Confirmation of OU devices and claims

[a.king21]

Point taken, Itsu.  I was referring to Rick's  video on the subject and the ultimate claims.


Benfr:  Can you let us know the full specs of your 100 volt bulb please?  A photo would be great.

[gyulasun]

Hi a.king21,

Would like to ask you whether you are aware of the received power levels quantitatively at the output of each receiver module? LED lamps (say with 3 to 5 W data sheet ratings) are surely lit but actually how much power drives them is not shown as measured, this is why I ask.

It is ok that performing such measurements is not easy (instruments are in the vicinity of the strong EM near field of the single transmitter coil). Perhaps Using a full wave diode bridge across the AC output of each receiver modul and say the use of 100 or 220 uF puffer capacitors to filter the diode's DC output would help: this DC output then could drive a known resistor load across which just a DC voltage level check would be needed. 
The value of these resistors could be calculated like this: if the shown LED lamps were say 12V and say 3W rated, then their equivalent resistance were (12 x 12) / 3 = 48 Ohm, ok? (use a 47 Ohm, at least 2W rated ones). This is the load any such LED lamp (12V, 3W) would represent towards any 12V voltage source when the source is able to maintain the 12V voltage level.  For other LED lamps the same calculation can be used to learn what actual load they represent when fed by their specified voltage.

Obviously, if the voltage level is say 11V or 9.5V or less, the consumed power by this LED becomes less and less too, LED lamps are non linear loads. However, the actual DC power dissipated in a resistor can immediately be known by a simple DC level test across the resistor. If you find say only 10V across a 47 Ohm resistor, then the consumed power would be (10x10)/47=2.1W and so on.  Notice that a 2V less input voltage (wrt 12V) results in almost 1W less power draw.

For diode bridges,  the cheap UF4007 fast Si diodes are fine, especially if each diode in the bridge is made of two paralleled ones, to reduce overall voltage drop across the bridges.Or use Shottky diodes to make the bridges to reduce voltage loss further on.

This way, by summing up the DC power levels in the resistors across each receiver output, and checking the DC input to the transmitter coil driver IC, a fair comparison of the input and output powers can be obtained. 
Are you aware of any such tests done on a single transmitter, multiple receiver modul setup?

Could you do such tests if you have such kit? This is the only way to arrive at any performance evaluation.
If truth is important, that is.
I am not trying to nit-pick with you or anyone else, even a 'mere' COP = 1.5 result would be fantastic, not to mention anything higher, like a COP 144 claim. Do you agree?

Thanks, Gyula

[a.king21]

I think the uf4007 diodes are only rated to 800 volts. whereas the circulating voltage in the series resonant tank circuit is claimed by Rick to be much higher - up to > 2000 volts.

The kernel of Rick's claims are that in a series tank circuit at 18 volts to the gate driver at resonance - the amperage stays the same both outside and inside the circuit whilst the voltage can rise up to 144 times  in the circulating current in the series tank circuit. Hence the claim of COP 144. So this should be an easy test for individuals with a scope to do.  There is no point in going further until Rick's claims are verified independently and multiple times.  we need verification of the above point. Even cop 3 should prove the main point  ie that at resonance we have a real gain.

[gyulasun]

A.king21,

The phenomena of the Q times multiplication of input current or voltage in resonant LC circuits has been known since LC resonance was discovered.

So, with resonant tank circuits the voltage across L or C can be Q times as high as the input voltage source and if the unloaded Q of a particular LC setup is say 144, then the 18V input is multiplied by 144, giving 2592 V across L or C.

BUT I wrote the use of diode bridges across the AC output of the RECEIVER modules and it is the transmitter side where these high voltages are present and Rick measured it across his single transmitter coil!
For the receiver modules which are excited by near field EM radiation from the single transmitter coil, and the modules placed at a distance from the transmitter coil, you can be lucky if some hundred volts appear at the output of the receiver modules, it all depends on the distance, the amount of the load (LED wattage rating or load resistor value) and the number of receiver modules, so no need for 2000 volts rated diodes at all. Even if there was a need, you could always connect two or three UF4007 diodes in series, their forward voltage drop of about 3 or 4 V would still be negligible when the receiver circuit indeed develops > 1000 or 2000 volts.   But there is but maximum some hundred volts involved in the receiver modules anyway.

By the way here is a data sheet for the UF 4000 diode family, the UF4007 type has 1000 V reverse voltage rating:
https://www.mouser.com/ds/2/149/UF4001-890177.pdf   
Some data sheets from other manufacturer specify this in RMS as 800 V  maximum (but the peak reverse voltage is still given as 1000V for the UF4007).  But anyway the diode type cannot be an issue, ok? Think of microwave owen diode types etc.

Regarding this text: "The kernel of Rick's claims are that in a series tank circuit at 18 volts to the gate driver at resonance - the amperage stays the same both outside and inside the circuit whilst the voltage can rise up to 144 times  in the circulating current in the series tank circuit. Hence the claim of COP 144."

This is what is correct to say:  the input current to the gate driver IC may change relatively little when it drives a series LC circuit at resonance and you couple receiver modules to the single transmitter coil (provided the driver IC has very small output impedance).  If 18 V feeds the LC circuit from the IC output, and the unloaded Q of the LC circuit HAPPENS to be 144, then the Q times the 18 V appears across either the C or the L member of the LC series circuit, ok? Please study what factors influence the Q of a resonant LC circuit, lots of information can be read on the web. 

The problem is that this voltage multiplication does not mean average power (or energy) increase with respect to the average input power (or input energy) what the driver IC output feeds into the resonant LC circuit.

So what should really be tested is what I already suggested: to sum up mathematically the outputs of the receiver modules across their output loads and then confront this with the input power the driver IC consumes, to get the COP value.

THIS is the ONLY test which would be correct to perform.

You wrote: "Even cop 3 should prove the main point  ie that at resonance we have a real gain." 

Once again: you or Rick has voltage gain at resonance, this does not involve COP > 1 performance. IF anyone thinks differently, then he or she should perform the correct tests (as I suggested) to make sure about it. 

It is not the replicators's task to prove that Rick's setup has a COP > 1 performance.
COP evaluation is not based on voltage or current amplification.

Please consider to answer my questions posed in my previous post. I answered to your above post on what should be verified.
Gyula

[itsu]

Gyula is so right (again).

looking at Rick his video, he is measuring with his scope across the C of a "series LC".
A FG (50 Ohm) is across the whole LC, so "sees" at resonance a minimum impedance (few Ohms).

When doing this in LTspice, i get for C=100pF, L=157uH and a resonance frequency of 1270Khz the below picture.
Green is the FG input across the whole LC (10Vpp), blue is the signal across C (stabilizing at 180Vpp)



Doing the same with one of my coils/cap (100pF / 163uH) i get the below screenshot.
Purple is the sine wave input from my FG (800mVpp).
Blue is the signal across C (98Vpp).

So do we have a cop of 122 here?  I don't think so.
My LCR meter measures a Q of 121 across this LC circuit, so very close.

(The "Rick LC simfile.png" attached below is again the LTspice sim file used, please rename to .asc to use in LTspice). 

Itsu