Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[Heinstein]

Dear Johnny,

?I am looking for this so that I can understand how a magnetically isolated primary, as in Thanes design, will differ from a regular transformer.  It would help me to see equations pertaining to this so I can get a quantitative idea of the effect and consequences.  So far, I have only found information referring to the back EMF of the primary coil inducing current in the secondary, but no discussion of the consequences of the induced back EMF of the secondary and the effect or role it plays on the primary.?

In a conventional transformer the Back EMF induced magnetic field from the secondary MUTUALLY couples back to the primary - reduces the primary impedance - and as a result - the primary draws more current from the source - which in turn increases the flux delivered from the primary to the secondary - which regulates the voltage across the load.  Without this mutual coupling the secondary voltage would collapse under load.

?how a magnetically isolated primary, as in Thanes design, will differ from a regular transformer?

An isolated primary as in my design will not allow the primary current magnitude to deviate from a NO LOAD level because there is an asymmetrical coupling:

PRIMARY to SECONDARY 
and 
SECONDARY to SECONDARY
but
NO SECONDARY to PRIMARY.

A conventional transformer REQURES this MUTUAL coupling or they would not be able to supply power to a load effectively.

The design criteria has 2 necessities:

1)
A blind? primary which does not respond to secondary loading.
2)
Two secondaries which are mutually coupled as to provide voltage self regulation.
Secondary 1 into Secondary 2 and vice versa.

We have proven our ability to do both of the above so far in our lab testing ? but have not identified the upper limits yet.

?Having said that, if we are to continue increasing the windings on the secondary legs, are we also not increasing the winding resistance proportionally?  Since I haven't found any equations describing the beneficial effect of a magnetically isolated primary, how do these competing and oppositional factors compare to one another in magnitude? ?

Increasing the number of secondary turns ? increases the secondary induced voltage across the load. Power = V^2/R.

So for us we have not found the upper limits of our design simply because we ran out of room on our toroid cores. So now we are computer modeling the whole thing so we can change parameters more rapidly and find the ideal ?recipe?. If in fact there is one to find?

You won?t find any equations describing this because no one has ever done it before and we are writing the equations as we go along but the hardest part is ?forgetting what we have learned? about traditional transformer theory because it gets in the way. 
?For instance, is the magnetic isolation of the primary (a beneficial effect) stronger than that of increased winding resistance (a detrimental effect)??

We don't know the answer to that yet. What we do know is as we increase the number of turns we increase the power output - how far is anybody's guess right now. This design is weird because increasing the number of turns increases the induced voltages in the secondaries but it also increases the impedance of the secondaries as well ? so if you go too high the secondary magnetic field?s required to regulate the voltage drops and so too does the output power.

That is why we are increasing the relative permeability of out toroid core to take advantage of its multiplication effect on our Back EMF induced field. See Solenoid Magnetic Field Calculation diagram.

That is of course unless Steve and Luc make a nice efficient primary and make the modeling exercise moot.

Cheers
Thane

[M@rcel]

That is why we are increasing the relative permeability of out toroid core to take advantage of its multiplication effect on our Back EMF induced field.

Welcome to this forum. I hope you'll feel at home soon!

Can you tell us what core materials you are investigating?

Marcel

[Heinstein]

Dear Steve,

START - END

black - white
brown - orange
red - yellow
blue ? gray

"QUESTION 1: does the order matter? Can I connect white with red, yellow with brown, orange with blue instead? I ask because some are connected differently on the two secondaries (e.g. secondary 1, gray with striped red but secondary 2, gray with striped blue.) If the order doesn't matter then that may be why they're different".

ANSWER 1:
YES just follow the START ? END directions.
Ignore the stripes.

QUESTION 2: does the direction matter? For example, when connecting the first two can I go black with orange instead of white with brown?

ANSWER 2

Black is a START ? Orange is an END
You need to connect:  END, START, END, START and so on?
Get it wrong and you cancel out some current.

