I have been asked to start this thread reguarding a circuit i have built that has some interesting effect's.
It is only in it's primary stage of testing,but so far the result's are looking good.
So i invite you aboard to replicate and test as we go along.
I will start by adding a circuit diagram and a couple of video's on my work so far.
The circuit is from TK,and it is how the circuit is set up.
The only thing i use diferent is the two diode's.
I am useing 1n4004's,but these may need to be changed as the frequency get's higher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYeGUGbmmII
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdpY0TC64P4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjHay5HNHg
And here is the circuit diagram.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1136.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn492%2Fduneraider69%2Fteslacircuit_zps00003503.png&hash=0ab944c183ba81cce23d22ba1d6079fadbf1a68d)
As a start tinman, could you please state what it is that you believe is the merit of your results?
I've not determined this yet from your posts and videos, but is it that you believe the circuit, when tuned appropriately, provides a source of current back to the battery, in effect charging the battery, or something similar? Do you believe this circuit is somehow exhibiting OU then? Do you believe the LEDs can be illuminated with no energy required from the battery at certain settings?
Please clarify.
Thanks,
.99
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2013, 09:53:01 AM
As a start tinman, could you please state what it is that you believe is the merit of your results?
I've not determined this yet from your posts and videos, but is it that you believe the circuit, when tuned appropriately, provides a source of current back to the battery, in effect charging the battery, or something similar? Do you believe this circuit is somehow exhibiting OU then? Do you believe the LEDs can be illuminated with no energy required from the battery at certain settings?
Please clarify.
Thanks,
.99
the word "believe" is not scientific.
Quote from: onthecuttingedge2005 on January 09, 2013, 10:02:40 AM
the word "believe" is not scientific.
Ah huh. Do you have a point?
tinman et al,
As I mentioned before, without a proper diagram of the complete setup, you're walking around in the dark. I've taken the liberty and time to do this for you (thanks TK for drawing the bulk of it).
Do you concur that this diagram is correct per your setup?
tinman,
What is the purpose of the series 3R, 150uF cap, and diode? Why is this string of components required?
Well I think that I can answer the question in TK's clip about why the LEDs get so bright.
When the output of the FG is high that turns on the tree LEDs.
When the output of the FG is low, the three LEDs are off. At the same time the Tesla pancake coil is being charged up with increasing counter-clockwise current flow.
Then on the transition from low to high of the FG output. for a certain amount of time there are two power sources discharging through the LEDs. The first source is the FG itself. The second source is the discharging Tesla pancake coil. So for a brief time the three LEDs get a "double shot" and thus get very bright. This is of course do to the fact that the current lags behind the voltage in an inductor. The "double shot" of current is sufficiently short in time such that the LEDs do not get destroyed.
The rest of the circuit looks more or less like window dressing to me.
I am assuming that the FG has an output impedance of 50 ohms.
Poynt I read your correct comment about the meters averaging zero current flow when the current is bidirectional. You of course are right and I was also fooled by that. It's always funny to see yourself being fooled by your own preconceptions and mental laziness.
For Tinman, when you get your new scope the key to understanding this circuit is to understand the timing. Electronics is all about timing. In this case the circuit only has two voltage nodes. Hence the voltage timing diagram is trivial. The real thing to try to discover using tricks with current sensing resistors is what are the currents in the circuit. Like I said above, on the rising edge of the FG output, you should see a "bump" in the amount of current going into the tree LEDs. Can you figure out how to measure that?
If you produced a timing diagram with the voltage output of the FG as the reference, and the various currents going through different branches of the circuit, then the circuit will be explained. Naturally if you observe different LED brightness for different FG frequencies then a timing diagram for each frequency would be interesting.
Poynt is just a few mouse clicks away from generating a timing diagram using pSpice. However, it would be a good exercise to derive the timing yourself, and then perhaps later Poynt will generate the pSpice timing diagrams. For a trivial circuit like this you would expect the two diagrams to be very similar.
MileHigh
Since I just wound a Tesla pancake coil a few days ago I'm game to give this a try. I haven't watched the vid's yet but is it mentioned what frequency to use on the function generator?
Okay I just started the video and see mention of 530 Hz. That's interesting as 528 Hz is one of the primary Solfeggio frequencies.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2013, 09:53:01 AM
As a start tinman, could you please state what it is that you believe is the merit of your results?
I've not determined this yet from your posts and videos, but is it that you believe the circuit, when tuned appropriately, provides a source of current back to the battery, in effect charging the battery, or something similar? Do you believe this circuit is somehow exhibiting OU then? Do you believe the LEDs can be illuminated with no energy required from the battery at certain settings?
Please clarify.
Thanks,
.99
It appears from simple power in / power out calculations that he is getting more than 2 times more power out than in. I'm assuming you probably caught that. Is that not an annomaly worth looking at?
It appears from simple power in / power out calculations that he is getting more than 2 times more power out than in. I'm assuming you probably caught that. Is that not an annomaly worth looking at? He does state that he is not sure what he has and that's why he is open sourcing it for others to check out. I think the first thing I would try if I can get it working like his setup is to run things at a higher power input and see if the output is still noticeably more power out than in.
Thanks, Tinman, for starting the thread.
First let me clear up a mior point: it's my _drawing_ of the circuit, not my circuit. I just redrew the schematic from Tinman's first sketch of it in his video. I always redraw circuits, it helps me to understand what's happening within them, and whenever possible I use the "positive and negative rail" format as I've sketched it; this makes layout of actual components a little easier (but may not always be appropriate for VHF or UHF circuits where actual layout can matter.)
Next.... please let's not get all adversarial right away. I think that Tinman is a careful and logical experimenter and I don't think he's about to go off "half-cocked" with claims of OU unless there is some evidence. I don't believe that he's made any such claims at this point.
Further, there are some "pitfalls" that this circuit illustrates. I've already discovered some interesting things. Did you know that the bifilar pancake coil, for example, can light up an LED even with the "interconnect" OPEN? That is, if you just don't even connect the wire that connects the top of one winding to the bottom of the other winding -- making the coil an open circuit to DC -- you can still light up an LED across the coil's output terminals if the coil is driven by another coil at the appropriate frequencies? I didn't know this until I started experimenting here.
In addition, many modern FGs have the "black" or output shield wire permanently grounded to the instrument chassis and back through the line cord to the mains ground, and most modern bench oscilloscopes have their probe references ("grounds") also connected in this way. This means that it's hard to scope the circuit in several places simultaneously and that one must be careful of ground loops caused by inadvertent placement of ground or reference leads. I was briefly amazed to see full brilliance in the LEDs even when the "black" output from my FG was disconnected.... the scope reference lead was providing the "negative" or Black wire connection back to the FG's output, through the chassis grounds that were interconnected both by the mains line and also by the BNC jumper used to feed the trigger signal from the FG directly to the scope.
Fortunately my Interstate F43 FG allows the user to isolate its output from its chassis ground, so I can power the circuit with the FG and by careful connections I can also scope a different point in the circuit.
Of course with a stand-alone dedicated oscillator as TM uses this is less of a problem, as long as one is aware of the possibility of groundloops. But without fully isolated scope references (like some portable scopes provide) it's not possible to scope the current in both input legs just by putting in CVRs in place of the DMMs and scoping across them, simultaneously, with a single scope, as the probe references (internally connected at the scope chassis) will short out the circuit, and even with two scopes, the probe "grounds" will still be connected through the mains, unless at least one of their mains supplies is fully isolated with an isolation transformer.
This is one reason why I've asked TM to show the circuit of the oscillator board he's using. Just good clear photos of the front and back of the oscillator , along with the component values, would probably be enough for me to trace out the circuit of TM's signal source, and it would be helpful for other experimenters, who may not have FGs that are capable of isolating their outputs.
Ok.... enough of that introduction, and on to some results. I'll be posting a video of some scopeshots later on, but for now, I've done a "quick and dirty" test by interrupting the connection between the 3R>Diode>150uF cap to the rest of the circuit.... and I see no difference in behaviour of the circuit whether or not these components are connected. I'll do more comprehensive testing of this later on. Perhaps TM can also try interrupting this leg of the circuit and see if he gets any differences in behaviour using his setup.
BTW, my pancake coil measures 695 uHy when tested on my ProsKit commercial (but cheap) LCR meter, and reads 685 uHy when my Arduino-based inductometer is used. I've used 1n914 diodes in my initial build but will try 1n4004 diodes today, to compare waveforms, and I've had to build up the cap values out of smaller caps: For the 2200 uF cap I used 2x1000uF and 1x220 uF 16 volt, in parallel, giving 2220 uF, and for the 150 uF I've used a 100 uF and a 47 uF in parallel, also 16 volts. Unfortunately I don't have single caps of the correct values so I am stuck with these.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 09, 2013, 02:41:02 PM
It appears from simple power in / power out calculations that he is getting more than 2 times more power out than in. I'm assuming you probably caught that.
No. Please show the calculations.
Quote
Is that not an annomaly worth looking at?
I am asking so as to ascertain what anomaly tinman believes he might have.
At the moment, I do not see any anomaly at all. Would someone care to point it out if there is one?
I just watched Tinsel's vid on this circuit. Is he around here on this thread or on the JT thread with this? Anyway is it not very interesting that his current readings went from positive to negative milliamp readings while he was changing the voltage and or frequency? Yet the LED's stayed on. How can that be or am I missing something about how strange that seems?
Indeed,
It would seem that all who are discussing this circuit are missing something.
Think!
Well tinman seems fairly sharp on all this and Tinsel Koala is no dummy so how about some hints as to what you think is going on. Pancake coil picking up power from the environment ? I don't think it would pick up enough to account for the additional power unless it's resonating something to pull that in.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2013, 03:01:21 PM
Indeed,
It would seem that all who are discussing this circuit are missing something.
Think!
All?
Quote from: e2matrix on January 09, 2013, 03:29:28 PM
Well tinman seems fairly sharp on all this and Tinsel Koala is no dummy so how about some hints as to what you think is going on. Pancake coil picking up power from the environment ? I don't think it would pick up enough to account for the additional power unless it's resonating something to pull that in.
The "hints" have been given by .99 and by me...... when driven by a symmetrical waveshape the meters as used "should" average the signals properly to zero. However the driving signals, or the circuit's response to them, are not symmetrical but rather change their symmetry in various ways according to the p-p voltage and frequency of the drive.
There is no need to search for or postulate sources of "additional power" unless and until such additional power is demonstrated to exist. The only "anomaly" that I might be seeing so far is that the LEDs seem -- subjectively -- to get brighter than they should be capable of getting without blowing. As I've said before I have no instrumental way of testing my impression of the brightness... yet.
The DMM readings are interesting, but surely the principle of Okham's Razor applies here: simple explanations that do not "multiply entities" must be considered and eliminated before any more unusual explanations are entertained.
So... again.... please let's not get overexcited in _either direction_. Not adversarial, not overly enthusiastic.... just some dispassionate examinations of circuit... and measurement.... behaviour.
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 09, 2013, 03:48:28 PM
All?
I am waiting for more input from tinman before I offer an explanation and to correct his error.
I've not yet seen anyone explain the error tinman is making (nor make mention that there is one) regarding his assumptions as stated in his videos, so I can only assume that no one else realizes that there is one.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2013, 04:13:27 PM
I am waiting for more input from tinman before I offer an explanation and to correct his error.
I've not yet seen anyone explain the error tinman is making (nor make mention that there is one) regarding his assumptions as stated in his videos, so I can only assume that no one else realizes that there is one.
Hi poynt99 and all
There is every chance that i am makeing an error that has clearly been over looked by my self.
This is the very reason i have open sorced the circuit,so as others can replicate and test it them self.
My assumptions in my video are being made as to what i see my equipment telling me.
Your schematic you drew poynt99 is correct for one measurment position-but there has been many.
If i understand what the DMM's are telling me is that they are measuring the current in one direction,then subtracting the current in the opposite direction and giving us the remainder ?
The reason i found this circuit interesting is that never have i seen a DMM go negative in curent flow on any other circuit i have built-including SSG's.
Here is the circuit i am useing for the wave generator.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n492/duneraider69/teslatpulsecircuit_zpsf9e6cd79.jpg
So please,if you can see an error-let us know.
This is my latest video on another test i have carried out.
Here i am useing electron flow to show how i have set up this small test.
I also use blocking diodes so as i can direct the flow of electron,s.
Also note that we also have a voltage drop accross each diode of .5 volt's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVZCTx2WlxI
Thanks tinman for sharing this very interesting circuit. That observation is what I was most fascinated with - the current going negative under those conditions. Tinsel also did a vid and showed the same odd effect. Sounds to me like negative resistance or some sort of oddity that doesn't fit traditional electrical theory. I'd like to hear what anyone has to say on that effect. I plan on trying this circuit. I still don't know what it is poynt99 thinks we are missing but hopefully he'll get back here soon since you've now replied. poynt99 and Tinsel are some hard cookies to slip anything by on as they always seem to find some way of explaining away the 'magic' - LOL But I guess it's good if we are really missing something to have some members around that can figure out what's causing an effect. I've got a meter that can read to 200 Khz (Fluke 87 model III) so if that is part of the problem with what they are thinking maybe this will help. But from what I saw in your vids it seemed your o-scope verified what the meters were seeing.
Quote from: tinman on January 09, 2013, 05:46:30 PM
My assumptions in my video are being made as to what i see my equipment telling me.
Your instruments are telling you the correct numbers. However, there is nothing anomalous about the readings you are getting, other than a slight difference between the current meters.
Quote
Your schematic you drew poynt99 is correct for one measurment position-but there has been many.
As per the note on the schematic, this is from your video entitled "tesla meter circuit test 2". I suspect this particular setup is sufficiently representative to cover all issues.
Quote
If i understand what the DMM's are telling me is that they are measuring the current in one direction,then subtracting the current in the opposite direction and giving us the remainder ?
Essentially yes. The proper terminology is "averaging". The meter is averaging the current it is measuring.
For example, if you are using a 50% duty square wave, and the load is the same for both polarities, the meter should read 0mA. Let's say the load is changed so that it is now imbalanced; perhaps +50mA and -40mA, the average reading on the display should be +10mA.
Be careful in your assumptions, as this does
not mean the FG is supplying only 10mA to the circuit. Likewise, if the loads are reversed such that the readings are +40mA and -50mA, you can not assume that 10mA is going back into the battery. The meter in this case is simply telling you that the FG is supplying 10mA more negative current than positive current. In both cases above,
the FG (and battery) is supplying an average of 45mA of current to the circuit.
Quote
The reason i found this circuit interesting is that never have i seen a DMM go negative in curent flow on any other circuit i have built-including SSG's.
As I explained above, a negative current reading in this case simply means that on average, the FG is supplying more negative current than positive current. That's all. The meter isn't giving you any other useful information, at least not the kind you can make any power computations from.
Let's say I have a real heavy duty FG that can supply 10A of current (both + and -), and I am driving a load which is imbalanced, such as the one in your circuit. But in this case, lets' say on the positive side, the load draws 9.999A, and on the negative side the load draws -10.000A. What will the ammeter read? It will of course read -1mA. Now, what is the average
battery current? It is of course almost 10A. If the FG output voltage is +/- 6V, then the average power (supplied by the battery) going into this "load" is 60W.
Quote
Here is the circuit i am useing for the wave generator.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n492/duneraider69/teslatpulsecircuit_zpsf9e6cd79.jpg (http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n492/duneraider69/teslatpulsecircuit_zpsf9e6cd79.jpg)
Thanks for the circuit, that is quite helpful in understanding how your FG can have a bipolar output (the DC is decoupled).
Quote
So please,if you can see an error-let us know.
Here is one; in your video titled "Tesla circuit pt4", at about 3:30 you are explaining that one ammeter is slightly higher than the other because of the duty cycle being off of 50%. This is incorrect. In fact, you can get rid of one of those ammeters because they are redundant of each other. You will notice that they seem to track quite closely most of the time, never differeing more than a few tens of uA. I suspect the difference is caused by inductance in your wiring and/or integrator vagaries in the meters. At any rate, you only need one ammeter, and that should be the one on the output of your FG.
