RE-READING that description in post #18, it makes much less sense every time.
The reality is that transformers have been around for over 100 years, and they have been researched and experimented with by many of the very brilliant engineers and magnetic field scientists. It also appears to me that the writing has been done by a master of obfuscation.

 

RE-READING that description in post #18, it makes much less sense every time.
The reality is that transformers have been around for over 100 years, and they have been researched and experimented with by many of the very brilliant engineers and magnetic field scientists. It also appears to me that the writing has been done by a master of obfuscation.

It's all a part of some bogus free energy device. The BS pseudo technology writing about this nonsense is completely typical and easily detected.

 

OK, "N". Certainly it did not make sense to me, to the point where it sounded a whole lot like a really poor translation. A lot of "right words" but assembled totally different from anything I was aware of. But it seems that I missed the free energy part.
But the bare-wire transformer is the really bizarre part. THAT alone was the bright red flag that it was not going to make any sense at all.

 

OK, "N". Certainly it did not make sense to me, to the point where it sounded a whole lot like a really poor translation. A lot of "right words" but assembled totally different from anything I was aware of. But it seems that I missed the free energy part.
But the bare-wire transformer is the really bizarre part. THAT alone was the bright red flag that it was not going to make any sense at all.

I never said the circuit used a transformer. There was no iron core under the 7 turns wire. I just reiterated what was in the original written document,- no diagram. The 3 wires assembly contained 1 bare copper without insulation. The winder person may not of known about the layer of a wire insulation not affecting the impressed magnetic field on the copper. Lots of people back at that time of 2008, and onward, wondered about that. There was a time delay on the bare wire on forward, to the load, due to the reverse flows of inputs of the coils assembly. This acted as a designed in built interference, that could also slightly increase the output voltage. They verified that with oscilloscope .

There is no free energy stated, or implied. Why do people keep talking about that? It's generally known about induction volts into a bare wire has to have a full completed circuit for a good transfer of current. I only suggested that a close proximity bare wire wire could be used as a secondary of a transformer, if full core was present, and also, same time, a parallel line to ground with diode was mounted to form the full path required.


Two shop people had written about that SAME circuit back at 2008. One uneducated shop helper, and the other an electronics technician working in electric power cable industry. It's possible then, certain notations were written wrong back at that time. The only way to resolve , is to duplicate the bench circuit with test meters. I will proceed soon. I went through thousands of statements to find contradictory data about induction and direct connection to get the same 7 amps transfer. One of those must be wrong.

 

There is no free energy stated, or implied. Why do people keep talking about that? It's generally known about induction volts into a bare wire has to have a full completed circuit for a good transfer of current. I only suggested that a close proximity bare wire wire could be used as a secondary of a transformer, if full core was present, and also, same time, a parallel line to ground with diode was mounted to form the full path required.

Why? Because of your own words on a now closed thread about free energy and banned topics on this site.

 

...
There was a time delay on the bare wire on forward, to the load, due to the reverse flows of inputs of the coils assembly. This acted as a designed in built interference, that could also slightly increase the output voltage.
....
...back at that time of 2008...

Does this mean anything? Not to me.
2008 is YESTERDAY - you talk like it is pre-Maxwell.

Your posts are really almost unintelligible - can you clarify at all? Is this an ESL problem? Maybe you can post this 'old document from 2008' so we can try and unravel it all.