Bi-toroid

Home Help Search Login Register

Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.

OverUnity Research > Electrical / Electronic Devices > Thane Heins Devices > Bi-toroid

2024-11-27, 10:22:56
News: Check out the Benches; a place for people to moderate their own thread and document their builds and data.
If you would like your own Bench, please PM an Admin.
Most Benches are visible only to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

« previous next »

Author Topic: Bi-toroid (Read 151589 times)

Chet K	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #75 on: 2010-10-28, 12:04:02 »
Group: Ambassador Hero Member Posts: 4045	oct 27 2010 Some how I knew the Boss was making a new movie! http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins?feature=mhum#p/u/0/IPdq_jxmPSM Chet « Last Edit: 2010-10-28, 13:37:26 by ramset »

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #76 on: 2010-10-28, 13:30:47 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-10-28, 02:53:42 Any possible Barkhausen effects are also by definition COE events. It takes some energy to align a magnetic domain, and then if that magnetic domain snaps back to its previous orientation that energy is given back. MileHigh I have to agree with this, intuitively, I understand that it takes energy input to flip a domain, and it gives that energy back on the other half of the hysteresis curve. This is a classic over-center mechanism that theoretically cannot produce "free" energy, despite the claim by JLN that there is no effect on the driving coil, hence non-reciprocal. The point I did not mention is that the domain flipping in the Barkhausen noise is of a much higher frequency than the slow driving waveform, and may cause some errors in the measuring meter, especially when the meter is at the lower limit of it's range setting. Regarding Thane's latest video: Should have been more appropriately titled "Squeezing the Flux Balloon" Still waiting for those power in / power out video's with appropriate instrumentation. Or the self runner. We see in some of Thane's other video's a Lutron DW-6090 Power Analyzer for some of his motor tests. Why will he not connect one of these up to the input of his BITT. Instead we are asked to believe an overloaded and clipped scope vertical preamplifier and eyeball measurements on the scope horizontal display. The deeper I dig, the more this is looking like a PR con job to get investor money. ------------------------ Bi-toroid DW6090.jpg (103.07 kB, 972x561 - viewed 1189 times.) DW-6090.pdf (120.53 kB - downloaded 403 times.) « Last Edit: 2010-10-28, 15:44:06 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

MileHigh	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #77 on: 2010-10-28, 16:36:01 »
Group: Guest	I had a first-go-round look at Thane's latest clip with the flux sensor coils: http://www.youtube.com/user/ThaneCHeins#p/u/0/IPdq_jxmPSM This clip seems to confirm the flux cancellation in the outer ring. I thought about it some more and his notion of the outer ring being saturated with two moving subway trains of flux going in opposite directions through a ferrite core tunnel does not make any sense at all. What's going on is pure flux cancellation. Imagine a toroidal core with coils of wire on opposite ends. If you excite the two coils with AC so the flux is flowing in the same direction then each coil looks like an inductor. Now move one of the coils around so that the two coils are next to each other. Everything will remain the same. If you wanted, you could connect the two coils together with a center tap, and it would still behave the same way. What if the two coils are producing opposing flux? It's identical to two coils wound in opposite directions connected together with a center tap. That's an example of pure flux cancellation, and there is no inductance and no flux is flowing through the core. There are no subway trains of flux traveling in opposite directions inside the core tunnel. For all practical intents and purposes each coil looks like an electrical short circuit, and if you connect them together with a center tap, then the larger "coil" also looks like an electrical short circuit. In Thane's setup, you have the outer "OuterO" ring with the inner "Figure8" core. The loops of the Figure8 core are also cut by the two secondary coils. That nullifies the short-circuit/flux-cancellation effect when the two secondaries are driving equivalent loads and the setup is in balance. The two loops of the Figure8 do produce a complimentary flux flow and that overrides the short-circuit/flux-cancellation effects due to the OuterO ring. When the left and right halves are in balance and driving equivalent loads, you end up with the Figure8 transformer configuration and the OuterO core is as dead as a doornail. I think that the "two subway trains of flux" notion might be Thane impressing his own vision on what he thinks is supposed to be happening in his experiment, as opposed to the actual reality. Thane should make another clip where he has flux sensor coils on both the left and right rings of the Figure8. That would show what happens when the left and right halves of the Figure8 are not in balance. Here is where the differing reluctance of the two paths of the Figure8 should come into play. The path that is driving a load on it's secondary will have a higher reluctance. Therefore most of the flux should flow through the other path where the secondary coil is open-circuit and the core offers no resistance (a.k.a. very low reluctance) to the flux flow. Since most of the flux flows through the path that has the lower reluctance, that's why you get an anemic output from the secondary coil that is trying to drive the light bulb load. I should also mention that in the case where the setup is not in balance with one secondary open-circuited and the other secondary driving a light bulb load, the OuterO core will have no real affect on the circuit. Flux will be induced in the core from the secondary coil driving the load. The flux will flow back and forth in the OuterO without coupling to anything else. This will make the inductance of the secondary coil measurably higher without doing much else. MileHigh « Last Edit: 2010-10-28, 17:11:46 by MileHigh »

