Sonic Resonator Results and Findings, As Well As LTspice Models To Download

[D.R.Jackson]

Well,

Spice is a nice tool -
BUT
You need to understand a little bit more to use it.
I would start to _READ_ about the difference between Energy and Power. Thats essential for further investigation.
Its _NO_ OU to make a pulse with higher power out of a powersupply with less power.
Take a photo flash - during charging it takes few watts for some seconds to charge - and can release it with the power of more than 100 watts.
Your circuit increases the power and not the energy.
I can make a 1MW pulse out of a 1W source - if i charge the 1W source for a million of seconds I got the energy of 1MWs - I can discharge that for 1s and get a 1MW impulse.

The energy you got is your 8.xxW times the dutycycle - thats 0.64 - so its slightly less than your input cycle.

Your output voltage is not rectangular - its pulsed dc - so the rms value is as above.
The "rms"=="peak" only applies on _TRUE_ AC.

Having great tools like spice doesn´t compensate the basic understanding of electricity.

If I understand you right Fritz, you are assuming that the DC power input is not steady state at this point in the circuit and does not equate to pure DC?  Which after 3 seconds of charge up time the DC power input settles down to a steady state and contains no periodic information from the circuit. 

The voltage and current then are steady at this point.

You will not find anything in the power supply after this point to suggest that there is any pulsed power (periodic power) coming from the power supply.

Now as for energy in the circuit.  You have to remember that electromechanical resonance has long been considered to be additive energy.  In theory.  And also, the greater the mass the greater the energy.  And so, we have large transformer and coil masses in the circuit to add that energy in terms of an induced electromotive force in volts.  So thats the view applied to the added energy needed.

And so, the circuit increases the power as you say, but there is also a mean provided for additive energy.  The circuit uses Virtual Power Supply Terminals created by the diodes to recapture losses.  And those losses can only be returned back into the circuit through the emitter of the transistor as additional current supplied by the rectification of current that L1 induced into L2.

Yes its true that you can produce intantaneous peaks of over 1 MW out ot a watt.  But its kind of hard to produce allot of wattage out of a little in the form of a nearly square wave, with an increased half cycle period.

Intantaneous power of the kind you mentioned of 1 MW from 1 watt.  Is of a very small period of duration since 1 watt in no way can support 1 MW for a period of one half cycle more or less for 1/4 wave cycle.  So, the matter of how long the period or duration of the power output is is directly related to the input power in that if you increase the power to instantaneous power, the duration of that high wattage peak is going to be far less than half the wave cycle and less than 0.25 wavecycels. 

My models can be made to produce instantaneous peaks and their period is always far less than half a cycle.  So, there is no way 1 watt can support 1 MW for 180 degrees.

My circuit supports 8.23 Watts for a period of 0.64 wavecycles which is +50 degrees past 180 degrees.  So that whats up here.  with only 5.29 watts in DC that is steady state and not being peaked up into pulsed energy by the circuit.

5.29 watts peaked up = 7.48006 W peak and thats a sine wave peak.  That can not explain the 8.23 watts of near square wave.  Wher the rms, average and peak of a square wave are all one and the same.

See you have to do your math!

Do the math, thats considered impossible.

Having worked in radio since 1976 and RF power amplifiers I know the difference between rms, average and peak power of sine waves pretty well.  And so, go look up the effects of sqyare wave power in terms of rms, average and peak as compared to sine wave power in terms of rms, average and peak.

Now when you can explain that high wattage instantaneous peaks from 1 watt to procude 1 Mw is possible, but only for a small period of duration in a wave cycle, and can not be sustained very long per wave cycle.  And then come to find out that my power output here if for long than 180 degrees of the wave cycle and is equal to the half cycle period being extended from 0.5 of the wavecyle to 0.64, or from 180 to 230 degrees, you can not sustain that amount of power output with a little bit of Dc power input, unless the circuit has means to add energy to the scheme.

When you can explain that, the extension of the period ~ that makes it all different.

5.29 Watts / 8,23 watts = 0.64 which is directly related to the extension of the period past the 180 degree wavecycel point.  And since the power supply has no periodic information being fed back into it as a small amount of instantaneous pulsed power being drawn to effect this, then that makes this all different than you are thinking.

