Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Custom Search

[Steven Dufresne]

1)  the 2000 turns on Toroid 1 is meant for one side of the core, say on its left side and there is also 2000 turns on its right side,  so that all together Toroid 1 has got 4000 turns?  (Because you wrote 2000 turns per secondary coil and you also wrote each toroid has  two secondary coils, right?)

That's correct, you read it right. I don't have the answer to your second question.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org

[gyulasun]

1)  the 2000 turns on Toroid 1 is meant for one side of the core, say on its left side and there is also 2000 turns on its right side,  so that all together Toroid 1 has got 4000 turns?  (Because you wrote 2000 turns per secondary coil and you also wrote each toroid has  two secondary coils, right?)

That's correct, you read it right. I don't have the answer to your second question.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org

Steve,  thank you for confirming the number of turns question.  Re my second one, maybe Thane will be kind to answer.
I would have one more question, what is the DC resistance of the 4000 turn coil on Toroid 2 and of the 5500 turn coil on Toroid 3? 
Thank you for taking your time.

rgds,  Gyula

[johnnyl]

Ok, I've got some more questions:

Steve:
- When you say the toroid 1 output is appox. 12W out, you are saying that each of the two secondary coils of toroid 1 are giving 6W out, right?  Same with toroid 2 having 12W out per secondary and toroid 3 having 15W out per secondary, right?

Anyone:
- I have been trying to find information on the web describing the relationship between the primary and secondary coil of a transformer and how the back emf from the secondary affects the primary.  I am looking for this so that I can understand how a magnetically isolated primary, as in Thanes design, will differ from a regular transformer.  It would help me to see equations pertaining to this so I can get a quantitative idea of the effect and consequences.  So far, I have only found information referring to the back EMF of the primary coil inducing current in the secondary, but no discussion of the consequences of the induced back EMF of the secondary and the effect or role it plays on the primary.

Even when I read about load losses in a transformer, I have not seen any mention of the back EMF from a secondary and it's effect on a primary being a source of concern.  Documentation I have read so far lists winding resistance as the major load loss factor.  Having said that, if we are to continue increasing the windings on the secondary legs, are we also not increasing the winding resistance proportionally?  Since I haven't found any equations describing the beneficial effect of a magnetically isolated primary, how do these competing and oppositional factors compare to one another in magnitude?  For instance, is the magnetic isolation of the primary (a beneficial effect) stronger than that of increased winding resistance (a detrimental effect)?

If anyone has web links handy which address any of the questions, please post them so I can educate myself some more...  Thanks...

According to what I have read, an ideal transformer with no losses should have Power_in = Power_out.  Given the rough numbers Thane gave to Steven and Luc (which they can confirm or update later), the efficiencies of toroid 1, 2, and 3 are approximately: (12W/50W =) 24%, (24W/50W =) 48%, and (30W/50W =) 60%.  Assuming I have calculated this correctly (please correct me if I am wrong) I have a few questions:

- Transformers are supposed to be highly efficient (up to 99.75%).  Does it make sense that toroid 1, 2 and 3 could have losses of 76%, 52% and 40% respectively?  I've never built a transformer or tested any so I don't know what would be a normal loss range for a transformer of this sort.

- Obviously the efficiency of the toroidal transformer is increasing as N2 increases, but why?  With more copper the winding resistance is also increasing as N2 increases, so why is the efficiency going up?  What am I not understanding?  Is this due to the effect of the magnetically isolated primary?  (Afterthough: Hmm...  Could the increase in effeciency be because like the Power_waste = I^2*R equation used for electrical transmission lines, the efficiency goes up in this transformer as voltage goes up and therefore current goes down thus minimizing Power_waste?)

Johnny

[Steven Dufresne]

I would have one more question, what is the DC resistance of the 4000 turn coil on Toroid 2 and of the 5500 turn coil on Toroid 3? 

By DC resistance, do you mean connecting the probes of a multimeter to the wire ends and setting it to measure resistance? If not, tell me how to do it. If so, read on...

