Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[verpies]

Verpies, could you take just a moment and try to explain what the secondary on the transformer has to do in order for power to pass out that direction versus just cycling back via the loss-less clamp windings.  Impedance is the word that comes to mind, but I'm having a bit of a hard time wrapping my head around the concept.  I understand what they are doing in an open circuit condition, but I'm not clear how they function when you have something connected to the secondary with an impedance mismatch.

In an ideal transformer the coupling coefficient between the primary and secondary is at unity, and the voltages and currents in them are determined by the Lenz law and turn ratio. The secondary acts as a perfect voltage source without the intrinsic self-inductance (because the self-inductance is consumed by the mutual inductance).
A reactive circuit (e.g. a cap) connected to the secondary will store the energy delivered by the secondary and feed it back at a later time.  At that time, the secondary will act as a primary and the turn-ratio will act in reverse, so the the back-transformed voltage will not be any higher than the voltage appearing originally at the primary primary and the clamps there will not activate.

The clamps (RCD or lossless) can activate only when the voltage across the primary exceeds 2*V_CC.  So for this to happen, the primary leakage inductance has to rebel or the energy that is reflected back by some reactive component at the secondary, has to be greater that the energy supplied at the primary. 
In case of RCD clamps/snubbers such energy would be just dissipated as heat.  In case of the non-dissipative clamps - it would be recycled to the input.

I'd like to point out that the clamping performance of an ideal RCD clamp/snubber is the same as the clamping performance of a non-dissipative clamp/snubber.  The difference is only how they get rid of the "unwanted energy". 
In practice real non-dissipative clamps clamp closer to the 2*V_CC level than real RCD clamps, which do not track the V_CC at all, because they depend on fixed-voltage components such as fixed-voltage Zeners, MOVs or TVS diode, etc... 
Unless you are lucky, it is very hard to set the RCD clamping level exectly to 2*V_CC, so most designers just settle for any clamping voltage that is above that but lower than the MOSFETs maximum drain-to-source blocking voltage, that these clamps are designed to protect.

All the desired transformer energy transfer and MOSFET switching happens below the 2*V_CC threshold.  If any oscillations or ringing happen below this threshold, the clamps will not activate (as if they did not exist).  If they had activated below this threshold, then they would be clamping/fighting the waveform generated by the MOSFETs and something would burn up.

[verpies]

   Verpies:  Yes, I understand about the "that's it and that all",  but what I'm more concerned about is comparing the outputs of the two different yoke/grenade circuits, not the inputs, although that's also of interest.  But, how do their outputs compare?

I don't know. I am still on the yoke circuit. Specifically it interest me why it produces these high frequency components wen fed with a waveform that does not contain any energy at these frequencies.  I need to understand that so my upcoming PLL circuit will not lock onto the wrong frequency.
Of course I realize that for any test of the input current to be meaningful, the output must be the same.

Didn't Itsu mention that the toroid yoke with the clamp windings did NOT work out, as it triggers that over-amp protection circuit in the PS???

Nothing worked with the "toroid yoke" because it had insufficient inductance.  When inductance is too low then current in the primary winding rises too fast and trips the 10A limiter.  That had nothing to do with the clamps.

Any new solutions to that same issue?  Like winding the Tv yoke with the normal windings, but adding thinner clamp winding, also. 

It's possible.  The clamp winding can be thinner because current flows through it only when a spike above 2*V_CC appears.  At other times it just sits the idly as if it was not there ...so the average current through it is quite low.

So, don't you think that a TV yoke should be tested for the clamp circuit, as well?

I do, and I believe that's what Itsu did initially before he tried the low permeability "toroid yoke".

[verpies]

i tried to measure 1 of my loss-less clamp TV-yoke primaries using the tracking generator/spectrum analyzer, but as it is new to me i could be doing it the wrong way.
The screenshot below shows what i believe to be the frequency response over a 100Mhz range (9KHz - 100MHz) of one of the primary coils.

I have not watched or analyzed your methodology yet, but the most common thing that can go wrong with these measurement is distortion of the tracking generator's output due to impedance mismatches and reflections.  The solution is to put a circulator or attenuator at the generator's output in order to isolate it from a misbehaving load.
Not normalizing the spectrum analyzer when the output cables are connected directly to the input cables (without the DUT), is another common rookie mistake (if an isolating attenuator is used - it should remain in place and participate in the normalization).

Applying DC to other transformer windings through a good choke, is another test that can be performed to see how the transformer's core responds at various magnetic fluxes.  Flux generated by such DC, has a different direction than the flux from external permanent magnets.

@All
Notice, how complex the frequency response of a simple yoke transformer is.
I expect the frequency response of the grenade coil to be even more complicated.

It is no wonder that it is so difficult to replicate with such unknown complexities.

If one of the "successful" Russian friends gave us a plots like this of their yoke and grenade - we could replicate this device in weeks.

[magpwr]

Hi Nick. I looked into that claim about the supposed Tesla self powering electric car a couple of years ago, and
it appears that this was just a story told back in the late sixties by some guy named 'Peter Savo' who claimed to
be a nephew of Tesla. Apparently Tesla never had any nephew named Peter Savo, and also apparently no actual evidence
has ever been found to back up this claim about the electric car. It would also appear also that Tesla never made
any mention about any such event as well. Seems to be just an unfounded story.

A summary can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla_electric_car_hoax

hi Void,

I am glad you have dug deep into Tesla history and remove confusion base on what people expect or would like to hear.

I don't recall any part of Tesla history there was "Overunity" mentioned.It is just people whom took "Tesla huge Transmitter" and thought it was overunity .

The fact remains unchanged "Tesla plan was to transmit energy for free" to the people but at the cost of  powering up the Tesla Transmitter which was sponsored by JP Morgan.

It was Tariel Kapanadze that inspired people like Akula,Vasmus and etc.

----------------------------------------------------------------
It seems human do have this weird tendency to alter information or unintentionally misinterpret written or spoken facts way before biblical time.

[Jeg]

Hi@all
This is my lossless layout. Still didn't find time to fix it. Some degree of high voltage spike is reduced when I touch my diode's heat sink. I'll try to make a drawing on how my coils are connected in case you see something unusual.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJnEqeZAYo