Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Trying to understand Transformer Power calculations in this patent

  1. #1 Trying to understand Transformer Power calculations in this patent 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    Hi,

    I've been trying to understand the power efficiency calculations of a transformer done on page 11/13 of this patent:

    http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...C&locale=en_EP


    He uses I2R = P rather than VI = P.
    Could someone shed light on why that is? I always figured VI primary = VI secondary when calculating efficiency.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    112
    In general V=IR.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    The cover page for a year 2009 patent application for a more than 100% efficient transformer. Only the delusional would try to patent that.


    Another thing is that one must be an expert in power factor evaluations (impedance, resistance, reactance) and in instrumentation used to measure, count, process the observables.
    Patent clerks have been tricked and fooled for this lack of expertise and instrumentation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by pikpobedy View Post
    The cover page for a year 2009 patent application for a more than 100% efficient transformer. Only the delusional would try to patent that.


    Another thing is that one must be an expert in power factor evaluations (impedance, resistance, reactance) and in instrumentation used to measure, count, process the observables.
    Patent clerks have been tricked and fooled for this lack of expertise and instrumentation.
    I have had the pleasure to interact with the applicant (note that the patent is not granted, it is just an application). He is a hardcore antirelativity, antimainstream , so, coming from him, this is not a surprise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    So are you guys saying his calculation for efficiency is wrong? I thought patent offices have an engineer verify or sign off things like this so how does a simple power calculation pass through? Well I'm assuming it's relatively simple, but I wasn't sure of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    Already answered. One can find many instances where using commercial multimeters will give erronius results that are nort obvious to ordinary tech people.

    I was operating an AC electrolytic process. I could easily show voltages increases across bus bars as the distance from the power supply increased My conclusion was not an increase in power. I did not dismiss any physics laws nor did I dismiss basic energy concepts. I knew that at these high currents, huge busbars, a huge variable AC voltage high-current power supply pumping current back and forth through electrolytic ionic conduction solutions between broard long parallel surfaces and tank sides of disimilar materiasl would cause complex powerfactor and waveform situations that a commercial multimeter was not meant to measure with utmost "truthfulness".

    Anything that smells like perpetual motion, greater than 100% efficiency, more ouput than input, free upstream flow.... all that is fake, mistakes, delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    x0x
    x0x is offline
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    737
    Quote Originally Posted by kavkav View Post
    so how does a simple power calculation pass through?.
    It didn't, there is no patent (read above). The office did the right thing and did not grant a patent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    Okay I see. I wasn't able to tell whether if it was a patent or application in that link.


    Pikpobedy, the answer wasn't clear to me. I knew it was over 100% efficiency, which is why I wanted to understand if the power calculation was done correctly or not and how so. Mathman said V = IR in general which is fine but that leaves me to think there is a situation where it is not the case. I am familiar with power factor but I am still in the process of fully understanding it which is why I had the doubt of the calculation in the patent.


    The reason I looked into this was because I was trying to understand something in Lenz's Law in a transformer. When primary magnetic field passes through secondary coil, from my understanding, there is a moment in time where there is a current in the secondary coil while its alternating magnetic field travels close to the speed of light towards the primary coil. This means the secondary is being powered without communicating it to the primary at a moment in time. So hypothetically if the primary coil disappeared at that moment, would there have been proportional power consumption experienced on the primary side?

    To me it's as if Person A pushes Person B with a certain force and energy. Then Person B pushes back with the same force and energy. The energy from person A's push did not convert itself into the energy of Person B's push. Person B converted the energy of its push from somewhere else (ie - chemical energy from food, etc).

    What I am getting at from my understanding, is the two magnetic fields are not the conversions from the same energy, therefore can the pathway of the secondary magnetic field be manipulated to avoid crossing over the primary coil?
    This may not be the case but if not, I would like to understand why.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    Hey guys, I think in the link the calculations were just open-circuit and short circuit tests, not efficiency calculations. I did some research on how to do power calculations so that's how I figured. However, I did find a video of someone who replicated this, I don't think I can post it here so if you're interested, send me a private message I will share the link. I'm doing more research into magnetic fields and looking into the whole special relativity relation (yes I was mind blown), and I feel there may be some answers there. Maybe it's possible to break or reduce Lenz's Law but I don't think Law of Conservation is being broken because of the PersonA/B push example given above but I still have to look into it because I may be under-looking something in all of this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    go ahead and post it
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    Hey not true! I didn't try to figure out the efficiency calculations in the patent link. I just figured out how to do regular AC power calculations with power factor and all. And for the longest time I had the issue about Lenz's Law. I've watched a lot of videos and read a lot on Lenz's law and spoke to my teachers and professors. I've never been clear as to why Lenz's Law proves Law of Conservation when it seems irrelevant to me due to the Person A/B push analogy. To be honest though I was never able to express my thoughts properly about the issue until today with that analogy.

    That's where I'm coming from which I guess seems like I'm pushing it. Although after watching the special relativity video:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TKS...ion_3566029675

    This is the thought experiment I came up with and it makes sense to me:

    As you put energy to move electrons in a wire, the consequence of length contraction causes higher density of protons (like in the video) which causes the electric field to seem like what we call a magnetic field. Now that's it right there. The energy is coming from the length contraction. There was no energy from the movement of the electrons put into the length contraction phenomenon/increase of density in protons, it just happens as a consequence of putting energy into movement. Therefore there isn't enough evidence that Law of conservation is being broken because we have to figure out (or maybe it's just me that doesn't know) where the energy from length contraction is coming from and where it's looping back.

    That to me makes sense right now and doesn't seem to be breaking any major rules. Lenz's Law is just a reaction which seems to me can be manipulated. I'm gonna go into further research to understand if this is all true but if anyone can shed light on whether this makes sense or not, I would greatly appreciate it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    8
    Sorry for some reason your message about posting the video didn't show up for me. Don't mind the title but look at his power calculation and after the experiment he explains the theory.
    Here it is: FREE ENERGY # 35 BI-TOROID TRANSFORMER - 377 % OVER UNITY MOTIONLESS - YouTube
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •