Bi-toroid Transformer of Thane C. Heins

[BroMikey]

Thanes' VS Bill

Hey Dog-One

Yes I agree about what you stated, however I said that for DAVE maybe he could go to a larger primary winding at 60hz. That is what I meant to say, not do a Thane core build.

Starting with a proportionate power means in the .001 amps or 1-5 ma range if small wire is used.

I am getting results with a 1:1 winding ratio at 60hz. At least there is a point where I go over the input on the output..

We will see what happens with the amp. I got all 7 of my probes in the mail this week.

Hold-on a minute. Thane's setup if 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.



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. Now, 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.

[Web000x]

Hello Dave and ALL

Tonight I found my mistake. I have removed all of my data figures input output as the meter was hooked up wrong sorry everyone I really goofed it up this time. I had the amp meter reading the large cap and not the input fully. I found it when i did some scope shots tonight and blew the fuses on my cheapy meters.

When I went back to check everything again I saw my blunder.

I am way under unity dudes way under. Still I will keep trying because I figured that was to easy anyway.

Again I want to apologize for getting peoples hopes up like Dave said one time. He was right I should have been more thorough.

Mikey PS all the best

I'm sorry to hear that, Mike. It is easy to convince yourself that there is something there when there is not. I've claimed OU 3 times now and have been 100% wrong. Still, you keep trying. It is there. Geometry is probably key. Think naturally.

Dave

[BroMikey]

I am Back

Hello Group members

I re-soldered fuses back into my new meters and am getting readings again in the 50- 100ma range. Mainly I am trying to stay at this so I can find my way around. Having made so many mistakes I know the exercise daily is needed.


I also noticed that my screen on the scope looks like an ocean wave. Couldn't figure it til I unplugged my Variac. Also the line AC goes to the variac and on the scope the wave looks more pointed while the second wave on the back end looks like a perfect sine wave. 60Hz With no probe hooked I turn on the variac and the scope start a sort of ocean wave effect over the entire area of the screen. Then dial the variac down to zero and it stops.

I have two waves right now on my scope 180 degrees out. The primary wave and the secondaries wave seem to be opposite.

Still learning and getting familiar with everything. I am going to isolate better next.

Mike

[BroMikey]

Moving Along

Here is the BiToroidal transformer on 60hz scope shot.

Voltage and current lead, lag, this is with no caps for tuning, just the windings. The top wave it current leading by 70-75 degrees.

This is very efficient, I must say.

I used a 50 watt 1 ohm resistor.

Also I hooked up my scope tonight to a 650 watt UPS box to a charging 350ah battery set.

After the scope warms up good i lose my ocean waves.





Mike

[BroMikey]

6+ to one ratio

Hi Dave

The setup you have is 6 to 1 ratio or higher. Maybe try 3:1 windings ratio like BILL A is using. I mean i think he had 40 turns and two 120 turn or is that feet? I'll put 10:1 the ratio is off

Mikey

Here is a less than awesome quality video showing my setup. I tried using the HD function but it wouldn't load so I had to settle for standard quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mCx...L6cdsupqwo9-Hg

Here is my schematic:


Dave

P.S. I made a mistake in a previous post saying that my turn ratio was 1: phi^3. I was mistaken. It is 1: phi^4, or 24:162. The schematic also wrong. It says 168 turns on the secondaries, but it should say 162 turns.

[Web000x]

Hi Dave

The setup you have is 6 to 1 ratio or higher. Maybe try 3:1 windings ratio like BILL A is using. I mean i think he had 40 turns and two 120 turn or is that feet? I'll put 10:1 the ratio is off

Mikey

I started off with a turns ration of (primary:secondary) 62:100, then 38:100, then 24:100, then 24:162. None showed anything other than conventional transformer actions.

Dave

[BroMikey]

Normal Transformers

I started off with a turns ration of (primary:secondary) 62:100, then 38:100, then 24:100, then 24:162. None showed anything other than conventional transformer actions.

Dave

Thanks Again Dave

Thats a lot of winding coils this one that one and nothing, AAA?

Well i am getting a 75 degree shift on this BiTT over here. It is anything but normal. A normal transformer shows a shift of a few degrees and thats all you are ever going to get out of it.