You opened up a can of worms. :-) I think there are issues with the coils on Toroid 3 so I can give you an estimated answer now and need more information before I can complete the measurements.

For Toroid 1, secondary 1: 25.71 ohms measured
For Toroid 1, secondary 2: 25.63 ohms measured
For Toroid 2, secondary 1: 53.08 ohms measured
For Toroid 2, secondary 2: 53.04 ohms measured
For Toroid 3, secondary 1: 73.7 ohms estimated
For Toroid 3, secondary 2: 73.7 ohms estimated

First off, if you look closely at the photos, you'll see that there are lots and lots of wires coming out of the coils. That's because the coils are wound 1000 turns at a time. Then the ends are connected up in series (well some were connected already, some I connect.) So for Toroid 1's secondary one, there are two 1000 turns wires and four ends. Connecting two of those ends gives a single 2000 turn winding. For Toroids 2 and 3, the actual turns are done with 24 AWG wire but the ends are different colored 22 AWG. So for the first 1000 turns, one end is a black 24 AWG wire and the other end is a white 24 AWG wire. I think it's done this way so that a wiring table can be made up and they can be connected in the right order. The partial wiring table I have for Toroid 3 is:
black - white (so these are the colors of the ends for one 1000 turn wire)
brown - orange
red - yellow
blue - gray
... and then there are striped wires for which I don't have a diagram and they aren't all connected. So I connect white with brown, orange with red, yellow with blue, ...

QUESTION 1: does the order matter? Can I connect white with red, yellow with brown, orange with blue instead? I ask because some are connected differently on the two secondaries (e.g. secondary 1, gray with striped red but secondary 2, gray with striped blue.) If the order doesn't matter then that may be why they're different.

QUESTION 2: does the direction matter? For example, when connecting the first two can I go black with orange instead of white with brown? It seems to matter since if on secondary one I connect them as above then my meter goes a little crazy but if I go with yellow - red instead of red - yellow then it's fine. Note that when I measure the turns individually with no wires connected then each is around 13.4 ohms, except for one of the stripped pairs which gives infinity. The meter is a Fluke 187 true RMS digital multimeter. On the resistance setting with beeping turned off, it keeps flashing "-0L kohm" and the bar graph keeps going off scale and repeating that display. With the beeping turned on, it correctly displays 41.2 ohms (approx. 3 x 13.4) but beeps every half second or so.

Anyway, to estimate Toroid 3 resistances, I took the first 1000 turn wire and measured its resistance, 13.4 ohms. I then did (13.4 / 1000) * 5500 = 73.7 ohms.

I wonder who had these Toroids before me because these resistance measurements are all I've done so far and there are definately issues.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org

[Heinstein]

Dear All,

I am responding to: aether22

?It would seem to me that the only way this can work is if indeed each secondaries flux shorts through the other* and this would leave little in the way of any net field from either of the secondaries freeing them up to have more ampere-turns than the field provided by the primary without canceling out the primary.?

Fluxes don?t CANCEL ? but they do ADD. You cannot cancel opposing fluxes inside ferromagnetic material, it is impossible because flux always follow the path of least reluctance ? which would be air once saturation is reached. Notice the directions of PRIMARY FLUX 1 and INDUCED SECONDARY 2 FLUX  (BI - Toroid Transformer NYKOLAI 2.jpg) in the transformer diagrams are in the same direction and are ADDATIVE so NET FLUX can only increase.

If this were not true then there would be no such thing as Lenz?s Law because the magnet field entering a coil of wire would be cancelled by the induced field exiting.

Lenz's Law
When an emf is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced emf is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the change which produces it. The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant. In the examples below, if the B field is increasing, the induced field acts in opposition to it. If it is decreasing, the induced field acts in the direction of the applied field to try to keep it constant.
 
?Another thought is that if the secondaries don't create a magnetic or inductive field then they should I think have a 90 degree phase relationship with the primary as opposed to a 180 degree phase relationship in a normal transformer. (except when it's unloaded then normal transformers show a 90 deg relationship)?