Allcanadian	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #78 on: 2010-10-28, 16:45:30 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Ion Quote I have to agree with this, intuitively, I understand that it takes energy input to flip a domain, and it gives that energy back on the other half of the hysteresis curve. This is a classic over-center mechanism that theoretically cannot produce "free" energy, despite the claim by JLN that there is no effect on the driving coil, hence non-reciprocal. I am not sure I would agree, and we could use a smple analogy here, I have a 100 gal tank full of water which is full of metal balls having a neutral boyancy within the water. Now if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank? Intuitively, we would think the sound is energy so energy has been lost but we should remember the sound is a result of completely random collisions "within" the object and that random motions within objects can have no net effect external to the object itself. If you believe that the internal random sounds generated in the core can have external effects then you must also believe the process is reversable in which case I could create random sounds inside the boundary condition of what constitutes an "object" and produce net external forces. LOL, I believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force. So the question remains, Do you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet? Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

wattsup	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #79 on: 2010-10-28, 18:01:42 »
Hero Member Posts: 520	Well at least I am happy Thane tried to answer my post at OU. Show me the bacon. lol http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg262130#msg262130 In the video there is a bit of mix up in the numbers but this is very understandable given he is switching on and off two secs and showing readings , etc. It can get confusing. I am still convinced that a major part of that secondary output is air to air and will try and push a little more for him to try an overhead pickup coil. I am also convinced that he will get more performance with pulsing either the primary or even just pulsing one of the secondaries to just turn on and off at a certain frequency. That would pulse the flux since he indicates that the second secondary acts like a flux blocker. --------------------------- http://etherimpress.com

Grumpy	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #80 on: 2010-10-28, 18:22:37 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Quote from: ION on 2010-10-28, 13:30:47 We see in some of Thane's other video's a Lutron DW-6090 Power Analyzer for some of his motor tests. Hey! That Power Analyzer is not rated for use in the mW range.

MileHigh	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #81 on: 2010-10-28, 19:00:46 »
Group: Guest	Quote from: ION on 2010-10-28, 13:30:47 Still waiting for those power in / power out video's with appropriate instrumentation. Or the self runner. The deeper I dig, the more this is looking like a PR con job to get investor money. Power out vs. power in is king. Many a time an experimenter sees his or her current consumption drop when they add a load to their circuit and they think that this is an indication of an over unity effect. They always seem to overlook the fact that their circuit is still losing energy when they check the watts in vs. the watts out. It's not even a hollow victory to find out that your circuit is less inefficient under load. It makes me think off all of the Bedini enthusiasts charging their batteries and overlooking the fact that the Bedini motor itself is only about 25% efficient in transferring the source battery energy into the target battery. I noticed that Thane's attitude was very harsh, almost venturing into Joe Newman territory. In my opinion, he shot himself in the foot when he trashed Poynt99's comments because everybody knows that Poynt99 really knows his stuff. The worst thing that can happen on a forum is to have a master/sycophant relationship set up between a high-profile poster and the regular contributors. It's a regular phenomenon where you see blatant errors or omissions made by a poster on a video clip and nobody says anything. I think the gang here at OUR stirred up some dust on the OU forum for Thane's project and that's healthy. The last thing you want to do is become one of the "sheeple" on these forums. That term is often used to mock the masses by some of the contributors to the various forums. The place to buck the "sheeple" trend is right here. Have a healthy debate and respect people and at the same time don't be afraid to question them. MileHigh

