OU/COP>1 switched cap PS cct like Tesla's 'charge siphoning'

[nul-points]

hi alan

if you're around...

you made the following suggestion to the owner of another thread relating to the same phenomenon as we're considering on this thread:

> try this:  Load the motor by coupling it to a second motor, which then acts as a dynamo, and connect the dynamo to a capacitor.


i'll be interested to hear if he actually bothers to follow up your suggestion - but it caught my eye because i've just been doing exactly that test - and related ones - with the switched charge test circuit

i've been looking at the effect of using different loads (apart from resistive), such as batteries and motors

i believe the results have given me a better insight into some of the unusual behavior of this type of circuit - but just to give you one answer, at least, to your suggested test...

i wanted to compare the drive output from a motor as load - when powered by the test circuit; when powered by the equivalent DC drive; and when powered by a PWM drive equivalent to the DC drive

the results were very interesting and - initially, to me - unexpected

when using the same scheme which you suggested on the other thread - drive a motor, couple to another motor as dynamo, feed dynamo o/p to cap (initially, i used a series diode into the output cap):

the test circuit was approx 140%  as efficient as the PWM drive - ok, as expected so far

however, when the motor was driven using DC, with the same input energy, the test circuit was only about 70% as efficient as the DC!

so, i decided that maybe the dynamo o/p should feed into a cap with a load in parallel and measure the total energy supplied at the load, rather than the total energy stored in the cap

for this second round of tests, both the test circuit and the PWM circuit gave approx the same energy output level (1.4Joules approx) whilst the DC drive produced 1.9J

i could get slightly better output from the test circuit (1.5J) if i used the motor to replace the series inductor, L

i think i understand, now, the implications of these results but it was a bit disappointing, at first, to see efficiencies around 140%  getting reduced to 70% just by changing the load type to a motor

hope you found these results interesting!

all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site     http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc

   ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

[CTG Labs]

@.99.  Thanks for the document, you obviously spent sometime on this.  I totally agree with everything you said.  This is normal action that we should see.  However, what Sandy is saying is something else.  He claims that the total energy dissipated in R1 and left over in C2 is more than was taken from C1.  So far I could not verify this, until now...

@ Sandy.  I just wound a coil on some ferrite rod, so it basically has zero DC resistance.  I also changed the caps to 100,000uF.

With further tuning of the microcontroller timing I have been able to produce the results you describe, with an apparent COP=2.079!

Without further a do, here are the figures!

C1 START VOLTS = 12.60v
C1 START ENERGY = 7.938j
C1 START Q = 1.26q
C2 START VOLTS = 0

C1 END VOLTS = 11.42v
C1 END Q = 1.142q
C1 END ENERGY = 6.52j
INPUT ENERGY = 1.418j

C2 END VOLTS = 2.53v
C2 END Q = 0.253q
C2 STORED ENERGY = 0.1265j

ENERGY USED IN R1 = 2.822j

OUTPUT ENERGY = R1 ENERGY + ENERGY LEFT IN C2 = 2.948j

COP = OUTPUT / INPUT

COP = 2.948 / 1.418 = 2.079


Seeing as C2 is left with less energy that was taken from C1, then any mistake will be found in the measurement of energy used in R1.

Also of note, if we start with 7.938 joules in C1 then we took 15.876 joules from the battery which charged C1 prior to the test.  Mind you, if you keep repeating it until C1 is empty and getting COP=2 then...

So overall we do not have COP>1.  But we do have something very interesting, since we start with 1.26q and end with 1.395q total stored charge.  Conservation of charge has been violated and it has been accompanied by an energy gain?!!!

So the question is, is there a better way to measure energy used in R1.  I have exported data to excel from my scope and done a manual integration of the waveform using an averaging method, I think Sandy has done the same.


Regards,

Dave.

[CTG Labs]

Just for comparison I did another run but with the circuit just turned on and then off, no pulsing.  This time I get expected results.

INPUT CHARGE 1.263q
INPUT ENERGY 4.167j

OUTPUT CHARGE 1.273q
OUTPUT ENERGY 2.234j (R1 and C2)

This time we see much less energy used in R1 and left over in C2 than was taken from C1.  The remainder must be used in the transistor, coil resistance, etc.

The effect only appears when we pulse the coil with a specific timing.  Now the question, is it a scope error from pulsed data or a real effect?


Regards,

Dave.

[CTG Labs]

Ok, just to be sure...

I adjust the "single pulse" discharge period so that the voltage dropped from C1 was again the same as the end result as successful test no 1.
(so no pulsing this time, just one pulse that drops voltage to the same drop).

Again this test now shows what we would expect to see, no charge gain or any excess energy seen.

Rapid pulsing is either causing a strange effect, or messing with my scope.  But, on the successful test, a DC meter measuring end voltages on the caps doesn't lie.  There is more stored "charge" in C1 and C2 than we started with in C1.


D.

[nul-points]

hi Dave

great to hear you've been able to duplicate the effect & see anomalous charge & energy gains

i'd expect to see a greater proportion of the output energy getting stored in C2 - do you have an approx value for your coil? you say 'zero ohms DC' so i guess it's either not many turns or its a heavy guage?

in most of my results i'm seeing approx 1:1 ratio of energy in R1 & C2 - and each of these two energies are around 70-75% of the input energy

i agree about the overall efficiency when taking the initial charge of C1 from the battery -  i think we'll find that C1 can be replaced with another type of energy source

could you confirm your Rload value & your approx pulse-width please?  also, have you measured your C1 & C2 values, or are you using their nominal values?  and lastly, do you discharge C2 back thro the load resistor to measure & confirm the stored energy value?

thanks
s