Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

Hi again!

I just found this calculator: http://www.vishay.com/resistors/pulse-energy-calculator/
...so I calculated the aproximate numbers for Tinman's scope shot in post #3097
The results are like so:

-for the positive side of the waveforms    Pavg = 1.875W
-for the negative side of the waveforms   Pavg = 0.4833W

...the results are aproximate as I said, and the change in the filament resistence is not accounted for...

Comments welcome.

Interesting,considering that both the average voltage values on the scope shot  across the globe and CSR are both negative.

[Dave45]

D2 recirculates magnetization energy around L1 when the transistor turns off.  If you remove D2 then the voltage on L1 will flyback with a big spike, while the voltage on L2 will flyback without much of a spike at all.  The V*T across L2 over time is zero.

D1 is interesting it stops the recirculating energy from hitting the battery, leaving only the path through the coil.

[TinselKoala]

Interesting,considering that both the average voltage values on the scope shot  across the globe and CSR are both negative.

What's the matter with that? A negative number (about -2.8V) times another negative number (about -0.190 mA) is a positive number (about 0.53 W). 

Perhaps the problem is that the Vishay calculator is telling you the averages across an entire period. That is, if you look at the positive portions of the peaks, they are about 1/5 of the entire period, and the negative portions are about 4/5 of the entire period. Mentally "squaring off" the pulses we can estimate that the positive portions of the waveforms account for about 13.5 V x 0.65 A x 0.2 = about 1.8 Watts average across the entire waveform, and the negative portions account for about -2.8 V x -0.190 A x 0.8 = about 0.43 W average across the entire waveform. Very roughly, since I'm just eyeballing the values and mentally squaring off the waveshapes.


There may be something else to consider as well. How does your scope compute those averages? Is it using the data displayed on the screen? Many scopes do just use the screen display to compute those averages. In that case errors can arise because of the number of periods and partial periods displayed. As you slow down the timebase to display more and more periods across the screen, do these average numbers change?

[TinselKoala]

@Drak: There are "good enough" current probes, and there are cheap (under 300 dollars) current probes. Good luck finding both qualities in the same probe.

Whatever you do get, you should do a comparison test, looking at the same current signal as measured by the probe, and simultaneously looking at the voltage drop across a good non-inductive current-viewing resistor. Has EMJunkie ever reported the results of such a calibration test for his inexpensive current probe?

[MarkE]

@Drak: There are "good enough" current probes, and there are cheap (under 300 dollars) current probes. Good luck finding both qualities in the same probe.

Whatever you do get, you should do a comparison test, looking at the same current signal as measured by the probe, and simultaneously looking at the voltage drop across a good non-inductive current-viewing resistor. Has EMJunkie ever reported the results of such a calibration test for his inexpensive current probe?

It is a shame that really good non contact DC/AC current probes plus amplifiers cost about $6000. for the set.