Using a purely resistive load (for now) the power factor for the secondaries is 1 (current and voltage in phase) ? which is also in phase with the primary.  Perhaps Steve and Luc can come to the lab on Tuesday with the ?small? toroid 1 and we can verify this on my watt/power factor meter.  I have already confirmed this for myself but I might still be wrong.

You can also see from the Toroid Coil Evolution diagrams ? that FLUXES DON?T CANCEL BUT THEY DO ADD ? if they did cancel the Toroid Generator application would not work but indeed it does.

To Gyula?s question:

?2) When the load tests were performed how much input energy increase has been noticed  on the watt meter in the moment of connecting the load to the secondary coils?  Putting it otherwise: the 50W input includes already the (possible) reflective effect of the load and if so then how much Watt the 50W input power decreases to when the load is disconnected??

None or virtually no primary power increase from no load to full load (short circuit). If the primary power goes up then your primary reluctance is too low and secondary Back EMF is causing it to go up ? time to make a new primary ? either with less area in the core ? less primary turns ? or a lower grade core material or increase the relative permeability of the secondary (which is our choice so we can get away with less copper and have a greater output as well).

The primary must not deviate from it?s 50 W no load value if it does something is amiss.

Note: The primary will respond (slightly) to the increase in flux in the secondary as load is applied because the reluctance of the secondary is increasing as the load on the secondaries is increased.

Cheers
Thane

[Heinstein]

Dear Johnny,

?I am looking for this so that I can understand how a magnetically isolated primary, as in Thanes design, will differ from a regular transformer.  It would help me to see equations pertaining to this so I can get a quantitative idea of the effect and consequences.  So far, I have only found information referring to the back EMF of the primary coil inducing current in the secondary, but no discussion of the consequences of the induced back EMF of the secondary and the effect or role it plays on the primary.?

In a conventional transformer the Back EMF induced magnetic field from the secondary MUTUALLY couples back to the primary - reduces the primary impedance - and as a result - the primary draws more current from the source - which in turn increases the flux delivered from the primary to the secondary - which regulates the voltage across the load.  Without this mutual coupling the secondary voltage would collapse under load.

?how a magnetically isolated primary, as in Thanes design, will differ from a regular transformer?

An isolated primary as in my design will not allow the primary current magnitude to deviate from a NO LOAD level because there is an asymmetrical coupling:

PRIMARY to SECONDARY 
and 
SECONDARY to SECONDARY
but
NO SECONDARY to PRIMARY.

A conventional transformer REQURES this MUTUAL coupling or they would not be able to supply power to a load effectively.

The design criteria has 2 necessities:

1)
A blind? primary which does not respond to secondary loading.
2)
Two secondaries which are mutually coupled as to provide voltage self regulation.
Secondary 1 into Secondary 2 and vice versa.

We have proven our ability to do both of the above so far in our lab testing ? but have not identified the upper limits yet.

?Having said that, if we are to continue increasing the windings on the secondary legs, are we also not increasing the winding resistance proportionally?  Since I haven't found any equations describing the beneficial effect of a magnetically isolated primary, how do these competing and oppositional factors compare to one another in magnitude? ?

Increasing the number of secondary turns ? increases the secondary induced voltage across the load. Power = V^2/R.

So for us we have not found the upper limits of our design simply because we ran out of room on our toroid cores. So now we are computer modeling the whole thing so we can change parameters more rapidly and find the ideal ?recipe?. If in fact there is one to find?

You won?t find any equations describing this because no one has ever done it before and we are writing the equations as we go along but the hardest part is ?forgetting what we have learned? about traditional transformer theory because it gets in the way. 
?For instance, is the magnetic isolation of the primary (a beneficial effect) stronger than that of increased winding resistance (a detrimental effect)??