Ammeters are bidirectional, so you only need one to see both the positive and negative currents. However, if you want to see the true current being supplied by the FG, you should monitor the battery current. If there is any current going back into the battery, you will see it.
Any questions, please let me know.
.99
Tinman:
The schematic for your wave generator circuit looks very suspect, like it has errors. The Q1 emitter-follower output is not connected to anything so it is not doing anything useful. Normally that would be used to provide an output signal.
The 1K VR2 potentiometer sucks the life out of the output from the 555 pin #3. The output impedance of your wave generator is very high (I thought that it was 50 ohms.) The output impedance of your signal generator is also variable - it depends where the VR2 potentiometer is set at. That is highly undesirable. Also, at lower frequencies you will notice that the waveform is not a square wave any more, it will look like a series of alternating positive and negative spikes.
E2matrix:
QuoteSounds to me like negative resistance or some sort of oddity that doesn't fit traditional electrical theory.
You told me you have some technical background so how can you possibly say that? Everytime someone sees something "unusual" in a circuit it turns out they either were not using their measuring instruments properly or they did not understand what the circuit was doing. This entire circuit (including the signal generator) consists of a few diodes, a transistor, a few capacitors, a coil, etc. It's metaphysically impossible for this circuit to be doing something "special." The only fun here is figuring out why there are apparent anomalous readings and tracking down the resolution and understanding where you went wrong. Taking these "great leaps" on your part is a mistake.
MileHigh
Just finished building the circuit although I'm not sure my pancake is big enough. I haven't fired it up yet. So poynt99 what do you think if one were to use a positive only square wave pulse to feed this? I've got a couple devices and one FG that can do that. If that produces the same/similar effect would that change things?
Quote from: e2matrix on January 09, 2013, 08:49:19 PM
Just finished building the circuit although I'm not sure my pancake is big enough. I haven't fired it up yet. So poynt99 what do you think if one were to use a positive only square wave pulse to feed this? I've got a couple devices and one FG that can do that. If that produces the same/similar effect would that change things?
In some cases, some current can be returned to the battery. We saw this with Rose's circuit. However, this is by no means a sign of OU.
In terms of current, that 555 circuit is using a fraction of what those LED's are, so if you want to know if the circuit is OU or not, monitor the average battery current. If the meter starts "spinning backwards", then you might have something.
Hi Milehigh, I thought you understood by now I like to look to the 'magical' side of metaphysical ;) Anyway it was just a quick thought however I do believe there may be some 'magic' in a Tesla bifilar pancake coil.
I fired up the circuit and here are some observations. First I'll mention some of the items used: two precision resistors in parallel that yielded 3.6 Ohms including the resistance of the clip leads. 1N4004 diodes. High intensity 5mm LED's - 3 warm and 1 cool white. Very small pancake bifilar coil -- probably only around 10 feet of twin 22 ga. wire. I later changed to using a bifilar bi-toroid. 2200 uf electrolytic and a 150 uf electrolytic. One digital function generator with controls for amplitude, offset, duty cycle, sweep, etc. all in square wave mode although I only played with the amplitude, duty cycle and offset. I used a Fluke 87 model III true RMS meter which will go to 200 Khz. My main test frequency was right around 528 Hz so this is well within the range of the Fluke frequency capabilities. I found the LED outputs dropped off at higher frequencies.
I noticed after playing around a bit was that one lead to the pancake coil had fallen off. With that setup I was having the turn the FG output as low as it would go. In changing the offset all the way down or all the way up would toggle between the set of 3 LED's glowing very bright or the 1 LED glowing very bright (At maximum brightness on either set the o-scope appeared flatlined on the centerline). Upon finding the loose cliplead and reattaching it that all changed to need a higher output from the FG which was no surprise as the pancake coil is very low resistance or impedance across the output of the FG. It still worked but not much brightness. I was using a 400 Mhz digital scope and the patterns were basic square wave.
I then switched to the bifilar bi-toroid since I felt the pancake was too small and too low resistance. Although the bi-toroid didn't have a lot more wire on it than the pancake it did much better in brightness of the LED's at the same FG output. All this so far was just quick and dirty tests. What I think was interesting though is what I was seeing on the Fluke meter. Depending on the offset and duty cycle I would mostly see anything from about 5 ma to 180 ma or so. I'll have to go back to verify some of this as I was just flying through a bunch of different little variations and tests.
But what was most interesting was to see the current go completely to Zero and even negative to about 180 ma depending on the FG settings while still seeing the LED's lit bright. The Fluke meter was beween the positive of the FG and the input to the circuit. I'll probably need to go back and re-read poynt's explanation again but given the meter and it's specs does it seem there is something odd here? Note that both the single 'load' LED and the 3 LED's were lit fairly bright all the way from a positive current up to about 180 ma to Zero to a negative current of about 180 ma. They were lit the entire time I swept from positive current to negative current. So I'll admit I'm mostly too lazy to figure out an explanation if that is really an oddity but I'm starting to get some ideas. BTW the scope patterns were no longer square wave when I was using the bi-toroid.
One other thing I'll say again is that when I was changing the FG offset and the o-scope pattern was flat lined on the center line it seems odd to have the LED's lit so bright. I'm going to recheck that aspect now with current readings as I don't think I had the meter hooked up when I observed that.
Here are a couple corrections and further observations to my previous post. When I thought the o-scope was showing flat line at certain offsets it was with the pancake coil and I found when I turned it to maximum sensitivity (1 millivolt per division) there was still a small square wave but very low voltage - probably less than 1/3 millivolt. Maximum LED brightness does not occur at maximum positive or maximum negative current. At least according the my meter the maximum pos. or maximum neg. current was actually producing about the lowest brightness. Zero current through about 140ma pos or neg was nearly the same brightness. All this was at the same amplitude FG output and the current was being varied by changing the offset for that test. I'm not really sure what to make of all this right now but I'm tossing it out there for those who are a lot more familiar with such data. At my age it mostly comes down to a 'need to know' basis and I don't really need to know why but only if it's something significant and I'll even leave that up the members here who have a lot more experience with all this. I'll be glad to do other tests if anyone can suggest some with this setup.
I also want to add for anyone not familiar with the Fluke 87 III that in the milliamp current mode it is auto sensing for either DC or AC. So if this can read to 200 Khz and I was at only 528 Hz wouldn't it see the AC current from the FG regardless of the offset? Most of my tests were at 50% duty cycle but when changing the offset I was getting a range in the current from about 180 ma positive through zero to negative 180 ma. I suppose the logical explanation is that the meter was seeing the AC but the offset was making it positive or negative. But what about when the current was Zero ma and the LED's bright? It's an auto AC and DC current meter which can read either and switches automatically. Seems a bit odd but mostly thinking out loud here.... I'm going to look a bit more on that situation with the o-scope.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 09, 2013, 09:39:44 PM
In some cases, some current can be returned to the battery. We saw this with Rose's circuit. However, this is by no means a sign of OU.
In terms of current, that 555 circuit is using a fraction of what those LED's are, so if you want to know if the circuit is OU or not, monitor the average battery current. If the meter starts "spinning backwards", then you might have something.
I just bought a bunch more 555's a couple weeks ago so if this continues to look interesting I'll try building a square wave gen with a 555 so it can all be run off battery and see about looping any apparent excess back to the battery. I need to do a better pancake coil too since I believe if there is any real unusual activity here that it will likely be the result of that coil.
@Tinman: thanks for posting the oscillator circuit. I agree with MH... it looks a bit weird, but if it works.... it works. I've gathered most of the components together to build a duplicate (still searching my stash for a 500K pot, though). I somehow thought that this was a commercial product you bought?
It would be nice to know the inductance of your Tesla bifilar pancake coil. You can probably determine it "close enough" by putting it in parallel with a known capacitor, stimulating it with your FG, and looking for the resonant frequency of the tank, then solving for the inductance value.
If you have or can get an Arduino, the inductometer is simple and easy to make, and you don't need the LCD screen that I used, you can get the output on your computer using the Arduino IDE Serial Monitor tool. An Arduino is incredibly useful for all kinds of things and I think that one should be a part of any well-equipped laboratory. The Arduino, a comparator or op-amp wired as comparator, and a known 2uF cap is pretty much all you need to make a fairly accurate inductance meter that works by "punching" the tank circuit and looking at the actual resonant frequency and doing the math from that.
I hope you are managing to stay cool, mate. I see from the map that many areas are topping 50 degrees..... that's hot, even for Texas. Two summers ago we had weeks of over 40 degrees along with high humidity, and I lived in the Mojave in California for a while where it got to 45 or so with low humidity. I can't even imagine what 50 degrees feels like outside a sauna.
Ok to answer some question's
First up,i make no claims of any type,other than what i see is something i havnt seen befor.
And as you will see in a previous post of mine,i expected just as TK an.99 said-they are averaging current flows.
So a question of my own would be-if the current is changing direction(as it is) then why do the meters not read in AC insted of DC?
At a guess i would think this could be due to the wave shape itself,in that the meters must see a sign wave and not a square wave to read in AC mode.
But if it is another reason,then i would like to know-as this is how we learn.
Now the r3,150uf cap and diode are not for any operational purpose of the circuit.As mentioned in one of the video's,it is for a voltage reference point only.This tells me how much voltage the circuit is running on.The diode loss must also be added to that voltage>in my case it is +.5 volts for those diodes.
Although the FG may be useing so many miliamps at 12 volt's,that is not what the circuit in question is useing.
What we need to understand here is im not interested in the efficiency of the FG-that is just our power supply.
I look at the FG as a transformer that puts out an AC square wave,and the negative(ground) is our neutral.
So useing the 150uf cap(our voltage reference point)i can see that the peak voltage being delivered by our transforme(FG) is about 4.5 volt's.This i have verified with the scope placed on the output's of the FG,and reading from peak to peak.
Now as mile high pointed out-the FG circuit look's no quite right.
First up,the circuit is the one in the instruction's that come with the kit from jaycar.
The confusion may be because i have removed the part of the circuit that was for a sawtooth wave,as this did not make the setup function.
Maybe i should have left it on ,so as to avoid the confusion.
But as i stated above,im not interested in how efficient the FG is-i am only interested in what the circuit itself is doing.
Now the other thing i would like to say is that when you place some of Tesla's work (in this case the BPC)in your circuit's,by no means is that just a plain old circuit.
In my next video,i will show just what the BPC can achieve that no other coil can-that i have seen anyway.
The other thing that i find interesting is the amount of current going into the circuit,and the amount of current being dissipated across the LED's.
Also remember that the current on the load LED (orange one) is pure DC ,not pulsed.
So i guess the next thing to do would be to get a current input,and the current output across the LED's
But the thing i need you to understand is this-in no way do i claim any OU from this circuit.
What i am doing is sharing something i found to be interesting.
Hi TK
Well i live on the coast of western Australia,so we dont quit hit 50c.
But we often get to 45c in summer,but when you live with it all your life-you get use to it.
Then on the other end of the scale,in winter we can often go below 0c.
No snow here,just ice.
This dosnt realy have anything to do with the circuit,but it was something else i found interesting reguarding a BPC.
And i also put forth a question in reguard to reading the current flow in both directions,useing two diodes in opposite directions off the positive input.Then hooking 1 DMM to each diode to measure the current flow in both diections.We then add the two amounts together to get our total current amount.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmR_Sqw7wv0
TM
Quote
But the thing i need you to understand is this-in no way do i claim any OU from this circuit.
What i am doing is sharing something i found to be interesting.
------------------
Well apparently you are not alone in your "curious" observation,I personally feel your worth your weight in Gold to this community !
Sometimes Providence brings Men together to ponder a problem or curiousity,These moments can be Fleeting or be part of Much bigger "events".
It is This "Event" we work towards.And what you do here brings us Closer!
you set a good example .[as always as far as I can tell?]
Thank you
Chet
PS
I also hope you do not suffer from that heat wave .
Quote from: tinman on January 10, 2013, 08:09:42 AM
And i also put forth a question in reguard to reading the current flow in both directions,useing two diodes in opposite directions off the positive input.Then hooking 1 DMM to each diode to measure the current flow in both diections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmR_Sqw7wv0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmR_Sqw7wv0)
Apparently you did not see this post tinman:
http://www.overunity.com/13234/welcome-to-understanding-overunity/msg350306/#msg350306
I have reproduced the diagram here for you.
Quote
We then add the two amounts together to get our total current amount.
This is incorrect. The correct procedure to obtain the average current supplied by the FG is to take the absolute value of each reading (convert the negative current to positive), add them together, then divide by 2. As follows:
I
FG(avg) = (|Ipos| + |Ineg|)/2
Quote from: tinman on January 10, 2013, 04:21:53 AM
Ok to answer some question's
First up,i make no claims of any type,other than what i see is something i havnt seen befor.
Relax mates, I've not alluded that you have made any claims.
Quote
So a question of my own would be-if the current is changing direction(as it is) then why do the meters not read in AC insted of DC?
At a guess i would think this could be due to the wave shape itself,in that the meters must see a sign wave and not a square wave to read in AC mode.
By all means try it on ACmA. You won't get an accurate reading unless your meter is true rms, but you will get a much more meaningful reading than what you have on DCmA.
Quote
Now the r3,150uf cap and diode are not for any operational purpose of the circuit.As mentioned in one of the video's,it is for a voltage reference point only.This tells me how much voltage the circuit is running on.The diode loss must also be added to that voltage>in my case it is +.5 volts for those diodes.
I don't quite understand this. Why can't you measure across the FG output?
Quote
Although the FG may be useing so many miliamps at 12 volt's,that is not what the circuit in question is useing.
If you were to measure the average battery current, this would give you a pretty good idea what the circuit in question is using, less 5mA or so for the FG itself.
You should post the original schematic for the FG. It appears you deleted a line or two that is required to show proper operation.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 10, 2013, 08:49:52 AM
Apparently you did not see this post tinman:
http://www.overunity.com/13234/welcome-to-understanding-overunity/msg350306/#msg350306
I have reproduced the diagram here for you.
This is incorrect. The correct procedure to obtain the average current supplied by the FG is to take the absolute value of each reading (convert the negative current to positive), add them together, then divide by 2. As follows:
IFG(avg) = (|Ipos| + |Ineg|)/2
Well i guess the only answer i have as to why i missed that post is that i thought anything related to this circuit would be posted here on the thread about the circuit.
But looking at your diagram,it seems that we agree on how to measure each flow of current.
But yes,i did overlook the fact that it must be devided by two for a full cycle current average.
With the meters hooked like i was going to hook them up,then we would not have to convert negative current to positive current.If you flip your bottom meter around(reverse the polarities)then both meters will read a positive current flow.
In reguards to your question in your next post-I don't quite understand this. Why can't you measure across the FG output?
Well my meters just wont read a voltage that is going high then low,so i collect the peak to peak voltage and store it in the 150uf cap,so as i have a stable voltage to read.
I then placed my scope across the output of the FG output,and make sure the cap is correct.But we must remember to add the voltage loss from the diode aswell to that cap voltage-and this will vary slightly depending on what diodes you use ofcourse.
I would also like to say thanks for the help and input you have given so far-its been a great help
Quote from: tinman on January 10, 2013, 09:17:57 AM
Well my meters just wont read a voltage that is going high then low,so i collect the peak to peak voltage and store it in the 150uf cap,so as i have a stable voltage to read.
I then placed my scope across the output of the FG output,and make sure the cap is correct.But we must remember to add the voltage loss from the diode aswell to that cap voltage-and this will vary slightly depending on what diodes you use ofcourse.
Ah ok, now I understand. You are reading the positive peak voltage. ;)
Quote
I would also like to say thanks for the help and input you have given so far-its been a great help
You're welcome. I hope my long post explaining things made sense to you?
