Muller Dynamo

[mondrasek]

your inputs are non-isolated and your scope is performing a math function for the channel that displays voltage across the current sense resistor.
depending on what polarity the math is presented with (input 1 summed with inverted input 2; etc) is how it appears as if the scope was connected '180 degrees'.

if you tried to place probe 2 ground on the other side of your current sense resister while leaving probe 1 where it is in the schematic you would have, effectively shorted out the ac input side of your bridge and and probe 1 would see no voltage.

edit: (gyulasun beat me to it)

if these assumptions are correct we can move.

Again, I agree.

Let me know:  Should I re-do the scope shots with the proper probe placement?  Or are you guys comfortable with the explanation of my "scopocrafcy" (meaning f*-up)  and okay to move on?

I've got no more specific testing in mind for today so I am fine to undo the current set up and retest one or more coils.  Just let me know if it is important to you all to see that test or if you are comfortable with the explanations for my probe placement errors.

Thanks,

M.

PS.  I miss TK.

[poynt99]

Excuse me Poynt99.  I presumed too much.  I believe the Bloch wall theory is on Page 5 here:  http://www.totallyamped.net/adams/

Technically-speaking, there is no Bloch wall in Hoptoad's scenarios on page 5. Also as I mentioned above, standard magnets don't exhibit a Bloch wall in their interior.

The "idea" that I was hoping you could simulate (or help facilitate) was why I saw an increase in V when a  PM was introduced at the correct, specific, distance, behind  the cores on my RomeroUK/Muller replication (w/rotor spinning).

Any "theories" are always welcome.

I've provided the explanation for the increased output voltage in the above post. Without pre-bias, the coil core has essentially no net magnetic moment, whereas with pre-bias, it does. That's what makes the difference.

Regards.
.99

[itsu]

All,

i personally don't think Romero used any sort of resonance in his coils (he would of told us, right?).
The one waveform published by Romero does not resemble a coil in resonance ( = pure sine wave).
And my tests with resonance does not show any real surprises.
I think the enormous dampening effect a very large (40uF) capacitor (which i use to get into resonance) has on the circuit
prohibits any such surprises.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the statements "Bolt" made about 90 degrees phase shift and "Standing waves" (VSWR).
Normally in a LCR circuit, the currents are 90 degrees shifted to the voltage (ICap before, Iinductance later, totaling 180 degrees among both currents).
Only in resonance they are equal in strength and canceling each other out, but they are still present.
But still these 90 degrees phase shifts (with or without resonance) do NOT beat Lenz.

According to this: http://www.teslatechnologyresearch.com/corum/   it is not possible to get standing waves in a
lumped-element circuit we are using, so also the voltage magnification caused by Standing waves should be impossible.

But i am still researching into this "VSWR in a coil" thingy......

Regards itsu

[plengo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpEevfOU4Z8&feature=related

[infringer]

Plengo that's a rather interesting video on standing waves bud first time I've ever seen that one do you know what type of devices they are using to create the waves? To me a standing wave would only be good for short distance by looking at this because it would take lots of energy to slosh the ocean back and forth like that a small tank or cup of water sure there are also rouge waves in the ocean that people have be studying recently I wonder if there is any relation. I see where you might be going with the standing waves for the muller device but it is tough to say for sure you would think somehow we could find a way to see them.

Thanks for the video...

-infringer-
www.mopowah.com