In order to understand this circuit and what it is doing you have to run the model and then see that there is no power from the power supply as you suggest.  Not even in the form of a small pulse.  So you really have to run the model to evaluate the performance and so, without running the model and examining it after 3 seconds or more of initial circuit charge up time to come to a steady state of DC power input, you miss the actions of the circuit.

[poynt99]

If done correctly, power measurements are valid for determining COP.

In the case presented here where the claimed COP is 8.33W/5.29W = 1.57:1, an error has been made.

With pulsed DC power, the RMS power is the average power over one cycle (assuming the wave form is periodic).

Input power (RMS) = 5.29W RMS (no dispute here, will assume correct)

Output power (RMS) = 8.23Wp x .64 (duty cycle) = 5.27W RMS

COP = Po/Pi = 5.27/5.29 = 0.996:1

Conclusion: The circuit is clearly underunity, and LTSpice is running correctly. Interpretation of the output data is in error.

Two oversights:

1) Duty Cycle must be taken into account for any measurement, and for pulsed DC the RMS power is the average power. If the wave form is periodic (i.e. repeating consistently) one need only compute one cycle. The RMS power is: Po(peak) [Ton/period].

2) From the above it was noted that the COP was nearly 1:1. In theory it should have been exactly 1:1, but due to rounding errors etc, it was 0.996:1. This is not a big concern, but the point that should be noted, is in the real world this figure would have been significantly less, perhaps 0.8:1 or worse. The reason the circuit presented here exhibits a COP of 1:1 is because no real world finite resistances are present in the circuit. Every inductor or transformer has a real world DC resistance, and if introduced in the circuit, the simulation would clearly show a reduced COP, well below 1:1.

Regards,
.99

[fritz]

Ok,

#1)
COP, efficiency or whatever is defined as the ratio of the _ENERGY_ comming out of our blackbox - and the _ENERGY_ going in.

#2)
_ENERGY_ is the product(simple case - DC) or integral(AC) of the power times the time of observation. If we stick to normal units we can measure that in Ws, Wh, kWh.

#3)
If we have DC power at out- and input we can forget about the _ENERGY_ because both powers are available in the same time intervals - so COP of the _ENERGY_ ratio is the same as the ratio of _POWER_.

#4)
If we cope with varying power - we have to define a time interval for our ratio.
In the case of an continuous AC power - we can define this time interval as the period of the fundamental frequency.

#5)
For your case this periode is T.
The input power is 5.39W x T (because its on all the time). The output power is 8.xxW x T x 0.64 (because its only available for 0.64 xT time duration).
Your output power isnt´t available all the time.

#6)
RMS
RMS is defined as the value for a composite signal - which emits the same energy in a load than a dc signal of the same value would have.
This means that 5Watts DC heats up a resistor to the same temperature - as a 5Vrms AC signal would do. (assuming ideal resistor).
Even if you have for time T x 0.64 8.xxW - which heats up the resistor - you have for the rest of the periode T x 0.36 no power - no heating - the resistor would cool down - emit energy.
Because the resistor has some thermal capacity - it will have a resulting temperature t - which corresponds to the 5.39W feed in. This temperature is defined by the ratio its feed with energy.

#7)
If you would have the same power (-8.xxW) in the "off" periode - you would have an output rms power of 8.xxW - but its off in this time interval.


In your circuit - the input "pi" type LC filter gets charged during the off periode with energy - because no energy going out. This energy is released during on periode which results in a higher power in this phase......

This is why I assume that you don´t know the difference between power and energy - or have a different approach to what engineers and physicians mean if they talk about "rms".

rgds.

[D.R.Jackson]

"RMS
RMS is defined as the value for a composite signal - which emits the same energy in a load than a dc signal of the same value would have.
This means that 5Watts DC heats up a resistor to the same temperature - as a 5Vrms AC signal would do. (assuming ideal resistor).
Even if you have for time T x 0.64 8.xxW - which heats up the resistor - you have for the rest of the periode T x 0.36 no power - no heating - the resistor would cool down - emit energy.
Because the resistor has some thermal capacity - it will have a resulting temperature t - which corresponds to the 5.39W feed in. This temperature is defined by the ratio its feed with energy."

