PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2021-10-26, 18:13:07
News: If you have a suggestion or need for a new board title, please PM the Admins.
Please remember to keep topics and posts of the FE or casual nature. :)

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: Bi-toroid  (Read 128763 times)
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
Gents
The show is just getting started,the latest and greatest BTT show,either Thane is MAD, NUTSO etc........
OR you fella's are missing something??

Seriously,If you fellows were looking for investors etc.
Would you do a public experiment/presentation/build of your tech,open to the scrutiny of ANYONE if you were not a zillion percent positive that nothing could possibly go wrong?

Roll the dice on your entire lifes work??

I perceive this man to be an AMAZING humanitarian ,with practically NO peers in the "over unity philanthropy" department!
[well ,I do know you have a few here that are contenders]

Should be VERY easy to build and test [well ,not so sure about the test part]

Once the "CHASSIS" is decided on,and a little more info on "material'[chassis]

I am most definitely going to build.

Chet
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
AC,

I believe I speak for a few of us...please post your schematic for obtaining these pre and post inductive discharges. Also, it would be great if you could post any scope shots of the effects.

Thanks,

.99
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
AC,

I believe I speak for a few of us...please post your schematic for obtaining these pre and post inductive discharges. Also, it would be great if you could post any scope shots of the effects.

Thanks,

.99

I agree, I would also like to know the type of inductor used, ferrite or laminated steel or air core, type of switch used etc.

I think I have an explanation for the double pulse but need more details.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
A spark at make does not mean it is from the coil you are pulsing.

What sort of power supply were you using?

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Regarding the BITT, I ran a test which demonstrates that Thane is telling a partial story and leaving out some critical information that would show the real story.

Test Setup: A Kill-A-Watt meter monitored Amps, Watts, and Power Factor. A Variac drove the toroidal core. The toroidal core had an 8 turn secondary and a 1 Ohm resistor was used as a load on the secondary.

No Load on Secondary: I drove the toroidal transformer gently into saturation using a variac. Saturation current was set at exactly 1.0 Amp. The power factor read 0.08. Open circuit secondary voltage was 3.08 Volts (0 Watts...no load)
Overall power drain was 12 Watts, all core loss and primary resistance loss.

Loaded Secondary: I then connected the 1 Ohm load to the secondary of the toroidal transformer. Now the current input dropped to 0.93 Amps, but the power factor rose to 0.15, and the overall power rose to 20 Watts.
Voltage across the resistor was 2.94 Volts (8.64 Watts)

Note that adding the load transfers some of the saturation losses into real load power. Applying the load has the same effect as driving the transformer into a less saturated condition

The main point of this test was to show that for a saturated core, attaching a load actually causes the driving amps to decrease, but what Thane is not telling you is that the power input increases along with a nearly doubling of power factor.

Because he is asking you to trust your eyes when he does these tests and does not supply to you the actual power input data, only amps and volts, he is obfuscating what is really happening.

He tells you to just believe that the power factor is zero.

The burning of drive transformers was the dead giveaway.

As usual with forums this definitive test will get past over, buried and the BITT will live on because people prefer cool videos over boring text and data.

Anyone can run this test and see for themselves.

« Last Edit: 2010-10-24, 17:43:08 by ION »


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

Posts: 3581
Ion,
I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your taking the time to explain this "Measurement" situation .[yes MH I acknowledge your pointing this out as well [and many others ]]

There MUST be a reason for testing with the clamp meter?,besides Deception ? ,Which I do not believe is the reason here!

Can you outline a test ,using the Mary -Jo set up,that will put this to rest to your satisfaction ?
A test where Input is established and undeniable?

OR??
Perhaps you can make some addendum's to this test protocol?

BITT COMPUTER MODELLING TEST ITEMS:

1. Make the Primary and (net) Secondary with the same wire gauge and the same number of turns so it will be a 1:1 transformer,
i.e. Primary = 100 turns, S1 = 50 turns, S2 = 50 turns.
2. TEST: S1 + S2 (net)NO LOAD voltage = primary INPUT voltage.
3. Primary flux should be evenly distributed through NO LOAD S1 and S2.
4. Note and record Primary Current and Power Factor NO LOAD baseline.
5. Place S1 and S2 ON 100 ohm LOAD and note if Primary Current or Power Factor changes.
6. SOFTWARE TEST:
Remove S2 from load and note S1 load voltage which must = 0 volts because S2’s flux path route now represents a lower reluctance route than S1’s ON LOAD high impedance route.
7. S2’s NO LOAD voltage must = Primary INPUT voltage because S2 is getting all the Primary flux.
8. REPEAT with 50 ohm, 25 ohm, 10 ohm, 1 ohm and shorted Secondaries.
9. If Baseline NO LOAD Current or PF change when placed ON LOAD increase Secondary Outer Core Area to reduce reluctance until there is NO CHANGE from NO LOAD Baseline to ON LOAD shorted Seconaries.
10. Replace Secondary Outer Core with HIGH PERFORMANCE Low Reluctance Permalloy of Superpermalloy etc. And note performance advantage (if any).

