The Gabriel Device, possible COP=8

[teslaalset]

@all

I spoke to a good friend of mine, and he agrees that there is around 50/50 chance this device works overunity vs a kilo-watt meter measurement error.  So we'll have to test more to see.

The measurement error, if it occurs, i likely because the kil-o-watt meter may be tricked by the inductive reactance of the primary.  My friend with the suggestions posted here, he agrees that putting the proper value capacitor , in parallel , across the primary coil inputs will solve the problem (bring the voltage / current phase to zero offset in both heating element resistor and the primary).  Then the Kill-O-Watt meter will not be tricked no matter what if we do this.

That's why I asked for VAR values earlier in this thread.
I think that there is even a larger chance it's measured incorrectly.
To make sure, you will need current probes and a decent oscilloscope.

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

You need to take SATURATION in the account... Saturation induce a lot of Harmonics (tipically Harmonic 3), those harmonics current trick hugely killowatt meter... Due to the very low inductance he must limit current with a toaster, wind more turn to increase inductance... So yes like above 50/50 that this device is OU or not... For finish self-looping with a frequency inverter is the best way to see it's OU or not...

[teslaalset]

You need to take SATURATION in the account... Saturation induce a lot of Harmonics (tipically Harmonic 3), those harmonics current trick hugely killowatt meter... Due to the very low inductance he must limit current with a toaster, wind more turn to increase inductance... So yes like above 50/50 that this device is OU or not... For finish self-looping with a frequency inverter is the best way to see it's OU or not...

I second that.
If Tesla's patent nr. 433702 does apply here, here's the text from the patent that hints to this.

In the Figure:
A = iron core
B = secondary winding
C = iron shielding
D = primary winding

[ramset]

Teslaalset,
If the patent that Forest referenced [433702],turns out to be relevant in explaining this device ,or perhaps Thanes device?
How does that effect future Patents founded in this principle??[I know Mev is Open sourcing]

Any Idea?
Thanks
Chet

[teslaalset]

Teslaalset,
If the patent that Forest referenced [433702],turns out to be relevant in explaining this device ,or perhaps Thanes device?
How does that effect future Patents founded in this principle??[I know Mev is Open sourcing]

Any Idea?
Thanks
Chet

Hey Chet,
This patent is only applicable to this 'shell' transformer.
But in this 'shell' transformer also another 'trick' is used, the difference in core and shell permeability, which make the dimensioning a bit different, but that's a detail.
Thane's BiTT uses only difference in permeability and some other tricks.