Donald Smith Devices too good to be true

[T-1000]

Test 1:
Wound Secondary 2 in the same direction that I had wound Secondary 1.
Power factor under load: 0.233
Measured efficiency: 90.26%

Test 2:
Wound Secondary 2 in the opposite direction that I had wound Secondary 1.
Power factor under load: 0.588
Measured efficiency: 74.65%

If you would provide Primary2 to Secondary2 and connect Primary1 in parallel to Primary2, the results would be different in your tests.

[quantumuppercut]

Heh, Ok I did a fair bit of testing using some ferrite cores to approximate a Thane Heins Bi-Toroid setup as close as I could manage it with the ferrite U cores I currently have on hand. I have attached a picture of how I arranged the cores and windings in my bi-toroid setup. Nothing too notable in my test results, but my setup may be missing something key such as the exact arrangment of the cores as Patrick Kelly suggested, or my cores may be a fair bit less than ideal. My cores seemed to give the best results in the 250 kHz to 450 kHz range.

Test 1:
Wound Secondary 2 in the same direction that I had wound Secondary 1.
Power factor under load: 0.233
Measured efficiency: 90.26%

Test 2:
Wound Secondary 2 in the opposite direction that I had wound Secondary 1.
Power factor under load: 0.588
Measured efficiency: 74.65%

So, it looks like with the bi-toroid configuration I tried in these tests that winding Secondary 1 and Secondary 2 the same way gave the better efficiency.

I didn't see the supply input current drop when I put the secondaries under load in the above two test arrangements, but prior to these two tests I had wound several more windings on the primary than I used for the above two tests, and did see a slight drop in the primary current when I put the secondaries under load.

As I mentioned, my Bi-toroid setup may have been missing an important configuration ingredient, or my core setup may just not be correct, but anyway using the setup shown in the attached picture I didn't get any out of the ordinary results. Considering my setup is probably not very ideal, this odd transformer setup worked not too badly anyway. Besides the core types and exact core arrangement, there are other variables such as frequency and how many windings that are used on the primary and secondaries. Maybe with different primary and secondary winding counts and ratios I might have got better results, but I don't know. Anyway those were my results from this evening. Thane Heins, if you are out there, if you can give any suggestions on where I went wrong or how I could improve on the setup, that would be great.

Hi level,

Interesting data. It looks like driving at a lower power factor gives higher efficiency. I also wonder what do you mean by winding the same and different direction which gives different result. I suspect if winding direction changes power factor, then it must have alter coupling in some way, which puzzles me.

[quantumuppercut]

Hi quantumuppercut. The power factor is a result of how much inductive reactance from the coils on the transformer the signal generator sees when driving the primary. The lower the power factor, the more reactive the power is (less real power is consumed). So in Test1, it looks like there was more reactive power in the primary (reactive power does not actually consume power), so it seems the primary was looking more inductive to the signal generator in that test with the two secondaries wound in the same direction.

In the second test, the primary was looking less reactive, so apparently more of the resistive load was reflecting back to the primary when I had the two secondaries wound in opposite winding direction. Those two tests I did were just preliminary, and I should probably do more tests before I can say for sure that changing the winding direction of secondary 2 is really what caused the difference in power factor that I measured. A very low power factor at the primary with lots of real power delivered to the load is what we should be aiming for with the bi-toroid setup, and according to Thane, in the ideal setup the power factor would be close to zero, meaning there would be next to no real power delivered/consumed at the primary, but still lots of real power being delivered to the load. Thane claims to have acheived that with his designs. It could be that my core arrangement that I tested with is not correct, or is too lossy to give proper results.

Thanks, so I can assumed that the only difference in setup between test 1 and test 2 is secondary winding direction. There are only two major possibilities why the result is like that:

1/ coupling changes when winding is different
2/ test1 and test2 are driven at different frequency

Unless other changes not mention in the setup, I think this is probable.

[T-1000]

Hi T-1000. Thanks for the comments. I am not quite following about what you mean exactly about Primary2. Where exactly would I wind Primary2, and how would it be connected into the circuit?

