Simple to build isolation transformer that consumes less power than it gives out

[MileHigh]

Just a few basic building block thoughts.

Any transformers will have resistive losses in the primary and secondary wires and in the optional core material as everybody knows.  There are also losses associated with the stray changing flux that does not take part in the power transfer mechanism.

For Wattsup, it's pretty easy to deduce why you got poorer results with the 1:1 transformers.  Naturally they are designed for higher power, and the relative losses at higher power become really low.  But at lower power there is a "background loss" process that is fixed in value (more or less) and it became significant at lower power.

The larger core volume in the 1:1 transformers means that there are way more magnetic domains to flip for each cycle.  Many have seen the "hysteresis loop" for magnetic core material.  It's the area inside the loop that is equivalent to the lost energy per cycle.  So a physically larger core has a correspondingly larger hysteresis loop and hence more energy lost per cycle.

A simple analogy or example of a hysteresis loop is when you compress a pillow.  When you remove your hand from the pillow the pillow does not push back with the same force.  So energy is lost between the "push in" and the "push out" and that heats up the pillow.  So a pillow has a mechanical hysteresis loop that can also be measured.

MileHigh

[Kator01]

Hello Tinselkoala,

but you either tune the output with large capacitors fot the range of 50 Hz or you tune the input-frequency.
Now this has been shown in the basic transverter-video ( still no ou has been achieved, because the output is pure reactive power which is hard to extract )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrDMT6lSeEo


Regards

Kator01

[NerzhDishual]

Hi very witty, clever and active OU guys!

I would like to thank some people here.

It sounds like that:
- We do not need wires (at least one wire is sufficient!)  = we do not need
(official) electrons/current to charge up a capacitor and to light some 'lamps'.
Thanks to Lynx. See: Joule Lamp.

- We do not need (official) electrons/current to perform electrolysis save this
(fictitious?) "displacement current". Thanks to Chistopher Robert Eccles.
See attached (one) Eccles  patent. "Fracture cell apparatus" - GB 2.324.307A R.Eccles.pdf

Thanks also to "Frederic David Tombe" about "displacement current":
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe47.pdf
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe48.pdf

- We can use pure reactice power.
Tanks to Kator01 for referencing an informative vid.

Topic appart:
- Homeopathy does not need molecules. Thanks to (Late) Jacques Benveniste.

So, all what is called kinda 'fictitious' by Mainstream Science seems to actually  be "solid". Seems it not?

Very  Best from Brest,
Yann

PS: please, just an off topic question to "Nikola Tesla" Backward spelled:
Did your self running magnetic motor were faked? Or what?

[TinselKoala]

Hi very witty, clever and active OU guys!

I would like to thank some people here.

It sounds like that:
- We do not need wires (at least one wire is sufficient!)  = we do not need
(official) electrons/current to charge up a capacitor and to light some 'lamps'.
Thanks to Lynx. See: Joule Lamp.

- We do not need (official) electrons/current to perform electrolysis save this
(fictitious?) "displacement current". Thanks to Chistopher Robert Eccles.
See attached (one) Eccles  patent. "Fracture cell apparatus" - GB 2.324.307A R.Eccles.pdf

Thanks also to "Frederic David Tombe" about "displacement current":
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe47.pdf
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/science/tombe48.pdf

- We can use pure reactice power.
Tanks to Kator01 for referencing an informative vid.

Topic appart:
- Homeopathy does not need molecules. Thanks to (Late) Jacques Benveniste.

So, all what is called kinda 'fictitious' by Mainstream Science seems to actually  be "solid". Seems it not?

Very  Best from Brest,
Yann

PS: please, just an off topic question to "Nikola Tesla" Backward spelled:
Did your self running magnetic motor were faked? Or what?

Well, all I can say is " as a thing is viewed, so it appears."

Those who use what mainstream science calls "fictitious" or rather, pseudoscience.... aren't going to go very far in their efforts. If what you are seeing appears to violate some strongly held physical principle or law.... the first thing you should do is to carefully reevaluate what you are seeing, and take another look.

Well, I wasn't intending to get into this here, but if that last video is topical, then... in response to that last video and the comments about reactive power and so on.... here I demonstrate ZERO wires power transfer, NOT broadcast, at high efficiencies, using AIR CORE resonant coupling, extracting LARGE AMOUNTS of real power from the reactive power in the power supply to perform useful work, apparently violating inverse-square falloff with distance and providing a "hook" or path by which other energies might enter the system from elsewhere...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIC47PN1-ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK90_CbnAeY

[NerzhDishual]

OK, Tinsel... and so on.

Obviously, you really did your homework.
Obviously, you are very knowledgeable.
Obviously, you are a very good experimenter.
Obviously, you are a very clever individual.
Obviously your English is far better than mine (of coarse)...

Obviously, (IMO, )) your EGO is as huge as the Fujiyama.
I have a great respect for you but I do not like you.
I also do not fear you (at all) BTW.

Obviously, you have not answered my simple question:
Was your very running on magnets only motor a fake?

Obviously, Backwarding 'things/names/etc... is a Satanic way.
What is your (hidden) agenda?

Le bonjour vous va, cher Monsieur,
Jean-Yves