TEST NOTES: Test Date: __________________

1. Number of Turns: Primary = _________ turns, S1 = __________, S2 =__________ turns.
2. Primary Input Voltage: Primary = ______ Volts, S1 = ______, S2 = ______ Volts.
3. S1 NO LOAD Voltage = _____ V, S1 NO LOAD Voltage = _____ V,
Flux Distribution: ________________ (even - uneven).
4. NO LOAD Baseline: Primary Current = ______ Amps, Primary Power Factor = ______.
5. S1 & S2 ON LOAD (100 ohms):
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
6. S2 NO LOAD: S1 ON LOAD Voltage = ______ Volts. (Must = 0 Volts).
7. S2 NO LOAD Voltage: S2 = ______ Volts. (Should = Primary Input Voltage).
8. S1, S2 50 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 25 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 10 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 1 ohm load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
S1, S2 (shorted) load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%.
9. New Secondary Core Area Increase: _______ %.
S1, S2 (shorted) load:
Primary Current = ______ Amps, Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______,
PF change % = ______%. (NOTE; if primary current and PF do NOT change with a short-circuit load they won’t change with lesser loads either).
10. New Secondary Core Material: ___________. Primary Current = ______ Amps,
Current change % = ______%, Power Factor = ______, PF change % = ______%.




Chet
« Last Edit: 2010-10-24, 18:45:26 by ramset »
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 286
ION,  Based on the setup you built for a test do you not think that if you haven't duplicated all details of Thane's setup that any test you make will not be valid?  Based on another persons work I saw that was similar to Thane's I don't believe an 8 turn secondary is going to work at all.  I'm quite sure you and ramset understand all this much better than I do but I'm just saying from the standpoint of using the scientific method you can't conclude much from an experiment where there are large differences between 2 setups.  I have seen some of the documents and email Thane has had with a number of people including NASA and Air Force people.  He's not going to fool anyone in those places with games or tricks.  There is no reason I see to assume he is trying to fool anyone.  And he certainly seems smart enough to not be fooling himself on any of this. 
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
ION,  Based on the setup you built for a test do you not think that if you haven't duplicated all details of Thane's setup that any test you make will not be valid?  Based on another persons work I saw that was similar to Thane's I don't believe an 8 turn secondary is going to work at all.  I'm quite sure you and ramset understand all this much better than I do but I'm just saying from the standpoint of using the scientific method you can't conclude much from an experiment where there are large differences between 2 setups.  I have seen some of the documents and email Thane has had with a number of people including NASA and Air Force people.  He's not going to fool anyone in those places with games or tricks.  There is no reason I see to assume he is trying to fool anyone.  And he certainly seems smart enough to not be fooling himself on any of this.  

No one can duplicate all details of Thanes setup. People will cry that you are not using the exact # of strands in your wire to get the effect or some other excuse. Exact duplication of Thanes setup was never the point.

The test I posted is inductors/transformers 101. Anyone who sees their input current drop when connecting a load to a saturated transformer, and claiming that this is something special about their core arrangement is not discovering anything new. The current drop is normal.

I have seen some of the documents and correspondence Joe Newman had with many prestigious persons in government agencies. I bought this large hardbound official looking gold trimmed volume for $35 and studied it back in '85 when it first came out. It is full of correspondence. This is not proof of anything. There are many "professors" of electrical engineering out there and government agency officials that have not a foot in the real world, probably never touched or recognized a transformer when they saw it. I keep that volume in plain view on my shelf as a constant reminder to do the "due diligence".

Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer. Then you will see that he is drawing 150 Watts to get 1.6 Watts into his light bulb. After all he did burn up that 150 VA transformer and was well on the way to burning up the larger transformer he uses to drive his primary. Thane claims the power factor is zero. Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.

