Muller Dynamo

[nul-points]

[..]
I thought you wrote 0.8 2 times by mistake. I have a feeling you wanted to ask something else

no, i am genuinely asking if people are suggesting that there is somehow something to be gained by adding external diodes across a bridge - rather than just using a bridge which already has the same voltage drop

if the two approaches are NOT equivalent then there's a good reason to investigate adding extra diodes

however, if the two approaches ARE equivalent then we can just use a better diode bridge

so - which is it?  anyone?

[Tudi]

no, i am genuinely asking if people are suggesting that there is somehow something to be gained by adding external diodes across a bridge - rather than just using a bridge which already has the same voltage drop

if the two approaches are NOT equivalent then there's a good reason to investigate adding extra diodes

however, if the two approaches ARE equivalent then we can just use a better diode bridge

so - which is it?  anyone?

so you did ask what i thought you wanted to ask xD
short answer : yes, using same type of diodes in parallel improves the voltage drop
longer answer : using better diode types + putting same type of better diode types further improves voltage drop
It's the same principle for every doped silicon component : Transistor, diode....
Diodes are made to have a breakpoint voltage. There might be people that are looking for diodes with lower breakpoints rather then to lower the resistance of the diode ( paralleling them ). There are tricks for everything. You just need to ask properly.

2cent copy paste skills : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockcroft-Walton_generator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier

Edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Varactor.svg -> this is the doping for a varicap. See the N, P, N+ doped silicon ? Just imagine that is a 25 nanometer technology. Shit happens and not all components are the same. Try to imagine putting parallel diodes will increase the surface where the doped material is in contact -> electrons flow more easely from 1 side to another = less resistance = less conversion from V to I ( in your words = voltage drop ( do not mistake power with voltage ! ) )

[woopy]

Hi all

Thank's to all for input

And especially to the coil inverting idea

I did invert the coil wiring of one of the  generative coils. (i flip the wiring of the top coil as per Penno)

and here are the trace

2 first pix = before the bridge  one without biasing magnet and second with biasing magnets. (very similar to Romero trace isn'it)

Than the next are measured after the bridge, one without load and one with a small load. (both pix with biasing magnet)i

What puizzled me is that if load completely (short) the outut after the bridge, i got very low current (about 4 ma) and when i begin to add the biasing magnets, the current climbs (first test up to 50 ma)

Now i begin to see something and there is really something to tune

Thank's to all ,great job here. 

And now back to the shop to invert all the generative coils (but not the motorising coils)

Special thank's to Romero to survey us, i hope we are on the right track now (yes or not )

good luck at all

Laurent

[Tudi]

about the funky scope shots. It's cool to have something out of the book. BUT let's not forget that the energy you produce is the integral of the surface delimited by your wave. Having that chopped off sine wave when the magnet is leaving the coil might be a key factor, BUT it is normal to reduce the output also.

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

I remembered I had done a video back Dec 13, 2009 to demonstrate the effects of what a set of coils connected in reversed will do.

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTykNjDD0CM

It's kind of a long video, so maybe start it @ 3:30 to get to the experiment in question.

Thanks for sharing

Luc