Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

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.

Yes,this is what my thoughts were back at post 5702.

[partzman]

Tinman,

In analyzing your Test2 video and your results, I would agree with MH that you need to find the source of error that exists when cross checking your results. Your work and math is correct but there does seem to be a problem with the measurements.

I've attached your schematic with an analysis of just the secondary circuit using your measurements and values.  Note the three differing values of pout depending on the circuit values and measurements used. This error approaches 9% and will affect your COP calculations.

The output power measurements would best be taken without any current sense resistor but using an accurate known load resistance along with the output voltage for the calcs.

It is difficult to speculate on the source of your error but I will suggest several possibilities.  One, your DMM uses a constant current source to determine the resistance value and could provide a source of error depending on the linearity of the current source and/or the voltage measuring circuitry.  Two, your scope may have an accuracy problem particularly at the lower level measurements.

partzman

[MileHigh]

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.

Yes I agree that a phase shift on the input would decrease the real input power and improve the apparent efficiency.  I am not "favouring" measurements one way or the other.  Truthfully, I was very tired when I made that posting and I was thinking that any phase shift would decrease the apparent excess efficiency, and not increase it.  Either way is fine, the point being to improve the measurement for your own satisfaction.  You showed the two waveforms in  your follow-up posting but note that the resistor voltage waveform is lower in amplitude than the coil voltage waveform.  So when you compare the resistor waveform with the (resistor + coil) waveform if there is a phase shift it is "buried" because of the differing amplitudes.

As far as excess energy goes showing apparent over unity, look at the core as a bucket that temporarily holds magnetic energy and look at the energy itself as being water that fills the bucket.  The bucket is also leaky which represents the losses.  That is a very simple but good analogy.  Just for a second forget about the windings and the core material and the timings and all of that, and instead just focus on the image of the energy being like a liquid.  So if the transformer is like a leaky bucket, and the energy is like water, then where is the apparent excess water coming from?  That's the tough question.

Way back when, I put a regular transformer on a bench and analyzed it and found no excess energy.  I energized it and measured how much energy the core can store and found no excess energy.  It's a "closed system," not some kind of imaginary "open system."  To me at this point in time, with tightened measurements and factoring in a "tolerance stack," even if you measure over unity when you add the tolerances you should enter the realm of unity.

[MileHigh]

Just a question

If a device is calculating power using both wave forms/or voltage and current at once,then i agree that the power factor would play a part in the power calculations. But when we are measuring one wave form at a time,and calculating current and voltage separately,then multiplying to get our power,is that not bringing the two back into phase,and thus eliminating the power factor from the phase shift?.

No because the phase shift and the power factor are one in the same and determined by the device under test.  When you use multimeters only and measure the current by measuring the voltage across a current sensing resistor, and measure the voltage across a coil, you are making some reasonable assumptions that you expect to be true with a very very high degree of confidence.  You are assuming that the voltage is in phase with the current and that everything in the system is linear and the current tracks the voltage in a linear fashion.  So as long as the frequencies are reasonably low and you are using a transformer under normal circumstances and not pushing it too far the assumption holds.

However, for a transformer, if you want to split hairs, even at low frequencies and without saturating it, it is not a perfectly linear device when using it at normal signal amplitudes.  Also, if the signal amplitude through the transformer is very low, that will affect the linearity because of the granularity of the magnetic domain flipping noise.  (I forget the name for that.)  Just look at a typical BH curve for a magnetic core.  The "linear area" is not necessarily a perfectly straight line.  I am pretty sure Vortex1 could share much more insight than me on this matter.  Just for the sake of argument, and giving a simplistic example, if a transformer deviates from linearity by 0.5% and your measurements show over unity by 0.5% then you are unable to state that you have over unity.  The moral of the story is that your transformer itself may be deviating from true linearity, and that may be affecting your multimeter-only measurements.

[Dog-One]

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.

The reason I mentioned this stems from a comment W.B. Smith made about his caduceus coil.  He stated he was pouring a kilowatt into this DUT and nothing came out.  We have rules correct--all energy must be accounted for whether it be a gain or loss.  I always figured if I came across a device that appeared to lose energy, this discovery would be just as important as a device that appeared to gain energy.

I understand your Hybrid Toroid runs very poorly when connected in reverse; I actually would expect that.  What I was curious about is how poorly with actual numbers.  I'm thinking it should show an inefficiency at the same rate below a standard transformer that your forward tests show on the positive side.  I also do not think you will see any heat dissipation that would account for the loss--the power simply goes in, some comes out and the rest vanishes.  How much of it vanishes is likely to match up to how much extra we see in forward mode.  Granted it's not fun to test a device that on the surface seems like a piece of crap, but if we have the brains here on this forum to make good measurements, we should be able to confirm whether or not your device disobeys the zero-sum wall.  If we do seem to break that wall, then we all need to learn a bit more about measurements, OR your device isn't playing by the rules; my feeling is the later.