Thane Heins Perepiteia.

[polarbreeze]

...You've spent more time *repeatedly* posting here...

If the questions had been answered the first time, repetition would not have been necessary

[ramset]

Its  not actually so much a Demo   as much as Research at University   an amazing opportunity  at least IMHO   Chet

[innovation_station]

let us ask the question ....  RESERCH  hummmm....

why is it called re-serch?!?!?!?!

are we looking for somthing we already know??


ist

can you ask the questions........ to find out your own answers?!?!?!?!?!     how can time travel be possible??

hummmmm........     

[ramset]

I think PB will take up the invite and I for one  would  greatly appreciate that   and yes an interesting word that re search Chet  PS many would Appreciate that

[jacksatan]

Test seem to support Thane's earlier conclusion that the more turns the more is the output WITHOUT INCREASING THE PRIMAY INPUT POWER.

I'm confused (again - it seems to be happening often these days). Acording to your posting input power increased every all test scenario, ranging from a 30-50% increase, with the biggest increases in tests 3 and 4 - where there was actual measurable output... what could you be referencing when you say WITHOUT INCREASING THE PRIMAY INPUT POWER?

JACKSATAN, IF YOU REFER TO OUR STARTING POINT IN TEST # 1 ? WE START WITH A PRIMARY NO LOAD POWER DISSIPATION OF 4 WATTS. (LUC AND I ARE ENDEAVORING TO OPTIMIZE OUR PRIMARY PERFORMANCE I.E. LOWER CURRENT DRAW)

THEN THROUGH VARIOUS WIRE CONFIGURATIONS WE FINALLY END UP WITH AN END RESULT IN TEST # 5 (SUB TEST # 4) OF 2.39 WATTS THROUGH OUR LOAD.

PRIMARY I/P   
1.80 VOLTS
2.65 AMPS
PF = 1
INPUT POWER = 4.77 WATTS
OUTPUT POWER = 2.39 WATTS @ 48.9 VOLTS

RECALL THAT WE STARTED AT 4 WATTS IN SO IN ESSENCE WE OBTAIN 2.39 WATTS OUT WITH ONLY 0.77 WATTS OF ADDITIONAL POWER IN. 

IN ALMOST EVERY CASE WE ARE SEEING AN  INCREASING POWER ACROSS  THE LOAD WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY HAVING OUR INPUT POWER DECREASE ? IT SHOULD NOT DECREASE (THIS IS THE POINT) ? IT SHOULD INCREASE IN TANDEM WITH THE INCREASE IN SECONDARY POWER ACROSS THE LOAD.  (WE JUST THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE WORTH SHARING).

Thane

My appologies - I was using the PDF as my reference guide, and I did not realize that it had 5 pages... my reference was comparing the results of test #1 (all subsets) to test #2 (all subsets), but that is irrelevant now...

So we are now at 50% efficiency - up from 31% - that certainly can be called progress.

A couple of comments and request related to the testing as it stands right now...

1) Could someone fill in the changes made in test #1 and 2 between subset tests 2, 3, and 4 (ie. added 1 coil, etc.)
2) There seems to be some sort of threshold breach between 1 and 2 coils on secondary 2 after which useful energy is allowed to flow. In order to determine whether the linearity of the growth in efficiency after that threshold, you will need to repeat the same setup with 3, 4, and 5 coils on the secondary. This way we could plot the effects and project a growth rate and terminal value.
3) Test #5 introduces a new variable (resonater), and so all tests would need redone with/without the resonater

Polar - if you could find the time to make the trek it would save us all a ton of greenhouse gasses emited by wasting precious electricity repeatedly accessin this forum...