ETA: If you leave the bottom meter as shown, you can easily see which current is the negative one, then just flip it's polarity in your head for your computation. It would be interesting to see which current is higher in amplitude and which is lower...don't you agree?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 10, 2013, 09:25:32 AM
Ah ok, now I understand. You are reading the positive peak voltage. ;)
You're welcome. I hope my long post explaining things made sense to you?
ETA: If you leave the bottom meter as shown, you can easily see which current is the negative one, then just flip it's polarity in your head for your computation. It would be interesting to see which current is higher in amplitude and which is lower...don't you agree?
I do agree with you on that,so i will leave the meters as you have them depicted when i do my test.
Now here is the untouched schematic for the FG.
As you will see,i only removed the switch and line for the sawtooth wave side of thing's.
So this would in no way change the square wave operation.
The circuit is just a cheapy from jaycar-probably made in china.
But it dose what i wanted it to do for the time being.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1136.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn492%2Fduneraider69%2FUnmodifiedwavegenerator_zps5a9fde6e.jpg&hash=e8cd023efc16feeb5e1c3c26ee34ac207ad582f9)
OK, that FG circuit now makes more sense.
You were right, there was no effect with the parts you removed from the schematic. The sqaure wave output is from the normal pin 3 of the 555.
For the "sawtooth" output, they are simply buffering the timing cap wave form....not very effective, but an interesting and simple idea. It will look like a curved sawtooth, more than a linear one.
tinman,
When I explained the correct method of computing the average FG current, I was thinking in terms of measuring this with an o-scope, then performing the computation using both peak currents. I made an error here because you will actually be using two separate meters to measure the two separate currents, negative and positive.
So for this method, you were right. You will simply add the two currents together. Why? Because with a 50% duty cycle, the meters will be averaging each polarity of current separately. So for example, if we have +40mA and -50mA (peak), the two meters will actually indicate +20mA and -25mA (average) respectively. Add them together and you have the correct 45mA average current.
Sorry for any confusion.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 10, 2013, 11:00:43 PM
tinman,
When I explained the correct method of computing the average FG current, I was thinking in terms of measuring this with an o-scope, then performing the computation using both peak currents. I made an error here because you will actually be using two separate meters to measure the two separate currents, negative and positive.
So for this method, you were right. You will simply add the two currents together. Why? Because with a 50% duty cycle, the meters will be averaging each polarity of current separately. So for example, if we have +40mA and -50mA (peak), the two meters will actually indicate +20mA and -25mA (average) respectively. Add them together and you have the correct 45mA average current.
Sorry for any confusion.
Now poynt99-your adding confusion to my confusion lol.
But on a more serious note,my first thought's were as you just stated above.
As we were not long ago talking about the meters averaging current,it made sence to me that we add the two together.
But when you posted your comment about deviding by 2,that also made sence.
As it is a square wave that is either on or off for half a cycle,i thought the meters might read the peak current of that half cycle-so your comment about /2 made sence aswell.
But i was comeing back to put forth my original thought of adding the two together,as there would be a 0 current draw on the meters for half a cycle-so the meter would average between peak and 0 current draw.
But i see you beat me to it-so we are on the same page now.
I think this is one situation where people can get fooled into thinking they have something OU.
If we had of gone for the devide by 2,we could have been making that very error we try to eliminate-and we could of had an OU machine that wasnt OU.
I will put the scope across the meter,as i know the shunt on ma is 1.5 ohm's.This should tell us exactly how accurate our meters are,and what they are reading.
But for my first input-output measurments,i will add the two DMM readings together and use that figure as a starting point.
This will give us a close indication as to how much more we have to get out of the circuit to get to where we want to be.
It may even tell us that there is nothing in the circuit at all aswell.
poynt.99-and all.
I made a couple of changes to the circuit tonight,and not to much changed-until i added those two blocking diodes on the positive input to take current measurements(as drawn by poynt.99)
After much testing useing the scope aswell as the meter's,im getting result's im finding hard to believe.
I will upload the video tomorow so as you guy's can let me know what you see.
Cheers
Hmmm.... I guess I'm falling behind. ???
I cobbled together the oscillator circuit from the schematic posted (as usual, I redrew it, hopefully without errors). I had to use a 2n2222a transistor (which is probably irrelevant) and I used a 1K instead of the 820R specified. The circuit as I built it is specified below, along with some representative scopeshots.
The oscillator, unloaded, makes not very symmetrical pulses, the duty cycle isn't 50 percent and the voltages aren't symmetrical around zero. But when loaded by hooking to the LED board it evens out quite a bit. The scopeshots below are taken directly across the TB coil. The most symmetrical squareish waveforms are happening at the highest frequency it puts out, and at lower frequencies the waveforms look very much like what I see using my FG with accurately symmetrical output settings for both duty cycle and voltages.
I have not yet done any current measurements using this new oscillator board. The frequency range is from 135 Hz to about 27 kHz at the extreme settings of the freq pot, measured with the Philips PM6676 and confirmed by manual computation from the scope. The best symmetry and best LED light output happen with the "level" pot turned all the way up and the "freq" pot at the highest freq setting.
FWIW.....
OK..... I made a video showing how to determine the inductance of an unknown inductor by making a tank circuit with a good capacitor of known value, driving the tank at its resonant frequency, determining this frequency, and then using an on-line calculator to crunch the numbers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alkfoX62Na0
I think that the TinMan oscillator can cover the frequency range necessary to cover most bifilar coils we might use, and of course everyone knows how to calculate frequency from an analog scope display. Right?
;)
The online calculator I used is here:
http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm (http://www.1728.org/resfreq.htm)
Thanks TK for takeing the time to make that video,i will go and have a look now that my day is almost done.
Ok well i guess i need some help here to determond as to what i have done wrone here?.
I set up the input DMM's as poynt99 drew out in a previous post,wich was also how i was going to do it aswell.
I have placed two more DMM's on the output to the LED's-and well-something is wrong with the measurements some where?
As far as i know and can work out,all the current being consumed by the system has to pass through both input DMM's-there is just no other way for the current to get into the system(that i can see)
And it cant flow back in the wrong direction,as there is blocking diode's there.
So as many of you here are far more experianced than myself in spotting error's-could some one please point out mine?.
Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OulowB7DAHU
In this test,i removed the DMM's and used a 4.7 ohm resistor on the negative input and on one leg of the output.
These were the lowest value resistors of the same type i had two of.
I turned the voltage up a bit,so as to get a better and clearer reading on the scope.
We seem to get an idication that the meter's were reading correctly if you take into account that we are also disipating power across the LED aswell as the resistor on the output.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OulowB7DAHU
tinman,
Again, it's difficult to visualize what you are doing without a schematic of the setup, including the meters.
Is the attached diagram accurate for this latest test?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 12, 2013, 10:23:46 AM
tinman,
Again, it's difficult to visualize what you are doing without a schematic of the setup, including the meters.
Is the attached diagram accurate for this latest test?
Hi poynt99
No that diagram is incorrect.
I will draw one up as soon as i can,but i have eliminated the DMM's now.
In this video i use only resistors of the same value,and measure the voltage across them with the scope.
The circuit is very simple now.
All current must now pass through the resistor on the input side.
I have two more resistors of the same value across each output to the LED's
There are no cap's in the circuit now,and the BPC is hooked to ground and high side LED.
Let me know what you see in the scope shots in this video.I see a very interesting effect happening here,in that we can carry the negative current over into the next positive pulse-thus increasing the voltage across the resistor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmBUQCh9uPE
OK tinman,
I await your complete schematic with the resistors, at which time I'll try to comment.
Hmm....
OK, I'm not awake yet, but I can see that the oscillator has the same asymmetries that my "deadbug" build of it has, so at least I'm somewhat encouraged that I put it together properly.
However I was not pleased with the frequency range or control, using the only 500K pot I could find in my stash, a PCB trimpot. So I changed this pot for a 50K, 10-turn, Spectrol brand linear precision potentiometer, and I put some more capacitance in the 0.01 uF timing cap to compensate, by putting 22 nF in parallel, for 0.032 uF total. Now I can cover a range of about 400 Hz up to a bit over 8 kHz with much better adjustability. The brightness of the LEDs is better at higher frequencies, but I wanted to still be able to reach the 550-600 Hz range, so I sacrificed the HF end by using the larger timing cap.
Tinman's reported a capacitance measurement on his TB coil of around 50 pf..... but I can't get a good capacitance reading on either one of my flat TB coils with either my ProsKit cheapo LCR meter, or my Fluke 83 DMM. Both of these meters are nice and accurate when measuring marked commercial capacitors. When I break the center tap and measure the two adjacent windings on the 685 uHy coil without them being connected together I get around 2 nF.
(Incidentally this coil will light an LED, _even with the center tap open_ , when it picks up the EM from another TB coil driven at the right freq range.)
I've got some disagreements with some of the comments TM is getting on the video, but that's to be expected..... ;D
I haven't done any current testing with TM's new setup yet. I think I know how it's set up from the verbal description but I'm also looking forward to seeing the exact schematic.
Tinman:
Without a schematic one simply can't discuss what you are demonstrating in your clips. Many people try to discuss circuits without schematics and it's simply wrong so we look forward to seeing your schematic.
Some people on your other forum are offering crazy far-fetched explanations of how your circuit runs, there is one person in particular. I assume that you have the good sense to ignore that.
MileHigh
Here is the schematic for the latest mod.As you can see now,the circuit is very simple.
I have included my latest test results on the schematic.
Now as simple as it may be,i cant see why meters 3&4 read higher than meter's 1&2.
My only thought is that part of the circuit (marked in green box)is a current trap?
I do have a theroy as to what is happening here,but i will await your thoughts first,as there may be a simple explination im just no seeing.
I would also like to know how to lift the frequency up on the SG.Is it a simple matter of reducing the .01 cap?
The reason is that the current in starts to drop rapidly toward the high end of the frequency,and the current at the led's go's up.But i have reached the limit of frequency,so i need to get it higher.
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n492/duneraider69/circuittest5_zpsd5f15c9d.jpg
Yes, by lowering the value of the 0.01 uF cap (10 nF nominal, mine was 11 nF) you will raise the frequency. By going from about 11 nF down to 7 nF I've raised up to about 35 kHz (this is at the lowest resistance setting of the Freq pot). But your low end will rise too. The good news (?) is that the waveform is more symmetrical in voltage and duty cycle at the higher frequencies.
I'm now using a 50k, 10 turn pot instead of the 500k. With 50k and 7 nF my low end is about 1400 Hz and my high end is about 35 kHz.
Also, there's no need to upload an image file to a filesite if you have it locally on your computer, you can just include it as an attachment to your post and it will appear inline. Like this:
While we're at it, here is the FG schematic.
tinman,
So you're back to the meters, ok.
Why did you move the coil connection? Does it not produce similar results with it connected to the high side above m4?
ETA: I'd be curious also if you could replace the two LEDs with diodes and achieve the same effect. In addition, will any other "standard" air-core coil produce a similar result?
Hi Poynt99
I tried all three location's.
Keeping one leg of the coil on ground,and placing one leg on the common rail of m3 and m4-i gain about 6ma on both meter's.
If i place the leg between m3 and the LED,it kills all output and the input meters go high(a short)
But when i place the coil between m4 and the LED i gain about 15ma on each meter?
As the meter shunts are only 1.5 ohm's on the ma setting,i am at a loss as to why i get such a big difference.
I also cant work out why m3 and m4 dont read the same as m1 and m2?
As you would have seen in my last video,there is a carry over of current on the high side into the low side pulse(the probe and ground were the wrong way around when i did the test)
Now i did concider that i have m3 and m4 hooked in series,and we are seeing a double of the current we actualy have.
But three things tell me this cant be.
1-the diode's-being the LED's
2-both positive lead's of the DMM's are hooked together,but one show's a negative current and one a positive current.
So one must be reading the high side and one the low side.
3-if they were in series,then we would see 0 current flow,as they would be reading both the high side and low side-as we seen on the input side when we first started testing.
So i have just plain run out of answer's
Oh and thanks for the tip on the pic's TK
Quote from: poynt99 on January 13, 2013, 09:20:22 AM
tinman,
So you're back to the meters, ok.
Why did you move the coil connection? Does it not produce similar results with it connected to the high side above m4?
ETA: I'd be curious also if you could replace the two LEDs with diodes and achieve the same effect. In addition, will any other "standard" air-core coil produce a similar result?
I will try the diode's and different coils tomorow.
I do have a couple of primaries and secondaries out of some mots.
I also have some air coils from some old pulse motor builds.
So i'll give them a try,and see what happen's.
I'm not sure if this has been considered yet but LED's can produce a current depending on the amount of ambient light striking them. They can actually act as a sort of solar cell. I'm not sure they would produce as much extra as you are seeing but this scenario could be quickly eliminated by doing a test in the dark and only using a small flashlight to observe the meters.
A neat video from a serious "Tesla" coiler, on how to make one form of pancake coil. This guy has a veritable historical coil museum in his house!
tinman, how did you make yours?
Interesting commentary he has at the 44:20 mark ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCoYs-ojO0 (http://youtu.be/FiCoYs-ojO0)
tinman,
I suspected this had a fairly straightforward explanation, so I PSpiced this up and found what I believe explains the results you are seeing.
Per the schematic, I substituted diodes for your LED's, and used a simple air-core inductor with some small parallel capacitance. I set the FG to a frequency (40kHz) that appears to be a sub-harmonic of the coil's resonant frequency, as you can see by the inductor's current wave form.
On the schematic, you see a green and red current probe, and on the scope01 you see the average of each reading. The average current in the "output" side is a full 75% higher than what the "input" side is reading.
You may recall that voltages and currents can be greatly amplified in resonant tank circuits, and I believe that is what we are seeing here. The amplified current is being reflected in the output side diodes as they form a secondary loop with the inductor/capacitor tank.
Although the current may be greatly magnified, the power or energy is not, due to phase changes between the voltage and current through the output diodes.
So I would say that we've just confirmed a tank circuit can be used to amplify either voltage or current, and that this can catch us sometimes.
Anyway I might be wrong, but to my mind, if I can show something similar using PSpice, there can't be anything too exotic going on. :)
.99
I've said it before and I know you don't like to hear this but Sims are only good for the known. What we are seeking and what may be going on here is the unknown. Something new. While a sim may explain what's going on here I don't like to think someone will stop experimenting in the real world with a circuit just because a sim says there can't be anything out of the ordinary there. Just my short rant in case anyone is considering limiting their thinking a sim :P
.99 Quote:
Although the current may be greatly magnified, the power or energy is not, due to phase changes between the voltage and current through the output diodes.
Dosnt this some how say ohm's law dosnt apply here?
The other thing is,if there is no extra power,why do the LED's get brighter?
I must admit though,it seems to be the only answer that fits so far.
Im still trying to get my head around being able to raise the voltage over a resistor without the current increasing at the same time?.
Hmm.... I've not been able to reproduce the effect.
I used 1n914 diodes, green LEDs, and in each position where there is a meter, I put a 1 ohm current viewing resistor instead. Looking across the CVRs with my meters set to millivolt DC range, I am always seeing more, or the same, current in the M1 and M2 meters than in the M3 and M4 meters. So I disconnected the CVRs and put the meters in place as ammeters.... still the same. The direct ammeter readings agree with the voltage drop across the CVRs.
This is using my modded oscillator, going from about 1.5 kHz to about 35 kHz.
I have not scoped the waveforms yet.
I've also done a power dissipation test on the 4 "input" components vs. the 4 "output" components (4 resistors and 4 diodes), and the "output" side is dissipating quite a bit more power than the "input" side. But this in itself does not indicate anything unusual going on, it's just indicating that there is better power transfer to the "output" side components.
To truly get an idea if the circuit is somehow exhibiting excess energy at the "output" side, one would have to account for all power in the circuit, including what the FG is using, and what the battery is supplying.