The way it looked over here at first before I add the cos value was 3X current going in. Then when I figured the 75 degree shift things change.

For instance without and caps for tuning I got 8.2vac X .3amps = 2.46 watts going in. That is what it looks like if you don't use the COS. In my case with the BiTT the COS of 75 degrees is .26 but with a normal transformer the COS of 15 degrees is .97 that is a huge difference.

My 2.46 watts X .26 = .64 watts is real only the large portion keep circulating.

On the other hand a 2.46 watt X .97 = 2.39 watts real power used up out of 2.46 watts. This is a standard reading for a conventional transformer.

My output with no tuning is 4.5vac X .120 = .54 watts real used up without even trying that is 85 percent efficient. I have no tuning, poor coupling, not high frequency and still right off the bat I am 85 percent.

Totally incredible. Just generalizing from previous figures with poor coupling no frequency just tuning I see over 100 percent.

The previous numbers were all good except the amp reading on the input was 3X higher than I thought then I turned right around and cut that value into quarters so my figures were good as far as I can tell. Just arrived at wrong.


I will redo all of the figures. a 75 degree shift is .26 meaning if I input 1 watt I am only using approx 1/4 of that so .26 or 26 percent is used, the rest it sent back for recycling.

For every watt your standard transformer runs on uses up 96 percent of that.

So my BiTT needs work sure but will one day give me a 1:4 ratio something a conventional transformer can never do with this experiment.

Wow Wee is all I can say.

See before I was thinking 85ma was on the input when it was more like 300ma. So before I was saying 9.6vac X .085 = .815 watts

instead it should read 9.6vac X .300 = 2.88 watts but now I use the .26 COS calculation that I never used before so this is less on the input than I thought. The input would be 2.88 X .26 = .75 watts when before I thought of the input as .815.

So you see I am getting 125 percent after all.

I will make sure, don't get me wrong I am pretty sure like before but this time maybe I won't be as far off with the calculations.

Mikey

[Dog-One]

Well i am getting a 75 degree shift on this BiTT over here. It is anything but normal. A normal transformer shows a shift of a few degrees and thats all you are ever going to get out of it.

Then your "normal transformer" is a piece of crap. You should get very near 90 degrees shift when the transformer is unloaded, because all it is doing is free-wheeling as an inductor--the secondaries aren't doing anything, not even connected.

Then, you can connect a small load and slowly increase it while watching the phase shift decrease. It's a good idea to note how much load you have when the phase shift drops half way to 45 degrees.

Probably a good idea to do some testing with just a plain power transformer and make sure your instrumentation is correct and that your readings make sense. Do this before you make any comparisons against an SFT.

[BroMikey]

Excuse Me?


The most important thing BILL A pointed out was that conventional transformers use up or burn up approx 100 percent of what they run on.

Not so with a BiTT as you well know. BILL did show a 90 degree shift with the secondaries shorted out with a 1 ohm resistor.

Are you saying if I run without a load, I should get 90 degrees? Well its a new field and I didn't think of that yet. Maybe I better hear more.

Any other tests you have in mind? Let me know.

I am speaking in general terms using the same calculations and load resistance, being a set a 5 small lights that won't take more than 120ma no matter how much power you put to them. The voltage climbs after the amps stop rising.

You see for days I had been making calculations using wrong methods, no one inquired or asked. Everyone just assumes everything or don't have time, to busy whatever I am learning by watching the Thane videos, the Bill A video, the Mr clean Video's.

I am a green horn, can't run a scope worth beans, never run a reactive COS calculation til today. I have no idea what is in other peoples minds unless they talk and I sure don't know what I am doing.

Thane does, Bill does, and now so do I.

A special thanks to those guys.

BILL A had a figure of 78 degrees so 15.75 watts was measured X .20 = 3.2watts I think is all it used out of the 15+ watts.

You see I was just using raw numbers and you experienced guys didn't bother to check me out to see if I was doing it right

You guys should know better than that I'm gonna catch up soon.

Mikey You are Right DOG here in this video
httphttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHZAzlqEKns://

Then your "normal transformer" is a piece of crap. You should get very near 90 degrees shift when the transformer is unloaded, because all it is doing is free-wheeling as an inductor--the secondaries aren't doing anything, not even connected.