I know this pretty well.  I hope this does not post twice here since the first time I posted it I lost it.  So this is a second try at responding.

Ok, you did not mention that the rms, average and peak value of a squarewave are one and the same.  And so. the rms value of 8.23 Watts is 8.23 Watts, the average value is 8.32 Watts, and the peak value is also 8.23 Watts.

Go look that up at Wikipedia.  And the 8.23 watts square wave makes this a little different ball games doesn't it?

[D.R.Jackson]

Instantaneous Peak Power ~ Versus Input Power

RNS, Average and Peak Power of a Square Wave Versus a Sine Wave?

Ok, I would not want some comments offered up here as a supposed analysis to be a waste of your time here, and so to help you here, here are the facts and I hope you understand them.  Regarding the assumptions of Fritz.

Clearly a few others here do not understand the difference between sine wave rms values and physics and that of square rms values.  But Wikipedia can clear that matter up real fast for you.

When you can explain to the audience the rms value of a square wave then come back here.

The above comments posted to me apply to sine wave analysis, we must analyze a square wave instead.  A different creature rms wise.

Well let us examine the premise of Fritz.  Regarding Fritz's analysis of the wave cycles and the period of them.

In the above wattage plot in LTspice, you will see a plot of my circuit modified to produce instantaneous peak power peaks of 17.18 Watts.  To examine the effects of the premise of Fritz.  To see how it all really works, based upon Fritz's conjectures.

This is done under the following conditions (and you can download this model below to test the instantaneous power peaks).

The power supply of the circuit simulated in this plot is heavily filtered of any wave form information from reaching it by a very heavy low pass filter made of two 6 Henry coils and a 1000u capacitor.  And as you can see in the plot, LTspice computes that the power supply input power is not periodic which means that it does not have any pulsed or sine wave components to it and is, thus a pure straight line beginning about at 3 seconds of initial charge up time ~ for the circuit to fully charge up after coming on; to fully stabilize into a steady DC state of power input of 5.08 Watts DC.  And so, no more sine wave cycles are existant in the power supply thereafter.  So we have a plotted straight line.  And hence are given the condition of a purely DC power input devoid of any pulses or sine wave cycles of any kind.  Hence pure steady state DC input.  Which we have to have to provide this examination.

So these are the conditions and the snap shot in time where we are analyzing these instantaneous wave forms.

And so Fritz; this is the snap shot, since you mentioned snap shots, in time and over a long period of time.  I'm gonna make you look at it here.  Give you the snap shot I mean.

~ Note that the one wave cycle, is graphed so to divide into two for you to see the half cycles marked in the middle of the scale as 0.5.  And see how that the instantaneous peak is less than a half wave cycle.  Which is normal and so, is the normal physics of such high wattage instantaneous peaks.

So given those conditions of the power supply which are the same conditions of my circuit that outputs 8.32 Watts in a sqaure wave form with a certain rise and fall time (being this is an audio circuit and not a digital circuit).

* ~ What this plot then demonstrates is that intantaneous power can not be maintained at a high level for anything as long as 1/2 wave cycle.  The 17.18 Watt instantaneous peak is plotted as can be seen above as being less than 1/2 wave cycle.  And you can see that a lower wattage peak then covers more than 180 degrees and thus is longer than 1/2 wave cycle which is typical under these conditions, since the high intantaneous peak can not fill in the space of 1/2 wave cycle.  And this is the normal condition of any circuit producing instantaneous high wattage peaks for a input power of much lower wattage. And so, instantaneous peak power levels way over the input power can only be maintained for periods less than 1/2 wave cycle.  Never as much as half a wave cycle or longer than half a wave cycle (180 degrees).

This 17.18 Watt peak then can only be maintained at this level for a duration of 0.35 wave cycles or 126 degrees, and can not endure to 180 degrees.

Now we can manage in a circuit, to reach an instantaneous peak of 100 Watts, but the duration of such a peak would be far less than that of the 17.18 Watt peak seen in the above software plot.  And so, averaged out with the other peaks in the wave cycle would come out to to be less than the power input of a normal circuit, when averaged.

Now in my circuit that is nearly a square wave, in square wave terms the peak, average and rms are all one and the same level.  Unlike a sine wave.

