standing wave coil frequency

[ltseung888]

See http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg19564;topicseen#msg19564

I now have two oscilloscopes and can tune or hunt for resonance with confidence.

Much background and experimental information is in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench.

Thank you for the helpful information.

[verpies]

See http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=1171.msg19564;topicseen#msg19564
I now have two oscilloscopes and can tune or hunt for resonance with confidence.
Much background and experimental information is in overunityresearch.com under the ltseung888 bench.
Thank you for the helpful information.

I looked at the experimental data at overunityresearch.com but could not register to reply there.

I noticed that you are multiplying the instantaneous voltage and current on the input and output side of your devices. 
I applaud you on this correct and accurate method of measuring power. If everyone was measuring power like this then there would be much less confusion.

Do you know if your oscilloscopes multiply Ch1 * Ch2 every sample by every sample before decimation and display?
...or do they multiply Ch1 * Ch2 after decimation/averaging and display?
This is an important question to answer from the standpoint of the power measurement accuracy.  Unfortunately many oscilloscopes do not multiply all of the the data that is sampled. Instead they multiply only the data that is decimated/integrated and displayed.
If your oscilloscope does not multiply every sample then it is useless for measuring high frequency power.

Also, I noticed that in that thread at overunityresearch.com you used the phrase "Power RMS".
If you are calculating a Root-Mean-Square of a power waveform (after instantaneous multiplication * voltage) then this RMS is a wrong function to use at that stage. 
You should calculate the regular arithmetical mean (average, AVG) of the power waveform to obtain the average power (RMS is a mistake here).

RMS values are useful to obtain e.g. the equivalent RI^2 heating value of current or as arguments to multiplying RMS(current)s * RMS(voltage), if the waveforms are sinusoidal and the phase relationship between them is known.

In other words:
WRONG:
RMS(voltage_inst * current_inst) = Average Power
AVG(voltage) * AVG(current) = Average Power

CORRECT:
voltage_inst * current_inst = Instantaneous Power
RMS(voltage) * RMS(current) * cos(Phi) = Average power (but only for sine waveforms)
AVG(voltage_inst * current_inst) = Average power (for any waveforms)

[ltseung888]

I looked at the experimental data at overunityresearch.com but could not register to reply there.

I noticed that you are multiplying the instantaneous voltage and current on the input and output side of your devices. 
I applaud you on this correct and accurate method of measuring power. If everyone was measuring power like this then there would be much less confusion.

Do you know if your oscilloscopes multiply Ch1 * Ch2 every sample by every sample before decimation and display?
...or do they multiply Ch1 * Ch2 after decimation/averaging and display?
This is an important question to answer from the standpoint of the power measurement accuracy.  Unfortunately many oscilloscopes do not multiply all of the the data that is sampled. Instead they multiply only the data that is decimated/integrated and displayed.
If your oscilloscope does not multiply every sample then it is useless for measuring high frequency power.

Also, I noticed that in that thread at overunityresearch.com you used the phrase "Power RMS".
If you are calculating a Root-Mean-Square of a power waveform (after instantaneous multiplication * voltage) then this RMS is a wrong function to use at that stage. 
You should calculate the regular arithmetical mean (average, AVG) of the power waveform to obtain the average power (RMS is a mistake here).

RMS values are useful to obtain e.g. the equivalent RI^2 heating value of current or as arguments to multiplying RMS(current)s * RMS(voltage), if the waveforms are sinusoidal and the phase relationship between them is known.

In other words:
WRONG:
RMS(voltage_inst * current_inst) = Average Power
AVG(voltage) * AVG(current) = Average Power

CORRECT:
voltage_inst * current_inst = Instantaneous Power
RMS(voltage) * RMS(current) * cos(Phi) = Average power (but only for sine waveforms)
AVG(voltage_inst * current_inst) = Average power (for any waveforms)

Thank you for your excellent comments.  I shall clarify the following points.