"It seems to matter since if on secondary one I connect them as above then my meter goes a little crazy but if I go with yellow - red instead of red - yellow then it's fine. Note that when I measure the turns individually with no wires connected then each is around 13.4 ohms, except for one of the stripped pairs which gives infinity." 
THIS IS THE ONE WITH THE BROKEN WIRE I TOLD YOU ABOUT.

1ST verify that each wire START and END shows resistance and is not broken i.e infinite resistance.
Then connect the wires in series as shown above. Take your time and double check your connections. If you and Luc were doing "Dukes of Hazard" on the way home you may have broken some more wires as well.

"The meter is a Fluke 187 true RMS digital multimeter. On the resistance setting with beeping turned off, it keeps flashing "-0L kohm" and the bar graph keeps going off scale and repeating that display. With the beeping turned on, it correctly displays 41.2 ohms (approx. 3 x 13.4) but beeps every half second or so I wonder who had these Toroids before me because these resistance measurements are all I've done so far and there are definately issues."

Only me ? your meter is not used to measuring such a high impedance with remnant flux.
Remember Luc's capacitor storing voltage well inductors store magnetic fields - and remnant flux which freaks out your meter.

So get the flux outa here and...
Carry on!

Cheers
Thane

[aether22]

First johnnyl, I am not sure that even normal transformers can't be OU.
I also can't see where the secondary removes energy from the primary but I can see how it effects it.
It opposes the primaries magnetic field (in effect canceling it although I'm unsure how it effects saturation and maybe cancel is the wrong term but inductivly it is true) and since the only thing stopping massive current flow through the primary is it's self induction once you reduce that more current flows which you need because otherwise you'd never get more out of the secondary than the tiny no load energy through the primary.

Now what must somehow cause the primary to lose energy must be a very slight phase difference between the primary and the secondary, it must not be precisly 180 degreed and that might do it.
But maybe that's not it, maybe transformers are overunity but due to their design they can't output more than is flowing through (but not 'used by' the primary any more than a simple coil uses energy to produce a magnetic field, it needs energy flowing but doesn't use it up), maybe if you made the primary a resonant tank circuit and reduced various losses you could just trickle energy in?

Still chances are someone would have noticed if transformers didn't use energy riiight? (however if it's not 180 degrees but out by a bit then the secondary will be inducing a counter voltage into the primary that will ensure it loses energy, I just can't be sure that it keeps pace as required)

Now I'm going to quote Thane and put my reply throughout in a different colour.

Fluxes donââ,¬â,,¢t CANCEL They do in air as in a bucking bifilar coil and the same wound over a steel core would have no effect, sure both are there but the effects are equal and oppositeââ,¬â€œ but they do ADD. You cannot cancel opposing fluxes inside ferromagnetic material As I mentioned above the reason more current flows through a primary when a secondary is loaded is because the secondary creates the opposite magnetic field canceling the self induction that was keeping the current to a low level, it is impossible because flux always follow the path of least reluctance ââ,¬â€œ which would be air once saturation is reached Who says saturation has to be reached just because you have 2 opposing fields?. Notice the directions of PRIMARY FLUX 1 and INDUCED SECONDARY 2 FLUX  (BI - Toroid Transformer NYKOLAI 2.jpg) That pic seems to only show the primaries magnetic field Edit: having studied it again I see what you are saying but you are forgetting each secondaries effect on it's self which is to oppose the flux of the the pri and other sec, but Demo_Part_2_-_Toiroid_Coil_Evolution_B.jpg  diagram 5 shows precisly what i mean, you have the blue flux from the primary going down both halves and you has red from the secondaries going CW & CCW in equal proportions meaning that the secondary is in effect unable to respond to the primaries magnetic field in the transformer diagrams are in the same direction and are ADDATIVE so NET FLUX can only increase.[/color]

You have really lost me, I mean we seem to be on the same page because I can see how such a setup would mean that the secondary would have no load on the primary and furthermore would not reduce the primaries field inside the toroid meaning that you can have more turns to get more power as you claim.

If this were not true then there would be no such thing as Lenzââ,¬â,,¢s Law because the magnet field entering a coil of wire would be cancelled by the induced field exiting.

