Thane Heins BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER

[CRANKYpants]

Looking forward to seeing the data, thanks.

YOU ALREADY HAVE IT DUDE!
AS DOES EVERYONE. 

My analysis of your scope trace indicates a phase of 63º (3.5 divisions x 18º) which is a PF=0.454. This is a sensitive measurement, as a few degrees makes quite a difference in the PF. Accuracy in the phase measurement is paramount.

I SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO LEARN HOW TO READ A $30K SCOPE.

180 DEGREES / 30 CROSS HATCHES = 6 DEGREES / HATCH.
SCOPE SHOWS 2.5 HATCHES.
CALCULATION SHOWS USES MORE THAN 3.

3 HATCHES x 6 DEGREES = 18 DEGREES - 90 = 72 DEGREES, COS 72 = 0.31 PF.
INPUT VOLTAGE = 104.8 VOLTS
INPUT CURRENT = 0.01 (ADD 0.07 AMPS AS FUDGE FACTOR TO SILENCE THE "NOISE".)
PF = 0.31
OUTPUT VOLTAGE = 3.3 VOLTS
LOAD = 27 OHMS
INPUT POWER = 400 mW

INPUT POWER = 104.8 V x 0.01 A x 0.31
                    = 325 mW

OUTPUT POWER = (3.3 V)^2 / 27 OHMS
                       = 403 mW

EFFICIENCY = 403 / 325 x 100
                 = 124%

- 10% ERROR

EFFICIENCY = 111%

3mA on a 4A full scale setting  This is down in the "noise" of the meter's capability, and the reading is bound to be inaccurate (you are performing COP measurements here afterall).

SO USE 0.01 AMPS THEN.
GOTTA LOSE THAT "NOISE".

It appears you are running the input through a relatively small capacitor, and that is going to introduce phase shift. Depending on where your scope and meter probes are measuring from, this could be a significant factor affecting the end-numbers.

THERE IS NO CAPACITOR ANYWHERE AND EVEN IF THERE WERE THIS WOULD ONLY ACT TO CORRECT THE PRIMARY PF AND INCREASE THE EFFICIENCY NUMBER - WHICH WOULD FOOL NO ONE.

ONE SCOPE PROBE MUST BE PLACED ACROSS THE PRIMARY COIL.
THE OTHER SCOPE  PROBE MUST BE PLACED ACROSS A PURELY RESISTIVE 0.1 OHM SHUNT RESITOR TO ESTABLISH THE CURRENT POWER FACTOR OF 1.
THE PRIMARY SCOPE PROBE PF WILL CHANGE BUT THE SHUNT RESISTOR PF WILL NOT BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY 1.
THIS IS HOW TO DO IT AND IT IS THE ONLY CORRECT METHOD UNLESS A CURRENT PROBE IS EMPLOYED.

As per the above, the computations and measurements made in the video are not reliable imo.

WHO GIVES A FLYING "F" WHAT AN ANNONYMOUS NOBODY THINKS ANYWAY? 
EXCEPT ANOTHER ANNONYMOUS "NOBODY" TAKING COWARDLY SHOTS FROM BEHIND A MASK.
IF YOU DID SEND ME AN EMAIL IT BETTER INCLUDE A REAL NAME. 

Scopes and meters have their place. Knowing what they are is a valuable asset. I have a $30k+ scope, but depending on the job, a meter can be a better choice.

NOTHING BEATS A SCOPE - EVER!
IT HELPS IF ONE KNOWS HOW TO USE IT THOUGH.

CHEERS
T

[Vortex1]

Dear Mr. Chet

So that I may educate myself and come up to speed on this technology, do you have a copy of that test lab report, or could you post it?

Thank you in advance.

[ramset]

Dear Mr. vortex Sir,
My appologies
ALL Test Data From Mr. Sir Thane Heinz
Here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=downloads

Chet

[Vortex1]

Dear Mr Thane Heins

You seemed to have skipped over post #182 with a few questions I posted in a gentlemanly manner.

I hope you will not forget these questions as I and I'm sure a few others on this forum are equally puzzled by the burning transformer issue.

Perhaps you are working on the answer as we speak.

Thank you for your consideration

Vortex1

[CRANKYpants]

dear Sir Mr. Thane Heins

First let me say that I admire your workmanship and your finely crafted and spun coils and theories.

There is just one thing that has been nagging me. It is this:

Why are you burning up drive transformers as you mentioned in Dilbert's Dilemma BITT3.0.mov.

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up? It looks to be rated at least 150VA.

It should be just an intermediary, reflecting nearly all reactive power back to the line, absorbing only a very tiny amount due to resistive copper and eddy current core loss.

You also mention towards the end of the video of having to end the test because the second larger transformer was beginning to burn up. Why is all this power being burned from the mains? Are these not real Watts being burned in the driving transformer?

These things are just puzzling to me, of course I don't have the insight that you have into the operation of the devices and your theories.

Thank you for your kind reply in advance.

Vortex1

AND I ADMIRE YOUR ABILITY TO PRESENT A GOOD QUESTION WITH RESPECT.
I WILL RESPOND IN KIND... I HOPE IT HELPS? 

I AM USING A 120 V - 48 V STEP DOWN TRANSFORMER IN REVERSE AS A STEP UP TRANSFORMER AND DRIVING IT WITH 160 V FROM MY VARIC WHICH IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO DO - HENCE THE SMOKING RESULTS. THIS WAS ALL I HAD TO WORK WITH AT THE TIME AND WE ALL DO "IT" FROM TIME TO TIME BECAUSE MOST OF US ARE TOO IMPATIENT TO WAIT FOR THE RIGHT ITEM TO COME IN THE MAIL.

NOW I AM USING A 120 - 10,000 V MICROWAVE TRANSFORMER WITH NO ILL EFFECTS DUE TO OVERHEATING.

IN ADDITION THE POWER GOING TO THE BITT IS THE VOLTAGE ACROSS THE PRIMARY TIMES THE CURRENT THROUGH THE PRIMARY TIMES THE POWER FACTOR. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POWER GOING INTO THE STEP UP TRANSFORMER (AND ITS EFFICIENCY %) - PRETTY SOON THEY WILL HAVE ME MEASURING POWER GOING TO THE BITT FROM OUTSIDE MY HOUSE TO BAFFLE THE LESS INFORMED READER.

BE AWARE AND TRUST YOUR OWN INSTINCT.

CHEERS
T

If a normal transformer (your driving transformer) is driving a purely reactive (PF=0) load namely the BITT primary, why does the driving transformer burn up?

PS THIS IS VERY WRONG - HERE IS WHY...
THE STEP UP TRANSFORER IS FEEDING INTO A PURELY RESISTIVE SHUNT RESISTOR OF 0.5 OHMS WHICH REPRESENTS A PF OF 1 TO THE TRANSFORMER AND A VIRTUAL SHORT CIRCUIT ALSO. YOU CANNOT CREATE A WORSE SCENARIO FOR A CONVENTIONAL TRANSFORMER PRIMARY.