The Magneformer-lenzless transformer ?

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

I will make one more comment and one more time don't let the comments take the wind out of your sails.

In your second clip you start by saying that you are going to check if the signal generator is injecting any power into the circuit.  So to "test" for this you shut off the main power, turn on the signal generator, and then look at the transistor waveform.  You see some tiny glitches and no real activity and then conclude that the signal generator is not injecting any power into the circuit.

Where did the logic for that test come from?  Did you just decide that if you see nothing on the transistor output when the main power is off that that "must" mean that no power is being injected into the circuit from the signal generator?  That's what it feels like to me at least.  That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Really think about what you are saying in the beginning of your second clip.

The only way to see if the signal generator is injecting power into the circuit is to actually make that measurement while the circuit is powered and in operation.  You would have to measure the instantaneous signal generator voltage and the instantaneous signal generator current and then do the required crunching to calculate the average power supplied to the circuit by the signal generator.

You have to understand this is a generic comment and a generic issue.  You seem to have made up a "test" for input power that is simply disconnected from the reality of the circuit.  Electronics doesn't work like that, you can't simply make up things like like this on the fly.  Everything you do when you are testing has to actually make sense and not just "sound like it makes sense."  Do you see the error in what you did?  It's a huge mistake.

Okay Tinman, you are off the hot seat.  Look, you are starting to test something new, so why not get it right?  Take the "we all know this is true" free energy experimenter assumptions and look at them with a critical eye.  Don't just blindly assume things and end up repeating the same mistakes and just get stuck in an endless revolving door.  Look at the case of the SMOT business.  You put a magnet near a marble track and people start to swoon thinking they are seeing free energy.  It's the paint story all over again.  You can put one or 100 magnets along a track for a rolling metal ball and they will not contribute one millionth of a Joule of energy to the rolling ball.

For what it's worth there is a final mini issue.  I bet not one of your peers on your forum or on this forum inquired about your "test" for the possible power contributed by the signal generator.  As far as I am concerned that's a "brain logjam" and people have to start questioning the methods of their peers.  It's a way for people to hone their skills and challenge each other in order to keep learning and improving.

MileHigh

[Magluvin]

Tinman:

There are issues with your experiment and I am going to make some comments.  Don't let my comments knock the wind from your sails.  Keep in mind that we are all better off getting input from all viewpoints, even when it is stuff that we might not like to hear.

You posted this in the other thread:

So you are just starting out testing this setup and you make a posting that states that you have done it and you have zero "Lenz effect."  That's a classic mistake and one you should learn to avoid.  You can't just jump on your first set of measurements and pronounce them as being fact.  I would not be surprised if, based on your statements, that you already have people that want to replicate what you are doing.  The truth is that you have barely even scratched the surface and you simply can't make any definitive statements.  For example, before you made the posting above, did you double check your measurements or try to make measurements in a completely different way to confirm your findings?  I am willing to bet that you didn't.

You are claiming that you are drawing power from the secondary with no load reflected on the primary.  Transformers don't work like that, if you draw power from the secondary then you have to put power into the primary.  Just that fact should have stopped you in your tacks and make you say to yourself, "I am seeing something that doesn't seem to make sense, so I will have to really investigate and check and double-check and make measurements in alternate ways before I am sure enough to announce this."  That is what the scientific method is all about.

Another big issue is using permanent magnets in any kind of transformer configuration.  I probably have posted to you and for sure I have posted many times that using permanent magnets in transformer configurations is nonsensical.  To put it harshly, it's junk.  I take some liberty in being harsh here because it's so fundamental and I have repeated it many times to no avail.  Transformers work with AC signals and a magnet is essentially a "DC" source of magnetic flux.  The magnet is not even "seen" by the AC circuit.  The magnet does absolutely nothing to improve the performance of the device and in fact can easily degrade the performance of the device.  If you don't believe me then the challenge to you would be to build another transformer setup but with a normal non-magnetized ferromagnetic core, and then compare the two.  I also looked at the "Flynn" page with all sorts of transformer configurations that include permanent magnets and it's pure junk.

