Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[ayeaye]

I now used Inkscape to draw oscilloscope screen images. I found that Inkscape is the best for the purpose, as accuracy is the most important with things like that. The graphs drawn with Inkscape are on the figure 2 below.

To draw using that method, create a new Inkscape drawing, remove the page border, create grid with 10 pixels each square and 10 squares a big square, this will correspond to one oscilloscope scale. Select snap always. It doesn't matter where you draw, because zooming to the drawing will always zoom in all your drawing. Zoom so that the small squares inside the big squares will become visible, but not more,

Import the oscilloscope screen picture. This screen picture has to have all the grid squares equal and grid lines completely horizontal and vertical, if necessary, prepare it before with gimp or such. Make the picture 50% transparent and move and zoom it so that the oscilloscope grid lines match exactly the Inkscape grid lines. Then on the picture draw the traces with path tool, with straight line segments. Draw the R3 traces first and the R2 (channel 2) traces after that below them, both have to start from the same x. Then draw the x axis for both traces. When the traces are drawn, delete the screen picture. Save it as an ordinary svg file. The following is the svg file that i created.

https://justpaste.it/568vy

The Python script above that has been mentioned here, is the following, so that it would be clear.

PS I found a new trouble, when copying code from here, start copying from the first letter of the code. Otherwise there would be spaces before each statement, and indentation matters a lot for Python, make sure that there are no additional spaces before each statement.

import sys

#Time for gschem unit in ns
XU = 5.0
#Voltage for unit for ch 1 and 2 in mV
YU1 = 0.5
YU2 = 5.0
#Resistors 2 and 3 resistances in ohms
R2 = 983.0
R3 = 99.4
#Frequency in Hz
F = 30303.0

def getlist(list, x0, y0, invert):
    for i in range(len(list)):
        list[ i ][0] -= x0
        list[ i ][2] -= x0
        if (invert):
            list[ i ][1] = y0 - list[ i ][1]
            list[ i ][3] = y0 - list[ i ][3]
        else:
            list[ i ][1] -= y0
            list[ i ][3] -= y0
    return list

def gety(list, i, t):
    lx = float(list[ i ][2] - list[ i ][0])
    ly = float(list[ i ][3] - list[ i ][1])
    dx = float(t - list[ i ][0])
    dy = ly * abs(dx / lx)
    return list[ i ][1] + dy

def output(s, e):
    #Energy in uJ
    e *= XU / 10 / 1000000
    print("%s power was %.3f uW" % (s, F * e))

lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
    l = []
    i1 = 1
    if (s[0] != "L"): continue
    for j in range(4):
        i0 = i1 + 1
        i1 = s.find(" ", i0)
        l.append(int(s[i0:i1]))
    lines.append(l)

x0 = lines[0][0]
y0 = lines[-2][1]
y1 = lines[-1][1]
lines.pop()
lines.pop()
i1 = map(lambda l: l[1] <= y0, lines).index(True)
i2 = map(lambda l: l[0] == x0, lines[1 : ]).index(True) + 1
ilist = getlist(lines[: i1], x0, y0, False)
olist = getlist(lines[i1 : i2], lines[i1][0], y0, True)
r2list = getlist(lines[i2 : ], lines[i2][0], y1, False)

e = 0.0
i1 = i2 = 0
for t in range(0, ilist[-1][2], 10):
    if (t >= ilist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
    if (t >= r2list[i2][2]): i2 += 1;
    ilr = gety(r2list, i2, t) * YU2 / R2
    vlr = gety(ilist, i1, t) * YU1
    plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
    pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
    pl = plr - pr
    e += pl
output("Input", e)

e = 0.0
i1 = 0
for t in range(0, olist[-1][2], 10):
    if (t >= olist[i1][2]): i1 += 1;
    vlr = gety(olist, i1, t) * YU1
    pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
    e += pr
output("Output", e)

I wrote the following Python script to get the traces data from the Inkscape svg file, which is in the form that it can be used as input for the Python script above. Outputting that data enables to check whether the data was extracted correctly. Whether it always works, i cannot know, it is Inkscape and i cannot know what it always does.

