Body
Hi Lutz,
This is Tesla's current regulating transformer or ferro resonant transformer. Tesla used a ring core with an extra ferro (iron) layer on top (torus) as the magnetic shunt. Other ways are by using E-I or double E cores with the windings placed at the top and bottom of the window and then separated by the magnetic shunt in between the top and bottom coils.
Look up regulating transformer for more info (https://patents.google.com/?q=current&q=regulating&q=transformer&q=G05F3%2f06 https://patents.google.com/?q=current&q=regulating&q=transformer&q=G05F3%2f06).
Regards
Ole
---In [email protected], <lutzliebers@...> wrote :
This is a message to those who are inclined to deal with OU.
Personally I prefer sources which directly point to THE MASTER, instead to
followers like Bedini, Kohler, Kromrey, Muller, Murray, Smith and many
others, no matter how much they are capable.
In many of those cases only an assumption is possible that their inventions
can be derived from the master.
In the following patent, https://patents.google.com/patent/US433702A/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US433702A/en
the master's statement from 1890 is quite interesting to me,
quote:
"This invention is an improvement in electrical transformers or converters,
and has for its main objects the provision of means for securing, first,
a phase difference between the primary and secondary currents adapted
to the operation of my alternating-current motors and other like purposes,
and, second, a constant current for all loads imposed upon the secondary."
end quote
If "const. current" was applicable to the primary side, for me that sounds
like smoking Lenz in the pipe. But does the absence of Lenz's law mean OU
in any case?
If there is someone trying to understand this patent, I would appreciate
being able to learn his opinion on the marked sentence in red.
Lutz