Bi-toroid Transformer of Thane C. Heins

[BroMikey]

Follow The Experiment

Hello Wayne

I am glad you can follow my experiment, this means I am succeeding at what I set out to do and as far as I am concerned is a compliment. Thanks for that


Also I had wanted to talk about your other comment with the gap. It has been going around in my mind with the Bloch Wall being the focal point. The bloch wall it where extra energy can enter especially at the higher speeds of operation. Down low at 60hz I have little room to work with yet even down low I have watched the voltage increase so gaps are another control method.

If you read the paper above you would know that gaps bring about more stability as temperatures and power levels can throw tuning out fast.

Let's face it if we are to move up to more than just a few Milli-watts other issue could develop making a practical unit to be cost effective.

We have the effect. This is like having the SG Mono Pole effect but not having several thousands of dollars to make a practical amount of power.

Much time and energy must be invested.

What I really wanted to talk about was JOHN BEDINI's talk on the Howard J magnetic gates DVD. The bloch wall is where the energy is stored or coming into the system and Howard would make gaps in magnets using rubber.

It really does make more sense these days after hearing John B talk all these years about SWITCHING THE FIELD. Think about the Phrase "SWITCHING THE FIELD"

Ferrite cores get magnetized during operation and are switching magnets.


North south north south north south they go back and forth with every fluctuation or impulse. There is an invisible BLOCH WALL where the oposing fields of north and south meet together in the middle of that material.

These C-cores operate as electromagnets.

The gap could create a larger opening for outside energy to come into the bloch wall area already there.

I will be trying to do more with that. Up til now I only used a spacer on one side but both sides should be tried as well. Here is a picture.




I have not gotten that far. It is coming.

Adjusting the gap or having a gap adjuster is a good idea on all coupling links.

When I look at the Thane videos now I see what looks like adjusters in his Bi-toroid video's. Thane had adjustments from side to side and the other axes as well, probably X,Y,Z.

Thane and others have spent hundreds of thousands and I am sure this adjusting idea was not left out.

It is something to think about in addition to all of the other specifications thus far.

Stay tuned, free energy circuits are everywhere.

Mike

[Bob Smith]

Hey Mike
Just thought I'd add this comment from JB from another thread to support your reference to his remarks:

Dave, Matt,
... If you look at the coil in space it can be viewed with vectors all pointing in but not coupled to form energy. As the coil is pulsed compression and decompression takes place these vectors get sucked in through the Bloch Wall while it is in compression mode forming magnetic poles, North and South. This was never released to the public as it would drive everybody nuts. The Engineers at the school answered me with; we never looked at it this way...
John Bedini

[Iamnuts]

With results like 128%, it's surprrizing that Thane C Heins,
John Bedini or the likes haven't snapped up the OU. one
watt prize.
John.

[BroMikey]

Bloch Wall Hard To Understand

[QUOTE=Hey Mike
Just thought I'd add this comment from JB from another thread to support your reference to his remarks::[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=
Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Bedini View Post
Dave, Matt,
... If you look at the coil in space it can be viewed with vectors all pointing in but not coupled to form energy. As the coil is pulsed compression and decompression takes place these vectors get sucked in through the Bloch Wall while it is in compression mode forming magnetic poles, North and South. This was never released to the public as it would drive everybody nuts. The Engineers at the school answered me with; we never looked at it this way...
John Bedini:[/QUOTE]


Hello Mr Smith

Thank you for you reinforcing comments that make this technology easier to understand. A special thanks to YOU JOHN. I think people are finally becoming more grateful for the old ENERGY FROM THE VACUUM DVD's.

Mikey

[BroMikey]

One Watt Challange

John Bedini won that price years ago.

Mikey

With results like 128%, it's surprrizing that Thane C Heins,
John Bedini or the likes haven't snapped up the OU. one
watt prize.
John.

[Iamnuts]

Oh, sorry I must have missed that one. I do however remember a
school girl collecting a prize. Details?
Many thanks John.

[wayne.ct]

Core materials

I understand what you are saying about the cores operating as electromagnets. The qualities of a material that make it a good core material are two. If you think or believe otherwise, please chip in, because it might be important. Quality number one is the ease with which it BECOMES magnetized in the presence of an external magnetic field. Quality number two is the ease with which it LOSES any remaining magnetic tendencies when the external field is removed. Other, less important characteristics have to do with how easy it is form or mold into the desired shape, and its electrical resistance and other factors related to "core losses".

I think my view is probably typical. The only other thing I can think of at the moment is the cost side of things. Is the material readily available at a reasonable cost?

[BroMikey]

Which Core for a specific Job?

All good reasoning Wayne

I have wanted to get into that area of this work to offer some other thoughts as well. Sure your description is common and generally given to start with. The material is dust of metal, dust sized particle separators, some binder but heat and hydraulic pressure are used to mold parts. Also magnetic alignment while forming can be part of these cores.

Nano size particulate itched with abrasion chemicals to clean the surface to make excellent bonds. Each nano particle whether aluminum, magnesium, cobalt, iron, nickel, moly and many more all have a job to do based on a proportion for each mix.

Coupling inductor coils at low frequency uses more than one combination in the core mixtures. Medium and higher CPS have many formula each experimentally arrived at by that company. This is a complex process to discover what mixture does the best work at every frequency.

This is why i have never given much merit to the idea of plopping some black sand into a mold with epoxy binding butter using a magnet to align particulate.

There is no way that iron dust from the beach can compete with the controlled environment of a scientifically engineered product such as a ferrite core.

To eliminate dozens of anomalous variants and still keep your day job use a factory made core material. Producing perfect coupling for inductor coils at a given frequency with near zero loses may SEEM like a simple task but it far beyond the average persons ability.

Find the frequency of your experiment such as the AUDIO RANGE and you are good to go. Intermediate and high frequencies require a far differant response to keep loses near zero.

All that we need do is pull up that companies list of available cores in the right frequency range and we are good to go.

Mikey

I understand what you are saying about the cores operating as electromagnets. The qualities of a material that make it a good core material are two. If you think or believe otherwise, please chip in, because it might be important. Quality number one is the ease with which it BECOMES magnetized in the presence of an external magnetic field. Quality number two is the ease with which it LOSES any remaining magnetic tendencies when the external field is removed. Other, less important characteristics have to do with how easy it is form or mold into the desired shape, and its electrical resistance and other factors related to "core losses".

I think my view is probably typical. The only other thing I can think of at the moment is the cost side of things. Is the material readily available at a reasonable cost?

[BroMikey]

Hype

I am being funny because the "ONE WATT CHALLENGE" is hype.

The rich guys who had the one watt challenge never pay. They just want people to put on the black list for practice target .

The problem with so many OU devices is when they are looped back around again they are actually under unity, like mine.

Maybe someday I will grow up enough to get as much as JOHN B. gets

John can use 240watts to get 2400watts on his BIG MACHINE.

The Howard Johnson Magnetic Gates DVD gives us a clue as to why JOHN can get so much more out of his monopole machines than we do.

John also answered this 30year old question in PART 22 where Tom Beardon was being honored for his 80th birthday. The Ferris wheel was red, looked like a huge ribbon on the perimeter. John asked the audience is they knew why his machine was not like the SSG machines they all had?

The answer so simple. John makes magnetic poles in a special way that is a switching gate that he learned from studying Howard's work.

As long as the magneto coils are putting in a small amount to trigger these GATES these specially designed magnets with their odd fields will run the machine and charge battery banks without additional input.

Basically what I just said was that JOHN B. big machines are a magneto triggered magnet motor generator all in wonder.

John B. pressed in at an early age and achieved this task and many many more. He is someone who has lead the way keeping this work alive.

Plus hundreds more who are friends of John's

The one watt Challenge is approx 30 years old I think and I was just joking around when i said that.

Mikey

Oh, sorry I must have missed that one. I do however remember a
school girl collecting a prize. Details?
Many thanks John.

[BroMikey]

reactive power only

Here is the Mr Clean reactive power video. Some will say that any transformer has a idling current of say 30-40 percent depending on how it is connected on the output, but any normal block transformer always keeps a relationship from primary to secondary.

Normal transformers increase current on the primary side when the secondary is called upon to delivery power.

Not this one because it is a Bi-Toroid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbKr7aYKSPU

Mike PS

The flying energy horse video is a gas too.

[Web000x]

Here is the Mr Clean reactive power video. Some will say that any transformer has a idling current of say 30-40 percent depending on how it is connected on the output, but any normal block transformer always keeps a relationship from primary to secondary.

Normal transformers increase current on the primary side when the secondary is called upon to delivery power.

Not this one because it is a Bi-Toroid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbKr7aYKSPU

Mike PS

The flying energy horse video is a gas too.