import sys

def next(s, str, list):
    global i1
    i0 = i1 + 1
    i1 = s.find(str, i0)
    if (i1 == -1): i1 = len(s)
    list.append(int(float(s[i0:i1])))
    return i1 == len(s)

i1 = 0
lines = []
for s in sys.stdin:
    l = []
    i1 = s.find("d=\"m ")
    if (i1 == -1): continue
    i1 = s.find(" ", i1)
    ends = s.find("\"", i1)
    s = s[i1 : ends]
    i1 = 0
    next(s, ",", l)
    next(s, " ", l)
    l[0] = 5000 + l[0]
    l[1] = 5000 - l[1]
    lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
    while (True):
        l = []
        next(s, ",", l)
        done = next(s, " ", l)
        l[0] = lines[-1][0] + l[0]
        l[1] = lines[-1][1] - l[1]
        lines[-1][2] = l[0]
        lines[-1][3] = l[1]
        if (done): break
        lines.append([l[0], l[1], 0, 0])
x0 = lines[-1][0]
y0 = lines[-1][1]
for i in range(len(lines)):
    lines[ i ][0] -= x0
    lines[ i ][2] -= x0
    lines[ i ][1] -= y0
    lines[ i ][3] -= y0
    for j in range(4): lines[ i ][ j ] *= 10
for l in lines:
    print("L %d %d %d %d *" % (l[0], l[1], l[2], l[3]))

The output of that Python script having the svg file above as the input, was the following.

L 400 6700 1200 5800 *
L 1200 5800 2000 5300 *
L 2000 3300 2700 4200 *
L 2700 4200 3300 4600 *
L 3300 4600 4100 4800 *
L 4100 4800 5300 4900 *
L 5300 4900 7400 5000 *
L 400 1900 1400 2100 *
L 1400 2100 2000 2100 *
L 0 5000 7900 5000 *
L 0 0 7900 0 *

The output of the Python script written first in this post, was the following.

Input power was 5.183 uW
Output power was 5.675 uW

The accuracy of the results can be calculated, by drawing the oscilloscope screen so that it will produce the worst possible result that may still correspond to the oscilloscope screen, and see whether the output is still greater than the input. I estimated that the resistor R2 may be 100 ohms instead of 1k, this will enable even more precise measurements.

[TinselKoala]

Well. You've gone through extraordinary lengths to demonstrate that your oscilloscope traces are slightly biased. You have approximately half a microwatt excess in an approximately 5 microwatt power range. So we are talking about a ten percent discrepancy, roughly. Right?

But you are ultimately basing your measurements on the analog oscilloscope screen. I've done similar things myself, having been in this business for a while now. There are many pitfalls that can happen well before the stage of digitizing the screen traces by whatever method. For example... the kind of difference you are seeing in your  analog scope traces can be caused by a simple out-of-calibration DC bias problem, something so subtle that an entire factory calibration of the scope may even miss it. The scope is +not+ a precision voltmeter and this is true even for DSOs. Scopes are far more accurate in the time domain than they are in the voltage domain. You might want to look up your scope's original factory specifications as to accuracy in the voltage domain at various frequencies.

Furthermore, obtaining accurate current measurements in a pulsed circuit, by whatever means but especially using a scope, has its own can of worms, a big one.

When I first saw your most recent post I almost responded.... "It's too bad you can't run a light bulb on an oscilloscope trace..." but I decided to give you a more comprehensive criticism since you obviously are approaching this with some effort of your own. I can't fault your programming, that's not my field, but I can tell you that there is a whole lot of work to be done _before_ the programming can yield valid results. GIGO applies here... perfectly processed garbage is still garbage, even if it smells sweeter.
There is more but this is sufficient for now. Carry on and good luck.