I don't believe Thane is trying to fool anyone, perhaps cherry picking parameters to show what would seem to support his theory maybe in an effort to maintain use of the lab or support of benefactors. Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding.


Doesn't it strike anyone odd that such a huge transformer arrangement has difficulty lighting a tiny lamp with a maximum of less than two watts of power?

Watch the Dilbert's Dilemma video again and listen carefully. What he shows in this video is positively truthful, what he doesn't show is vital and begging to be seen.

As I said, send him a donation if you believe in him. I have nothing against folks supporting the lonely inventor. Be sure to exercise due diligence, a fool and his money are soon parted.

I wish him the best of luck, he will need it.

Chet: I have taken a good look at the Mary-Jo setup and will soon comment on it.
« Last Edit: 2010-10-24, 21:31:50 by ION »


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

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
 :D
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
:D

I can't interpret a happy face, the bandwidth is too narrow.


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

Posts: 3581
The Mary-Jo
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I can't interpret a happy face, the bandwidth is too narrow.

Good work ION, I am "happy" that this type of posting can exist unhindered. It's such a refreshing change from the usual blast one receives at other forums. I'm quite open-minded, as are most of the folks here, but when someone makes a claim and the evidence to back it up is either absent or shaky, then I become frustrated and disappointed.

In my view, those that are given ample opportunity to substantiate their claims and choose not to (Thane for instance), get no sympathy from me in regards to others that question them and drag them through the coals as you have done with your simple clear experiment.

Too bad Thane does not read/post here. But I doubt he would stick around long if he did. I am amazed at the length of time he has retained funding. Good luck to him, but I'm afraid he's in the same boat as Steorn...one that won't float forever.

.99
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
ION

Quote:

inductors/transformers 101

Watts input vs. Watts output is the proof of the pudding.

Doesn't it strike anyone odd that such a huge transformer arrangement has difficulty lighting a tiny lamp with a maximum of less than two watts of power?

Thane needs to connect a Watt meter to the input of his driving transformer. Then you will see that he is drawing 150 Watts to get 1.6 Watts into his light bulb. After all he did burn up that 150 VA transformer and was well on the way to burning up the larger transformer he uses to drive his primary. Thane claims the power factor is zero. Anyone skilled in the art knows that as long as there is resistance in the primary, the power factor can never be zero.
---------------------------------------------------

Makes sense!! Its to simple to believe that Thane is unaware of these facts,there must be an explination!
When he's sitting there firing up the Beast, he has to hear the load come on, he must be aware of theses facts!
Its almost Nuts to think that he wouldn't know this??
There has to be more to this!!

@poynt
who says Thane won't see this??
Thats just a "Click" away!
This just needs some more time,Its in the fast lane right now!!
The real fast lane!!
Chet


« Last Edit: 2010-10-25, 17:16:57 by ramset »
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Chet,

The sad part of all this, is that it seems no one at OU has what it takes to pose the questions to Thane directly. Are you going to call him out?

You are right, Thane must know what's really going on. What does that say about Thane?

.99
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down


Can you outline a test ,using the Mary -Jo set up,that will put this to rest to your satisfaction ?
A test where Input is established and undeniable?

Chet


Yes Chet

Thane has a few expensive meters lying around the lab that include a "Watts" computation. I have seen him use these on his motor tests. He should place one of these on the input to his driving transformer and show us Watts input.

It is ok to use amps times volts on the output if the load is purely resistive.

In the first part of the test you formerly posted, he never mentions Watts input. Just power factor and amps ??? In the second part, he records volts input but never shows a Watts input computation.

Three things are needed to compute power input: Volts, Amps, and power factor.

If Thane does not have anything left in his lab that can display real Watts and power factor, he can buy a Kill-A-Watt meter for under $30. These meters have 0.2% accuracy which is more than enough to show the "truth".

All FE researchers on a budget should have one of these in their toolkit.

At the end of the day one must face reality and compute power input vs. power output. If a transformer must be ten or 100 times larger to get a tiny increase in efficiency, it may not be worth all the copper and iron expense. Engineers trade off many factors in designing transformers for everyday use. Yes, transformers can be made a little more efficient very easily but who is willing pay for the front end costs? Hint: The utility companies design very efficient transformers because they reap the benefit of every Watt saved many times over. On the consumer end this is not the case.

You are welcome to post anything I have written here on this subject at the "Overunity" site as long as it is kept in context.

« Last Edit: 2010-10-25, 19:03:38 by ION »


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

Posts: 3581
Thanks for your efforts Men,
I think there must be a missunderstanding here??