So Fritz missed the point here in terms of the full analysis and findings.  And did not get the snap shot he was talking about.

If we could maintain such a peak of 17.18 Watts for as long a 1/2 wave cycle then we would have over unity energy.  And so, if we could maintain such peaks of power for 180 degrees of the 360 degree wave cycle period, then we would have had over unity energy a long time ago.  But you see, it does not work that way. 

(Well it works that way in my circuits where the period of the peak square wave power is extended to 0.64 wave cycle (230 degrees or +50 degrees past the 180 degree wave cycle).  See now?  Explain one that Fritz?)

Now these peaks in this circuit versus the input power are a little higher when average with the other half of the wave cycle, than you would normally see for the amount of DC power input since this plot is from one of my modified resonator circuits.  But here, when I convert the power into instantaneous peak power, the physics of those things mentioned in this reply here follow the well known behavior of circuits producing such unusually high peaks for a little amount of DC input.

Such high peaks can never be maintained for at least 1/2 wave cycle!

The reaosning of Fritz then does not apply to the performance of these circuits here in this post.  Since he is not accounting for the duration of the peak power output, versus the purely steady state filtered DC power input.  And so, those things that he mentions I have already, along the way, considered in advance of study and made provisions for.

Of course the amount of power that my circuit realizes as a squarewave is not as extraordinary as the amount of instantaneous peak power as you see in above plot. 

The ratio of the pure steady state DC power input in my circuit here at this post is 0.64:1 where:

5.29 Watts steady state DC Input / 8.32 Watts square wave output = 0.64

And so, the with this amount of extension of the half cycle we realize an enhancement.  Being that you noramlly can not maintain such a level of peak, average or rms sqaure wave power output over the input power for anything such as 1/2 (0.5) wave cycle,  yet here we are now with such a higher peak lasting more than 1/2 wave cycle.  So thats what Fritz missed to see.

Summary:

What the matter then, under examination here is; is that the instantaneous peak ~ under examonation here, of the 17.18 Watts sine wave peak of power, can only last according to electrical physics in this circuit for a duration of 0.35 wave cycles or 126 degrees and so can not last as long as 180 degrees out of 360.  Whereas, the sonic resonator circuit outputs a square wave peak of 8.32 Watts for a long duration of period across the wave cycle of 0.64 wave cycles or 230 degrees.  +50 degrees past 180 degrees.  For a pure DC steady state DC power input of 5.23 Watts.  Which can only provide a sine wave peak power input into a theoretically lossless circuit, of 7.48006 Watts peak for 180 degrees, in a purely theoretical lossless model.  Which means that it can only output a square wave of 5.23 Watts as the rms value of the peak sine wave input into the purely theoretical lossless model.  When converted to the equivalent square wave of the power, that represents the 7.48006 Watts peak sine wave equivalent.  But all of this is impossible in conventional circuits to accomplish.

Whalla!

So this is the snap shot Fritz.

Now further comment about all of this and not getting this point is something I should not even bother with answering anymore after this.  Fortunately there are those who will get the point.  And as you can see, the premise is flawed if Fritz thinks for one minute that you can sustain such high instantaneous peaks for 1/2 wave cycle or more, and not call that equation over unity.  He's got the wrong picture or snap shot in his mind.

In ordianry thinking as you can see, from the above example plot of instantaneous power.  You can not ordinarily maintain such a high level of peak intantaneous power versus input power for anything as long as 0.5 wave cycle.  And as I said, if we could ~ we would have realized over unity a long time ago in AC fundamental terms.

In my LTspice simulation of the sonic resonator circuit, we have a DC input power of 5.29 Watts.  And so, if we were to manage to draw a sine wave peak of 5.29 Watts * 1.414 = 7.48006 Watts peak for 180 degrees of the output wave cycle from a circuit.  Well the circuit first of all has to be completely lossless to do this.  So an ordinary circuit is not going to output 7.48006 Watts peak over a duration of 180 degrees of the wave cycle because of losses in the circuit.  And so, to draw out 8.32 Watts peak then and as a sqaure wave, means we not only have reduced losses but have realized that there is some energy added into the output somewheres.  And so, the peak cycle of this output is 0.64 wave cycles which defies explaination in ordinary terms and is the thing that Fritz just glossed over and was blind to.  But you can run the simulation and analyze this for yourself.