That video isn't really a good 'loaded/unloaded' comparison. When he removes the primary, he is changing the inductance of the primary, creating a lower impedance and seemingly similar current draw. There's a lot of room for error there. He should have disconnected the load on secondary and showed data.

[BroMikey]

Dave Gone

Where did you go Dave? Are you gettin ready for tricker treat?

Show your OU machine dude. When you get back

Give me a break Dave.

Mikey

That video isn't really a good 'loaded/unloaded' comparison. When he removes the primary, he is changing the inductance of the primary, creating a lower impedance and seemingly similar current draw. There's a lot of room for error there. He should have disconnected the load on secondary and showed data.

[Web000x]

Where did you go Dave? Are you gettin ready for tricker treat?

Show your OU machine dude. When you get back

Give me a break Dave.

Mikey

I wish I could give everybody a break and show something worth pursuing further. Truth is that I can't. All of my experiments show about 90% efficient or less. This comes from full load calculations vs input calculations. Even when I cut out the resistive losses in the primary and run calculations, I still never calculate over 100%.

I read Thane's patent application and accordingly, am within the design specs. I'm even using a grade of steel in one setup that is higher quality than in his original transformers. I still see conventional transformer operation.

Be careful about trusting your test equipment too much, you must double, triple, quadruple check everything. I hope you are seeing something, Mikey, as it would give me motivation to not give up but must warn you. In a series of tests I ran a couple of weeks ago, I found that my Radioshack multimeter would register 159 mA vs the Fluke multimeter which showed 210 mA. Since the Fluke is true RMS rated, it is more accurate, 159/210 = .76. That is an error of 24%. Don't trust test equipment. Keep testing until you are tired of testing and then have a friend test it.

From what I've seen on the bench and read on some of the old BiTT threads, either Thane is a magician or he is of the right mindset to make the phenomena manifest. The reason that I say that is because, according to Ralph Ring, supposedly Otis T. Carr's flying saucer's wouldn't operate correctly if a person's mental state wasn't of a pure loving vibration. Maybe that carries over into this type of situation. Grasping at straws...

Dave

[BroMikey]

Good Instructions

Hey Dave

Good to hear from ya great instructions I must add also. I guess I heard that one too where electric acts funny is the person has to much negative energy, or something like that. Personally I alway thought that one was a cop out, but thats just me .


Either it works or it don't. With that reasoning (on the broken straw) I could build a unit over here and send it to another fellow and the working device would stop when it got to his house .

I don't think so. All this stuff goes around the web, like some people are black holes sapping up all of the Aether? NAW


I think you should follow thane and not Bill for now like I did. The video's that Thane show are nothing like your setup so I don't know how you could ever bring Thane into the discussion.

This is because you haven't done anything like Thane has done in his video's so we must now shift our focus away from the complication of mixing two devices together for a complete mess of conflicting data.

Let us begin once again with your setup. It is a BILL A. device that you are replicating. In this Bill A device that is an off shoot of the Bi-Toroid shown by Thane the frequency has changed from 60cps to 1000's of CPS.

Another thing I need to point out is that BILL A. like Thane had a HUGE MASS of copper and core material and both were running an output voltage of a few volts. These are my personal views, here me out.

If you weigh the transformer that Thane shows in the demo's we are probably looking at a 10lb sack of potato's.

If we look at Bill's high frequency version of the idea we find the the size just got smaller. Yet when we look at the Bill A transformer, we are looking at an arrangement different for Thanes 1000's of windings.

The Bill A. coils are triangular shaped so the right core balance can be achieved.I will assume that the wire is at least 20 awg so if you or I run a 26awg wire we can only expect 4X less is this comparison. Also core material volume has a direct relationship to efficient coupling coefficients. This is mentioned. Of course we all know transformer companies have designed their standards for generations and we are all familiar with them. This is not the case with the new BiTT designs.

Core material volume proportions for the primary links VS secondaries should be scrutinized closely. Trust me if we don't do it just like Bill has done it then we will suffer loses. Make the winding and core material proportions as close to Bill's or Thanes as possible so as to eliminate failure.

Once we have found the success we search for however small it may seem, we then can change it and watch the experimental results to improve on any design.

These are the words of John Bedini and I can see what he means more everyday.


I do not know this for sure but judging from the video you had and the video Bill A did, your mass for the entire unit is quite a bit less than Bills.

Bill used a pretty large BiTT device for a merger input of 10 volts at 1466ma. X cos 78degrees = 3.277 watts at approx 3200CPS.

Bill has heavy winds, more than mine and I use 20awg wire.