This "permanent magnets in transformers" business is frustrating for someone like me.  I will give you an analogy off the top of my head.  Suppose you own a car body shop.  When you paint a car it requires primer, then several coats of the right grade of paint, and then possibly a protective clear-coat on top of that.  It's a serious business and paint jobs can be very precise work to get right look on an expensive sports car.  Then you hire somebody for your shop, and he says, "I am going to the hardware store to get some latex paint on special."  What?  Latex house paint on a car, is the guy nuts?  You tell him no, that doesn't make sense, but the guy doesn't believe you and he does the same thing two weeks later.  A week after that he does it again.  He seemingly can't understand how latex house paint can't be used to paint a $150,000 sports car. 

This business of using permanent magnets when you are building a transformer is a good analogy to the paint story.  It's nonsensical and ridiculous.  It's just based on a blind belief and there is no evidence at all that it does anything.  Anybody disagree with me?  Then do an A-B comparison like I stated above.

MileHigh

"Anybody disagree with me?"

I do.

"It's nonsensical and ridiculous.  It's just based on a blind belief and there is no evidence at all that it does anything.
Another big issue is using permanent magnets in any kind of transformer configuration.  I probably have posted to you and for sure I have posted many times that using permanent magnets in transformer configurations is nonsensical.  To put it harshly, it's junk."

Tell that to Hitachi Magnetics Corp.
If your saying using a magnet as a core has zero effect, your wrong. There are some big companies out there that use magnets in the cores, and the effect is not the same as a core without a magnet. Just by biasing the core with a magnet increases the power handling of a switching supply transformer is one advantage.

"This "permanent magnets in transformers" business is frustrating for someone like me."

Im sure it is.

"He seemingly can't understand how latex house paint can't be used to paint a $150,000 sports car.  This business of using permanent magnets when you are building a transformer is a good analogy to the paint story."

Not the same thing at all, sorry to say.


" I also looked at the "Flynn" page with all sorts of transformer configurations that include permanent magnets and it's pure junk."

Can you go into greater detail of why it is junk?


"You are claiming that you are drawing power from the secondary with no load reflected on the primary.  Transformers don't work like that"

Some can operate like that.  I have a transformer that does just that, in that it actually lowers the input when drawing from the secondary. It is not OU, but it does what I said. The PDF below shows how to do it.


Mags

[tinman]

Tinman:

I will make one more comment and one more time don't let the comments take the wind out of your sails.

In your second clip you start by saying that you are going to check if the signal generator is injecting any power into the circuit.  So to "test" for this you shut off the main power, turn on the signal generator, and then look at the transistor waveform.  You see some tiny glitches and no real activity and then conclude that the signal generator is not injecting any power into the circuit.

Where did the logic for that test come from?  Did you just decide that if you see nothing on the transistor output when the main power is off that that "must" mean that no power is being injected into the circuit from the signal generator?  That's what it feels like to me at least.  That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.  Really think about what you are saying in the beginning of your second clip.

The only way to see if the signal generator is injecting power into the circuit is to actually make that measurement while the circuit is powered and in operation.  You would have to measure the instantaneous signal generator voltage and the instantaneous signal generator current and then do the required crunching to calculate the average power supplied to the circuit by the signal generator.

You have to understand this is a generic comment and a generic issue.  You seem to have made up a "test" for input power that is simply disconnected from the reality of the circuit.  Electronics doesn't work like that, you can't simply make up things like like this on the fly.  Everything you do when you are testing has to actually make sense and not just "sound like it makes sense."  Do you see the error in what you did?  It's a huge mistake.

