Hi Ron,

thank  you for the pics and description. No, I have no answer at the moment as I have to build first a sinus-oscillator.
I myself once encountered a big measurement-error of about 50 % while using a energy-meter on a transformer-test-setup. This meter was sold by a professional electronic-company. So I do not question your results but how did you measure the power ? By an incandescant bulb in series at input-terminal and comparing this with the output ?
Did you control input-power via increasing voltage of variac ? I would do tests with your  standard-grid-voltage 120 Volt and change  the bulb ( using a 20 Watt, 40 Watt and 60 Watt - bulb). The reason is that incandescant-bulbs at highter Voltage can have less power and shine brighter than at low voltage ( and almost beeing dark) because they have much lower inner resistance while the filament is cold thus passing more current.

Did your caps got hot when this strange jump occurs ? Which parts got warm ? The energy-loss must show up somewhere ( core-losses, cap-losses etc. )

How many bifilar windings as compared to the first primary ?

Try to use as many bifilar-windings as the original primary. A lot of work - I know but you have to calculate the ampere-windings for the primary adapted so it is the same ampere-windings as the original primary as this Transformer is contructed that way.

For me it looks as if you exceeded the saturation-level, but at 200 watt-input ? Very strange.

Ron, it is necessary to normalize all parameters otherwise we do not understand how this setup works.

Kator

Quote from: Kator01 on October 28, 2008, 12:36:09 PM
Hi Ron,

thank  you for the pics and description. No, I have no answer at the moment as I have to build first a sinus-oscillator.
I myself once encountered a big measurement-error of about 50 % while using a energy-meter on a transformer-test-setup. This meter was sold by a professional electronic-company. So I do not question your results but how did you measure the power ? By an incandescant bulb in series at input-terminal and comparing this with the output ?
Did you control input-power via increasing voltage of variac ? I would do tests with your  standard-grid-voltage 120 Volt and change  the bulb ( using a 20 Watt, 40 Watt and 60 Watt - bulb). The reason is that incandescant-bulbs at highter Voltage can have less power and shine brighter than at low voltage ( and almost beeing dark) because they have much lower inner resistance while the filament is cold thus passing more current.

Did your caps got hot when this strange jump occurs ? Which parts got warm ? The energy-loss must show up somewhere ( core-losses, cap-losses etc. )

How many bifilar windings as compared to the first primary ?

Try to use as many bifilar-windings as the original primary. A lot of work - I know but you have to calculate the ampere-windings for the primary adapted so it is the same ampere-windings as the original primary as this Transformer is contructed that way.

For me it looks as if you exceeded the saturation-level, but at 200 watt-input ? Very strange.

Ron, it is necessary to normalize all parameters otherwise we do not understand how this setup works.

Kator

Kator,

In the patent they speak of how efficient this system is and how when a solenoid coil was duplicated
using this method they used smaller gauge wire and fewer turns. So I don't believe my changing the
turn ratio was any cause for the dismal results. Admittedly I was only using a clamp-on to measure
amps... but note the sine wave on the scope, it is a very nice sine wave output and should not be a
factor. Plus the different runs with different size bulbs was confirmed more or less with the meter
readings corresponding with the bulb brightness.

It also preformed very poorly in the generator coil test also. So IF there is any magic here, with this patent, then there was not a glimmer of evidence that it works as stated.

I will be very happy to see your experiments show a better performance.

Ron

Quote from: i_ron on October 28, 2008, 07:15:51 PM
Kator,

In the patent they speak of how efficient this system is and how when a solenoid coil was duplicated
using this method they used smaller gauge wire and fewer turns. So I don't believe my changing the
turn ratio was any cause for the dismal results. Admittedly I was only using a clamp-on to measure
amps... but note the sine wave on the scope, it is a very nice sine wave output and should not be a
factor. Plus the different runs with different size bulbs was confirmed more or less with the meter
readings corresponding with the bulb brightness.

It also preformed very poorly in the generator coil test also. So IF there is any magic here, with this patent, then there was not a glimmer of evidence that it works as stated.

I will be very happy to see your experiments show a better performance.

Ron

RON I AM CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT VALUES THE:

NO LOAD CURRENT
ON LOAD CURRENT
AND SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT ARE..?

THERE SHOULD BE A REASONABLY DIRECT RELATIONSHIP FROM NO LOAD TO ON LOAD I.E. IF THE OUTPUT GOES UP BY 10 WATTS THE INPUT SHOULD GO UP BY 10 OR MORE.

I WOULDN'T SUGGEST YOU DO SHORT CIRCUIT BUT THIS IS HOW WE DETERMINE IF OUR BI-TOROIDS ARE DIVERTING INDUCED FLUX AWAY FROM THE PRIMARY OR NOT.

CHEERS
Thane

@thane

I have been contemplating your invention, and I came up wth some thoughts and suggestions you could try if you feel like to:

1 The input current decreases, because the acceleration  causes the motor to go out of sync (slip getting ahead of the field instead of being dragged along, or something like that), thus consuming and producing amps, which results in a net amp that is being measured.
Maybe the effect wont occur on a DC motor? (You _are_ using AC right?)

2 Test suggestion: put a second cranky-coil in front of the wheel and observe rpm and input current. Does the rpm reach a higher limit?

3 Test suggestion: When reached top rpm, disconnect input power and observe. I guess it decelerates from this point, but you still could try.

4 Same as 3, in this setup, try measuring output power over a (resistive,reactive?) load, on the motor input, which is now the output.
Maybe it equals the power with which the input drops in acceleration mode. I-in - I-generated = I-measured as suggested @ point 1.

5 Couple a second motor to the first motor, 2nd is then working as a generator driven by the first.
Determine the minimum rpm from which it accelerates.
Put a variable load on the generator and adjust until a stable rpm is reached (counterforce by lenz = force by cranky-coil acceleration), which is still above the minimum rpm needed for acceleration.
Observe for any magic and measure load

Predicitons? Dunno, maybe you can without even testing.
Just some toughts of mine, maybe you are far ahead.

@Crankypants

QuoteAGAIN THE POINT IS:
THANK FULLY I AM NOT WORKING ON YOUR STUFF, HOPTAD'S STUFF, BEDINI'S STUFF, ETC, ETC, AND ALSO THANKFULLY I DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE, EVER

.
LOL, I don't either, the moment I started thinking for myself is the moment I started getting results.

@Iron

QuoteIn the patent they speak of how efficient this system is and how when a solenoid coil was duplicated
using this method they used smaller gauge wire and fewer turns. So I don't believe my changing the
turn ratio was any cause for the dismal results. Admittedly I was only using a clamp-on to measure
amps... but note the sine wave on the scope, it is a very nice sine wave output and should not be a
factor. Plus the different runs with different size bulbs was confirmed more or less with the meter
readings corresponding with the bulb brightness.
It also preformed very poorly in the generator coil test also. So IF there is any magic here, with this patent, then there was not a glimmer of evidence that it works as stated.

When I look at the patent in question there is one thing that is not shown but obviously must happen in order to produce the desired results. The potential on the capacitors must be substantially greater than the source potential and this "extra" potential must carry the load. In this case the inertia of the current must be released, that is the source must be disconnected or the rate of change of the alternating current modified. Many people seem pre-occupied with the pure sine wave and alternating current but in fact we can modify any aspect of this current to suit our needs through control measures. For example we can trade current for potential in one quarter of the alternation by effecting the rate of change of the current thus the inductive collapse and final potential developed.