Those cores are huge blocks that make up a whole lot of the mass of his unit.

Coupling improperly can AXE your project.



So based on this evaluations you might need a small load around a 1 watt load device and target 5 times less energy.

Mine wants to be at a fraction of a watt on the output and any time I go up to a watt I end up with a COP of 1. Mine is poorly coupled, I need to finish winding two more triangular coils so I can do the core material proportions right, like Bill A. has shown.

Think about it, each primary to secondary is only 25 percent smaller than the big link between secondaries. VERY VERY IMPORTANT!!!!! WARNING ANY OTHER COUPLING PROPORTION MAY RESULT IN FAILURE.

These are my personal thoughts on mass and size comparisons.

Thane was calculating under a watt for his giant BiTT.

Mikey PS Don't worry someone will blow our doors off soon enough and it will become clear.

I wish I could give everybody a break and show something worth pursuing further. Truth is that I can't. All of my experiments show about 90% efficient or less. This comes from full load calculations vs input calculations. Even when I cut out the resistive losses in the primary and run calculations, I still never calculate over 100%.

I read Thane's patent application and accordingly, am within the design specs. I'm even using a grade of steel in one setup that is higher quality than in his original transformers. I still see conventional transformer operation.

Be careful about trusting your test equipment too much, you must double, triple, quadruple check everything. I hope you are seeing something, Mikey, as it would give me motivation to not give up but must warn you. In a series of tests I ran a couple of weeks ago, I found that my Radioshack multimeter would register 159 mA vs the Fluke multimeter which showed 210 mA. Since the Fluke is true RMS rated, it is more accurate, 159/210 = .76. That is an error of 24%. Don't trust test equipment. Keep testing until you are tired of testing and then have a friend test it.

From what I've seen on the bench and read on some of the old BiTT threads, either Thane is a magician or he is of the right mindset to make the phenomena manifest. The reason that I say that is because, according to Ralph Ring, supposedly Otis T. Carr's flying saucer's wouldn't operate correctly if a person's mental state wasn't of a pure loving vibration. Maybe that carries over into this type of situation. Grasping at straws...

Dave

[Dog-One]

BiTT vs. SFT

I think you should follow thane and not Bill for now like I did. The video's that Thane show are nothing like your setup so I don't know how you could ever bring Thane into the discussion.

Hold-on a minute. Thane's setup is completely different than Bill's. Bill uses WIRE to tie together TWO cores. Thane uses a special core that has multiple flux paths, with the primary wrapping only a single piece of core material.

The whole reason I promoted Bill's design was because we needn't have special-built cores which I have priced--prototypes in excess of $500 for silicon steel; no idea how much they would be for Amorphous core material or Ferrite.

Having said all that, I do think the concept involved is the same either way; what's different is the tuning. Tuning a Thane BiTT is far more difficult because if you have the wrong physical shape core, you're done before you ever start. With Bill's design you have a lot more options.

Bottom line, I think Bill's design allows us the flexibility to find a sweet spot using different off-the-shelf cores and turns ratios. What again does a sweet spot look like? It should be something that demonstrates a cancellation of back EMF. Meaning an increase in load on the output does not propagate back to the source. That's half the battle--the easy part. The second half is creating an environment for the device where the input power draw is less than the real output power. This has always been the hard part. I've seen hundreds of devices where when you apply a load, the input power doesn't change, but in all cases so far, the input power has always been higher than the output power. This isn't obvious at first, never is, but once you check for average power usage, it always turns out you've used more power driving the input than you got back on the output. Otherwise a looper would be a piece a cake right? Just couple the output back to the input with a transfer switch to start the device and away you go.


The way to think about this is how Jim Murray explained it. You have a motor that is acting ONLY as a motor and a generator that is acting ONLY as a generator. The piece in between the motor and the generator couples power in only one direction (from motor to generator). Now you let the motor freewheel with no load and collect the power from the generator without in any way effecting the motor. If you want something really special, you need to collect enough power from the generator to power the motor. Half as much or three quarters as much won't do. Haha! But if your generator isn't loading the motor, add another one, or two, or three until you have enough total power to run the motor. That's power magnification in a nutshell.

So suppose we have an SFT that takes 10 watts in and gives us 5 watts out. No OU there right? What if we take three SFTs and gang their primaries in series and when we do this, we notice the input power drops a little to 8 watts and the output of each SFT drops to 4 watts. Add it up now--8 watts in, 12 watts out. We can work with this.