Okay Tinman, you are off the hot seat.  Look, you are starting to test something new, so why not get it right?  Take the "we all know this is true" free energy experimenter assumptions and look at them with a critical eye.  Don't just blindly assume things and end up repeating the same mistakes and just get stuck in an endless revolving door.  Look at the case of the SMOT business.  You put a magnet near a marble track and people start to swoon thinking they are seeing free energy.  It's the paint story all over again.  You can put one or 100 magnets along a track for a rolling metal ball and they will not contribute one millionth of a Joule of energy to the rolling ball.

For what it's worth there is a final mini issue.  I bet not one of your peers on your forum or on this forum inquired about your "test" for the possible power contributed by the signal generator.  As far as I am concerned that's a "brain logjam" and people have to start questioning the methods of their peers.  It's a way for people to hone their skills and challenge each other in order to keep learning and improving.

MileHigh

MileHigh
Lets do the math on the maximum power that could be put into the system from the signal generator-there is no rocket science here.
The SG is set at 4Vpp,so 2 volts on the forward side.
There is a 220ohm resistor on the base of the transistor.
The duty cycle is 23%.
So the maximum power/watts that can be achieved is .018 watts
.018 x 23%=.00414 watt's.
I think your splitting hairs there MH,concidering the P/in is 132mWatts.
But just for arguments sake,we will change the P/in to 136mWatts.

Second-you asume that the video's represent the only testing i have done on the device.
Could it be at all possable that i was starting from the begining,so as all those on my forum(which is the forum the video's were intended for)could follow right from the start?-or would i just be better off going straight to where i am now,so as to loose everyone in the dust?.

With all due respect MH (and i do have a lot for you),you seem to be so shut of when it comes to PMs being of any use at all in devices such as this-and others.
Well here is my challenge to you.Put together a bifilar inductor,and fire up one of the windings as i have.Then send the inductive kickback to a low ohm load as i have(the 12 volt SLA) Then with your second winding,make a tank circuit as i have,with an 18 ohm resistor (like i have)across the tank cap.Make sure you dont use any PMs in there anyware. Fine tune it as you will,and show us the waveform across the 18 ohm resistor. Ill bet you find(as i did)that when the primary winding is in it's rest phase,the bottom half of your wave form across the 18 ohm resistor will be flat,and almost 0 volts.
I am happy to do this again for you,if you cannot.

Now in regards to the scope shot i posted above-from that information,can you tell me how much power is being disipated across the 18 ohm resistor? Any help would be great.

In the next video,i will smooth the inductive output,so as we can get an accurate P/out from that part of the circuit. I have already done this ofcourse,but was starting at the begining,so as other could follow from the start-if they choose to replicate it.
My reference to the lenzless effect,was in relation to absolutly no power increase on the input was shown when we loaded one of the outputs-while remembering that the tank coil is already loaded(power yet to be determond).I am well aware that every transformer uses power at idle,but show me one where the power input dosnt go up when a load is placed on the output-while drawing a load on the second output.

[MileHigh]

Magluvin,

You are doing it again.  What's wrong with you?  Your native language is English?  Are you incapable of making your posting with out addressing me directly?  What the fuck?

Let me remind you of something.  You called me a "freak" and an "idiot" repeatedly and maliciously over three times that spanned several weeks each time and you enjoyed it.  You never had the courage or the character to own up to it and apologize for your outrageous behaviour.  They were arguments about the basics of electricity and magnetism, and here you are making argumentative points again that are outside the scope of the discussion.  Also, you never followed through with your projects that were supposed to back up your case.

So here you are back again playing the "clarifier"  and trying to score "points" with some stuff that is not even on the table.

What I said is technically true in a generic sense.  I don't care that I did not qualify my statements because it's reasonable to talk in a generic sense when you are talking about basic electronics.  No one doubts that a magnet can influence the operation of a transformer, in fact TK just sent me an email about that.  But what I said still stands and is absolutely true.

Here is a thing that we see all the time:  Someone makes a generalized statement about energy or electronics.  Then somebody else chimes in and says, "What you are saying is not true because in special case XYZ it's not true."  Well that statement is not true because we are NOT talking about some special esoteric case.  That can be very frustrating and tedious.