Primary2 would be attached ton Secondary2 in addition like it is in Thane's patent(not confimed) CA2594905A1 CA2594905A1

Also I did extensive experimenting today and did find out something interesting: The secondary2 is not needed at all, all you need is an transformer core shunt without coil instead. It does not affect primary coil's inductance in any way because magnetic current is shorted by secondary coil but the shunt increases inductance of primary coil when secondary is under load. More shunts you got for secondary coil, less affected primary is. The best case scenario would be the half globe(empty inside) very close to secondary coil (connecting its ends) then extending ferrite core legs to primary with much longer distance than between secondary coil and half-globe walls...


The primary coil inductance in conventional transformer mode is 2,15mH, when secondary coil shorted it goes down to 0.15mH, when first magnetic shunt is added to secondary coil the inductance of primary recovers up to 0.5mH, when second magnetic shunt is added to secondary the primary coil inductance recovers up to 1mH!

[Farmhand]

If you want to test Thane's transformer, then you need to make one similar to his and not assume that other configurations such as separate toroids are the same thing.

Thane's patent application was turned down, but in my opinion, that is because it is 100% correct.

If you want the effect with minimum effort, then remember that the ultra-simple Figuera split transformer has been proved to be completely free of back EMF and is completely Lenz-less at all power levels and it does not need any kind of hi-tech materials to be self-powered.

Patrick

Hi Patrick, I have to ask, where is this proof ? You say these things are
proven, please show us the proof of those things, completely free of back emf
and completely Lenz-less at all power levels, and self powered. Sounds like it
is pretty neat and everyone needs one. So please provide us with the proof
you claim exists, when I see it I will build one.

Cheers

[endlessanalog]

Hi Patrick, I have to ask, where is this proof ? You say these things are
proven, please show us the proof of those things, completely free of back emf
and completely Lenz-less at all power levels, and self powered. Sounds like it
is pretty neat and everyone needs one. So please provide us with the proof
you claim exists, when I see it I will build one.

Cheers

Farmhand,

We see you making a lot of posts shooting down Thane's work yet you have not done any replications or testing yourself. Since you're an expert...

[Farmhand]

Farmhand,

We see you making a lot of posts shooting down Thane's work yet you have not done any replications or testing yourself. Since you're an expert...

Welcome endlessanalog, the person who joined the forum just to say that.
Yes I do, it doesn't take an expert to ask reasonable questions and expect
reasonable answers. Thane claims are questionable. I don't see any need to
replicate devices based on peoples dodgy claims.

I think it would be prudent for others to not be so sure Thanes claims are good
and not to promote work and claims they have not yet replicated and verified.

Thane needs to scale up to power levels in the tens of Watts and show proper
evidence before I will even think about replicating it. Milliwatt power levels do
not impress me one little bitt.

And I did do the experiments to show that the "regenerative acceleration"
transformer effect is bogus. Well enough for me anyway.

Thanes idea of OU is to use 200 Watts so he can add a 20 Watt load and see
the input go down to 90 Watts while the 20 Watt load is not even properly powered.

Where is you're BiTT replication showing evidence of over 100 % efficiency ?

Cheers

[endlessanalog]

Welcome endlessanalog, the person who joined the forum just to say that.
Yes I do, it doesn't take an expert to ask reasonable questions and expect
reasonable answers. Thane claims are questionable. I don't see any need to
replicate devices based on peoples dodgy claims.

I think it would be prudent for others to not be so sure Thanes claims are good
and not to promote work and claims they have not yet replicated and verified.

Thane needs to scale up to power levels in the tens of Watts and show proper
evidence before I will even think about replicating it. Milliwatt power levels do
not impress me one little bitt.

And I did do the experiments to show that the "regenerative acceleration"
transformer effect is bogus. Well enough for me anyway.

Thanes idea of OU is to use 200 Watts so he can add a 20 Watt load and see
the input go down to 90 Watts while the 20 Watt load is not even properly powered.

Where is you're BiTT replication showing evidence of over 100 % efficiency ?

Cheers

as you don't find it necessary to attempt replication yourself (but instead try to shoot holes in Mr. Clean and Thane) I don't find it necessary to post information regarding my own research and test results. As far as I am concerned, Tesla, Thane and others have already paved the way for us all. But not just anyone has the gift to understand and fully appreciate their work. Some people still think the earth is flat....

[T-1000]

Some update from my last post:
Magnetic shunt increases secondary coil inductance up to 2.98 mH. The primary coil does not change inductance. So now I am ready to test with real power levels and see secondary coil output under load...

