Electron Reversing Device

[MileHigh]

Tinman:

I like Poynt's suggestion for putting three diodes in series to emulate an LED.  An LED is a diode with a larger voltage drop than a regular diode so that should work fine in most cases.  I ran my first ever simulation where I only used a single diode to keep it simple the first go round.  In most cases it should be quite accurate.  The higher voltage drop of three diodes in series will burn off about as much energy as an LED.

The simulator does not have a BPC, but you have to ask yourself what a BPC really is.  It's just an inductor with a higher amount of capacitance in parallel with the inductor as compared to a regular inductor.  I am under the assumption that the capacitance is still minuscule for a BPC in comparison to the inductance of the BPC and the capacitance only comes into play at very high frequencies.  You can try adding some parallel capacitance to the simulation as part of the experimenting.  The key point being that BPCs and "Rodin coils" are still fundamentally inductors and they will behave like inductors.  Have you ever seen someone do a clip where they try to compare a BPC versus a regular coil to look for differences between the two?  I have never seen one myself.  So, with the "cooler heads prevail" line of thinking there is no reason to assume ahead of time that a BPC is fundamentally different from a regular coil.

The magnetic field that surrounds the Earth will not affect the circuit.  The basic rule is that only changing magnetic fields will affect a coil and the Earth's magnetic field is static and unchanging.  So there is no reason for the simulation to factor in the Earth's magnetic field.

For all practical intents and purposes, the simulation is very very accurate and if you have the right component values and know how to do the modelling and use the software at an expert level then the simulation will be deadly accurate.

So when I ran the "Beta Tinman" simulation I could see where I think I made my mistakes with respect to my analysis of your circuit.  Getting the circuit more fine tuned will confirm that and I will be able to revise my description of how the circuit operates.  We need to know more about the square wave generator circuit that you are using to make the simulation more accurate.  Is it the same device you were using earlier or is it something new?  Does it still have the trimpot to adjust the output level?  It's important to know the output impedance of the square wave generator so that you can put the same resistance in the simulator.  All that you really need to do is measure the square wave generator output voltage unloaded.  Then you find a load resistance that makes the square wave generator output voltage drop about 10%.  Just let us know the voltage drop and the resistance you used and then we can then calculate the output impedance of the square wave generator.

MileHigh

[poynt99]

The schematic is correct other than the two diode's-which need to be LED's.

Thanks.

Although LED's are a diode,they have a completely different effect on a circuit.
A normal diode will not burn off or remove energy as such that an LED dose.

LEDs typically have a larger forward voltage than diodes, so yes they will dissipate more power.

Have you tested this latest circuit with diodes (2 or 3 in series) in place of the LEDs? If not, how can you be certain that LEDs are required in your circuit in order to produce the observed effect?

This brings me to some questions i must ask about your sim tests.
If the simulator dosnt have an LED,and you have to make something that simulates an LED-how accurate will it be?

The sim does have LED models, but I haven't had much success with them in other circuits. For accuracy, I compare wave forms from the actual circuit, to that I obtain in the simulator.

Dose your simulator have a BPC or is it just plain inductors you use?
Dose the simulator take into account the magnetic field that surrounds the earth,and the effect that this may have on the BPC?

The sim has plain inductors and transformers. I don't believe I have ever claimed that the inductor in my circuit would accurately simulate the BPC.

Simulators may be great for every day electronic setup testing,but as we are trying to gather extra energy from our surrounding's-like the earths magnetic field,energy from the vacume-all that jazz,then i think the sim should take all this into account if it were to be accurate.

Outside influences can be accounted for in a simulation, but one must prove that they are actually contributing something to the circuit first, wouldn't you agree?

The point of performing a simulation in relation to observed anomalous effects, is to determine if the effects are in fact anomalous. To repeat what I've said before; if I can reproduce the observed effects in a simulation with standard circuitry, then I must conclude there is no anomaly. Thus far I have not been able to reproduce your latest wave forms. But I haven't given up yet.

For me to go any further on this setup,i will need to get myself a two channel scope-so as i can see both scope traces on both output resistors at the same time.

Indeed, that would be of great help.

I also fail to see how the voltage across r1 leveling out very slightly across the second division on the scope,can be equal to the voltage across r3 to go up to the 3rd division on the scope.

Sometimes it comes down to splitting hairs to reveal the true result. Don't dismiss the notion that a careful array of measurements may be required for this circuit.

But i will say this-i am still learning,and all your information and explination's i do take very seriously.
This is how we learn.But until i understand as to what is actualy happening-i keep on serching.

Many of my more in-depth posts you don't respond to, so that's good to know.

[poynt99]

Let's split some hairs 

I took your scope shots and analysed them. The current through the resistor is equal to the voltage across it, just as you have said. So I have computed the number of divisions peal-to-peak that each wave form exhibits to see is there is in fact a discrepancy somewhere. I looked at the input 1 Ohm, then the other two 1 Ohms resistors, representing the positive and negative sides of the current. Since all the resistors are 1 Ohm, we can simply compare the number of divisions on the oscilloscope screen in each measurement.

First, let's look at the measurements without the coil connected:
Input side is 3.8 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Positive side is 1.8 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Negative side is 1.9 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.

All being equal, the input side should equal the sum of the other two:
3.8 = 1.8 + 1.9 => 3.8(Input) = 3.7(sum of outputs)

Of course they should be entirely equal, but there is going to be some small error due to the method used to compute the divisions.


Now, let's look at the circuit with the coil connected:
Input side is 3.7 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Positive side is 1.6 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Negative side is 2.2 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.

All being equal, the input side should equal the sum of the other two:
3.7 = 1.6 + 2.2 => 3.7(Input) = 3.8(sum of outputs)

Of course they should be entirely equal, but there is going to be some small error due to the method used to compute the divisions.

See the scope shots below...

[poynt99]

Let's see how the simulation looks. 

With my simulated LED's, the wave forms track fairly close.

Performing a similar exercise as above by comparing the input to output currents, we have:

Input is +16.17mA, and -16.39mA
Positive is +16.16mA and -4.49mA
Negative is +2.7uA and -11.90mA

Comparing the positive side, we have 16.17mA = 16.16mA + 2.7uA => 16.17mA(Input) = 16.16mA(sum of outputs).

Comparing the negative side, we have -16.39mA = -4.49mA - 11.90mA => -16.39mA(Input) = -16.39mA(sum of outputs).

@All, from this and the last post, draw your own conclusions as to whether you think tinman's circuit is exhibiting anomalous behaviour or not.

[conradelektro]

I conclude from poynt99's analysis of the scope shots and his simulation that the alleged anomaly stems from the measurements with Digital Multi Meters.

The DMMs can not accurately represent the power draw (probably due to the rather high frequency of the signal). Only good scope measurements over shunts allow a meaningful interpretation.

Is that correct?

Nice simulation and analysis of the scope shots. I downloaded "PSpice student", but it has a very steep learning curve. So, it will take me some time to use it properly.

Greetings, Conrad