[ayeaye]

I thought you are all about accuracy, but accuracy can be estimated. I conclude that this is a precise enough method, when done carefully enough. I don't exclude that my results are caused by inaccuracy, this is the first time i did it and didn't know it well yet. I said it needs replication before anything can be concluded. Mostly though i provided a method to measure overunity in various coils for these who have analog oscilloscopes or other oscilloscopes that have no digital output. And for these with digital oscilloscopes as well, as with a slight modification this Python script can be used to calculate from the waveform data downloaded from a digital oscilloscope. I couldn't write a script especially for that purpose, as there are many digital oscilloscopes and their waveform data is in different forms, even when generally similar. And to show that, i needed an exact example which my experiment is.

I can't fault your programming, that's not my field

So then how can you decide?

Can you read this

plr = ilr * vlr / 1000
pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
pl = plr - pr
e += pl

and this

pr = vlr * vlr / R3 / 1000
e += pr

does it say something to you?

[TinselKoala]

Yes, it says that you have totally missed the points of my post.
Suppose you needed to know how wide a board is needed for a repair on your house, so you send your brother to measure the gap.
And he comes back and says it's three rubber band lengths wide. And he even shows you the rubber band.

Do you start sawing?

Please state the make and model of the analog oscilloscope you used to generate your _raw data_. Please provide the accuracy tolerance specifications of the scope from its user or service manual. Please provide some evidence that the scope is actually in calibration and that its readings can be trusted. Please demonstrate that your camera setup didn't introduce any artifacts due to parallax or insensitivity to dim peaks. Please demonstrate that your probing technique itself didn't introduce artifacts in your measurements.

I could go on like this for a while yet, just as you go on and on about your programming. But what's the point? If you want to see some high COP measurements from a bifilar coil setup, look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c

[ayeaye]

If you want to know, my oscilloscope is Hitachi Denshi V-222, it has been calibrated by all requirements of the manual and has the precision that corresponds to all requirements. Like the calibration requires that the trace is within +/- 0.05 division. By these measurements the precision is most likely not worse than +/- 0.5%. What concerns the official precision, it's +/- 3% for both the time and y by the specification. What concerns that though, one should know that the official precision of all the common measuring instruments is all very low, the manufacturers don't want to have responsibility for wrong measurements, so they write the official precision low to protect themselves against all the occasions. And also in order to sell more expensive equipment, who would buy an expensive instrument when a cheaper one does the job. Like i think most who did some work know that one can practically consider the readings of a digital multimeter correct, but their official precision is so low that by that they cannot be used for measurements at all. Precision can be measured, that written by the manufacturer is not yet everything.

The precision written by the manufacturer, what is that? It is when you do the measurements in the desert in a hot sun and you drive there on a bumpy road, and it still has to have that precision.

I think at least for the way i did the measurements and calculations, provided that the scope is calibrated properly, all that one should consider is the precision of taking and processing the measurements, the actual imprecision of the oscilloscope is minor compared to that, and can be not considered.

What concerns the precision, there are also two kind of precisions. One is absolute precision, that is how it measures the exact value of voltage, etc. The other is linear precision, that is how well are the measurements in proportion with the actual values. Linear precision is always much higher than the absolute precision, and what is relevant for overunity is linear precision. Like what i learned in the university was Automatic Control, and i remember some worked on the project of a regulator for an integrated circuits diffusion furnace. The requirement was that the requlator had to keep the temperature of the furnace within 1 degree celsius (kelvin). This was impossible, practically impossible, theoretically impossible. Provided that it had to keep absolute temperature. But it appeared that the range of temperatures was actually much wider, it just had to keep that temperature within 1 degree and it didn't so much matter what temperature it was, and this made it possible.

I could go on like this for a while yet, just as you go on and on about your programming. But what's the point? If you want to see some high COP measurements from a bifilar coil setup, look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNzbc-N-e9c

I think when there is overunity in the coil, then my method will show that.

A wonderful video by you BTW. But the thing i cannot quite figure there, you have one end of the input coil not connected as i understand. Now you have no closed circuit with wires through the output coil of the input transformer, that is, there is nowhere to really measure the current going through it, and thus the input power. The open connection can be connected through the air anywhere, and the current going through it in that way, cannot really be measured. I don't understand why yet another method that doesn't really measure overunity, while the method that i proposed does it more simply, straight-forwardly, and in principle correctly.