We don't know the answer to that yet. What we do know is as we increase the number of turns we increase the power output - how far is anybody's guess right now. This design is weird because increasing the number of turns increases the induced voltages in the secondaries but it also increases the impedance of the secondaries as well ? so if you go too high the secondary magnetic field?s required to regulate the voltage drops and so too does the output power.

That is why we are increasing the relative permeability of out toroid core to take advantage of its multiplication effect on our Back EMF induced field. See Solenoid Magnetic Field Calculation diagram.

That is of course unless Steve and Luc make a nice efficient primary and make the modeling exercise moot.

Cheers
Thane

[M@rcel]

That is why we are increasing the relative permeability of out toroid core to take advantage of its multiplication effect on our Back EMF induced field.

Welcome to this forum. I hope you'll feel at home soon!

Can you tell us what core materials you are investigating?

Marcel

[Heinstein]

Dear Steve,

START - END

black - white
brown - orange
red - yellow
blue ? gray

"QUESTION 1: does the order matter? Can I connect white with red, yellow with brown, orange with blue instead? I ask because some are connected differently on the two secondaries (e.g. secondary 1, gray with striped red but secondary 2, gray with striped blue.) If the order doesn't matter then that may be why they're different".

ANSWER 1:  
YES just follow the START ? END directions.
Ignore the stripes.

QUESTION 2: does the direction matter? For example, when connecting the first two can I go black with orange instead of white with brown?

ANSWER 2

Black is a START ? Orange is an END
You need to connect:  END, START, END, START and so on?
Get it wrong and you cancel out some current.

"It seems to matter since if on secondary one I connect them as above then my meter goes a little crazy but if I go with yellow - red instead of red - yellow then it's fine. Note that when I measure the turns individually with no wires connected then each is around 13.4 ohms, except for one of the stripped pairs which gives infinity."   
THIS IS THE ONE WITH THE BROKEN WIRE I TOLD YOU ABOUT.

1ST verify that each wire START and END shows resistance and is not broken i.e infinite resistance.
Then connect the wires in series as shown above. Take your time and double check your connections. If you and Luc were doing "Dukes of Hazard" on the way home you may have broken some more wires as well.

"The meter is a Fluke 187 true RMS digital multimeter. On the resistance setting with beeping turned off, it keeps flashing "-0L kohm" and the bar graph keeps going off scale and repeating that display. With the beeping turned on, it correctly displays 41.2 ohms (approx. 3 x 13.4) but beeps every half second or so I wonder who had these Toroids before me because these resistance measurements are all I've done so far and there are definately issues."

Only me ? your meter is not used to measuring such a high impedance with remnant flux.
Remember Luc's capacitor storing voltage well inductors store magnetic fields - and remnant flux which freaks out your meter.

So get the flux outa here and...
Carry on!

Cheers
Thane

[aether22]

First johnnyl, I am not sure that even normal transformers can't be OU.
I also can't see where the secondary removes energy from the primary but I can see how it effects it.
It opposes the primaries magnetic field (in effect canceling it although I'm unsure how it effects saturation and maybe cancel is the wrong term but inductivly it is true) and since the only thing stopping massive current flow through the primary is it's self induction once you reduce that more current flows which you need because otherwise you'd never get more out of the secondary than the tiny no load energy through the primary.

Now what must somehow cause the primary to lose energy must be a very slight phase difference between the primary and the secondary, it must not be precisly 180 degreed and that might do it.
But maybe that's not it, maybe transformers are overunity but due to their design they can't output more than is flowing through (but not 'used by' the primary any more than a simple coil uses energy to produce a magnetic field, it needs energy flowing but doesn't use it up), maybe if you made the primary a resonant tank circuit and reduced various losses you could just trickle energy in?

Still chances are someone would have noticed if transformers didn't use energy riiight? (however if it's not 180 degrees but out by a bit then the secondary will be inducing a counter voltage into the primary that will ensure it loses energy, I just can't be sure that it keeps pace as required)

Now I'm going to quote Thane and put my reply throughout in a different colour.

