Well, guess there goes my old foggie scooter with the built in charger.

Was supposed to be at the demo but job went 6 days and nulled that.
Kinda wanted to at least see it and meet the guy. Had high hopes here.

Reading the above comments, I can't help but doubt the OU claims. For the sake of fairness, I've pulled together some quotes from the presenter.
My question is: are the principles he elaborates valid despite the disputable measurements:

"The general geometry of this transformer is very different than a traditional transformer, because what we have is a primary coil wrapped around two cores. And really, we have that same type of architecture in a standard transformer...'cause what you do in a standard transformer is that you have the material going down the centre of this coil. So really, you're splitting the flux two ways, and that's what we're doing here - splitting the input flux two ways."

"The difference is that we have these two output coils that are wired in such a way that it has a bifilar configuration. ... where the output sets up opposing magnetic forces into this [secondary core] material... There's two configurations available [for the secondary]... You can wire the output in series or in parallel; in this case they're wired in series... the ratio ...is about 20 turns here [primary] and 120 turns for each secondary. So we're actually stepping up the voltage. ... They're just single wound [secondary] coils set up in an opposing configuration."

"And what that does to the behaviouur of these coils is that they lower the natural impedance on these cores, driving it overunity, where normally, you wouldn't see that on an output coil here. ...You'd see a fixed output impedance on the secondary here. But when this operates, the behavior is quite different because we have this cancellation going on, lowering the impedance on this [secondary] coils."

In response to a question about the opposing wound secondary coils, he calls this " a key feature with building overunity devices, because we're lowering the impedance on these coils. ... There's something going on; another force involved."

Some notes:
- running the transformer at 3200 cycles per second for best performance
- input side highly reactive compared to regular transformers.
- shorting the output coils shifts the phase angle to 102 deg

More quotes:
"We're dealing with some sort of source that's all around us here, some sort of a negative energy and that's what's pushing this wave form beyond 90 degrees. there's another force at play here; this other force acts like a negative electromagnetic force; that's what's acting on the current, pushing it beyond 90 degrees."

Bob

Edit:
Please consider this as well:

QuoteI have build the same Bifilar coil into a Tesla Transformer- air core, The effects me and my cousin have seen is when there is load on the secondary coils the Transformer seems to boost its performance and not affected in the so called counter induction. So we tried to add more coils in the Transformer, we have accidentally stumble on it the other secondary is powering a load of bulb with full brightness, accidentally Short circuit the new other Secondary coils that result into a boost of brightness on the bulb being load on the other secondary.

We have tried to make more shorted Bifilar secondary coils on this Transformer it seems to boost its performance with out demanding more power from the input source.
Source:  http://www.overunity.com/13460/teslas-coil-for-electro-magnets/msg409465/#msg409465

Bob, you should check out my last few posts in the QEG thread. I can show similar or better results. But is it really OU ? My input is
DC and the lamp is lit up pretty bright for a fluro as compared to the grid powered ones, and the lamp showed the negative
resistance of increasing current till strike when the voltage dropped and the current reduced and stabilized so it started as a fluro
does with a semi resonant starter for grid powered fluorescent Lamps I think..
I guess a lot of messing about might tell for sure, but I won't bet on it.

Cheers

Quote from: Bob Smith on August 18, 2014, 12:36:41 PM
Reading the above comments, I can't help but doubt the OU claims. For the sake of fairness, I've pulled together some quotes from the presenter.
My question is: are the principles he elaborates valid despite the disputable measurements:

Mostly no.

Quote

"The general geometry of this transformer is very different than a traditional transformer, because what we have is a primary coil wrapped around two cores. And really, we have that same type of architecture in a standard transformer...'cause what you do in a standard transformer is that you have the material going down the centre of this coil. So really, you're splitting the flux two ways, and that's what we're doing here - splitting the input flux two ways."

First he says it is different then he says it is the same. How can you lose, with an "explanation" like that?

Quote

"The difference is that we have these two output coils that are wired in such a way that it has a bifilar configuration. ... where the output sets up opposing magnetic forces into this [secondary core] material... There's two configurations available [for the secondary]... You can wire the output in series or in parallel; in this case they're wired in series... the ratio ...is about 20 turns here [primary] and 120 turns for each secondary. So we're actually stepping up the voltage. ... They're just single wound [secondary] coils set up in an opposing configuration."

Here he appears to be switching back and forth. Bifilar? Series or parallel? Aiding or opposing? The description isn't clear. There are interesting things that can be done with phase cancellation in oppositely wound secondary coils. But Alek is using this setup to muddle and confuse, that's all.

Quote

"And what that does to the behaviouur of these coils is that they lower the natural impedance on these cores, driving it overunity, where normally, you wouldn't see that on an output coil here. ...You'd see a fixed output impedance on the secondary here. But when this operates, the behavior is quite different because we have this cancellation going on, lowering the impedance on this [secondary] coils."

The idea of using a winding on a core to vary the saturation level, thus the impedance, thus the inductance of another winding on the core, is an old one and has been used for "amplification" before: Research "Mag Amps", saturable core reactors, the QEG, etc etc. "Driving it overunity"... please. Based on what, the faulty measurements and hand waving? Sure.

Quote

In response to a question about the opposing wound secondary coils, he calls this " a key feature with building overunity devices, because we're lowering the impedance on these coils. ... There's something going on; another force involved."

He doesn't understand what is happening, therefore overunity. It cracks me up when these people try to tell you how to build overunity devices: A Key Feature, when they can't build them themselves.

Quote

Some notes:
- running the transformer at 3200 cycles per second for best performance
- input side highly reactive compared to regular transformers.
- shorting the output coils shifts the phase angle to 102 deg

- this frequency is chosen to give the _most confirmatory measurements_ in an attempt to bolster Alek's claims.
- No, no valid comparison to "regular transformers" was performed and the statement is false.
- No, the 102 degree "measurement" was selected from a scope display that was unstable and was chosen for its value. It's an invalid "measurement" anyway due to the various factors affecting phase angle that have been discussed elsewhere in this thread. This is called _data selection_ and it is a mortal sin of metrology.

Quote
More quotes:
"We're dealing with some sort of source that's all around us here, some sort of a negative energy and that's what's pushing this wave form beyond 90 degrees. there's another force at play here; this other force acts like a negative electromagnetic force; that's what's acting on the current, pushing it beyond 90 degrees."

Handwaving BS, disproven by proper analysis. Why can simulators do just what his coils do, if there is some "other force" happening? Alek apparently doesn't understand B-H hysteresis or changing permeability by external applied _magnetic_ fields. Or, more likely, he does understand and is relying on being the smartest person in the room-- his contempt for his audience allows him to provide demonstrations with improperly set oscilloscope giving readings from uncalibrated sensors during a confirmatory demonstration, not a true experiment.

Quote
Bob

Edit:
Please consider this as well:

Thanks for the analysis, TK.
I'd be interested in building this nonetheless to see what it does, likely with ferrite toroids.
Bob