Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eccentric Transformer Theory -

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eccentric Transformer Theory -

    The transformer process in current light generally refers to a passive electrical component which is designed to take energy at one potential and current state on the input, and output at a differing potential and current state based on well defined and accepted ratios. Generally the transformer is of inductive character defined by two electrically separate conductors wound about the same core. It is expected that the power consumable on the output will be equal and opposite to the power consumed from the input minus losses. This is a feature of design only, and holds true to most modern transformers. In eccentric transformer theory, we will examine various forms of transformer which are geometrically wound about individual centers. We will take note how , The bulk of the transformer process can be described by taking an examination of the laws of induction, but it will be shown also that other phenomenon describe the transformation process, but are hidden to us through conventional design. Both capacitive and inductive transformer coupling will be addressed and calculations presented for each.

    Inductive Transformer action

    The standard transformer According to Faraday's law (put in this convenient permutation)

    Voltage Generated = (-N)(delta (BA))/delta t)

    Where we have replaced the unit of inductance with its terms:
    -N = number of turns
    B = Magnetic field strength in Tesla
    A = Area of turns

    Assuming the primary and secondary are concentric (about the same center) Lenz law applies in the standard way, giving us an equal and opposite EMF equating to equal and opposite energy states on both primary and secondary minus losses. This essentially describes the bulk of the "transformation" process mechanism for this example. It may not be readily apparent, but the Inverse Squared law of electromagnetic radiation is also in effect, though it is hidden to us in conventional designs.
    According to the inverse squared law, as we increase the diameter of the secondary (around the primary, concentrically) the magnitude of the EMF created by the primary will decrease accordingly. As we get one radius away from the primary, the magnitude will be 1/4 of the source. But we have also increased area by a factor of four (area of a circle increases by factor of 4 with a doubling of the radius). Therefore in the equation for Faraday's law, the factors of 1/4 and 4 cancel out for no net effect.
    This clearly shows both in practice, and mathematical convenience, that when sharing a common center, Faraday's law creates an Equal and Opposite reaction to any change with respect to time in the current of the primary. However, if the primary and secondary do NOT share centers, a new area of study becomes of interest.
    If the secondary is wound about a separate center, sitting adjacent to the primary, Lenz law does not behave in the familiar way. The secondary coil will feel a fraction of the field emitted by the primary according to the inverse square law of electromagnetics. For example:

    Primary coil: 16 units Field strength
    Secondary coil: 2r away from centre of primary
    secondary coil: “Feels”: 4 units Field strength

    Because of the inverse square law, and our geometric spacing, we can see that the secondary at distance 2r will see only ¼ of the emf as if it had been wound about the same centre as the primary. The secondary will now react per Lenz law to push back on the oscillations of the primary coil. This opposing oscillation must now travel back to the primary across free space, and according to the inverse squared law once again, its magnitude will decrease. If we decrease by a factor of 4 once more, we can see that the primary coil will feel a BEMF of only 1unit. To summarize:

    Primary coil:
    16 units of field radiating
    Secondary coil:
    Feels 4 units of field from primary
    Creates equal and opposite 4 units per Lenz Law (BEMF)
    Primary coil:
    Feels 1 unit of BEMF From secondary

    So we have expended 16 units, to "create" 4, which pushes back for a total of 1. Hugely inefficient, unless you consider the primary to be a charge conserving resonant structure. In this situation, minus the average reduction due to Q loss, 16 units gets reduced by the BEMF for 1, to create 4 units. The rest of the charge within the primary is conserved and reused in succeeding cycles. Thus we find that the primary consumes 1 unit of energy (minus loss) to create 4 units of energy. Here the "equal and opposite" apparent in all areas of electromagnetics has not been circumvented in any way, simply the geometry has been changed to our advantage.


    This same effect can also be calculated using only the capacitive coupling for transformer action.
    Capacitors can be arranged in simple geometric ways to act as transformers much the same way inductors can. Such a transformer would appear as a sphere, with a sphere around it concentrically. Because the energy states of both “plates” of our capacitor must be equal, but, the surface area of the inner sphere is less than that of the outer sphere, it will have higher charge density than the outer sphere. The ratio of sizes of the inner sphere to the outer sphere can manipulate the charge density on each to give us transformer action in well known ratios. The mathematics are a direct derivation of
    Gauss' law. Because both spheres are about the same center, you will find a situation identical to the transformer described in the previous section. When a change in potential on one sphere occurs, it is mirrored in the second sphere equal and opposite.



