The Tesla Project

[ramset]

Armagdn03
Thankyou for the responce !!
Always look forward to your posts
Chet

[Groundloop]

@armagdn03,

The circuit I posted is one solution to the problem of energizing a coil and then totally disconnect the input
source forcing the coil to put the back the emf voltage to the output.  When I talked to Wattsup I got the impression
that the circuit should work this way. I looked into solid states ways to do this but I soon realized that we
have no components (as far as I know) that can fully be insulated between the source voltage and output. There will
always be some small leakage that will dampen the high Z situation we want the coil to be in when not energizing
the coil. I looked into transistors, mosfets, igbts, thyristors, diode solutions and hexfets. I found that all of these
components would not suit this circuit. I then researched mechanical ways to do it. I found that ordinary relays
was to sluggis and slow and there was no certain way to control the switch on time and the switch off time of
different relays. I then looked at rotary switches and found that the power to operate such devices will be higher
than the gain in the output, so I dismissed the thought. I still wanted to find a way to test this theory so I ended
up with reed relays. I have found that the reed relay type proposed has a very linear switch time. I have tested
this relay in small pulse motors and have found that the relay is capable of switching at a relative high speed.
I realize that a relay will never be fast enough to fully insulate the transformer when the magnetic field flips around
and the back emf generated voltage starts to climb, but maybe this circuit will show the effect? The speed of
the bemfv flip can be controlled with a non polarized capacitor across the transformer primary winding. I estimate
that if we slow the transformer down by making a LC circuit on the primary that is approximately 10 times slower
than the reed relays capability to switch, then maybe we can get some useful power out of the transformer, or at
least be able to demonstrate the effect in question?

Groundloop.

[Groundloop]

@Wattsup,

Attached is a circuit solution that MAY work.

The proposed circuit works like this:

When the operator provide a positive pulse to the optocoupler then the hexfet transistor will close.
This will give a positive bias to the bottom SCR and the SCR will close. This will enable the top SCR
to close also since there is a path for the current to flow. The current will now flow through the transformer.
The operator then switch off the control voltage to the optocoupler and the hexfet transistor will open.
This will remove the current to the circuit and both SCRs will stop conducting current and switch off again.
The SCRs will stay switched off until the operator again triggers the optocoupler. As long as the SCRs is
switched off the transformer coil will be free to oscillate at high Z.

If we get a small feed back from the output of the transformer then it is possible to use solid state electronics
or a micro controller to switch the input in phase with the oscillations in the transformer. The feed back is not shown in this drawing.

Groundloop.

[wattsup]

@all

Yes, @Groundloops diagram with the two reeds is an attempt to replace the relay I used in the Trail #3 Erfinder Circuit attempt that is on this thread located here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3972.msg77661#msg77661

On the same thread I have already tested @allcanadian circuit with reeds here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3972.msg129277#msg129277

Also on this thread I tested a dual transformer pulsing with two 3-way reeds here;
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=3972.msg84982#msg84982
This one was totally a blast to do because by placing the reeds at the right positions they where mutually pulsing the other. Very interesting but slow.

I had asked @Groundloop to look for a way to quickly cut off the positive and negative because according to my previous Trial #3 tests, the voltage rise on the secondary was very interesting indeed but limited by the relatively low pulsing frequency. The reason to look for another way is to reach frequency levels that would permit pulsing at the resonant level of the transformers primary, but instead of using a FG like shown by @armagedn03, using a cutoff that would sever completely the transformers leads hence the potential for return current, thinking that this would leave no other choice for the flyback but to push higher energy through the laminated core and transfer to the secondary.

I would like to thank @Groundloop since he was good enough to look at this question and unfortunately, it seems this is one thing we cannot do, that is to have a EE component that can do a 100% open circuit at frequencies in the range of 50k to 250k which is the range I have seen most of the coils to be at resonance. Hmmmmm. Is it possible that there is something EE cannot do? lol

So now I am thinking that if the resonance frequency is relative to coil size, then I would need a very very big transformer in order to match its resonant frequency with that of the fastest available 100% switching speeds.

But here is a question that may sound crazy but guys doing the @armagdn03 resonant test will know more about. Well we know with the resonance tests that the series bulb is lit when the LC circuit is NOT in resonance, and the bulb goes off when the circuit IS in resonance. Lite on, lite off. Isn't that a switch in itself? Just asking. But if an LC circuit could go in and out of resonance as fast as 50kHz, would this be another way of switching? You take a FG to find and maintain a resonant frequency and use a transistor to pulse that frequency on and off. How instant can a resonance be established in a coil would then be the limiting factor. Maybe opening up a whole new can of worms and a new set of problems. Hmmmmmm.

Added:

@GL just saw your new post, will look it over and let you know. Thanks.

[armagdn03]

What is being argued could be filed under "improvements upon switching systems" or something similar.

Even if you have a sub par switching system, it can achieve the goal of supposed over unity. The real concept to grasp is how to use resonant conditions in the generation and use of power systems. It has been proven beyond argument that the conversion between energy forms is not always a linearly described system. The confusion arises with conversion ratios that supposedly dictate transducer transformation properties, i.e. watts to lumens, watts to horsepower etc.

To groundloops point, even a battery unconnected to any "load" will have leakage between terminals..........yes this is to be avoided, but it is not one of the primary things that should be considered when trying to create such systems.

For example, say your system is 1.2 cop. if left in "avalanche" (sorry to throw out an EE term) mode that .2  above unity can constitute a huge amount of power depending on input.........since its a circular feedback the input could start out small and grow along with output.  If your system is 100 cop, it would happen much quicker and be much more efficient, but both will work to demonstrate concept.

Dont worry about improving upon switching mechanisms when the machine around which they have been built have not been shown.