Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

I looked at your new clip and I see two issues.  I like the fact that you used the DMM measurements and were within the specified frequency range for the stated tolerance.

1.  You are still making a double set of measurements on the secondary instead of treating the two resistors in series as a single resistor and making a single set of measurements.

2.  I should have mentioned this one before.  You are not considering the power factor on the input due to the uncoupled stray inductance (primary to the secondary) in the transformer.   You are running at a fairly high frequency and the effects of that uncoupled stray inductance will likely be noticeable.  The opportunity to make that measurement in the primary is very easy.  You just have to place one scope channel across the R1 resistor and the other scope channel across the transformer primary, normalize the gains so the waveforms are the same amplitude, and then switch your scope display to X-Y.  I am making the assumption that the resistor R1 has negligible reactance itself at your excitation frequency. 

These two simple steps will tighten up the measurements.

Beyond that, you can't make any assumptions about the error tolerances if you are going to be conservative.  It's just not good science to do that.

You will see if there is a phase shift right away.  Any observed phase shift decreases the real input power.

Wait a minute here. So if there is a phase shift between voltage and current,then my calculated P/in is higher than the real P/in value?.
So as there is a slight(only slight) phase shift between voltage and current on my DUT,then the results i presented for my P/in calculations are higher than what they actually are.
This is a good thing,as that widens the gap between P/in and P/out-where P/out is higher.

[Dog-One]

MH, is there any value in doing a side-by-side comparison?

Brad could easily use the outer secondary to form a baseline.  Then you have the exact same parameters at play here.  Any input error would be mirrored between the two measurements.


I also think there is one more "trending" test we could do.  Reverse the process--use the inner secondary as the primary and one of the outer windings as the secondary.  What I think this would show is a reversal of the principal at play here.  If this DUT has been magnifying energy in any way, reversing the process should show an anomalous loss of energy that cannot be accounted for.  If the loss is in the same range as the previous gain, to me this confirms the Hybrid Toroid is indeed manipulating the power transferred through it in some so far unexplainable way.

[tinman]

MH, is there any value in doing a side-by-side comparison?

Brad could easily use the outer secondary to form a baseline.  Then you have the exact same parameters at play here.  Any input error would be mirrored between the two measurements.


I also think there is one more "trending" test we could do.  Reverse the process--use the inner secondary as the primary and one of the outer windings as the secondary.  What I think this would show is a reversal of the principal at play here.  If this DUT has been magnifying energy in any way, reversing the process should show an anomalous loss of energy that cannot be accounted for.  If the loss is in the same range as the previous gain, to me this confirms the Hybrid Toroid is indeed manipulating the power transferred through it in some so far unexplainable way.

I have tried the reverse,where i used the inner secondary as the primary,and the primary as the secondary. The coupling between !the now inner! primary to the !now outer! secondary is extremely poor. This was the same result with the first one of this design i built.

So the outer primary couples to an inner secondary very well,but an inner primary couples to an outer secondary very poorly. This is another odd thing about this design,as i know of no other transformer where the two coils will not couple equally as well either way around.

[poynt99]

I am assuming that you didn't make a mistake with your turns.  Take a look at the attached diagram for what I see for the aiding configuration.

The primary produces flux into the page for both the red outer core and the blue inner core.  The green "X's" are much less visible for the blue inner core.  That's because there is the big air reluctance gap between the red outer core and the blue inner core.  Because of the big reluctance gap I am assuming that the vast majority of the flux due to the primary flows in the red outer core and only a vestige of flux flows in the blue inner core.

The inner secondary produces flux into the page in the blue inner core and flux out of the page in the red outer core.  For right now I have no reason to assume that they are not approximately the same strength.

You will note that the blue inner core has additive flux for the primary and the inner secondary.

You will note that the red outer core has flux cancellation between the primary and the inner secondary.  This will reduce the measured inductance.  That can possibly explain your measurement.

What about any possible Lenz's Law effects where the blue inner core reacts to the activity taking place in the red outer core in a contrarian way?  If there is any reaction, then you may see a "surprise" EMF induced across the inner core during the aiding test.  I am not sure here, but if there are any effects they may be superimposed on top of what voltage you would expect to see if you drive the aiding configuration with a signal generator.  That suggests scoping both coils at the same time while they are driven by the signal generator.  If you put your isolated scope ground at the junction of the two coils, and you invert one of the channels, then you will be able to see how each coil responds in the aiding configuration.  Will there be a "surprise" EMF observed or am I wrong?  Also, I just realized that if we assume that there is a lot of flux cancellation in the red outer core, then that means that there may be minimal Lenz effects in the blue inner core.

If the above paragraph is true, then what do you end up with?  You end up with a "dead" red outer core where there is a lot of flux cancellation.  You get a blue inner core where the majority of the additive flux is due to the flux generated by the current flowing through inner secondary.  Again, we are assuming that the primary only supplies a vestige of flux to the blue inner core.  So a "dead" red outer core and a "live" blue inner core.  Could this be a hint for why you see a higher voltage output from the inner secondary when you did your first tests?

Somebody can do a similar analysis for the bucking configuration.

Good analysis MH, I think you pretty well nailed it. However, I'll add my 0.02 to refine the inductance bit.

First, the primary and inner secondary coils have little to do with each other regarding the inductance measurements, so any flux cancellation that may occur in transformer mode is non-existent while making inductance measurements.

What I see as the reason the inner coil has a significantly higher inductance than either of the outer coils, is due to the fact that there is high permeability core material completely surrounding the inner coil, minus the small reluctance gap. As such the generated magnetic field around the inner coil's windings has a low reluctance path 360º around the wire, whereas the outer coils do not.

Anyway I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.

Your diagram also seems to explain the asymmetric coupling between the primary and inner secondary.

[minnie]

    Thought this might be a change from 150yr. old physics.
  Daughter raised £5k for hospital that treated Joe.
  I'm very proud of her!
  Just imagine the brilliant minds of Faraday,Maxwell,Henry etc.
  who figured this stuff out with little to go on.
           John.