Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[tinman]

I watched test #2 and test #3.  I can see that you have a USB port so perhaps there is hope to reflash your firmware.

Test #3 was very good and well documented, and the 105% efficiency calculation amazes me because yet again, measurement uncertainties favour what looks like over unity.  It seems to happen all of the time, it's uncanny.  There doesn't seem to be a 50/50 split, it's more like a 98%-2% split favouring over unity when it comes to measurement uncertainties.

If I was in your shoes I would be looking to tigten up my measurements because the extra 5% is almost certainly well within your error tolerance.



Without changing anything, you can make a single resistance measurement and a single voltage measurement.  Then do the multiplication and you get an output power calculation with only two sources of error tolerance multiplied together.

Let's look at that multiplication in detail:  (x + delta_x) * (y + delta_y) = x*y + x*delta_y + y*delta_x + delta_x*delta_y

Everything highlighted in bold is part of the error tolerance.  The first two terms are significant and the third term is small.  And that's just for one multiplication.  You can see how the pancake of error tolerances can quickly become a big stack.

So please consider doing the same measurements but work on strategies for making them "tighter."  If you do that don't be surprised to see the "extra" 5% melt away.

Let's have a look at the secondary measurement for fun.  You make individual measurements of two resistors, so that's two sources of error tolerance.  Then you make two voltage measurements, which is another two sources of error tolerance.  Then you do two multiplications and one addition, which can compound the sources of error tolerance.  You end up with a pretty high stack of pancakes of error tolerance.

What i have done to eliminate measurement error.
1-use high value resistors to eliminate noise on the scope that you would see when using say 1 ohm resistors. This way the scope(that i calibrate before every test)will give us very accurate VRMS values.
2- Measure the resistance of each resister down to the first decimal,using the same meter
3- Making sure those resistors power ratings are well above that of which we are disipating across them.
4- use an online calculator to make those ohms law conversions--> http://www.onlineconversion.com/ohms_law.htm

5-use a calculator to confirm those measurements.
6- carry out the same sort of test,but use a DMM instead of the scope to make the measurements.
7-try different loads(such as the LED's),and confirm similar results.
8- carry out the same test over and over many times to confirm results.


P.S -there is also the fact that we have not yet taken into account the power(in the form of ohmic losses/ heat)being dissipated by both the primary and secondary coil's.
How might we go about that MH?.

[MileHigh]

I looked at your new clip and I see two issues.  I like the fact that you used the DMM measurements and were within the specified frequency range for the stated tolerance.

1.  You are still making a double set of measurements on the secondary instead of treating the two resistors in series as a single resistor and making a single set of measurements.

2.  I should have mentioned this one before.  You are not considering the power factor on the input due to the uncoupled stray inductance (primary to the secondary) in the transformer.   You are running at a fairly high frequency and the effects of that uncoupled stray inductance will likely be noticeable.  The opportunity to make that measurement in the primary is very easy.  You just have to place one scope channel across the R1 resistor and the other scope channel across the transformer primary, normalize the gains so the waveforms are the same amplitude, and then switch your scope display to X-Y.  I am making the assumption that the resistor R1 has negligible reactance itself at your excitation frequency.  You will see if there is a phase shift right away.  Any observed phase shift decreases the real input power.

These two simple steps will tighten up the measurements.

Beyond that, you can't make any assumptions about the error tolerances if you are going to be conservative.  It's just not good science to do that.

[MileHigh]

1-use high value resistors to eliminate noise on the scope that you would see when using say 1 ohm resistors. This way the scope(that i calibrate before every test)will give us very accurate VRMS values.

Excellent point.  I had thought about that too but did not get around to mentioning the possible issues about low value current sensing resistors and the resolution of your multimeters.

My hunch is that the power factor measurement may change the narrative.  Factoring in the resistive losses in the coils themselves would also be good practice.

It's always about questioning your results when you see something anomalous.  It's simply the way science works.  I am sure that you have read TK's treatise on that stuff and the scientific method dozens of times.

[tinman]

Excellent point.  I had thought about that too but did not get around to mentioning the possible issues about low value current sensing resistors and the resolution of your multimeters.

My hunch is that the power factor measurement may change the narrative.  Factoring in the resistive losses in the coils themselves would also be good practice.

It's always about questioning your results when you see something anomalous.  It's simply the way science works.  I am sure that you have read TK's treatise on that stuff and the scientific method dozens of times.

looking at the scope shot below,where the blue channel is across R1,and the yellow channel across R1 and the primary,would you not agree that there is next to none(if any) phase shift between current and voltage at 10KHz,and thus the power factor would have to be pretty spot on.

Now,how do we go about calculating power dissipated in the primary and secondary?.


Cheers
Brad

Edit-forgot the scope shot.

[tinman]

Just a question

If a device is calculating power using both wave forms/or voltage and current at once,then i agree that the power factor would play a part in the power calculations. But when we are measuring one wave form at a time,and calculating current and voltage separately,then multiplying to get our power,is that not bringing the two back into phase,and thus eliminating the power factor from the phase shift?.