If the following does not equal 0, then there might be something there:
PBAT - [PFG + P(input side) + P(output side)]
This isn't so easy to do however, but there may be a simpler circuit able to demonstrate the same effect, AND be easy to compute the powers.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 13, 2013, 01:58:46 PM
A neat video from a serious "Tesla" coiler, on how to make one form of pancake coil. This guy has a veritable historical coil museum in his house!
tinman, how did you make yours?
Interesting commentary he has at the 44:20 mark ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiCoYs-ojO0 (http://youtu.be/FiCoYs-ojO0)
It would seem to be very simple to put a hand crank on his platen so he would have an easier time of actually turning it.... and he's not winding a bifilar coil, either, is he? So since it's not bifilar and just a flat pancake coil.... why does he mention Tesla?
Still, interesting video, and it's always nice to see all of those old electrotherapy coils.
Beware of the nonsense and baloney..... but by all means, continue to experiment with electrotherapy.
(insert tongue in cheek emoticon here)
We all have our idols.... and in the final end they all have feet of clay.
Tinman and all:
I think that Poynt got it fundamentally right. You have the oscillator 'tickling' an LC resonator that is the pancake coil. The LC resonator has the diodes in the LC loop, and they are the primary agents (along with the current sensing resistors inside the multimeters) that are burning off the power in the LC resonator.
The LC resonator is a notch filter, and that means that at a certain external stimulation frequency you get the maximum amplitude from the LC resonator. When the external stimulation frequency is the same as the natural resonant frequency of the LC resonator (a.k.a. tank circuit) you get the maximum voltage and current waveforms in the resonator. When your external stimulation frequency is either below or above the natural frequency of the LC resonator, the resonator will still respond and resonate at the external frequency, but at a lower amplitude.
Likewise, Poynt also mentioned that the external stimulation frequency may be a sub-harmonic of the natural resonant frequency, and you should see a similar response pattern to what was mentioned above.
The fact that the LC resonator is a "filter" with different responses at different external stimulation frequencies explains how Tinman was observing different amplitudes as the oscillator frequency changed.
On an energy level, when the oscillator first starts up, at first the LC resonator starts to absorb energy and the amplitudes increase cycle over cycle. Within a very short time, a balance is achieved where the power being pumped into the LC resonator from the external oscillator is being burned off in the two LEDs. That would imply that if you replace the LEDs by ordinary 0.6-volt diodes, that you would observe higher amplitudes in the LC resonator. Less power would be burned off in the diodes, hence the LC resonator can resonate at a higher amplitude to restore balance again.
A simple mechanical analogy is a bell that rings at 1000 Hz being struck by a tiny hammer at 900, 1000, or 1100 Hz. When the tiny hammer strikes the bell at 1000 Hz you will get the maximum amplitude out of the bell. The "diodes" in this case would be the hysteresis of the metal of the bell; the metal of the bell gets hot as it burns off the energy supplied by the tiny hammer.
Finally, there is the ever present "cult of resonance" on the free energy forums. This is a good example illustrating how resonance is "just there," it doesn't bring any special value to the table. Resonance is just a means of storing energy - the energy sloshes back and forth between the electric field and the magnetic field in an LC oscillator. It's not magic and it's not a source of extra energy.
MileHigh
Quote from: poynt99 on January 13, 2013, 05:39:12 PM
I've also done a power dissipation test on the 4 "input" components vs. the 4 "output" components (4 resistors and 4 diodes), and the "output" side is dissipating quite a bit more power than the "input" side. But this in itself does not indicate anything unusual going on, it's just indicating that there is better power transfer to the "output" side components.
To truly get an idea if the circuit is somehow exhibiting excess energy at the "output" side, one would have to account for all power in the circuit, including what the FG is using, and what the battery is supplying.
If the following does not equal 0, then there might be something there:
PBAT - [PFG + P(input side) + P(output side)]
This isn't so easy to do however, but there may be a simpler circuit able to demonstrate the same effect, AND be easy to compute the powers.
The problem with measuring the input to the SG from the battery,is that the SG uses 32ma at 12.5 volts befor anything is hooked up to the output side.So where already useing more power with out a load hooked to it.
But i did notice that the SG's draw from the battery starts going down once you go over 17KHz,and keeps droping until i hit the max frequency on the SG output-all while the current rises in meters m3 and m4
I did quickly try two other air core coils,one from a MOT and one from an old project-niether worked.
Im guessing this is because they have no capacitance.
Do you get the same effect from your sim .99 if you remove the 50p cap?
I also must admit that i am unsure how you can disipate more power on the output than you are consuming on the input?
To do this,wouldnt the components have to be over 100% efficient themself?
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 13, 2013, 05:35:21 PM
Hmm.... I've not been able to reproduce the effect.
I used 1n914 diodes, green LEDs, and in each position where there is a meter, I put a 1 ohm current viewing resistor instead. Looking across the CVRs with my meters set to millivolt DC range, I am always seeing more, or the same, current in the M1 and M2 meters than in the M3 and M4 meters. So I disconnected the CVRs and put the meters in place as ammeters.... still the same. The direct ammeter readings agree with the voltage drop across the CVRs.
This is using my modded oscillator, going from about 1.5 kHz to about 35 kHz.
I have not scoped the waveforms yet.
Hi TK
If you are unable to read any capacitance on your coil,would it be worth adding 30 or 40 pf cap to the coil?
This may make all the difference.
All 4 of my DMM's that are the same,and two others i have all say i have 49.46/7 pf capacitance in the coil.
Also the system dose not work with any other coil of the standard kind.
I do have a smaller BPC which i will try on the system today.
Hey Tinman
I watched your vid. You had shown that there is a copper washer in the center of the coil. Might that not represent a shorted winding? Like if you have a transformer, then wind 1 heavy turn and connect its ends to each other.
This might be a heavy loss.
Mags
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2013, 06:37:29 PM
Hey Tinman
I watched your vid. You had shown that there is a copper washer in the center of the coil. Might that not represent a shorted winding? Like if you have a transformer, then wind 1 heavy turn and connect its ends to each other.
This might be a heavy loss.
Mags
Not sure i follow yoyu there Mag's?
Shorted to what?
There is no continuity from the wire to the washer-if that is what you mean?
The washer was also glued in place with epoxy,so has an insilation coating around it.
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2013, 06:50:38 PM
Not sure i follow yoyu there Mag's?
Shorted to what?
There is no continuity from the wire to the washer-if that is what you mean?
The washer was also glued in place with epoxy,so has an insilation coating around it.
The coils will produce magnetic fields as you pulse it. Those magnetic fields will induce a current in the washer, and not for free. ;)
Think about a transformer, a step down. Your coils are the primary input and the washer is your output secondary, like in a welding transformer. Well your secondary is shorted all of the time.
Anyways, it would be interesting to see if there is a difference with or without the washer.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2013, 06:59:58 PM
The coils will produce magnetic fields as you pulse it. Those magnetic fields will induce a current in the washer, and not for free. ;)
Think about a transformer, a step down. Your coils are the primary input and the washer is your output secondary, like in a welding transformer. Well your secondary is shorted all of the time.
Anyways, it would be interesting to see if there is a difference with or without the washer.
3 thing's
1st-i cant get the washer out without distroying the coil,as all the wire is glued in with super glue.
2nd-the washer may also be acting as a bucking coil of sort's.
3-I also think that because the magnetic fields being produced are virtical and not opposed to each other,there would be little to no effect there.
i am going to modify the SG today to gain a higher frequency,and see what happen's there.
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2013, 07:11:26 PM
3 thing's
1st-i cant get the washer out without distroying the coil,as all the wire is glued in with super glue.
2nd-the washer may also be acting as a bucking coil of sort's.
3-I also think that because the magnetic fields being produced are virtical and not opposed to each other,there would be little to no effect there.
i am going to modify the SG today to gain a higher frequency,and see what happen's there.
Was just making an observation. ;) There are Tesla coils that use pancake windings as a primary, with the secondary in the middle.
TK's coil might not work the same without the washer in the middle. ;)
Mags
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2013, 05:29:30 PM
.99 Quote:
Although the current may be greatly magnified, the power or energy is not, due to phase changes between the voltage and current through the output diodes.
Dosnt this some how say ohm's law dosnt apply here?
Not at all. But with alternating currents, the phase relationship between voltage and current comes into play. For instance, when driving an inductive load such as you are, the circuit currents and voltages become shifted in phase. Now Ohm's law doesn't apply in the strictest sense, because we can not measure an average or even an RMS voltage and current and multiply them together to obtain power, because this would only give us the apparent power, not the real power. To get the real power, the current and voltage need to be multiplied sample by sample, then averaged.
Quote
The other thing is,if there is no extra power,why do the LED's get brighter?
I must admit though,it seems to be the only answer that fits so far.
If you were able to monitor the power delivered by the battery, the power dissipated by the FG and input circuit, you would most likely see that as the LED's become brighter, there will be a corresponding shift in power from the battery, FG, or input circuit, accounting for the increased dissipation in the LED's.
tinman,
What is the DC resistance of your pancake coil?
It would be nice to know its inductance as well.
Hi Tinman,
Thanks for sharing this circuit.
Is there some kind of capacitive coupling going on in the coil?
If you have a ferrite rod place it in the center and see what happens to the output.
Hi All,
I confess, I cheat a little when it comes to making pancakes actually ribboncake. :)
The easiest way is with ribbon cable, get a toilet paper tube make a slit down the side stick the ribbon through and roll then tape. If you need it bi-filar stick two ribbons on top of each other tape then roll. This may not be the Tesla approved method but it works for me.
Pictured is 26Awg, 100ft, approx: 60turns, 36 strand ribbon cake (not very straight in picture due to me messing around with it).
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2013, 06:22:37 PM
The problem with measuring the input to the SG from the battery,is that the SG uses 32ma at 12.5 volts befor anything is hooked up to the output side.So where already useing more power with out a load hooked to it.
Each element in the system needs to be measured and accounted for, in order to properly sort out any suspicion that there may be excess energy entering the system somehow.
It's also helpful to treat everything beyond the battery as part of the total load. Although the FG is supplying energy to the rest of the circuit, it too uses energy. As such, it can be likened to a resistor that passes on energy from the battery, while dissipating some power of its own. Therefore, it really is a load. The only true source in the circuit is the battery. Hence; PBAT - (PFG + Pcircuit) = 0
Quote
I did quickly try two other air core coils,one from a MOT and one from an old project-niether worked.
Im guessing this is because they have no capacitance.
Perhaps, but all coils exhibit some capacitance. In the case of a Tesla bifilar however, that capacitance is significantly increased.
Quote
Do you get the same effect from your sim .99 if you remove the 50p cap?
I did not try it as I am waiting for the DC measurement of your coil.
Quote
I also must admit that i am unsure how you can disipate more power on the output than you are consuming on the input?
To do this,wouldnt the components have to be over 100% efficient themself?
It's a matter of perspective actually. What you are calling the "input", isn't really the input at all; the FG is. The battery is the source, and everything else beyond it dissipates power and therefore is a load on the battery.
Quote from: tinman on January 13, 2013, 06:22:37 PM
I also must admit that i am unsure how you can disipate more power on the output than you are consuming on the input?
To do this,wouldnt the components have to be over 100% efficient themself?
I don't think I answered your question above.
The coil is part of the circuit, and therefore it receives its share of energy from the battery. However, unlike the resistors and diodes in the circuit, the coil stores rather than dissipates that energy, and then it returns that stored energy back to the LED's rather than through to the relatively high impedance path back through the FG. That's how the LED's are able to receive more power than the series diodes and meters (D1/R1, and D2/R2 in my case).
I'm sure my coil has capacitance... how could it not? I have no idea why my meters aren't reading it. They do read down into the low pF range when tested with actual capacitors.
My coil has inductance of 670-695 microHenry, measured three ways ( ProsKit MT5210 and Arduino inductometer, and resonating a tank circuit and calculating manually) and a DC resistance of 3.9 ohms (also measured with three different meters, ProsKit, Fluke 83 and Simpson 464). 60+60 turns of #27 enamelled magnet wire.
But I can't get a capacitance reading with either capacitance meter (Fluke, ProsKit). If I put a small cap (22 pF) in parallel with the coil, I read a short. If I put the small cap in series with the coil, I get the value of the small cap. Ditto with the other bifilar coil (the one used in the "coreless" JT video from a few days ago.) No capacitance reading, inductance about 125 microHenry, DC resistance 1.4 Ohms, 23+23 turns of plastic insulated #26 stranded wire.
I just made another matching bifilar coil to play with, and I'm changing the 1n914 diodes to 1n4004, changing the green LEDs to some other ones, and will resume testing after I've rested up some.
TK,
Did you remove the connection between the two coils to make your capacitance measurement with the meters?
You would then be measuring between two open-ended coils. I assume that is what tinman did.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 13, 2013, 09:14:16 PM
TK,
Did you remove the connection between the two coils to make your capacitance measurement with the meters?
You would then be measuring between two open-ended coils. I assume that is what tinman did.
I had strange effects measuring a spool bifi capacitance. Measuring capacitance between the coils(coils not connected electrically, open ends) like 11nanofarad, but when I connected the cap meter 'across' one coil, as if to measure resistance, it measured near 1uf. Either coil.
I was impressed with this amount of capacitance 'between' the coils. till I realized I was measuring across 1 coil.
Very strange.
Mags
Quote from: poynt99 on January 13, 2013, 09:14:16 PM
TK,
Did you remove the connection between the two coils to make your capacitance measurement with the meters?
You would then be measuring between two open-ended coils. I assume that is what tinman did.
In post #48, page before this one, I reported:
QuoteWhen I break the center tap and measure the two adjacent windings on the 685 uHy coil without them being connected together I get around 2 nF.
(Incidentally this coil will light an LED, _even with the center tap open_ , when it picks up the EM from another TB coil driven at the right freq range.
Winding a bifilar pancake coil onto a CD-ROM blank that has been sprayed with 3M Super77 adhesive. The wires are coming off two spools and are gently wound and pressed into the adhesive as I go around, with a wooden popsickle stick.
Quote from: Magluvin on January 13, 2013, 09:31:23 PM
I had strange effects measuring a spool bifi capacitance. Measuring capacitance between the coils(coils not connected electrically, open ends) like 11nanofarad, but when I connected the cap meter 'across' one coil, as if to measure resistance, it measured near 1uf. Either coil.
I was impressed with this amount of capacitance 'between' the coils. till I realized I was measuring across 1 coil.
Very strange.
Mags
Even stranger for me. If I select high ranges on my cap meters and measure across the total coil, connected at center tap, I can see _negative_ capacitance values on the meter.
There should be a buzzer "wwwoooonkkkk" that goes off when that happens, I think.
:o
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 13, 2013, 10:13:28 PM
Even stranger for me. If I select high ranges on my cap meters and measure across the total coil, connected at center tap, I can see _negative_ capacitance values on the meter.
There should be a buzzer "wwwoooonkkkk" that goes off when that happens, I think.
:o
Lol, they are strange puppies, thats for sure. I tried many things with different coils to try and find some standard to use when determining absolute values and, well, here we are. Many years after its invention, and still no bifi standard calculations. Weird. Maybe Tesla wrote something up on it somewhere.
Mags
When I made my Lil Tc, it has a 2 turn primary. In essence, it is a 2 turn bifi coil. The adjacent windings will have 50v difference if 100v is across. Just an example.
So maybe the 2 turn could be the standard comparison when looking to define the parameters of coils of more turns.
Dunno yet. Just thinkin.
Mags
Sorry, Ill stop here if these things are not relevant. 1 more thing.
It just came to me from my last post.
Here is a Tesla pat Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy
http://www.free-energy-info.com/TeslaPatents/US0649621.pdf
A 2 turn primary on the left and a 2 turn secondary on the right. Bifi coils by definition.
Ehh. Maybe Im nuts. :o :o
Mags
OK... with 1n4004 diodes and UV LEDs I can get twice as much indicated current in the M3, M4 positions than in the M1, M2 positions, both with the 1 ohm CVRs (voltage drop) and by disconnecting the CVRs and using milliammeters directly in circuit.
