PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2019-06-17, 02:35:39
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: Bi-toroid  (Read 118721 times)

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
His "bitoroid" looks a lot like this device:  (first and second outputs are the two coils numbered III)
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Indeed, looks very similar.

Hey, he might actually have something, but until I see a reliable Pi and Po measurement, I'm not convinced.

btw Grumps, I think you might have misinterpreted his $1M challenge. I think he means that there IS a field in a bucking pair of magnets. But who knows, maybe I misinterpreted both of you  :P

.99


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3048
Well
I made my living dealing with testing labs
If Thane has an independant Test from an accredited Testing facility stating this device is 100-2700 % efficient
END OF STORY!!
NO LAB NOWHERE Is going to put out a report on their letter head signed by their engineer
stating they did these tests and varified these claims as described,unless they where willing to bet their reputation on it.
PERIOD!!
If you guys think for ONE minute They wouldn't need to varify INPUT over OUTPUT to establish efficiency
YOUR SMOKING SOMETHING!!
Chet
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
No Problem Chet, let's see the report and letterhead.

Also, I would expect a detailed diagram and description of how the tests were performed.

No one is infallible, even the DND. I have some experience with their Engineers btw.

Why does it make Thane nervous to test with the Killawatt meter ??? That meter was designed to work with 60 Hz AC. This is a trivial measurement for an A/D converter, microcontroller, and appropriate firmware, and it is application specific, which only the top top oscilloscopes incorporate, and Thane's scope does not I'm afraid.

I can assure you, the measurements obtained from the Killawatt meter will be far more accurate than anything Thane can pull off with his $1500 scope and under-powered meters.

.99


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3048
99
The test Data will make all Thanes techniques MOOT.
Yes get the test protocol and data!

WE [this community]would be SOOOOO gratefull !

Chet
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
Indeed, looks very similar.

Hey, he might actually have something, but until I see a reliable Pi and Po measurement, I'm not convinced.

btw Grumps, I think you might have misinterpreted his $1M challenge. I think he means that there IS a field in a bucking pair of magnets. But who knows, maybe I misinterpreted both of you  :P

.99

My point is that it appears that Thane may be trying to modify "variant 6" that I posted above.

If that is the case, I urge all to consult the source document.  I know of two overunity generators based on this document - one is the Gunderson Device.  Since the design is very close,  I urge all to consult it anyway.
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3048
The closest thing to an answer, to one of ION's questions

Some Poynt posts in between.

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

Today at 02:37:00 AMdear Sir Mr. Thane Heins

First let me say that I admire your workmanship and your finely crafted and spun coils and theories.

There is just one thing that has been nagging me. It is this:

Why are you burning up drive transformers as you mentioned in Dilbert's Dilemma BITT3.0.mov.

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up? It looks to be rated at least 150VA.

 It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.

You also mention towards the end of the video of having to end the test because the second larger transformer was beginning to burn up. Why is all this power being burned from the mains? Are these not real Watts being burned in the driving transformer?

These things are just puzzling to me, of course I don't have the insight that you have into the operation of the devices and your theories.

Thank you for your kind reply in advance.

Vortex1


AND I ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO PRESENT A GOOD QUESTION WITH RESPECT.
I WILL RESPOND IN KIND... I HOPE IT HELPS?  

I AM USING A 120 V - 48 V STEP DOWN TRANSFORMER IN REVERSE AS A STEP UP TRANSFORMER AND DRIVING IT WITH 160 V FROM MY VARIC WHICH IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO - HENCE THE SMOKING RESULTS. THIS WAS ALL I HAD TO WORK WITH AT THE TIME AND WE ALL DO "IT" FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE MOST OF US ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT ITEM TO COME IN THE MAIL.

NOW I AM USING A 120 - 10,000 V MICROWAVE TRANSFORMER WITH NO ILL EFFECTS DUE TO OVERHEATING.

IN ADDITION THE POWER GOING TO THE BITT IS THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE PRIMARY TIMES THE CURRENT THROUGH THE PRIMARY TIMES THE POWER FACTOR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POWER GOING INTO THE STEP UP TRANSFORMER (AND ITS EFFICIENCY %) - PRETTY SOON THEY WILL HAVE ME MEASURING POWER GOING TO THE BITT FROM OUTSIDE MY HOUSE TO BAFFLE THE LESS INFORMED READER.

BE AWARE AND TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCT.

CHEERS
T

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?

PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.



 Logged Free EnergyRe: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #189 on: Today at 03:52:52 AM »QuoteSponsored links:

poynt99
TPU-Elite
Hero Member

Posts: 1098
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

Re: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #190 on: Today at 04:06:16 AM »QuoteIndeed I made an error with the cycle.  

It's about 360º, not 180º across the 10 divisions.