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #82 on: 2010-10-28, 19:10:49 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: allcanadian on 2010-10-28, 16:45:30 @Ion I am not sure I would agree, and we could use a smple analogy here, I have a 100 gal tank full of water which is full of metal balls having a neutral boyancy within the water. Now if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank? Intuitively, we would think the sound is energy so energy has been lost but we should remember the sound is a result of completely random collisions "within" the object and that motions within objects can have no net effect external to the object itself. If you believe that the internal random sounds generated in the core can have external effects then you must also believe the process is reversable in which case I could create random sounds inside the boundary condition of what constitutes an "object" and produce net external forces. LOL, I believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force. So the question remains, Do you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet? Regards AC Unfortunately, I will have to respectfully disagree as IMHO this makes a few assumptions and analogies which don't ring true to me. Firstly Quote Now if I apply a force to the tank and it moves a little bit I could "hear" metallic noises from within the tank on a hyrophone from the balls randomly hitting each other. Do you think the noise from the balls would "slow" the motion of the tank? Initially, the balls will not be randomly hitting each other, the balls will try to remain stationary, since they have mass, only to bunch up at the wall of the tank that the initial force was imparted to. They have not given up their mass just because they are buoyant. At some point they may decay into a chaotic condition, but at that point most of their energy will have been given up into heating the liquid from frictional losses. This would be measurable as an electromagnetic wave in the far infrared region. The a large portion of the sound of the balls hitting each other will also be converted to heat in the liquid. The hydrophone will pick up the feeble echoes of all this sound activity. Second: Quote I believe that physics states catagorically that there is no motion one could produce internal to an object that will result in a net external force. Yes this is the action-reaction principle, and holds true for objects with mass in motion and their attendant forces. Applying this to electromagnetics is a bit of a stretch. How would radio transmitters work? Quote Do you think random internal oscillations as "noise" in the core can have an external net effect on the coil or the magnet? These so called "random" oscillations do not arise spontaneously, but are induced and are a reaction to the energy input. Yes, they will have an effect or you would not be able to observe them as an induction in the coil. This represents the energy stored in the domains as they snap into place after having been stretched out of their rest position. It just occurs randomly. There is more, but all for now BTW..Some of us would like to comment on your double pulse circuit, can you post it? --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Allcanadian	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #83 on: 2010-10-28, 22:36:54 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	@Ion Quote Initially, the balls will not be randomly hitting each other, the balls will try to remain stationary, since they have mass, only to bunch up at the wall of the tank that the initial force was imparted to. They have not given up their mass just because they are buoyant. The problem will my analogy is that it is a bit of a trick question, if the balls have "neutral boyancy" then they have mass but "weigh" nothing with respect to the water surrounding them, there relative density is equal. As such they have little reason to move anywhere when a force on the exterior of the tank results in a small motion of the tank as a whole. The most obvious reason the balls may actually hit each other would be due to internal water currents of some sort. However a change in density of the water due to acceleration of the tank as a whole would cause some of the balls to move in the same direction as the tank which is forwards not backwards. Quote These so called "random" oscillations do not arise spontaneously, but are induced and are a reaction to the energy input. Yes, they will have an effect or you would not be able to observe them as an induction in the coil. This represents the energy stored in the domains as they snap into place after having been stretched out of their rest position. It just occurs randomly. The only distinction I would make is that the oscillations are not a reaction to the energy input, the influence of the field on the core is the action or input force and the stress on the domains is the reaction. The flipping is a reaction to the reaction (stress) due to the influence of the magnetic field. For the same reason my balls in the water tank cannot react to the motion of the tank itself but only an effect of the motion. Also for the same reasons Thanes bi-toroid does not produce an "output" due to the action of the changing flux and induction it's reaction but due to an effect or reaction to the induction. Regards AC --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #84 on: 2010-10-29, 23:47:14 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	This is from the Thane Heins BITT patent application, namely Mr. Bilaniuk tests. Let me know what you think. Hint: unloaded, the voltage led the current by 1.2 mS. ! ------------------------ Bi-toroid Bilaniuk.jpg (53.62 kB, 773x184 - viewed 1019 times.) --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #85 on: 2010-10-29, 23:59:43 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	What was the load, his so-called "pure" resistor? Could you upload the patent Application if it's not too big ION? Thanks, .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #86 on: 2010-10-30, 00:09:52 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	There was no load applied in Bilaniuk's phase measurement test and he said it was "somewhat inductive, as one would expect". Note that 1.2 mS is "mostly resistive" Here's the patent. I also did a spreadsheet of all the data Bilaniuk recorded. He never seemed to re-check phase shift with load. Thane computes Power Factor by using the DC resistance of the primary and primary amps to get primary power. He then ratios this against apparent power to determine Power Factor. Seems to me that DC resistance does not change with or without load. I have posted a snapshot of the spreadsheet (forum won't take .xls) if anyone is interested, but I used the 1.2 mS per Bilaniuk to compute cosPhi, and that gives totally different power input, and around 80% efficiency or much less depending on the load. Edit: corrected small error in spreadsheet ------------------------ CA2594905A1.pdf (457.34 kB - downloaded 523 times.) Bi-toroid Bilaniuk_xls.jpg (41.6 kB, 935x174 - viewed 941 times.) « Last Edit: 2010-10-30, 13:25:20 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