This only happens when the frequency is way up. At the lower end the meters show interesting things
So at fastest frequency of about 40 kHz I get what the pic below shows. (here showing only M2 (left one) and M3)
Lowering the frequency I see the M1, M2 meters go up to a peak then go down again. The peak is at 2.1 kHz, with M1, M2 reading about 122.7 mA and M3, M4 reading about 23.1 mA.
Decreasing to lowest freq at 1.55 kHz, M1 and M2 read 112.6 mA and M3, M4 read 15.6 mA. The very weird thing is that the visual brightness of the LEDs doesn't change much if at all across this whole range.
I tried this with the BF coil alone, and also with 22 pF across the coil... no difference at all that I could see.
ETA: As I was fiddling and writing this post, the oscillator circuit warmed up I guess.... or there is some perturbation caused by hooking to the freq counter.... for a while I was seeing 30 mA on M3 and 11 mA on M2 at the high freq end. Now it's cooled again, evidently, and is back to what's shown below.)
I think I prefer looking at the voltage drop across the 1 ohm CVRs to using the meters as inline ammeters. The resistance is stable and the voltmeters have very high impedance, so I think this method perturbs the circuit the least.
Well TK, at the very least it is an interesting effect.
So i took the day off today,as i wasnt feeling well.
But i managed to drag myself into the work shop (ofcourse)and do some measureing on the coil.
Following TK's video tutorial,this is what i came up with.
I used a 1uf ploy film cap-same as TK's
To get the two o volt gaps in the wave form to sit behind the 0 volt line,and have the high and low side of the wave at peak-the frequency was 2.450KHz
This is what i have apparently
0.00422 henrys
4.22 milliHenrys
4.2200e+3 MicroHenrys
I tried the test useing half the square wave(used a diode on output of FG)and also useing the full square wave(no diode inline)
Both results came back the same.
The coil resistance is 6.5 ohms-which i think is quite high for such a small amount of wire.
Now the next size cap down from the 10nf cap i had was 2.2nf.
So i decided to give it a try any way-so out with the 10nf and in with the 2.2nf.
Now the highest frequency i can get is 72.45KHz.
I think i need to go even higher again,as the input meters are still dropping when i hit the highest frequency.
I will let you see the result's so far in my next video(which im just about to do) But on the first run,i blew the green LED befor i got to the peak frequency.
So now im back to two super white 10mm 3.5 volt LED's
Unlike TK,the brightness gets clearly higher as i go up in frequency.
So i am going to use a small solar pannel over the LED's hooked to an ammeter,and see if the current in the cell keeps rising throughout the lift in frequency.
@TM: Your inductance and resistance results seem reasonable, you've got a lot more wire in your bf coil than I do.
For your timing cap: Caps in series add up like resistors in parallel: 1/C1 + 1/C2 + ... + 1/Cn = 1/Ctotal, so you can build smaller caps by adding larger ones in series. So if you put another 2.2 nF in series with the one you've got you should get another step up in frequency.
I hope you get to feeling better soon, don't stress yourself in the heat.
After reading TK's post about not seeing much diference in the light output of the LED's,i decided to place a solar pannel with a 1k resistor across it and test the voltage output from the pannel as we lifted the frequency.
The setup is now running at a top frequency of 74KHz.
The diference between the input and output meters is very large now.
But it seems that that is what the ma draw would be with those LED's running at 4 volt's.
I tried my analog meter ,and that read about 2ma less than the DMM.
Another thing i noticed when i changed the 10nf cap to a 2.2nf cap on the SG,is it now draws 32ma from the battery with nothing conected to the output of the SG ?.
The SG as it is seems to be a fairly inefficient unit.
Maybe a better one could be made.Something that covers from 30KHz to 100KHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MbkgMehNQ
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2013, 08:01:01 AM
@TM: Your inductance and resistance results seem reasonable, you've got a lot more wire in your bf coil than I do.
For your timing cap: Caps in series add up like resistors in parallel: 1/C1 + 1/C2 + ... + 1/Cn = 1/Ctotal, so you can build smaller caps by adding larger ones in series. So if you put another 2.2 nF in series with the one you've got you should get another step up in frequency.
I hope you get to feeling better soon, don't stress yourself in the heat.
Hi TK
No-no stress here.
If i get to hot,i just go hop in the pool lol.
But it's only 39c here today-so not to bad.
And in reguards to the cap's-yep,i know about paralle and series-but thanks all the same.
You said you were getting a cleaner wave when you went up in frequency.Mine is getting messy at about 37KHz-and the higher i go the worse it get's.
I start to get a clear ringing threw the wave at about 50KHz onward.
I placed a .22uf cap across the coil and the ringing got larger-but this seems to drop the current draw down on the input side.
If nothing else,im haveing a ball with this simple little circuit,and i now know how to get the inductance of a coil-thanks to you.
The other thing i tried was adding a couple of small incandecant bulbs in series with the led's,and they would light up quite well.
Anyway,i look forward to your findings with the circuit.
Brad
@tinman and TinselKoala:
May be I am totally stupid, but I do not get the point? What are you two trying to show? In case you have the time and patience, could you explain in layman terms?
The circuit and your measurements do not make any sense to me. But this is not surprising, because I am not an electronics specialist. I really would like to understand the gist of it and why you get excited about your measurements?
I am not criticizing, I am just curious and confused.
Greetings, Conrad
Thanks for the coil values tinman.
I'll plug those into the sim when I get home tonight.
btw, how did you measure your coil capacitance of 50pF?
Quote from: tinman on January 14, 2013, 08:04:05 AM
Another thing i noticed when i changed the 10nf cap to a 2.2nf cap on the SG,is it now draws 32ma from the battery with nothing conected to the output of the SG ?.
The SG as it is seems to be a fairly inefficient unit.
Maybe a better one could be made.Something that covers from 30KHz to 100KHz.
Hi TinMan,
Thank you for sharing your interesting effect.
Wouldn't a CMOS version of a 555 timer not be more efficient and also capable of higher frequency?
Luc
Quote from: tinman on January 14, 2013, 08:04:05 AM
After reading TK's post about not seeing much diference in the light output of the LED's,i decided to place a solar pannel with a 1k resistor across it and test the voltage output from the pannel as we lifted the frequency.
The setup is now running at a top frequency of 74KHz.
The diference between the input and output meters is very large now.
But it seems that that is what the ma draw would be with those LED's running at 4 volt's.
I tried my analog meter ,and that read about 2ma less than the DMM.
Another thing i noticed when i changed the 10nf cap to a 2.2nf cap on the SG,is it now draws 32ma from the battery with nothing conected to the output of the SG ?.
The SG as it is seems to be a fairly inefficient unit.
Maybe a better one could be made.Something that covers from 30KHz to 100KHz.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MbkgMehNQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7MbkgMehNQ)
TK was using Ultraviolet LED's. I'm not sure you can really track the brightness very well on those.
I had built a 555 square wave gen a couple weeks ago that was hitting over 500 KHz. I think they say 1 MHz is max but usually anything over 300 KHz is difficult to achieve. There are a whole lot of circuits out there for the 555 but got mine from an old radio shack engineers book.
Quote from: gotoluc on January 14, 2013, 11:21:50 AM
Hi TinMan,
Thank you for sharing your interesting effect.
Wouldn't a CMOS version of a 555 timer not be more efficient and also capable of higher frequency?
Luc
Yes - the CMOS version would be much lower power if you want to measure power from the battery instead of output from the FG. But there is also a super low power timer chip gadgetmall has mentioned a couple times elsewhere that makes even the 555 CMOS version look like a power hog. I'll have to dig around here a little to find it. I think you can even get free samples of it from the source.
Here it is: Touchstone Semiconductor's TS3001 and TS3002 are the easiest to use, lowest power timers on the planet. Set the frequency with just a resistor (TS3001), or a resistor and a capacitor (TS3002) Use about 1 volt at 1 microamp.
http://touchstonesemi.com/products/timers?gclid=CKbq8fvG6LQCFQioPAod0iAApQ (http://touchstonesemi.com/products/timers?gclid=CKbq8fvG6LQCFQioPAod0iAApQ)
I'm not sure though if it can put out enough power to drive what you have here but they are cheap enough it might be interesting to try.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 14, 2013, 02:12:33 PM
....
http://touchstonesemi.com/products/timers?gclid=CKbq8fvG6LQCFQioPAod0iAApQ (http://touchstonesemi.com/products/timers?gclid=CKbq8fvG6LQCFQioPAod0iAApQ)
I'm not sure though if it can put out enough power to drive what you have here but they are cheap enough it might be interesting to try.
Yes, from the data sheet the recommended supply voltage is 1.8V for this timer so you would have to use an amplifier with level shifter to have the usual output voltage or driving power levels you got used to with the 555 family.
The CMOS version of the 555 (LMC555 or TLC555) is compatible in everything to the bipolar NE555 type, including pin-out too. And their frequency can go up indeed to 2.5 - 3 MHz.
Gyula
Quote from: gyulasun on January 14, 2013, 02:45:47 PM
Yes, from the data sheet the recommended supply voltage is 1.8V for this timer so you would have to use an amplifier with level shifter to have the usual output voltage or driving power levels you got used to with the 555 family.
The CMOS version of the 555 (LMC555 or TLC555) is compatible in everything to the bipolar NE555 type, including pin-out too. And their frequency can go up indeed to 2.5 - 3 MHz.
Gyula
Thanks Gyula, After I looked at the specs I realized it would not likely work here unless microcurrents are somehow able to tap something very unusual. I can't find the message thread right now where gadgetmall mentioned this but I think he said he was lighting some LED's with this chip and a 1.2 volt NiMH. Not sure though - just my vague recollection....
Posted by 'tika' on EF and appears relevant about the Tesla bifilar pancake here:
"Electrically, the coil can be seen as a parallel RLC circuit:
Code:
---------+--------+--------+
| | |
/ S ____
R \ L S _C__
/ S |
| | |
---------+--------+--------+
Note that contrary to a series RLC circuit, this arrangement will show a peak in impedance at its resonance frequency. This is due to the dual relationship of electrical circuits, which causes the effects measured on voltages in series circuit to be measured in the currents of the corresponding parallel circuit.
In the series circuit, large voltages spikes can be measured across the coil and across the cap when the circuit is fed an AC voltage. Which means that
in the parallel circuit large currents spikes will exist in the LC loop. Large current in the coil will bring about a very strong magnetic field. This oscillatory current and its induced magnetic field will peak at the resonant frequency, where impedance is at its highest, and thus input power is at the lowest possible for the circuit. Free real power!
It is impossible to measure current inside a bifilar coil, as this is happening on the entire length of the spires. But there is no radiant energy or 4th dimension magical vortex here. Just down to earth great engineering, like all of Tesla's inventions.
Hope this will help understand better why we are seeing this excess power and how we can get even more out of it. I predict that will be at the resonant frequency for the coil."
Quote from: conradelektro on January 14, 2013, 11:10:45 AM
@tinman and TinselKoala:
May be I am totally stupid, but I do not get the point? What are you two trying to show? In case you have the time and patience, could you explain in layman terms?
If anyone around here is totally stupid, it is not you. You've demonstrated your competence many times and I think you are well respected for your knowledge and skills.
What am I trying to show? Pretty much what I always do when I start soldering stuff together: That as a thing is viewed, so it appears.
That is, I first try to "replicate" (how I hate that word) or reproduce the actual phenomenology, the effects noted by the original experimenter. Then I try to find the reasons that the effects are seen. If there are errors in experimental procedure, data collection, interpretation of results, and/or conclusions drawn, I hope to be able to identify those errors and hopefully correct them.
Along the way, I am hoping to fill in gaps in knowledge: both my own, and those of others.
Especially, if bogus or extravagant claims are being made, I hope to be able to point those out and explain, and illustrate or demonstrate if I can, why and how those claims are in error.
I also am trying hard to use up this 9.35-pound spool of #27 magnet wire that I've had kicking around for twelve years in my lab. ;D So far, I've wound several TC secondaries, a bunch of Bedini motor coils, some Tesla bifilar coils, a bunch of JT coils and toroids and etc.... and I still have over seven pounds left !!
Quote
The circuit and your measurements do not make any sense to me. But this is not surprising, because I am not an electronics specialist. I really would like to understand the gist of it and why you get excited about your measurements?
I am not criticizing, I am just curious and confused.
Greetings, Conrad
Well, we are hopefully all trying to figure out what the measurements mean and how they arise. Since these kinds of measurements are often used by free energy claimants, I personally think it's important to understand how people can fool themselves and what the consequences can be. I'm also interested in improving scoposcopy skills and in showing that digital equipment is not _always_ better than analog kit properly used. I think a lot of people using low-end digital and/or computer-based oscilloscopes would be much better off using cheaper, surplus analog scopes and studying how to interpret them properly, rather than relying on the digital "numbers in boxes" that the digital equipment spits out.
Further, as far as I am aware, Tinman hasn't made any extravagant claims about these circuits ..... there is nothing here to "debunk", just interesting phenomena to explore. Some may find this exploration not of interest, boring and old-hat .... good for them, they may know more than I do and don't need to read .99's or MileHigh's excellent explanations or see my dead-bug efforts at reproducing measurements and apparatus.
Finally... I have the feeling that these tests are only preliminary "practice" for something perhaps more interesting to come, and I'm eager to find out what that might be.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 14, 2013, 04:37:12 PM
Posted by 'tika' on EF and appears relevant about the Tesla bifilar pancake here:
"Electrically, the coil can be seen as a parallel RLC circuit:
Code:
---------+--------+--------+
| | |
/ S ____
R \ L S _C__
/ S |
| | |
---------+--------+--------+
Note that contrary to a series RLC circuit, this arrangement will show a peak in impedance at its resonance frequency. This is due to the dual relationship of electrical circuits, which causes the effects measured on voltages in series circuit to be measured in the currents of the corresponding parallel circuit.
In the series circuit, large voltages spikes can be measured across the coil and across the cap when the circuit is fed an AC voltage. Which means that
in the parallel circuit large currents spikes will exist in the LC loop. Large current in the coil will bring about a very strong magnetic field. This oscillatory current and its induced magnetic field will peak at the resonant frequency, where impedance is at its highest, and thus input power is at the lowest possible for the circuit. Free real power!
It is impossible to measure current inside a bifilar coil, as this is happening on the entire length of the spires. But there is no radiant energy or 4th dimension magical vortex here. Just down to earth great engineering, like all of Tesla's inventions.
Hope this will help understand better why we are seeing this excess power and how we can get even more out of it. I predict that will be at the resonant frequency for the coil."
Good stuff and bad stuff all mixed together in there. Reactive power is _not_ real power, not excess power, not "free real power". Voltage rise through standing wave resonance can be astounding, as any Tesla coiler knows, but is relatively meaningless, even if spectacular. But if the coil's resonant frequency is _also_ at the resonant frequency of some power source or storage in the environment, _maybe_ some of this external power can be entrained into the experimenter's circuit. This is the Holy Grail of sorts, and seems to be what Tesla believed was possible, using what we today would call low frequencies and high initiating voltages--- frequencies and voltages that require physically large apparatus and considerable expertise (to avoid killing oneself) and are thus out of reach of the typical experimenter we might encounter on these forums. Can you imagine harnessing the energy of a lightning bolt, on your workbench?
Lately I am starting to wonder if the opposite might be true, also or instead .... extremely high frequencies (THz), very low initial energies, tickling and teasing Nature instead of brute-forcing her to cooperate...... but unfortunately these realms are also out of reach of the average garage experimenter with ordinary equipment.
So now you know where my own particular "woo" beliefs are founded, and some of why I haunt these pages.
Quote from: e2matrix on January 14, 2013, 02:03:30 PM
TK was using Ultraviolet LED's. I'm not sure you can really track the brightness very well on those.