Probably closer to 12 divisions, 2 of which are "off-screen" so we have to imagine this to be about correct. Therefore, with 2.5 divisions, @30º/DIV, yields 75º, which is what you state in the video.

PF is then about 0.259

Try the Killawatt meter for input power. It will give you far more accurate results than what you will be able to obtain with that scope and your meters.

.99 Logged Free EnergyRe: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #190 on: Today at 04:06:16 AM »QuoteCRANKYpants
elite_member
Hero Member

Posts: 953

Re: Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER
« Reply #191 on: Today at 04:20:26 AM »QuoteQuotePS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO - DEPENDING ON THE PRIMARY COIL USED. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.

I WILL ADD ONE OR TWO MORE THINGS HERE...
IN THE EARLY VIDEO OF 2009 WE WERE USING A HIGH IMPEDANCE PRIMARY WITH A RELATIVELY LOW INPUT VOLTAGE AND A POWER FACTOR OF 0.34 OR SO.

NOW WE ARE USING A HIGHER INPUT VOLTAGE TO INCREASE THE PRIMARY CORE FLUX MAGNITUDE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS A SHIFTING OF THE PRIMARY SINE WAVE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/2/sQq1-J8SOtc

THIS "DELIBERATE" PF SHIFTING IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDER TESTING - THAT IS WHY THESE LATEST VIDEOS FOCUS ON PHASE ANGLE (AND PHASE ANGLE SHIFTING) AND NOT INPUT vs OUTPUT AS DONE PREVIOUSLY. TO DO THESE INPUT vs OUTPUT TESTS CORRECTLY WE WOULD NEED TO CLAMP AND TACK WELD THE PRIMARY IN PLACE (TO REDUCE PRIMARY CURRENT) WHICH IS PREMATURE AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WE ARE STILL CHANGING PRIMARY WIRE GAUGE AND TURNS RATIOS TO GET THE EFFECT BUT NOT HAVE TO RELY ON CORE SATURATION TOO MUCH WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE LONG RUN.

T
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
So, are the small coils on the large core for phase shifting the flux so that the two output coil are in-phase (or more in phase than out of phase)?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3512
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding this reply:

My Question:

Quote
If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?

Thane's reply:

"PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY."

Anyone see a problem here? Thane is implying that the "shunt" resistor is a "virtual short circuit" across (in parallel with) the output of the step up transformer. No mention is made of the inductance of the BITT primary. What are we to assume from this? Is the BITT primary also in shunt (parallel) with the 0.5 ohm resistor?

In that test 220 volts were measured across the driving transformer secondary, hence at the input to the BITT primary.

This is confusing and contradictory. If the "shunt" resistor is used for measuring current on the input to the BITT, it should be in series with the BITT primary, not a "virtual short circuit" directly across the driving transformer output.

Since no recording of input current is shown in the first portion of the Dilbert's Dilemma we can only assume that Thane is using the "shunt" resistor as a input to the scope and a series measurement of current into the BITT primary.

We will have to assume that the "shunt" resistor is used for current measurement in series with the BITT primary, hence cannot be a virtual short, and must include the BITT primary impedance.

A simple schematic to go along with each video would certainly clarify things.

Thane's explanation of the burning transformers is in no way is satisfying, to me at least.



« Last Edit: 2010-10-27, 17:54:03 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
In his explanation, he is equating the primary of the BITT to a resistor that is across the "secondary" and effectively shorts it, and burns up the primary of the step-up transformer.

So, the load (BITT Primary) is not "purely reactive", and he just stated this with the resistor explanation (he says "purely resistive").

I recall he said he was using a 220v to 48v transformer reversed (or something like that), or was that a different transformer?

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
Regarding this reply:

My Question:

Thane's reply:

"PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY."

Anyone see a problem here? Thane is implying that the "shunt" resistor is a "virtual short circuit" across (in parallel with) the output of the step up transformer. No mention is made of the inductance of the BITT primary. What are we to assume from this? Is the BITT primary also in shunt (parallel) with the 0.5 ohm resistor?

In that test 15.25 volts were measured across the driving transformer secondary, hence at the input to the BITT primary.

This is confusing and contradictory. If the "shunt" resistor is used for measuring current on the input to the BITT, it should be in series with the BITT primary, not a "virtual short circuit" directly across the driving transformer output.


I think thane meant that the primary of the BITT is "like a resistor of 0.5 Ohms".
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
So, does anyone think that there is something to this BITT?
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I believe there may be something to it, but I have little confidence in the measurements performed by Thane thus far.

When Thane produces proper test documentation with diagrams and clear measurements, then we can know for sure. Alternatively, perhaps if someone as well-equipped as ION is willing to try the setup, then too we can finally know the truth.