[kEhYo77]

Hi T-1000
I can't wait to see your results on this. I have 16 halves of this type of core so lots of possibilities to configure it

[verpies]

And in my opinion the BiTT measurements are in error and misleading

Yes, as a transformer, the BiTT seems as a very low power inefficient device.
In what way were those BiTT measurements in error and misleading?

[endlessanalog]

Yes, as a transformer, the BiTT seems as a very low power inefficient device.
In what way were those BiTT measurements in error and misleading?

Remember that all of this is based on the overall design of a particular build. There are many ways to build transformers right and many ways to build them wrong...

I don't see very many actual transformer designers on here that make their living designing transformers...

[Farmhand]

Yes, as a transformer, the BiTT seems as a very low power inefficient device.
In what way were those BiTT measurements in error and misleading?

Well to begin with Thane didn't meter the power input from the wall socket.
From what I read he used another transformer plugged into the wall which fed
the BiTT ( I can't confirm that just yet) but Thane didn't show the power Metered from
the wall so we are free to speculate, I think I can find reference to it by
someone. The power consumed by the transformer plugged into the wall was
not considered, and Thane commented on how he couldn't run the setup too
long because he has already burned out one supply transformer. Supply
transformers don't burn out from mW power levels. So if by running the BiTT
he is in danger of burning out a supply transformer serious power is being wasted.

Meters tell lies at very low power levels and the lies the meters tell can be
manipulated. eg, I have an inductance meter that can read a negative
inductance on low inductances.

The results can be questioned and disregarded simply because of the minute
power level in my opinion.

Bottom line is if people want to talk up unproven devices then go for it but
don't complain when others offer balance.

Reactive power is not free, to get it normal power must be drawn first,
reactive power is the unused portion of the power drawn from the supply,
if a lot of reactive power is produced ie. a big input with no load then the
reactive power will try to get back to the supply.

To be efficient a power factor of 1.0 is desirable this means all the power
drawn is used. Any reactive power will cause excess current in the wires and
(heat) losses.

So can anyone tell us the parameters needed for a BiTT to produce 300 Watts
of output power.

It is right to be skeptical, it is wrong to talk up dodgy claims and build false hopes.

One thing tells me how wrong Thane is, that is he says the load is powered by
purely reactive power and so is OU, this is totally incorrect. All reactive power
is from energy that was drawn from the supply then not consumed by the
load and so is returned to the supply, if the reactive power is instead utilized
in a load it is no longer reactive it is converted and is real power. A load
simply cannot be powered by reactive power, only real power can power
loads. Even if the power powering the load was at some time reactive power
then it came from the supply, if it doesn't go back to the supply it is paid for
as real power.

Thane uses a trick.

The power levels he is measuring could be the result of some kind of
capacitive coupling or something, but in my opinion it is measurement error
the power level is so low that was my first thought.

Cheers

P.S. an example of poor management of reactive power would be a
transformer drawing 100 Watts from the supply with no load so that almost all
of the 100 Watts is returned, energy is just being shunted back and forth for
no work output, lots of current for very little work. The kind of thing that
could burn out a transformer even though the transformer has no load.

..

[quantumuppercut]

In the second test, the primary was looking less reactive, so apparently more of the resistive load was reflecting back to the primary when I had the two secondaries wound in opposite winding direction. Those two tests I did were just preliminary, and I should probably do more tests before I can say for sure that changing the winding direction of secondary 2 is really what caused the difference in power factor that I measured. A very low power factor at the primary with lots of real power delivered to the load is what we should be aiming for with the bi-toroid setup, and according to Thane, in the ideal setup the power factor would be close to zero, meaning there would be next to no real power delivered/consumed at the primary, but still lots of real power being delivered to the load. Thane claims to have acheived that with his designs. It could be that my core arrangement that I tested with is not correct, or is too lossy to give proper results.

Hi Level,

I believe that was the claim. There is a very high chance that Farmhand is correct. I conceived a missing part to this setup that may achieves >1 efficient, but cannot do measurement myself. I would say that you're an expert from mainstream (to calculate power factor and efficiency just like that), and would like to propose it to you, but only if you're interested.

[mr.clean]

new vid...uploading now

hi people, i noticed on my scope it has RmsWatt calculator....

....pressure's on now...
Truth coming out about the BiTT...

confirming watts Rms... uploading now...

and in second half i show a very cool Don Smith circuit variant, you all will recognize it when you see....