Fluxes don’t CANCEL They do in air as in a bucking bifilar coil and the same wound over a steel core would have no effect, sure both are there but the effects are equal and opposite– but they do ADD. You cannot cancel opposing fluxes inside ferromagnetic material As I mentioned above the reason more current flows through a primary when a secondary is loaded is because the secondary creates the opposite magnetic field canceling the self induction that was keeping the current to a low level, it is impossible because flux always follow the path of least reluctance – which would be air once saturation is reached Who says saturation has to be reached just because you have 2 opposing fields?. Notice the directions of PRIMARY FLUX 1 and INDUCED SECONDARY 2 FLUX  (BI - Toroid Transformer NYKOLAI 2.jpg) That pic seems to only show the primaries magnetic field Edit: having studied it again I see what you are saying but you are forgetting each secondaries effect on it's self which is to oppose the flux of the the pri and other sec, but Demo_Part_2_-_Toiroid_Coil_Evolution_B.jpg  diagram 5 shows precisly what i mean, you have the blue flux from the primary going down both halves and you has red from the secondaries going CW & CCW in equal proportions meaning that the secondary is in effect unable to respond to the primaries magnetic field in the transformer diagrams are in the same direction and are ADDATIVE so NET FLUX can only increase.[/color]

You have really lost me, I mean we seem to be on the same page because I can see how such a setup would mean that the secondary would have no load on the primary and furthermore would not reduce the primaries field inside the toroid meaning that you can have more turns to get more power as you claim.

If this were not true then there would be no such thing as Lenz’s Law because the magnet field entering a coil of wire would be cancelled by the induced field exiting.

Induced fields do cancel, only not entierly.
The magnetic field in a transformer where the primary and secondary are wound close together stays constant regardless of if there is a load or not because the secondary cancels most of the field created by the primary, the primary responds by putting in more current, enough to keep everything the same. Though actually due to resistance and other factors the more current you put through the weaking the magnetic field gets, especially if resistance is playing a part is reducing primary currents.

The thing to remember is that even when no current is drawn from the secondary the voltage induced by the primary in the primary is enough to keep say 240 volts from putting the 50 amps it would want to put through and instead limit it to possibly milliamps. (in otherwords the magnetic field is generating a voltage close to 240v even with only ma of current)

So as the secondary draws current it opposes the field but the primary pushes a bit more current (or ampere turns in a non 1:1 ratio) then ther sec., a few more miliamps and so the magnetic field remains much as it was under no load. (primary 50ma and secondary 0 ma creates the same net magnetic field in the core as primary 5050ma and secondary 5000ma)

Lenz's Law
When an emf is generated by a change in magnetic flux according to Faraday's Law, the polarity of the induced emf is such that it produces a current whose magnetic field opposes the change which produces it.
Agreed The induced magnetic field inside any loop of wire always acts to keep the magnetic flux in the loop constant. In the examples below, if the B field is increasing, the induced field acts in opposition to it. If it is decreasing, the induced field acts in the direction of the applied field to try to keep it constant.
Agreed
“Another thought is that if the secondaries don't create a magnetic or inductive field then they should I think have a 90 degree phase relationship with the primary as opposed to a 180 degree phase relationship in a normal transformer. (except when it's unloaded then normal transformers show a 90 deg relationship)”

Using a purely resistive load (for now) the power factor for the secondaries is 1 (current and voltage in phase) – which is also in phase with the primary.  Perhaps Steve and Luc can come to the lab on Tuesday with the “small” toroid 1 and we can verify this on my watt/power factor meter.  I have already confirmed this for myself but I might still be wrong.

While I'm not convinced it must be 90 degrees to the primary it would seem it probably should be.
The only reason it is 180 degrees normally is because while the voltage created in the secondary by the primary is at 90 degrees that wouldn't work because of the secondaries self induction.
But since the secondaries have no self induction (if they did you couldn't get more out more ampere turns than if flowing through the primary).