I had built a 555 square wave gen a couple weeks ago that was hitting over 500 KHz. I think they say 1 MHz is max but usually anything over 300 KHz is difficult to achieve. There are a whole lot of circuits out there for the 555 but got mine from an old radio shack engineers book.
That is right about the UV LEDs and visual brightness impressions, no argument there from me.
Also right about the limitations of the 555 FGs, in whatever version of the 555 one wants to use. (But don't forget that you can use your low output 555 generator to trigger external power amplifiers made from mosfets or bipolar transistors to give whatever output power you need, as well as driving simple frequency doubler stages for higher frequencies.)
The oscilloscope and the function generator are the basic building blocks of any electronics lab setup, and do not need to be fancy digital kit at all, to be very useful. (Although some of the digital synthesised FGs that are available now for relatively little money are making me drool with desire and envy.) A basic 3 MHz FG that will be a lot more versatile and capable than any simple 555 timer circuit can be had, new, for under 200 dollars, and if you are willing to spend 4 or 5 hundred you can have real state-of-art kit for freqs under 20 MHz.
Thank you TinselKoala, I get it.
Once an electronics engineer told me that "measurment technique" is the most difficult area in his science. And whenever I try measurements in my experiments and when I see some crude OU claims I am reminded of that.
The claim in connection with tinman's circuit is not crude, it seems to be a subtle measurement problem. Electrodynamics is the high ground.
I recently bought this book about electrodynamics (it is supposed to be a standard book for electronics students in the German language)
http://www.amazon.com/Elektrodynamik-Einf%C3%BChrung-Experiment-Theorie-Springer-Lehrbuch/dp/3540214585/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1358202583&sr=8-3&keywords=Brandt+Dahmen
and it scares me. Them swinging things are not as simple as one thinks.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: poynt99 on January 14, 2013, 11:11:27 AM
Thanks for the coil values tinman.
I'll plug those into the sim when I get home tonight.
btw, how did you measure your coil capacitance of 50pF?
Hi poynt99
I measured the 50pF by simply placing my meter probes on either end of the coil-it read 49.47pF.
Maybe a meter error? as im not sure how a shorted coil could have any capacitance when idle.
Im guessing that would change when a pulsed current is sent through it.
Now the other thing i would like to know is a bit more on phase shift.
If we have a certain voltage over a set resistance,dose that not give us current value?
I ask because i find it hard to understand how you could have a voltage across a resistor if there is no current?
Also the frequency isnt realy that high in reguards to what we can obtain these days.
Quote from: tinman on January 14, 2013, 05:47:38 PM
Hi poynt99
I measured the 50pF by simply placing my meter probes on either end of the coil-it read 49.47pF.
Maybe a meter error? as im not sure how a shorted coil could have any capacitance when idle.
Im guessing that would change when a pulsed current is sent through it.
This most likely didn't give you a correct measurement. You are right, you can not measure capacitance across a coil. My Tonghui TH2821A impedance meter shows a negative capacitance while trying to measure an inductor, and vice versa when trying to measure a capacitor on inductance. I think 1n-3nF is probably more in line with your coil's capacitance. But no problem, as the parallel cap value does not make much if any difference in my sim under the conditions I have. 4.22mH did not give as good results though as 150uH.
Quote
Now the other thing i would like to know is a bit more on phase shift.
If we have a certain voltage over a set resistance,dose that not give us current value?
I ask because i find it hard to understand how you could have a voltage across a resistor if there is no current?
Also the frequency isnt realy that high in reguards to what we can obtain these days.
Of course, if you can measure the voltage directly across the resistor, and the resistor is non-inductive, you will have its true current. Don't worry so much about the phase shift in this circuit, as I don't believe it is having that much effect on the results you are seeing actually.
Are you still puzzled why the LED's have more power than the other diodes? I have addressed that here:
http://www.overunity.com/13244/electron-reversing-device/msg350752/#msg350752 (http://www.overunity.com/13244/electron-reversing-device/msg350752/#msg350752)
The inductor has helped "pull" energy from the FG/battery and is releasing most of that energy to the LED's.
Have you ever encountered the infamous capacitor to capacitor discharge (energy transfer) experiment? If done so through a wire or resistor, half of the energy is lost during the transfer. If done so through a large inductance of very high Q factor, the transfer of energy from the source cap to the charge cap can be done almost without any loss.
Your circuit is doing a similar thing because of the coil inductance. If you remove the coil, the current will be identical in the diodes and LED's. When you introduce the coil as you have, it receives some energy from the FG/battery, and passes it on to the LED's.
Now for fun, try a thought experiment; remove the coil. Now, which component, the diodes or LED's will be dissipating more power, or will they be the same? Why?
.99 said,
QuoteMy Tonghui TH2821A impedance meter shows a negative capacitance while trying to measure an inductor, and vice versa when trying to measure a capacitor on inductance.
I'm glad to hear that, because my ProsKit cheapo RLC meter, and my Fluke 83 on capacitance setting, also behave pretty much the same way. I wonder what's different about TM's meters that allow them to give readings when ours don't.
Quote from: conradelektro on January 14, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
Thank you TinselKoala, I get it.
Once an electronics engineer told me that "measurment technique" is the most difficult area in his science. And whenever I try measurements in my experiments and when I see some crude OU claims I am reminded of that.
The claim in connection with tinman's circuit is not crude, it seems to be a subtle measurement problem. Electrodynamics is the high ground.
I recently bought this book about electrodynamics (it is supposed to be a standard book for electronics students in the German language)
http://www.amazon.com/Elektrodynamik-Einf%C3%BChrung-Experiment-Theorie-Springer-Lehrbuch/dp/3540214585/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1358202583&sr=8-3&keywords=Brandt+Dahmen
and it scares me. Them swinging things are not as simple as one thinks.
Greetings, Conrad
Im glad you made this point Conrad'Quote: it seems to be a subtle measurement problem
Now this is what im trying to get an answer to--what or where is the error being made?
Is it M1 and M2 that arnt reading the full current being supplied to the system?
If that is the case,then dose that same error occur when useing CVR's?
A quote from TK : OK... with 1n4004 diodes and UV LEDs I can get twice as much indicated current in the M3, M4 positions than in the M1, M2 positions, both with the 1 ohm CVRs (voltage drop) and by disconnecting the CVRs and using milliammeters directly in circuit.-end quote:
I will be the first to admit that DMM's at high frequencies can give incorrect reading's,but do we also have a situation as to where we cannot use CVR's and a scope to read the amount of current being sent to and consumed by a system?
Like TK said,i make no claim's what so ever with this circuit.
I simply came looking for answer's,and to have TK build the system and have the same sort of result's is an added bonus.
That is why i freely gave my system for other's to replicate and test-to find answer's.
If some one can come forward and not only tell me,but show me a system where current cannot be measured in a similar situation useing a scope and CVR's on the input and output-then i guess i have the answer i seek.
I also see it mentioned that the two seperate systems have to be taken into account.
My question would be why?
Im not interested in what the power supply uses under load,im interested in what the system that is showing a current increase is useing.
The reason why i think like this is because every one else dose.
If you have a good bench top power supply,and you want to know how much power your system is useing that you are powering with your bench top power supply-do you take into account all the power being consumed by your power supply?
I think the answer is no-you only take into account what the amp and volt meter on the power supply is telling you what your system is consuming.
The SG is my power supply,and i wish to find out how much power is being consumed on the output by the system.
Im happy to have recieved the ! why it's happening ! explanation's,it gives you reason to go and reserch these thing's and learn.
So now were looking for the ! how to ! measure correctly ?
Brad
Quote from: TinselKoala on January 14, 2013, 10:18:24 PM
.99 said, I'm glad to hear that, because my ProsKit cheapo RLC meter, and my Fluke 83 on capacitance setting, also behave pretty much the same way. I wonder what's different about TM's meters that allow them to give readings when ours don't.
I think we will have to dismiss the 49.47pf on my coil.
I decided to go and make a short video to show you all how i got that reading.
So upon hooking the DMM to the coil(set on capacitance) i then got a reading of 1.23nf?
So i disconected again and reconected once the meter zero'd out-i got 436.0pf
So i think we had better chuck that one in the bin-i should have tested it more than once(in to much of a hurry)
Useing my analog meter-i get nothing.
So TK-your readings are correct-mine were wrong.
@Brad (tinman): you are right, it is intriguing and should be explored. Thank you for the explanation and for showing your circuit. Much can be learned.
Greetings, Conrad
Of course a capacitance meter expects an open circuit when it's supposed to measure the capacitance and of course an inductor is a short circuit. So the capacitance meter is not "happy" when you connect an inductor to it.
The real answer is that the coil can be modeled as an inductor in parallel with a very small capacitor. This is another form of a filter where frequency comes into play. To really understand whatever coil you are looking at would be to understand how it looks at all frequencies. As the frequencies get very high some capacitive effects will come into play.
Tesla pancake coils are designed (I believe) to put coils in contact with other coils that are "far away" in the loops such that they will have a higher voltage gradient between each other. So that allows the normally minuscule capacitance to get a "voltage boost" to store more capacitive energy. The two coils are also further away from each other on the coil transmission line, and that gives them more of a chance to act "capacitive" at high frequencies.
To bring this back to reality and also add a disclaimer, these effects are all very minuscule, and for a regular coil you simply ignore the associated high frequency capacitance. If you want capacitance, you add a capacitor to your circuit. The disclaimer is that I have no direct experience playing with coils like this, I never had reason to. Also I am not a high frequency analog expert by any mans but the gist of what I am saying is correct.
This experiment is really all about exploring how an LC resonator works. There are two types as E2matrix stated, a parallel and a series. This actually a classic basic electronics experiment. You first learn how a capacitor works in the time domain and then the frequency domain. Then you learn how an inductor works in the time domain and then the frequency domain. Then you move on to understanding things like LC circuits.
As Poynt mentioned, you also need to understand power flow and impedance matching. When a battery outputs power, where does the power go and how come some components dissipate more power than others?
Try looking up "LR circuit" and "RC circuit" and then "LC circuit" and "LCR circuit." The Wikipedia entries are too technical and get into the differential equations to solve for the behaviour, although there are some nice plots that show you whats happening. But for sure there will be other links that come up that give you more friendlier explanations.
Going back to this circuit, it's kind of a somewhat mangled LC circuit with extra diodes in the loop, but in principle the behaviour is the same.
Doing a search on "basic circuit analysis" (the name of a course that strikes fear in the hearts of first-year engineering students) would be helpful also.
MileHigh
For what it's worth, it's helpful to also visualize how small 10 nanorfarads is in the overall scheme of things. It a very small capacitance that typically stores a minuscule amount of energy. Such a small amount of energy that it barely affects anything.
A good test is the tongue test for capacitors. Perhaps start with a 10 uF cap charged to 9 volts. (don't try higher voltages) I am sure there are some of you out there that have been doing the 9-volt-battery tongue test since you were six years old. So you know exactly what 9 volts feels like on your tongue.
So you can feel the 10 uF capacitor discharge across your tongue. It's been so long, but I will guess it takes less than a second. Perhaps a few seconds for 100 uF? But as you get smaller and go 1 uF and below what happens? Soon your tongue starts to tell you that there is nothing there.
The moral of the story is to use your own senses sometimes to measure things. The classic case happened recently with Woopy. He measured about 6 kilowatts of power across his halogen bulbs but the Kill-a-Watt meter was saying 700 watts. Did Woopy feel 6 kilowatts of heat and light in is lab? The answer is that he didn't feel it. His skin would have told him he was feeling 6 kilowatts if the power measurement was real.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on January 15, 2013, 05:50:24 AM
I also see it mentioned that the two seperate systems have to be taken into account.
My question would be why?
Im not interested in what the power supply uses under load,im interested in what the system that is showing a current increase is useing.
The reason why i think like this is because every one else dose.
If you have a good bench top power supply,and you want to know how much power your system is useing that you are powering with your bench top power supply-do you take into account all the power being consumed by your power supply?
I think the answer is no-you only take into account what the amp and volt meter on the power supply is telling you what your system is consuming.
Brad
Hi Brad,
for what it's worth, I agree with everything you are saying but I'm no expert. As far as I know you have done your power tests very well.
One test I would of liked to see (which would not conclude anything btw) is to have an Amp meter between your battery and SG and start the circuit without the BPC connected and then connect the BPC to see if there is a change in current. If there's no change, then you have something amazing. However, even if there is a change but the current from the battery meter adds up to the same as M1 and M2 then would it not somehow confirm M1 and M2 are reading correctly.
Anyways, I'm no expert and I think you've been doing a great job and I'm vary thankful you have taken the time to share all your tests by making a video of each tests and explaining all so well as they are very educational which could help future researchers.
Thanks for taking the time to share.
Luc
Poynt is absolutely correct about looking at the oscillator + the LC resonator setup as the load on the battery. I made a posting where I stated that the "signal generator" was far from a true bench signal generator. It's just another part of a larger circuit.
It's quite difficult to tap into the middle of the circuit where the signal generator feeds the LC resonator and measure the power flow at that point. In contrast, it's very easy to measure the output power of the battery.
Poynt hinted that this circuit has impedance matching characteristics that have not been explored in depth. The circuit has a complex impedance that is frequency dependent and it is also non-linear because of the LEDs. The battery has a very low output impedance. The LC resonator can have a low impedance also when it is not "fully charged." These two low impedance components can form a decent impedance match at certain frequencies under certain conditions and that's why you see more current going through the LEDs in the resonator loop. This could also be observed in the time domain if you had a high-end digital storage oscilloscope.
Needless to say I am taking in generalities above without getting into the nitty gritty specifics. This circuit is not over unity. Instead, what you are observing is the fact that power can be dissipated at different rates in different components of the total circuit because of complex impedance matching issues. The total power dissipated in the total circuit when added up component by component will be equal to the total power supplied by the battery. It would be wise to pursue this line of analysis on your benches. Otherwise you could be distracted with the wrong analysis and it will gobble up six months of your bench time!
MileHigh
Quote from: gotoluc on January 15, 2013, 10:38:28 AM
Hi Brad,
for what it's worth, I agree with everything you are saying but I'm no expert. As far as I know you have done your power tests very well.
One test I would of liked to see (which would not conclude anything btw) is to have an Amp meter between your battery and SG and start the circuit without the BPC connected and then connect the BPC to see if there is a change in current. If there's no change, then you have something amazing. However, even if there is a change but the current from the battery meter adds up to the same as M1 and M2 then would it not somehow confirm M1 and M2 are reading correctly.
Anyways, I'm no expert and I think you've been doing a great job and I'm vary thankful you have taken the time to share all your tests by making a video of each tests and explaining all so well as they are very educational which could help future researchers.
Thanks for taking the time to share.
Luc
Hi Luc
Im happy to do that,as it's all part of the reserch.
I will even show how the power draw from the battery go's down as the power go's up on the circuit.
I will get it done asap,and post it here.
Brad
Bump
The coil is one factor causing the higher current reading in the LED's vs. the diodes.
Have you figured out the other TK?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 21, 2013, 07:01:43 PM
The coil is one factor causing the higher current reading in the LED's vs. the diodes.
Have you figured out the other TK?
Well TK may have-but i havnt.
This is what i have done now.
I have placed two 1 ohm resistors on the input legs,i have place two 1 ohm resistors on the output leg's.
Useing my scope to measure voltage across those 1 ohm resistors,i see i have a higher voltage across the two output resistor's than i do across the input resistors.
Now as far as im aware,ohms law still stand's-or is there some way around that?
MileHigh quote-this circuit is not overunity
Thanks for sharing that,but i see no where in this thread that any body claimed it to be overunity.
Like i said befor,im not interested in how much fuel the power station is useing-im interested in how much our house is consuming.
So i have tried DMM's on the input,and i have used 1 ohm resistors and a scope to measure the input-what other method is there to use to see how much current my circuit is consuming-not the power house running down the road.
This is just a pulsed AC input-we have a common(ground) and a high and low side to that common.
So the other thing is-how is it that i see a current flowing in two diferent directions at the same time on the scope?
