Hopefully a conversation starter: is the flyback of a simple pulse coil circuit greater or less than the induced counter EMF?

Can flyback be used to counter CEMF?

Need to get a better understanding of what you refer " flyback" to be? Is it the energy in the collapsing magnetic feild your referring to?

(05-19-2024, 08:14 AM)Uniongarage Wrote: Need to get a better understanding of what you refer " flyback" to be? Is it the energy in the collapsing magnetic feild your referring to?

Yes. Field collapse (and it's potential) as a result of suddenly cutting current flow.

Flyback has been described as negative energy or negative time (negentropy), and it has occurred to me that the CEMF of a coil with magnets inducing it, could be somehow counteracted or lessened by introducing flyback.

Flyback as I've experienced it, is like a shadow, reflection or echo and apart from feeding it to a battery to rejuvenate it, maybe it could be a sink of some sort.

Think about how a coil on a car works? This always has fascinated me. My thoughts are this potential has much further developments as far as the work that can be extracted. Magnetos?

As far as I know the primary flyback from a coil just disipates. Imagine putting that back into the alternator...

It's wasted as spark , but think interms as the bedini ssg or joule thief ?

---

Voltage is Just Potential. So the spark goes to the positive.

As I see it, fly back, cemf, and back EMF are all closely related. They are all a reciprocal action from a reactive element such as a coil.  The difference is which direction the current flows, and if it was created on the rise or collapse of the input. 

The current direction and amplitude rely heavily on whether there is a connected load on a secondary, or if the coil is experiencing self-induction. 

There is a trade-off.  A. Choke or transformer with an open secondary creates back EMF which travels the current back to the sources positive. But if we connect the secondary to a load, then it starts creating counter electromagnetic force or cemf that sends its current towards the negative of the source.. 

A coil will always induce and induct. If there is a second coil around, it will induce a nearby coil. Then that nearby coil will reciprocate and induce the primary in the same proportion. But if there is not another coil around, the very same coil that is inducing will also be induced by itself. The trade-off I speak of is the more cemf, the less back EMF. And vice versa. If cemf and back EMF were equal, the coil would be non-reactive. That is what I seek, but is always out of reach LOL. 

Flyback is a different animal. Because it occurs when we disconnect a circuit. 

The full explanations get very confusing but if one studies the lagging and leading aspects of current and voltage in an inductive load verse a resistive load, we will see that a inductive load has a 90° lag in current where a resistive load does not. 

As to your question if flyback can counter cemf, my answer is no. Because cemf occurs with a closed circuit, where flyback occurs when the circuit opens.  Furthermore, both cemf and flyback flow in the same direction.  Now if the question is revised- back EMF counter CEMF, then my answer may be subject to change. 

This is how I understand it anyway, but let the conversation continue

(05-19-2024, 09:34 AM)Jim Mac Wrote: As I see it, fly back, cemf, and back EMF are all closely related. They are all a reciprocal action from a reactive element such as a coil.  The difference is which direction the current flows, and if it was created on the rise or collapse of the input. 

The current direction and amplitude rely heavily on whether there is a connected load on a secondary, or if the coil is experiencing self-induction. 

There is a trade-off.  A. Choke or transformer with an open secondary creates back EMF which travels the current back to the sources positive. But if we connect the secondary to a load, then it starts creating counter electromagnetic force or cemf that sends its current towards the negative of the source.. 

A coil will always induce and induct. If there is a second coil around, it will induce a nearby coil. Then that nearby coil will reciprocate and induce the primary in the same proportion. But if there is not another coil around, the very same coil that is inducing will also be induced by itself. The trade-off I speak of is the more cemf, the less back EMF. And vice versa. If cemf and back EMF were equal, the coil would be non-reactive. That is what I seek, but is always out of reach LOL. 

Flyback is a different animal. Because it occurs when we disconnect a circuit. 

The full explanations get very confusing but if one studies the lagging and leading aspects of current and voltage in an inductive load verse a resistive load, we will see that a inductive load has a 90° lag in current where a resistive load does not. 

As to your question if flyback can counter cemf, my answer is no. Because cemf occurs with a closed circuit, where flyback occurs when the circuit opens.  Furthermore, both cemf and flyback flow in the same direction.  Now if the question is revised- back EMF counter CEMF, then my answer may be subject to change. 

This is how I understand it anyway, but let the conversation continue

Jim, with your hands-on experience, do you agree with the following definitions...?

   

-------------------------------------

   

   

   

Not really. My view is pretty much my own decipherings. Which may be wrong, but my views nonetheless. 

What I believe is the very word. Induction is a synonym to the word conjuring. Anytime there is a reactive circuit, additional current is conjured. 

So now we have two forces in the wire. The source is providing a force, and a conjured or induced current becomes a source. 

Think of it like two fire hoses. We could spray both fire hoses into one pipe the same way and the water will flow unrestricted. Or we could put a fire hose on either side of a pipe and let them battle it out.  So now we have two currents in one circuit. 

In reality though, I see it much differently than water. Because with electrical, the current only flows if it's a closed loop. This essentially forces the conjured current through the original source current supply. Thus, raising the input current readings even though the primary source is not really the source of all the current. But it works against us nonetheless. 

So a coil conjures current when it reacts. That conjured current must make it back to the other side of the coil, because the coil is the source of that energy. Same with the battery or supply. The positive must make it back to the negative.  Both sources must complete their individual loop through the same pipe. 

As far as the graphics you posted, I do not agree with their definition of flyback. Now when I read their back. EMF and cemf, I mostly agree, except perhaps I interchanged the two words incorrectly. 

Basically, The conjured current from the induction has to travel either with the source current or against the source current.  If it travels in the same direction as the source current, it raises our input because it flows through the source the same way the source is putting it out. But if it flows against the source, it lowers our input because we have the situation of two fire hoses battling each other

Really appreciate you chiming in, Jim. "My view is pretty much my own decipherings" is what I am most interested in...your particular hands-on view and current definitions. 

Are you able to share your understanding following the rubric of the above posted definitions/analysis of Flyback, C-EMF, and Back-EMF so we can have a (modifiable as understanding develops further) set in stone definition for these three terms when used here on Mooker?

Have an awesome day!