TK commented that a magnet close to a JT core will change the way the JT operates.  No kidding, the magnet will DEGRADE the performance of the JT core and thus affect the JT itself.  But the real issue is that there is no reason to put a magnet near a JT core at all.

Everything I said in my postings to Tinman is absolutely true.  That's the thing to appreciate.  Stop looking for exceptions and actually try to understand the basics.  The core in a transformer or in a JT or in Tinman's transformer is there to store magnetic energy or act as a conduit for the flow of energy from input to output.  The core is not supposed to be DEGRADED in performance by the influence of an external magnet.  If the core itself is a magnet, then the ability to store magnetic energy or act as a conduit for the flow of energy is degraded.  So what the relative permeability of a magnet acting as a core will be different for flux going in one direction compared to the other direction.  Big deal, it's not on the table right now.   Tinman will not notice anything special about using a magnet as a core in his application.  There is no rational reason to use a magnet as a core.

Your .pdf with all sorts of bizarre and unusual transformer configurations is not impressive.  Plus there is no such thing as drawing power from a secondary without having to supply power into the primary, no matter how esoteric or strange looking the coupling is being done and no matter what that .pdf says.  No transformer will output secondary power without drawing primary power.  The fundamental principles for transformers will not change and that's the key point that people should appreciate.

TK pointed out that there is a part in a CRT TV consists of a magnet that biased a ferrite that is part of an inductor.  Again, that is a specialized application and there is a logical reason for doing it.  That's in stark contrast to making transformers for generic purposes.

Here is the challenge:  If somebody is going to use a magnet as a core in a transformer, then they should explain exactly why they are doing it.  Back it up with waveforms for both a magnet as a core and a regular ferrite core.  In other words, make your case with logical arguments and with data to back it up.  Prove that you actually have a reason for doing it and show your work and data.  Now all of a sudden it's not so easy, is it?

This is all about understanding electronics and using your critical thinking skills and not using magnets in transformer cores by rote because somebody else did it.

MileHigh

[MileHigh]

Magluvin:

This posing is dedicated to you.

Quoting myself:

Here is a thing that we see all the time:  Someone makes a generalized statement about energy or electronics.  Then somebody else chimes in and says, "What you are saying is not true because in special case XYZ it's not true."  Well that statement is not true because we are NOT talking about some special esoteric case.

The above statement applies directly to you:

There are some big companies out there that use magnets in the cores, and the effect is not the same as a core without a magnet. Just by biasing the core with a magnet increases the power handling of a switching supply transformer is one advantage.

Yeah indeed you can increase the power handling because a switching power supply repeatedly charges and discharges an inductor and in this specialized case you can use the fact that you have to twist already biased magnetic domains and that means the magnetic domains can therefore store more energy.  When you flip the core by 180 degrees then the effect will be the opposite and the magnetic domains will already be "occupied" and therefore store much less energy.

The problem is that we are not even talking about this specialized case, do you get it?

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH ME ON THE FORUM.   Do you understand?  You posting in Tinman's thread is just a mere two postings away from the Magluvin pissing contest and you will start up again and become maliciously demeaning and degrading towards me and I will not tolerate it.  In the context of my point, "let's understand the basic of electronics," your posting was just gratituous and looking for an argument.  I will not have it and I don't want you to post to me.  Put your brain in gear and make your points, be them off base or on base, without engaging with me.

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH ME ON THE FORUM.  Don't tell me that your language skills are so weak that you couldn't have responded to my positing and made your case without directly talking to me, and then move on.  Surely you have the brainpower to do that.

Here is an example of a posting by you ad my response in email:

Magluvin:  "What about HPV vaccinations that in some states are given to students without parental 'notification' let alone permission. Then the recent articles of how teen pregnancies are DOWN in ALL 50 STATES!!! Idiot."

My response:  Are you trying to call me an "idiot" about something that I never even discussed?  How utterly ridiculous and gratuitous and without merit.

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH ME ON THE FORUM.

MileHigh