    One may remove the concentricity aspect of this transformer, and place the spheres on eccentric centers. Here one sphere will be physically next to the other. A simple mental experiment will show that we are left with a similar situation to the transformer action described above. We will assume once again that the primary sphere emits a field of 16 units and both spheres have equal capacitance. The second capacitor sitting 2r away will feel only 4 units of potential with respect to ground, once again due to the inverse squared law of electromagnetics. The secondary capacitor is allowed to charge to this 4 unit potential. In practice the primary sphere will be attached to an inductor which allows for a resonant circuit. Each cycle the sphere discharges its energy back into the inductor and it is recycled. Because our secondary is now charged, and emitting its own field of 4 units, the primary cannot discharge 100% of its energy back into the inductor. The secondary per inverse squared mechanics will have the primary sitting in its field and the primary will feel 1 unit of field. Now where the primary would have discharged all 16 units back into the inductor for re use, it instead only returns 15 units because one unit is held stationary by the charge found on the secondary. Once again we find ourselves expending 1 unit to create 4 total minus loss.

    It can be seen in both cases that by simply changing the geometric relations of primary and secondary, energy can be created. In similar fashion, and through creative design energy can also be destroyed.

    It can be shown that as one gets further from the source the signal received will decrease as shown in the graph below. The number 1 on the X axis represents concentric arrangement. As the centers depart from one another, the field felt decreases accordingly.



    It can also be surmised that what is felt by the secondary, is returned in Lenz like fassion to the primary, constituting a feedback to the source, and equating to work done. The ratio of power induced on the secondary to power returned to source in Lenz like reactions can be considered a multiplicaiton ratio. So for example with our previous calculations, as the secondary feels 4 units, and returns to the source 1unit of detraction, the multiplication ratio is 4.

    It can be seen when graphing this in the chart below, that as one moves further and further from the source, the process becomes more and more efficient. At 3r it becomes a multiplication ratio of 9, at 4r, 16 and so on.



    It must be realized though that while the process becomes more and more efficient, the average power felt by the secondary decreases. We can see that the graphs have inverse relations in their slopes, and so there will be one point at which they cross. This intersection in the graphs represents the best possible agreement between power felt by the secondary, and the calculated multiplication factor. Mathematically the two equations can be set to one another used to derive the graphs, and find a common solution.

    Thanks for viewing

    Andrew Manrique

  • #2
    This is also the bulk of the process involved in the "room full of tuning forks" analogy, or the radio tower with infinite crystal radios. They will feedback to the source, this can be experimentally shown, however the process leaves one with excess energy.


    YouTube - Maximum transmission point
    YouTube - Evolution of the Eccentric Transformer

    It was later discovered that one needs to isolate either the capacitive or magnetic elements in order to have the purest experiment.

    YouTube - evolution 2.wmv


    I have heard at more than one time someone in a youtube video create a wireless power transmission device and ask Dr. Stiffler to comment on why it was supposedly doing the same thing as a SEC circuit. 99% of the time it is not doing the same thing. SEC technology is an ultra-wideband oscillator with a huge harmonic range. Most of the time what they are probably referring to is the effect described here, this is not to say that eccentric transformer action does not come into play in some SEC technology.

    One of these videos also gives a possible explanation to the Kapanadze patent and videos.
    Last edited by Armagdn03; 01-07-2010, 09:49 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi Andrew,

      Thank you very much for these posts

      I'm glad I did the experiments with my SEC cubes. Your explanations fit nicely with my observations. I think you are right my SEC cubes are some kind of hybrid. I have seen both the wide band and the capacitive transformation using differently sized spheres.

      I have had this in my head for some time, and I really feel some pieces has now been added to the puzzle.

      Although I have not responded much to your helping hints previously, your advice has not been forgotten.

      Please bear with me, I'm still a newbie in FE. It is now just over 2 years since I got awakened by a YT video about Stanley Meyer.

      But your advice made me realize, that I needed some equipment to do some more experimentation, Thats why I started my running thread, as my need for experimenting equipment has lots in common with much other stuff in this field. I also did it to provide some help to h20power & friends, as EE's are not an excessive entity here, alt least not regarding providing practical help.

      So I do an attempt to make some easy to use PWM controllers, where we have the possibility to add closed loop regulation, when we (hopefully) arrive at something useful and flexible for a broad range of experiments.

      I will follow your thread, so please keep up the good work, and your very clear explanations ease the digestion of this subject a lot.

      So please continue even though you get nearly no feedback. Now I only get feedback from bussi04, and sometimes I feel I could as well communicate directly.

      But IMO the larger picture is about trying educating many, so they can spend more time experimenting instead of fighting some electronic control circuits necessary for the experiments.

      Eric

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tecstatic View Post
        Hi Andrew,

        Thank you very much for these posts

        I'm glad I did the experiments with my SEC cubes. Your explanations fit nicely with my observations. I think you are right my SEC cubes are some kind of hybrid. I have seen both the wide band and the capacitive transformation using differently sized spheres.

        I have had this in my head for some time, and I really feel some pieces has now been added to the puzzle.