poynt99	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #87 on: 2010-10-30, 02:55:48 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Thanks ION. Forum will now take .xls attachments. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Grumpy	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #88 on: 2010-10-30, 03:24:51 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Was the load a wire-wound resistor?

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #89 on: 2010-10-30, 13:03:23 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: Grumpy on 2010-10-30, 03:24:51 Was the load a wire-wound resistor? G: At 60 Hz, it matters not if there are a few microhenries in the load resistors, that is not what concerns me as there are far greater sources of error (3% or more) in the measuring meters. I'm surprised no one scrutinized the patent application as there are some real problems with Bilaniuk getting 1.2 ms lagging current (leading voltage). This demonstrates the PF cannot be 0 but is more like 0.90 with no load, and the PF can only increase when a resistive load is connected to the secondaries. That's why i put it all together in an excel file. Using his data, around 80 % to 9% efficiency is shown. Note that Bilaniuk, a Ph.D and PE does not endorse the device, he just presents his measurements with no further comments at the end of the test in the patent app. Chet: any comments? « Last Edit: 2010-10-30, 13:29:03 by ION » --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #90 on: 2010-10-30, 15:57:04 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	This whole thing reminds me of devices like the MRA, also not OU after accurate measurements were finally taken. Has Chava shown any interest in Thane's work? They went to Turkey for Kapanadze. Surely a flight to Canada is no problem.

giantkiller	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #91 on: 2010-10-30, 16:53:57 »
Group: Elite Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 1593 Frequency equals matter...	So Chava has nothing and is sending out scouts? Sounds typical. Quote from: Grumpy on 2010-10-30, 15:57:04 This whole thing reminds me of devices like the MRA, also not OU after accurate measurements were finally taken. Has Chava shown any interest in Thane's work? They went to Turkey for Kapanadze. Surely a flight to Canada is no problem. --------------------------- http://purco.qc.ca/ftp/

MileHigh	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #92 on: 2010-10-30, 17:17:52 »
Group: Guest	Considering the beating that I took from Thane on OU, I am going to make a few frank comments. The flux sensor coils are picking up the changing magnetic flux going through the cores. The sensor coils output a sine wave as long as the core does not get saturated. That means that the actual flux is a cosine wave. The two will be directly proportional to each other so the voltage readings on the multimeters will show legit data. How Thane could twist that into, "RED FLAG: KNOWING HOW A VOLTMETER WORKS AND HOW TO READ A VOLTMETER IS ELECTRICITY 101. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO DO THIS SHOULD LEARN." is absolutely ridiculous. Then after I mentioned using flux sensor coils like magic Thane made a clip using flux sensor coils. In that clip when both of the secondaries are loaded evenly the voltage reading for the "OuterO" a.k.a. "S0" flux sensor coil is 0.008 volts. I am going to assume that all three flux sensor coils had the same number of turns where the primary flux sensor coil was 0.693 volts and the "S1" flux sensor coil was 0.330 volts. Those much higher voltages indicate that some flux is indeed flowing through those pathways. Note that when both coils are evenly loaded the "S0" voltage is 0.008 volts, and when both coils are unloaded the "S0" voltage is also 0.008 volts. That's proof right there that nothing is happening in the "OuterO" core. The 0.008 volts AC is pretty much background noise and not much more than that. I said I was going to be frank, this whole experiment is a waste of time. Thane set up an outer flux ring that does nothing. All that you had to do was look at what is going on in the outer flux ring with standard magnetic induction principles. You could confirm the self-cancellation without even having to energize the setup with AC. You can do a simple experiment by briefly connecting a 12-volt battery to the primary coil and scoping the flux sensor coil output of the "OuterO ring, (the "S0" coil). You should see something like the following: If the left secondary coil was driving a load and the right secondary coil was open circuit you would see a brief positive spike in the S0 sensor coil when you make the contact. If the right secondary coil was driving a load and the left secondary coil was open circuit you would see a brief negative spike in the S0 sensor coil when you make the contact When both both secondary coils were driving a load you wouldn't see a spike on the S0 sensor coil because the positive and negative spikes would cancel each other out. The painful truth is that I don't get a sense that Thane really and truly knows what he is doing. Just looking at his last few clips you can feel that he is hesitant, and not confident. I am fully aware that when you make a video clip it is very hard to manage making the clip, pointing the camera in the right place, and talking and also thinking of what you are going to say next and so on. Factoring all of that in, I still don't get the sense that Thane is on top of his game. He is chasing after a pipe dream, it's a mirage. The notion that you can make a load look purely reactive and yet like magic still extract real power from the AC mains power source is crazy. You can't fool around with magnetic core configurations and pipe flux around from point A to point B and expect to have a net gain in energy, it's ridiculous. If you disagree with me then show me something on paper. Any person that is skilled in magnetic induction should be able to produce a timing diagram that explains how their magic transformer works before they build it. Then they could build it and make measurements to confirm their paper design. So I suppose we can expect an ongoing series of clips will be done investigating this architecture further. I also noticed that there are some replicators on OU. None of it is going to amount to anything. MileHigh