1.    My Atten Oscilloscope calculates the Ch1*Ch2 values at every sample.  Thus the Instantaneous Power value at any instant is equal to the instantaneous Voltage*Instantaneous Current.
2.    The Instantaneous current is actually the instantaneous voltage across a one ohm resistor.
3.    The Atten Oscilloscope also allows me to capture the actual time interval, Ch1 and Ch2 values in a CSV file.  The CSV file can be manipulated via the Microsoft Excel Program.
4.    To get a real understanding of what is happening, I usually compare the Output waveforms with the Input (Instantaneous voltage, current and power).
5.    In many instances, the Output Power Curve resembles a Standing Wave.  Standing waves are characteristics of resonance.  In all cases of Standing Waves at Output, the area within the standing wave (energy) is much higher than the Input Area.
6.    For accurate measurement, I normally use the arithmetic mean of the Ch1*Ch2 from the CSV file.  In addition, I can calculate the average positive area and/or the average negative area of the power curve. 
7.    For a perfect Standing Wave, the positive area will be identical to the negative area.  Thus the mean power value will be zero.  This is often confusing to engineers not familiar with Pulse- resonance circuits.  Sometimes, we can treat the positive area as energy going out and the negative area as energy feeding back.
8.    You can forget about my use of pp and rms calculations.  Such calculations are for training purposes only.  Instead of spending an hour on average manipulating the CSV, I let the students do simple comparisons with pp or rms values.
9.    In some early posts, I use the term Tseung FLEET Comparison Index pp or rms.  Such values are useful for comparing different FLEET prototypes or tuning on the same prototype.  You are right is saying that such results are not meaningful outside such comparisons.  They are useful specifically for my comparison purposes.
10. When I or my students do the tuning, we use two oscilloscopes.  One displays the Input Instantaneous values and the other displays the Output Instantaneous values.  The shape and the amplitude easily tells us whether we are near resonance.
11. The tuning for a given toroid can be based on varying the holes on the breadboard, the spacing of the wires, adding capacitors, resistors, LEDs, Diodes or other electronic components.   
So far, my best prototype results have COP > 100 based on the accurate CSV file calculations.  I shall provide more such data at overunityresearch.com under the bench of ltseung888.  The plan is to train as many person as possible on the basic technique and then go to the 100 watt range with different electronic components and larger toroids.

[verpies]

That pretty much clears up my concerns about your power measurement techniques.

I understand the concept when you write "Output Power Curve resembles a Standing Wave" but this phrase somehow rings wrong, because the Power Output Curve is a synthetic wave (a result of a calculation) that does not exist as an actual wave in your circuit because it does not represent something real, such as current or charge distribution in a helical winding or a transmission line.
I think it would be more correct to write  "Output Power Curve is indicative of a Standing Wave in ...". 
I hope you don't get offended at this semantic nit picking

Another subject: 
After all of your experimentation, can you elaborate on your observations about the relationship between:
1) Bulk/Lumped LC resonance.
2) Reflected wave resonance (a.k.a. standing wave)

As an example, notice that there is only one frequency at which the inductive and capacitive reactances are equal in lumped LC resonance HOWEVER there are many frequencies (harmonics) at which the reflected waves form standing waves.

Note for newbes:  See the attachment and the high school video demonstrating mechanical standing waves (caused by reflection) at different frequencies :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vdSP-580Vw

Also, see the electric standing waves in a real coil, visualized by a neon screwdriver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxp6wrh2Pqo

[ltseung888]

That pretty much clears up my concerns about your power measurement techniques.

I understand the concept when you write "Output Power Curve resembles a Standing Wave" but this phrase somehow rings wrong, because the Power Output Curve is a synthetic wave (a result of a calculation) that does not exist as an actual wave in your circuit because it does not represent something real, such as current or charge distribution in a helical winding or a transmission line.
I think it would be more correct to write  "Output Power Curve is indicative of a Standing Wave in ...". 
I hope you don't get offended at this semantic nit picking

Another subject: 
After all of your experimentation, can you elaborate on your observations about the relationship between:
1) Bulk/Lumped LC resonance.
2) Reflected wave resonance (a.k.a. standing wave)

As an example, notice that there is only one frequency at which the inductive and capacitive reactances are equal in lumped LC resonance HOWEVER there are many frequencies (harmonics) at which the reflected waves form standing waves.

cstanding waves (caused by reflection) at different frequencies :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vdSP-580Vw

Also, see the electric standing waves in a real coil, visualized by a neon screwdriver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jxp6wrh2Pqo

Thank you once again for the excellent comments and information.
I want to share the actual experimental observations with you in this post.
Please examine the four pictures.  We shall discuss the implications in thwe coming posts.  For now, do you agree that the Output Power Curve as shown on picture 2 contains more area (energy) as compared with the Input Power Curve?
Looking forward to your comments.