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

[nul-points]

hi Poynt

great work on the 'Simmed' Joule meters - we could all really do with some accurate real-world equivalents!!!


i'm pleased to see that your simmed energy readings, within the circuit, match the values i measured on my latest test circuit (data & calculations as per the Excel spreadsheet i provided for you)

if i understand the sim results correctly, they're saying that there is too much output energy for C1 to be a 196uF capacitor

your explanation of what is happening in my tests is that either i'm misreading 7v as 6.42v in my experiments (for those which use a 1v input drop from 8v on C1) - or that my C1 is actually 300uF


i usually run my tests by adjusting pulse timing parameters and then monitoring the C1 terminal voltage on a DVM before and after the pulse-train - sometimes i monitor the C1 volts drop on one of the scope traces - both methods show the start voltage to be 8v and the final voltage to be 7v (both voltage readings to within approx 2%)

i can provide a scope trace of the input volt drop on C1 if you wish


i think we agree that the final voltage on C2 indicates a stored energy which matches the discharge through the 10ohm resistive load

the measured readings for this energy closely match the 'stored energy' calcs for a 196uF cap


i can swap C1 & C2 and still get equivalent measurements of excess efficiency - this would not be true if C1 was 300uF and C2 is 196uF


it should also be noted that capacitors C1 & C2 are nominal 220uF capacitors with +/- 20% tolerance spec

300uF would be +36%, well outside the spec


C1 & C2 were measured initially using the regular 'discharge time' method: ie. find time T for the discharge of a cap thro' a measured resistor R to 37% of start volts, then C = T / R

my measurements give both cap values within their spec tolerance - and within a few % of each other

the measured values for C1 & C2 have subsequently been confirmed by separate measurements of the inductor value (derived from voltage rise, period & current measurements) to get a cross-check from the measured resonant frequency of the LC combination



it seems to me that there is a third explanation for your sim results (assuming i'm not lying about my results)

this other explanation is that your sim results are confirming that the real circuit is showing greater output than we would expect from the input conditions - ie. overunity behaviour , with efficiences around 145% at the load


kudos for the sim work - i think many of us will be looking forward to the actual circuits!


all the best
sandy
______________________________________________________________________________
Doc Ringwood's Free Energy site  http://ringcomps.co.uk/doc   ...bringing you measured Overunity results since May '08

[poynt99]

Hi Sandy.

I take your word that the caps are the values you say they are . I have no problem there really.

I also take your word for it that you believe you've measured 7V for C1. However, I believe that this is where the error is because 1) there is no scope shot showing C1 and C2 together exchanging charge at the rate you stated, and 2) it's more likely that an error will occur measuring this 7V threshold where timing is critical, as opposed to simply measuring a capacitor value.

I would very much like to see a scope shot of both C1 and C2 voltages as they discharge/charge respectively. That seems to be the most likely place for an error to occur.

It should be quite obvious because there seems to be a factor of 2 involved in the differences between your results and the sim. In the sim C1 discharges down to 7V after only about 4.5ms.

Regards,
.99

[nul-points]

hi Poynt

it's important to question everything - that's not a problem

as you can see on my website, i've run a previous series of tests with 0.25F (nominal) supercap stacks  for the input & output - test runtimes were in the range 40 - 80 seconds - plenty of time to take readings - similar level of overunity efficiency results

there's no real critical timing on the current tests either since C1 self-discharges slowly towards 8v, at which point i start the run - at the end of the run i get a few seconds to confirm that the final input cap voltage is at least 7v

i'll run a new test tonight (UK time) to record volts on C1 & C2 simultaneously, with timing & load parameters similar to the data i gave you

in the meantime you can see the input voltage decrease i use, on the attached trace from a different test run with the 190 & 196uF caps - red trace is Vin on C1, blue trace is Vout on C2
(scope readings are slightly under 1% higher than the DVM readings, which itself is within 1% of  national calibrated eqpt.)

(ignore the the timing & output voltage because there are a different number of pulse cycles and different load conditions on this test - the trace is given just to show typical input levels)

more later

all the best
s.

[poynt99]

hi Poynt

it's important to question everything - that's not a problem

I try only to question that which hasn't yet been answered or shown/proven.

i'll run a new test tonight (UK time) to record volts on C1 & C2 simultaneously, with timing & load parameters similar to the data i gave you

Great, thanks.

.99

[nul-points]

>> Quote from: nul-points on Today at 03:46:51 AM
>> it's important to question everything - that's not a problem

I try only to question that which hasn't yet been answered or shown/proven.

i understand what you're saying

i'm speaking for all of us: we need to test all our assumptions and, if possible, find cross-checks for the various measurements or calcs we produce

i try to do this to satisfy myself that any results i generate are valid

the information i post is intended mainly to pass information on to others to encourage them to look into the switched charge anomaly themselves - i leave it to scientists operating under full controlled conditions to provide the rigourous testing and explanations which will be needed ultimately if this anomaly bears fruit

i hope you'll find that the information on my website and in this thread provides more complete and more quantifiable results than a great many which claim to be reporting overunity

all the best
s.