On a different subject I think there are 2 tests that everyone interested in this transformer should do as it is cheaper and easier than building a free energy machine.
Take a toroid (an iron powder one) and wind 2 secondaries on it as in thanes design, and then try 2 tests.
The first being to put a DC current through each so that thet create opposite flux directions and see how much of an external field there is, how strongly do they attract magetic materials? (compare it to the leaked flux when they are in attraction mode)
The second being to test the inductance of one of them, 2 of them in parallel then series. (being sure to try both attractive and repulsive modes)

Hopefuly no magnetic field is found in the first test and hopefully the self induction when they are in opposing series should be abnormally low or non existant.
If these tests come through then have a party because he's done it! The world is going to change and you then know that it's a good idea to morgauge the house and get into licencing and selling these things.

You can also see from the Toroid Coil Evolution diagrams – that FLUXES DON’T CANCEL BUT THEY DO ADD – if they did cancel the Toroid Generator application would not work but indeed it does.

Is it possible we mean different things by cancel and add?
From my perspective your device can only work if the secondaries fail to generate a net field in the core.

hmmm, it has just struck me that maybe by add you mean that the flux of the primary in secondary 2 and the flux of sec1 in sec2 are in the same direction and hence add which is true (but sec 2 is opposing the flux produced by the other 2 so it's still 1+1-1=1).

But I am looking at it as the field of sec 1 canceling any observible effect of sec 2's field on it's self and sec 2 doing the same for sec 1 leaving the primary to have the only net field in the core.

In either case it's the same equasion from a different perspective.

[Heinstein]

Dear Marcel,

Thanks, we are starting with the highest grade material available i.e. Superpermalloy and
working our way backwards until we establish the upper and lower limits for each variable and looking to find the best ?practical? mix which gives us the best performance possible at the best cost point on the computer and then we begin production.

Cheers
Thane

[Heinstein]

"Is it possible we mean different things by cancel and add? From my perspective your device can only work if the secondaries fail to generate a net field in the core.

hmmm, it has just struck me that maybe by add you mean that the flux of the primary in secondary 2 and the flux of sec1 in sec2 are in the same direction and hence add which is true (but sec 2 is opposing the flux produced by the other 2 so it's still 1+1-1=1).

But I am looking at it as the field of sec 1 canceling any observable effect of sec 2's field on it's self and sec 2 doing the same for sec 1 leaving the primary to have the only net field in the core.

In either case it's the same equation from a different  perspective.[/i]"

Dear aether22:

This is why I prefer to build prototypes and test my theories that way rather than endlessly debating back and forth?

Here are some actual facts that Luc and Steve ought to be able to corroborate soon.

When only  secondary 1 in the Bi ? Toroid Transformer is connected across a load the voltage across the load will be roughly 0.6 V ? with BOTH secondaries connected the voltage jumps to 150 V ? the primary is identical and fixed as is the load (so leave them out of the discussion for now).

As you can deduce from the above something is adding to the total output across the load.
I am saying it is the MUTUAL COUPLING of S1 MMF?s into S2 and vice versa and in fact it is the SECONARY NET FIELD in the core which makes it work.

We expect a huge increase in output when we increase the quality of our Toroid core material because our hysterisis curve will be much narrower.

Thane

[hartiberlin]

Hi Thane,
welcome to the forum.
Many thanks for coming over here and sharing your great work.
Finally an inventor who delivers !


Well, I just searched the patent database and found the old
patent from Steven L. Sullivan.
where he has patented already these kinds of toroidal
transformer designs.

Please have alook at it and compare to your setups.

@Steven.
Surely you have towatch out, how you connect all the coils
on the toroids, so that no windings voltages will cancel out.
Best is to feed one coil with some low voltage 60 Hz AC from
a normal transformer and mark all the polarities of the other coils, so you
will connect them right, when you hook then up in series or in parallel..

P.S: Still have to study all the latest stuff that was posted here.
Keep it coming !
Regards, Stefan-

[tao]

I thought that this might add some to the current discussions going on here. (Please excuse this post if anyone here finds it out of place.)