MileHigh	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #93 on: 2010-10-30, 17:54:44 »
Group: Guest	I can't resist commenting on this: Quote WHEN THE SCIENTIFIC COMUNITY FINALLY GETS THEIR HEADS OUT OF THEIR BUTTS THEY WILL REALIZE THAT EVERY SINGLE WIRE THAT CONDUCTS ELECTRICITY IS VIOLATING THE LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY “CREATING” NEW ENERGY IN THE FORM OF A MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND THE WIRE. THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE HAS TWO COMPONENTS, 1) THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY AND 2) THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY. BRAIN WASHED CONVENTIONAL SCIENTISTS ONLY ACCOUNT FOR THE ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND DON’T EVEN CONSIDER THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY OR HOW IT IS MAGICALLY CREATED! THIS MAGNETIC FIELD AS WE ALL KNOW IS THE BASIS FOR LENZ’S LAW OR HOW NEWTON’S THIRD LAW IS MANIFESTED IN AN ELECTRICAL ENERGY SYSTEM WHICH SATISFIES THE BRAIN BLIND CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIST’S EXCUSE FOR NOT THINKING UNLESS THE ELECTRICAL AND MAGNETIC ENERGY POTENTIALS ARE LOOKED AT FROM A PURELY NON-DIRECTIONAL VIEW - JUST AS PURE ENERGY POTENTIAL. IF WE DID WE WOULD SEE THAT A MAGIC MAGNET FIELD ENERGY IS “CREATED” WHEN ELECTRICAL ENERGY FLOWS IN A CONDUCTOR AND THE MAGNETIC POTENTIAL ENERGY IS EQUAL TO THE ELECTRIC POTENTIAL ENERGY (WHICH IS THE ONLY ENERGY WE “DARE TO” MEASURE). THE SENSOR COILS ON THE BiTT PROVE THE ABOVE HERE IS WHY. - The magnetic field around a wire is not magically "created" and this certainly does not violate the conservation of energy. The wire has inductance and you have to expend energy to create the magnetic field. - To say "THE ENERGY CONTAINED IN THE ELECTRICITY FLOWING IN A WIRE" is really awkward and obtuse and doesn't really make any sense. Scientists fully account for the electrical and magnetic energy and again, the magnetic potential energy is NOT "magically created." - I am not sure what "pure energy potential" really means and I will leave it at that. - In the fourth paragraph Thane again discusses current flowing through a conductor and magnetic and electrical potential energy of the wire? I am not really sure. Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this thread also, it's too crazy. Thane is in a "leadership" position and as a result is subject to some increased scrutiny. I have seen enough. My impression is that Thane is not very knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and electromagnetics and is just winging it as he goes along. MileHigh

ion	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #94 on: 2010-10-30, 20:26:56 »
Group: Elite Hero Member Posts: 3537 It's turtles all the way down	Quote from: MileHigh on 2010-10-30, 17:54:44 Anyway, I am going to withdraw from this thread also, it's too crazy. Thane is in a "leadership" position and as a result is subject to some increased scrutiny. I have seen enough. My impression is that Thane is not very knowledgeable in the fields of electronics and electromagnetics and is just winging it as he goes along. MileHigh I agree with your take on Thane's expertise. Where is his transformer model? This is the language of engineering, and he should have put together more than just a sketch by now. I also am kind of disappointed that no one made a reasonable comment on the excel file I put together based on the patent application. I raised a number of interesting points that I thought would be worthy of comment, but I guess not. Too much work, too little feedback. Guess it's back to the batcave for a bit, I'll leave this alone. --------------------------- "Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy

Grumpy	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #95 on: 2010-10-30, 21:25:52 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	haven't had time to look at the Excel file - comments later: just finished welding a fireplace heater (pipes in the fireplace connected to a manifold with fans in it) - firescreen with doors to finish it off. still got to bend four of the pipe section (sch 40, 1 inch - little heat and a cheater pipe slipped over the end. The back of my fireplace angels-in (it's "80 years old style" - tall so you get a lot of fame). Had a fireplace insert since I moved in, but it didn't get the job done at about 30k btu's. This baby will get me about twice that. lost a lot of space with the insert too, and can now use regular length firewood without cutting the ends off.

Allcanadian	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #96 on: 2010-10-31, 05:00:00 »
Hero Member Posts: 2735	Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction: 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --------------------------- Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

poynt99	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #97 on: 2010-10-31, 12:01:49 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 3217 It's not as complicated as it may seem...	Quote from: allcanadian on 2010-10-31, 05:00:00 Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws" of prediction: 1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. We also have the following observations which put his claims into question. To date: 1) Thane has not shown any reliable measurements 2) Thane has not demonstrated a closed-loop self-runner 3) Thane has not diagrammed his test setups (i.e. probe locations, shunts, input sources etc.) 4) Thane is working only with milliwatts of input and output power (and is "in the noise" and limits of his test equipment) 5) Thane's test equipment and it's use is questionable 6) Thane rejects suggestions to verify his measurements with other methods and test equipment 7) Thane has not pointed to a single third-party replication of his results 8] Thane has not been able to provide third-party verification and endorsement of his own results and I am most certain others could add a number of additional points to the above. .99 --------------------------- "Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa

Grumpy	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #98 on: 2010-10-31, 14:57:44 »
Group: Tinkerer Hero Member Posts: 3948 tExB=qr	Have any of you "AC Men" looked at the spreadsheet Ion posted of the data from the patent application? Perhaps someone could also look at pages 11 and 12 of the app where Thane calculates output power is more than input power.

wattsup	Re: Bi-toroid « Reply #99 on: 2010-10-31, 15:48:15 »
Hero Member Posts: 520	Geez I feel like this thread is becoming something like in StarTrek when those aliens would bet Qualuds on which warrior is going to win the fight. All bets are against Thane because he did not do this or that. What one seems to forget is that his current build, the BITT is relatively new to the scene and of course at this initial stage, there can be many theories flying around on its function, its usefulness and how the effects inter-relate. The only way we will be able to find out more about it is if we stick with Thane and encourage him to look deeper. No point in throwing stones at the guy. He in fact did one hell of a build with the BITT. I don't have one in hand. Do you? I can't even fathom being able to build one myself. Can any of you? So please, please, understand that this is an evolutionary process and in time, the true observations will be discovered one at a time and the end results will also take their own shape. You have to look at the long term. The patented device is just that. A patent. Big deal. Anyone can get a patent on anything seemingly new in design. It does not mean it is fully understand at the time of patenting. When he patented the first transformer he put forth what he had at that time. What more could he have done at that point? But being able to move flux around a core and understanding the movements, (OK I call it movement to keep the process simple but I have other ideas on what it actually is but it is not important now) is the main thing for me. Seeing this in his device will help me see it in any of my own future devices because there is a way of seeing the core effects. My real interest now is to find out how he came up with those percentages in his second to last post. Yes, taking his four test results I tabled, one can calculate percentage increases but is that really the point. Maybe just to show those increases relative to the previous condition. Still, lighting that bulb the way he did is rather incredible given the way the primary core is only lying on the inner core and not aligned with it from center core to center core. So I can only image the output potential once (or if ever) that core is aligned, but then again, with an aligned core, will the primary then consume more input juice since the primary coil will be ale to move more of the flux hence not reach a fast saturation point. Don't know. But Thane has all the elements in place to do some really nice further investigations. So give the guy some credit. --------------------------- http://etherimpress.com

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10

« previous next »

Home Help Search Login Register

Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u

2024-11-27, 10:22:56

SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines
XHTML
RSS
WAP2