Bifilar pancake coil overunity experiment

[Void]

This doesn't matter, this is altogether a different problem. This experiment is about theory, is there overunity in the coil itself. Certainly the overunity may not be enough for self-looping. But it is after we find a circuit that has overunity, a single circuit, It is a matter then to try to increase COP and find ways how to self loop, but as said. that's an entirely different problem altogether.
So you say that you did experiments where you measured COP > 1? Would you share the data? We need one such circuit that anyone else can replicate, just one, no one so far.

Hello ayeaye. What I was saying was that if I took the scope measurements at face value
in some of the setups I have tested, it would seem to indicate COP > 1, but examining closer
it is most likely measurement error. Sometimes I can't identify exactly why the scope is measuring
off, but by analyzing the circuit in other ways to double check results, it appears to actually be
measurement error. I have found that making accurate and very trustworthy measurements on these types
of circuits is not always so straightforward at all, so I am always very cautious about trying to draw
conclusions from measurements on these types of circuits. Using DC input as the input power source, and
converting the output to the test load to DC as well can help to simplify input and output power measurements.

[ayeaye]

Using DC input as the input power source, and
converting the output to the test load to DC as well can help to simplify input and output power measurements.

No no, not at all. With that you make circuit more complex, by that adding possible other causes of error. Input and output powers should be measured from circuit as they are, instantaneous values, and then using scope or other means, to calculate power from that data. And what matters is only input and output power of the coil, not input power of the power source, or any converted output power at all.

[F6FLT]

Some details on the measurement method.

The initial method with the ground connected to the other R2 terminal is not bad in itself. We just have to understand what we're doing. The R2 resistor is not part of the device. Normally R2=0 and the output power Pout is only CH3²/R1. The input power is P=CH1*I where I is the input current.

Now how do you know the input current? This is where R2 is added, between the ground and the rest of the circuit. The voltage measured at the R2 terminals give us the current through the virtue of I=U/R, and this voltage is assumed to be negligible, without affecting operation.

BUT R2 must be very small so as not to disturb the setup. In general 1 Ω is sufficient, but here R2 is not at all negligible either in comparison to R1 (R2 represents 5% of R1), or in comparison to the resistance of the coils.  So either we take R2 smaller for example 0.1 Ω, or we measure as I indicated, R2 is then considered as part of the device and not just part of the measurement process, and we also take into account the power dissipated there.  Pout = CH3²/R1 + CH2²/R2.

If we keep the initial measurement process, then we can expect a 5% error on the measurement, which perfectly explains the COP of 1.061 measured by Itsu.
However, this does not explain at all the COP of nearly 3 measured by TK, which was well over 5%. If TK applied my correction, it shouldn't change much the result. So there is an error elsewhere in the TK measurement, or it is OU.

[itsu]

Using NO 1 Ohm csr (R2), but my current probe to measure / calculate the input current instead.

I know my current probe is offset somewhat compared to the voltage probes, and the scope deskew cannot compensate enough (±10ns only).

So first screenshot below shows both the csr measurement using a voltage probe (blue) and the current probe (green) in the working situation.

We still see (after max. deskew compensation) a phase difference of about 10° between the blue and green channels.
We cannot change that for the scope math function calculations, but we can add the 10° extra to the manual calculations.
The amplitude values are almost the same.


So removing the 1 Ohm csr and using the current probe in its place we get (see screenshots 2 and 3):

CH1 yellow = 1.92V
CH3 purple = 855.7mV
CH4 green  = 43.76mA
phase CH1-CH4 = -55.47°
Math  CH1xCH4 = 48.59mW


So, Scope Math (red) calulates the input to be 48.59mW   (using uncorrected phase difference)
Manual calculation for input shows Vrms x Irms  x Cos (phi)   = P ave
                                                    1.92  x 0.04376 x Cos (-55.47 + 10) = 34.88mW          (here we corrected the phases from -55.47 plus 10 to -65.47°)

   
Pout = CH3²/R1
        = 0.8557²/20
        = 36.61mW

COP = 36.61 / 34.88 = 1.049

Regards Itsu

[Void]

No no, not at all. With that you make circuit more complex, by that adding possible other causes of error. Input and output powers should be measured from circuit as they are, instantaneous values, and then using scope or other means, to calculate power from that data. And what matters is only input and output power of the coil, not input power of the power source, or any converted output power at all.

I understand what you are trying to do, but I was talking about a possible way to do practical
reality checks on such measurements in general. A practical way to double check results, which IMO is what
any reasonable person should do if they are getting measured results that appears to indicate COP > 1.
This is coming from long experience with these types of circuits, as I have already mentioned.
It all depends on whether a person is interested in trying to understand well what is really going on or not.
People are free to do whatever they like, and believe whatever they like however.

At any rate, what Itsu is measuring is well within the margin of measurement error, so no
reason to think there might be a COP > 1 for Itsu's latest measurements. IMO, his measurement error
could potentially be as high as 10%, if not higher, although not necessarily so, but potentially so.
I have mentioned that there also always may potentially be other factors affecting measurements that someone may
be overlooking in their measurements and calculations, so looking for practical ways to double check measurement results
is always a very good idea IMO.