Perhaps the application for Thanes Tech has Merit somewhere that is not so obvious ?

Perhaps the Point is in the pudding {effect],not how he gets there?

I would be remiss in my commitment  to this community If I did not ask Thane to address this here!

Thank you  once again,
Chet
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
Gentlemen,
Now you have the Boss working late!
He'll be extra Cranky!

To be Answered 1 by 1

here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.new#new

Chet
« Last Edit: 2010-10-26, 03:12:07 by ramset »
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
On going responce post,
----------------------------------------------------

HERE ARE SOME OF THE EDITS. GOING TO THAT WEBSITE FOR EDUCATION IS NOT WISE SINCE IT'S "THE BLIND   LEADING THE BLIND" THERE, AS IS GETTING INTO A DEBATE.

CHEERS
T



Quote1] It's something that is hard to eyeball, and chances are the waveform does
not line up with the graticule on his scope. I am assuming that he measured this with a ruler??? I am not sure here, are there better ways to do this? It's a critical measurement because it affects his input power calculation.

EXPAND THE X AXIS SCOPE WINDOW UNTIL 1/2 SINE WAVE IS SHOWN EVENLY OVER 40 X AXIS CROSS HATCHES. IN MY CASE 42. DIVIDE 180 DEGREES / 42 = 4.3 DEGREES PER CROSS HATCH. POSITION EITHER THE CURRENT OR VOLTAGE SINE WAVE EVENLY AND THEN COUNT THE NUMBER OF HATCHES (ON LOAD) THAT THE MIDDLE SINE WAVE DEVIATES.

I.E.
IF THE PURPLE LINE IS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO GREEN LINES THE PHASE ANGLE DIFFERENTIAL IS 90 DEGREES, WHICH REPRESENTS A POWER FACTOR OF 0.0 IF THE PURPLE LINE IS 5 HATCHES AWAY FROM THE CENTRE THEN THE PHASE ANGLE WOULD BE 90 - 5 = 85, COS 85 = 0.087 PF.

IN OUR CASE ON THE VIDEOS THE PHASE ANGLE IS ABOUT 1 DEGREE, WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 0.017.

RED FLAG: ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO USE OR READ PF ON A SCOPE SHOULD LEARN - SINCE IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF POWER ENGINEERING 101.

2] So the OuterO is getting conflicting induced flux that cancels itself out. In other words, if the number of turns in the two secondary coils and the load resistors are perfectly balanced, then the OuterO does nothing because of the flux cancellation.
 
WRONG
YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.
 
RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.


Quote3] Therefore as a general statement, the OuterO flux ring is not serving any useful purpose. The setup would work just as well if you only had the Figure8 flux path with the three coils.

WRONG NOT TRUE AT ALL.
 

Quote4] This would be telling you that almost no magnetic flux is flowing through the OuterO because of the flux cancellation problem as indicated in the previous posting. If you see a very low-level AC voltage, you should be able to tweak the self-cancellation to make it disappear almost completely. The easiest way to do this would be to add or subtract one or two turns to one of the secondary coils. You should be able to tweak the flux self-cancellation so that the AC voltage almost completely disappears. No AC voltage on the flux sensor coil means no flux. So what does this mean for any over unity with Thane's new configuration? Well, if you prove that the OuterO does not do anything of value,

WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.  
 
RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.
 

Quote5] When you drive a transformer hard into saturation, you waste a lot of power heating the core and the primary rather than transferring power to the load.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT HARD SATURATION? THE LATEST VIDEO WAS OBVIOUS TO ANYONE OF PERCEPTION THAT THE PRIMARY RELUCTANCE ONLY HAS TO BE INCREASED ENOUGH (BY INCREASING PRIMARY FLUX LEVELS) TO HAVE A HIGHER RELUCTANCE THAN THE SECONDARY FLUX PATH.
 

Quote6] He claims it is all reactive. I doubt that or he would not have burned up the driving transformer. Current input rises rapidly when you approach saturation, loading on the secondary backs you off this part of the BH curve. He sees input power drop a bit when he connects the load. This is normal for a saturated transformer, as the load takes the transformer out of saturation a bit.


THE PRIMARY IS NOT SATURATED - IT IS IN THE INITIAL STAGES OF SATURATION.


   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Gentlemen,
Now you have the Boss working late!
He'll be extra Cranky!

To be Answered 1 by 1

here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.new#new

Chet

Chet;
Thank you for your hard work at an attempt to bring this issue to a clearer understanding.

