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

[nul-points]

hi all

apologies for the recent lack of updates, i'm currently involved in a collaborative test on another project and my test equipment has been in use 24/7 since mid-Jan, prior to the last full eclipse


there has been some question as to the possible contribution of dielectric adsorption and capacitor ESR to the test results

as you can see from the first scope trace, the effect of dielectric adsorption on the 4700uF input & output capacitors, over a period several seconds longer than the test, is negligable


the terminal voltage drop of the 4700uF under load to a 1 ohm resistor for a pulse-width of approx 0.25ms and cycle period of approx 1ms is 0.9V from an initial voltage of approx 7.8V

the voltage rise across the 1 ohm resistor for the same series current is approx 5.5V, giving a current pulse magnitude of 5.5A

this gives a measured ESR for the capacitor of 0.9 / 5.5 = 0.16 ohm

the ESR is approx 1/60th of the Rload value

therefore this effect can be ignored in these results

the more astute members among us will have already realised this, since the initial and final voltages of the capacitors are read off-load 


all the best
s.

[Charlieb000]

hello, this is slightly off topic as this is a different project, but take it as a suggestion for future exploration as my data maybe incomplete

i am a newbie and really like to simplify and cheapify stuff, and i had obtained this pdf and i got some ideas (the pdf is now hard to find on the net, when i found it it was on a few places).

after going through a few ideas i finally got to this solution:
(not sure about starting a thread, wouldn't be able to keep adding to it...)

the idea is to use isolated power supplies to do siphoning. using:
12v to 230v inverters
and
240v to 12v computer power supplies

since computer power supplies are common and inverters are cheap, alot of power should be able to be obtained for little money and modification, the min 12v output on the PSU needs only to be the calculated efficiency loss of the inverter, at 70% this is probably half the OU output, so find a 90% eff inverter.

the 12v psu output is to provide a power source for the power coming out to reference to.


because of the high switching frequency the caps need only be small, the inverter is a lightweight one, not a huge heavy transformer in it. the power gets converted at 100kHz or so and then made into mains frequency (50Hz is the only output of the heavy ones and is unusable). the 230v dc is taken out before the final conversion.

so far no go as i am lacking caps (i think that's the only prob), i predict i need 1500uf on the 230v side (using a 110-150w inverter). (output is 218v as 230v-12v is 218, efficiency is higher than using 110v psus as there is a 98v remnant and there is more watts if there is a bigger difference - i think). the input cap in the inverter exceeds the requirement for the low volt cap so no extra needed..


connecting the wires after the bridge on the inverter and onto the PSU (suggest removing the bridge to put wires and remove components that would connect the input power that to the chassis because a risk of shorting the PSU 12v exists)

note: if the inverter input rises above 12v it becomes more efficient (and switches off at 15v)  but also the PSU power will not input so much and so keeping the inverter in safe operating zones.

[nul-points]

hi Charlie

thanks for the post

> hello, this is slightly off topic as this is a different project, ...
> ... not sure about starting a thread, wouldn't be able to keep adding to it...)

i believe there is an existing thread which has addressed the same info as in this PDF - i remember some of the same diagrams, at least - this version of the PDF could be more recent

might be worth looking through the DC motor threads for it & get some feedback from other people's experience with the ideas contained in this doc


all the best
s.

[Charlieb000]

ok i will try "Tesla Switch need help"

[allcanadian]

@poynt99

There will be a shortage of electrons on the negative capacitor plate (which is in close contact with the dielectric), and an excess of electrons on the positive plate of the capacitor (also in close contact with the dielectric). The metal capacitor plates themselves will be polarized as a result of this electron migration. Opposite charges attract, and it is this that retains the polarization of the dielectric.

LOL, You may want to read this-----

When Benjamin Franklin made his conjecture regarding the direction of charge flow (from the smooth wax to the rough wool), he set a precedent for electrical notation that exists to this day, despite the fact that we know electrons are the constituent units of charge, and that they are displaced from the wool to the wax -- not from the wax to the wool -- when those two substances are rubbed together. This is why electrons are said to have a negative charge: because Franklin assumed electric charge moved in the opposite direction that it actually does, and so objects he called "negative" (representing a deficiency of charge) actually have a surplus of electrons.
By the time the true direction of electron flow was discovered, the nomenclature of "positive" and "negative" had already been so well established in the scientific community that no effort was made to change it, although calling electrons "positive" would make more sense in referring to "excess" charge. You see, the terms "positive" and "negative" are human inventions, and as such have no absolute meaning beyond our own conventions of language and scientific description. Franklin could have just as easily referred to a surplus of charge as "black" and a deficiency as "white," in which case scientists would speak of electrons having a "white" charge (assuming the same incorrect conjecture of charge position between wax and wool).
However, because we tend to associate the word "positive" with "surplus" and "negative" with "deficiency," the standard label for electron charge does seem backward. Because of this, many engineers decided to retain the old concept of electricity with "positive" referring to a surplus of charge, and label charge flow (current) accordingly. This became known as conventional flow notation:

A big problem I see is that many people claim to understand many things but in reality do not even understand the basics. The negative is the source(excess electrons) and the positive is the sink(a shortage of electrons), So here is a question------ Why didn't they correct it? If the conventional flow notation that everyone uses is backwards and quite frankly a load of BS------Then why is it this way in every textbook our children are taught from? Why would they propagate a LIE? Science talks about the truth and resists all change unless it is a well proven fact but here we have a proven fact that is still propagated as a lie----Hmmmm.When you understand this you may also understand a great many things in regards to what we call electricity and what it really is.
Regards
AC