.99


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3512
It's turtles all the way down
So, does anyone think that there is something to this BITT?

I believe Thane always leaves out or fudges one critical piece of test data.

If this device was real, with the kind of efficiencies predicted (up to 2700%), it would be no problem whatsoever to close the loop, feed some back to the input and have a free runner.

Even if he had to use a battery charger on the output, feed a battery, then an inverter back to the input he would have more than enough for an OU event.
 
But this is not the case. This has been going on since 2007 with no video in the open of a self runner, the next logical step rather than talk of more efficient mains transformers.

I reviewed the patent application and it is laughable. If you haven't read it in entirety, it is here.




---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3048
Question for ION
Looking at the Mary-Jo,I can make that with Square bar stock, Two 1/2[or whatever] inch pieces placed one on top of the  other [lengthwise]
and offset 1/2 inch at the ends for a structural "Box" ,to allow for machine screw attachment/assembly and dissassembly
Also figure a way to put the "Bridge'
in so it can also be removable.
The idea of dissassembly being to change out coils!
Would this be a fair way to test this??Or does it need to be Monolythic?
If so I will build a few and send them to someone to get to the others for testing   No charge
Chet
« Last Edit: 2010-10-27, 22:36:31 by ramset »
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr

Has everyone had a look at the excel file of test data?
Notice the power we are dealing with is very low?


Quote
Data from Thane Heins Lab, transformer set-up, 24 October 2009, 10:40 am                        
                        
V_in, I_in, V_load measured off multimeters                        
f measured off oscilloscope                  
Calculated values: P_in = V_in*I_in*cos(f) ; P_load = (V_load)**2/R_load      
                        
V_in   I_in   f     V_Load   R_load      P_in                P_load       P_load/P_in
(V)   (mA)   (degrees)  (V)   (ohms)      (mW)                (mW)   
                        
30   4.44   89.5     0.566   10      1.162378078   32.0356       27.5603959
50   7.27   89     0.929   10      6.34395937   86.3041       13.6041382
60.4   8.77   87     1.121   10      27.72278841   125.6641        4.532880969
79.5   11.5   87     1.474   10      47.84817164   217.2676        4.540771205
91   13.12   87     1.683   10      62.48497576   283.2489        4.533072095
108.9   15.71   87     2.014   10      89.53739258   405.6196        4.530169891
131   18.83   89.5     2.412   10      21.52607264   581.7744       27.0264999
144.3   20.72   89     2.655   10      52.18095941   704.9025       13.50880681

   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Yes, I saw this.

Cherry picking data out of noise is an easy thing to do, but would you "light the rocket" based on that data?

.99


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3512
It's turtles all the way down
Question for ION
Looking at the Mary-Jo,I can make that with Square bar stock, Two 1/2[or whatever] inch pieces placed one on top of the  other [lengthwise]
and offset 1/2 inch at the ends for a structural "Box" ,to allow for machine screw attachment/assembly and dissassembly
Also figure a way to put the "Bridge'
in so it can also be removable.
The idea of dissassembly being to change out coils!
Would this be a fair way to test this??Or does it need to be Monolythic?
If so I will build a few and send them to someone to get to the others for testing   No charge
Chet
sorry Chet, square bar stock will have large eddy current losses. Use transformer grade silicon grain oriented steel. Should be built up in thin layers, interleaved where low reluctance is required, and butt joint in high reluctance areas.

Can also be tape wound with sheet core transformer steel.

This has been my holdup in replicating, along with rather poor available documentation and  a large disbelief in the theory to boot.

But perhaps if the efficiency is as high as claimed (2700%) you should have OU out of the chute with old rusty metal roofing.

best of luck in your work


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3512
It's turtles all the way down

Has everyone had a look at the excel file of test data?
Notice the power we are dealing with is very low?




Good Catch, guys just a thought:

It may be that the 60 Hz input is triggering Barkhausen jumps in the transformer outer core , visible at very low power levels but gets swamped and lost at higher power levels. Not necessarily visible in a normal tightly coupled transformer because the line will absorb the jumps.

In a very loosely coupled transformer, such as the BITT,  the line impedance, which is very low is sufficiently decoupled.

This should be visible in any large very loosely coupled transformer when operated at very low levels.

Perhaps sufficient mass of transformer steel is required to capitalize on the very small Barkhausen effect.

If this is what is happening, upward scaling may not be economically feasible, as it is a very low level effect. It could be the operating mechanism of other stand alone devices such as the Cook coil, Sweet ,  and the device of Hans Coler.

I will run some tests as time permits.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-28, 01:14:36 by ION »


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
thanks the other part of the ""have you noticed" is the size of the core compared to the power.

The 2700% is based on the above data taken for 30v and 131v input.  It appears that between this the efficiency is much lower.

Output voltage is also very low.