A voltage above the 0 volt line at the same time as voltage below the 0 volt line.
I am yet to see a single phase AC wave show this.
The AC square wave on the input(scope across 1 ohm resistor) is almost a perfect square wave-a little spikey at the start of the pulse,but other than that-it's clean
But across the 1 ohm output resistor's,the current from one pulse carries into the next apposing pulse-creating a larger potential difference than the input pulses are supplying-over the same period of time.
So at the very least,i am seeing thing's that i havnt seen befor,and this is why i posted it here-not because i claimed it to be overunity (MileHigh)
These sorts of things are valuable learning tool's for those that actualy build these sorts of circuit's.
Once they see for them self how thing's work,then that is a valuable lesson.
Hi Brad,
I can't explain it ::) , so you have my attention for all it's worth. However, at this time I'm between homes so I have no lab to replicate but I could get some stuff together. However, before I do, could you replicate (make another) BPC but this time don't add the copper ring in the center. Test it compared to your original to see if they behave any different.
I was also looking forward to the video with the amp meter between the battery and the SG.
Thanks for sharing
Luc
In this video,i have removed the DMM's and input diode's-eliminating any part they may have been playing.
In there place,i have 3x 1 ohm resistors.
Useing the scope,we can measure the voltage across the 1 ohm input resistor and the two 1 ohm output resistors.
I show this with the coil disconected and conected.
So dose ohm's law still apply in this situation?.If it dose,then this circuit warrents further investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGEsgB9bTUs
Tinman:
Ohm's law still applies and if you were to investigate this it should all become apparent to you. Also note that a coil is not a resistor. R = V/I for a resistor. A coil does not have the property of resistance. What you can say is that the coil can look like an "instantaneous absolute resistance" and also as an "instantaneous differential resistance" where r(t) = v(t)/i(t). In you example, the longer the pulse is on, the less of a resistance the coil appears to be. In that sense Ohm's law applies but the results are all a function of time.
This is a kind of funny "far out" comment on your clip from YT:
QuoteHi TM, Ohms Law? This is an argument I have had with many... Ohms Law in my humble opinion; only applies to that wich we have learned. Pancake, Staship and /or Rodin Coils do not apply; to that of wich we have learned. i.e. Ohms Law and or the laws of energy conservation. We are still learning!!! Energy collected through Time and space, as well voided vaccumes created by incinerary implosion H2, and Neg. Resistance. Basically void modern day teachings. Love to listen to Tom Bearden.
It's funny in the sense that the poster is getting carried away. Step by step collectively we should be able to figure it out.
Have you measured the values of the three separate one-ohm resistors? What is their tolerance band colour? Do you have a multimeter that can measure low resistances with three digits after the decimal point? In theory you could tune the three resistances to make them match nearly exactly.
In looking at your waveforms you show that with the coil connected, the drooping on the input current waveform goes away. Why is that? Likewise, we see some ringing happen when the coil is connected. Why is that? It would be interesting to see what people have to say.
I note that the square wave frequency is 100 KHz. We need a schematic of the circuit also. I understand how the circuit seems obvious to you. But it's not obvious if you (meaning us readers) are not inside your personal "bubble."
If you want to do an interesting test it would be to connect the square wave output across a one-ohm resistor in series with the pancake coil. That's the complete circuit. Perhaps also try the same test with a 100-ohm series resistor and a 1000 ohm series resistor. You may be able to observe the L/R time constant for energizing the coil. When you divide units of inductance by units of resistance the resultant of the division is units of time, i.e.; seconds.
Then you look at the voltage across the coil and the square wave generator and the current through the coil. One possibility is that the current will be very very low and the voltage waveform on the square wave generator output will be the same with the coil + resistor connected or disconnected. That would be telling you that the pancake coil is almost acting like an open circuit at 100 KHz. A trained eye could also draw inferences about the output impedance of your square wave generator by looking at how much it droops under load. That might be shown already in one of your clips.
MileHigh
@MileHigh
Quote: In you example, the longer the pulse is on, the less of a resistance the coil appears to be. In that sense Ohm's law applies but the results are all a function of time.
So if our input voltage and time per cycle is constant over that 1 ohm resistor,and our output voltage on one output resistor is higher for the same amount of time-then what dose ohm's law tell us?
Then on the other 1 ohm output resistor where the voltage is the same as the input,but the time that voltage is across that resistor is longer than the input pulse-what dose ohm's law say about that?
Quote:Have you measured the values of the three separate one-ohm resistors? What is their tolerance band colour?
As stated in the video,video description and in this thread,i measured all 3 resistors to be 1 ohm-to the second decimal.
All three resistors were rotated,and the results are the same.
The tolerance band color is gold.
Quote:We need a schematic of the circuit also. I understand how the circuit seems obvious to you. But it's not obvious if you (meaning us readers) are not inside your personal "bubble."
In my post just above you last-In this video,i have removed the DMM's and input diode's-eliminating any part they may have been playing.
In there place,i have 3x 1 ohm resistors.
The schematic is posted a few time's in this thread.
Quote:Also note that a coil is not a resistor. R = V/I for a resistor. A coil does not have the property of resistance
????????:-A coil is very much a resistor in the true meaning of the term resistor.
My pancake coil with 5.2 volt's across it draws 790ma
R=V/I In this case my coil has a resistance of 6.58 ohms
My DMM says it's 6.6 ohms.
Every material has resistance unless it is super conductive.
As we know,the resistance will climb higher as the voltage climbs within the inductor (depending on pulse rate<time)due to the back EMF.
But as the current build's up within that inductor,it will reach a point where the voltage across the inductor and the supply voltage are the same.
The ringing at the start i see as being the supply voltage, inductor voltage and current trying to come to an equilibrium.Keeping in mind that at the frequency we are running at,that time period of ballance is so very very short.
We also have to take into account the skin effect with AC and pulsed DC(single direction altinating current)
As we know,the higher the frequency-the greater the skin effect,and the higher the resistance becomes within the inductor.
Tinman:
Thanks for the verification of the one-ohm resistors, I missed that.
QuoteSo if our input voltage and time per cycle is constant over that 1 ohm resistor,and our output voltage on one output resistor is higher for the same amount of time-then what dose ohm's law tell us?
Then on the other 1 ohm output resistor where the voltage is the same as the input,but the time that voltage is across that resistor is longer than the input pulse-what dose ohm's law say about that?
It looks to me like your "current entrapment loop" is at play. As the circuit runs the BPC sees a voltage waveform across it were positive voltage dominates over negative voltage. That sets up a clockwise current loop through the BPC. You could check the coil voltage with your scope.
When you look at the negative pulse only, you see it starts at a higher initial current level compared to the input and then slopes down. The higher initial current and the sloping down comes from the BPC discharging its stored energy. So the negative pulse shows two sub-currents, the sub-current due to the function generator pushing current through the left LED, and the decaying sub-current that is being driven by the discharging BPC.
By the same token when you look at the positive pulse only, you see three currents this time. During the positive part of the positive pulse you see a sub-current that is going through the right LED and you also see a small sub-current that is going into the BPC to energize it. So the total current that you see during the positive pulse can be divided into two sub-currents. There is a third observable current, and that is during the "off" part of the positive pulse. That's the coil discharging it's stored energy again. It's the same current I make reference for the negative pulse above as a sub-current, but this time you are seeing it through the right "M4" resistor instead of the "M3" resistor.
So where is the power coming from to keep the BPC "stoked?" It comes during the positive output of the square wave generator. When the signal is positive current flows through the right LED, and it flows through the BPC. The two components are in parallel. So the current is actually increasing slightly as the BPC charges up and the impedance of the overall circuit drops as time goes on. I looked at the clip again and I think that you can see the current rising very slightly during the positive pulse.
Knowing that a half-cycle is 50 uS and it looks like we might be seeing about 4 time constants by looking at the waveform, that means the time constant is about 12.5 microseconds. Ignoring the LED for a second, then we have L/R = 12.5 microseconds. So that means that a guesstimate for the value of L is 107 micro-Henries. (R is the two one-ohm resistors in series with the 6.6 ohm resistance of the BPC, 8.6 x 12.5 = 107.5.)
If you do the tests like I suggested you may be able to confirm this.
So in a nutshell, when you connect the coil, you clearly see increased power consumption by looking at the input current waveform. The input current when the pulse is high increases slightly over time. That's the "extra juice" that "powers" the coil (i.e.; energizes it during the positive pulse so it can discharge energy during the negative pulse) and keeps current circulating clockwise through the coil. So when you look at each of the two current sensing resistors associated with the LEDs, in both measurements you see the same "extra" current. You see the same "extra" current on the "M3" and "M4" resistor during the low output from the square wave generator. Note when you look at the schematic that the current flows through "M3" and "M4" when the coil discharges because they are in series for the discharging current loop for the coil.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it unless somebody corrects me.
MileHigh
Tinman:
QuoteIn my post just above you last-In this video,i have removed the DMM's and input diode's-eliminating any part they may have been playing.
In there place,i have 3x 1 ohm resistors.
The schematic is posted a few time's in this thread.
I am aware of that but the last time the schematic was posted was almost two weeks ago. I used the schematic shown in post #51 but I am not 100% certain that that is the correct final-version schematic. When you do a new circuit please just make a new schematic as a courtesy to your readers. Also put designations on all you components so that in your clips you can say, "I am putting the scope across R1." That would make life so much easier for everybody and the mental calisthenics required to follow what you are doing would be eliminated.
Quote(http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)(http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)??:-A (http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)(http://www.overunity.com/Smileys/default/huh.gif)??:-A) coil is very much a resistor in the true meaning of the term resistor.
My pancake coil with 5.2 volt's across it draws 790ma
R=V/I In this case my coil has a resistance of 6.58 ohms
My DMM says it's 6.6 ohms.
Sorry I wasn't being clear enough. In electronics talk it's commonly taken for granted that you are ignoring the resistance associated with a coil. I was only talking about the inductance of the coil. A real-world coil is modeled (simplified) as an ideal inductor in series with a resistor. So when you first connect a voltage source to a coil, it looks like an open circuit because the inductance is an open circuit on first contact. In other words, the inductance dominates on first contact and no current flows.
QuoteAs we know,the resistance will climb higher as the voltage climbs within the inductor (depending on pulse rate<time)due to the back EMF.
But as the current build's up within that inductor,it will reach a point where the voltage across the inductor and the supply voltage are the same.
On first contact the effective resistance is infinity and then over time it drops to the electrical resistance of the coil itself. Hence the effective "look alike" resistance of a coil drops over time. What you say above is not clear and you would need to draw up a circuit to discuss it. Even something that sounds simple is not so simple in this context.
QuoteThe ringing at the start i see as being the supply voltage, inductor voltage and current trying to come to an equilibrium.
The ringing that you are seeing by definition is due to some inductance interacting with some capacitance and resistance in the circuit. Exactly how it is being set up and why it happens and what the actual inductance component is and what the actual capacitance component is would require some more investigation. The truth is that it's only a secondary issue and it's not significant so just as easy to ignore it for now.
If anybody is really serious about this, the basic analysis for what is going on in this circuit should be done on paper. You use your scope and some graph paper. You look at your schematic and you identify points where you want to measure voltage and current. Then with your graph paper you sketch out the voltage waveform from the square wave generator. All you need to do is sketch out is say three full cycles. Then below that you sketch out the input current waveform. Then below that you sketch out the current waveforms for the two LEDs. Then you could add my suggestion for the voltage waveform across the BPC (that's also the voltage across the right LED.) Then for sure you want to sketch out the voltage at the output side of the input resistor. That's another mystery voltage point in your schematic because you didn't look at it.
That's how it's really done when you learn about electronics. You can see that there are multiple voltage nodes and current loops in your schematic. By drawing out the timing diagram for the circuit it should all start to come together. You see the interrelationships between different waveforms and you put it all together and then it all starts to make perfect sense.
What's implicit in what I said is that I am not 100% confident that my take on your circuit is correct for every point and someone might correct me. To be absolutely sure I would have to be sitting at the bench myself drawing out the timing diagrams. Certainly something equivalent to using your scope and making up a timing diagram would be to simulate this circuit in pSpice. Then you drop virtual probes onto the schematic and have it generate the timing diagrams.
The thing to keep in mind is to let cooler heads prevail. You are playing with a basic circuit so there is no reason to assume that anything unusual is happening. Also, just making a few measurements and drawing a preliminary conclusion is in almost all cases not going to cut it. It's not as simple as "comparing input to output" and almost never is. Plus you are just looking at the currents and not looking at the voltages. The BPC coil in your circuit is converting voltage excitation into current flow and setting up an "extra" current loop in your circuit that got superimposed on top of your "regular" current output. There is no challenge to Ohm's Law and there is no over unity. It's just basic circuit analysis.
MileHigh
Poynt:
If you are still checking in, I finally decided to try pSpice Student for Tinman's circuit. I didn't see the download on the Cadence website, so with some trepidation I downloaded pSpice Student 9.1 off of what appeared to be a legit engineering school web site.
I did the schematic without too much trouble. However, I can't seem to get the simulation going. I don't even see the simulation toolbar and I tried F11 and nothing happens. Perhaps I need to import another library or something?
I am just using standard diodes for now. I am so new I don't even know if there a models for LEDs readily available in the student version.
I am attaching my masterpiece.
Whoops I just noticed that my timing parameters for the square wave are wrong!
It looks ok MH.
I would add a 200 Ohm in series with your FG to simulate tinman's FG pot.
Did you set up a simulation profile? i.e. how long the run is etc? What actually happens when you run the sim?
There are no decent models for LED's imo. I sometimes use 3 diodes in series instead. I did create my own model for an LED once on a circuit I was working on with ION.
You may have created a conventional schematic rather than a simulation schematic. That would explain why you don't see the simulation toolbar.
Poynt:
I am unsure about the output impedance of the square wave generator. I was under the impression that it was new hardware, a "transformer output." The current is up to 100 mA, so perhaps Tinman can clarify that.
I will drop in a resistor and play with it. It would be fun illustrating how a high output impedance in the square wave generator "sucks the life" out of the circuit.
I didn't set up a simulation profile so I will look into that. Nothing happens right now, no sim sceen. In the back of my mind I was hoping that the software would set up some default sim parameters. That will be easy to set up myself. I also assume it will be trivial to copy the conventional schematic into a simulation schematic if that's the case.
I seem to recall a story about development on the student version being abandoned. The program install and GUI feels like it is about 10-12 years old. Not sure if it is multi-threaded/multi-processor aware, but it's not that important. I upgraded my solid-state drive recently and the program runs like lightning. It's a complex program but definitely feels like it was written for scientists and engineers. Although complex with lots of files to manage, it isn't in a stupor because of bloatware.
MileHigh
Gee wiz,
A Rookie mistake MH ::)
Although I guarantee your first effort posted above looks like a picasso
compared to mine...............
Poynt:
I got a basic simulation running by starting the Orcad Capture program in Administrator mode in Windows 7. You have to right-click on the program shortcut to do that.
I got a simple RC circuit to run and saw the plot.
Now my problem is that if I add a diode, then the simulation fails because it can't find the model for the diode. I just added "d" to the schematic, a basic diode. So I hope to figure that out soon.
QuoteERROR [NET0085] Part D2 has no 'MODEL' property
I tried starting the simulation program in Administrator mode ahead of time but that didn't work. I also tried adding the available libraries in the pspice directory to the simulation program but that didn't work.
MileHigh
MH,
In the student version pspice (nom.lib) library, is there no diode with a part number?
You will be looking for "D1NXXXX".
MH,
I see also that you are running your FG at 10MHz. You sure you want it that high?
Also, I think the FG output is +/- 6V.
It also appears that you have two FG's overlayed on each other. You need to delete one.
Here is how I modeled an LED.
It worked quite well. It is a switch that changes between 20 Ohms and 1M Ohm based on the voltage across it. It changes through the resistance gradually between the two limits you set, in this case 2-3V as shown.
