Many years ago I set about testing the following, and I achieved
the expected result (within the precision of the experiment).
I may have reinvented the wheel, but I had to be certain that it
would turn as predicted.

The assumptions were; When the relationship between charges changes,
a recording of every detail of the change is sent off to forever
expand into the two lateral dimensions of the past, or until every
piece is eventually gobbled up in a reaction in the present
somewhere else in the Universe, at which time the initial recording
will have replayed the entire events which led to its creation, but
in reverse. Every alteration to every charge relationship between
every one of the moving and fixed components along any conducting
path will send an individual recording of every detail relating to
the change, relative to each charge. And it must occur over a
specific distance, in a specific direction, in a specific time
(again relative to each charge). A recording of every change that
occurs to the charge structures around a closed loop circuit is
likewise sent off into the past, regardless of whether current flow
is undergoing change, or is constant throughout the loop. In each
case, change is occurring. If the current flow is constant, a state
of equilibrium will prevail in anything at rest relative to the
loop.

One can plot a curve following paths of equilibrium around parts
of a closed loop conductor and call them components of a magnetic
field, and then try to somehow incorporate that field into the
recording made from the changing charge structures when the field
changes. But it serves no purpose whatever. It just adds confusion
to a very simple process.
----

In the diagram, coil (2) is five times the diameter of coil (3)
and coil (1) is three times the diameter of coil (3). Coils (1)
and (2) contain the same number of turns. All coils are lying flat,
in the same plane.

.----------------- 5 -------.
. .----------3----. .
. . .- 1 -. . .
o o 0-----0 o o
coil coil coil
(2) (1) (3)

Passing an A/C current through coil (3), as the transmitting coil,
the A/C voltage received in coils (1) and (2) will be the result
of the direct influence from each individual charge relationship
change around the transmitting coil. The closer distances between
the receiving and transmitting coils will gain a time advantage when
a change is occurring throughout the transmitting coil. At any
specific location around a receiving coil, the recording of the
charge relationship changes from the far side of the transmitting
coil will lag behind those from the closer side.

Coil (2) is set with different distance ratios from each side of the
transmitter compared with coil (1). The distance from (b) to (c) is
twice that from (a) to (c), and from (b) to (d) is 1.5 times the
distance from (a) to (d). The time advantage ratio will change to
favor the closer points to a lesser degree as the receiver diameter
is increased.

(d) (c) (a) (b)
o o 0-----0 o o
coil coil coil
(2) (1) (3)

While a change to the current flow is occurring, if point (c) on
coil 1 receives two units of time/drive from the near side of
coil (3) (labeled (a)), then (c) will receive one unit of time/drive
in the opposite direction from (b). The end result will be one unit
of time/drive adantage in the direction following the influence
from the closer side of the transmitter. Point (d) on coil (2)
receives one unit of time/drive from (a) and receives .666
counteractory units from (b). Subtracting the .666 from the one unit
results in .333 units of time/drive advantage from the closer side
of the coil.

A point location on coil (1) receives one unit of time/drive
advantage while a point on coil (2) receives .333 units.

The length of influence around the circumference of each coil will
affect the final result. If the circumference of coil (1) is 1,
the circumference of coil (2) is 1.67. Coil (2) will then have
..333 * 1.67 = .556 time/drive units per 1 time/drive unit in
coil (1).

A real life example would seem to be in order.

.---- f ----.
.- e -. .
o o 0 0 o o
^-- g ------^
^---- h ----------^

For coil diameters, 70mm, 140mm, 610mm, the length (e) is 35mm,
(f) is 105mm, (g) is 270mm, and (h) is 340.

Assuming that point e-f on coil (1) receives 1 volt from the near
side of the transmitting coil, it will also receive
e / f * 1 = 35 / 105 * 1 = .333 counteracting volts from the far
side, resulting in, 1 - .333 = .666 volts at point e-f.

The 1 volt generated at e from the closer side of the transmitting
coil becomes, e / g * 1 = 35 / 105 * 1 = .13 volts at g
:: g / h * .13 = 270 / 340 * .13 = .103 counteracting volts from the
far side along h, resulting in .13 - .103 = .027 volts at point g-h.
The circumference of the 610mm diameter coil is 610 / 140 = 4.357
times that of the 140mm diameter coil, so the final voltage received
from the 610mm coil is .027 * 4.357 = .1176 volts. The received
voltage ratio between coils 610mm and 140mm is then
..666 / .1176 = 5.66 to 1.

If coil 610mm in the table below generates .325 volts, then coil
140mm would be expected to generate .325 * 5.66 = 1.84 volts
(1.86 with better precision).


Coil dia. 140 208 356 536 610mm

Air core
calculated 1.577 .898 .484 .314 A/C volts
actual 1.422 .868 .48 .317 .275

Fe core
calculated 1.86 1.061 .572 .371
actual 1.657 1.01 .568 .371 .325

The steps are better represented by
v' = (v / ((e + f) * ((1/e) - (1/f)))) * ((g + h) * ((1/g) - (1/h)))
The coil which houses the point e-f can of course be the larger of
the two receiving coils. It carries the known voltage (v).

The above results were achieved using a 90mm mean diameter
transmitting coil. But not all of the power that arrives at a point
in the receiving coil is transmitted from the 90mm diameter. Changing
the coil width to 70mm does the trick, although that width does not
remain constant for all receiving distances from the transmitting
coil.
. .
. o o --.------ 0
o o ------ .707
o. .o
o . . o ----- 1
o. .o
o o ------ .707
. o o --.------ 0
. .
.__ 70mm __.
(closely)

The equation dictates that an infinite voltage will be received in
a coil that is the same diameter as the transmitting coil diameter.
A fix for this problem would unnecessarily clutter an already
confusing equation (for me anyway). The wheel obviously turns as
predicted, and that's all I wanted to know.

40 volts A/C was used in the transmitting coil. The transformed
value per ratio of turns between the transmitter and receiver would
reduce the maximum possible voltage received to about 14v. With
the iron core included, it was in fact 3.8 volts.

http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graph.gif


--
Max Keon