The data seems to have a rythm to it.  The highs and lows appear related to input voltage and not linear.

(If I going to light the rocket, it better be for kW's and SM showed the kW's.)

   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
The Barkhausen Effect experiment by J.L. Naudin:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/barkhausen.htm

Quote
The most interesting in the Barkhausen effect is that there are no magnetic links between the source (the 2Hz flat excitation coil) and the EM induction produced by the Barkhausen jumps inside ferrite toroid core. So, this can be a path to explore for building Free Energy generators due to this non reciprocal effect (see the Bakhausen scalar detector from Bob Shannon)...

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3512
It's turtles all the way down
The Barkhausen Effect experiment by J.L. Naudin:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/spgen/barkhausen.htm



G.....you must be telepathic, I was modifying my above post with that very link and statement. When I posted it, I saw you had just done it, so I deleted my edit. LOL


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
Well I am back I was having some problems with my ISP and I have family in town.

I read this thread and saw some heated debate so afterward I am going to try to see what's going on on OU, perhaps some fireworks?  lol

In other postings I mentioned the "no combination of active and passive components..." line that some experimenters probably don't like to hear.  It would apply here also.  Think about it, a coil energizes and magnetic flux flows through a magnetic core, and that changing flux is picked up by another coil.  You pump AC power into the first coil and extract AC power from the second coil.  The magnetic core is the medium for the power transfer.  When you look at that simple setup, it is physically impossible for the power output from the second coil to be greater that the power supplied to the first coil.  COE will always apply in this case.

You can then extrapolate that into a more complex magnetic plumbing network like Thane's, and you still are bound by the limitations of the coils and the flux paths and the losses and inefficiencies in the system.  I realize that some people are not comfortable with that "top level" description of the system under test.

Now, we are assuming that Thane is proposing a setup that produces over unity.  For a system based on magnetic flux paths and coils, you should be able to make definitive power-in and power-out measurements to demonstrate this.  I agree with the comments saying that this has not been done.  Then, you should be able to produce a timing diagram that shows the energy flow and precisely where the extra energy comes from.  You can put little flux sensing coils on all of the magnetic flux paths and document it.

Any possible Barkhausen effects are also by definition COE events.  It takes some energy to align a magnetic domain, and then if that magnetic domain snaps back to its previous orientation that energy is given back.

I still believe that the outer flux ring, the "OuterO" has conflicting flux paths.  This is basic magnetic induction and could be verified on the bench with simple voltage step functions applied to the main center coil.  I believe that the net result from the conflicting flux paths is a cancellation of the flux going through the outer ring.  I think that Thane suggests that the iron flux path is split in cross-section, and that the opposite-direction flux components race past each other like two subway trains in a tunnel.  Even if this was true, you still have a net flux of zero.  If this reduces the reluctance of the OuterO flux path, then I don't take if for granted that this magically gives you more output power than input power.  Prove this with good measurements and a well documented timing diagram.

In thinking more about the flux cancellation, I think that the majority of the flux is self-canceled.  I think that there might be a small vestigial amount of conflicting flux.  In effect the "OuterO" gets split into two halves, "[" and "]" and each half acts like a very weak vestigial independent bar magnet.  Where the two halves meet there is a set of Bloch walls.

Finally for AC, I also would like to see your info about the inductor test.

MileHigh

P.S.:  I think that I was given a hard time by Thane for suggesting that you monitor the voltage across a sensing coil to measure the flux.  The integral of the voltage waveform is the flux, so looking at the voltage waveform effectively is telling you what the flux is.  You just do a "mental integral."   :)
« Last Edit: 2010-10-28, 03:52:54 by MileHigh »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2781
It's not as complicated as it may seem...

MileHigh

P.S.:  I think that I was given a hard time by Thane for suggesting that you monitor the voltage across a sensing coil to measure the flux.  The integral of the voltage waveform is the flux, so looking at the voltage waveform effectively is telling you want the flux is.  You just do a "mental integral."   :)

Indeed?

Funny, I think he is using that method now. There are "extra" coils wound on his core, and these may be the flux sensor coils.


---------------------------
Never let your belligerence get in the way of your brilliance!
   

Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3077
tExB=qr
How is Thane measuring current at the load?

Looking at the "data", he shows a voltage out and power out, but no current.

Then there is the fact that the secondary voltage is very much lower than the primary, normal transformer function would expect the current to be higher (but it isn't shown).

Hmmm

P_load is "calculated": P_load = (V_load)**2/R_load

It would not hurt to do a sanity check with P=VI or P=I^2R

Also, should the power factor by included in this calculation?  He says the load is a 10 ohm resistor, is it inductive?

EDIT:

Also, how is he saturating that core (any part of it) with that measly input?
   
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2019-06-17, 02:35:39