It appears that my questions were cut from the original postings, therefore taken out of context and mixed with the MH postings. I cannot speak for MH. I hope this doesn't muddy the waters.

Thane's initial comments seem to be "reactive" excuse the pun.

I can assure Thane that I have been using and know how to use voltmeters and scopes, probably way before he was materialized on the planet. No need for a pissing contest. I'm 64 and have spent at least 45 years in power electronics, working hands on with these kinds of problems.

Here is a further question:

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

 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.


I will comment further when Thane has rebutted my key points.

Thanks


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
YOU CANNOT USE ONE MAGNETIC FIELD TO CANCEL OUT ANOTHER! THIS IS TRANSFORMER 101 AS WELL. IF THIS WERE SO EVEN A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER WOULD NOT WORK BECAUSE BOTH PRIMARY AND SECONDARY FLUXES ARE MOVING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE THE PRIMARY CORE.
 
RED FLAG: A FORUM IS ONLY AS GOOD AS ITS ABILITY TO PROVIDE CORRECT INFORMATION TO THE READERS AND TO "SELF CORRECT" ITSELF WHEN A MISTAKE IS PRESENTED. SINCE NO ONE PICKED UP ON THIS AND CORRECTED IT - EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS IS ALSO IN ERROR.

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

WRONG A VOLT METER READS NET FLUX VARIATIONS / TIME. A VOLTMETER IN THIS SCENARIO CAN ONLY READ FLUX FLOWING IN ONE DIRECTION. IF TWO IDENTICAL FLUX MAGNITUDES ARE FLOWING THROUGH A SENSOR COIL ON ONE CORE SECTION THE VOLTAGE WOULD BE 0 VOLTS EVEN THOUGH NET FLUX INSIDE THE COIL WOULD BE AT MAXIMUM.  
 
RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN.


Am I misreading these statements by Thane?  He has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

1. If the magnetic flux vectors oppose, they cancel.  In a transformer, they all go the same direction.  This is also why the polarity of the secondary is reversed compared to the primary.   

2. A volt meter reads electrical potential difference.  If a changing magnetic field induces EMF in a conductor, then the volt meter can indicate the potential difference.  This is not necessarily a true indication of the flux variation.  Again, opposing flux magnetic vectors must cancel, then there is no magnetic flux.  The energy may covnert to some other form but it wil no longer be a magnetic field.

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3541
It's turtles all the way down
Here's A quote from Thane:

 
Quote
GOING TO THAT WEBSITE FOR EDUCATION IS NOT WISE SINCE IT "THE BLIND  8) LEADING THE BLIND" THERE, AS IS GETTING INTO A DEBATE.

CHEERS
T

Reminds me of the Catholic Church warning it's members not to read any books not on the "approved" list as that might jeopardize their faith.


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

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
I recall a post made by "The Buzz" who built a Thane replication of the half-an-E-core arrangement.  The coil on the middle legs of the core was shorted.  Buzz thought that capacitance was added to the outer coil and that this made it impossible to go OU.  Not sure what he meant, but I can look up that post.
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3172
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
I've always been puzzled by what exactly Thane's goal is.

In the first BITT Tutorial 101 Thane seems to allude to getting real output power for virtually zero input power. OK, the theory sounds interesting. Now, prove the theory.

In the BITT 2.0 and 3.0, unless I missed it, Thane does no input nor output power measurements. Whether this device merits further investigation begs to have these measurements performed, yet they are avoided.

Thane seems to allude that the output power is only a few Watts, correct? From what I saw of Thane's input/phase/PF measurement with the scope, I am not nearly convinced that the input power is zero.

As I assume the input source is AC through a variac perhaps, I would strongly suggest (as does ION) that Thane pick up a Killawatt meter to properly and simply measure the input power being consumed. I'll send him one if he promises to do the test.

.99
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3482
tExB=qr
Thane is just another prick that gives alternative energy research a bad reputation. 

Good people are working hard to find an energy solution and you have pricks purpetuating their BS for whatever reason. 

He recently proved one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt:  He doesn't know squat about magnetic fields.

Case in point:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg262041#msg262041

   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3581
HHMMmmmm................
There are very few people that can discuss this with a scientist here!

Something is Twisted here? Data supporting OU   100-2700 %,and an inability to explain this without Scientists?

PLEASE, one of you fellows Email Thane

Chet

   
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 2021-10-26, 18:13:07