Now the 7.48006 Watts peak over a duration of 180 degrees of the wave cycle, is the DC peak power that a transistor collector will output into a purely resistive load in a theoretically lossless model.  Before conversion to AC.  Yet the rms value of that power is 5.29 Watts.

Now there are digital chips that can output wave half cycles for longer than 0.5 cycles.  But the power input of the chip is greater than the power output and so, you can not make such things a standard of comparison since there is no such thing as enhanced power from such digital chips because of the losses in the chip.

So those comments made by Fritz do require some re thinking of the physical facts of the wave form period ~ along with the peak power output computed in software analysis over the period of time of 1/2 wave cycle where the period of the power is extended to 0.64 of the wave cycle which in ordinary electrical physics is impossible to accomplish at that level of square wave power output for that period of time.

So before you comment make sure you understand the performance aspects of this circuit.  And know, what is the case of it and what is happening.

So, I can conclude that someone only read my comments in part and then jumped to a conclusion before considering all of the data that the software simulation demonstrates.  Perhaps focusing in on one thing they thought they had a clue for, and failed to analyze the whole of it all.

Anyone who does not understand this point I am making here and have made in the previous posting above, is missing the point of it all altogether, if you are not going to analyze all of the findings as a whole, to get the whole picture you will assume you know what to comment here.

And so, what can you say to someone who is not going to get the point?  I suspect that more will come here and not get the point either.  To wit, I will not bother explaining this any further.  And I shouldn't have to explain it further.  Should I?  Those of you who get the point understand it.  Those who do not get the point won't and some will not even try, so, I wonder why someone will think that they have to offer up a comment when they have not considered all of the data as a whole?

As if I have nothing better to do here than to answer all the trivial things, or assumptions made only with half the picture.  Fritz did not get the whole picture, ~ did not get the snap shot.  I do though.  Fritz is looking in the fore ground, and is missing the picture in the back drop behind the front matters.  The whole snap shot is the matter.  Not just a part.

I do appreciate Fritz though, since the comments made, emboldened me and inspired me to provide you with these details to furthr explain the points I have made with a plot for you to understand how it really works when it comes to ordinary matters of instantaneous output power peaks versus input power.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As for extra energy, the larger the coil mass the larger the induced voltage, and so in mass~energy terms, more mass is more energy.  And of course voltage equates to a force, or electromotive force.  And so, the extra voltages induced into the circuit at higher the potential of the power supply, along with diodes strategically located to recapture losses and rectify them for returning back into the circuit, along with the running electromechanical resonance of the circuit equates to extra energy input into the circuit both by higher induced voltages as well as restoration of losses.

If you ask where the extra energy comes from I will say from the large mass of coils resonating in the circuit.  Mass energy, E=MC squared, hence the larger the mass, the more the energy.  And that does not violate a physical law but obeys the equation of Einstein.  The coil is energy of the inertial momentum kind.

But you have to restore the losses to realize anything in terms of the electromechanical resonant energy along with the induced voltages.

I did not believe in such things, and did not want to, though I did have ideas working in my mind over time.  And so, I just had to try them out to explore them.  And now, I realize that in one way, you can demonstrate some things in a software model which I realize has never been done before.  And I realize that for now and times to come it will be very controversial and lead to assumptions as well as speculations.  But the models are here for you to download and examine.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Well its not allot of power output, but it is a leap in concepts and principles, as well as loss reduction views, to say the least.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Fritz go back to school and takes some courses, especially in techincal math with trigonometry and study wave cycles and peak half cycle power versus the duration of instantaneous peaks.


Now for you other guys, I bet you thought that I had not considered these things that you are mentioning here.  And the energy of this circuit is not coming form the low pass filter but the transformer and Dx.

And I am amazed that you guys do not know the difference in the rms power of a square wave versus that of  sine wave.  Since you all are always talking about sine wave rms power physics here.

The rms power of a square wave to heat a resistor is the same as that of DC.  But in this case the case period of the square wave half cycle of 8.32 Watts is extended making it more effective.

Go to Wikipedia.......