Then, you can connect a small load and slowly increase it while watching the phase shift decrease. It's a good idea to note how much load you have when the phase shift drops half way to 45 degrees.

Probably a good idea to do some testing with just a plain power transformer and make sure your instrumentation is correct and that your readings make sense. Do this before you make any comparisons against an SFT.

[BroMikey]

Zero Crossing video

Here is a video I want to show you Dave. He has a small circuit zero crossing circuit also uses a center tap on the primary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm-YQdfEqBA

[BroMikey]

Doing re-run of figures

I have some new figures 128 percent all the way down to 60 percent
Check this page in 5 minutes again and I will have finished the calcs


Okay here are the low down DOG figures.

I had originally made a mess of my old calculations yet it seems they were actually right on arrived at wrong. Let's talk about that later but reactive power in caps can give real power figures.

Here we go, and this time I used 70 degrees COS figuring instead of 75.

Before tuning with caps

Input 189ma X 6.64v = 1.26 X.34= .43 watts real

Output 89ma X 3.29v = .30 watts real COP 69percent

next set of calculations

Input 153ma X 4.95v = .76 X.34= .26 watts real

Output 76ma X 1.82v = .14 watts real COP 54percent

one more set then I will be back in 5 minutes

Input 245ma X 9.38v = 2.30 X.34= .78 watts real

Output 110ma X 5.42v = .60 watts real COP 77percent

So this is very low. Next I will show figures with caps

wow wee did I flip out when I hooked up my same caps I used last week. I tuned it last week and the light jumps way up for less power input by far with only a 2-3 degree change in phase angle.

This calc is for a single cap on the input and one on the output.

Input 270ma X 9.50v = 2.56 X.34= .87watts watts real

Output 130ma X 7.60v = .988 watts real COP 114percent

Now I added one more big cap on the input dropped even more with a 2 degree shift. It doesn't work better loading this BiTT to 45 degrees.

We must stay at the 70-90 degree range.



the best ones



Now I am using 50uf on the input and 35uF on the output with a phase angle around 72-75 so lets say 70 degrees COS is .34 same as before just rephrasing for those who are beginners like "yours truly"

Input 245ma X 9.62v = 2.36 X.34= .80 watts real

Output 131ma X 7.70v = 1.01 watts real COP 126percent

Last calc for today


Input 200ma X 8.28v = 1.656 X.34= .56 watts real

Output 117ma X 6.15v = .72 watts real COP 128percent

So we can see this is a very low OU system that must be improved upon.

Tuning means a lot to brightening up the output lights and man what a difference.

Mike

[Web000x]

Mike,

How are you figuring your phase angle? Do you have a scope function that measures it for your or are you 'eyeballing' it?

Dave

[BroMikey]

What Error?

I could be off by 5 percent. Lets say I am off by 10 percent which clearly is not a 65 degree angle. That would still be over 100 percent.





So this is not a normal transformer, wouldn't you agree with that?

Input 200ma X 8.28v = 1.656 X.42= .70 watts real

Output 117ma X 6.15v = .72 watts real COP 102percent

So we can see this is a very low OU system that must be improved upon.

All before I tune it more, only day one on 60hz.

C WhadI'm Sayin? Whadja think of that last video of Clean I posted where he puts in half of what he gets out?

Dave do you have a simple zero crossing circuit I can build?

Mike

Mike,

How are you figuring your phase angle? Do you have a scope function that measures it for your or are you 'eyeballing' it?

Dave

[BroMikey]

Circuit ZERO CROSSING?

MEG driver

[Web000x]

I could be off by 5 percent. Lets say I am off by 10 percent which clearly is not a 65 degree angle. That would still be over 100 percent.

Mike, I hate it for you but wouldn't get too excited yet. In order for sine wave math to be of any use, it must be in the shape of a sine wave. Your lower scope wave is totally distorted and distorted right in the places that matter most. There is a low dip on the region where power is being returned to the source and high peak when the source is being drained of energy. This dip and peak will totally skew power measurements when using cosine angles. If you were to see this on a scope with math functions, you'd see the area underneath the wave and it would look much different than true sine waves displaces by that same angle.

Take Luck

Dave