This patent by Markov is directly related to your current discussions on canceling flux and transformer setups...

Gennady MARKOV - 'Bidirectional Transformer'
Check the link here: http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm
Here is his patent here: http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/ca2224708.pdf


Here was an ensuing post exchange between BEP and I...

Exactly, and that is why THIS WORKS: http://rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm
A transformer where there are TWO primaries that DIRECTLY oppose each other and CANCEL/NULL the magnetic flux, YET, on the ONE secondary, there is OUTPUT POWER...

Windings ratios mean NOTHING for Markov's transformer...

This is new? Really, I am surprized.
In winding transformers it is common to wind from one end to the other and return the opposite direction and continue. This allows lower grade cores because the cancelling flux allows the core to remain closer to the ideal state of 'idle' - like an unloaded transformer. In old fashioned switchboard class metering separate phases were wound on the same core to improve precision. All three phases came out on the secondaries. And yes, going by the above experience - I already believed you can have separate magnetic circuits traveling through the same 'conductor' just like electric current flow.
There must be a difference but I don't see it in the text.

All in all, I thought it interesting and might add to the current discussions here.

[gyulasun]

By DC resistance, do you mean connecting the probes of a multimeter to the wire ends and setting it to measure resistance? If not, tell me how to do it. If so, read on...

Hi Steve,  Yes I meant by DC resistance the copper wires' electrical resistance and you did it nicely with the multimeter set to measure resistance , thank you very much.  Regarding your estimations on the resistance of coils on Toroid 3 must be well within the ballpark,  for the 5500 turn of coils are obviously wound as multilayer coils and the length of the turns gradually increase as the number of layers increase (this why the manufacturer could not wind more turns (8000) as requested.
Re your other questions on my questions, they were nicely answered by Thane. 

Thanks,  Gyula

[aether22]

Again Thane in black and I'm in blue.

Dear aether22:

This is why I prefer to build prototypes and test my theories that way rather than endlessly debating back and forth…

Bravo, I'm guilty of experimenting less than I ought.

Here are some actual facts that Luc and Steve ought to be able to corroborate soon.

When only  secondary 1 in the Bi – Toroid Transformer is connected across a load the voltage across the load will be roughly 0.6 V – with BOTH secondaries connected the voltage jumps to 150 V – the primary is identical and fixed as is the load (so leave them out of the discussion for now).

As you can deduce from the above something is adding to the total output across the load.

IMO the main reason is that you have a low reluctance path through which the primaries flux can escape (the unused secondary leg), if you have both secondaries connected and add a 3rd path where it can short without facing S1 or S2 it would and your voltage would drop again.
Of course also playing a significant part in this amplification is that once you have the 2 secondaries on the ampere turns on the secondaries need show no relation to the primary.
In the end I'm only guessing as to which is the main reason.

I am saying it is the MUTUAL COUPLING of S1 MMF’s into S2 and vice versa and in fact it is the SECONARY NET FIELD in the core which makes it work.

I don't believe that is the sole reason for the jump from .6v to 150v but I do believe it is a critical function of your transformer, without which you couldn't get more ampere turns out than the primary has even if it were OU.
In other words your transformer achieves 2 miracles, it protects the primary from the secondaries flux and it protects the secondaries from their own flux in effect so that their output need not be related to the primaries input.

You are right, it is S1's MMF coupling into S2 that makes S2 work so well, but S1's field at S2 is as strong and opposite to S2's field at S2. (as S2 must oppose the changing field brought about by S1 and P)

The secondaries flux isn't amplifying the induction as such but removing the counter induction a secondary normally creates, but the end result is the same.

Still this seems close to semantics really since we are both saying that the MMF from one secondary is boosting the output to the other secondary (only diff is I'm saying it's equal to that secondaries counter induction of it's self), the much bigger deal is that if you aren't lying or crazy you have likely pulled it off and we should all be having a huge celebration in your honor.

I've just got to figure if I want to test your motor discovery or your transformer discovery first.