Pierre's 170W in 1600W out Looped Very impressive Build continued & moderated

[d3x0r]

@gotoluc


you're making a miscalculation in your head...


input + recovered = energy that was used through the device.


recovered doesn't go nowhere; it goes back into power to be used through the coils...
100% recovery would take your input down to 0...


but if you had input of 10W and recovered 30W , that's 40W to the coils...
if you didn't recover any... you'd get 40W input and 0W recovered...


It's not input - recovered... though recovered does lower the input; the input is already lowered by it when you read the input.


so you could say 'The input is now 10W, and we're recovering 8, so the input *would be* 18W" so you're saving 8 watts of input by recovering the output... but it's still 10W input.

[gotoluc]

@gotoluc


you're making a miscalculation in your head...


input + recovered = energy that was used through the device.


recovered doesn't go nowhere; it goes back into power to be used through the coils...
100% recovery would take your input down to 0...


but if you had input of 10W and recovered 30W , that's 40W to the coils...
if you didn't recover any... you'd get 40W input and 0W recovered...


It's not input - recovered... though recovered does lower the input; the input is already lowered by it when you read the input.


so you could say 'The input is now 10W, and we're recovering 8, so the input *would be* 18W" so you're saving 8 watts of input by recovering the output... but it's still 10W input.

That's what you think I'm doing but the fact is I'm just showing the differences as it gets more efficient when frequency goes up.
It has nothing to do with what you wrote.
Regards
Luc

[d3x0r]

That's what you think I'm doing but the fact is I'm just showing the differences as it gets more efficient when frequency goes up.
It has nothing to do with what you wrote.
Regards
Luc

so for input of 4.3 wats and rercovered 4.3 watts it's still 8.6 watts total used... and only 50% recovered.  not 90% like you claimed.


again, the input already has the recovered taken away from it when you read it; so you can't say it's any less than what it already is.


90% recovery owuld be if you had like 9 watts on the recovered side and 1 watt on the input.

[gotoluc]

so for input of 4.3 wats and rercovered 4.3 watts it's still 8.6 watts total used... and only 50% recovered.  not 90% like you claimed.


again, the input already has the recovered taken away from it when you read it; so you can't say it's any less than what it already is.


90% recovery owuld be if you had like 9 watts on the recovered side and 1 watt on the input.

I don't dispute anything you wrote, all is correct. What's incorrect is you assume I don't know this.
If you're a trained EE then the way a say things won't sound right to you as I have no schooling.
However, it's good that you point this out for others that will assume differently.
Regards
Luc

[partzman]

so for input of 4.3 wats and rercovered 4.3 watts it's still 8.6 watts total used... and only 50% recovered.  not 90% like you claimed.


again, the input already has the recovered taken away from it when you read it; so you can't say it's any less than what it already is.


90% recovery owuld be if you had like 9 watts on the recovered side and 1 watt on the input.

Whaaat!?  Wait a minute, let's reason together.  We have a black box that we connect to a fixed power supply.  The box has three ports that is, an input, output, and common.  The input and output both connect to the positive terminal of said power supply and the negative lead of the supply connects to the common terminal.  We now attach a watt meter to the input and measure 1 watt of power drawn from the supply.  We also attach a watt meter to the output and we measure 9 watts returned to the same supply.  Our black box is somehow giving us an 800% gain not 90% recovery.

Regards,
Pm