy oscillation is released as heat which explains it's
lower effeciency in true power terms. For the same reason this along with the
higher input resistance explains the lower amount of true power input when
reversed. What seems to be missed in entirety is that it is the respective
coil dimensions themselves that permit or deny the linear IR ratios to be
obeyed. The central rule here is simply that the true power ratios cannot
exceed 100 %. In the first shown case the developed amperage is just over twice
of what the linear IR transformation would deliver; yet that amount still
shows 59% more true power input then output. The second case however is
entirely different; and as I have indicated it is the geometry of the coils
that dictate where the linear IR transformation is possible. In that case
