Took me a while to figure this out, but I think I finally got my head wrapped around the concept.

We all "think" we know how transformer turns ratios work right? Simple stuff, step-up, step-down right, all based on the number of turns for the primary and secondary? Not so fast though, there's more to it...

Let's take a simple example. We have a step-up transformer, ten turns primary; 20 turns secondary. In this configuration the output voltage doubles and the current is cut in half. If we flip this transformer around and use the secondary as the input and the primary as the output, the voltage is cut in half and the current doubles. Easy peasy, but why does this happen?

For starters we assume a common core with a single flux path loop for the magnetic field to travel around/through. This assumption with strong coupling between the coils and core is what makes the numbers work out the way they do.

When we energize a transformer and put our volt meter on the output, we see the maximum EMF the transformer is capable of based on the input. If we increase the number of secondary turns, the voltage rises. If we lower the number of secondary turns, the voltage decreases. It's the voltage that drives things here. The number of turns becomes a multiplier, since we know each turn contributes a certain portion of the total EMF the transformer outputs. Voltage is the easy part to this, amperage is where things get interesting...

To even measure amperage, it is assumed we have a closed electrical circuit. But when we close the circuit on a secondary of a transformer, we do something quite unwanted in the process. By closing the circuit, the secondary of our transformer begins to produce an opposing magnetic field to our primary. The question we need to ask is: How much of an opposing magnetic field? That my friend comes from how many turns are on the secondary. If there is only one turn on the secondary and say 100 turns on the primary, the opposing field we produce isn't very strong and does very little to the magnetic field in the core produced by the primary. But now lets make the secondary have 100 turns, same as the primary. Now what happens? Can you see it? The load we put on the secondary and the number of turns on the secondary is real amp-turns that will be opposing the amp-turns of the primary. So the current limitation is a direct result of Lenz Law, plain and simple. By loading our secondary we make the primary become less efficient at producing a magnetic field. Here lies the problem. The loading is instantaneous. The exact moment we load the secondary is the exact moment we clobber the magnetic field produced by the primary. The more turns we put on the secondary, the worse we make things.

What I want you to comprehend here is this: The magnetic field produced by the primary is there for the taking, but when we start adding turns to the secondary we destroy this field. What did Tom Bearden tell us? "Don't destroy the dipole!" In other words, don't allow Lenz Law to affect the primary.

So let's imagine we have a mechanical means to prevent any magnetic field produced by the secondary from reaching the primary. Next, let's put lots of turns on the secondary and, let's use large wire able to handle lots of current. Splendid right? What would the obvious characteristic be of this kind of transformer? I'll give you hint. This transformer would only pass electrical energy in one direction. The other thing about this transformer is that it simply would not obey normal transformer turns ratio calculations. Why? Well, as we concluded above it's Lenz Law that limits how much energy can push through a conventional transformer. With this transformer we can step-up the voltage to high levels AND we can have it push a lot of current since the opposing magnetic field never gets back to the primary to weaken the field strength. Voltage AND current? Yeah, that's Watts, that's real power. So I imagine by now you're asking yourself, "Sounds like some kind of impossible magic transformer." Maybe and maybe not.

Suppose we take two pot-cores, wind as many turns as we can get onto the bobbins for these cores. Try to use a fairly heavy gauge wire, though it's not all that necessary if we can get the output voltage quite high. Next, take a pair of C-cores (two make a set) and sandwich the pot-cores between the two C-core halves. The pot-cores will contain the secondaries. Then on one or both C-cores we wind the primaries.

The idea here is that the secondaries have their own flux path. When current is produced in the secondaries, the magnetic field created by this current circulates within the pot-cores and does not get back to the C-cores where the primary flux is circulating. What you may notice here is that some of the primary flux will leak around the outside of the pot-cores. This is okay. It's the flux that goes through the center of the pot-core that will induce a voltage in the secondary windings. With this concept in mind, let's turn to how we drive this device...

First, think about a normal tank circuit with an inductor and a capacitor. If we put this tank circuit into resonance we will notice the voltage and current stabilize 90 degrees out of phase. This is typically classified as reactive power and doesn't cost us much to produce. However, there is real amperage there and that amperage creates a real magnetic field. If we take our Anti-Lenz transformer and connect a capacitor to the primary and push it into resonance, magnetic flux will begin to flow in the C-cores and pass through the pot-cores. The secondaries in the pot-cores will produce a real EMF. That EMF can drive a real load and regardless of that load, the primary flux will never be impeded. The phase angle between voltage and current on the primary will stay at 90 degrees, just as though there was no secondary at all.

Yes, I'm theorizing here, but Thane Heins was onto a very similar concept. His BiToroid Transformer (BiTT) was an attempt to minimize the dreaded Lenz Law. My concept uses simple off-the-shelf cores and can be stood-up fairly easy as a proof of concept. Keep in mind this one thing: If it is possible to get 1 Watt of output power while consuming only 0.9 Watts of input power, we're off to the races...