Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[Heinstein]

"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 observable 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 equation from a different perspective.[/i]"

Dear aether22:

This is why I prefer to build prototypes and test my theories that way rather than endlessly debating back and forth?

Here are some actual facts that Luc and Steve ought to be able to corroborate soon.

When only  secondary 1 in the Bi ? Toroid Transformer is connected across a load the voltage across the load will be roughly 0.6 V ? with BOTH secondaries connected the voltage jumps to 150 V ? the primary is identical and fixed as is the load (so leave them out of the discussion for now).

As you can deduce from the above something is adding to the total output across the load.
I am saying it is the MUTUAL COUPLING of S1 MMF?s into S2 and vice versa and in fact it is the SECONARY NET FIELD in the core which makes it work.

We expect a huge increase in output when we increase the quality of our Toroid core material because our hysterisis curve will be much narrower.

Thane

[hartiberlin]

Hi Thane,
welcome to the forum.
Many thanks for coming over here and sharing your great work.
Finally an inventor who delivers !


Well, I just searched the patent database and found the old
patent from Steven L. Sullivan.
where he has patented already these kinds of toroidal
transformer designs.

Please have alook at it and compare to your setups.

@Steven.
Surely you have towatch out, how you connect all the coils
on the toroids, so that no windings voltages will cancel out.
Best is to feed one coil with some low voltage 60 Hz AC from
a normal transformer and mark all the polarities of the other coils, so you
will connect them right, when you hook then up in series or in parallel..

P.S: Still have to study all the latest stuff that was posted here.
Keep it coming !
Regards, Stefan-

[tao]

I thought that this might add some to the current discussions going on here. (Please excuse this post if anyone here finds it out of place.)

This patent by Markov is directly related to your current discussions on canceling flux and transformer setups...

Gennady MARKOV - 'Bidirectional Transformer'
Check the link here: http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm
Here is his patent here: http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/ca2224708.pdf


Here was an ensuing post exchange between BEP and I...

Exactly, and that is why THIS WORKS: http://rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm
A transformer where there are TWO primaries that DIRECTLY oppose each other and CANCEL/NULL the magnetic flux, YET, on the ONE secondary, there is OUTPUT POWER...

Windings ratios mean NOTHING for Markov's transformer...

This is new? Really, I am surprized.
In winding transformers it is common to wind from one end to the other and return the opposite direction and continue. This allows lower grade cores because the cancelling flux allows the core to remain closer to the ideal state of 'idle' - like an unloaded transformer. In old fashioned switchboard class metering separate phases were wound on the same core to improve precision. All three phases came out on the secondaries. And yes, going by the above experience - I already believed you can have separate magnetic circuits traveling through the same 'conductor' just like electric current flow.
There must be a difference but I don't see it in the text.

All in all, I thought it interesting and might add to the current discussions here.

[gyulasun]

By DC resistance, do you mean connecting the probes of a multimeter to the wire ends and setting it to measure resistance? If not, tell me how to do it. If so, read on...

Hi Steve,  Yes I meant by DC resistance the copper wires' electrical resistance and you did it nicely with the multimeter set to measure resistance , thank you very much.  Regarding your estimations on the resistance of coils on Toroid 3 must be well within the ballpark,  for the 5500 turn of coils are obviously wound as multilayer coils and the length of the turns gradually increase as the number of layers increase (this why the manufacturer could not wind more turns (8000) as requested.
Re your other questions on my questions, they were nicely answered by Thane. 

Thanks,  Gyula

[aether22]

Again Thane in black and I'm in blue.

Dear aether22:

This is why I prefer to build prototypes and test my theories that way rather than endlessly debating back and forthââ,¬Â¦

Bravo, I'm guilty of experimenting less than I ought.

Here are some actual facts that Luc and Steve ought to be able to corroborate soon.

When only  secondary 1 in the Bi ââ,¬â€œ Toroid Transformer is connected across a load the voltage across the load will be roughly 0.6 V ââ,¬â€œ with BOTH secondaries connected the voltage jumps to 150 V ââ,¬â€œ the primary is identical and fixed as is the load (so leave them out of the discussion for now).

As you can deduce from the above something is adding to the total output across the load.

IMO the main reason is that you have a low reluctance path through which the primaries flux can escape (the unused secondary leg), if you have both secondaries connected and add a 3rd path where it can short without facing S1 or S2 it would and your voltage would drop again.
Of course also playing a significant part in this amplification is that once you have the 2 secondaries on the ampere turns on the secondaries need show no relation to the primary.
In the end I'm only guessing as to which is the main reason.

I am saying it is the MUTUAL COUPLING of S1 MMFââ,¬â,,¢s into S2 and vice versa and in fact it is the SECONARY NET FIELD in the core which makes it work.

I don't believe that is the sole reason for the jump from .6v to 150v but I do believe it is a critical function of your transformer, without which you couldn't get more ampere turns out than the primary has even if it were OU.
In other words your transformer achieves 2 miracles, it protects the primary from the secondaries flux and it protects the secondaries from their own flux in effect so that their output need not be related to the primaries input.

You are right, it is S1's MMF coupling into S2 that makes S2 work so well, but S1's field at S2 is as strong and opposite to S2's field at S2. (as S2 must oppose the changing field brought about by S1 and P)

The secondaries flux isn't amplifying the induction as such but removing the counter induction a secondary normally creates, but the end result is the same.

Still this seems close to semantics really since we are both saying that the MMF from one secondary is boosting the output to the other secondary (only diff is I'm saying it's equal to that secondaries counter induction of it's self), the much bigger deal is that if you aren't lying or crazy you have likely pulled it off and we should all be having a huge celebration in your honor.

I've just got to figure if I want to test your motor discovery or your transformer discovery first.