The circuit is a variation of a JT.
Poynt:
I found a diode with a real part number thanks to your help. I guess that I was using a "blank" diode.
I adjusted the clock to 10 KHz.
I had to do a new schematic, a quick and dirty Beta Tinman:
And now a Beta Tinman timing diagram. I focused on looking at currents in this timing diagram. I added annotations to the timing diagram where current is either flowing "left" or "right" or "up" or "down" relative to the schematic.
Even though the component values are not correct, you still see somewhat of a resemblance to TinMan's clip. I won't go any further than that! In my analysis, I got the direction of the current going through the coil backwards. So my earlier analysis is wrong. Also the path changes for the inductor current flow, and if any keeners study the timing diagram they should be able to figure it out. At least I was right in that the current always is flowing in one direction through the coil.
Not surprisingly, I got a lot of surprises when I looked at the results of the simulation. It just goes to show how hard it is to look at even a simple circuit and figure out what is going on by eyeballing it. KCL and KVL to the rescue!
MileHigh
tinman,
Can you confirm MH's schematic? Is the coil connected to the resistor-LED junction as shown, or to the "input"?
Quote from: poynt99 on January 29, 2013, 10:26:08 PM
tinman,
Can you confirm MH's schematic? Is the coil connected to the resistor-LED junction as shown, or to the "input"?
The schematic is correct other than the two diode's-which need to be LED's.
Although LED's are a diode,they have a completely different effect on a circuit.
A normal diode will not burn off or remove energy as such that an LED dose.
This brings me to some questions i must ask about your sim tests.
If the simulator dosnt have an LED,and you have to make something that simulates an LED-how accurate will it be?
Dose your simulator have a BPC or is it just plain inductors you use?
Dose the simulator take into account the magnetic field that surrounds the earth,and the effect that this may have on the BPC?
Simulators may be great for every day electronic setup testing,but as we are trying to gather extra energy from our surrounding's-like the earths magnetic field,energy from the vacume-all that jazz,then i think the sim should take all this into account if it were to be accurate.
For me to go any further on this setup,i will need to get myself a two channel scope-so as i can see both scope traces on both output resistors at the same time.
I have charted the scope shots as MileHigh said to do,and the outcome is the same.
I also fail to see how the voltage across r1 leveling out very slightly across the second division on the scope,can be equal to the voltage across r3 to go up to the 3rd division on the scope.
But i will say this-i am still learning,and all your information and explination's i do take very seriously.
This is how we learn.But until i understand as to what is actualy happening-i keep on serching.
Cheers
TinMan
Tinman:
I like Poynt's suggestion for putting three diodes in series to emulate an LED. An LED is a diode with a larger voltage drop than a regular diode so that should work fine in most cases. I ran my first ever simulation where I only used a single diode to keep it simple the first go round. In most cases it should be quite accurate. The higher voltage drop of three diodes in series will burn off about as much energy as an LED.
The simulator does not have a BPC, but you have to ask yourself what a BPC really is. It's just an inductor with a higher amount of capacitance in parallel with the inductor as compared to a regular inductor. I am under the assumption that the capacitance is still minuscule for a BPC in comparison to the inductance of the BPC and the capacitance only comes into play at very high frequencies. You can try adding some parallel capacitance to the simulation as part of the experimenting. The key point being that BPCs and "Rodin coils" are still fundamentally inductors and they will behave like inductors. Have you ever seen someone do a clip where they try to compare a BPC versus a regular coil to look for differences between the two? I have never seen one myself. So, with the "cooler heads prevail" line of thinking there is no reason to assume ahead of time that a BPC is fundamentally different from a regular coil.
The magnetic field that surrounds the Earth will not affect the circuit. The basic rule is that only changing magnetic fields will affect a coil and the Earth's magnetic field is static and unchanging. So there is no reason for the simulation to factor in the Earth's magnetic field.
For all practical intents and purposes, the simulation is very very accurate and if you have the right component values and know how to do the modelling and use the software at an expert level then the simulation will be deadly accurate.
So when I ran the "Beta Tinman" simulation I could see where I think I made my mistakes with respect to my analysis of your circuit. Getting the circuit more fine tuned will confirm that and I will be able to revise my description of how the circuit operates. We need to know more about the square wave generator circuit that you are using to make the simulation more accurate. Is it the same device you were using earlier or is it something new? Does it still have the trimpot to adjust the output level? It's important to know the output impedance of the square wave generator so that you can put the same resistance in the simulator. All that you really need to do is measure the square wave generator output voltage unloaded. Then you find a load resistance that makes the square wave generator output voltage drop about 10%. Just let us know the voltage drop and the resistance you used and then we can then calculate the output impedance of the square wave generator.
MileHigh
Quote from: tinman on January 30, 2013, 05:55:41 AM
The schematic is correct other than the two diode's-which need to be LED's.
Thanks.
Quote
Although LED's are a diode,they have a completely different effect on a circuit.
A normal diode will not burn off or remove energy as such that an LED dose.
LEDs typically have a larger forward voltage than diodes, so yes they will dissipate more power.
Have you tested this latest circuit with diodes (2 or 3 in series) in place of the LEDs? If not, how can you be certain that LEDs are required in your circuit in order to produce the observed effect?
Quote
This brings me to some questions i must ask about your sim tests.
If the simulator dosnt have an LED,and you have to make something that simulates an LED-how accurate will it be?
The sim does have LED models, but I haven't had much success with them in other circuits. For accuracy, I compare wave forms from the actual circuit, to that I obtain in the simulator.
Quote
Dose your simulator have a BPC or is it just plain inductors you use?
Dose the simulator take into account the magnetic field that surrounds the earth,and the effect that this may have on the BPC?
The sim has plain inductors and transformers. I don't believe I have ever claimed that the inductor in my circuit would accurately simulate the BPC.
Quote
Simulators may be great for every day electronic setup testing,but as we are trying to gather extra energy from our surrounding's-like the earths magnetic field,energy from the vacume-all that jazz,then i think the sim should take all this into account if it were to be accurate.
Outside influences can be accounted for in a simulation, but one must prove that they are actually contributing something to the circuit first, wouldn't you agree?
The point of performing a simulation in relation to observed anomalous effects, is to determine if the effects are in fact anomalous. To repeat what I've said before; if I can reproduce the observed effects in a simulation with standard circuitry, then I must conclude there is no anomaly. Thus far I have not been able to reproduce your latest wave forms. But I haven't given up yet.
Quote
For me to go any further on this setup,i will need to get myself a two channel scope-so as i can see both scope traces on both output resistors at the same time.
Indeed, that would be of great help.
Quote
I also fail to see how the voltage across r1 leveling out very slightly across the second division on the scope,can be equal to the voltage across r3 to go up to the 3rd division on the scope.
Sometimes it comes down to splitting hairs to reveal the true result. Don't dismiss the notion that a careful array of measurements may be required for this circuit.
Quote
But i will say this-i am still learning,and all your information and explination's i do take very seriously.
This is how we learn.But until i understand as to what is actualy happening-i keep on serching.
Many of my more in-depth posts you don't respond to, so that's good to know.
Let's split some hairs ;D
I took your scope shots and analysed them. The current through the resistor is equal to the voltage across it, just as you have said. So I have computed the number of divisions peal-to-peak that each wave form exhibits to see is there is in fact a discrepancy somewhere. I looked at the input 1 Ohm, then the other two 1 Ohms resistors, representing the positive and negative sides of the current. Since all the resistors are 1 Ohm, we can simply compare the number of divisions on the oscilloscope screen in each measurement.
First, let's look at the measurements without the coil connected:
Input side is 3.8 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Positive side is 1.8 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Negative side is 1.9 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
All being equal, the input side should equal the sum of the other two:
3.8 = 1.8 + 1.9 => 3.8(Input) = 3.7(sum of outputs)
Of course they should be entirely equal, but there is going to be some small error due to the method used to compute the divisions.
Now, let's look at the circuit with the coil connected:
Input side is 3.7 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Positive side is 1.6 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
Negative side is 2.2 divisions p-p as per the scope shot.
All being equal, the input side should equal the sum of the other two:
3.7 = 1.6 + 2.2 => 3.7(Input) = 3.8(sum of outputs)
Of course they should be entirely equal, but there is going to be some small error due to the method used to compute the divisions.
See the scope shots below...
Let's see how the simulation looks. :)
With my simulated LED's, the wave forms track fairly close.
Performing a similar exercise as above by comparing the input to output currents, we have:
Input is +16.17mA, and -16.39mA
Positive is +16.16mA and -4.49mA
Negative is +2.7uA and -11.90mA
Comparing the positive side, we have 16.17mA = 16.16mA + 2.7uA => 16.17mA(Input) = 16.16mA(sum of outputs).
Comparing the negative side, we have -16.39mA = -4.49mA - 11.90mA => -16.39mA(Input) = -16.39mA(sum of outputs).
@All, from this and the last post, draw your own conclusions as to whether you think tinman's circuit is exhibiting anomalous behaviour or not.
I conclude from poynt99's analysis of the scope shots and his simulation that the alleged anomaly stems from the measurements with Digital Multi Meters.
The DMMs can not accurately represent the power draw (probably due to the rather high frequency of the signal). Only good scope measurements over shunts allow a meaningful interpretation.
Is that correct?
Nice simulation and analysis of the scope shots. I downloaded "PSpice student", but it has a very steep learning curve. So, it will take me some time to use it properly.
Greetings, Conrad
Conrad,
tinman is using his scope for these last measurements, pretty much as I have shown in the simulation. He is measuring the voltage across the 1 Ohm current-sensing resistors with his oscilloscope, so in effect he is showing the current in each leg. I have done the same.
tinman's measurements aren't too far off, but the interpretation of them may be. I also noticed that his magnetized screw driver used as a pointing device skews the scope display at least once in the video (around 4:25), so that should be something all should be aware of. I would also encourage him, and everyone to calibrate their scope probes prior to measuring, as an uncalibrated probe can lead to sloped tops on square waves.
Excellent work like usual Poynt. Imagine giving your computer twenty minutes to crunch out a waveform by lowering the step size and increasing the precision? It would be awesome. I still reference computing power relative to the early Eighties in my mind.
Can't you just edit the model for a diode and change the IV transfer curve so it resembles a LED? Just "stretch the voltage scale?" I am assuming there is a real exponential-type transfer curve for a diode in the model?
It sure beats giving a stack of punched cards to the computing center and then going and picking up your output the next day.
MileHigh
Well... I've been away on other things, but I see lots of progress is happening. I don't really think that there is much I can add except to say how happy I am that the sim results and .99's scopeshot analysis agree with my scope measurements mostly. The sim even captured the slight asymmetry between the positive and negative traces, where the slope isn't a perfect mirror image on the bottom. (This asymmetry was what I thought might be influencing the DMM results).
I've been meaning to comment for some time on this: Tinman, I think your scope might have a stable "false triggering" mode where it will display essentially two different timebase sweeps overlaid. I think I've seen this happening a couple of times in your vids, I'll try to duplicate it on my kit to demonstrate what I mean. Like if you have a complex signal that consists of a regular train of a few square pulses, then a long inductive ringdown, and repeating, your scope might trigger one sweep on the pulse train and the next sweep on the ringdown, hence overlaying the two images on the screen. And frustrating the heck out of the user; I see it a lot on my old HP180 when it's not yet warmed up properly.
But I'm crushed.... MH said,
QuoteHave you ever seen someone do a clip where they try to compare a BPC versus a regular coil to look for differences between the two? I have never seen one myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvb39SwTXBE
@Poynt99
I never ment to insinuate that you made any reference to the BPC being the same as any inductor-im sorry if you took it that way.My questions were cincere.
And in reguards to me not responding to a few of your post,i do appologise-but as you know, i have been a bit busy elsewhere aswell as running my own forum.
So in reguards to your test and the time you have taken toward this circuit and explaining what is happening,i am happy with the outcome.
I have gone as far as i can with the equipment i have,and will have to wait until i can get a better scope and SG.
Thanks for all your input on this.
@ TK
It is good to see you back-long break for you.
I would be interested in knowing a bit more about what you think the scope may be doing,this could come in handy a little later on.
An yes-i to am a bit supprised at MH comment aswell,as there are many video's and lots of information about the differences in the BPC and a normal inductor or coil.
As I mentioned about modelling inductors, there is a university Wiki page called "Spiral Inductor Design:"
http://bmf.ece.queensu.ca/mediawiki/index.php/Spiral_Inductor_Design (http://bmf.ece.queensu.ca/mediawiki/index.php/Spiral_Inductor_Design)
Note the model that the person is using for a spiral inductor in the attached image. There are stray capacitance and resistance components that come into play. They model the subtle secondary characteristics of a spiral inductor in this case. Note the "Cp," the coupling capacitance that bypasses the inductance alltogether.
So if you do something like look at how the coil responds to square wave you can observe the L/R time constant and that shows you how the coil responds in the time domain. Then if you put the coil in a test circuit and then sweep a sine wave through low to high frequencies you could observe how the coil responds in the frequency domain. Then you relate that back to your complex model and get a clearer picture of what's going on with your coil. Once you know how the coil responds in the frequency domain then you know how it will respond to any arbitrary waveform.
If you are using Spice to model how a very high frequency circuit operates then you use the more complex model. You can also see from the Spice waveforms that they do include some of these secondary real-world properties for most components. That's why you see the spikes and ring-downs in the simulation waveforms.
So for a lot of the fancy coil configurations people play with you can assume that they are variations of the kind of modeling you see in this example. But BPCs and pancake coils and Rodin coils are fundamentally still all coils.
MileHigh
tinman,
When you get a chance, let us know if the effect is still seen using diodes rather than LEDs.
Thanks.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 31, 2013, 08:05:33 PM
tinman,
When you get a chance, let us know if the effect is still seen using diodes rather than LEDs.
Thanks.
I will try and get that done this weekend poynt99
I thought this document might be of interest to MileHigh
As he was refering seeing no test done that show the diference between a single wound coil,and a tesla bifilar coil
http://home.comcast.net/~onichelson/VOLTGN.pdf
http://jnaudin.free.fr/gegene/images/00512340.pdf
So as you can see MileHigh-there is a very large difference between a standard coil,and the BPC-also shown in TK's video.
I am still to get around to that test .99-but i will
Tinman:
I will reply to the Tesla document in another message.
What the Oliver Nichelson document shows you is that the self-resonant frequency of the series bifilar coil is lower. That is expected because of the extra inter-winding capacitance in a bifilar coil and the higher potential difference between adjacent windings.
The plots from the network analyzer look legit and shows the detection of the self-resonant frequencies for the two coils. But I don't get his other analysis and I think it is wrong.
I am not sure what he means by "voltage gain" in this formula: Voltage_Gain = 2 * Pi * freq * L / R. He says R is one ohm. I don't know where that is coming from.
What that equation says is that the voltage gain increases linearly with frequency. It's meaningless as far as I can tell.
So forget about the number crunching for the voltage gain. Any inductor can create a voltage gain and it's always in balance with current and time for a net energy gain of zero.
The key point is both types of coils act like coils with small "invisible" capacitors in parallel. When you factor this in the coils behave exactly the same way.
I also took a peek at a HP 8510C network analyzer. What a beast! I have never used one of those babies. I saw eBay pricing from $4K to $25K. This is TK territory.
MileHigh
Tinman:
I read through the Tesla patent. It says essentially the same thing that I said above. You get more self-capacitance and higher potential difference between windings with a series bifilar wound coil. So it's an LCR resonator that can store energy.
Tesla seems to be implying that they would be used for energy storage. That never really came to pass as far as I know. The killer is the resistance in the wire and the energy can't be stored for very long.
So I guess you can say you are right and they are different in the way you can apply them. But a regular coil in parallel with a capacitor will look the same as a series bifilar wound coil. In that sense I am right.
If this helped demystify coils then we are all winners.
TK's clip is another story. There is a flaw in his testing procedure but I don't disagree with his results at all.
MileHigh