        Although I have not responded much to your helping hints previously, your advice has not been forgotten.

        Please bear with me, I'm still a newbie in FE. It is now just over 2 years since I got awakened by a YT video about Stanley Meyer.

        But your advice made me realize, that I needed some equipment to do some more experimentation, Thats why I started my running thread, as my need for experimenting equipment has lots in common with much other stuff in this field. I also did it to provide some help to h20power & friends, as EE's are not an excessive entity here, alt least not regarding providing practical help.

        So I do an attempt to make some easy to use PWM controllers, where we have the possibility to add closed loop regulation, when we (hopefully) arrive at something useful and flexible for a broad range of experiments.

        I will follow your thread, so please keep up the good work, and your very clear explanations ease the digestion of this subject a lot.

        So please continue even though you get nearly no feedback. Now I only get feedback from bussi04, and sometimes I feel I could as well communicate directly.

        But IMO the larger picture is about trying educating many, so they can spend more time experimenting instead of fighting some electronic control circuits necessary for the experiments.

        Eric
        Thank you Eric for your encouragement.

        Right now, I believe its current embodiment is not all it could be. For example, placement of the top load changes the frequency of the resonant structure by about 10 %, which is pretty bad. This means that the rest of the resonant action in the capacitive end of the spectrum is happening within the coil and running a neon along the length of it will verify this. In order take it to the next level, one would need to have an inductor with spaced windings leaving as much of the capacitance as possible within the topload. This also will increase the Q of the circuit, as you are removing un wanted parasitic capacitance.

        In order to get a good inductor one would need a large-ish diameter coil with spacing for the windings. If anybody has a lathe that could turn some PVC with a helical grove for windings, I would be really grateful to see if something like this could be made.

        There are dissadvantages to taking the capacitive route, mainly that the capacitive end of the spectrum interacts heavily with biological systems, and hence biological systems being primarily water, act as a load to the transmitter. This means that you the inventor can detune the system, and dissipate some of its energy in you!

        It would pay to try and accomplish the same transformer action via inductors, similar to what was displayed by MIT with their wireless transfer device several years ago.

        Comment


        • #5
          I agree with tecstatic, do not let the lack of feedback discourage you.
          When new advanced theories are presented, we sometimes do not get it immediately, but it remains in our minds anyway.
          We might not find something to say at the moment but your work is not wasted, far from it. Sometimes I go back to read old threads that I didn't quite understand at the time, but later after having absorbed new knowledge from other places, my mind begins to make the links...

          Porbably the majority of the readers on technical forums are silent, they're just learning... for the moment.

          Your theory about the optimum distance between coils could be one of the keys to optimising Smith's and Hubbard setups.

          Cheers

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Armagdn03 View Post
            Thank you Eric for your encouragement.


            In order to get a good inductor one would need a large-ish diameter coil with spacing for the windings. If anybody has a lathe that could turn some PVC with a helical grove for windings, I would be really grateful to see if something like this could be made.


            .
            Armagdn03, what size diameter, length and threads per inch do you need ? I may be able to make this up for you.
            ________
            Last edited by dragon; 01-19-2012, 03:44 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by dragon View Post
              Armagdn03, what size diameter, length and threads per inch do you need ? I may be able to make this up for you.
              WOW! that would be fantastic, I would compensate you of course. The larger the diameter the better, I usually can only find around 4" pvc at the hardware store. Let me take some measurements and see what might work.

              What are your limits in terms of size?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Armagdn03 View Post
                Thank you Eric for your encouragement.

                Right now, I believe its current embodiment is not all it could be. For example, placement of the top load changes the frequency of the resonant structure by about 10 %, which is pretty bad. This means that the rest of the resonant action in the capacitive end of the spectrum is happening within the coil and running a neon along the length of it will verify this. In order take it to the next level, one would need to have an inductor with spaced windings leaving as much of the capacitance as possible within the topload. This also will increase the Q of the circuit, as you are removing un wanted parasitic capacitance.

                In order to get a good inductor one would need a large-ish diameter coil with spacing for the windings. If anybody has a lathe that could turn some PVC with a helical grove for windings, I would be really grateful to see if something like this could be made.
                I have been thinking about how to replicate the coils used by DrStiffler.

                In a lathe you make a cylinder to wind the coil on, and with centering holes both ends.
                Then you go to the milling machine and make 4 axial "tracks" (i guess I need the right word here) the same size as the 4 plastic strips fixating the coil.

                In addition you extend with other "tracks" so you can fit in a square rod with non-parallel sides. Using screws to tighten the rod, it can be used to hold tight the plastic strip for fixating the coil. The plastic strips are "buried" about 2/3 in the cylinder.

                Having done that for all 4 strips, you go back to the lathe.

                Here you use a cutting tool with a width a little less than the wire diameter for the coil.

