Quote from: JustMe on March 28, 2008, 02:27:49 PM

These results have never been presented as outside the margin of error, as you know full well.

There is a difference between (a) an experimenter cautioning that margin of error leaves some room for uncertainty and (b) an experimenter cranking down the amps so that the margin of error completely obscures the results.

Quote from: JustMe on March 28, 2008, 02:27:49 PM

In my opinion, the right meter for you will be the one that stops saying there might be something different going on...

The "right meter for me", as you put it, will be the one that measures the results unobscured by the margin of error. You know as well as I do that making an AC current measurement with the required resolution should be no challenge at all with even the most basic of equipment - yet these guys have chosen to use a clamp meter which isn't up to the task. Why? To keep the fog going.

Quote from: JustMe on March 28, 2008, 02:27:49 PM

... if there's anything to be discovered here, it's not going to be discovered through you.Ã, 

I tend to think that my identifying for Thane the right piece of gear to fix the measurement issues is some kind of a positive contribution whereas your sarcasm in direct response to that is the kind of attitude that actually impedes discovery.

PB

Quote from: OilBarren on March 28, 2008, 09:45:34 PM

QUESTION: WOULD 200% EFFICIENCY BE ENOUGH TO BRING YOU OVER FROM THE "DARK SIDE?"

Thane

Any number >100% does the trick, and I'll be first in line at the gates to the Dark Side, provided it's still >100% after correcting for the margin of error in the measurements. On the other hand, even the 7000% that you claimed you had already measured in July 2007 is completely unconvincing if the measurement method cannot be defended.

Quote from: gotoluc on March 28, 2008, 07:29:00 PM

Quote from: bitbeam on March 28, 2008, 07:10:39 PM
I too want to thank Thane, Luc, Aether22 and all the others that are actually making an effort here! If it weren't for people like you nothing would change in this world, you are all heros in my eyes, even if it turns out that we are all delusional!Ã, Ã, 

Aaron

Thank you Aaron and very well said. I hope this statement will make some think

Luc

Kudos to all who are making honest efforts to advance this experiment and if you are among them, Luc, congratulations and thanks to you for sure. To those, however, who are cynically manipulating the results for whatever reasons of their own, shame on you because you are perpetuating the bad name this field has, and making it that much harder for the honest ones to advance their ideas.

PB

Quote from: JustMe on March 28, 2008, 10:41:25 PM
What's it's worth to you guys for me to swear that no matter what I did I just COULD NOT get the pics under 50K?

THANKS JM

I HAVE UPLOADED OUR TESTS DONE YESTERDAY TO MEGAUPLOAD WHICH SHOWS THE PRIMARY INPUT POWER DROPING 8.99% FROM 12.13 mW (TEST #3) to 11.04 mW (TEST #5)

WHILE THE POWER ACROSS THE LOAD INCREASES BY 6525% FROM 0.064 V TO 4.24 V (TEST #3 and TEST #5 RESPECTIVELY)

AT A CALCULATED EFFICIENCY OF 163% +/- 35% (margin of error)

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PKCL9JEM

Also - Please find enclosed our transformer performance demo video wich shows the primary input dropping as the output across the load increases...
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=BJqnfR3B4oc

Dear All,

For any sincerely interested reader following this thread I would like to point out the desired design premise and operational outcome requirement for the Bi-Toroid Transformer.

The only operational criteria was that:

1)
The primary coil should NOT draw additional current when the secondary is placed on load. The primary power dissipation should be fixed due to the lower reluctance flux path in the secondary and the inability of induced secondary back EMF flux from coupling back through the primary core ? causing a reduction in primary impedance and an increase in primary current draw from the source.

2)
Voltage regulation across the load and internal flux levels should be self-maintained by each secondary coupling induced flux into each other ? rather than being maintained by the primary and source as per a traditional transformer.

THE FACT THAT: Our primary is NOT neutral but actually DECREASES under load is a happy unexpected anomaly ? which Luc and I are both earnestly trying to understand and further exploit.

The actual efficiency numbers posted here are actually of very little significance to me (although very hugely exciting) since the transformer must perform as designed first and foremost. As far as I am concerned the transformer far and away exceeds any hopes I started with. I am in the process of ordering a clamp on current meter which is accurate down in the mA range where this current prototype seems to perform best so we can ensure 100% accurate data. The data we are posting is for personal your interest only and is NOT infalible.   

To be totally fair - I only post the efficiency numbers here to tease the faultfinding skeptics who don?t know where to focus their attention and whose hearts and minds are mired in mud.

I would like to say finally that Luc is fervently driven to exceed 200% by Sunday and my hopes are with him.

Believing is seeing.

Thane