Induced fields do cancel, only not entierly.
The magnetic field in a transformer where the primary and secondary are wound close together stays constant regardless of if there is a load or not because the secondary cancels most of the field created by the primary, the primary responds by putting in more current, enough to keep everything the same. Though actually due to resistance and other factors the more current you put through the weaking the magnetic field gets, especially if resistance is playing a part is reducing primary currents.

The thing to remember is that even when no current is drawn from the secondary the voltage induced by the primary in the primary is enough to keep say 240 volts from putting the 50 amps it would want to put through and instead limit it to possibly milliamps. (in otherwords the magnetic field is generating a voltage close to 240v even with only ma of current)

So as the secondary draws current it opposes the field but the primary pushes a bit more current (or ampere turns in a non 1:1 ratio) then ther sec., a few more miliamps and so the magnetic field remains much as it was under no load. (primary 50ma and secondary 0 ma creates the same net magnetic field in the core as primary 5050ma and secondary 5000ma)

Lenz's Law
When an emf is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced emf is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the change which produces it.
Agreed The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant. In the examples below, if the B field is increasing, the induced field acts in opposition to it. If it is decreasing, the induced field acts in the direction of the applied field to try to keep it constant.
Agreed
ââ,¬Å"Another thought is that if the secondaries don't create a magnetic or inductive field then they should I think have a 90 degree phase relationship with the primary as opposed to a 180 degree phase relationship in a normal transformer. (except when it's unloaded then normal transformers show a 90 deg relationship)ââ,¬Â

Using a purely resistive load (for now) the power factor for the secondaries is 1 (current and voltage in phase) ââ,¬â€œ which is also in phase with the primary.  Perhaps Steve and Luc can come to the lab on Tuesday with the ââ,¬Å"smallââ,¬Â toroid 1 and we can verify this on my watt/power factor meter.  I have already confirmed this for myself but I might still be wrong.

While I'm not convinced it must be 90 degrees to the primary it would seem it probably should be.
The only reason it is 180 degrees normally is because while the voltage created in the secondary by the primary is at 90 degrees that wouldn't work because of the secondaries self induction.
But since the secondaries have no self induction (if they did you couldn't get more out more ampere turns than if flowing through the primary).

On a different subject I think there are 2 tests that everyone interested in this transformer should do as it is cheaper and easier than building a free energy machine.
Take a toroid (an iron powder one) and wind 2 secondaries on it as in thanes design, and then try 2 tests.
The first being to put a DC current through each so that thet create opposite flux directions and see how much of an external field there is, how strongly do they attract magetic materials? (compare it to the leaked flux when they are in attraction mode)
The second being to test the inductance of one of them, 2 of them in parallel then series. (being sure to try both attractive and repulsive modes)

Hopefuly no magnetic field is found in the first test and hopefully the self induction when they are in opposing series should be abnormally low or non existant.
If these tests come through then have a party because he's done it! The world is going to change and you then know that it's a good idea to morgauge the house and get into licencing and selling these things.

You can also see from the Toroid Coil Evolution diagrams ââ,¬â€œ that FLUXES DONââ,¬â,,¢T CANCEL BUT THEY DO ADD ââ,¬â€œ if they did cancel the Toroid Generator application would not work but indeed it does.

Is it possible we mean different things by cancel and add?
From my perspective your device can only work if the secondaries fail to generate a net field in the core.

hmmm, it has just struck me that maybe by add you mean that the flux of the primary in secondary 2 and the flux of sec1 in sec2 are in the same direction and hence add which is true (but sec 2 is opposing the flux produced by the other 2 so it's still 1+1-1=1).

But I am looking at it as the field of sec 1 canceling any observible effect of sec 2's field on it's self and sec 2 doing the same for sec 1 leaving the primary to have the only net field in the core.

In either case it's the same equasion from a different perspective.

[Heinstein]

Dear Marcel,

Thanks, we are starting with the highest grade material available i.e. Superpermalloy and
working our way backwards until we establish the upper and lower limits for each variable and looking to find the best ?practical? mix which gives us the best performance possible at the best cost point on the computer and then we begin production.

Cheers
Thane