                Setting the lathe for making threads with the right advance per revolution, you can now make the slices in the 4 fixed strips, just like you were making a thread.

                Then you wind the coil in the thread slices, the coil stays put because of the tight tolerance in the slices.

                By pre-adding 4 thin removable plastic sheets next to the strips, it should be possible to remove the coil from the cylinder. Need I say the fixating rods must be longer than the coil for access to loosen the screws.

                I have a friend with a machine shop, so when I have finished my SW I have considered to make my own coils.

                Using this method, you can make the coils exactly as needed.
                When I was young I worked several years in a machine shop, and with a bit of refinement to the above idea, especially the removal of the coil, I consider this doable.

                Maybe you have some good suggestions for the coil data ?

                There are dissadvantages to taking the capacitive route, mainly that the capacitive end of the spectrum interacts heavily with biological systems, and hence biological systems being primarily water, act as a load to the transmitter. This means that you the inventor can detune the system, and dissipate some of its energy in you!
                I can confirm this. I had some success having a nice output, unfortunately I did not feel well for a week. The key to avoid this is to have one or more resonant and loaded receivers so they collect the energy better than your "sphere" head.

                It would pay to try and accomplish the same transformer action via inductors, similar to what was displayed by MIT with their wireless transfer device several years ago.
                Do you have a link for that ?

                Eric

                Comment


                • #9
                  The Wireless Future of Energy Tranfer | Singularity Hub

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eccentric transformer theory

                    As stated by other members please do not assume that others are not interested by their apparant lack of replies. Your new way of thinking has me very interested in the development of this thread, and I will be visiting this site often to learn about these new ideas, I hope I will be able to contribute. I have ,what Patrick J kelly would call,a primative machine shop,which contains lathes, milling machines,bandsaws, hydraulic 30 ton press, facilties for sheet metal work upto 16 gauge steel, also facilities for welding (stick) and working hot rolled sections upto 1/4" thickness.My electronic facilties includes , scope 50MHz.Sig gen 514 MHz, Counter 10 digit by HP, and many other instruments formerly used in servicing radio and TV, some I might add dating back to the 50's!
                    So if you need an instrument you have just finished boxed up, I can do that.Or if you want an parallel or series LCR circuit swept, to disclose it's responce curve, I have the instruments to do it.
                    But , in spite, of having all these facilities, machine shop and electronics, I am still learning, and wish to learn more, especialy from experts as yourelf and others on this remarkable forum.
                    Thus I say please keep developing those ideas.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Turn Of The Century Electrotherapy Museum Tesla Library

                      this would be a nice inductor, though you could do without the bifilar, in fact it would detract, but the same method of turning the core would be fantastic.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Armagdn03 View Post
                        WOW! that would be fantastic, I would compensate you of course. The larger the diameter the better, I usually can only find around 4" pvc at the hardware store. Let me take some measurements and see what might work.

                        What are your limits in terms of size?
                        I'd have to make up some adaptors for any size I did, the maximum length would probably be in the 2ft range possibly a little longer if needed. I'm not sure what is available in the diameters here locally, give me a rough diameter to shoot for and I'll do some calling around.
                        ________
                        Last edited by dragon; 01-19-2012, 03:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          @Armagdn03

                          I guess what you described in the first post is exactly what Core of the physical effect discovered by Andrey Melnichenko is doing?

                          /Hob
                          Hob Nilre
                          http://www.youtube.com/nilrehob

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by nilrehob View Post
                            @Armagdn03

                            I guess what you described in the first post is exactly what Core of the physical effect discovered by Andrey Melnichenko is doing?

                            /Hob
                            Absolutely not! I take this quote from the text given,

                            "Free magnetic field Bi2 does not form flux linkage with magnetizing wind. The electric energy source does not spend any energy on free magnetic filed formation. Field Bi2 does not come into the formula of work onto magnetisation.
                            All the electric energy costs in a wind are restricted (source current can not use more!) only by those magnetic energy which establishes the connection with magnetisation wind. Field Bi2 and magnetic energy connected with it appears absolutely for nothing without additional energy cost."

                            In my theory, there is a disconnect, but it is not 100 percent. There definitely is back talk as you can see by my maths, graphs, and descriptions. I would be very impressed indeed if he can say that the field of "bi2 does not come into the formula" and would say this probably means the gentleman has not completely done their homework. And key in this theory is the balancing point by where field induced and field returned per lenz like reaction are situated to return most power.
                            Last edited by Armagdn03; 01-08-2010, 08:03 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              @Armagdn03

                              Sorry if i express myself badly i usually do,
                              i'm not sure about their theory,
                              but it seems like you're doing about the same thing,
                              although your theory seems stable.

                              Good work!

                              /Hob
                              Hob Nilre
                              http://www.youtube.com/nilrehob

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X